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

[Yitzchok Zirkind]

Although our positions and Mekoros where already stated, and WRT to Sevara
"Ein Deioseihen Shovos" and the Chazal say "Im Sevara Nisbrei", I will try
once more, vHabocheir Yivchar.

On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 3:56 PM, hankman <salman at videotron.ca> wrote:

>  RYZ wrote:
> I think it is Poshut.  My Hechrech is if there is times that they don't
> understand part or all of a Nvuoh, how come the Rambam does not write so
> Mfurosh, that would be the screaming difference between Moshe and others.
>
> CM  responds:
> I think that the Rambam does so. It is part and parcel of the difference in
> the "aspaklaria sh'eina meira." The guaranteed pisron is for that part of
> the mareh that Hashem intends the novi to understand. Here the nature of the
> aspaklaria does not get in the way. Hashem of course understands the details
> of the novi's human frailties and thus his aspaklaria (the level of which is
> unique to each novi) and insures that the message he wants received by the
> novi gets through. To say otherwise, implies the inability of Hashem to
> convey a particular message to a given novi, which of course can not be.
>

In general (and especially in Sifrei Halacha) I am a literlist, as such LAND
this is far from explicit, furthermore according to you in the part of the
Nvuoh that is meant for conveyence (which is the most important) there is no
difference by the fact that he sees thru Eina Meiroh, I understand the
Rambam saying that in the (main part) of the Nvuoh there is difference
between Moshe and others, and not that others see things that are
irrelevent.

In addition why should HKBH show in a nvuoh useless information? Just to
show that they are not like Moshe?

And of course I agree and it is Muchrach as part of the Yesod of Nvuoh, that
the message gets thru.


>
> In your opinion how in fact do you account for the aspaklaria sh'eina
> meira? Why is that not an automatic lack of complete pisron with every
> nevuoh but those of Moshe? And then in fact the taane of RDR and RRW (I
> think) makes sense - how do you differentiate between them (Moshe and other
> neviim) in this detail.
>

While I never experianced Nevuoh <g> the Rambam defines that the Eina Meira
is in the fact that it is thru a Moshol.


>
> Consider: Chazal tell us that a shifcha at krias Yam Suf saw more the
> Yechezkel ben Buzi saw in his mareh. It can not mean they saw different
> maros, because then the comparison would be meaningless - of course they saw
> different things - its comparing apples to oranges. But, this must mean they
> saw the same (or similar) mareh but the clarity (the aspaklaria) was clearer
> at the Yam. Yet if they saw the same mareh (and as you claim) the pisron for
> the entire mareh is understood fully then they should have both seen the
> same pisron!
>

Where does it say that it was Nvuoh with a Pisron?  It was Gilui Shchina
(Rashi Shmos 15:2) there are different levels in that.

>
> RYZ wrote:
> So if a Novi has to relate even a Moshol w/o a Pisron, so what does define
> what the Novi relates
>
> CM responds:
> The simple answer is that it must be part and parcel of the message the
> novi receives. Just as the intended recipient of the nevuoh must be part of
> the nevuoh, so to is which part/s should be transmitted.
>

My question in Higoyon is: if Eino Meira indicates that there is non
understood parts in the Cholom, and (that fact itself indicates that) those
parts he doesn't need to say, then how can there be an entire Cholom w/o
understanding and yet he has to say it. of course If HKBH would tell him
that he should say it anyway he would have to, but it would be a Stira in
Higoyon.



>  Even according to you, the novi can only understand which part to repeat
> if somehow this was a part of the message he "understood on his own." (He
> doesn't make this up on his own.)
>

Correct! but it isn't a Stira in Higoyon.


>
> RYZ wrote:
> Again nowhere does the  Rambam say that at times he doesn't understand it
> or
> a part of it.
> CM responds:
> Although you are right - nowhere does the Rambam state this explicitly.
>

While we can argue if there is or there is not Mashmous to it. LAND such a
MAJOR difference should say explicity, (as an exemple see how he defines the
difference between Nvuoh and M'o'nein in 10:3)



>  Nevertheless I think it is muchrach to be so, otherwise how to
> differentiate between what the shifcha at kriasYam Suf and Yecheskel ben
> Buzi saw (understood) of the Massei Merkava. I think he (Rambam) took this
> as a given.
>

As I wrote earlier that LAND Gilui Shchina is a different issue.  Also as a
literalist I can't build on external Rayos to understand what is written
here.



>  But if you press me, I could read it into YT 7:6 where the Rambam in
> differentiating  nevuas Moshe states: "... roeh hadovor al buryov belo chida
> ubelo moshol..." IE. It is the lack of clarity due to the aspaklaria that
> leave the part of the pisron shrouded from the other neviim.
>

LAN"D Moshol does not mean not understanding.

Kol Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090611/e38247a6/attachment-0002.htm>