I have been troubled by Joan of Arch's trial for a number of years. Most of the trial you do not hear what the judges are thinking. Only at the end they state their condemnation but give no support for their conclusions.. In some areas things became more clear to me because other books written at the same time. [Mainly they were thinking of her voices as coming from the Sitra Achra to be a blunt as possible.]
But in the area of dress I still can not figure out what the big deal was. Christians we know do not as a rule follow the law of Moses. So picking out one rule to condemn someone with makes little sense unless they were thinking like Thomas Aquinas about some laws still being binding because they are Natural Law.
In any case the dressing thing does not seem to me to be as bad as the problems that arise in Leviticus chapters 18 and 20.
My own take on this is this: Thomas Aquinas was in need of getting the Old Testament and New Testament to not conflict. So he used the idea of Natural Law that Saadia Gaon came up with.
The disparagement of Divine Law has gotten deep within Western thought ever since then. To me Divine Law is on a higher level than Natural Law.
To me it seems you do not need to justify the laws of Moses by means of natural law. Divine Law can stand by itself.
As for Joan of Arc my basic feeling is הוראת שעה. [A prophet can get a revelation to break a rule for a time for the needs of the hour and also a beit din can do the same thing--according to the needs of the time.] She got a revelation that she needed to dress like a man and wear battle armor and go into battle and bring all France under the rule of Charles the rightful king of France. Why is that any different that Eliyahu [Elijah] on Mount Carmel or any of the prophets that had a specific prophecy to accomplish some mission and part of the prophecy involved doing things not according to the Law of Moses.
But what are the needs of the time? That is where the idea of Saadia Gaon and Maimonides becomes important. For we know the Mitzvot are given with certain goals in mind. שלום המדינה,להתרחק מעבודה זרה לתקן את המידות וכולי[Peace of the country, to get as far from idolatry as possible, to correct ones character traits etc.]
I am being short here because I did not want to get into the argument between R. Shimon Ben Yochai and the Sages in the end of chapter 10 on Bava Metzia that I dealt with in another blog entry. Mainly I recall that my idea was there is instrumental value and numnious value. To the Sages they are not connected. To R.Shimon they are. But in any case we know the Rambam is a bit ambiguous about this. He poskins in opposite ways in Mishna Torah and see his commentary in Bava Metzia about that Mishna. The commentary משנה למלך in Mishna Torah tries to solve this. [The trouble is in Bava Metzia the Rambam goes like the sages and in Yevamot [seven nations] he goes like R. Shimon. דורשין טעמה דקרא]
God granted to me to write about this in my little booklet on Shas and the other one on Bava Metzia. But I never started out to answer questions in the Rambam--only questions in Tosphot. Along the way it happened that God granted to me answers in the Rambam also. But to answer this kind of problem I think you would have to look up the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach or any of the people of the school of thought of Reb Chaim Soloveitchik who make it their business to answer questions of this sort.
But in the area of dress I still can not figure out what the big deal was. Christians we know do not as a rule follow the law of Moses. So picking out one rule to condemn someone with makes little sense unless they were thinking like Thomas Aquinas about some laws still being binding because they are Natural Law.
In any case the dressing thing does not seem to me to be as bad as the problems that arise in Leviticus chapters 18 and 20.
My own take on this is this: Thomas Aquinas was in need of getting the Old Testament and New Testament to not conflict. So he used the idea of Natural Law that Saadia Gaon came up with.
The disparagement of Divine Law has gotten deep within Western thought ever since then. To me Divine Law is on a higher level than Natural Law.
To me it seems you do not need to justify the laws of Moses by means of natural law. Divine Law can stand by itself.
As for Joan of Arc my basic feeling is הוראת שעה. [A prophet can get a revelation to break a rule for a time for the needs of the hour and also a beit din can do the same thing--according to the needs of the time.] She got a revelation that she needed to dress like a man and wear battle armor and go into battle and bring all France under the rule of Charles the rightful king of France. Why is that any different that Eliyahu [Elijah] on Mount Carmel or any of the prophets that had a specific prophecy to accomplish some mission and part of the prophecy involved doing things not according to the Law of Moses.
But what are the needs of the time? That is where the idea of Saadia Gaon and Maimonides becomes important. For we know the Mitzvot are given with certain goals in mind. שלום המדינה,להתרחק מעבודה זרה לתקן את המידות וכולי[Peace of the country, to get as far from idolatry as possible, to correct ones character traits etc.]
I am being short here because I did not want to get into the argument between R. Shimon Ben Yochai and the Sages in the end of chapter 10 on Bava Metzia that I dealt with in another blog entry. Mainly I recall that my idea was there is instrumental value and numnious value. To the Sages they are not connected. To R.Shimon they are. But in any case we know the Rambam is a bit ambiguous about this. He poskins in opposite ways in Mishna Torah and see his commentary in Bava Metzia about that Mishna. The commentary משנה למלך in Mishna Torah tries to solve this. [The trouble is in Bava Metzia the Rambam goes like the sages and in Yevamot [seven nations] he goes like R. Shimon. דורשין טעמה דקרא]
God granted to me to write about this in my little booklet on Shas and the other one on Bava Metzia. But I never started out to answer questions in the Rambam--only questions in Tosphot. Along the way it happened that God granted to me answers in the Rambam also. But to answer this kind of problem I think you would have to look up the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach or any of the people of the school of thought of Reb Chaim Soloveitchik who make it their business to answer questions of this sort.
