Hakdama 6

Let's pick up, I think we left off somewhere around where in this edition it's page Yud Aleph, it's 111. ובבירור אמיתת טענת הנביא הוא במה שאפרש. It's right after the Rambam quotes Anochei edrosh me'imo. You have it? Yes, it's בבא ל"א ושיבא. So if the Navi is מתנבא בשם עבודה זרה, if the Navi is misnabeh b'sheim Hashem or Baal, but he comes והוסיף על דברי תורה, ligroa, leshannos, even lehach'ish divrei Torah, so we just know from the content of his alleged nevuah that he's a Navi Sheker. But assuming that mitzad the content of what he says that it's plausible, that it's tenable that he's a Navi Emes, so how do we establish it?

ובבירור אמיתת טענת הנביא הוא במה שאפרש: כאשר יטען לפנינו אדם לנבואה כפי שביארנו,

v'hayah ra'uy lah,

דהיינו שהיה מאנשי החכמה והאמונה והפרישות והשכל ונוהג בכל המידות,

k'fi ha'ikar shebeyadeinu,

אין הנבואה שורה אלא על חכם גיבור ועשיר, ופרטי מה במניין הזה שאי אפשר עתה לקצרם.

So the Rambam's opinion is, and this is a major dispute, but the Rambam's opinion is that without exception only someone who's ra'uy l'nevuah will ever have nevuah. It doesn't happen that Hakadosh Baruch Hu makes a miracle to grant nevuah to someone who doesn't possess all the qualifications, all the prerequisites in terms of his middos, in terms of his seichel, in terms of his lifestyle. So the only time when it's even up for question whether or not this person is a Navi Emes or sheker is if mitzad the profile of the individual he's someone who from what we know. know of him he's he's potentially rauy lanevuah. The Rambam thinks that even about Maamad Har Sinai. Even Maamad Har Sinai the Rambam says that we all experienced something but it wasn't all nevuah. Everyone everyone had an experience at Maamad Har Sinai but it was only an experience of nevuah for those who were rauyim lanevuah. Maybe at some point we'll I don't think it's going to be today but maybe we'll look in Yesodei Hatorah where the Rambam explains what what did happen for all of for all of Klal Yisrael who weren't on a level of being rauy lanevuah.

פרט במניין זה שאי אפשר לקבצם והדיבור בהם והראיה לכל אחד מהם בכתובים של ספרי הנבואה ודברי החכמים מן הראוי לספר בזה ספר בפני עצמו ואולי יסייע השם בזה עם מה שראוי לספח באותו העניין.

The Rambam contemplated it obviously never happened but the Rambam contemplated writing a Sefer Nevuah. Lemaiseh he wrote a few perakim in in the Moreh but but the Sefer Nevuah itself didn't didn't materialize. He never had the chance. אם אכן היה מוכשר לו כראוי. Again that's that's what we just spoke about that that there's only again the question only arises if in fact he's a Navi Emes if in fact he's he's qualified for that. Vetoan lanevuah and he claims that he received nevuah נאמר לו הבטיחנו הבטחות give us guarantees make us promises about the future והגד לנו עניינים ממה שידוע להשם and tell us if you're really a navi so you should have certain insight you should you should know things that that no one else knows.

והוא יגיד אם נתקיימו הבטחותיו כולן ידענו שנבואתו אמת. אולם אם כזב ובא בדבר מן הדברים ואפילו מן הקלים שבו ידענו שהוא שקר. וזה לשון התורה בבחינה זו וכי תאמר בלבבך איכה נדע את הדבר אשר דיבר השם אשר ידבר הנביא בשם השם לא יהיה הדבר ולא יבוא. וגם כאשר התאמת לנו בהבטחה אחת או שתים לא נוכל לבטוח בכך על נבואתו בוודאות

but it'll stay be'eineinu toluy ve'omed it's still an open question right the jury is still out

עד שיהיה צודק והולך בכל מה שיודיע בשם השם פעם אחר פעם.

The Rambam doesn't give us a number of times. In Hilchos Yesodei Hatorah as well he doesn't. He just says that repeatedly the navi again and again will tell us he'll make a prediction he'll tell us what will be and again and again he's a hundred percent correct in what he says.

ועל כן נאמר בשמואל כשנתפרסם ונתברר שכל מה שהוא אומר מתקיים וידע כל ישראל מדן ועד באר שבע כי נאמן שמואל לנביא להשם. ולא היה אצלם דבר שלא ישאלו עליו את הנביא ולולא שהיו שואלים את הנביא בכל ענייניהם לא היה שאול הולך לשאול את שמואל על אבדה שאבדה לאביו בתחילה.

Veein sofek shekach

כי מה שהקים השם לנו נביאים במקום החוזים בכוכבים והחוזים והמעוננים הוא כדי שנשאלם בכל ענייננו הכלל והפרט ויודיעונו דברים נאמנים על פי השם. כדרך שמודיעים הם דברים שיש מהם מתקיים ויש אינם מתקיים והוא שאמר הכתוב כי הגויים האלה אשר אתה יורש אותם אל מעוננים ואל קוסמים ישמעו ואתה לא כן נתן לך השם אלוהיך נביא מקרבך מאחיך וכולי. ומכוח עניין זה היו קוראים לנביא רואה לפי שהוא רואה העתידות לפני היותם כמו שאמר כי לנביא יקרא לפנים הרואה.

So this is a pela. It's not it's not the Rambam. It's basically the pesukim in in Chumash. What's the navi there for? The navi is there for why is that why is that what's the navi there for? The navi is there to tell Shaul where to find his father's lost donkey. That's what the Rambam says. The Rambam then correctly points out I didn't make this up that's what the Chumash says. Ki hagoyim ha'eileh when they want to know something they go me'onenim vel kosenim. You you'll go to a navi. It's it's a pela that's a nevuah is a davar nora venisgav. So what what do you go to the navi for? I can't find my... And Shmuel tells you where you left your car keys. It's a pele. Okay, let's leave this for a moment.

ופן יחשוב החושב ויאמר, הכי בהתאמת דברי העתידות תתקיים הנבואה הטוענה, אם כן הוא, הרי החוזים בכוכבים ובעלי הכוחות הנפשיים כולם יוכל לטעון נבואה.

If just making predictions about the future which come true is verifies one's status, corroborates one's status as a navi, so then all these charlatans can also be nevi'im,

שהרי אנו רואים בעינינו אותם בתמידות מגידים עתידות. דבר זה חי השם הוא פרק חשוב וראוי לבאר אותו כדי שיתבאר החילוק בין דברי נביא השם ודברי בעלי הכוחות. ואמר, אמנם החוזים והחוזים בכוכבים ואנשי אותה הכת מגידים עתידות. אבל הם צודקים במקצת ומכזבים במקצת בהכרח. וזה דבר שאנו רואים אותו תמיד. ומודים בו גם אותם האנשים שדרכם בכך ואינם מכחישים אותו. ואין יתרונם זה על זה אלא בכך, ששקר האחד פחות משקר זולתו. אבל שיצדק בכל הפרטים זה לא יתכן. ובעלי הכוחות אלו גם כן אינם טוענים זאת, אלא יש שאומר שהשנה זאת תהיה בצורת ולא ירד מטר כלל, ונמצא מועט בגשמים. או שיאמר שמחר ירד גשם וירד למחרתיו. וכיוצא בזה. וכל זה אם היו בקיאים מאוד מן המפורסמים שמסופר עליהם בספרים. וזהו עניין דברי

Yeshaya levavel:

יעמדו נא ויושיעוך הוברי שמים החוזים בכוכבים מודיעים לחדשים מאשר יבואו לך. ואמרו חכמים: מאשר ולא כל אשר.

So eino domeh that there are all kinds of fakers who get it right sometimes. Right? Every day there's another prediction as to when Putin's going to be overthrown in Russia. So yitachen that one of these people's going to be right one of these days, you know? Yitachen, you know, whether it will be his 15th prediction and it's a different story, but there's a reasonable chance that one of them's going to be right one of these days, it's going to happen within a year, it's going to happen within two years, it's going to happen within six months. Okay, so yitachen that at some point one of these predictions about the future will turn out to be true.

מה שאין כן הבטחת הנביא אלא יצדק עד אחריתם ולא יפול מהם דבר לא קטן ולא גדול לעולם ועד וכל אשר ידבר בשם השם.

The navi has to be right down to every last minute detail. ואל כן אם נסתר דבר אחד ממנו ידענו כזבו. Again, if he's off on anything, so it shows that he's a nevi sheker.

והוא שאמר הפסוק כי לא יפול מדבר השם ארצה. ועל דבר זה אמר ירמיה בחולמם הצודקים בחזיונם שהיו מודיעים מה שנודע להם בחלומם משאיהם כדרך הנבואה, היה מוכיחם ומבטל טענתם. ואמר: הנביא אשר אתו חלום יספר חלום ואשר דברי אתו ידבר דברי אמת, מה לתבן את הבר נאם השם. וביארו חכמים עניין דברים אלו, כי הנבואה היא זכה ואין מעורב בה מאומה מן הכזב כדגן הנקי מן התבן.

And ilu by contrast

החלומות וכיוצא בהן מן הדמיונות מעורב בהן הכזב כתבן שיש בו גרגרי חטה. ואמרו כשם שאי אפשר לבר בלא תבן, כך אי אפשר לחלום בלא דברים בטלים.

Okay. We need to... again, the Rambam's treatment of nevuah here is a miktza achas, we just need to see some more before we can try to understand.

ונשאר כאן פרק חשוב שצריך לבאר והוא: כי הנביא שניבא רעות על עמים שנתחייבו בהן, כגון שניבא עליהם ברעב או חרב או שתהפך ארצם או שירדו עליהם ברקי אש וכיוצא בזה, ואחר כך לא נתקיים דבר מכל זה אלא נמחל להם ונמשך עניינם בשלום, אין מספר בכך כזבו של הנביא ויהיה נביא שקר ויתחייב מיתה.

When we say that if the navi makes a prediction about the future and then it doesn't materialize, that proves that he's a nevi sheker, that is not the case if it was a nevuah lera'ah. Yonah said: עוד ארבעים יום ונינוה נהפכת and then it didn't happen. That It doesn't mean that he was a navi sheker. Rather what it means is

לפי שהשם יתעלה ויתרומם ניחם על הרעה ואפשר ששבו וסרו מחטאיהם.

Maybe they did teshuva.

או שהאריך להם השם במתינותו ודחה גמולם לזמן אחר כמו שעשה עם אחאב באמרו לו על ידי אליהו לא אביא הרעה בימיו בימי בנו אביא הרעה על ביתו. או שמחל להם מחמת טובה קודמת שעשו. ולא על כגון זה אמר השם ולא יהיה הדבר ולא יבא,

so you know that he's a navi sheker.

אבל אם ניבא על טובה שתתחדש בזמן מסוים ויאמר שיהיה שלום בשנה זו והייתה מלחמה או שאמר ששנה זו תהיה גשומה וברוכה והיו בה רעב ובצורת וכל כיוצא בזה הרי הוא נביא שקר והופר הבל טענתו וכזבו וזהו שאמר עליו השם בזדון דיברו הנביא לא תגור ממנו, כלומר אל יפחידך וירתיעך מלהרוג אמונתו ויושרו וחכמתו מאחר שהעיז פניו וטען דבר חמור בדבר סרה על השם.

So here the Rambam says gevaldig pshat in the pesukim. Right? The the the Torah says in Parshas Shoftim, the Torah says that when it becomes clear that someone is a navi sheker, again, how does it become clear? Because he gave a nevuah l'tova and the nevuah l'tova didn't materialize, so then you know he's a navi sheker. So a navi sheker is chayav misa, misas beis din. So the Torah says lo sagur mimenu. Why does the Torah say lo sagur mimenu? When the Torah says on a mechallel Shabbos he's chayav skila, the Torah doesn't say lo sagur mimenu, don't be afraid of the mechallel Shabbos to give him misa. When the Torah says for chayavei misos, the Torah doesn't then follow it up with this chizuk of lo sagur mimenu. All of a sudden here by the navi sheker, the Torah says no, he's chayav misa and don't be afraid of him. Know, the Rambam says the pshat is such an extraordinary pshat from the Rambam here. The Rambam says the pshat is like this, the pshat is again, who is the navi sheker? Navi sheker is the gadol hador. He's someone who's ra'uy l'nevuah. Right? Again, what did what did we learn before? Someone who becomes a navi sheker by virtue of the fact that his nevuah, his alleged nevuah, didn't materialize, so it means that he passed the test, he passed the character test in terms of being ra'uy l'nevuah. It means that the Rambam's description in perek zayin Yesodei HaTorah that

אין הנבואה חלה אלא על חכם גדול בחכמה גיבור במידותיו ולא יהא יצרו מתגבר עליו בדבר בעולם אלא הוא מתגבר בדעתו על יצרו תמיד בעל דעה רחבה נכונה עד מאוד אדם שהוא ממולא בכל המידות האלו שלם בגופו כשיכנס לפרדס וימשך באותן העניינים והוא מתקדש והולך ופורש מדרכי כלל העם ההולכים במחשכי הזמן הולך ומזרז עצמו,

he's all these things. He's mamash he's not only the gadol of this generation, maybe he's the gadol of several generations. So that's why the Torah says lo sagur mimenu. Stam a mechallel Shabbos there's no reason to think that he's a person who otherwise has been a tremendous ba'al ma'ala, so there's no hava amina that we're going to be afraid to carry out the misas beis din. But but the navi sheker, the navi sheker again who whose the the the falsehood of his nevuah is only only becomes apparent because אשר ידבר הנביא ולא יהיה הדבר ולא יבוא, so he's he's an extraordinary person. So mimaila the Torah says lo sagur mimenu. Don't be afraid. He's a navi sheker and it doesn't make a difference, you have to give him give him misas beis din. It's ayom v'norah, ayom v'norah. Why in the world or how in the world does such a person become a navi sheker? Mimeila, we understand how we do aveiros, it's not such a big kasha. I look in the mirror and I understand how how we do aveiros, it's not such a big kasha. But but the how does this individual that the Rambam is describing giving us his profile in perek zayin Yesodei HaTorah? So you just drop the question mark and and you not not not how is it, but you see that it is. כל הגדול מחברו יצרו גדול ממנו. We don't understand what that means or or. in what fashion that is, but it is. Gemara says, כל הגדול מחברו יצרו גדול מחברו. And therefore אל תאמין בעצמך עד יום מותך is said about every human being. אל תאמין בעצמך עד יום מותך is maybe it's Amos bais-vov about at a certain point of life but it's ayom v'nora, ayom v'nora. A person who's ra'uy to be a navi emes can be'zadon. There's no there's no shogeg in being a navi sheker in the sense that he can't have mistakenly thought he had a nevuah and didn't have a nevuah. The Rambam says that that nevuah is something which is unmistakable. A person who's of sound mind, I don't mean that I don't mean to be humorous with that, I mean right nebech a person who's not well, is not well. But a person of sound mind, so the experience of nevuah is something which is unmistakable. That's why the Torah says be'zadon dibber ha'navi. It's not possible that he thought he had such a nevuah and he made a mistake, that he confused a dream with a nevuah. There's no such thing as confusing a dream with a nevuah. A nevuah is something which is unmistakable. The Rambam says that we learn that lesson from the Akeda. If there was the slightest possibility that a navi could potentially confuse his own dream with a nevuah, so Avraham Avinu couldn't have been ready to carry out the Akeda. If there had been if there had been any safeik as to as to his experience, so it would have been a safeik nefashos. He couldn't have ויקח את המאכלת לשחוט את בנו. That's what the Rambam says, no, we learn from the parsha of the Akeda that that there isn't, that there isn't any element of safeik. I'm just what did the navi sheker do wrong? He just got the shem nevuah wrong? No, he made up a nevuah that he never seen. So meaning someone who would lie about that and mi'meila is not ra'uy for nevuah. Meaning we're talking about a navi sheker that's misparsaim afterwards his nevuah didn't come true. Meaning so the Rambam I thought we just said the Rambam says that he's a gadol hador. He's a gadol hador she'sarach. But if he's lying so mi'meila he can't be a gadol hador. He was formerly a gadol hador, he just sarach. So how can someone who is... that's that's the point, that's what we're talking about, drop the question mark and and and drop the question mark and put in an exclamation point. How can a person how can a person like that be ra'uy for nevuah me'ikara? Because he was that, he he he he was everything the Rambam said in Perek Zayin of Yesodei HaTorah and then כל הגדול מחברו יצרו גדול מחברו and then he took a wrong turn. So how can it be that after so many years and achieving such a madreiga he took a wrong turn? Drop the question mark, you can't, with an exclamation point. That's it's ayom v'nora, ayom v'nora. The אל תאמין בעצמך עד יום מותך is ayom v'nora. If that person says that he had nevuah so he's a navi sheker? He is, but you don't have to wait to see whether his prediction comes true. If if a person who doesn't, according to the Rambam, if a person who doesn't match the description in Perek Zayin steps forward and says I had a nevuah that in two weeks from now such and such is going to happen, so we don't have to wait two weeks to see whether it happens. We'll give him misa right away. Is it because the Rambam is describing, do we assume that he had proper nevuah already and that's why we have to wait and now he's just making it up? Or is he a gadol and never this is the first time he's... No, I mean again either way, again as long as he's ra'uy for nevuah, so the fact that he claims nevuah so then we say that that's potentially authentic and and he'll only be falsified if it's לא יהיה הדבר ולא יבוא. But the person who's not ra'uy for nevuah so we know right away. And what's more, even if two weeks later his prediction comes true it won't that won't retroactively give us any doubts. He was a navi sheker. If he doesn't if he's not qualified he couldn't have had nevuah. Does this apply in Bnei Yisrael meaning what about Bilaam once a... The Rambam doesn't think that Bilaam was a navi. The Rambam says that when the pesukim say about vayavo Elohim so vayavo Elohim just means that Hashem is responsible that's it. Lavan HaArami was also a navi. So Vayavo means let's say HaKadosh Baruch Hu שלו בדרך נבואה HaKadosh Baruch Hu can make Lavan have a bad dream, and שלו בדרך נבואה there are other ways. Let's say HaKadosh Baruch Hu right now wants us, I don't know, wants us to hear someone playing the flute. So either He can arrange for someone to walk down the hallway playing the flute, He could do that, or He could make us hear the sound of a flute. That doesn't mean we're having nevuah. There are other ways for HaKadosh Baruch Hu to, to, to, to orchestrate things. So what Lavan, what Bilam, what, what, what all they had was, was, was not even remotely related to, to nevuah. When one gets nevuah, is it, are they devarim pshutim or does it take some time to figure out what the actual nevuah is? I think the Rambam says that right away yachokek belibo. In

פרק ז' הלכה ג' הדברים שמודיעים לנביא במראה נבואה דרך משל מודיעים לו ומיד יחוקק בלבו פתרון המשל במראה נבואה וידע מהו.

HaRambam says there's no possibility of misinterpreting a, that's why, that's what the verse is bezadon diber hanavi. That also sort of, you know, reflects what the Rambam says, that again, both a navi can't confuse a dream for nevuah and he can't misunderstand a nevuah. So if a navi or a so-called navi alleges that Hashem said such and such and it's, and it was a nevuah letovah and it doesn't materialize, so then that absolutely falsifies, falsifies his claim. Ai, but he was ממולא בכל המדות האלו he was an incomparable chacham and incomparable baal middos, parush vekadosh.

אל תאמינו בעצמכם עד יום מותכם לא יחום ולא נורא.

And that's the pshat. It's such a wonderful pshat in the pesukim. That's why the Torah says here lo sagur mimenu, which you don't find elsewhere. lo sagur mimenu because of, because of who he is, because of what his stature had been previously.

מאחר שהעז פניו וטען דבר חמור ודיבר סרה על השם. כי השם כשהוא מבטיח לעם על ידי נביא

here come some crucial sentences that we're going to try to understand rabosai

כי השם כשהוא מבטיח טובה לעם על ידי נביא הוא עושה זאת על כל פנים כדי שיקיים יתעלה נבואתם אצל בני אדם והוא אמרם עליהם השלום כל דבר שיצא מפי הקדוש ברוך הוא לטובה אפילו על תנאי אינו חוזר.

So this is a little bit funny. Sounds like from the Rambam superficially that the reason a nevuah letovah will never be chozeres is because if a nevuah letovah would never be chozeres excuse me if it sounds like from the Rambam that a nevuah letovah is never chozeres. Why? Because if a nevuah letovah could be chozeres, so then there would be no litmus test for, for the navi. Because if a nevuah ra certainly can be chozeres, maybe they did teshuvah. A nevuah letovah, if that could be chozeres also, so maybe ad d'raba, maybe hikdichu taveilom, maybe they were chotei. So we'll be left without a litmus test. Okay, so we'll make a rule that a nevuah letovah will never be chozeres. So why is that? It's, it's difficult. It's difficult because HaKadosh Baruch Hu isn't boxed in. You know, sometimes, sometimes we very, very erroneously sort of think of the world as a given and say, well, you know, given the world, so how else is this going to work? No, the world and the Torah is HaKadosh Baruch Hu created them all, created them both and they're coordinated. It's not that, well, you know, there has to be some way of having a litmus test for a navi, so nevuah letovah will be the litmus test. That can't be what it means. So what does it mean? Let's, let's see. But let's go a bit later.

ומה שהיה יעקב פוחד והרי כבר הבטיחו השם בטובה כמו שאמר לו.

Wait a minute, what Chazal say here

כל דבר שיצא מפי הקדוש ברוך הוא לטובה אפילו על תנאי אינו חוזר.

So in light of that, so what's pshat in this week's parsha Vayishlach? Hakadosh Baruch Hu had told him

הנה אנכי עמך ושמרתיך בכל אשר תלך והשבתיך אל האדמה הזאת.

So wasn't that a nevuah l'tovah which isn't chozer? So what was the concern about? ומצאנו עתה שחשש מכליון. He was afraid of complete destruction.

כמו שאמר ויירא יעקב מאד וכולו ואמרו חכמים בזה שחשש מכח החטא שנתחייב בו כליון והוא אמרם כסבור שמא יגרום החטא.

And this indicates that efshar gam that Hashem yavtiach al tov and yigrom ha'avon and v'lo titkayem osah hatovah.

דע שזה לא יהיה אלא בענין שבין השם ובין הנביא. אבל שיאמר השם לנביא שיבטיח לבני אדם טובה כוללת ושלא תתקיים הטובה אין זה נכון ולא יתכן. שהרי לא היה נשאר אופן לאמת באותה נבואה והרי כבר נתן לנו בספר יסוד שהוא נבחן כשיאמר הבטחותיו.

So the Rambam introduces the following distinction: If the nevuah l'tovah was one that the navi was instructed to share with others, so then that's eino chozeres. If the nevuah l'tovah was given to the navi himself, but not to be shared with others, then that could be chozeres. It also seems to be sort of a forced distinction which is, again, driven by, well, we need to have some litmus test. The Maharal, Maharal k'darko doesn't like this Rambam, and Maharal suggests a different pshat. Maharal says, let's say a mashal maybe for the Maharal. Let's say parents can promise a child a birthday present. Okay, it's going to be your birthday, we're going to buy you a new bike. Let's update the example. It's going to be your fifth birthday, we'll buy you an iPhone. Or they can come home from parent-teacher conferences and say, your morah, your rebbe, told us such wonderful things, so we're going to buy you a bike. So what's the difference between those two scenarios? The first one is unconditional. The first one, it isn't linked to the child's behavior, it isn't linked to the fact that the child is excelling in school. No, it's your birthday, we're going to buy you this for a birthday present. The second one is clearly linked, right? Clearly that was a response to the child being on a certain track. Now, given the track you're on, so we're going to buy you the bike. Says the Maharal, so if it was the first, so that's when Chazal say kol nevuah she'latovah is eino chozeres. If it was again the analog to it's your birthday, there was no intimation that it's being linked to any type of behavior, so then it's eino chozeres. When it's quite clearly being linked, it's quite clearly a response and therefore being linked to behavior, so then such a nevuah could be chozeres. That's the Maharal's distinction. But how do we understand the Rambam? So basically in reading this, we have three questions in the Rambam. Number one, again the first one is not really the Rambam, the first one is just the Rambam making us focus on a pasuk in Chumash. The navi is there to tell Shaul where to find his father's donkey v'chayoze b'zeh. How do we understand that? Number two, the Rambam it seems superficially that, really a nevuah l'tovah, there would be, we could imagine grounds that a nevuah l'tovah should be chozeres also, but then there would be no way to conclusively prove who's a navi emes and who's a navi sheker if every nevuah can potentially be chozeres. And then number three is sort of what's the omek of this distinction. I mean a nevuah is a nevuah. So either a nevuah is chozeres or a nevuah l'tovah isn't chozeres. So what's the omek of this distinction? Is it just sort of that same pragmatic consideration between when a nevuah l'tovah can be chozeres. It wasn't shared v'chulu. So the point is like this rabosai, the point is like this. The Rambam explains in Hilchos Yesodei HaTorah

פרק ז' הלכה ז': הנביא אפשר שתהיה נבואתו לעצמו בלבד להרחיב לבו ולהוסיף דעתו עד שידע מה שלא היה יודע מאותן הדברים הגדולים ואפשר שישולח לעם מעמי הארץ או לאנשי עיר או ממלכה לכונן אותם ולהודיעם מה יעשו או למנוע אותם ממעשיהם הרעים שבידיהם.

A navi can receive nevuah just for his own perfection. He's deserving of it, so Hakadosh Baruch Hu gives him nevuah which lets him know and understand things which are inaccessible, unattainable b'derech hateva. Or, you can have a navi who's sent to be a shliach Hashem to deliver a message. The second type of navi who has been charged to act as a representative of Hakadosh Baruch Hu, he has to reflect in his capacity as shliach Hashem, not in his capacity as a human being. But in his capacity as a navi, as a shliach mipi Hashem, he has to reflect Hakadosh Baruch Hu's omniscience, he has to reflect Hakadosh Baruch Hu's absoluteness. The significance of Shmuel HaNavi being able to tell every single person: this one can't find his car keys, and this one can't find his glasses, and this one can't find his father's donkey. And Shmuel HaNavi's able to tell everyone everything, whether it's davar gadol, whether it's davar katan. It doesn't matter how important, it doesn't matter how trivial, it doesn't matter how reasonable the place is where you find it or how incredible it is. Shmuel HaNavi can answer everything just by way of illustration. Every navi. So that's a reflection of Hakadosh Baruch Hu's omniscience. It's not the navi is not there because it's so important that we'll be able to find the lost donkey. No, the navi is there that that we have this source of chizuk that he since he's since he's a navi who was sent to the people, he has to be able to represent and reflect Hakadosh Baruch Hu's omniscience. הוא הדין הוא הטעם. A navi, again, sug beis of navi in in the way the Rambam presents them in Zayin Zayin Yesodei HaTorah, a navi who's a shliach me'eis Hashem, Hakadosh Baruch Hu's representative, has to also again not in his not as a human being, but as Hakadosh Baruch Hu's shliach, he has to represent absoluteness of Hakadosh Baruch Hu, the absoluteness of dvar Hashem. It can't be, not just because of pragmatic purposes, but a navi who's representing Hakadosh Baruch Hu, there has to be an element of absoluteness. If everything that navi says can potentially be chozer, so then Hakadosh Baruch Hu's absoluteness isn't reflected. And he's a shliach mipi hagvurah, so he has to reflect Hakadosh Baruch Hu's absoluteness. It has to be it has to be that there's that there are elements of nevuah which are absolute because that the that ability a human being can't say anything absolutely. A human being doesn't know if he's going to be alive in a second from now. A human being can't do or say anything absolute. The only absolute is Hakadosh Baruch Hu. For the navi to say something and the navi says: this is absolute, this nevuah letovah I'm telling you is absolute, so that's a reflection of Hakadosh Baruch Hu's absoluteness and that that needs to be there because that's that's intrinsic to and inherent in his role in his function in his job as a shliach, as a shliach me'eis Hashem. Then mimela, mimela, hayos that nevuah intrinsically inherently when the navi's being sent to the people has to reflect Hakadosh Baruch Hu's absoluteness. absoluteness, so mimaila that becomes the test. Not that for pragmatic purposes we have no breira, so what are we going to do, so we have to have one type of nevuah that will that that that can't be chozer. So obviously the absoluteness is going to be a nevuah letovah, not nevuah lara'ah. That that doesn't really need any any explanation. And in fact, when you look in Yesodei Hatorah in Yud Daled, this, a Jonah pointed this out to me, if you take a look in Yesodei Hatorah Yud Daled,

אבל אם הבטיח על טובה ואמר שיהיה כך וכך ולא באה הטובה בידוע שהוא נביא שקר שכל דבר טוב שיגזור האל אפילו על תנאי אינו חוזר הלא למדת שבדברי הטובה בלבד יבחן הנביא.

Heyos that this is intrinsically true that a nevuah letovah is eino chozer, so then mimaila this is the test for the Navi. Not not that the whole thing exists for pragmatic purposes to to assess the the Navi. And the Rambam says right here, the same thing, the next two lines that we're about to have here, that appear here in Perush Hamishnayos about Yirmiyahu's exchange with Chananya Ben Azur. And mimaila, that's also the peshat, the Rambam's distinction between whether the Navi has shared it with someone else or whether it was only said to the Navi. It's not a practical distinction. No, it's if it hasn't been shared with someone else, so then he's a different type of Navi. He's Navi number one. Navi number one, Yaakov Avinu knows Hakadosh Baruch Hu is absolute. He doesn't Navi number one, you don't need that absoluteness in the nevuah. It's Navi number two who is a shliach to people where you have to have the absoluteness. And mimaila, it's kaftor vaferach. If he were sent to people, so then he's a Navi of sug beis, Navi type number two. So he has to reflect the absoluteness of Hakadosh Baruch Hu. So a nevuah letovah eino chozer, no ifs, ands, or buts. If he's a Navi of type one, he's not a shliach of Hakadosh Baruch Hu. He's not a shliach of Hakadosh Baruch Hu, so there's no reason, we don't need for him to be reflecting the absoluteness of Hakadosh Baruch Hu. So there there is room for shema yigrom hachet. Mamash, mamash kaftor vaferach. Okay, then the Rambam just continues. You'll read that that's what Yirmiyahu says to Chananya Ben Azur. You're being misnabi a nevuah letovah, if it doesn't happen, that'll show you're a Navi sheker. I'm being misnabi a nevuah lara'ah, if it doesn't happen, it doesn't mean anything because it could be that it was chozer. Okay, maybe we'll stop here and it's still still zman for mincha? What's zman for mincha? 1:30? I'm sorry? 1:24? Okay, so wash your hands slowly. Thank you.