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

[David Riceman]

I hate to keep coming back to this, since we've both set out our 
opinions very fully.  The problem is that usually, even when I disagree 
with you, your opinion makes good sense.  Here, though, I don't even 
know what your words mean.  So let me set out what I think we agree and 
disagree on and where I remain puzzled.

The Rambam says that when a prophet receives a prophecy he also receives 
its explanation.  You claim that the Rambam is describing a property of 
every prophecy, and I claim, no, he's describing the standard procedure, 
but there are a group of exceptions.

We considered two of those exceptions in some detail.  The first is 
Daniel's prediction of the date of the redemption, which he says 
explicitly he didn't understand.  In this case I think you agree with me 
that he didn't receive the explanation, but you exonerate the Rambam on 
the grounds (IIUC) that this is a unique property of the redemption.

The second exception is the Akeidah.  Here's what we agree about: God, 
using deliberately ambiguous language, told Avraham to "ha'aleihu sham 
l'olah", which could mean either "slaughter him as a sacrifice" (Tanhuma 
B: "zeh lish'hot v'zeh lishahet") or "raise him onto the altar".  
Avraham (and Yitzhak) understood the former, and God meant the latter, 
though He also meant Avraham to misunderstand him.

Here's where we disagree: I think this is an example of a prophet 
receiving a prophecy but not its explanation.  You don't.  I think you 
mean something like this: the prophecy was deliberately ambiguous, and 
God meant Avraham to misunderstand at first, and later to recognize the 
ambiguity, so the prophecy accomplished its goal.

But why isn't that a counterexample for the Rambam? The prophecy had 
been phrased ambiguously, but it did have a precise meaning, which was 
revealed several days later.  That means that Avraham did not receive 
the explanation instantly when he received the original vision!  And 
that contradicts the words of the Rambam!

What you said was "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."  But I have no idea how that solves the 
problem with the Rambam.  Isn't thinking "more than what meant" failing 
to understand the prophecy?

David Riceman