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

[Yitzchok Zirkind]

On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 7:10 AM, Micha Berger <micha at aishdas.org> wrote:
> . The Ramban's shitah, OTOH, more readily supports
> the possibillity of the navi misunderstanding parts of the message.

Please give exact examples, so that I can understand where you are leading
with this.

[Email #2. -mi]

On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 10:14 AM, Eli Turkel <eliturkel at gmail.com> wrote:
> We must first distinguish between private actions of a navi and receiving a
> prophecy. Obviously a Navi can make personal mistakes.

See opening comments of the Minchas Chinuch on Mitzvah 516. (also WRT Yonah
towars the end).

[Email #3. -mi]]

On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 3:02 PM, hankman <salman at videotron.ca> wrote:
>  RYZ wrote:
> Koveish Nvuosoi is when he
> says nothing (or not saying the Pisron or both when that was the intention of HKB"H).

> CM responds:
> I disagree. Koveish nevuoso is more encompassing. It includes leaving out
> any part of the nevuoh intended for publication.

Proof? The Ramabam seems to say that the Novie always understands the
Pisron, no where does the Rambam say that the reason he relates one or the
other or both is because that is all he got, he seems to say IMHO that the
Novi understands what is meant to be said and what not (not based at all on
what he was shown, the wording in the Rambam LAN"D does not support this,
rather as I argue that he always gets a Pisron)

> RYZ wrote:
> Further according to your reasoning a Novie that was Kovesh a Nvuoh witout a
> Pisron would not be Over.

> CM responds:
> No. A novi that is kovesh any part of his nevuoh is over. If the nevuoh was
> just the moshol and he was kovesh that, he would be over. What gave you the
> impression that I wrote any different?

I didn't misunderstand you, I am asking for proof in the words of the
Rambam.  IOW if there is a possibility that a Novi should not understand the
Pisron (after the Nvius is finished) and the reason being as that it is
shown in a Chida, how come the Rambam does not write that anywhere?

> RYZ wrote:
> Also all nvous that were given witout Pisron
> would have to be from such a class,  and they could have not been said

> CM responds:
> I am not clear on exactly what you mean here. Certainly a nevuoh, could be
> either for publication or not even without a pisron, why should they not
> have been said? Apparently there is value in the moshol alone even if you
> and I (and the novi) do not get it. Perhaps at some time the meaning will
> eventually become clear?

Let me explain my point, if the lack of Pisron is what defines what part the
Novi relates. in that case a Nvius without a given Pisron means it need
not be said, and the Novie cannot be called Kovesh Nvuosoi, so why did the
Novi give it over? The rambam clearly writes that Miktzas Divrei Yechezkel
fall in to this category. (and to split hairs that if it has no pisron
whatsoever then it must be said, if it is partially understood then he need
not say the rest, I think is overdoing it).

[Email #4, adding to the previous email. -mi]

Just to add, Yechezkel should have understood it was not meant to be said,
or at least not neccessery to be said (A chidush in Nvuoh that would need
proof), so why did he say it? and how does it become a "Nvuoh SheHutzracha
Ldoros"?

[Email #5. -mi]

On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 1:27 PM, hankman <salman at videotron.ca> wrote:
>  I think you misunderstand RYZ's point. If mistake is admissible in
> nevuoh, then you could NEVER punish a novi sheker, so why would the Torah
> provide such a punishment. But in the instance of your query, perhaps not
> every nevuoh (from a novi muchzok) must be subject to test and punishable.

Correct in my meaning.  And the Rambam states clearly (in previous
mentioned M"M 10:4) that not every Nvuoh must come bPoel, hence no
punishment as he is  not a Novi Sheker.

[Email #6. -mi]

On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 8:23 AM, David Riceman <driceman at att.net> wrote:
> I thought I explained this, but I will do it again in excruciating detail.
>  God told Avraham to "ha'aleihu sham l'olah".  Avraham tries to slaughter
> his son.  God says "don't do that".

One main ingrediant is missing he fullfilled "Ha'aleihu Sham" which was the
Nvuoh.

>  Rashi's narrative continues: Avraham says "but you told me to do this".
>  God replies "No, I told you only to put him on the altar, not to slaughter
> him".

> Your claim is that Avraham fully understood his first nevuah; and the part
> he didn't understand had no pitaron (no precise meaning).  How, then, could
> God have replied as he did? Surely God should have said, no, that initial
> nevuah was just a mashal without a pitaron, and it didn't have any meaning.
>  Instead God ascribed it meaning ("I never told you to slaughter him").

The part that he needed to do he understood fully, HKB"H had a Kavana (which
we don't find and therefore cannot put in by other Nvi'im) that he should
think MORE then was meant, as he would stop him anyway.  Torah reveals us
this.

> How, according to you, can this Rashi make sense?
>   RYZ implied that every nevuah has to be falsifiable.

I apologise for giving the wrong impression (that is one of the reasons that
I normaly don't go into lentghy disussions in english, a language I am a
Kvad Peh in).

> Rambam rules (Mamrim 2:1) that Sanhedrin may overrule a
> previous Sanhedrin's deductions from the Torah.

Yes! since Torah Lo Bashomayim He, it is based solely on Sanhedrin's
interpertation, so while the Method is authentic the results are dependent
on Sanhedrin

>  Similarly the
> authenticity of prophecy can be distinguished from the authenticity of
> its interpretation.

However, Nvuoh is different, because it is out of the hands of Humans and
totaly relied on as being Dvar Hashem, (that is why in can be Oker a
Mitzvah in case of Horoas Sha'a) if human error can accur, you compremised
it's whole strentgh.

Kol Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind

[Originally from email #1. -mi[

PS  I can't guarantee continuance of this discussion as B"H the information
and M"M's are out there, and the time it takes I can't afford
now. vHabocheir Yivchar.