Let's pick up here with the Rambam talks, it's at the beginning where the Rambam talks about Nevua, the role of Nevua. In this translation, it begins with דע שהנבואה אינה מועילה. דע שהנבואה אינה מועילה בעיון בפירושי התורה ובדרישת פרטי הדינים בשלוש עשרה מידות. אבל מה שיעשה יהושע ופנחס בעניין העיון והלימוד הוא מה שיעשה רבינא ורב אשי.
Within the Shalsheles HaKabbalah as the Rambam delineates in the Hakdama leMishneh Torah, that there were Neviim, but they weren't there betoras Neviim. They were there betoras Chachmei haMasora. Given the profile of a Novi, so it's only natural that those who became Neviim were also from the Chachmei haMasora. But it was in the realm of Torah, their status as Novi was irrelevant. I think the Nefesh HaChaim has in the beginning of Berachos where there's a Braisa that Rabbi Yossi says פעם אחת הייתי מהלך בדרך ונכנסתי לחורבה להתפלל והמתין לי אליהו זכור לטוב.
So the Nefesh HaChaim says Eliyahu HaNavi he wasn't wearing his Novi hat, he was wearing his Rosh Yeshiva hat, not his Novi hat in talking divrei Torah. אבל מה יתרון הנביא ופעלו במצוות הרי הוא כנפשי מן העיקרים הגדולים והעצומים שעליהם משען הדת ויסודה.
So the question is what the Rambam's referring to here. It's an ikar gadol veatzum that the Torah rests upon. If you pull out this ikar, then the Torah collapses. So certainly part of what the Rambam means, but the question is is this all that he means? Certainly part of what the Rambam means is in the hemshech we'll see how the Rambam talks about lo bashamayim hi, how if the Novi claims to have any communication which is מוסיף על דברי תורה, migara midivrei Torah, or meshaneh divrei Torah, so we know that he's a Navi sheker. Basically having that built into Torah, right, anticipated that we'd be able to recognize the sheker of the religions that were invented subsequently which alleged such Nevua. And in that sense it's certainly an ikar gadol veatzum that we understand that the entire religion rests on that. But the question is is that all the Rambam has in mind or does he have in mind more? Because that's more sort of what Nevua isn't, rather than what it is, right? It's that explanation is highlighting what isn't Nevua, what Nevua doesn't deal with. But I don't know, we'll have to see be'ezras Hashem. Is that all the Rambam has in mind or is there more? ואני רואה שכאן המקום הראוי לבאר היסוד הזה. What does the Rambam mean with this sentence? I don't know. I think if we would have been presented with an edited version of Hakdamat Perush ha-Mishnayos and we didn't have this whole section about nevuah, I'm not sure that we would have noticed anything missing. The Perush ha-Mishnayos would still be very comprehensive in terms of explaining, providing an introduction to Torah She-Ba'al Peh. So ela mai? Yitachen, and again, I didn't check the other translations to make sure that they also support this understanding, but the lashon והנה נראה שכאן המקום הראוי לבאר היסוד הזה, but what do the other translations have? והנה ראיתי שזה המקום הראוי לבאר בו העיקר הזה. Basically the same. V'hinei ra'isi. Kapach is the same. Bar-Ilan's the same. Same. So again, it's really not only this word, but maybe this word is sort of most bolet. Why wouldn't the Rambam simply write אני רואה שכאן המקום לבאר היסוד הזה? Or so the mashma'os lichora is as follows. The Rambam has later... At the very end of Perush ha-Mishnayos in Masechet Brachos, so the Rambam has the following: אין זה המקום להביא בו דברים אלו. Truth is, I digressed. It doesn't really come within the purview of Perush ha-Mishnayos. אלא שאני בראש מעייני כל מקום שיזדמן ריח דברים בעניין האמונה אדבר בהם משהו.
Even if there's just some tangential connection to something which relates to emunah, so I'm going to talk about it. כי יקר בעיני ללמד יסוד מהיסודות יותר מכל מה שאלמדהו.
Right? The most precious thing to me to teach, the Rambam says, are yesodos ha-emunah. So I'm not going to apologize, he says, for digressing to talk about yesodos ha-emunah. And yitachen, that's what this line means here as well. When the Rambam says והנה נראה שכאן המקום הראוי לי לבאר היסוד הזה, not so much that organically the hakdamah, that again, Hakdamat Perush ha-Mishnayos is basically a hakdamah to Torah She-Ba'al Peh, tells us how Torah She-Ba'al Peh was originally given and then tells us about the Shas and what's in Mishnah and what's in Gemara and what's the Seder ha-Shas. It's a hakdamah to Torah She-Ba'al Peh. So organically, it didn't really need to include this discussion of nevuah. The Rambam says, but it's מן היסודות העצומים שעליהם נשען הדת. I want to talk about it, he says. So this seems like the best place to talk about it. This is the if I'm determined as I am to talk about it, so it seems like this is the. This is the best point of the parsha to talk about it. וזה לא יתכן אלא אחר חלוקה של טעני הנבואה שבנביאים ובמה תתאמת הנבואה. הוי גם בזה יסוד גדול שכבר שגו בו כל המוני בני אדם וגם מקצת מהמיוחדים שבהם.
So what we mentioned before in terms of certainly part, if not all of why it's such an ikkar gadol atzum is that a proper understanding of nevuah inoculates one against the invented religions which emerged subsequently. So the Rambam is clearly hinting here, hamonei bnei adam, I mean he's not only talking about Jews, right? He's talking universally, right? He's talking about that the confusion about nevuah is a confusion which people have erred. What he's describing is not just, but primarily, on the contrary, it's primarily non-Jewish. שהם סבורים שהנבואה לא תתאמת לכל הטוען אליה עד שיעשה אות כאותות משה רבנו וישנה מנהגו של עולם דווקא כמו שעשה אליהו בהחיות בן אישה אלמנה או כפי המפורסם מאותות אלישע וזה יסוד שאינו נכון. ככל האותות שעשו אליהו ואלישע וזולתם מן הנביאים לא עשאום כדי לאמת נבואתם כי הנבואה כבר נתאמתה בהם לפני כן ומה שעשו האותות ההם הוא לפי שהוצרכו להם ומקרבתם אל השם השלים חפצם כמו שהובטחו הצדיקים ותגזר אומר ויקם לך.
The same yesod that the Rambam has here in Perek Chet of Yesodei HaTorah about Moshe Rabbeinu himself. משה רבנו לא האמינו בו ישראל מן האותות שעשה שהמאמין על פי האותות יש בליבו דופי שאפשר שיעשה האות בלהט ובכישוף אלא כל האותות שעשה במדבר לפי הצורך עשאם.
That's parallel is ומה שעשו האותות ההם לפי שהוצרכו להם. לפי הצורך עשאם לא להביא ראיה על הנבואה צורך להשקיע את המצרים קרע את הים והצילם בו צרכנו למזון הוריד לנו את המן צמאו בקע להם את האבן כפרו בו עדת קורח בלעה אותם הארץ וכן שאר כל האותות.
The Rambam doesn't, I'll have to look in the hemshech, I don't remember, I'll have to look in the hemshech. The Rambam here, there is one phrase that the Rambam doesn't have a parallel here, which is in the Yad, so the Rambam says that the reason that our... is because המאמין על פי האותות יש בלבו דופי because if emunah is predicated upon miracles, miraculous feats, so then there appropriately will always be an element of doubt. There will legitimately always be traces of skepticism. So since that the Rambam doesn't repeat here, he talks, that emphasis is davka by nevuas Moshe Rabbeinu. By nevuas Moshe Rabbeinu, so it is indispensable that the conviction and confidence Knesses Yisrael has in nevuas Moshe Rabbeinu be absolute. Again, all of Torah hinges upon that: זכרו תורת משה עבדי. Okay, let's go a little bit here. אבל תשמע את הנבואה על פי מה שאפרש בדברים אלו שאני חולק אותם לשני חלקים ואומר תחילה שעיקר דתנו בעניין הנביאים הם כפי שאפרש והוא שהטוענים לנבואה נחלקים לשני חלקים מתנבא בשם עבודה זרה ומתנבא בשם השם.
A navi claims a supernatural communication, right? That he received a supernatural communication. He can either attribute that supernatural communication beshem Hashem, which doesn't mean that he claims he received it directly from Hakadosh Baruch Hu, for the Rambam only Moshe Rabbeinu received his nevuah directly from Hakadosh Baruch Hu, but what it means is it's beshem Hashem through a malach Hashem. As opposed to attributing the alleged nevuah to some other source: מתנבא בשם עבודה זרה. והנבואה בשם עבודה זרה נחלקת לשני חלקים החלק הראשון שיקום נביא ויאמר שכוכב פלוני נתן עלי רוחניותו ואמר לי עבדו אותי בכך או קראו אלי בכך וכן אם קרא לעבודת אליל או צורה מן הצורות ואמר שהוא בא אלי בנבואה על כך והודיעני בכך או ציווה אותי לצוות על עבודתו באופן פלוני כפי שעושים נביאי הבעל ונביאי האשרה והחלק השני שיאמר היה לי דבר השם לעבוד עבודת פלוני או להוריד רוחניות פלונית באופן פלוני ויתאר אופן מאופני העבודה והפעולה שעושים אנשי אותה הדרך כפי שנקבע אצלנו בתורה הרי זה גם כן מתנבא בשם עבודה זרה כי השם הזה כולל את האומר שהיא עצמה ציוותה על עבודתה או על איזה עניין מענייניה או האומר שהשם ציווה על עבודת מה שאינו מן הנבואה.
So מתנבא בשם עבודה זרה, either he attributes the nevuah to avodah zarah or he says that the nevuah instructs one to be oveid avodah zarah. וכאשר נשמע מן הטוען לנבואה אחת משתי הטענות האלו ונתבררה העדות עליו כדין התורה הרי דינו למיתה בחנק כמו שאמר יתעלה והנביא ההוא או חולם החלום ההוא יומת ואין פונים לנבואתו ואין דורשים ולא נדרש ממנו אות ואפילו עשה מן המופתים כדי לקיים את הנבואה הזאת דבר שלא שמענו ונפלא ממנו הרי זה נחנק ואין פונים לאותו. כי הטעם שנתקיימו אותם המופתים הוא כפי שאמר הכתוב: כי מנסה ה' אלוהיכם אתכם וכולי.
And and here comes a remarkable remarkable line in the Rambam: כי עדות השכל המכחישה את נבואתו חזקה יותר מעדות העין הרואה את המופתים שלו. הואיל וכבר נתברר לבעלי השכל שאין ראוי לכבד ולא לעבוד זולתו את האחד שהמציא כל הנמצאים ונתייחד במכלול השלמויות.
Rambam says something here extraordinary. The Rambam says that that if a person finds himself with a contradiction, contradiction between what his sensory experience tells him on the one hand, as opposed to what sechel tells him on the other hand. His sensory experience tells him that A is happening and sechel tells him that A is impossible, that A cannot be happening. Rambam says the more reliable source of truth is the edus hasechel rather than the edus hachush. That that what a person knows to be compellingly absolutely true al pi sechel, that overrides what a person thinks again his senses are are telling him. So if on on the one hand a person is confronted with a navi who ostensibly, again ostensibly a navi, who is ostensibly responsible for the most extraordinary miracle, which lich-ora is proof positive of him and and whatever he then alleges, but me'idach gisa a person knows that it cannot be that such a thing as a navi emes instructing us to be oved avoda zara, so the edus hasechel prevails. The edus hasechel prevails. The pshat is is that that this is a reflection of not just sort of not just an idea which we encounter here in its local immediate context, but it's the Rambam leshitoso that in terms of yedias Hashem, it's a higher level of yedias Hashem to understand logically that there has to be a Ribono Shel Olam than to in quotation marks only know that there's a Ribono Shel Olam based on on miracles. That the the higher level of of yedias Hashem is to ground as much as possible in sechel and and not again in quotation marks only on historical experience because it's the same yesod. Because for the Rambam that's the higher level of knowledge, which is why if there were to be a conflict, the edus hasechel prevails. That's the higher level of knowledge, that's the one which is which is even more absolute. So then mimela within the context of yedias Hashem, that's also what the one should strive for. Again that part obviously is the Rambam and and it's and and in terms of that context it's obviously shonah in machlokes between gedolei olam. But even here it's it's so remarkable when the Rambam says what the conflict is between again the apparent edus hachushim, the apparent sensory experience of that this navi sheker is responsible for. for extraordinary miracles. So the Rambam doesn't even at this point say that it goes against a pasuk in Chumash. He says, no, in sevara one knows that it is absolutely, it's something which is absolutely off-limits to be oved adavar hanivra, right? The definition of avoda zara is to direct an act of worship to a davar hanivra. I think the Chazon Ish says that if a person will engage in what we would describe as a ma'aseh avoda zara, but not to a davar hanivra, to something imaginary, to the great pumpkin or whatever, whatever the case may be. So the Chazon Ish says he'll be a min because of his belief. He'll be a min because of his belief, but the ma'aseh itself is not a ma'aseh avoda zara, right? It would have nafkaminei in terms of whether it's tikroves avoda zara or da'asur kora'ah. It would have nafkaminas. So the definition of avoda zara is to be oved adavar hanivra. So when the Rambam says what the edus hasechel is which is contradicting the apparent edos hachushim from this miracle that apparently, ostensibly the navi sheker wrought, so the Rambam says: כי עדות השכל המכחישה את נבואתו חזקה יותר מעדות העין הרואה את מופתיו הואיל וכבר נתבאר לבעלי השכל שאין ראוי לכבד ולא לעבוד זולתו האל האחד הקדוש ברוך הוא שהמציא כל הנמצאים ונתייחד במכלול השלמיות.
That echoes this. One sees in the beginning of Hilchos Avoda Zara: בימי אנוש טעו בני האדם טעות גדולה ונבערה עצת חכמי אותו הדור ואנוש עצמו מן הטועים וזו היתה טעותם אמרו הואיל והאל ברא כוכבים אלו וגלגלים אלו להנהיג את העולם ונתנם במרום וחלק להם כבוד והם שמשים המשמשים לפניו ראויים הם לשבחם ולפארם ולחלוק להם כבוד וזהו רצון האל ברוך הוא לגדל ולכבד מי שגדלו וכיבדו כמו שהמלך רוצה לכבד עבדיו העומדים לפניו וזהו כבודו של מלך.
So at this point, we're not sure whether the Rambam is indicting them for a colossal, catastrophic error beshogeg or bemezid. How, what's their degree of culpability for this mistake that they made Bimei Enosh? They said just as you have to receive the Secretary of State with honor to show honor to the President, so too we should direct acts of worship to the kochavim, to the sun which Hakadosh Baruch Hu appointed to provide the necessary conditions for life on earth. So again, this is and was a colossal, catastrophic error, but was it beshogeg? Was it sort of gezeiras hakatuv not to do it? So from the hemshech, we do see what the Rambam thinks about it: כיוון שעלה דבר זה על לבם התחילו לבנות לכוכבים היכלות ולהקריב להם קרבנות ולשבחם ולפארם בדברים ולהשתחוות למולם כדי להשיג רצון הבורא בדעתם הרעה.
So there the Rambam tells us clearly no, this isn't sort of a good sevara but the gezeiras hakatuv is that you're not supposed to do it. No, the Rambam attributes... And that's the same as what we have here in the Perush Hamishnayos that the Rambam says no, sechel, uncorrupted sechel, sechel that's not corrupted, sechel that's not looking for excuses and not looking to rationalize and not looking to make things easy, not looking for shortcuts, uncorrupted sechel recognizes that the reality is that everything is nothing vis-a-vis Hakadosh Baruch Hu, Ein Od Milvado, and that's where the mashal falls apart, right? The mashal of the Secretary of State to the President, to the ranking officers of the king. So there's a tzushtel between the ranking officers and the king. But there's no tzushtel between anything. הוא לבדו מצוי ואין מצוי אחר לבדו. הוא שהתורה אמרה:
Ein Od Milvado. So sechel says that the absoluteness and exclusiveness of Hakadosh Baruch Hu has to be reflected in avodah. And it's not an innocent mistake, it's da'atam hara'ah, and that's what the Rambam has in the Yad, and that's the similar one doesn't even need, one doesn't need the posuk in Chumash to understand Issur Avodah Zarah. והמתנבא בשם השם נחלק גם כן לשני חלקים. החלק הראשון שהמתנבא בשם השם בקורא להאמין בו ומזרז בעבודתו ואומר שהשם הוסיף על המצוה מצוה או גרע מהן מצוה מכל המצוות הנכללות בספר התורה, ואין חילוק בין שיוסיף ויגרע בכתובים או שיוסיף ויגרע בפירוש המקובל.
So maybe let's just reread that one sentence: ואומר שהשם הוסיף על המצוה מצוה או גרע מהן מצוה מכל המצוות הנכללות בספר התורה.
What's the, Duvid, what's your translation there? בין שיוסיף ויגרע בכתובים או שיוסיף ויגרע בפירוש המקובל. Right before that, right before that. So what's the previous sentence? ואומר שהשם הוסיף על המצוה מצוה או גרע מהן מצוה מכל המצוות אשר כללותן ספר התורה.
Okay, basically the same. So itochen that there's a diyuk here that there is an implication in the following. If you take a look in the first volume of the Yortzeit Shiurim, I think the shiur is entitled Kavod V'oneg, be'inyan Kavod V'oneg. The Rav comments on the difference in leshonos in the Rambam. If you take a look in Perek Lamed of Hilchos Shabbos, Halacha Aleph, so the Rambam has as follows: ארבעה דברים נאמרו בשבת: שנים בתורה ושנים מדברי סופרים. והן מפורשין על ידי הנביאים.
Shebatorah Zachor V'shamor, ושנתפרשו על ידי הנביאים, Kavod V'oneg, שנאמר וקראת לשבת עונג לקדוש ה' מכובד. So the Rambam describes Kavod V'oneg as מפורשין על ידי הנביאים or similarly נתפרשו על ידי הנביאים. נביאים. In beginning of Hilchos Megilla, קריאת המגילה בזמנו מצוות עשה מדברי סופרים והדברים ידועים שהיא תקנת הנביאים.
Not that nitparasha, not mefurashin bidvaray hanevi'im, not nitparasha en hanevi'im, but takanas hanevi'im. So what's the difference between those two leshonos? So the Rav says that takanas hanevi'im means that the way the mitzva midevatan sofrim of Krias HaMegilla was introduced was that the Sanhedrin, which included nevi'im, Mordechai uveis dino, were made a takana, they were omed leminyan, they they have the koach to to do that and they introduced, they made a takana, takanas hanevi'im. So the Rav says something which I don't know at first seems to be a chidush atzum, he he doesn't think it's a chidush atzum. He thinks it's pashut that kavod ve'oneg, he said, there never was, the Sanhedrin never voted on kavod ve'oneg. He said the chiyuv kavod ve'oneg emerged just from nevuas Yeshayahu. Aye, heichani osa such a thing, lo bashamayim hi, אלה המצוות אשר ציווה השם את משה, אלה המצוות אין נביא רשאי לחדש דבר מעתה,
again ma'amor that the Rambam is about to quote that he quotes in Yesodei HaTorah as well. So the Rav says no, אלה המצוות שאין נביא רשאי לחדש דבר מעתה means and to say that it's part of mitzvos haTorah. But to say al pi nevuah that there's a lesser chiyuv, not that this is now appended to, added to the Torah. No, it's not. The Torah is is chasum vesasum from the time Moshe Rabbeinu gave us the Torah, לא תוסיף עליו ולא תגרע ממנו. But the same way you can have a derabanan and that doesn't constitute bal toseif, it doesn't introduce, doesn't constitute bal toseif again because it's clearly delineated as derabanan and it's there to to be mechazek something in the Torah. So the same thing can happen as a result of divrei nevi'im. The Rav says that the mechayev of Krias HaMegilla was a takanas Sanhedrin and that's why the Rambam uses the lashon takanas hanevi'im. הנביאים מרדכי ובית דינו, Mordechai, Mordechai haya navi, anshe knesses hagedola. Mah she'ein ken kavod ve'oneg, the mechayev was nevuas Yeshayahu. Because אלה המצוות שאין נביא רשאי לחדש דבר מעתה means on the level of of d'oraysa to add it to to the Torah. But on a lesser level, on a level let's say that that we'll group it with with derabanans, so that nevuah can serve as as a source for for such a such a chiyuv. So yitachen in light of of that that mahalach in the Yartzeit shiur, ve'tu that the the divrei nevuah comply with both of the Rambam's conditions for why derabanans don't constitute bal toseif. Number one, it's clearly delineated as such. No, this is not de'oraysa. This is not Yeshayahu HaNavi adding on to Toras Moshe. There's an absolute distinction between the two. And number two, that's what the Rav goes on in that shiur to explain that kavod ve'oneg are not sort of new independent mitzvos but just like all mitzvos derabanan that are there to foster to facilitate vechulu mitzvos haTorah, that's what that's the relationship between kavod ve'oneg and the d'oraysas of zachor veshamor. So yitachen in light of of that Yartzeit shiur, so what the Rambam says here is very very meduyak. That the navi comes again, this would be a נביא מתנבא בשם השם who's a navi sheker, right, who's a navi sheker. That the navi comes and says that השם הוסיף על המצווה מצווה או גרע מהן מצוות מכלל המצוות הנכללות בספר תורה,
ve'hosafa again assuming the nechlalos besefer Torah is modifying both of the gira'on and and the hosafa, that the navi alleges that Hakadosh Baruch Hu said this is now... An addendum to the Torah or this is now a deletion from the Torah. But if the navi comes and says the chiyuv of kavod v'oneg, not, not as an addendum to the Torah, so that's not an example of misnabi b'shem Hashem that the Rambam is going to say be'hemshech that that we know that he's a navi sheker and and that he's chayav misa. Okay, we'll, we'll stop.