<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 6.5.7638.1">
<TITLE>Nevuah/Psak</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/rtf format -->
<P><FONT FACE="Times New Roman">An interesting article by R' Elman appeared in Tradition (Fall 1985) which has a very different take on lo bashamayim hi (which iiuc originally drives us to say these diyukim from nach are a different level). He cites R' Tzadok as saying that until the anshei knesset hagedolah (when prophesy stopped) people went to the navi to know the dvar hashem (with certainty but only in their particular case). After that , there is no true certainty. This would explain why we don't see sanhedrin's footprints in nach and why lo bashamayim hi overruled a bat kol (but perhaps wouldn't overrule true nvuah - see all the commentaries on what bat kol is). It might also explain the mahartz chiyut's understanding iirc of teiku - that eliyahu can be mvarer 'facts" but not new dinim. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT FACE="Times New Roman">It's a fascintaing , albeit nonstandard approach. Has anyone seen anything else on this R' Tzadok?<BR>
<BR>
KT</FONT>
<BR><FONT FACE="Times New Roman">Joel RIch</FONT>
</P>
<br><br><table bgcolor=white style="color:black"><tr><td><br>THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE <br>
ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL <br>
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, <br>
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is <br>
strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us <br>
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. <br>
Thank you.<br>
</td></tr></table></BODY>
</HTML>