<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 1:07 PM, Yitzhak Grossman <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:celejar@gmail.com">celejar@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 23:33:49 EDT<br>
<a href="mailto:T613K@aol.com">T613K@aol.com</a> wrote:<br>
<br>
...<br>
<div class="im"><br>
> Nevertheless a true nevuah must come true on some level. The nevuah was<br>
<br>
</div>Source? Many Rishonim clearly believed that a prophecy may actually<br>
not come true under certain types of altered circumstances. See, e.g.,<br>
Abravenel's comprehensive discussion, which includes the opinions of<br>
his predecessors (Devarim 18, s.v. ve'amnam be'heter ha'safek<br>
ha'yod-hes, p. 178 in the standard edition).<br>
<br>
Yitzhak<br>
<font color="#888888">--<br>
</font></blockquote></div><br>Yirmiyahu, Nevuchadrezzar and Mitzrayim [Haftaras Bo] never occured<br><br>M point?<br><br>Since Yirmiyahu was established as a navi we look for a teirutz. If this were someone's only nevuah he would have been dismissed.<br>
<br>And so Yonah'a Nehepaches was a double entendre. But without a Hazaka he might have been dismissed and the other meaning of Nehepaches not used as a rationalization.<br> <br>==================================================================<br>
<br>Hirsch asserts that Moshe's deviation in hitting the rock instead of speaking was a fatal flaw in that it jeopardized the mesorah<br><br>Nu isn't this true for every Navi? Apparently not. AIUI A navi can be a navi emes and maybe get a prat wrong or misunderstand a prat. [perhaps Ya'akov Yosef bilhah vs. Rachel etc.]<br>
<br>But when you are "bechol beisi ne'man hu" you are held to a higher standard.<br><br>IOW, a navi emes is AISI not necessarily infallible but he he is simply never guilty of ziyyuf or embelishment. He tell his emes and honestly conveys Hashem's message.<br>
<br>I heard a peshat with R. Akiva at the end of Makkos about shu"alim hilchu bo. R. Akiva said this nevuah was emes. Nu and who tought otherwise? So one peshat is that his chaveirm thought it was a mashal and not literal. But R. Akiva said "no it is mamash literal! look at the shu'alim! So too the ge'ulah!'<br>
<br>If this peshat is true then the nevuaosof the geulah were seen as ambigous [literal or metaphoircal] until R. Akiva showed them otherwise. <br><br>So it is likely that the navi that gives the message might not be certain either. <br>
<br>==================================================================<br><br>So if nevi'im can be fallible how can we listen to them to be docheh a mitzva?<br><br>Answer, because a Navi with a hazala isdeemed RELIABLE not infallible which was my first post on this theard about umpires.<br>
<br>It also explains R. Yeshoshua going agaisnt bas kol at Tanur Achnai etc.<br> <br>-- <br>Kol Tuv - Best Regards,<br>RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com<br>see: <a href="http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/">http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/</a><br>
<a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nishma-Minhag/">http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nishma-Minhag/</a><br><br>