x-mailing-list: daf-disc...@shemayisrael.com
(Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.)
_________________________________________________________________
THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST
brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
d...@dafyomi.co.il
[REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL]
________________________________________________________________
Re: Yevamos 014: Not Made in Heaven
Moshe Tarko asked:
>>(a) The Gemara teaches that a Navi cannot teach us a Halachah based on
Nevu'ah, "Lo ba'Shamayim Hi."
Now I understand that this does not include Moshe Rabeinu; his prophecy was
Torah itself, unlike that of any other prophet (as we mention in the 13 Ani
Ma'amin's).
But how could Yehoshua have written the 8 verses at the end of the Torah
(Rebbi Yehudah, Bava Basra 15a)? How could his prophecy become Torah, and
even teach us laws?
(b) What bothers me even more are the verses in Zecharyah (7:1-5) where the
the Kohanim and Nevi'im have Halachic questions, and go to ask Hashem - and
He answers them with a Halachic decision, from which we infer Halachos that
apply til today!<<
The Kollel replied:
>>1) The Gemara (Yoma 80a) cites the verse in Vayikra 27:34: "These are the
Mitzvos that Hashem commanded Moshe unto the Bnei Yisrael on Har Sinai."
The Gemara learns from this verse that a Navi is unable to make new
Mitzvos. Therefore, Moshe Rabeinu also could not teach us a Halachah that
he was not told in the 40 days and 40 nights that he was on Har Sinai.
2) If we look at the Rambam in Hilchos Yesodei ha'Torah 9:1, I think we can
understand more about Yehoshua. The Rambam writes that the Torah is an
eternal Mitzvah which can never be changed. He writes, "Lo ba'Shamayim Hi.
Therefore, one learns that a Navi cannot make anything new. If anyone rises
up and adds a new Mitzvah or removes an existing Mitzvah, he is a false
prophet."
The Rambam stresses that the prohibition is against adding a new Mitzvah.
Yehoshua did not make any new Mitzvos in the last eight verses of the
Torah, but rather merely told us about the death of Moshe Rabeinu.
3) On the basis of the above Rambam, we can also understand Zecharyah
7:1-5. Zecharyah was not attempting to add a new Mitzvah d'Oraisa. The
Mitzvos discussed are more similar to a Rabanan level (or Takanos Nevi'im)
connected with mourning for the Beis ha'Mikdash. This was something that
the Nevi'im were capable of doing, and they certainly did not possess less
power than that of Chazal to make Takanos.
4) Here are some more sources relevant to this topic:
(a) A good source to show that the prophecy of Moshe Rabeinu is also not
considered Torah as such is the Maharsha in Shabbos 104a. The Gemara there
cites the verse "Eleh ha'Mitzvos" -- "these are the Mitzvos" -- and states
that we learn from this that a Navi cannot now add anything new.
The Torah Or, in the margin of the Gemara, writes that the verse cited by
the Gemara is the very last verse in the Book of Vayikra. However, the
Maharsha (DH Eleh) writes that the verse cited is the last verse in the
Book of Bamidbar, which also states "Eleh ha'Mitzvos." The Maharsha writes
that the Torah is teaching us that it is only the Mitzvos and laws given in
the first four books of the Torah which are the crucial Mitzvos. In
contrast, Sefer Devarim is Mishneh Torah, in which the Mitzvos are repeated
a second time, but new Mitzvos are generally not given. We learn from the
Maharsha that when the Gemara states, "A Navi may not from now on say
anything new," this means that once Sefer Bamidbar was finished, no new
Mitzvos could be given. So even in the 40th year that they were in the
Bamidbar -- when Moshe Rabeinu said to them Sefer Devarim -- it was already
too late to give any new Mitzvos.
Thus, when we say in the "Ani Ma'amin" that Moshe Rabeinu was the father of
the Nevi'im, this does not mean that he could make up new Mitzvos. His
Nevu'ah was the clearest of all, and he received the Torah on Har Sinai,
but he also could not say any new Mitzvos after Sefer Bamidbar was
finished. Even in the 40th year that they were in the Bamidbar -- when
Moshe Rabeinu said to them Sefer Devarim -- it was already too late to give
any new Mitzvos.
(b) Here are a few more points to suggest why the verses in Zecharyah do
not represent a problem concerning the idea of "Lo ba'Shamayim."
First we see from the Gemara in Bava Metzia 59b that the chief reason why
we say Lo ba'Shamayim is that there is a Mitzvah in the Torah (Shemos 23:2)
to follow the majority. If we know the opinion of the majority of the
Chachamim, it makes no difference to us what supernatural occurrences can
be produced to suggest what the Halachah is. Accordingly, there seems to be
no reason why Zecharyah ha'Navi could not be told by Hashem what the
Halachah is, because there was no opposing opinion being offered there by
other Chachamim, and it appears that everyone relied on Zecharyah's Psak.
In addition, it is worth looking at the explanation of Lo ba'Shamayim given
by Rav Nisim Ga'on in Berachos 19b. He writes that the Torah of Hashem is
complete and has already been given to us on Sinai. There is nothing
lacking from our Torah, and we do not have any doubts in our Torah which
should lead us to require proofs from Heaven.
Again, according to this, I think we can understand why the passage in
Zecharyah does not present a problem to Lo ba'Shamayim. The problem they
had there was not how to understand a Mitzvah of the Torah, but rather they
wanted to know how to mourn for the Beis ha'Mikdash, which is not a Torah
Mitzvah.<<
Mordecai Kornfeld <kornf...@dafyomi.co.il> commentEd:
>>(a) There are new Mitzvos in Mishneh Torah that do not appear in the
previous four Chumashim, such as Yefas To'ar, listening to a king and
prophet, etc., and countless Derashos. It is inconceivable to say that
Devarim is not part of the Torah given to Moshe Rabeinu about which the
Rambam writes (cited in Ani Ma'amin) "This Torah is immutable and will not
be changed...."
The Maharsha you cited is therefore very difficult to understand. (He does
not cite any source upon which to base his assumption that the Gemara is
referring to the Pasuk in Bamidbar.) Perhaps he means that the verse
written at the end of Bamidbar is *as if it were written* at the end of
Devarim, and it was not put at the end of Devarim since Devarim is mostly a
review, giving it a different status. (See Tosfos in the beginning of
Gitin, and the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah in Yevamos 4a.)
(b) I also cannot accept that the last eight verses of the Torah are
different from all the others (in Devarim), and we cannot learn from them
Halachos. They are Torah just as any other verses! (See also Kesuvos 103b,
where a Halachah is learned from those verses.)
Rather, we can answer the question about the last eight verses written by
Yehoshua by clarifying the difference between writing the Torah and
teaching new Halachos.
What Moshe learned during the 40 days on the mountain was obviously not the
Torah that we have. For example, if he learned the words described how
Moshe did not know the Halachah of Pesach Sheni, and asked Hashem about it
-- then why did he indeed have to ask Hashem about it, since he already
knew what to do! And how could he have known the sin of Mei Merivah, etc.,
before it happened?
Rather, Hashem taught Moshe *Halachos* (and perhaps the words of the Torah
until Parshas Yisro) on Har Sinai. The Halachos that he learned included
any Halachah that ever was or will be learned from the Torah using the
methodology that Hashem gave us to derive Halachos from the Torah -- but
Moshe was not shown how to learn the Halachah itself from the Torah, since
he did not yet have a Torah to read. This was only given to him either
piecemeal, as it happened, or all at once upon its completion (Gitin 60a).
Therefore, the Torah was certainly not fully written and completed until
the last eight Pesukim were written. If they were written by Yehoshua, they
were dictated to him either by Hashem or by Moshe. But the *Halachos*
learned from the entire Torah, including any derived from the last eight
Pesukim, were already given to Moshe on Har Sinai.
(c) It is clear from the Gemara in Temurah 16a that even when there is no
argument involved (for example, if Halachos were forgotten entirely), one
cannot resolve a Halachah based on prophecy.
(Although the Ramban in Shoresh Rishon of Sefer ha'Mitzvos writes that what
a prophet "can reveal the meaning of a verse," I do not think he is
referring to using prophecy to reveal the meaning of a verse. What he means
is that what is written in the Nevi'im may have been extrapolated *by the
Navi* from a verse.)
1. The Chida (Shem ha'Gedolim, on Rabeinu Yakov ha'Chasid, author of
Teshuvos Min ha'Shamayim) suggests that an intractable uncertainty may
indeed be resolved by prophecy. He bases this on the Bas Kol that announced
"Halachah k'Beis Hillel," and the legitimacy of the work Teshuvos Min
ha'Shamayim. According to that, it may be suggested that Zecharyah simply
resolved an intractable uncertainty by asking for an answer through
prophecy.
However, the Chida there shows that the Rambam (and the Kapos Temarim)
disagree with this and maintain that even a factual question pertaining to
Halachah may not be resolved through prophesy, all the more so an
uncertainly in Halachah.
2. Nevertheless, to answer the question from Zecharyah, we may suggest that
when a prophet (or Chacham) is not sure what would be the best Takanah for
Klal Yisrael, he can *advise* through prophecy to decide what makes more
sense.
(d) Rav Yosef Giktliyah (Kelalei ha'Mitzvos) writes clearly that if a Bas
Kol tells us "the Halachah is like so and so," it must be that the issue
under discussion is a Din Torah -- since a Mitzvah mid'Rabanan is not
determined by a Bas Kol (see the original text at
www.dayomi.co.il/general/yeva-014.2c1.jpg ).
However, here we can accept your suggestion that if there is no argument
over the matter but rather the matter is in doubt, it is conceivable that a
Bas Kol could indeed relate to a Halachah mid'Rabanan.
Perhaps we can bring support for your suggestion -- that a prophet *can*
convey from Heaven details of a Mitzvah mid'Rabanan -- from the Rambam in
Hilchos Yesodei ha'Torah 9:4, who writes that "If a prophet tells us
regarding a *Din Torah* that Hash-m commanded him to do such and such, or
the Halachah is like so and so, he is a false prophet." The Rambam
specifically mentions that this pertains to a Halachah of the Torah,
implying that it may not apply to a Halachah mid'Rabanan.
However, the Me'iri (Sanhedrin 90a) writes clearly that a prophet may *not*
convey from Heaven even details of a Mitzvah mid'Rabanan. Apparently, he
learned that the words of the Rambam refer to Mitzvos mid'Rabanan as well,
since we are bidden by the verse of Lo Sasur to follow the Rabanan. (This
is consistent with the words of the Acharonim, such as Divrei Malkiel
2:72:25, who write that Lo ba'Shamayim Hi applies even to a Halachah of the
Rabanan.)<<
The Kollel replied:
>>(a) I agree that the Maharsha is difficult to understand. Probably what
we have to say is that he means that the bulk of the Torah had already been
given by the end of Bamidbar. There are some new Mitzvos in Devarim but
these also were given to Moshe Rabeinu on Har Sinai. The Maharsha's point
is that the end of Sefer Bamidbar is the end of the new Mitzvos of the
Torah, with just a few isolated exceptions. That is why the Maharsha
prefers the verse cited to be the last verse in Bamidbar; this stresses
that we have now reached the end of the new part of the Torah. The majority
of what comes after Bamidbar is a review of sorts. The point is that after
we reach the end of the Mitzvos given on Sinai, no Navi can add anything
new.
I cited the Maharsha as a proof that even Moshe Rabeinu cannot make new
Mitzvos. I think the proof is still valid because he says that even Sefer
Devarim is not essentially the place for new Mitzvos, even though Moshe
Rabeinu taught it.
(b) I think that the status of the last eight verses of the Torah requires
further research. The point I am making is that since we see from the
Rambam (Yesodei ha'Torah 9:1) that the problem about Lo ba'Shamayim is
adding on new Mitzvos, this is not what the last eight verses are trying to
do. The Gemara in Kesuvos 103b says that Rebbi said that they should not
mourn for him for more than 30 days, because he was not better than Moshe,
but we would not have thought that if someone did mourn for more than 30
days that he transgressed an Isur d'Oraisa.
(c) I agree with your suggestion that a Navi can gain support from prophecy
for his Takanah in the best interests of Klal Yisrael.
(d) The Me'iri is discussing a Navi who denies a known Din mid'Rabanan. It
seems to me that this does not apply to Zecharyah, because he was not going
against anything that was already known by everyone. The Divrei Malkiel is
also discussing a Mal'ach coming to a person and telling him to fast on
days when one is not allowed to fast. This does not apply to the case of
Zecharyah.<<
---
The Kollel adds:
Reb Moshe! You were right and I was wrong! I have found that the Maharsha
in Temurah 16a writes explicilty that "a Navi may not from now on say
anything new" does not apply to Moshe Rabeinu, so I have to retract from
what I wrote above in (a).
1) The Gemara in Temurah 16a tells us that 3,000 Halachos were forgotten
during the days of mourning for Moshe Rabeinu. Afterwards, they said to
Yehoshua: "Ask!" Yehoshua replied that he could not ask what the forgotten
Halachos were, because "Lo ba'Shamyim Hi."
The Maharsha explains that once Moshe Rabeinu had died, it was no longer
possible to ask Heaven questions concerning doubt about what the Torah
means. This is why the Torah is called "Toras Moshe." Any questions of
doubt now had to be decided according to the opinion of the majority of the
Chachamim.
The Maharsha adds that this is what Shmuel and Pinchas meant when they
replied, "Ein Navi Rashai l'Chadesh Davar me'Atah." After Moshe Rabeinu
died, it was no longer possible for any Navi to say new things from Heaven.
We see clearly from the Maharsha that "Ein Navi Rashai l'Chadesh Davar
me'Atah" does not apply to Moshe Rabeiu.
2) The Brisker Rav on Temurah also writes that the special Madregah of
Moshe Rabeinu was that he was able to ask Hashem directly about matters in
which he had doubts. We learn this from Bamidbar 9:8. When Moshe Rabeinu
did not know what the law was concerning people who had not been able to
bring Korban Pesach on the 14th of Nisan, he told them, "Wait and I will
ask what Hashem will command you." Other prophets do not have the power to
ask, but only are able to hear what is said to them.
The Brisker Rav writes that according to this, it must be that when they
said to Yehoshua that he should ask about the forgotten Halachos, they
meant that he should ask through the Urim v'Tumim, because they knew that
he was not able to ask directly. (See also Brisker Rav on Chumash, Parshas
Pinchas, Bamidbar 27:18, where he describes the difference between the
prophecy of Moshe and that of Yehoshua.)
3) How, then, are we to understand the Maharsha in Shabbos 104a that I
cited above, which I thought was proof that "Ein Navi Rashai l'Chadesh
Davar mei'Atah" applied even to Moshe?
I think we must say that the Maharsha is stressing that once the book of
Bamidbar was completed, the work of the Torah in telling us new Mitzvos was
largely finished, because the chief purpose of Sefer Devarim was not to
give new Mitzvos but rather to repeat the old ones. Therefore, it may have
been that if a new question would have arisen, Moshe Rabeinu was still able
to ask Hashem about it. However, the Maharsha is explaining that once we
get to the end of Bamidbar, the chief work of Moshe Rabeinu in teaching the
Mitzvos had now come to an end, and from now on Moshe Rabeinu was primarily
involved in explaining the Mitzvos that had already been given to Klal
Yisrael.
4) Here is another approach, based on new sources, which may help us
understand the passage in Zecharyah:
(a) This is based on the Sugya in Sukah 44a which discusses the Mitzvah of
holding the Aravos on Sukos, when there was a special Mitzvah to take an
extra Aravah every day in the Beis ha'Mikdash. The Gemara states that this
was a "Yesod Nevi'im," a "foundation of the Prophets." The Gemara questions
this from a different source which states that it was a Halachah l'Moshe
mi'Sinai. The Gemara answers that they forgot the Mitzvah of Aravah and
then re-founded it. Rashi (DH v'Yisdum) writes that they re-constructed
this Mitzvah "Al Pi ha'Dibur" -- through what Hashem said to them.
The obvious question on Rashi is that this contradicts the concept of "Lo
ba'Shamayim Hi." A number of Mefarshim deal with this question (see Mitzpeh
Eisan, Aruch la'Ner, Rashash, Maharatz Chayus). However, I am now going to
look at how Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv zt'l, in He'oros Al Maseches Sukah,
approaches this problem.
(b) Rav Elyashiv asks another question. The Gemara in Eruvin 13b tells us
that there was a dispute for three years about whether the Halachah follows
Beis Shamai or Beis Hillel. Beis Hillel were the majority, but Beis Shamai
were sharper. Eventually, a Bas Kol came forth from Heaven proclaiming that
the Halachah follows Beis Hillel. Again, the question is how could the Bas
Kol from Shamayim decide the Halachah? Rav Elyashiv answers that, in
reality, the Sages of that generation were capable of deciding themselves
that the Halachah follows Beis Hillel. They decided that we follow the
majority even though the minority scholars may be sharper. The message from
Heaven merely strengthened their decision and gave it additonal authority.
The crucial decision had already been made by the Chachamim "down here."
Rav Elyashiv asserts that a similar thing happened concerning the question
of the Aravos in the Beis ha'Mikdash on Sukos. The Nevi'im who reinstituted
the Mitzvah did so according to their own scholarship, and when Rashi
writes that they were told from Shamayim to do so, this means that Shamayim
merely reinforced their decision, but the real Psak was made by the Sages
in this world.
(c) According to the above, we may suggest that a similar thing happened in
the time of Zecharyah. Zecharyah actually decided himself, as the Gadol
ha'Dor, that the fasts of mourning for the Beis ha'Mikdash need not be
observed since the Beis ha'Mikdash was being rebuilt. The fact that
Zecharyah was given this ruling from Hashem strengthened what his opinion
was already, but he could have made this Psak on his own without the
communication from Shamayim.
Kol Tuv,
Dovid Bloom
>>><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><<<
The *D*AFYOMI *A*DVANCEMENT *F*ORUM, brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf
Write to us at d...@dafyomi.co.il or visit us at http://www.dafyomi.co.il
Tel/Fax(US): 646-820-3315; Fax(Isr): (02) 591-6024; Tel(Isr): (02) 651-5004
_______________________________________________
Daf-discuss mailing list
Daf-discuss@shemayisrael.co.il
http://mail.shemayisrael.co.il/mailman/listinfo/daf-discuss_shemayisrael.co.il
