Posts: 734
Threads: 11
Joined: May 2007
(05-10-2013, 10:45 AM)amenyahu Wrote: Did RambaN and RambaM say that "dina d'malchusa dina" ("the law of the land is the law") is part and parcel of the Noahide law of Dinim?
RambaN: Yes. See his opinion cited in point 5 in the preceding post, that there is a positive obligation within the Noahide Commandment of Dinim for a Noahide society to set up civil laws that are at least comparable to the civil laws about which the Jews were commanded.
RambaM: He views the civil laws of society as a practical necessity, because in the course of normal living dispute arise between people, and the society needs to establish its own laws by which these disputes will be fairly judged. See Laws of Kings 10:12, where he that if 2 Non-Jews want their dispute to be judged by a Rabbinical court according to the Jewish "civil law", that is permitted. If they don't both agree to this, they should be forced to be judged in their dispute according to the civil laws of their own Gentile society.
So in PRACTICAL terms, RambaM and RambaN are in agreement that Gentile societies must have civil laws by which to judge disputes between the Gentile citizens.
(05-10-2013, 10:45 AM)amenyahu Wrote: And with regards to taxes, if it were truly robbery not to pay taxes, and if that is robbery, then are you saying that it is a capital offense to not pay taxes?
Rabbi Weiner's answer is that the civil disobedience of simply withholding taxes does not constitute outright active robbery. Any deviation from outright theft (including holding back from paying taxes, even if they are levied by a completely correct Noahide-based government) is exempt from liability for death by the hand of Heaven.
(05-10-2013, 10:45 AM)amenyahu Wrote: Rabbi Weiner's point was:
"When a ruling government is accepted by the people, the law "dina de'malchusa dina" applies, regardless how just and fitting to the Seven Laws the government is."
So I have no idea how you would exclude all sorts of tyrannies with a statement like this.
According to RambaM Laws of Robbery 6:18, a tyrannical ruler is not accepted by the people; they don't consider him to be their leader, and they don't consider themselves to be his subjects. An example would be a robber-king who takes from the people by force of arms; his governing forces are like a band of armed thieves. Another example would be the militias that control regions of a country during times of civil war. Likewise, if the government makes decrees arbitrarily against any individuals it wishes, in a manner that does not conform to a known law of the land - see ibid. 6:14.
Posts: 43
Threads: 7
Joined: Nov 2010
Hi there,
Hope you are well.
You may have answered this question already. If you have, sorry.
Does dinim relate to courts or to governments? Rambam speaks of setting up courts. Is that the same as setting up a government? It sounds different to me, in that it seems limited to courts, the administering of judgement and justice.
Thanks for any clarification you can give.
David
Posts: 734
Threads: 11
Joined: May 2007
The Noahide commandment for Dinim (Courts of Law) relates to the courts of law that are established for a society, and to the administration of fair justice and law and order within the society. This applies both in the ideal sense, and in the practical sense.
Posts: 43
Threads: 7
Joined: Nov 2010
Reb,
Thank you for the answer you gave.
The answer that you gave refers to the administration of fair justice law and order within a society. That didn't specifically refer to government but is something that government can be a tool to do. So my next question is this:
Does the Noahide Laws explicit command the creation of governments?
Again, my understanding of governments (a ruling power) and courts is that they are different things. So in my mind, since one is not the other, and the law of Dinim refers to the setting up of courts, does that mean that there is no explicity command to set up governments?
Also, another question: as you know, the Talmud states that all noahide laws are prohibitions. It states that Dinim is included in the seven because of its prohibiting nature. The popular way of stating the law of Dinim (that I've heard from many) is as a positive command to set up courts of justice and to enforce justice. Is there a clear understanding of what the prohibition of the law of Dinim is? If so, what is it? And what is its source?
Thanks Reb, and Shalom.
David
Posts: 734
Threads: 11
Joined: May 2007
1) The Noahide Commandments don't explicitly command the creation of governments. Governments are something that societies naturally set up for themselves, and the Noahide Laws teach some guidelines and standards that governments are obligated to follow, and some do's and don'ts that they are commanded to follow in accordance with the Divine Laws.
2) Once a Gentile government is established, the Torah's Oral Law (received by Moses from G-d at Mount Sinai) grants certain rights and privileges to the ruling power (generically referred to as "the king"). As a matter of convenience and logical association, the precepts associated with this issue are "filed" under the heading of Dinim, even though they don't relate to the essence of Dinim per se, because they relate even less to any of the other six Noahide Commandments. Similar to this, the Oral Torah laws for Gentiles that prohibit cross-breeding of animals are "filed" under the heading of the Noahide Commandment against eating the meat of a living animal, since both issues are related to the more general concept of Torah-based obligations and permissions that relate to mankind's oversight and usage of living creatures.
3) All of the 7 Noahide Commandments, including Dinim, include both "negative" prohibitions and adjunct "positive" obligations. In regard to how these precepts address individual behaviors, the major themes are the acts that individuals are prohibited to engage in, for which they will be liable to punishment. However, the Commandment of Dinim is in a class by itself, because it also involves positive collective obligations upon the society as a whole. For Dinim, both the negative and the positive aspects are indispensable, and it is just a matter of perspective as to which aspect is going to be considered the "essence" of the general, multi-faceted commandment. The Talmud in Tractate Sanhedrin is focusing on the prohibitive aspect, in parallel correspondence with the other six commandments it discusses, and RambaM takes that approach in his explanation of Dinim in Laws of Kings, Chapter 9.
On the other hand, RambaN in his explanations on the Book of Genesis holds out his opinion that the focus is on the positive obligations which the commandment places on the society. Post-Sinai, this question is rather academic, because either way, all of the negative and positive aspects of the commandment apply.
In the book "Sheva Mitzvot HaShem," Vol. 3 (Dinim), by Rabbi Moshe Weiner, the author favors the opinion of RambaN. As he writes in topic 1:6 (free translation):
"The commandment for Dinim includes two general obligations: the positive command to establish justice, and the negative prohibition against perverting justice. The positive command includes many details, among them the appointment of appropriate judges, the establishment of appropriate laws [including civil laws], and the obligation of the courts to judge and admonish the populace.
The negative prohibition includes the perversion of justice in any way, and includes many details, such as the prohibition for a judge to change the correct judgment because of his own wickedness, or because of some reason or bribe; that a witness should not testify falsely; that one may not intimidate a plaintiff, or a witness, or the judges from delivering a correct judgment or to change it in any way. Any such matter constitutes a perversion of justice and a failure to uphold the commandment of Dinim."
Posts: 43
Threads: 7
Joined: Nov 2010
Hi Reb,
You said that the sheva mitzvos, the 7M, the seven commandments have negative and positive aspects. In other words, they have active commands telling a person to do something and they have prohibitive commands telling a person not to do something. When it comes to what makes a person liable, is it really the case that there are positive and negative aspects to the commands? I can clearly see how there are negative aspects to make a person liable, where a person does something they are told not to do then they are punished. when I look at the 7 commandments, the basic commandments, I do not see a positive aspect which, if broken, makes a person liable. That is a commandment where a gentile is told to do something and that gentile doesn't. So which positive command in each of the seven makes a person liable if that person breaks it?
Thank you and blessings to you and yours,
David
Posts: 734
Threads: 11
Joined: May 2007
For example, the positive command to believe in G-d, which is implied by the Noahide prohibitions against idol worship and blasphemy. If a Gentile does not belief in G-d, he is liable to lose his opportunity for a share in the World to Come.
Posts: 43
Threads: 7
Joined: Nov 2010
07-14-2013, 09:21 PM
(This post was last modified: 07-21-2013, 07:01 PM by Director Michael.)
Hi Reb,
In the Divine Code, the word "liable" seems to mean the death penalty in a court, not losing a share in the world to come. It is the sort of offence that cannot get a person forgiveness in a court of law even though it is possible from God. It is the court of law liability that I'm concerned with since that seems to be the sort of liability that would part of the legal life of a country that upholds the basic noahide code. And in the basic codes of the noahide law in the Talmud and the mishneh torah, I've never seen the concept of liable used for the loss of a place in the world to come.
Shalom,
David
Posts: 734
Threads: 11
Joined: May 2007
07-21-2013, 07:04 PM
(This post was last modified: 07-21-2013, 07:13 PM by Director Michael.)
Thanks for clarifying: "It is the court of law liability that I'm concerned with."
You didn't mention at all in your original question that you were only asking about a physical court, and not about the Heavenly Court.
But also note the following in regard to theft ("The Divine Code", p. 584 and following):
"A Gentile who steals money or an object from another person is obligated [i.e. he has a positive obligation/liability] to return it, even if the stolen money [or item's value] is less than the worth of a peruta. If he does not return it himself, the court should forcibly take away the object or money he stole and return it to the owner. If the stolen object is not intact, the court should force the thief to pay for the value of the object he stole..."
The rest of that chapter describes numerous other positive liabilities for restitution that can devolve upon a thief, depending on the details of what he stole, and what happens to it while it is in his possession.
Posts: 1
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2013
10-19-2013, 10:15 PM
(This post was last modified: 12-06-2019, 10:22 AM by Director Michael.)
(07-21-2013, 07:04 PM)Director Michael Wrote: Thanks for clarifying: "It is the court of law liability that I'm concerned with."
You didn't mention at all in your original question that you were only asking about a physical court, and not about the Heavenly Court.
But also note the following in regard to theft ("The Divine Code", p. 584 and following):
"A Gentile who steals money or an object from another person is obligated [i.e. he has a positive obligation/liability] to return it, even if the stolen money [or item's value] is less than the worth of a peruta [the smallest coin]. If he does not return it himself, the court should forcibly take away the object or money he stole and return it to the owner. If the stolen object is not intact, the court should force the thief to pay for the value of the object he stole..."
The rest of that chapter describes numerous other positive liabilities for restitution that can devolve upon a thief, depending on the details of what he stole, and what happens to it while it is in his possession. Thanks for the clarification of the court of law liability.
The rest chapters which has the liabilities of any person or a thief who has stolen something has been portrayed very much positively and widely thought on the issue, I must say.
|