<!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)<BR>
which has a very different take on lo bashamayim hi (which iiuc<BR>
originally drives us to say these diyukim from nach are a different<BR>
level). He cites R' Tzadok as saying that until the anshei knesset<BR>
hagedolah (when prophesy stopped) people went to the navi to know the<BR>
dvar hashem (with certainty but only in their particular case). After<BR>
that , there is no true certainty. This would explain why we don't see<BR>
sanhedrin's footprints in nach and why lo bashamayim hi overruled a bat<BR>
kol (but perhaps wouldn't overrule true nvuah - see all the commentaries<BR>
on what bat kol is). It might also explain the mahartz chiyut's<BR>
understanding iirc of teiku - that eliyahu can be mvarer 'facts" but not<BR>
new dinim.<BR>
<BR>
It's a fascinating , albeit nonstandard approach. Has anyone seen<BR>
anything else on this R' Tzadok?<BR>
<BR>
KT<BR>
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>