Hakdama L’Peirush Hamishnayos #4

It's in the Rav Kapach edition on amud dalet, left-hand column. The Rambam continues, לפיכך כשיתן הנביא הנבואה ולא ייחס אותה לעבודה זרה. If a Navi will claim that he received nevuah from Hakadosh Baruch Hu, he won't attribute the source of nevuah to avodah zarah,

ולא הוסף על דברי תורה ולא גרע ממנה אלא מתעסק בעניינים אחרים כמו שביארנו.

So now, this could possibly be an actual nevuah. This could possibly be a nevuah emet.

צריכים אנו לבחון אותו כדי לאמת טענתו. אם נתאמתו דבריו חייבים לשמוע לכל אשר יצווה מקטני העניינים ועד גדולם.

Doesn't matter how seemingly trivial the tzivuy is or how significant it seems to be.

וכל העובר על משהו מכל אשר יצווה חייב מיתה בידי שמים כמאמר השם בעובר על דברי הנביא אנכי אדרוש מעמו.

On the other hand, אם לא נתאמתו נבואתו מיתה בחנק. If, on the other hand, his nevuah is falsified and it turns out he's a navi sheker, so then he gets chenek.

ותתאמת נבואת הנביא במה שאמר כי שיתן אדם שנתנבא כמו שביארנו והיה ראוי לה. כלומר שיהיה מבעלי החכמה והדעת פירוש משכיל כליל המידות הטובות לפי הכלל שאצלנו אין הנבואה שורה אלא על חכם גיבור ועשיר ופטור מהעניין הזה שיאפשר עתה לכלול על סופם. והדיבור בהם והראיות על כל אחד מהם במקראות מכתבי הקודש מדברי חכמים ועוד יהיה זה ספר בפני עצמו. ואולי יעזור השם עליו עם מה שראוי לצרף לעניין הזה. אם היה הגון כפי שצריך ואמר שנתנבא נאמר לו הבטיחנו הבטחות והודיענו הודעות ממה שהודיעך השם.

There's something absolutely remarkable here. The Rambam says again the test for the truthfulness of the Navi, for the veracity of the Navi, is he foretells the future and he's able to do so consistently and is right one hundred percent of the time. The Rambam says we only have recourse to that test, we only need that test to try to distinguish a navi sheker from a navi emet if the person is qualified for nevuah. If the person is qualified for nevuah. If the person is not qualified for nevuah, if a person gets up who's not a chacham gibbor v'ashir and alleges that he received nevuah, so then we don't bother asking him for predictions and we don't have to wait, we don't have to wait to see whether or not those predictions materialize or they don't. No, it's automatic that that person is a navi sheker because if he is not worthy מצד הוא מי שהוא, so then it's, it's transparently the case that he's a navi sheker. Again, if you look again beginning the last two words on amud dalet, ve-haya ra'ui lah. He claims he received nevuah and he's worthy, he's a worthy candidate of having received nevuah.

כלומר שיהיה מבעלי החכמה והדעת פירוש משכיל כליל המידות הטובות.

So the Rambam has in mind here the same description that he gives us in the beginning of perek zayin of Yesodei HaTorah. מיסודי הדת לידע שהא-ל מנבא את בני האדם. It's the sixth of the yud gimmel ikkarim is that there is nevuah.

ואין הנבואה חלה אלא על חכם גדול בחכמה גיבור במידותיו ולא יהיה יצרו מתגבר עליו בדבר בעולם אלא הוא מתגבר בדעתו על יצרו תמיד בעל דעה רחבה נכונה עד מאוד.

So first of all again he has to be a chacham gadol be-chochmah. He has to be a gibor be-midotav that he never ever - doesn't mean that he doesn't have a yetzer hara, the Rambam doesn't say that he doesn't have a yetzer hara, but the yetzer hara never wins. He he wins 100 percent of the time against against the yetzer hara. Then

אדם שהוא ממולא בכל המידות האלו שלם בגופו כשיכנס לפרדס

which the Rambam defines as Ma'aseh Bereshit and Ma'aseh Merkavah

וימשך באותן העניינות הגדולים הרחוקים ותהיה לו דעת נכונה להבין ולהשיג ומלמד נפשו שלא תהיה לו מחשבה כלל מאחד מדברים בטלים ולא מהבלי הזמן ותחבולותיו.

He doesn't entertain a thought. He never thinks about devarim betelim, about ephemeral matters. So then such a person can have nevuah. So it comes out first of all according to the Rambam again, it's just we'll see a couple of things. So A, again the the claim to have received nevuah, so it's immediately falsified if that person is not rauy le-kach. The Rambam doesn't believe - I mean why is this the Rambam more than than the meimar Chazal? It's a Gemara in Shabbat, a Gemara in Nedarim that he is referring to here on chacham, gibor, and osher. Because some Rishonim say that when Chazal say that אין הנבואה שורה אלא על it means bi-keviut. In order for a person to be a a regular navi to receive nevuah bi-keviut, so then... but as a miracle, so yitachen that anyone could receive nevuah. The Rambam says no, Hakadosh Baruch Hu doesn't operate that way. That that if a person comes and alleges nevuah and he doesn't fit, he doesn't match the profile, so you know right away that he is a nevi sheker. Right away that he is a nevi sheker. Isn't there also a focus over there that osher means sameach be-chelko in Pirkei Avot? Right. So so the Rambam here clearly seems to be saying that that... seems to be saying that all these things, I mean איזהו גיבור הכובש את יצרו. Correct. So we'll come to that bli neder later, but again that's not going to that's sort of a self-contained point, it's not going to affect what we're discussing now. The Rambam's chiddush is that the Gemara is referring to middot. According to other Rishonim the Gemara is not referring to middot at all. Again, but either way the point is whatever the Gemara's list is, whatever the Gemara's list is, the question is is that list a chok ve-lo ya'avor of an absolute prerequisite for nevuah or does that mean bi-keviut? Again, so ina nami what the list is is also very important, but the an independent point is whether or not this list is in order for a navi to have nevuah bi-keviut or whether it means to have nevuah even once. The Rambam says it doesn't... it doesn't happen with the possible possible exception of Matan Torah. There are different indications as to whether the Rambam thinks we all had nevuah be-sha'at be-sha'at Matan Torah. With the possible one-time exception of Matan Torah but even there the I think the Rambam apparently changed his mind on on that question. I was also curious the Rambam says אז ראו עיניים מה שלא ראה. I'm not sure if if ra'iyah has to mean nevuah according to the Rambam. I don't know if I don't know if that's what ra'ah always means. Even מה שלא ראה יחזקאל בן בוזי? Meaning מה שלא ראה יחזקאל בן בוזי, so so what is the Rambam going to do with that? So was Kriat Yam Suf also an exception? Yeah, I don't know. Good question. I don't know the answer. That's a very good question, I don't know. How do you understand the Rambam over there that seeing a malach is nevuah? So I can understand that this personality requirement is for any type of nevuah ever. So how do you understand stories in Tanach like Eshet Manoach? Right. So the Rambam says that not all these things are nevuah. He says he says Lavan is not getting nevuah and Avimelech is not getting nevuah, that it's something under the... The Rambam says... of the ten dragos in nevuah and then there are things underneath those ten dragos of nevuah. And in all these cases he understands them to be not to have been nevuah, some kind of let's say a person has a real dream. But the dream isn't a nevuah experience. And let's say a person has a dream in which something true is revealed to him. But that's not a nevuah experience. So there are sort of avenues of modes of communication which are not, which the Rambam says are not nevuah. In the same way we mentioned last week, you know, again, whatever the however the bas kol operates, the Chazal already say that the bas kol is not, you know, is not nevuah and yet it's, you know, some form of communication. So there are communications and visions which are not nevuah. Okay. So that's A in the Rambam. The Rambam thinks that Hakadosh Baruch Hu again, what was Krias Yam Suf also possibly an exception, I don't know, that's a very good question. But certainly from Matan Torah on, it just doesn't happen. And the other thing is the amazing thing is it gives you pshat in the psukim. Is there a Chumash Devarim? Thank you. Right when the Torah talks about the navi sheker, so here in Parshat Shoftim:

אך הנביא אשר יזיד לדבר דבר בשמי את אשר לא צויתיו לדבר ואשר ידבר בשם אלהים אחרים ומת הנביא ההוא. וכי תאמר בלבבך איכה נדע את הדבר אשר לא דברו ה'. אשר ידבר הנביא בשם ה' ולא יהיה הדבר ולא יבוא הוא הדבר אשר לא דברו ה' בזדון דברו הנביא לא תגור ממנו.

But don't be afraid of him. Don't be afraid of the navi sheker. According to the Rambam, it's the pshat, I think maybe he even alludes to it here subsequently in the here in the perakim on nevuah. But it's an unbelievable pshat. The navi sheker is one of the gedolei vetzadikei hador. The navi sheker whose nevuah was only exposed as a navi sheker because אשר ידבר הנביא ולא יהיה הדבר ולא יבוא, that test, it's unbelievable, mamash mafla al haraya. That test you only subject someone to who meets that profile of Perek Zayin of Hilchos Yesodei HaTorah. It's unbelievable. He's a chacham, he's again, he's one of the greatest חכמי צדיקי גדולי הדורות, I mean, not just hador, to be a candidate for nevuah. Because if he weren't that, you wouldn't need, the Rambam says the test of איכה נדע את הדבר is not some guy you never heard of before. We learn pshat in these psukim, so we think it's like this. We think some guy we never saw before comes, he alleges he's a navi, turns out he's a charlatan. Okay, shoin, so he's, okay, so how could it be that such a thing as a navi sheker? Okay, it's an olam hasheker, there's no lack of shakranim in the olam hasheker. According to the Rambam, it's unbelievable, mafla al haraya. You only have recourse to this test of אשר ידבר הנביא ולא יהיה הדבר ולא יבוא if he was ra'ui lenvuah. I don't know, whatever the again, acharei kichlos hakol, I don't know that we have any havana in what Chazal mean when they say כל הגדול מחבירו יצרו גדול הימנו but a manifestation of it, it certainly is. He could use a diuk from the Rambam that he would give a navi, navi sheker chenek just because he doesn't have the qualifications. תסמית נבואת הנביא במה שמאמר, right? You have it in front of you? So תסמית, if you're looking in a Kapach, you're looking in a regular one? I think it's the same. Okay, so:

תסמית נבואת הנביא במה שמאמר כשיתן אדם שנתנבא כמו שבארנו והיה ראוי לו.

That's mitzod the gavra, so it's, yeah. it's, yeah, yitachen that he had, that he had a nevuah. And what does that mean? Again, so here the Rambam says bekitzeh what he says a little bit more be'harchava in perek zayin of Yesodei HaTorah. Then he says, shehaya rauy lo, so then we proceed to ולא היה ראוי לו, you know right away that he's a navi sheker. You know right away the same way if he comes and says Hakadosh Baruch Hu comes and Rachmana litzlan says Hakadosh Baruch Hu told him we should be oveid avoda zara. So again, you don't need any other test, you know that that automatically tells you that he's a navi sheker. Remarkable thing. The other sort of example you have in this vein is the Zaken Mamre. Also in order to be a Zaken Mamre, again, so you sort of think oh, the Zaken Mamre he's this mchutzif who doesn't listen to the Beis Din HaGadol. Lema'aseh,

זקן ממרא הוא אמר בתורה פרק ג' מהלכות ממרים הלכה ד'.

Here already this is not by navi sheker, it's the Shittas HaRambam, this isn't the Shittas HaRambam this is just pshuto shel devarim.

אבל זקן ממרא הוא אמר בתורה הוא חכם אחד מחכמי ישראל שיש בידו קבלה,

meaning he's a סמוך איש מפי איש going back to the original semicha of Moshe Rabbeinu

ודן ומורה בדיני תורה כמו שידונו ויורו כל חכמי ישראל.

So again, he's one of the biggest talmidei chachamim around. So the pshat is according to the Rambam that's lo tasur mimenu. Lo tasur mimenu means that we're giving misa beis din to this person who was from the seemingly, seemingly from the rauy lenevuah, that a person who was such a ba'al madreiga, something happened. Something happened. Just following up on the other point, so the Rambam here is mashma two things. When the Rambam says lefi shehaklal etzleinu, again so who is it who's rauy lenevuah? So the Rambam says אין הנבואה שורה אלא על חכם גיבור ועשיר, and he says that as the proof text for the fact that he has to be מבעלי החכמה והדעת כליל המידות הטובות. So it's clear that the Rambam is telling us that the pshat in gibbor is

על פי המשנה בפרקי אבות שהיה איזהו גיבור הכובש את יצרו,

because lemai nafka mina you know how strong he is in terms of eligibility for nevuah? So lema'aseh this isn't a kasha, I don't think he had this. Lema'aseh the Lechem Mishneh sort of was mechaven to this possibility and said but it doesn't work lichora. The Lechem Mishneh here in perek zayin of Yesodei HaTorah discusses this also. Did the Rambam when the Rambam says חכם גדול בחכמה גיבור במידותיו, is that how we learn pshat in the ma'amar Chazal or is he saying it misvara dinafshai? So he says that lichora it's not tenable to say that's what Chazal mean because Chazal in the Gemara Shabbos, Chazal add ba'al koma to the list and they say that and the proof of that is Moshe Rabbeinu was ten amos tall. So you see that the physical descriptions are not metaphors but they seem to be literal. And when the Gemara in Nedarim mentions gibbor, so the Gemara in Nedarim proves gibbor from the fact that Moshe Rabbeinu was meikim es haMishkan. So you see that Moshe Rabbeinu was a tremendous gibbor. So in Chazal it sounds like they intended these things literally, literally. And the Rambam says no, so the question is how did the Rambam learn pshat in those Gemaras? But it's clear from the way from our Rambam here in the Peirush HaMishnayos that he is getting it from the ma'amar Chazal because lefi shehaklal etzleinu doesn't mean this is what I always say, he's not quoting himself here, lefi shehaklal etzleinu means he's referring to a ma'amar Chazal. So that's a shayla. The Rambam writes just an interesting aside, right? He writes it

אולי יעזור השם עליו עם מה שראוי לצרף לעניין הזה.

This is, I think there are other places also, but the Rambam contemplated writing a sefer about nevuah, about what the nevuah is. It never materialized and he talks about it in the Moreh, but as an independent sefer, it never materialized, but that's what he's alluding to here when he says that

במאריך יהיה זה ספר בפני עצמו ואולי יעזור השם עליו.

Bichlal, bichlal, there are indications from such sort of asides in the Rambam that at a very young age, it's just astounding, mamash ayom ve-nora, how so much, I mean he fine-tuned, he changed his mind on points here and there, but how much and to what extent the Rambam had everything worked out in his mind of what he wrote subsequently in the Yad and what he wrote subsequently in the Moreh. For instance if you take a look in Hakdamas le-Perek Chelek, in the Yud-Gimmel Ikkarim, so when the Rambam lists each of the Yud-Gimmel Ikkarim, so then he tells you what the pasuk in the Chumash is for it. That each each one he tells you the psukim in Chumash for it. So on the Yesod Ha-Chamishi which is Avodah Zarah, he says רוב התורה באה להזהיר על עניין זה. Says I don't have to quote you individual psukim like I do for the other Ikkarim, says the majority of Torah is about this. Where is the majority of Chumash about the about Avodah Zarah? Where did the Rambam see that רוב התורה באה להזהיר על זה? So the answer is that if you take a look at the Rambam's Ta'amei Mitzvos which 30 years later, 40 years later he finally had time to write down in the Moreh, so the Rambam says that basically all the chukim, all can be understood against the background of Avodah Zarah practices. And he explains so much of so many of the chukei ha-Torah based on again to wean us, to protect us, etc. from the Avodah Zarah practices. So it's quite clear that when the Rambam was writing the Peirush Hamishnayos in his youth, all of this was cheshbon-ed out. Then you have the Rambam makes another aside. He writes, this is less dramatic but also also quite remarkable. He writes in the Hakdamah le-Sefer Hamitzvos. In the Hakdamah le-Sefer Hamitzvos the Rambam says that he intends Sefer Hamitzvos as an introductory volume to Mishneh Torah that he plans on writing bezras Hashem. And so basically Sefer Hamitzvos is a checklist for for Mishneh Torah to make sure that he covers all the Taryag Mitzvos, but since he sees that the Geonim made mistakes in enumerating it, so he's gonna add this lengthy Hakdamah where he talks about the 14 Shorashim for how for what should be included in Minyan Ha-Mitzvos and whatnot. Fine, so in the Hakdamah le-Sefer Hamitzvos the Rambam's describing this project that he that he has in mind, right? At the time the project was in the Rambam's head. It wasn't on wasn't on parchment yet. To write the Yad HaChazakah, it's gonna encompass kol ha-Torah kulah, not only what's noheg bizman hazeh. And then he decides he tells you what language he's gonna write it in, he's gonna write it in Lashon Mishnah, and then he decides that what the format's gonna be, that it's gonna be topical, not by masechtos, but it'll be topical, and then he'll break every everything down, every set of halachos he'll break down into perakim and halachos. He says for instance, so I'm gonna have something called Hilchos Tefillin, and in Hilchos Tefillin you have to look at the Frankel Sefer Hamitzvos not not the standard one, and in Hilchos Tefillin he says I'm gonna have four perakim. So if you look in the Yad HaChazakah there's mamash four perakim Hilchos Tefillin. Mamash ad kedei kach. Not only did he have kol ha-Torah kulah systematized, but ad kedei kach he knew that when he was gonna get around to writing Mishneh Torah that it was gonna take him four perakim to to distill all of Hilchos Tefillin into four perakim. We we we simply have no hassaga. We don't begin to imagine, it's beyond our imagination, the stature of the of the of the Rambam and the Rishonim as well. I think we mentioned a couple of weeks ago the Meshech Chochma, the Meshech Chochma explains how the Rambam counting Anochi in his whole Minyan Hamitzvos is leshitaso, the shtikel Torah that the Rambam, again, he didn't get around to writing it down for another 30 plus years in Moreh Nevuchim, but what it means אנכי ולא יהיה לך מפי הגבורה שמענום. So then everything by his Bar Mitzvah, everything was mamash, all this was all this was in his head, he just had to find time to to write it down. Extraordinary. So the Sefer Nevua, at least in in its entirety, didn't materialize, and instead the Rambam devotes space to it in in the Moreh. Right? So the Rambam continues, אם היה הגון לו כפי שצריך ואמר שנתנבא, again, the Rambam repeats, if he's if in theory he might possibly be fitting for nevuah,

נאמר לו הבטיחנו הבטחות והודיענו הודעות ממה שהודיעך השם. והוא אומר: אם נתקימו כל הבטחותיו, ידענו אמיתת נבואתו, ואם כזב במשהו מדבריו, אפילו בקטנים שבהם, אז נדע שהוא שקר. ובחינה זו מפורשת בתורה, שנאמר: וכי תאמר בלבבך איכה נדע את הדבר אשר לא דיברו השם, אשר ידבר הנביא בשם השם ולא יהיה ולא יבוא הוא הדבר אשר לא דיברו השם בזדון דיברו הנביא. וגם אם נתקיימו דבריו בהבטחה או שתיים, לא תסמוך בזה נבואתו בהחלט, אבל תהיה נבואתו אצלנו תלויה, עד שתימשך אמיתת כל מה שידבר בשם השם פעם אחר פעם. לפיכך נאמר בשמואל כאשר נתפרסם ונתאמת שכל מה שהוא אומר מתקיים, וידע כל ישראל מדן ועד באר שבע כי נאמן שמואל לנביא להשם.

And then the Rambam also tells us something remarkable which gives us perspective on on what we learn in Nevi'im Rishonim. He says, ובכל ענייניהם היו שואלים את הנביאים. He says, the Navi, it was part of his tafkid to be available for people to ask all sorts of questions.

אילו לא היו שואלים את הנביאים בכל ענייניהם, לא היה הולך שאול לשאול לשמואל על אבידה שאבדה לו בתחילה.

He says what's Shaul going to ask Shmuel about the the donkeys? And that's that's what you that's what you bother Shmuel HaNavi with? Yeah. ובלי ספק שהדבר כך. The Rambam says this too is pesukim in in Chumash, in Parshas Shoftim.

לפי שהשם העמיד לנו את הנביאים לכל משאלותינו, במקום החוזים בכוכבים והמנחשים והמעוננים.

Right, the Rambam says if you just learn Chumash, so what you read about a Navi is just an application of what it says in Chumash, right?

כי הגויים האלה אשר אתה יורש אותם אל מעוננים ואל קוסמים ישמעו, ואתה לא כן נתן לך השם אלוקיך. נביא מקרבך מאחיך כמוני יקים לך השם אלוקיך אליו תשמעון.

So the Goyim ha'eileh, so they would turn to the me'onenim v'kosmim for hadracha in avodas Hashem? No, they would turn to the me'onenim v'kosmim for millei d'alma, they wanted to know is today a good day to do this, where can I find this? For for devarim pe'utim, for millei d'alma. And the Torah says,

ואתה לא כן נתן לך השם אלוקיך נביא מקרבך מאחיך כמוני,

meaning the Navi was intended just his his 100 percent accuracy was intended to give people a chizuk, and because of that because of that you were supposed to turn to him with I can't find my donkey, where's where do I find my donkey? Rambam says that's the pshat in the psukim. But doesn't a person also have to ask a Navi today is an auspicious day for his business or that? No? Not identical? No, I don't think he's he's not allowed to. Right, not identical in that sense. Right, not identical. Right, not identical in in that sense, but but in terms of the devarim ktantanim, yes. Yes. And we see that Moshe Rabbeinu... No, Moshe Rabbeinu was the only one who could initiate nevuah. Moshe Rabbeinu could be misnavei b'chol eis, right? That's one of the four differences between nevuas Moshe Rabbeinu and that of all other nevi'im. So when Shmuel knows where the, when Shmuel knows where the donkeys are, it's not that he's initiating nevuah, he's not calling his hotline and saying where are the donkeys? No, he knows bederech nevuah, he knows where they are, but he's not initiating, he's not initiating nevuah. What's pshat? Like when he's called an ish Elokim, he's kashur with the ovos, like the ov and yidoni, these things? To really understand any of these things, a person has to, whenever we talk about these things we're talking about, you know, the same way everyone gives the moshel, right? Go describe colors to rachmana litzlan a blind person. In all these things we're talking about things that we don't, you know, the words are all empty shells, but the navi has inside information, but lav davka that what that means is that he's having a nevuah experience when he, you know, when that information is given to him. Again, the same way, again this we can understand a little bit. There is such a thing as a regular, regular simple person like we are having a dream that's true, which, but that's got nothing to do with a nevuah experience. So it doesn't mean that the navi is initiating nevuah. So would this be a makor let's say for asking gedolei hador things about milchama? Where the Gemara in Bava Basra, adif michacham, right? Where's that mareh makom? I don't know, I have to take a look first in that Gemara in Bava Basra. I have to chazered it over first. Okay, then the Rambam continues here, u'mipnei kach, and the Rambam again says basically pshat in the pesukim again, that

לכן אתה לכן נתן לך השם אלקיך נביא מקרבך מאחיך כמוני,

the same way that you could turn to the, you could turn to the navi, the same way that the ovdei avodah zarah turned to me'onanim ve'kosemim about the same types of issues you could turn to a navi. I don't think one would say is this day an auspicious day, but I think one could ask the navi should I go into this business, should I buy this real estate, should I, that one could do. You know, is the market going to go up, is the market going to go down?

ושמא יחשב אדם ויאמר אם בהתקיים אגדת העתידות תתקיים הנבואה לטועניה,

if making true predictions is what establishes the navi's credentials, so

המנחשים והחוזים בכוכבים כולם היו יכולים לטעון שהם נביאים שהרי אנו רואים אותם בתמידות מגידים עתידות. הנה זה חי השם עניין גדול וראוי שנבארנו כדי שיתבאר ההבדל בין דבר הנביא על פי השם ודברי בעל הכוכב.

All right, so the Rambam says and again there are pesukim in Navi that lema'aseh they do make, whether it's, the Rambam doesn't tell you how they're able to do so, obviously he wouldn't. Right, so the Rambam says, and again there's psukim in, he quotes psukim in Navi, that lema'aseh they do make, whether it's, the Rambam doesn't tell you how they're able to do so. Obviously, he wouldn't attribute it to anything supernatural, but they do. The chozim bakochavim do make true predictions, right? There was some famous quack who predicted JFK's assassination but before when he was elected in 1960 so she predicted that JFK was going to be assassinated. Okay, so in that case what sort of didn't get press was that every four years she predicted that the person would be assassinated. All right, so finally finally she lucked out and and that happened. There is such a thing as through non-prophetic avenues making predictions and making accurate predictions again whether it's whether at times there's an element of luck whether it's analysis or whatever it is. There is such a thing, the Rambam says that what characterizes the navi is that the navi has to be 100 percent correct and accurate down to the slightest detail. And he says the chozim bakochavim, so they would promise that it's going to rain tomorrow and then if it would rain a day after tomorrow, so then that was good enough, so then that prediction was close enough and that would establish their their credentials. And mistama, maybe they had learned how to read cloud patterns and they could recognize rain clouds or whatever they understood weather systems. So the Rambam says that that's the that's what distinguishes the navi, that the navi again is 100 a thousand percent correct down to the most minute detail. Again he has psukim from Navi which indicate that they will be right sometimes. And then the Rambam turns and he comes to another question which is that if the test for a navi is when he predicts something and it doesn't materialize, so again the Rambam says there is a difference between whether it's a nevuah lera, this is on amud vav in the Kapach edition, there's a difference between whether it's a nevuah lera or a nevuah letovah. A nevuah lera like Yonah, so we know that a person can be a navi emet, a nevuah lera doesn't have to materialize if they do teshuvah, so then Hakadosh Baruch Hu will not bring about that nevuah lera, it won't materialize. So that will never be the test of a navi. What will be the test of a navi if it's a nevuah letovah. So in terms of when I don't know if this is like a specific pshat that people are trying to understand in order that like say nevuat Yonah that he said עוד ארבעים יום ונינוה נהפכת that it's gonna be turned around, so it says oh you can understand that in two ways: either it means it's literally going to be turned around because it's going to be destroyed or it means like the entire city is going to do teshuvah. Like would there be a hechrech to try to understand, meaning would there be shittos that have a hechrech to understand that way in order that the nevuah doesn't be quote unquote contradicted or like the Rambam wouldn't feel the necessity to say that. I think I think the answer is that the Rambam would not feel the necessity because he goes on and he says he says one of the places where you find this in Navi, if you have it in front of you I'm looking in the left-hand column of amud vav,

על יסוד הגדול הזה רמז ירמיה במחלוקתו עם חנניה בן עזור כי ירמיה היה מתנבא לרעה ולאובדן שנבוכדנצר יגבר ויכבוש ויחריב בית המקדש וחנניה בן עזור היה מתנבא לטוב שיחזרו לירושלים כלי בית השם שנלקחו לבבל ולכן אמר לו ירמיה בהתווכח עמו לפי היסודות המקובלים אם לא תתקיים נבואתי ולא יגבר נבוכדנצר ויחזרו כלי בית השם כדבריך אין בזה הכחשת נבואתי כי אולי ריחם השם עליהם אבל אם לא יתקיימו דבריך ולא יחזרו כלי בית השם בזה יתברר שטענתך שקר ולא תאמת נבואתך עד שיתקיימו ההבטחות הטובות האלו שאתה מבטיח.

So the Rambam seems to say no, that it doesn't have to be that way, it doesn't have to be that in retrospect we then see a double entendre as to what the original nevuah meant. The idea that you're saying, so the Rav says that in a different context in a beautiful beautiful pshat, it's in the one of the English sforim that came out, the one on Avraham Avinu, so he says: How do you understand מעשה אבות סימן לבנים that what the avot did again, so the avot didn't just live private lives but their actions sort of foreshadowed and foretold. What would happen subsequently. So how do you reconcile that with the bechiras. So if Yitzchak Avinu digging the wells contains remazim to the Batei Mikdash being destroyed and all the other again Maasei Avos which are Simanim Labanim so how do you reconcile that with? So the Rav gives an example as follows. He says you can be foretold that on Har Moriah Avraham Avinu is going to engage in the ultimate sacrifice to HaKadosh Baruch Hu. He says that we realize now that that can mean one of two things. It could mean pshuto kemashmao that Yitzchak Avinu would be nishchat or it could mean as actually happens in the Akeidah that Avraham Avinu again he was ready to do so and had overcome and had put aside and had sacrificed his intense profound love for Yitzchak Avinu and that's the sacrifice. So that idea that you're saying in Ninveh nehpachas so the Rav says that you have that as it were ambiguity is built into מעשה אבות סימן לבנים but in a nevuah I think that the Rambam would tell us it doesn't have to be because a nevuah l'ra doesn't have to happen because a nevuah l'ra is always contingent. It's understood that when HaKadosh Baruch Hu says a nevuah l'ra unless it's with a shevua or whatever maybe that's different but stam a nevuah l'ra is understood to be contingent.