Jewropean wrote:
"As whether there a mitzva to establish a king, I strongly recommend you learn some Nach."
Dovbear retorted:
"Silly Jewropean. Torah True Yeshivisha Know-it-alls don't learn Nach. They leave that for the ladies. Mabey Mrs. Chardal can set her hubby straight."
Here are some points:
- I have never attended a Yeshiva so I don't think I can be called yeshivish.
- I learn Nach every day.
- We don't pasken from Nach.
- The mitzva to establish a king is well known and is an established halacha (Rambam, melachim 1:1):
שלוש מצוות נצטוו ישראל בשעת כניסתן לארץ--למנות להם מלך שנאמר "שום תשים עליך מלך" (דברים יז,טו), ולהכרית זרעו של עמלק שנאמר "תמחה את זכר עמלק" (דברים כה,יט), ולבנות להם בית הבחירה שנאמר "לשכנו תדרשו, ובאת שמה" (דברים יב,ה).
I will admit that this is a mitzva that can not be fulfilled without a Sandedrin, but it is a mitzva. (Actually establishing a sanhedrin is also a mitzva, but that is for another post)
All joking aside. Why do these blogsters resort to ad-homonym attacks so quickly? Is it so hard to formulate arguments from sources other than from your gut-feelings?
