<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content=text/html;charset=windows-1255 http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.7100.4137"></HEAD>
<BODY style="PADDING-LEFT: 10px; PADDING-RIGHT: 10px; PADDING-TOP: 15px"
id=MailContainerBody leftMargin=0 topMargin=0 CanvasTabStop="true"
name="Compose message area">
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri>RMB wrote: "</FONT><FONT face="Times New Roman">IOW,
ruach haqodesh is obtaining knowledge. There is nothing there about<BR>a
conscious experience of receiving it. Just that the author wrote<BR>megillas
Esther, and post facto it's obvious s/he described things s/he<BR>couldn't have
otherwise known."</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri>1) The distinctions at the lower end of the spectrum I
referred to in my post are still not clear to me and not yet addressed. The
knowledge the author of ME included in Megilla but could not have known on
his own could also have come from <FONT face="Times New Roman">sod HaShem el
yerai'ov or seyata DiShemaya</FONT> </FONT><FONT face="Times New Roman">not just
ruach hakodesh.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri>2) If one says for example that chidushai Torah
were nisgaleh al pi ruach hakodesh to some kadosh, but chidushai
Torah he might have come to on his own so how do we (he) know it was
ruach hakodesh, as opposed to </FONT><FONT face="Times New Roman">sod
HaShem el yerai'ov, seyata DiShemaya or even his "own" thoughts? I presume these
are not synonymous terms.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman"></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman">3) Finally, this gemara can not be used
to differentiate the latter three categories for us. Further nuance is
needed.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri>Kol Tuv</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri>Chaim Manaster</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri></FONT> </DIV></BODY></HTML>