The devarim continues after the petira of Moshe Rabbeinu we have the hakdama of the Rambam on Perek Gimmel, the right hand column: כאשר מת עליו השלום וכבר מסר ליהושע הפירושים שניתנו לו ועסקו בהם יהושע ואנשי דורו וכל מה שקיבל ממנו הוא או אחד הזקנים אין בו משא ומתן ולא נפלה בו מחלוקת.
Whatever there was a kabbalah on from Moshe Rabbeinu, they had nothing to discuss. ומה שלא שמעו מן הנביא עליו השלום יש בסעיפיו משא ומתן.
But what they didn't have a kabbalah on from Moshe Rabbeinu, so there there was room for discussion, for potential for discussion and debate. ונלמד בו הדין בדרכי העיון ובשלש עשרה המידות שניתנו לו בסיני והן י"ג מידות שהתורה נדרשת בהן.
This is another example of what we spoke about last week in terms of the mitzvot Talmud Torah and differences between what it was, what it is. Mitzvot Talmud Torah, again I think Rav Yaakov talks about this also in that same piece, so in the tekufah through Chazal was basically applying to a large extent was applying the י"ג מידות שהתורה נדרשת בהן and eliciting from the psukim. Subsequently, the way we deal with newly arising shailos is not through yud gimmel middos, but is rather through medame milsa l'milsa, no longer through drashos. I think the Chazon Ish has a comment along these lines. The Chazon Ish says that the Gemara says that the six thousand years that the world exists, the first two thousand are tohu vavohu, the next two thousand are the era of Torah, and the last two millennia are yemos haMashiach. So what does that mean? What's all the seforim, all the chiddushim, everything that's being written in the last two millennia is not Torah? Torah ended the year four thousand from the briya. I think the cheshbon is that the year four thousand is around the time of chasimas hamishnah. I think the cheshbon comes out around seventeen hundred, close to seventeen hundred and seventy years ago was more or less around the time of chasimas hamishnah. So I think the Chazon Ish says no, that what that Gemara is saying is not that chas v'shalom that we're not learning and what the Chachamim for the past seventeen hundred plus years is telling us is not Torah, chas v'shalom, but rather that until that point, meaning the Torah was being generated again from the Torah she'b'ksav, it was more and more was being generated. And then the transition became that we now deal with the case we had occasion to mention Rav Shlomo Zalman's teshuva about the electric lights. So Rav Shlomo Zalman didn't get a handle on that question by darshening something with י"ג מידות שהתורה נדרשת בהן, but he darshened from the sugya of gacheles shel mateches, that type of sevara of medame milsa l'milsa. But initially, the ikar isuk in Torah was in applying the yud gimmel middos. And that's what the Rambam describes, that's what they were doing. ונלמד בו הדין בדרכי העיון ובשלש עשרה המידות שניתנו לו בסיני והן י"ג מידות שהתורה נדרשת בהן ומאותן הדברים למדו.
Everyone agreed that this is the way the pasuk should be darshuned and this is the din that emerges based on the drash ומהם שנפלה בהם מחלוקת בין שתי דעות זה דן בדין ונתחזק אצלו וזה דן בדין ונתחזק אצלו לפי שדרכי ההיקש הוויכוחיים יקרו בתוצאותם המקרים האלו
because there is room for difference of opinion וכשנפלה בהם המחלוקת הזאת הולכים אחר רבים כמאמר הכתוב אחרי רבים להטות.
Formerly, the din of acharei rabbim lehatos is only when you have a moshav beis din. The din that you follow the rov is when there's a moshav beis din and you're omed laminyan. The fact that the Mishna Berura in Biur Halacha when he's being machria on a shaila will often tell you, well, if you look, you'll see that the rov Rishonim hold this way and not that way is not technically binding מדין אחרי רבים להטות. Acharei rabbim lehatos means when when everyone is everyone's together and they're omed laminyan. So again, whether it's a din of rov in terms of איש פלוני אתה זכאי איש פלוני אתה חייב or whether it's in terms of being mevaer what the what the din is, what the drasha should be. So that's why lav davka that that that is absolutely the last word in terms of psak halacha because it's not technically the din of acharei rabbim lehatos. The other reason why not all poskim necessarily defer to that way of being machria is because let's say on a specific shaila you look and you have seven Rishonim on this side and you have three Rishonim on the other side. And then there's another twenty Rishonim you don't know what they said on the subject, which also detracts somewhat from the again even informal use of the rov. Okay. Fine. ודע שהנבואה לא תועיל בעיון בפירושי התורה ובמידות הדין ביג מידות
that in משא ומתן של הלכה in Torah nevuah plays no role אלא מה שיעשה יהושע ופנחס בענייני העיון והדין הוא מה שיעשה רבינא ורב אשי.
Yehoshua and Pinchas only have standing as chachmei hamasora. The fact that they were neviim didn't give them any extra or any extra added any any extra standing because nevuah is totally totally irrelevant to the משא ומתן של הלכה אבל לשאלת מהו יתרון הנביא ופעולתו במצוות הרי הוא חי נפשי מן היסודות הגדולים והעצומים שעליהם משען הדת ויסודו.
So understanding what the role of nevuah is and what the role of nevuah isn't, says the Rambam, pertains to the yesodos of Torah and bli neder as as we progress, im yirtzeh Hashem, so we'll see that lichora it certainly touches upon what the Rambam has in mind when he talks about the uniqueness of nevuas Moshe Rabbeinu and that Torah is only given through Moshe Rabbeinu. And that's why the Rambam says this actually pertains to the understanding what the role of nevuah is and isn't pertains to the yud-gimmel ikkarim in terms of in terms of Torah being davka al yedei nevuas Moshe Rabbeinu. Again, be'arichus bli neder we'll come to it. ונראה לי שכאן ראוי לי לבאר היסוד הזה ואין הדבר אפשרי אלא אחר חלוקת הנביאים טועני הנבואה
who have nevuah, literally who bear nevuah, who carry nevuah, perek katan and ubameh tis'ames hanevuah because that also is yesod gadol. How a navi establishes his credentials, Rambam says that's also of fundamental importance. Again, we'll see bli neder what he has in mind. והוא שהם חושבים שלא תאמת נבואת המתנבא אלא עד שיעשה אות כאות מאותות משה רבינו וישנה הטבע בהחלט כמו שעשה אליהו שהחיה בן אשת אלמנה או כמפורסם מאותות אלישע.
Has to perform an amazing miracle. זה יסוד בלתי נכון, not true. ולפי שכל המופתים שעשה אליהו ואלישע וזולתם מהנביאים לא עשו אותם כדי לאמת נבואתם כי כבר נתאמתה נבואתם לפני כן.
They were already bechezkat navi at that point. ולא עשו אותם הנפלאות אלא מפני שהוצרכו להם. Miracles are done, the Rambam writes the same thing in Yesodei HaTorah about Moshe Rabbeinu as well, that miracles are done on a per need basis. They're performed in response to need, not to establish the credentials of the navi. ובגלל קרבתם לפני השם יתעלה מילאו רצונם כמו שהובטחו הצדיקים ותגזר אומר ויקם לך. אולם תאמת הנבואה במה שכתבתי בדברים אלו שהתחלתי.
Veomer techilah, first we have to talk about different what the content of nevuah is. טעוני הנבואה נחלקים תחילה לשני חלקים מתנבא בשם עבודה זרה ומתנבא בשם השם. והנבואה בשם עבודה זרה נחלקת לשני חלקים. החלק הראשון שיקום נביא ויאמר שכוכב פלוני השפיע עלי רוחניותו ואמר לי עבדוני בכך או דרשוני בכך. וכן אם קרא לעבוד פסל או צורה מן הצורות ואמר שהוא ניבא אותי בכך והודיעני בכך וציווני להזהיר על עבודתו באופן פלוני כמו שהיו עושים נביאי הבעל נביאי האשרה.
So the first type of misnabe be'avodah zarah is he claims that the source for his nevuah other than Hakadosh Baruch Hu, that the star, the idol, whatever it is, sent me a nevuah. That's the first type of מתנבא בשם עבודה זרה. והחלק השני שיאמר חזון נראה אלי מהשם לעבוד עבוד פלוני,
where he alleges and attributes the nevuah to Hakadosh Baruch Hu but says that the content of Hakadosh Baruch Hu's nevuah was to tell him that he should communicate a tzivui that people should engage in acts of avodah vis-a-vis some something in the world. The definition of the Rambam says the definition of acts of avodah zarah is when a person does an act of avodah, an act of worship, which is to a davar hanivra. If you have something which is nivra, which is created, and a person directs an act of avodah, of worship, towards that davar hanivra, so that's avodah zarah. Either if it's one of the dalet avodos that the Torah lists, meaning even if it's lo kedarkah, even if that avodah zarah doesn't have a handbook which says that you engage in hishtachavayah or nisuch or haktarah or zivuach. Those are the dalet avodos for which a person is chayav even shelo kedarkah, so then that's avodah zarah, or whatever the handbook says, or if it's kedarkah. So if a person is oved a davar hanivra, so then that is avodah zarah. I think the Chazon Ish writes mitzad ha'ma'aseh, not discussing now the kefira-dik belief that would underlie the act. If a person would engage in an act of avodah to something imaginary, mitzad ha'ma'aseh it wouldn't be avodah zarah. משל למה הדבר דומה, the well-read will know that Linus believes in the big pumpkin I think. So if a person will engage in an act of avodah, maybe it's the Great Pumpkin I think it is. If he'll engage in an act of avodah klapei the Great Pumpkin, so then that's not avodah zarah. the kfiradike belief, but mitzad the action, mitzad, could you give him hasra'ah and could you give him misas beis din if he tells you that he's about to be mishtachaveh to the Great Pumpkin, so the Chazon Ish says that's not avoda zara. The definition of avoda zara is that it's klapei a davar hanivra. I'm sorry? Wasn't there a baraita? Wasn't that a baraita? So wouldn't that include the majority of atheism and like paganism? No, they're bowing to the sun and to the moon. To like gods, to like Venus and Mars and I don't know what, they don't, just like these mythological beings. Again so kol zman that again kol zman that it's not associated with either a kochav, shemesh, yareiach or the daled yesodos מים רוח אש עפר kol zman that it's not associated with that and there's no physical representation of a pesel, ein hachi nami, so the Chazon Ish says mitzad the act, he's not talking about the belief, he's not sanitizing the kfiradike belief but he says mitzad the action ad kedei kach that he says the only reason if someone is bowing down to oso ha'ish that that remains an act of avoda zara is because the nefesh is still being nidonim b'gehinom and that's why it remains something real a davar hanivra. He says otherwise the act wouldn't have been bazman hazeh wouldn't have been an act of avoda zara. But the guy that's bowing to the pesel as a pesel, as the pesel is added, the pesel is representative of some god or I don't know something like that. I mean that's true but again I'm not sure that's true but I think if I'm not mistaken the pshat in the idol you know in terms of what the ovdei avoda zara believe is not stam that this is a symbol and therefore you know the ritual is that in the you know that the symbol should be in the room when when the act of avoda is engaged in that's not the pshat there is something more the significance that that is attached to that physical representation is more and I think that's what crosses the line and and why it does become why that is considered avoda vis-a-vis a davar hanivra. Okay fine so hachelek hasheini is שיאמר חזון נראה אלי מהשם לעבוד נעבד פלוני ולהוריד רוחניות פלונית באופן פלוני ויאמר אופן מאופני העבודה והמעשים שעושים אנשי אותו הסוג כפי הכללים הידועים בתורתנו.
Again that's what we just reviewed about the daled avodos for which you're chayav even shelo kedarko or every avoda zara kedarko. הרי גם זה מתנבא בשם עבודה זרה. Again even though he's attributing right rachmana litzlan he's attributing that nevuah to Hashem but it's מתנבא בשם עבודה זרה in the name of for the sake of avoda zara. לפי ששם זה כולל האומר שהיא בעצמה צותה על עבודתה או באיזה דבר שיהיה או האומר שהשם צוה לעבוד איזה נברא.
Again there's the right there's the definition of avoda zara to be oved a davar hanivra. וכי נשמע מהמתנבא אחת משתי הנבואות האלה ונתקיימה עליו העדות כפי דין תורה הרי דינו שימות בחנק.
k’mo she’amar Yisaleh והנביא ההוא או חולם החלום ההוא יומת. v’ein lachosh. Look at these next few lines. This is something mamash extraordinary coming up here. אין לחוש לנבואתו ולא נבקש ממנו מופת. אפילו ואפילו עשה מופתים אשר לא שמענו מופלאים כמותם כדי לאמת דברו הרי זה נחנק ואין לחוש לאותם המופתים לפי שסיבת קיום אותם המופתים מה שאמר הכתוב כי מנסה השם אלוהיכם אתכם
v’chulu. ki eidus haseichel, right now if the manuscript were ripped and we had to reconstruct misvara what the next line says, what would you write here? A navi comes and alleges and maybe he's even muchzak as a navi. In the past he's said al pi nevuah, he's made one prediction after another that shows. He said that on July 4th there's going to be a blizzard and all these kinds of unbelievable crazy incredible things and they takeh happened and he's takeh muchzak as a navi. And now he comes and Rachmana litzlan says Hashem said everyone should bow down to the sun tomorrow morning, so he's chayav chenek ואין לחוש לאותם המופתים. If you had to finish the sentence, what would you say? It's a pasuk in Chumash that says that you can't even have a hora’as sha’ah for avodah zarah. That unlike all other mitzvos in the Torah, it can be that a navi comes and says Hakadosh Baruch Hu says to engage in shechutei chutz on a one-time basis. You can have such a thing, but you can't even have a hora’as sha’ah, even if it's hora’as sha’ah and even if seemingly it's lemigdar milsa, there can't be such a thing for avodah zarah. That's pashut in Chumash. But look how the Rambam finishes the sentence. The Rambam says כי עדות השכל המכחישה את נבואתו גדולה מכוח עדות העין הרואה מופתיו לפי שכבר נתברר אצל בעלי השכל שאין ראוי לכבד ולעבוד זולת היחיד שהמציא כל המציאות ונבדל בתכלית השלמות.
Mamash extraordinary, mamash extraordinary. Rambam writes even if we didn't have a pasuk, even if we didn't have a pasuk, Rambam says we would have known so absolutely misvara that it can't be even again k’vayachol as a one-time hora’as sha’ah, it cannot be that avodah zarah is ever, ever, ever prescribed. The seichel says that that is just such an absolute impossibility that based on that we would know that this guy is a navi sheker. Despite the fact that he's omeid b’chezkas navi and alleges to have received such a nevuah, the Rambam says even without the pasuk we would have known. And the pshat is that we trust eidus haseichel as opposed to what we think we're seeing. We think we're seeing miracles that must be validating what he's telling us, that must be verifying what he's telling us. That's what we think the eidus ha’ayin is proclaiming. Says the Rambam, but if the eidus haseichel says farkert, then we would know even without a pasuk to follow the eidus haseichel. Remarkable, remarkable. It's very similar to the Meshech Chochmah in Parshas Yisro where he explains as follows. The Rambam writes in his hakdamah to Sefer Hamitzvos, so he says that basically sometimes the Rambam just says this is a mitzvah and he's not really maarich to quote Gemaras that prove it's a mitzvah. And sometimes he's maarich. So then I'll prove it to you from divrei Chazal that it should be counted as a mitzvah. Okay. So that's why by many mitzvos the Rambam will have this arichus, this sa'u, look at this Gemara, you see clearly from this Gemara that this is supposed to be listed in the minyan taryag. So the Rambam does that for the mitzvah of Anochi, because kayaduah the Bahag did not count it. The Bahag does not include Anochi in the minyan taryag. So the Rambam says and what's the raya that Anochi is a mitzvah? So the Gemara says that תרי"ג מצות נאמרו למשה מסיני. Mai kra? תורה צוה לנו משה. Torah begematria 611. The Gemara says that אנכי ולא יהיה מפי הגבורה שמענום. That we heard that 611 came via Moshe Rabbeinu, but Anochi v'lo yihyeh we heard directly. So that's what the Rambam says, mipi hagevurah shema'anum. Mipi hagevurah shema'anum. So the Rambam says so you see that Anochi and lo yihyeh are mitzvos in the minyan hamitzvos. So that's his raya. So comes the Ramban and again kedarko, so the Ramban looks to defend the Geonim. Ramban writes in his hakdama to Sefer Hamitzvos, Ramban writes that I've spent a lot of my life he says defending the earlier generations. That's part of their divreiem is divrei kabbalah. That's their link for us in the masorah and I've devoted a lot of my life to it and I'm going to continue now. And that's why he's answering the Rambam's hassagos on the Geonim in the Rambam's minyan hamitzvos. Fine. So the Ramban says adraba he says l'chora that Gemara would seem to be a proof for the Bahag and is a big kasha on the Rambam. Because if you look in the first two dibros and you look at the Rambam's minyan hamitzvos, so you have Anochi that's one, לא יהיה לך אלהים אחרים על פני is two, you have לא תעשה לך פסל which is three, and then I think you have both לא תשתחוה ולא תעבדם so it should have been tarach צוה לנו משה מורשה קהלת יעקב. If the vort is that we heard Anochi and the dibros of Anochi and lo yihyeh from Hakadosh Baruch Hu, in the Rambam's minyan hamitzvos the dibros of Anochi and lo yihyeh are five mitzvos. Five mitzvos. So he says adraba he says that Gemara is davka good for the Bahag. What you have to say is that the Bahag again doesn't count Anochi. He thinks lo yihyeh lecha and לא תעשה לך פסל is basically the same lav and that לא תשתחוה ולא תעבדם is basically the same lav and adraba so those are the two that we heard directly and adraba he says the Gemara is good according to the Bahag. What's the Rambam going to what is the Rambam quoting this Gemara for? This Gemara contradicts him. That's what the Ramban writes in Sefer Hamitzvos. So comes the Meshech Chochma and says no. He says le'ever hayadua lecha he says that the Rambam is consistent throughout. He says all the way from Peirush Hamishnayos through the Moreh the Rambam is consistent. Everything is a miksha achas. He says if you look in Moreh Nevuchim the Rambam has an unbelievable pshat in what the Gemara of אנכי ולא יהיה מפי הגבורה שמענום means. Everyone learns pshat which is what we assume as well and we're in good company that אנכי ולא יהיה מפי הגבורה שמענום means that we heard those two dibros that Klal Yisrael heard those two dibros directly from Hakadosh Baruch Hu. And that's what the Ramban is assuming it means and that's why the Ramban says but for you Rabbeinu Moshe for your minyan hamitzvos there's five mitzvos in those two dibros. Says the Meshech Chochma you look in the Moreh the Rambam says explicitly that gevurah isn't... a kinoy for Hakadosh Boruch Hu in that gemara, but Gevurah means gevuras mofes, and that אנכי ולא יהיה מפי הגבורה שמענום means that we didn't need a tzivoy to tell us that, that those two mitzvos, not the two dibros, Anochi velo yiheh don't mean the two dibros of Anochi velo yiheh, it means the two mitzvos of אנכי ולא יהיה מפי הגבורה, the Rambam says this meforesh, the Meshech Chochma calls that the two mitzvos of אנכי ולא יהיה לך is מפי גבורת מופת שמענום as in Shema Yisrael, mah, the not hear, understand, shemiah as in as an understanding. So he says, oh, so then that gemara is mamash, if, if mipi hagevurah shemaanum, if you read that gemara the way the Rambam says, then that gemara is meforesh like the Rambam, and that, that's what the Rambam was bringing, was bringing a raya. So there too, why, why is it relevant now? So there too you have the same thing because the Rambam says that no, the emes is Moshe Rabbeinu communicated 613 mitzvos to us, but the Torah describes it, what Chazal are saying is that the Torah describes it as תורה צוה לנו משה because 200 of the 613 we know on our own, we have again the eidas hasechel on our own for Anochi and lo yiheh lach, very similar type of mindset to this comment over here that even without the pasuk telling us that there can't be a hora'as sha'ah, that there's an eidas hasechel that says that that's preposterous. Why would that not include the other mitzvos of Anochi velo yiheh? Yeah, and it's especially if you if you juxtapose this. I don't know, if you juxtapose this, so then shouldn't that mitzvah of לא תשמע אל דברי הנביא ההוא, shouldn't that, that become okay, ayin sham. The question's a good question, not a teshuvah, I don't know, ayin sham, it's a very good question. Continue a little bit. גם המתנבא בשם השם נחלק לשני חלקים החלק הראשון שיתנבא בשם השם ויקרא ויזהיר על עבודתו ויאמר שהשם הוסיף על המצוות מצוה או גרע מהן מצוה מכל המצוות שכלולות בספר התורה ואין הפרש בין שיוסיף ויגרע במקרא או שיוסיף ויגרע בפירוש המקובל.
Doesn't make a difference whether he says there's no longer a mitzvas matzah or whether he says that tefillin is, ich veis, three batim, not four batim. ההוספה והגירעון במקרא כגון שיאמר שהשם אמר לי שהערלה שנתיים בלבד ואחר שנתיים מותר לאכול פירות הנטייה או שיאמר שהשם אמר לי שארבע שנים היא אסורה באכילה במקום אמרו יתעלה שלוש שנים יהיה לכם ערלים.
It's been updated. וכדומה לזה או שישנה בקבלה איזה שינוי שיהיה אף על פי שפשוטי הכתובים מסייעים לו כגון שיאמר שמה שנאמר בתורה וקצותה את כפה לא תחוס עינך
which we know means mammon, שזה קציצת היד ממון ממש ואינו קנס המבייש k'mo shebeirah hakabalah, ויחס דבר זה לנבואה ויאמר שהשם אמר לי שזה שנאמר
v'kotzosa es kapah היא כפשוטה, גם זה יומת בחנק לפי שהוא נביא שקר ויחס להשם מה שלא אמר לו. וגם בזה אין לחוש לאותו מופת לפי שהנביא שהפליא את כל באי העולם במופתיו ונתן השם בליבנו אמיתותו והאמונה בו כמו שהבטיח השם בכך באמרו וגם בך יאמינו לעולם,
meaning Moshe Rabbeinu, כבר הודיענו על פי השם שלא תבוא מאת השם שום תורה זו לזו, והוא אמר
lo bashamayim hee לומר מי יעלה לנו השמימה ולא מעבר לים היא, כי קרוב אליך הדבר מאוד
beficha u'vilvavecha, ואמרו beficha u'vilvavecha, ורצוננו לומר המקראות הסדורות בפה. Right again, so right the Rambam leshitaso that the Torah here in these pesukim in Parshas Nitzavim not talking about teshuvah the way the Ramban, the way the Ramban learns pshat, but the way, the way Rashi learns pshat. told him to change, to be mosif, to be megarei'a, to be to be mechadesh davar. For that also is by definition a navi sheker. Hachelek hasheni, which is part of the role of what what an emesdike nevuah does consist of, שיקרא לעבודת השם ויזהיר על תורתו. ויצוה בני אדם על שמירת התורה בלי להוסיף ובלי לגרוע, כמו שאמר אחרון הנביאים זכרו תורת משה עבדי אשר צויתי אותו בחורב על כל ישראל חוקים ומשפטים. ויבטיח טובות לשומריה ועונש לעובריה, כמו שעשו ישעיה וירמיה ויחזקאל וזולתם. ויצוה ציוויים ויזהיר אזהרות שלא בענייני הדת. כגון שיאמר הילחמו על עיר פלונית או אומה פלונית עכשיו, כמו שציווה שמואל את שאול להילחם בעמלק אז.
O sheyazir milachom, כמו שהזהיר אלישע יהורם שלא להרוג חיל חזאל הנמצאים בשומרון כידוע. וכמו שהזכיר ישעיה הכנסת המים לפנים מן החומה. כמו שהזהיר ירמיה את ישראל מלצאת מירושלים וכל כיוצא בזה.
So either the navi is can give a tzivuy which doesn't relate to divrei Torah. He can give military advice, not advice, a tzivuy regard to to military matters. So all that is is totally legitimate. That that can and and was a nevuah shel emes. Or he can come with words of mussar, words of reproach, with with regard to to shmiras hatorah. All right, so maybe so remind me because next time we'll begin with this example that the Rambam gives of of שציווה שמואל את שאול להילחם בעמלק is actually very very significant. And we'll begin with this next Thursday night, be'ezras Hashem.