[Avodah] Prophet - mashgiach or godol hador?

[Micha Berger]

On Tue, December 12, 2006 12:20 pm, R Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
: My suggestion is that the Rambam views the prophet in the same way as we
: view a mashgiach - in relationship to to a rosh yeshiva or a magid in
: relationship to a rav....

WADR, this is not a new idea. Reform went through a stage of claiming they
weren't forming something new, but restoring "Prophetic Judaism". The idea is
that "Prophetic Judaism" was about moral imperatives, and all that got
occluded by the Pharisees and Rabbinites, who layered all this legal stuff on
top of it.

Clearly if one reads Nakh without knowing that many of our nevi'im were also
on the Sanhedrin (to use an anachronistic name), one gets the impression that
they were about mussar rather than din.

The CC or a Brisker would argue that halakhah is the best possible mussar
seifer anyway, and deny the dichotomy exists.

A mussarnik might argue that din is simply a minimum guideline for proper
behavior, and thus the navi is addressing the more fundamental and bigger
picture -- but again, deny the dichotomy exists.


Whether a navi has halachic authority qua navi...

We all quote the Tanur Achnai story to prove that "lo bashamayim hi" means
that there is no authority that comes from this kind of information. OTOH,
there is also the story of the bas qol saying "vehalakhah keBeis Hillel" and
we do use that lemaaseh. It's actually a machloqes as to which is the rule and
which is the exception. See
<http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2005/01/legislative-authority-of-bas-qol.shtml>,
which is a honed version of something originally posted here. The conclusion
that bas qol has no authority is only one of two opinions in Tosafos, and the
Ohr Sama'eich. R' Nissim Gaon and the first answer in Tosafos say that usually
we would rule like a bas qol, and give different explanations of the achnai
story.

I would suggest that the machloqes is about the nature of machloqes. Is is due
to ignorance, and therefore any means of reconstructing what Hashem actually
told Moshe would be valid -- even bas qol or nevu'ah? Or, is it because the
poseiq defines the law (for any reason: Hashem gave both to Moshe, Hashem's
truth can only be approximated in this universe, Hashem gave us a process for
us to create with, etc...)? In which case, information from shamayim would
have no say in determining halakhah.

If so, all the positions we've discussed about eilu va'eilu and plurality
would be similarly divided on this issue as well. See
<http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2005/03/eilu-vaeilu-part-i.shtml> for my summary
of two surveys of the topic. (RGS posted links to the surveys here, and I
followed up with my notes on them.)


Anshei Kenesses haGdolah's authority is bolstered with "umeihem kamah
nevi'im". However, this could be a statement of the quality of its members,
not whether they utilized their nevu'ah to reach pesaq. This is related to the
distinction RDE later makes between giving authority to that which the navi
repeats besheim Hashem (Rambam lefi Minchas Chinukh), and his other statements
(Chinukh).

OTOH, shifting from the power to pasqen to that of making new taqanos: There's
the whole issue of divrei soferim being a half-step above deRabbanan. It
implies that whether or not AKhG used nevu'ah as part of the pasqening
process, the fact that they used it as part of the taqanah process DOES add
authority.

:                        Someone who advises or suggest rather than having
: a position of leadership. Someone who is sensitive, wise and insightful
: - but doesn't have political or decision making power....

I'm not sure I agree. I think the navi existed as a check for the melekh's
authority. How many times are nevi'im sent to the melekh? This is also why he
was the one who performed meshichah. Yes, they serve primarily as mashgichim,
but that doesn't mean they were apolitical.

I would define the halachic state as having four centers of authority: melekh,
Sanhedrin, kehunah, and nevu'ah. Because of birthright, the melekh was
guaranteed never to be the kohein (in a *halachic* state). And even when the
melekh was the greater navi, there was still a different navi empowered to
keep him in line with Ratzon H'. E.g. David and Nasan. The only second power
the melekh could share was being the av beis din as well.


Yes, it's true that:
: [A] king or political leader is not necessary wise or sensitive but he makes
: the decisions and sees that they are implemented...

Which is why there was a navi to counterpoint the melekh, keeping his actions
wise and sensitive.

:                                                  While there are times
: when the prophet has a specific message or action that is required - but
: he is not a leader.  In contrast we today view our gedollim as being
: endowed with ruach hakodesh.

Some of us. Others don't even acknowledge a difference in kind between people
who are greater than us (gedolim, translated literally) quantitatively and
those they lead.

I am unhappy with your casting this into terms of mashgiach vs gadol for this
reason. There is no concept in contemporary derakhim of a mashgiach hador, but
it's about as native to Yahadus as "gadol hador". In any case, the poseiq has
a shadow of the Sanhedrin's authority, not the melekh's. If we can take the
gadol hador and make him a stand-in nasi, why not take a mashgiach and make
him a stand-in navi? Don't out political actions have to be informed by values
even in areas where there is no clear pesaq? May our body politic be a menuval
birshus haTorah?

: A specific example is that the Rambam does not allow the involvement of
: ruach hakodesh in the Sanhedrin while the Ramban does....

Because the Rambam is a constructionist -- the poseiq defines the law, not
discovers it. I do not know the Ramban's stance, but if my above line of
reasoning is correct, the Ramban believes that the job of poseiq is to do
one's best to discover amito shel Torah, and he does not believe in halachic
pluralism.

BTW, in the shiur from R' Eli Heidad from YHE
<http://vbm-torah.org/archive/rambam/06rambam.htm> he asks the question "Did
the Rambam think he acheived prophecy?" He lists indications originally given
by Heschel that the answer is "yes". Such as a letter from a talmid asking for
instruction as to how to reach nevu'ah himself. A comment on the introduction
to the Moreh cheleq I, where he speaks of nevu'ah in the first person, "But
sometimes truth flashes out to us so that we think that it is day, and then
matter and habit in their various forms conceal it so that we find ourselves
again in an obscure night." Etc... See the shiur, the question is a section
header.

Tir'u baTov!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten
micha at aishdas.org        your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip,
http://www.aishdas.org   and it flies away.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter