Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site sfmag.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxj!mhuxn!mhuxm!sftig!sftri!sfmag!samet
From: samet@sfmag.UUCP (A.I.Samet)
Newsgroups: net.religion.jewish
Subject: Not a Proof
Message-ID: <628@sfmag.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 9-Jul-85 19:15:44 EDT
Article-I.D.: sfmag.628
Posted: Tue Jul  9 19:15:44 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 11-Jul-85 08:37:33 EDT
Distribution: net
Organization: AT&T Information Systems, Summit, NJ
Lines: 27

> a)  Torah law is based on "consent of the governed", said 
>     consent having been given at Mt. Sinai.
> b)  I submit that the real issue is not homosexuality or
>     Nazism, but rather how that "consent", understood by 
>     Orthodoxy as applying for all time, relates to those
>     Jews who do not choose to accept the Torah.  [Jay Hyman]

It seems to me that there is a big hole in  this  argument.   Why
should  any  single individual be obliged to accept the principle
of consent of the governed?  Even  if  you  say  that  the  Torah
mandates  it  (dina d'malchusa dina), he has not yet accepted the
Torah.  Suppose he wants to be different from  other  members  of
the  society  and  do  his  own  thing.  What's  to say that he's
"wrong"?

I realize that there are midrashim that say (on the surface) that
the  acceptance  of  our  forefathers  is  somehow binding on us.
However, these can be  interpreted homiletically.  I know  of  no
source   which  interpret  these  midrashim  halachically.  (Does
anyone?)

Another more serious problem with this approach is that it  seems
to  imply that even if the Torah is G*d given, man is  still in a
position to decide whether or not to accept it.  Is there a basis
for such a position in our tradition?

				Yitzchok Samet