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