Sanhedrin 047
|
BET MIDRASH VIRTUALI
of the Rabbinical Assembly in Israel
RABIN MISHNAH STUDY GROUP
|
|
|
Today's shiur is dedicated by Cheryl Birkner Mack in honor of her recovery from surgery.
|
|
דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת בִּשְׁלשָׁה. זֶה בּוֹרֵר לוֹ אֶחָד וְזֶה בּוֹרֵר לוֹ אֶחָד, וּשְׁנֵיהֶן בּוֹרְרִין לָהֶן עוֹד אֶחָד – דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: שְׁנֵי הַדַּיָּנִים בּוֹרְרִין לָהֶן עוֹד אֶחָד.
זֶה פּוֹסֵל דַּיָּנוֹ שֶׁל זֶה וְזֶה פּוֹסֵל דַּיָּנוֹ שֶׁל זֶה – דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: "אֵימָתַי? – בִּזְמַן שֶׁמֵּבִיא עֲלֵיהֶן רְאָיָה שֶׁהֵן קְרוֹבִין אוֹ פְסוּלִין; אֲבָל אִם הָיוּ כְשֵׁרִים אוֹ מֻמְחִין, אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְפָסְלָן. זֶה פּוֹסֵל עֵדָיו שֶׁל זֶה וְזֶה פּוֹסֵל עֵדָיו שֶׁל זֶה – דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵימָתַי? – בִּזְמַן שֶׁהוּא מֵבִיא עֲלֵיהֶם רְאָיָה שֶׁהֵן קְרוֹבִים אוֹ פְּסוּלִים; אֲבָל אִם הָיוּ כְשֵׁרִים, אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְפָסְלָן:
Civil suits are heard before three judges: each party selects one judge and both then select a third. This is the opinion of Rabbi Me'ir, whereas the sages are of the opinion that the two judges select the third one.
Each party may disqualify the other's judge. This is the opinion of Rabbi Me'ir, whereas the sages say this right limited to when they adduce proof that they are related or otherwise disqualified; but if they were valid or a licenced judge they may not disqualify them. Each party may disqualify the other's witnesses. This is the opinion of Rabbi Me'ir, whereas the sages say this right limited to when they adduce proof that they are related or otherwise disqualified; but if they were valid they may not disqualify them. EXPLANATIONS:
1: 2: 3: To be continued. DISCUSSION:
In our discussion we are still involved with Chapter Two. You will recall that the fifth mishnah of that chapter stated that No one may ride on his [the king's] horse, or sit on his throne, or wield his sceptre. He may not be looked at when having his hair trimmed, when undressed, or when at the baths. When the Torah says "You must set a king over you" it means that you must be in awe of him.
Juan-Carlos Kiel writes: This mishnah requires the people to "be in awe" of the king. Since it is accepted that the present Governement replaces the ancient king, Could this mishnah be construed as an interdiction against "peeping" at the "king's" bedroom and private life – as is discussed so much by the Israeli, U.S. and British press? I respond: When we said that today's government is often seen as possessed of the powers of the ancient kings we were, of course, only referring to a Jewish Government of the Jewish people: nowadays, the only government that matches that description is the government of the State of Israel. All Jews are presumed to be "innocent unless proven guilty" [kol Yisra'el bechezkat kesherim is said in a different context]. Therefore, the private lives of those in positions of national authority should be accorded the privacy that respect calls for. However, should the officers of State choose to make their private lives public then there would be no objection to discussing what they have said. (The case of Israel's present Prime Minister – then leader of the opposition – comes to mind as an example of an official admitting his sexual promiscuity and publicly apologizing to his wife.) On the other hand, it may well be that the press today can be seen in the democratic society, as filling the role of the prophetic castigator of Biblical times. After all, Nathan the prophet did not refrain from castigating King David over his adulterous relationship with Bat-Sheva and his subsequent misuse of power to ensure the death of her husband. However, Nathan did so with reserve, by getting David to condemn himself. In brief, I think that much more respect and privacy should be accorded our national leaders, but their severe misdemeanors should be brought to the attention of the public. The Press has to walk a very thin line in this respect. Sensationalist Press does not help very much in this regard. Juan Carlos continues: How do we solve the genocidal command "to destroy the seed of Amalek…" and its possible implications in our days? I respond: Amalek, as a racial, ethnic or national entity no longer exists and the law concerning the physical annihilation of Amalek is defunct. Halakhically speaking, one would only be required to annihilate someone whose ancestry could be proven beyond any shadow of doubt to be directly Amalekite. That is impossible today. (When people refer to the Nazis or to ruthless terrorists as being "Amalek", the appellation is being used metaphorically.) The survey of Rambam's laws concerning the king included the following:
The king [first of a new dynasty] must be appointed with the concurrence of the Court of Seventy Elders and a prophet…
Juan Carlos asks:
Should only the first king of a dinasty be confirmed by a Sanhedrin, or every king? Who could pick the heir to the throne among all the kings son's? Solomon, for instance, was not the first born for David and it seems there was a complot by Gad the prophet, Bat-Sheva the "Gevirah" and the Minister of Defense to crown him as king. I respond: Rambam, Hilkhot Melakhim, 1:7-12
When a new king is appointed he is anointed with oil… Once the king has been thus anointed he acquires the royal power for himself and his sons after him, for the royal power is inheritable… If he is succeeded by a minor the royal power is held for him until he comes of age, as Yehoyada did for Yeho'ash [2Kings 11]. The order of precedence is the order of inheritance in general, the elder son preceding the younger son. Not only the royal power, but all positions of authority in Israel are passed on by inheritance in perpetuum, provided that the son is the equal of his ancestors in wisdom and piety…
When a prophet appoints a king from the other tribes of Israel [not of the Davidic line] and that king observes Torah … all the laws concerning the royal power are effective concerning him – even though royal power is ideally vested only in the line of David – and he will be succeeded by one of his sons… When a son succeeds his father to the royal power he is anointed only if there is some question concerning his legitimacy…
Finally, I think that Juan-Carlos had Nathan the prophet in mind and not Gad, and a better description of the rôle of Benayah would be, in my opinion, Chief of the General Staff.
|