[Avodah] Nevuah and Knowing the Future

[Micha Berger]

On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 04:42:23PM -0500, Lisa Liel wrote:
>> I asked on Areivim how you understand it, since you seem to believe we
>> can and should know why. I am still curious what it is.
>
> I think there's a difference between "a reason" and "the reason". I think
> that Hashem's actions are far too beyond us to be able to ever say what
> "the reason" is, but I also think that we are obligated to look for
> "a reason".

Whereas I'm offering one step even further removed. Not "the" or even "a
reason", but the obligation is to take a lesson. HQBH gave us a chance
to be shaken out of our ruts, we must use it constructively while the
emotional drive is there. But that doesn't mean insisting on any causal
link between the lesson taken and the tragedy.

This is a point RYBS makes in Qol Dodi Dofeiq. He writes that the Jewish
question WRT tragedy is not "Why?" but "How does G-d call on me to respond?"

>
>>> We disagree.
>
>> You had asked:
>>>>> How would you explain the purpose of nevi'im?

To which I replied: To give mussar. Neviim are to teach morality.

[Sources deleted.]

> It's similar to my answer above. When you say "to give mussar" and
> "to teach morality", you're limiting things unnecessarily, and in my
> opinion, incorrectly. I'll grant you that this is one of their roles.
> But I think the primary role of nevua is this. No matter how Hashem
> would have written the Torah she'bichtav and no matter how He would have
> communicated the Torah she'b'al peh to us, there's no way to make clear
> to us exactly what mitzvot have what priority relative to each other.
> There's other information that couldn't have been included, but based
> on the content of the sifrei Nevi'im, it's apparently the most critical.

1- I would also agree to toning down my answer to "primary role", but
I would include this role is both necesssary and sufficient explanation
for why Hashem would grant nevu'ah.

2- I'm not sure what "the relative priority of mitzvos" means. You
don't mean halachic rules of precedence, since nevi'im can't provide
knew halakhah. The only other thing that comes to mind that tells us
how to prioritize conflicting values is morality, which was the answer
you objected to.

> You can't say, "Listen, being good and kind is more important than
> bringing the korbanot that Hashem commanded." For one thing, it isn't
> true. Both are commanded. For another thing, while Hashem isn't bound
> by time, we certainly are. And we can't be warned about putting too much
> emphasis on one thing in favor of another before we've actually *put*
> too much emphasis on one thing in favor of another. If the Torah had
> said that chesed was paramount, we'd have wound up with early Reform.

But Hillel may have according to one opinion in Rashi, and R' Aqiva and
Ben Azzai more clearly did. So I disagree with the notion that "both are
commanded" tells us much other than saying both rise above some threshold
to be necessary.

IMHO, Reform's problem isn't its placing BALC first. And even if you
don't find R' Shimon's or the Meshekh Chokhmah's derakhim to be a good
fit, one shouldn't be saying they are inherently R. R goes wrong in
their belief that they don't need the rest of Torah to tell them what
"tov" means and to maximize their ability to be tov to others.

They forget Hillel's "zil gemor", thinking they can follow moral instinct
alone.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             When memories exceed dreams,
micha at aishdas.org        The end is near.
http://www.aishdas.org                   - Rav Moshe Sherer
Fax: (270) 514-1507