x-mailing-list: [email protected]
(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
[email protected]
[REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL]
________________________________________________________________
Yevamos 014: Not Made in Heaven
Moshe Tarko asks:
(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!
Thank you,
Moshe Tarko, Yerushalayim
----------------------------------------------
The Kollel replies:
I have not found anyone who discusses these questions specifically but I
will write my initial thoughts.
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 certainly did not possess less power
than that of Chazal to make Takanos.
3) 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. So, when we say in the "Ani Ma'amin" that Moshe Rabeinu
was the father of the Nevi'im, this still does not mean that he could make
up new Mitzvos. His Nevu'ah was the clearest of all, and he recieved the
Torah on Har Sinai, but he also could not say any new Mitzvos after Sefer
Bamidbar was finished.
(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."
Fist, 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 occurences 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.
Kol Tuv,
Dovid Bloom
>>><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><<<
The *D*AFYOMI *A*DVANCEMENT *F*ORUM, brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf
Write to us at [email protected] 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
[email protected]
http://mail.shemayisrael.co.il/mailman/listinfo/daf-discuss_shemayisrael.co.il
