[Avodah] (Neviim & Possible Mistakes); Akeidah & Yizchak

[Yitzchok Zirkind]

A few notes.

On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 10:45 AM, hankman <salman at videotron.ca> wrote:

>
>  RDR then wrote:
> See Daniel 12:8, Rashi and Ibn Ezra ad. loc
>
> CM responds:
> Daniel is not a problem for two reasons: 1) According to Rashi, Megila 14a
> and gemara 3a, Daniel was not a Novi. (Although one could understand Rashi
> as meaning he was a Novi but one without a shlichus to give over his nevuoh
> to Yisroel and thus not among the 48 and of lesser stature than the 3, Ch.
> Z. & M).
>

See Maharatz Chayos, Mamar Divrei Nvi'im Divrei Kabalah, who discusses
Daniel and this Rashi, he also brings there that from the Rambam Hil Yesodei
Hatorah 7:2, is Muchach that he holds Daniel was a Novi. So why bother as
using this as an upshlog.

I have problems with your secont point


>   2) Even if he is counted among the Neviim, there is no problem. His not
> understanding this aspect of his vision is an aspect of the clarity of the
> vision as with all Neviim and their various levels of Nevuah (but Moshe
> Rabbeinu av l'neviim) that were b'aspaklaria sh'eina meira. This aspect of
> Nevuah is not a stira to infallibility of the Nevuah.
>

Since the Rambam's statement of "Viyeida Ma Hu" would contradict this.

IMHO the whole Kashe has no place since this Possuk was a Chelek of the
Nvuoh itself, IOW HKB"H wanted that Daniel should not understand and ask and
be answered, which is vital in the Nkudah that it is Sosum.

You add:


>   RYZ quotes Rambam Yisodei Torah 7:1-3:
> CM comments:
> I think the key phrases wrt to this thread are in halchah 3: "... bemareh
> hanevuoh derech moshol modi'in lo, umiyad yechokek belibo pisron hamoshol
> bemareh hanevuoh, veyodea ma hu." (i.e. the message meant to be imparted is
> understood clearly infallibly).
>

That was exactly what I meant in my mareh mokom.
However I also added from Halacha 1 and on, to emphasize that Nevuah is one
of the Yesodei Hadas, (and entails tha Mitzva of "Eiluv Tism'un" etc.) as
such it must be copletely true, furthermore a Novi Sheker is punished only
when he says good (Rambam ibid 10:4) if it can be interperted in many ways
(note the case of Daniel was for good), how can he be punished. Furthermore
see Hakdomas HaRambam to Perek Chelek where he explains the 4 differences
between the Nvuoh of Moshe RO"H and other nvi'im, without mentioning such an
obvious difference.



>  But each part of the mareh is not necessarily part of the message and
> thus not necessarily completely comprehended, thus,
>

I don't Know that I agree with this definition, since only Nvuah
Shehutzricha Ldoros was recorded, it would follow that every part is part of
the message, why it was not related we don't know.

Kol Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090603/3e9812a2/attachment-0001.htm>