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

[David Riceman]

RCM and RYZ have left me more confused than before.  So I'll review a bit.

RCM:
> it has been my understanding (Although I can not cite a specific 
> mekor) that the understanding by a Novi of his Nevuha is in fact 
> infallible. The infallibility stems from the infallibility of Hashem 
> to communicate the exact message he wishes to impart to the Novi, not 
> metsad the Novi himself.
RCM again:
<<If the intent of the mareh is not intended to be understood then the 
nevuoh is the metaphor without the pisron. I do not see why this 
contradicts what I said. If the intent was not to transmit a pisron, 
then what is left (the entire nevuoh in such a case) is the metaphor 
alone.>>

Every nevuah is meant to be understood eventually.  If Avraham had 
initially understood the nevuah there would have been no nisayon; if 
Avraham had never understood the nevuah there would have been no Jewish 
people.  So the nevuah can't be the mareh alone; it has to include the 
pitaron, and the prophet does not invariably understand it correctly.

RYZ:
<<See Rambam Yesodei HaTorah 7:1-3>>

But this can't be meant literally, since there are exceptions, as we've 
seen.  See Igeret Teiman, ed. Sheilat, pp. 341 pp. 341-343, where he 
explains that philosophical concepts appear in his halachic works as 
brief, introductory notes, and see the fifth reason for contradictions 
in the introduction to MN, where he says that one reason for 
contradictions in introductory works is the desire to eschew 
complications until the student has acquired more information.

RYZ again:
<<I beleive it is Muchrach due to the fact that Nvuah is a Yesod Hadas 
and from the 13 Ikkorim, as well as from the fact that there is 
punishment to a Novi Sheker, and there are ways to test a Novi (if he 
can make mistakes, there is no way of testing and no punishment can be 
given)>>

These arguments fail to distinguish between a nevuah and its pitaron; 
that the nevuah is correct need not imply that the navi understands it 
correctly.  A navi should know when he has received the pitaron and when 
he hasn't.  We can test only some nevuot - - how would Yeshayahu's 
contemporaries have tested nevuot about the Messianic era?

The first argument proves too much.  For example, it is also a yesod 
hadas that the interpretation of the Torah that we have is authentic, 
and yet the Rambam rules (Mamrim 2:1) that Sanhedrin may overrule a 
previous Sanhedrin's deductions from the Torah.  Similarly the 
authenticity of prophecy can be distinguished from the authenticity of 
its interpretation.

David Riceman