Hakdama L’ Peirush Hamishnayos #3

Just backtracking to some of what we read last week just to comment on some. So the Rambam says a misnabi beshem Hashem there's two types: there's the illegitimate one, there's a navi sheker who's attributing his nevuah beshem Hashem, and then there's the navi emes. And what does the navi sheker consist of? So again in the Rav Kapach translation here on amud daled in the right hand column, so the Rambam says that

החלק הראשון שיתנבא בשם השם ויקרא ויעשה על עבודתו ויאמר שהשם הוסיף על המצווה מצווה או גרע מהם מצווה מכל המצוות שכלל אותם ספר התורה.

And says the Rambam

ואין הפרש בין שיוסיף ויגרע במקראות או שיוסיף ויגרע בפירוש המקובל.

Doesn't make a difference whether or not what he comes contradicts the Torah shebechsav or whether it contradicts the Torah sheba'al peh. An example of contradicting the Torah shebechsav is he says orlah is either two or four years, and an example of contradicting the Torah sheba'al peh is to say that vekatzos es kapa is to be understood literally. If a person if he does any of that and he's meyaches it lenevuah, so then he gets chenek because he's a navi sheker. Okay fine. And the disregard any osos umofsim because we know already that since Moshe Rabbeinu, whose nevuah we know of firsthand not through osos umofsim, we know already that there will not be any such nevuah to be mosif or gorei-a from either the Torah shebechsav or the Torah sheba'al peh. That's what the Rambam says. And then he says vehu amro and in the top of the left hand column lo bashamayim hi, quotes the pesukim in parshas nitzavim:

לאמר מי יעלה לנו השמימה ולא מעבר לים כי קרוב אליך הדבר מאד בפיך ובלבבך. ואמרו בפיך ובלבבך מה המקראות הסדורות בפה או הדינים הנלמדים בדרך העיון שהוא מכלל הכוחות הנמשכים מן הלב.

So the something interesting that the Rambam initially, when he tells us what the navi cannot say al pi nevuah and therefore we know if he alleges it al pi nevuah, so we know without any without needing any other verification that what he's saying is nevuah shel sheker. So originally he just talks about where he again attributes to HaKadosh Baruch Hu rachmana litzlan that no more that there's only 613 mitzvos here on in, there's now 614, orlah's two years, orlah's four years. Then after he quotes and he says misaso bachenek, after he quotes the pasuk lo bashamayim hi, he then tells us a very very important addition. He also says that if he comes and says that min hashamayim he was told דינים הנלמדים בדרך העיון that that too is nevuah shel sheker. It's even more even more conspicuous if you take a look, you have the same pattern in perek tes of yesodei hatorah. If you have the Rambam take a look rabosai in perek tes of yesodei hatorah, so halacha aleph the Rambam writes as follows:

דבר ברור ומפורש בתורה שהיא מצוה 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 הנגלות לנו ולבנינו עד עולם לעשות את כל דברי התורה הזאת. הלמדת שכל דברי תורה מצווים אנו לעשותם עד עולם. וכן הוא אומר חוקת עולם לדורותיכם. ונאמר

lo bashamayim hi, הלמדת שאין נביא רשאי לחדש דבר מעתה. lefichach, okay? So again, there's no shinuy, no gir-on, no tosefes. lefichach,

אם יעמוד איש בין מישראל בין מן האומות ויעשה אות ומופת ויאמר שהשם שלחו להוסיף מצוה או לגרוע מצוה או לפרש במצוה מן המצוות פירוש שלא שמענו ממשה,

and in this context probably what he means by that is again that parallels shinuy,

או שאמר שאותן המצוות שנצטוו בהן ישראל אינן לעולם ולדורי דורות אלא

mitzvos lish-ah.

או שאמר שאותן המצוות שנצטוו בהן ישראל אינן לעולם ולדורי דורות אלא מצוות לפי זמן היו הרי זה נביא שקר שהרי בא להכחיש נבואתו של משה ומיתתו בחנק על שהזיד לדבר בשם השם אשר לא ציווהו שהוא ברוך שמו ציווה למשה שהמצוה הזאת לנו ולבנינו עד עולם ולא איש אל ויכזב.

Fine. So what examples does the Rambam give of where the nevuah again is self-evidently nevuah sheker if again he comes to be mosif, goreia, or meshaneh. Mosif 614. Goreia 612. Meshaneh ich veis bikatzotzot kapos literal. Two years old or four years old. Okay. Fine. What about if he comes and says, oh, you know that machlokes between the Rashba and the Shiltei Gibborim about the tocho k'baro which is not a machlokes l'halacha between a little bit the mechaber's reservations and the Rama v'chulu v'chulu. So the Rambam says and you can think about that, maybe that's fair play. Maybe maybe the navi can can come with a nevuah on that. So if you look in Halacha Daled, then in Halacha Beis Rambam says so what does a navi do? We just seem to put him out of business here. If he's not if he's not saying chiddushei Torah then what else is he going to do in life? So what's left for a navi to do? So he says the navi will come and he'll be mezarez us to be mikayeim divrei Torah and he can tell us divrei reshus, he can come with a hora'as sha'ah. And then he says in Halacha Daled:

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

It's the same pattern that we're seeing in the Perush HaMishnayos even though l'mayseh, l'mayseh just as the navi cannot come to be mosif, goreia, or meshaneh in the Rambam's opinion, right, he cannot even come and participate in משא ומתן של הלכה. Right? And on this last point, so that's a major machlokes Rishonim. What the Rambam says in Halacha Aleph and Beis, what the Rambam says in Halacha Daled, that the navi cannot that lo bashamayim hi precludes any communication from Hakadosh Baruch Hu which isn't b'geder mosif or goreia or meshaneh. So Tosafos that's the pshat in the bas kol, right? Tosafos in Pesachim, Tosafos ask what's pshat that we do listen to the bas kol of Beis Hillel and Beis Shammai and we disregard the bas kol of Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua in the Gemara Bava Metzia. So Tosafos gives two answers. One of the two answers is that the bas kol of Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua was going against divrei Torah because Rabbi Eliezer was clearly a yachid and and the others were were rabbim and and the bas kol's going against divrei Torah. Mashe'ein kein in Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel, it wasn't going against divrei Torah. There was something that was unclear, right? Beis Shammai said since we're mechadaid t'fei, acharei rabbim l'hattos shouldn't apply here. And Beis Hillel say no, אף על פי כן, acharei rabbim l'hattos should apply. So it wasn't there was a point in the divrei Torah which was moot. It wasn't that the bas kol was coming to to contradict. So Tosafos says that was a legitimate bas kol. Tosafos says that's a legitimate bas kol, meaning lo bashamayim hi doesn't preclude again joining in משא ומתן של הלכה. It precludes what the Rambam said in Halacha Aleph. It doesn't preclude what the Rambam says in Halacha Daled. Okay, so the Kesef Mishneh takke we have to come back to this b'ezras Hashem. Kesef Mishneh takke remains with a tzarich iyun, what does the Rambam do with a bas kol? How according to the Rambam's approach do you understand the bas kol of Beis Hillel and Beis Shammai? But again, so so nachzor l'inyoneinu just in terms of the he'ara, bechoray see both in Perush HaMishnayos as well as here in Yesodei HaTorah, even though for the Rambam there is no difference in terms of the navi, the navi can no more again participate in משא ומתן של הלכה. That's what he says in Perush HaMishnayos, d'vilvavcha as which is it's only bilvavcha, it's not bashamayim, is דינים הנלמדים בדרך העיון. And if the navi will come and say the דינים הנלמדים בדרך העיון through yud-gimmel middos or through medameh milsa l'milsa, Hakadosh Baruch Hu told him something, so then that would be he is a navi sheker for for saying that. But the Rambam makes a point of not mentioning it in the same breath with the navi not being able to be meshaneh, mosif, or goreia. wants us to recognize again for the Navi it's all the same. It's the same Nevuah Shel Sheker, he's the same Navi Sheker, whether he says that HaKadosh Baruch Hu told him how we pasken with regard to that Teshuvos HaRashba or whether he says Orlah is two years or four years. He's the same Navi Sheker, the same Chenek, one hundred percent no difference. Again, itachen there's more of an omek, but at least on the simple level maybe the reason the Rambam separates it is that the Rambam sort of wants us to recognize that what he says in Halacha Aleph, which is what again the same thing that he presented initially here in the Peirush HaMishnayos, is are things that it's asur for anyone to say or believe or to advocate. שלא על פי נבואה also, a person can't come and be bodeh misvaras libo, misvaras nafsho. A person can't think that there's shinuy or tosefes or girayon. So the Rambam just doesn't want to blur that distinction, meaning mitzad haNavi it's all the same. Mitzad haNavi anytime he says that HaKadosh Baruch Hu is impinging upon משא ומתן של הלכה, it's the same Nevuah Shel Sheker, the same din chenek. The Rambam says but I'll mention it to you in two different groups because the first group of examples I'm going to give you, so those examples are also for anyone to say, not even שלא על פי נבואה. A person can't come and claim and allege, Rachmana Litzlan, shinuy, tosefes, or girayon שלא על פי נבואה either. The second group of examples, again that HaKadosh Baruch Hu told him oh you know you missed this klal u'prat u'klal in that pasuk, you that really we should or we shouldn't pasken like the Rashba. So that is something that a person again, a chacham could say that. A chacham has every right to come and write a teshuvah and say we do pasken like the Rashba, we don't pasken like the Rashba. So just sort of not to blur that distinction, even though the emes is mitzad haNavi it's all the same. What's the difference between that and ikkarei emunah where the Rambam is pretty, you know, one holds of this, one would be a kofer, even though there are other shitos sometimes when it comes to certain levels of ikkarei emunah, meaning according to the Rambam if one... a Navi... No, no, because here, because this again, because Halacha Daled is talking about משא ומתן של הלכה, how we pasken. You have a machlokes rishonim, how do we pasken? So that's what משא ומתן של הלכה is about. So of course a chacham can be doing that al pi chochmah, can be doing that al pi chochmah. The Rambam just wants to keep again, even though to attribute it to allege that it comes from HaKadosh Baruch Hu is the same Nevuah Shel Sheker, the Rambam since for someone to do it שלא על פי נבואה, Halacha Daled שלא על פי נבואה is Talmud Torah, psak halacha is tavo aleihem bracha. So the Rambam just wants to keep that distinction should be clear. What do we do when poskim or rishonim come and say they had a dream and it was nisgalah to them a psak halacha? Right, right. So what do you do with those examples? So what do you do with when the Ra'avad says Sod Hashem Lireiav? What do you do with that the Ra'avad has a lashon כבר הופיעה רוח הקודש בבית מדרשנו in hilchos lulav? What do you do with שאלות ותשובות מן השמים? What do you do with all these things? So in terms of the Ra'avad, there's a whole diyun whether when the Ra'avad says Sod Hashem Lireiav, that does he mean that he's implying that there was Ruach HaKodesh or he's saying Siyata DiShmaya. Siyata DiShmaya everyone's... everyone allows for Siyata DiShmaya. Everyone agrees that we can and should and do believe in Siyata DiShmaya. So the question is in terms of the Ra'avad how literally did he mean those leshonos? When he says כבר הופיעה רוח הקודש בבית מדרשנו, you know, did he really mean it literally or he meant, you know, we have clarity on this issue. If you take a look at the Smag, it's actually very, very interesting. You don't know where the Smag is? You know it's on the bottom... it's on the bottom shelf I think in the same bookcase where the Minchas Chinuch is... Sefer Mitzvos Gadol by Rabbi Moshe mi-Coucy? It's it's to the if you're facing the... I don't know, not that I remember, I don't know, could be, yes. So the Smag actually writes this in a couple of places in the sefer. He wrote it first in the beginning, in the hakdama, in the minyan hamitzvos itself. And then he writes it again in mitzvos lo ta'aseh 64: תוכחת הענווה דרשתי לרבים. That the Smag was an itinerant darshan. He used to go around from community to community giving drashos to be mochiach, mazhir, me'orer. So he says, I used to darshan constantly about the need for anava,

ולחבר עליו זה ולמנות זה בלאו לא היה דעתי. השמר לך פן תשכח את ה' אלוהיך,

which is mitzvah 64 in the Smag's lo ta'aseh, שלא יתגאו בני ישראל. So I hadn't intended to do it. He says, וכשהגעתי להשלים עד כאן הלאוין נקראון בחלומא במראות הלילה. Said I had a vision in a dream: הנה שכחת את העיקר. That's not in the dream, I'm adding that with a pun: הנה שכחת את העיקר, that you forgot the main thing, or as ikar as in kofer be'ikar. השמר לך פן תשכח את ה'. So that was his dream. So he says,

התבוננתי אליו בבוקר והנה יסוד גדול הוא ביראת ה' והועלתי לחבר בעזרת יושב חכמה לחכימים. אחרי כן עיינתי בספר קמא דסוטה וגרסינן שם בהדיא אזהרה לגס הרוח מניין רב נחמן בר יצחק אמר מהכא ורם לבבך ושכחת את ה' אלוהיך השמר לך פן תשכח את ה' אלוהיך רבי אבין אמר רבי אלעאי כל מקום שנאמר השמר פן ואל אינו אלא מצות לא תעשה.

So what would the Rambam say about this? So I don't know, either he taka would not like it, or itachen, depending upon what the Smag means. Smag says, hisbonenti elav baboker. He says I woke up and in the morning, so I was me'ayen in the dream. והנה יסוד גדול הוא ביראת ה'. So what do you mean hisbonenti elav baboker? When Yeshayahu had a nevuah, so in the morning when he woke up from the mar'eh nevuah, so then he was misbonen, is this a yesod gadol what hakadosh baruch hu told me or not? What do you mean? You're being told. So itachen that the emes is that the Smag, had he not been able to now arrive at that conclusion on his own, itachen that what he's saying is that he would have disregarded the dream.

התבוננתי אליו בבוקר והנה יסוד גדול הוא ביראת ה' ואחרי כן עיינתי בספר קמא דסוטה ואחזא דגמרא בסוטה.

So itachen that this Smag also is consistent with the Rambam. The one thing which isn't is the שאלות ותשובות מן השמים. I think they taka say beshem Reb Chaim that according to the Rambam that all that is assur. You can't say that hakadosh baruch hu said to pasken this way. Either that, or it's very hard to imagine that the Beis Yosef is... if the malach really told him, right? I'm sorry? If the malach really told him, right? Either that, or there is an alternative. Or that the person is meshuga? No, chas veshalom, not that one. I don't know, so you have to say something along those lines, I don't know. Inach nami. Okay, now, can you just say, all these different types of things, and still no one's claiming derech nevuah so to speak, the same way that the way the Rambam describes nevuah, according to the way the Rambam describes nevuah? Correct, correct. And whatever Ruach Hakodesh is, it's not nevuah, and whatever gilluy Eliyahu is, it's not nevuah, and whatever a maggid is, again, obviously we don't understand these things, but they are all not nevuah, and that's 100% correct. But the problem is, it's not so pashut that that's the answer, because again, the Rambam says lo bashamayim hi, so the question is, does the Rambam really mean lo bashamayim hi only bederech nevuah? The Kesef Mishneh certainly didn't understand it that way. For the bas kol, I think the Gemara says meforash it's not nevuah. It's not pshat that when people heard a bas kol, that everyone hearing the bas kol had nevuah. I think that's meforash in the Gemara like that, or that even after paska nevuah, they were still mishtamesh be-bas kol. So it's meforash in the Gemara that bas kol is less than nevuah, and the Kesef Mishneh still says that the pshutam shel devarim in the Rambam is that lo bashamayim hi means there won't be any communication in any form. So I don't know, maybe. But what's the difference between, let's say, between a bas kol and a maggid? And I don't know. This stuff doesn't fit the kapitel of the Rambam. Right, right. And given the lifichach of the Rambam also, it sounds like it's not going to come from Hashem through any not regular mail, not FedEx, not email, or whatever, it's not going to come through any of the avenues of communication. So, me'idach gisa, as sort of very... So what do you do with the Kesef Mishneh's kasha? Kesef Mishneh asks, what do you do with a bas kol? So according to the Rambam, how do we understand the bas kol? So there is a very fascinating Ohr Somayach here in Yesodei HaTorah where he responds to this kasha of the bas kol. And he says, or I don't remember whether he says it as a diyuk in the lashon or not, but maybe he says it as a diyuk in the lashon as well, of

שהשם שאמר בדין מדיני תורה שהשם צוה לו שהדין כך הוא והלכה כדברי פלוני.

The Ohr Somayach says as follows. Right, there are, I don't know how many, but there are a lot of machlokesim between Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel. He says, were the bas kol to have come and said that the pshat in uvshochbecha uvkumecha is בזמן שבני אדם שוכבין ובזמן שבני אדם קמין, and it doesn't mean to indicate what your posture should be when saying Krias Shema, if the bas kol would have said that, so then inach nami, the bas kol would have been disregarded. But the bas, but the bas kol said, the bas kol wasn't misyaches to the substance of the machlokes. It didn't endorse, it didn't, it didn't confirm the correctness of Beis Hillel or claim that what Beis Shammai said was incorrect. It just said lemaise do like Beis Hillel without being misyaches to the tochin of the divrei hatorah. Says the Or Sameach that even according to the Rambam it's legitimate because lo bashomayim hi again means that Hakadosh Baruch Hu is not going to Hakadosh Baruch Hu said על ידי משה רבינו that he's not going to be involved in the משא ומתן של הלכה. משא ומתן של הלכה means to pasken a halacha that oh, you see this pasuk, it's a rayah of Beis Hillel, it's a kashe on Beis Shammai, it's a stirah to Beis Shammai. But just to say lemaise do like that. According to the Or Sameach, very good. According to the Or Sameach, oh, you'll ask a taina, but why does the bas kol give in Eruvin, why does it give the יצא בת קול ואמרה? Again the Gemara that why would Beis Hillel

זכה ששונים דבריהן נוחים ועלובים ושונים דבריהם עם דברי בית שמאי ולא עוד אלא שמקדימין דברי בית שמאי לדבריהן?

Lemaise, that isn't quoted as a klal hachraa. You don't find that if you have two poskim and one of whom, when he writes a tshuvah on the subject, quotes the dissenting opinion, and the other one, when he writes a tshuvah on the subject, doesn't quote the dissenting opinion, just tells you what his shita is. We don't find that that's one of the klalei hachraa that tells us that we should pasken like the posek who was שונה דבריו ודברי בעל פלוגתא. Why not? The bas kol told us. Because vaiter according to the Or Sameach then the bas kol would have been telling you a din. It might not have been telling you what pshat in beshachbecha is, but it would have been telling you a din ledoros about a klal hachraa. The bas kol couldn't be telling you that either. The bas kol couldn't be telling you a din in dinei hatorah but it could just tell you lemaise what to do. You have to think about this Or Sameach to process it. That's what the Or Sameach says. Okay. The other things that the Rambam clearly does allow for, what do you do with, right, what do you do with, I mean the Gemara in Rosh Hashanah darshens these psukim, right? When during Bayis Sheini, so Zecharyah goes and he asks Hakadosh Baruch Hu a shaila. Yeah, should we fast on Tisha B'av, should we fast on the tanios because of the churban? He goes and he asks Hakadosh Baruch Hu the shaila and Hakadosh Baruch Hu answers the shaila. Okay, the nevuah is a little bit cryptic and the Gemara has to explain to us exactly what it means, but lemaise what is Zecharyah doing asking Hakadosh Baruch Hu a shaila? So lechora the teretz is as follows, and I think if you take a look in, I think it's in the first volume of the Yotzehev on the Yotzehev about kavod ve'oneg, in this in the following context the Rav says something again very fundamental for our sugya. He contrasts the leshonos that you find in the Rambam. If you have zman and take a look, the Rambam in perek aleph of Hilchos Megilla opens as follows: מצות עשה מדברי סופרים והדברים ידועים שהיא תקנת נביאים. So he describes Krias HaMegilla as takkanas haneviim, takkanas neviim. In perek lamed of Hilchos Shabbos, the Rambam writes:

ארבעה דברים נאמרו בשבת שנים מן התורה ושנים מדברי סופרים והם מפורשים על ידי הנביאים.

So in Hilchos Megilla he refers to Krias HaMegilla as takkanas haneviim, takkanas neviim, and in Hilchos Shabbos he refers to kavod ve'oneg as מפורשים על ידי הנביאים shebaTorah zakhor vashamor and then he repeats it... ושנספרו על ידי הנביאים. What's the difference between those two leshonos? So the Rav says the difference between those two leshonos is that takkanas haneviim means that the neviim... were mesaken this mitzvah again. It was in the tkufa of the nevi'im, they were mesaken the mitzvah the same way other mitzvos d'rabbanan were introduced, they were omeid b'beis din, they were omeid le-minyan in Beis Din Hagadol and that's the way the mitzvah was introduced. How could they do it? Fine. So that's what the Gemara in Megillah talks about ve-chulu. We're on Shabbos, fine. שנפרש על ידי נביאים, so the Rav says it means that the nevuah itself created the mitzvah. Ay, does that not fly in the face of אלה המצות שאין נביא רשאי לחדש דבר? So the Rav says and when you look in the Rambam it's takeh, I think, very meduyak that what the Rambam says the navi can't do is the navi can't come and claim d'oraisa status for what he's saying. Yeshayahu HaNavi can't come and say Hakadosh Baruch Hu told me that there's a mitzvah d'oraisa of kavod v'oneg. That that would be what we're learning about here in the Hakdama and in Perek Tes. But if he says not, this is not d'oraisa, this is not d'oraisa, but nevertheless I received a nevuah וקראת לשבת עונג לקדוש ה׳ מכובד and I'm, as instructed, I'm communicating that nevuah to you, so then that the Torah allowed for it. And lichora that's what's going on with Zecharya HaNavi as well. Zecharya's not asking, he didn't, Zecharya doesn't have a, he's not coming with a long and asking Hakadosh Baruch Hu, what do you say about this sechura? Good, no good? Ein hachi nami, that that Zecharya HaNavi never ever could have done. But to ask about something which isn't d'oraisa, that that nevuah can relate, as long as it's not again,

לפיכך אם יעמוד איש מישראל ויאמר שהשם שלחו להוסיף מצוה או לגרוע מצוה לכתוב מצות התורה

to the mitzvos ha-Torah. But to say that this is divrei kabbalah, that this is divrei kabbalah, so that that is legitimate. The other thing that the Rambam, when it comes to Yud-Gimmel Middos, so Chazal by darshaning them gave a din d'oraisa. So therefore, we don't have to go through the Hakdama anymore. By darshaning them, so therefore why wouldn't that be admissible the same way we give a limud? י״ג מדות שהתורה נדרשת בהן. Even though Chazal by darshaning them gave a din d'oraisa. So Chazal are d'rabbanan at the end of the day, but because they're doing a drasha, Yud-Gimmel Middos, so therefore they have a d'oraisa-dikke din. So why don't we see the same thing when it comes to kavod v'oneg? Ein hachi nami, the navi can't be mechadesh something, but they look at the, I guess... Ah, it wasn't in my mind then. Maybe you can say that if there's any ruach hakodesh written in, yeah, let's go back to... so then I guess they weren't themselves, say to a... yeah. The other thing that the Rambam clearly allows for min hashamayim, and again, it happened. The Rambam clearly what he disallows is halacha le-ma'aseh. That a navi can have a nevuah about lots of things which are, ich veiss, yedi'os in Torah which are not, which are not halacha le-ma'aseh, right? When Yechezkel sees where the ofanim are, where the chayos are, when he beholds these things, so that that doesn't pose a question to Lo bashamayim hi. If, if that, and if the punchline to that is, and therefore this is the halacha le-ma'aseh, okay, then that would violate Lo bashamayim hi. But the Rambam is very careful that the Lo bashamayim is again mitzvah min hamitzvos, but there's, right, not all of Torah is halacha le-ma'aseh. Ma'aseh Bereishis, Ma'aseh Merkavah, Ta'amei HaMitzvos, all these, all these chelkei haTorah in terms of havanas haTorah, all these things are, they're not halacha le-ma'aseh. The Rambam says that nevuah was precluded totally and absolutely in terms of halacha le-ma'aseh. Even Ta'amei HaMitzvos let's say per se, and Ma'aseh Merkavah. Ma'aseh Merkavah is not min ha-remez, not part of Torah at all by the Rambam's definition of Talmud, Talmud Torah. ועניינו הנקרא פרדס בכלל התלמוד. Talmud Torah is Torah she'bichtav, Torah she'ba'al peh, and Talmud, ועניינו הנקרא פרדס בכלל תלמוד. And in Hilchos Yesodei HaTorah he tells us that Pardes is Ma'aseh Bereishis, Ma'aseh Merkava. According to the Rambam is the highest form of Talmud Torah. Elei mah, a person has to be ra'uy l'kach to engage in it. The same way, the same way many, many, many of the mekubalim say that the highest form of Talmud Torah is Kabbalah, but a person, that doesn't mean that we're supposed to be doing that. A person has to has to be ra'uy l'kach. What takes the approach of the Ramban that's on the Chumash, that's all the sods of Torah really remuz inside the Chumash somehow? Presumably, means that they were given to Moshe. I mean Moshe presumably had knowledge of all these things and so for the Ramban these things are halacha l'Moshe miSinai and the question really shouldn't shouldn't be in this. It's really just an elaboration and an expansion of nevuah of things that are halacha l'Moshe miSinai. In and but the distinction is still important, right? What would it be if Moshe Rabbeinu was told a certain halacha and the halacha was forgotten? And now basically another halacha l'Moshe miSinai is forgotten? That's a Gemara in Temurah that you can't. The Gemara in Temurah says that in the shloish meos halachos which were forgotten from avel shel Moshe, so they said to Yehoshua, nu go ask. And he said we can't. So even if it's just l'hachazir atara l'yoshena, so that's also precluded by lo bashamayim hi. So you do need this distinction, you still need this distinction between call it the machshava part of Torah and the halacha part of Torah. And and the Rambam clearly is only talking about the the halacha part of Torah. And in this case issur v'heter would not be forgotten, it's just that it was really it was really not in the pshat. Right, no, the Gemara does say that in certain cases. The Gemara says that about certain psukim in Sefer Yechezkel. The Gemara says that that it was Torah she'ba'al peh from Moshe Rabbeinu until a certain point and then and then when when Yechezkel was given a nevuah to write it down. So the Gemara certainly does have that. The Rambam doesn't say that about korbonos and and that's what the Rav understands what the Rambam means by מפורש על ידי הנביאים. And again, and you don't have to say something for the, I mean he doesn't talk about it there if I recall in terms of what's going, maybe he does and I'm forgetting, but in terms of Zecharya's nevuah. But you're going to have to you have to understand what's going on there according to the Rambam anyway. What? In terms of nevuah, in terms of any way you turn it. Okay, good, so that's exactly what we're saying. That the lo bashamayim hi but that's also a halacha. It's also Torah, but the lo bashamayim hi means in terms of in terms of dinim d'Oraisa. And so in terms of this the dinim of the Beis Din made it kind of based on the, the Beis Din made it based on the kind of the information of the nevi'im they had in front of them, which after all started it started as a nevuah. But but again, that's not the legal tokef. That was the that was the background information. So then it would be legitimate for for Zecharya, assuming he had a Beis Din that was גדול בחכמה ובמנין, to to to ask Hashem whether it would be appropriate for them to l'vater on the tzom hachamishi. Because his legal tokef would still not be l'maiseh from the nevuah. The nevuah would just be kind of the giluy ratzon Hashem. You mean he's just asking Kadosh Baruch Hu for an etzah tovah and then the psak is going to go out al shem Zecharya, not על שם הקדוש ברוך הוא? It's not nevuah is the point. That only has tokef d'rabbanan because it's working through this psak de'rabbanan. I don't know whether one can say that Zecharya would have had a right to disregard it at all. If Zecharya had wanted he could have disregarded the nevuah? It's certainly interesting. I suspect he was to act as Abdan or was he to act as Rabban or to act as an Abdan. No, I mean, let's say we guess that the original Gemara had it as Tanna. As a Tanna, they would fix this to say Amora. I don't know. But that wouldn't change the fact that as a matter of P’shat this Tanna is Abdan.