<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 12:18 PM, hankman <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:salman@videotron.ca">salman@videotron.ca</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff">
<div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial; ">This must be the case. In fact one must say that
part and parcel of the message (understood part of the nevuoh) must always
be which part of the nevuoh is intended for repetition to others, otherwise the
novi who for example tells others only the moshol but not the pisron (assuming
he himself has the pisron) would be over the issur of kovesh
nevuoso.</span><br></div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2"></font> </div>
<div></div></div></blockquote><div>The Rambam in Halacha 3 begins by saying that the revelation to the Novie is Derech Mashal uMiyad Yechokeik Bliboi Pisron...he concludes Yesh Sheim Omrim Moshol Pisron or both, I don't see here that when the Moshol itself is said that it is because the meaning was not revealed to him. </div>
<div><br></div><div>I think such a big difference that would come from Aspaklaryoh Sheina Meiroh would have been said Mfurosh both here (and in Halacha 6) and in Hakdama to Chelek, II would tend to think that the Novie understands what is meant to him to relate Moshol Pisron or both, Koveish Nvuosoi is when he says nothing (or not saying the Pisron or both when that was the intention of HKB"H).</div>
<div><br></div><div>Further according to your reasoning a Novie that was Kovesh a Nvuoh witout a Pisron would not be Over. Also all nvous that were given witout Pisron would have to be from such a class, and they could have not been said?!</div>
<div><br></div><div>Gut Shabbos, v'Kol Tuv,</div><div>Yitzchok Zirkind</div></div>