Transcript

The Rambam in the end of Perek Zayin explains when the mitzvah of elov tishmoun sets in, that the mitzvah sets in if you have someone who matches the description which he's given in the beginning of Perek Zayin of a person who would be rau'i lenivua. A person comes and performs an os vmofes and then and on the heels of that os vmofes tells us, brings us a message from Hakadosh Boruch Hu, so then there is a mitzvah of elov tishmoun. Then the Rambam has a famous moshal, he repeats it again in Perek Ches, just a good yediyah to have. He says lav davka that based on the os vmofes the Torah is guaranteeing us that with absolute certainty that this person is a navi emes. No, the Torah is saying this is the mitzvah. The mitzvah is that on the human level, the best you can do, the standard to which you should hold yourself on the human level is if you have a person who's rau'i lenivua, he matches the, he has the profile of a navi. And then he performs an os vmofes, so then the Torah says that there's a mitzvah to listen. Itochen that with all that, it may not be true. And the Rambam gives a moshal

שבכך נצטווינו כמו שנצטווינו לחתוך הדין על פי שני עדים כשרים. ואף על פי שאפשר שהעידו בשקר.

It's not that the Torah is telling us that there's a guarantee that if these eidum are ksheirim and drishah vechakirah, it's a guarantee that no ed sheker will slip through the cracks. It will happen. But that's the din. The din is you do your best and you didn't pick up on it. It didn't seem to be a din merumeh here, so then you do it. The Rambam in Ches Beis repeats the moshal again.

נמצא אומר שכל נביא שיעמוד אחר משה רבינו איננו מאמינים בו מפני האות לבדו.

We're not believing based on the os because the os could be, could not be for real.

אלא מפני המצוה שצונו משה בתורה ואמר אם נתן אות אליו תשמעון כמו שצונו לחתוך הדבר על פי שני עדים ואף על פי שאין אנו יודעים אם אמת העידו אם שקר.

Okay.

פרק ח' הלכה א'. משה רבינו לא האמינו בו ישראל מפני האותות שעשה.

Why?

שהמאמין על פי האותות יש בלבו דופי שאפשר שיעשה האות בלט וכישוף. אלא כל האותות שעשה משה במדבר לפי הצורך עשאן. לא להביא ראיה על הנבואה. צורך להשקיע את המצרים קרע את הים והצלילם בו. צרכנו למזון הוריד לנו את המן. צמאו בקע להם את האבן. כפרו בעדת קרח בלעה אותם הארץ וכן שאר כל האותות. ובמה האמינו בו במעמד סיני שעינינו ראו ולא זר ואזנינו שמעו ולא אחר. האש והקולות והלפידים והוא נגש אל הערפל והקול מדבר אליו ואנו שומעים משה משה לך אמור להם כך וכך. וכן הוא אומר פנים בפנים דבר ה' עמכם ונאמר לא את אבותינו כרת ה' את הברית הזאת. ומנין שבמעמד סיני לבדו היא הראיה לנבואתו שהיא אמת שאין בה דופי שנאמר הנה אנכי בא אליך בעב הענן בעבור ישמע העם בדברי עמך וגם בך יאמינו לעולם. מכלל שקודם דבר זה לא האמינו בו נאמנות שעומדת לעולם אלא נאמנות שיש אחריה הרהור ומחשבה.

So we don't believe in Moshe Rabbeinu, not because of Krias Yam Suf or anything else, but because of Maamad Sinai. Because by Maamad Sinai עינינו ראו ולא זר ואזנינו שמעו ולא אחר. The pshat in the Rambam here in the Yad sheloke divrav in the Moreh is that here the Rambam holds like the Ran says in the Drashos, like the Malbim says in Chumash, that by Maamad Sinai kol Yisroel had nevuah. The Malbim describes that one of the absolutely incomparable and miracles of Maamad Sinai was the fact that gantz kol Yisroel, despite the fact that they weren't all on a madreiga that they should be rau'i lenivua, all had nevuah. And the reason for the nevuah was precisely for this, was that that way this gave us the direct foundation for. And for that reason, Hakadosh Baruch Hu gave nevuah to all of Klal Yisrael at Maamad Har Sinai. That's the simple reading of the Rambam here, and yitachen that's the mahalach he has in Peirush Hamishnayos as well, again, that עינינו ראו ולא זר אזנינו שמעו ולא אחר sounds like on the level of on the level of nevuah. And then that's where the Rambam goes on to say and once once our belief in nevuas Moshe Rabbeinu is grounded, so then the Torah says what the basis is for believing in other nevi'im, elav tishma'un. Okay. Now a little bit here in perek tes. דבר ברור ומפורש בתורה halacha aleph פרק ט הלכה א דבר ברור ומפורש בתורה שהיא meaning the Torah is mitzvah

עומדת לעולם ולעולמי עולמים אין לה לא שינוי ולא גירעון ולא תוספת שנאמר את כל הדבר אשר אנכי מצוה אתכם אותו תשמרו לעשות לא תוסף עליו ולא תגרע ממנו ונאמר והנגלות לנו ולבנינו עד עולם לעשות את כל דברי התורה הזאת הא למדת שכל דברי תורה מצווים אנו לעשותן עד עולם וכן הוא אומר חוקת עולם לדורותיכם ונאמר לא בשמים היא הא למדת שאין נביא רשאי לחדש דבר מעתה.

In halacha dalet the Rambam elaborates this

וכן אם עקר דבר מדברים שלמדנו מפי השמועה או שאמר בדין מדיני התורה שהשם ציווה לו שהדין כך שהדין כך הוא והלכה כדברי פלוני הרי זה נביא שקר ויחנק אף על פי שעשה אות שהרי בא להכחיש תורה שאמרה לא בשמים היא.

So lo bashamayim hi according to the Rambam's understanding precludes not only a 614th mitzvah not only reducing it to 612 not only changing a prat of the mitzvah the tefillin don't have to be black but even for a navi to come and say that in the machlokes Shach and Taz this is the hachra'ah this is the you should follow this opinion you should follow that opinion

או שאמר בדין מדיני התורה שהשם ציווה לו שהדין כך הוא

the din is with the Shach the din is with the Taz vahalacha kedivrei ploni

הרי זה נביא שקר ויחנק אף על פי שעשה אות.

So the Kesef Mishneh here has a tzarich iyun Tosafos in a few places deals with the stira in Gemoras that in the Gemora in Eruvin so the bas kol tells us we pasken like Beis Hillel and we follow that bas kol. Not clear where the remez in the bas kol is. Tosafos in Sukkah quotes that from a Ramban Gaon that there were six exceptions of six places where we follow Beis Shammai. Question is where exactly is that nirmaz in the bas kol? Okay that's a tzarich iyun. But be that as it may, so the Gemora in Eruvin says that we pasken like Beis Hillel based on the bas kol. The Gemora in Bava Metzia says that ein mashgichin bevas kol which is why by the tannur shel achnai we continued to reject Rabbi Eliezer's opinion. So Tosafos says why is that? Tosafos gives two answers. One answer is that the bas kol of Rabbi Eliezer לא יצאה אלא לכבודו because Rabbi Eliezer invited the bas kol. Rabbi Eliezer says im halacha kamani so the ruchus yochichu and the כותלי בית המדרש יוכיחו so he invited the bas kol. invited it, invited it, so the bas kol was just being polite. The bas kol didn't really think we pasken like Rabbi Eliezer, but you have to be even if you're a bas kol, you have to be polite. Okay. And then Tosafot gives another teretz, Tosafot says no, the bas kol of Rabbi Eliezer was going against the Torah because יחיד ורבים הלכה כרבים. The bas kol of Beis Hillel and Beis Shammai wasn't going against the divrei Torah because the whole standoff between Beis Hillel and Beis Shammai was it wasn't clear. On the one hand, numerically Beis Hillel were the majority. On the other hand, Beis Shammai were mechudad tfei, so it wasn't clear whether or not their chiddud tfei overrides acharei rabbim lehatos. So here the bas kol wasn't coming to go against a din midinei Torah, it was being meva'er a din midinei Torah. So Tosafot indicates, Tosafot in a few places indicates

והיא בת קול שהייתה כנגד רבים אין הלכה אבל כבת קול דבית הלל קיימא לן משום דהיו בית הלל רובא אלא דבית שמאי מחדדי טפי

and the bas kol was just weighing in on that shaila. It wasn't going against, but it was being meva'er something in dinei Torah. So that's what the Kessef Mishneh here asks that the Rambam's presentation of lo bashamayim hi certainly precludes any input from the bas kol. Aval kashye li says the Kessef Mishneh

דאמרינן בפרק קמא דיבמות דיצאה בת קול לומר שהלכה כבית הלל וקיימא לן הכי בכל דוכתא והתוספות שם בפרק הזהב נתנו טעם לדבר ואינו עולה כפי דעת רבנו וצריך עיון

and that's what the Kessef Mishneh writes. So the Ohr Sameach has a very very nice teretz on this kashye of the Kessef Mishneh. The Ohr Sameach says that the bas kol didn't come and comment on the particulars of all the machlokasim of Beis Hillel and Beis Shammai. It didn't comment on what beshachbecha uvkumecha means. It didn't say the emes is that beshachbecha means when you're actually lying down and uvkumecha means when you're actually standing standing up. No, it just said you should follow Beis Hillel. You should follow Beis Hillel. It wasn't being meva'er. The Rambam says that if the bas kol will come, if a navi will come, you'll get some input min hashamayim to say that hadin kach hu and then וממילא והלכה כדברי פלוני meaning that the Ktzos got it right. His havana was better than the Nesivos's havana, and that's why halacha kmoiso. The bas kol made no such claim. The bas kol just said do like this, do like this, do like this. It wasn't being meva'er a din midinei Torah. Ay, but the bas kol seems to give reasons, right?

שהן נוחין ועלובים שונין דבריהם ודברי בית שמאי ולא עוד אלא שמקדימין דברי בית שמאי לדבריהם

so ela mai according to so isn't that a shtickle kashye on the Ohr Sameach? Isn't the bas kol sort of telling us what a klal in hachra'ah is? Maybe it's not telling us a din midinei Torah on what beshachbecha uvkumecha means, but isn't it telling us a din midinei Torah on klalei hachra'ah if you have two rabbonim who basically seem shaveh bshaveh, who are machulak on a din, so look and see who's more noach, who's more aluv, who שונה דבריו ודברי חברו וכולו? So isn't that a shtickle kashye? So ela mai, let's say the Rambam doesn't quote those as klalei hachra'ah. Right? The Rambam doesn't, or even when when the Gemara in Avodah Zarah tells us when you have two chachamim,

אחד מטמא אחד מטהר, אחד הוא אוסר ואחד הוא מתיר,

so the Baraisa in Avodah Zarah doesn't invoke this. So aderaba, so hi hanotenet, that's what according to the Ohr Sameach, what the bas kol said takeh these aren't klalim ldoros in hachra'ah. It's not true in hachra'ah that the halacha whenever you have a machlokes haposkim we're going to look to see who made more of a habit of being שונה דבריו ודברי חברו. Were that the case, so then it would have been the same problem, we couldn't have accepted the bas kol on that either. If we do, it won't be al pi the bas kol. If you're going to say that ich vays that that that anaveh you can say it al pi perek kinyan Torah, you can say... but takke not al pi the bas kol. The bas kol is not telling us what beshochkebacha uvekumecha means. It's not even telling us klalei hadin. It's not telling us any din in dinei Torah. It's telling us, "Do like that." So that, the Rambam's Lavo Shomayim, he doesn't preclude. Okay. So al kol panim, the Rambam's shita in Lavo Shomayim he, again, basically precludes any input in even being meva'er dinei Torah. Tosafos's understanding of Lavo Shomayim he doesn't. Tosafos says Lavo Shomayim means it can't go against anything which has already been nisgalu. There can't be any revisions. There can't be any overrides. Okay. The Rambam in פרק ט הלכה ג quotes the following din from the Gemara in Yevamos.

וכן אם יאמר לנו הנביא שנודע לנו שהוא נביא לעבור על אחת מכל מצות האמורות בתורה או על מצות הרבה בין קלות בין חמורות לפי שעה מצוה לשמוע לו. וכן למדנו מחכמים הראשונים מפי השמועה בכל אם יאמר לך הנביא עבור על דברי תורה כאליהו בהר הכרמל שמע לו חוץ מעבודה זרה והוא שיהיה הדבר לפי שעה כגון אליהו בהר הכרמל שהקריב עולה בחוץ וירושלים נבחרה והמקריב בחוץ חייב כרת ומפני שהוא נביא מצוה לשמוע לו וגם בזה נאמר אליו תשמעון. ואילו שאלו את אליהו ואמרו לו נעקר מה שכתוב בתורה פן תעלה עולותיך בכל מקום אשר תראה היה אומר לא אלא המקריב בחוץ לעולם חייב כרת כמו שצוה משה אבל אני היום אקריב בחוץ בדבר השם כדי להכחיש נביאי הבעל ועל דרך זאת אם ציוו כל הנביאים לעבור לפי שעה מצוה לשמוע להם ואם אמרו שהדבר נעקר לעולם מיתתם בחנק שהתורה אמרה לנו ולבנינו עד עולם.

So the mitzvas asei of living, listening to the novi of eilav tishme'un includes within it, Chazal say, if the novi tells us al pi nevu'ah lesha'ah to be over even bekum va'asei on a mitzvas HaTorah, on a mitzvas HaTorah. Now here, lichora, there is within this din of eilav tishme'un, or at least within this application of the din, you also have a machlokes in the Rishonim. The Gemara in Yevamos on daf tzadik in the sugya of יש כח ביד חכמים לעקור דבר מן התורה. So the Gemara has come to the maskana which we know, that בשב ואל תעשה yes, bekum va'asei no. That the יש כח ביד חכמים is the, "Don't take the lulav on Shabbos, don't blow shofar on Shabbos," but they can't tell us kum echol neveila. Fine. So the Gemara says,

תא שמע אליו תשמעון אפילו אמר לך עבור על אחת מכל מצות שבתורה כגון אליהו בהר הכרמל הכל לפי שעה שמע לו.

So don't you see that there's a din even bekum va'asei? The example of Eliyahu b'Har HaCarmel is to be over on a mitzvas HaTorah even bekum va'asei. So isn't it true that the yesh koach is not only בשב ואל תעשה, even bekum va'asei? Answers the Gemara, no, שאני התם דכתיב אליו תשמעון. Then the Gemara says, veligmar minei. Gemara answers, migdar milsa shani. Dehainu, there's a difference between a syag, we're afraid שמא יעבירנו ד' אמות ברשות הרבים, so therefore we're going to make a gezeira, we're going to make a gezeira not to blow shofar on Shabbos. Migdar milsa as opposed to where there's already a problem that the, that the people are so parutz in avoda zara and they're so aduk in, in the avoda zara Baal, so that's already migdar milsa, right? That's more than just the, the normal type of syag. So that's what the Gemara answers, that yes, you can do it bekum va'asei lesha'ah for migdar milsa, but the type of gezeiros that you make ledoros of shema yavirenu, so that's only בשב ואל תעשה. But the Gemara is very strange here. The Gemara says that again tashma, Eliyahu tashma, afilu omer l'cha

עבור על אחת מכל מצות שבתורה כגון אליהו בהר הכרמל הכל לפי שעה שמע לו שנאמר אליו תשמעון.

So what does the Gemara go on to ask v'ligma minei? The Torah said you can do something al pi navi, so why does that make you think you should be able to do it שלא על פי נביא? Because again, the medubar in the sugya is what's the koach of chachamim. Exactly what can the chachamim instruct us to do what not. So what do you mean v'ligma minei? So Tosafos asks a kashya, and Tosafos says

אם תאמר שאני התם דעל פי הדבור היה מתנבא לעבור והיכי נגמר מיניה לעבור משום תקנתא דרבנן שלא על פי הדבור.

What kind of kashya is that? Since a navi can tell you, since a navi can tell you, so memila the chachamim can tell you. What kind of kashya is that? A navi can tell you al pi nevuah lots of things that a person can't tell you שלא על פי נבואה. V'nireh Tosafos answers

דכיון דעל פי הדבור שרי משום צורך שעה הוא הדין שלא על פי הדבור שהרי אין נביא רשאי לחדש דבר מעתה כדנפקא במגילה מקרא.

Tosafos gives a very interesting answer, and lichora the p'shat is that the answer is l'shitasam. And lichora what Tosafos is saying is as follows. Eilav tishme'un for Tosafos is not an exception to lo bashamayim hi, to אלה המצות שאין נביא רשאי לחדש דבר מעתה. Eilav tishme'un is not an exception to that. Eilav tishme'un just says that whenever a navi says something which he has the authority to say, and he doesn't have the authority to encroach on אין נביא רשאי לחדש דבר. Whenever he says something that he has the authority to say, so then eilav tishme'un. So if a navi can tell you l'tzorech sha'ah to be over divrei Torah, it must be that a chacham can do the same thing al pi chochmato. Because again, Tosafos unlike, Tosafos is making two assumptions. Not conceptually but practically obviously linked. A, that eilav tishme'un isn't an exception to lo bashamayim hi, that's how Chazal understand the pasuk. It's not an exception. And that lo bashamayim hi doesn't totally preclude a navi al pi nevuato from having any part in משא ומתן של הלכה. It just says that again, that he can't go against divrei Torah. But whatever a chacham al pi chochmato can do in משא ומתן של הלכה, whatever a beis din al pi chochmasam can do, so then a navi can do al pi nevuato. So according to Tosafos, so the p'shat Gemara is very good. So the Gemara is saying I understand that we have to listen to the navi because of eilav tishme'un, but why could the navi say it in the first place? What authority does the navi have to say it in the first place? When it comes to divrei Torah, a navi can only say al pi nevuah what a chacham can say al pi chochmah. If a navi al pi nevuato can tell you to be over shechutei chutz b'Har haCarmel, so vaist os that a chacham al pi chochmah can do the same, and therefore v'ligma minei. And the Gemara's answer is ein hachi nami, you're right that a chacham al pi chochmah can do it, but again he, just as the navi al pi nevuato, can only do it l'migdar milsa, only when there is a problem with the people being aduk in the avodah zarah Baal, so then you can even have a hora'at sha'ah of kum v'aseh. So the Tosafos here basically is l'shitasam in the Tosafos by the bas kol, dehainu that they're assuming that lo bashamayim hi allows for a navi to take part al pi nevuato in משא ומתן של הלכה to whatever degree the chacham can al pi chochmato. That, plus they're assuming that Chazal understand that eilav tishme'un is not an exception. It's not a katuv hamach-chesh, it's not a yotzei min haklal in lo bashamayim hi. So memila they say that's how the Gemara reads, and the Gemara reads very well. Heios that the navi al pi nevuato can tell you to be over l'fi sha'ah afilu b'kum v'aseh, that must mean that a chacham can do it al pi chochmah as well, because that's what the hagdarah of lo bashamayim hi is, that the navi al pi nevuato can participate in משא ומתן של הלכה. the same way the chacham can al pi chachmaso. And that's what the bas kol was. The bas kol was giving us heveisa klal hachra'ah. The bas kol was telling us it or what it was telling us how you whether a little bit more mechudad whether or not that overrides the din of acharei rabbim lehattos. So the shayla is clearly according to the Rambam, elav tishmoun has to be understood as giving an exception to lo bashamayim hi. The lo bashamayim hi basically says that a navi the only thing the navi says about divrei Torah is he's metzaveh us and he's mezarez us to keep divrei Torah. Elav tishmoun comes and gives one exception. Right? כך למדנו מחכמים הראשונים מפי השמועה that it's mipi hashemuah that elav tishmoun carves out one exception to the rule of lo bashamayim hi, which is that למיגדר מילתא לפי שעה a navi can say something. The shayla is ei bazoi, so what was the what's the Gemara's veligmar mineih? Tosfos's kasha then is chozer vene'or. If again the way Tosfos learned pshat elav tishmoun isn't an exception to lo bashamayim hi, so then the Gemara reads it perfectly smoothly. But according to the Rambam that elav tishmoun is an exception, so then elav tishmoun means again, there's no indication here automatically that whatever the navi's doing al pi nevuaso the chacham can do al pi chachmaso, because generally the navi al pi nevuaso can't even do what a chacham can do al pi chachmaso. He can't even say whose tefillin you think we should be wearing. So clearly this is just a special din by nevuah. So the Shoshan Melech talks about the kasha. He suggests that what the Gemara means by veligmar mineih perhaps is the following: Ein hachi nami elav tishmoun now gives the navi a right, again, despite the otherwise blanket prohibition of lo bashamayim hi, gives him a right, again, לפי שעה למיגדר מילתא, lemigdar milsa. So what's the veligmar mineih? Well, heyos that by chachamim there is על פי התורה אשר יורוך, so there too, again, it's an authority, a source of authority to whom we're bound to listen, so the same way we should say that the authority of the navi that it encompasses למיגדר מילתא לפי שעה, it should that should be a binyan av for the authority of the chachamim which is backed by על פי התורה אשר יורוך. Okay. I just wanted to one more... maybe next time.