PHM #5

I think we left off in the Haqdamah here, that the Rambam was talking about the different types of nevuah. Spoke about the two types of מתנבא בשם עבודה זרה. I think we saw that. I think we're up to misnavei b'shem Hashem, the two types of misnavei b'shem Hashem.

מתנבא בשם ה' נחלק גם כן לשני חלקים החלק הראשון שמתנבא בשם ה' וקורא להאמין בו ומזרז לעבודתו.

I mean, that would be okay, but

ואמר שהשם הוסיף על המצוה מצוה או גרע מהן מצוה מכל המצות הכתובות בספר התורה. ואין חילוק בין שיוסיף ויגרע בכתובים או שיוסיף ויגרע בפירוש המקובל.

Rather the hosafah or girayon is in the Torah she-b'chsav or whether the hosafah or girayon is in the

תורה שבעל פה. והנה הוספתו וגריעתו בכתובים כגון שיאמר השם אמר לי שהערלה תהיה שתי שנים בלבד ולאחר שתי שנים מותר לאכול פירות הנטיעה או שיאמר שהשם אמר לי שארבע שנים אסור לאוכלם במקום אשר ישתדל במקום אשר אמר ישתדל שלש שנים יהיו לכם ערלים וכולו וכל כיוצא בזה. או ישנה בקבלה איזה שינוי שיהיה אף אם היה שהכתוב מסייעו כגון שיאמר כי מה שאמר בתורה וקצותה את כפה לא תחוס עינך הוא קיצוץ היד ממש ואינו קנס,

meaning money,

המבייש כמו שבא בקבלה וייחס זאת לנבואה ויאמר שהשם אמר לי כי מה שאמר וקצותה את כפה הוא כפשוטו הרי זה גם כן יומת בחנק לפי שהוא נביא שקר ומיחס להשם מה שלא אמר לו.

Again, so that's by definition, anytime if a navi comes and is not as a hora'as sha'ah, but is just being moseif or mighrayeh on mash'kasov baTorah, so that by definition is definitionally a navi sheker. And that's why

ואין משגיחים גם בזה על אות ומופת שהרי הנביא שהפליא את כל העולם במופת והכתיר השם בלבבנו את צדקתו והאמונה בו כמו שהבטיח יתעלה ואמר וגם בך יאמינו לעולם. והוא הגיד לנו בשם השם שלא תבא מאת השם תורה זולת זאת. והוא אמר יתעלה לא בשמים היא לאמר מי יעלה לנו השמימה.

Henceforth, says Moshe Rabbeinu, lo bashamayim hee. No divrei Torah are m'shamayim.

ובאמרו בפיך ובלבבך נתכוון לכתובים הזכורים בפה והלימודים הנדרשים על ידי העיון שהוא מכלל הכחות הנמשכים מן הלב.

The Rambam says that leiv sometimes means moach.

והזהירנו גם כן מהוסיף עליהם ומגרוע מהם ואמר לא תוסיף עליו ולא תגרע ממנו ועל כן אמר עליהם השלום אין נביא רשאי לחדש דבר מעתה. ומאחר שידענו מטענתו שטען שקר על השם בייחסו לו מה שלא אמר לו נתחייב מיתה כמו שאמר הכתוב אך הנביא אשר יזיד וכולו ומת הנביא ההוא.

So the fact that we know of the truthfulness of nevuas Moshe Rabbeinu based on Ma'amad Har Sinai, וגם בך יאמינו לעולם, so we know that Moshe Rabbeinu was the shliach Hashem to communicate Torah, and it says in that Torah, lo bashamayim hee, it says in that Torah

אלה המצות אין נביא רשאי לחדש דבר, לא תוסיף ולא תגרע ממנו,

so mimeila any alleged, any navi or so-called navi who alleges to be moseif, mighrayeh, etc., so we know by definition that that constitutes a, that that is a navi sheker. nevuas sheker, nevuas sheker. Tosfos in Bava Metzia asks what's the difference between the bas kol of Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua where Rabbi Yehoshua says lo bashamayim hi and we pasken delo Rabbi Eliezer in in that case of tano shel achnai as opposed to the bas kol which says הלכה כדברי בית הלל. So Tosfos gives gives two answers. Tosfos says one answer is that Rabbi Eliezer in arguing with with the other chachamim so Rabbi Eliezer invited the bas kol. He invited that all these kinds of miracles should happen to confirm that what he was saying is true. So memailah over there the bas kol יצא משום כבודו של Rabbi Eliezer. Mah shekein Beis Hillel did not ask for a bas kol. That's one one chilluk Tosfos suggests. The other chilluk Tosfos suggests is that the bas kol by Rabbi Eliezer was going against divrei Torah. Rabbi Eliezer was a yachid and he was outvoted so it was יחיד ורבים הלכה כרבים. So the bas kol was going against that. The whole reason there was a standoff, there was a stalemate between Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel was because the question was did the din of rov apply bechol? Beis Hillel were takeh rov but Beis Shammai טענו דאיתנהו מחדדי טפי and because of that the din of rov doesn't apply. So the bas kol wasn't going against divrei Torah. When the bas kol doesn't go against divrei Torah so then then you can accept the bas kol. So the Kesef Mishneh Hilchos Yesodei HaTorah for the Rambam has a similar presentation to to what we're learning here in the hakdama where the Rambam just just categorically totally disallows says that Hakadosh Baruch Hu has said that he's not going to communicate anymore in terms of the substance of divrei Torah. So the Kesef Mishneh asks Kitzur maaseh I don't see it now. The Kesef Mishneh asks oh here it is, yeah okay. Aval kashyei li. The Kesef Mishneh is on halachos gimmel daled here in perek tes of Yesodei HaTorah. Aval kashyei li

דאמר פרק קמא דיבמות דיצאה בת קול לומר הלכה כבית הלל וקיימא לן הכי בכל דוכתא ותוספות שם בפרק הזב נתנו טעם לדבר ואינו הולך כדבריהם וצריך עיון.

But the Rambam just just categorically, the Rambam doesn't say well there can still be a bas kol and as long as it's not contradicting divrei Torah. No it can't. The Rambam says meforash here the Rambam writes meforash

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

So clearly lo bashamayim hi means not only bederech nevuah. It's true that that whatever bas kol is, a bas kol is not nevuah. A bas kol is some kind of communication mishamayin which is a darga lower lesser than than than nevuah. But when the Torah says lo bashamayim hi so the Torah is saying is saying no nevuah and no bas kols and no emails and no WhatsApps nothing lo bashamayim hi. Sof pasuk. So how does that how does that allow for for the bas kol of of Beis Hillel and Beis Shammai? That's the Kesef Mishneh's kashya and he leaves vetzarich iyun. So the Osom Echad here says a very beautiful teretz. The bas kol

אמר רבי אבא משמיה דשמואל שלוש שנים נחלקו בית שמאי ובית הלל הללו אומרים הלכה כמותנו והללו אומרים הלכה כמותנו יצאה בת קול ואמרה אלו ואלו דברי אלוהים חיים והלכה כבית הלל וכי מאחר שאלו ואלו דברי אלוהים חיים הם מפני מה זכו בית הלל לקבוע הלכה כמותן מפני שנוחין ועלובין היו ושונין דבריהן ודברי בית שמאי ולא עוד אלא שמקדימין דברי בית שמאי לדבריהן.

So the Meshech Chochmah says as follows. He says lu yehi that the Bas Kol would have endorsed the substance of what Beis Hillel said. Dehainu beshochbecha uvekumecha Beis Hillel is right. It does not mean that you lie down at night when you say Krias Shema and that you have to stand up in the morning to say Krias Shema. It means זמן שכיבה וזמן קימה. Vechayotzei baze. Lu yehi that the Bas Kol had been misyaches to the substance of the divrei Torah, so then ein hachi nami, so such a Bas Kol would have been rejected. It would have been lo bashamayim hi. The Bas Kol said without being misyaches to the substance of the divrei Torah. Adaraba, אלו ואלו דברי אלוהים חיים. The Bas Kol has to makdim that this isn't being misyaches to the substance of the divrei Torah, it's not saying that one is correct and one isn't correct. It as it were is just saying that without being misyaches to the to the substance of the machlokes, הלכה כדברי בית הלל. So then mibeila the Bas Kol is not telling you divrei Torah. Semuchim ledvarav, I don't remember the Meshech Chochmah has this, maybe he does, but either way semuchim ledvarav is that lechora we don't find in the poskim, let's say there are so many machlokusim between the Shach and the Taz in Yoreh Deah. So how should we pasken? So lechora we should do is we should try to find out who was more noach, who was more aluv, who had the midah of being שונה דבריו ודברי בעל פלוגתא and that's how we should decide do we pasken like the Magen Avraham or do we pasken like the Taz in Orach Chayim? Do we pasken like the Shach or do we pasken like the Taz? Do we pasken like the Beis Shmuel or Chelkas Mechokek? So there is no such klal in hora'ah. But why? Because that gufa, if the Bas Kol had been giving klalei hora'ah, that also would have been substance of divrei Torah. So without giving any klalei hora'ah, which itself are divrei Torah, ספק דאורייתא לחומרא ספק דרבנן לקולא is that that's a klal hachra'ah which itself is a din, which is a din, acharei rabim lehatos is a din. Had the Bas Kol—but we don't. So why, I don't understand, why do we take the הלכה כדברי בית הלל? We don't take the—because the Bas Kol can't be giving us the substance of divrei Torah because that takeh is precluded by lo bashamayim hi. The Bas Kol is saying without kavyachol as it were, without any hisyachsus either to the substance of any מחלוקת בית שמאי ובית הלל or without giving us klalei hora'ah which are dinim veda'as. The Bas Kol is just saying follow Beis Hillel. You follow Beis Hillel. That, so that's not, that's Hakadosh Baruch Hu not speaking about divrei Torah, it's Hakadosh Baruch Hu saying what to do. Hakadosh Baruch Hu, lo bashamayim hi means divrei Torah. לא תוסיף ולא תגרע is divrei Torah. Let's say Hakadosh Baruch Hu tells Eliyahu Hanavi go here. That wasn't precluded by Moshe Rabbeinu saying lo bashamayim hi, by Moshe Rabbeinu saying לא תוסיף ולא תגרע. הלכה כדברי בית הלל is no different than that nevuah telling Eliyahu Hanavi what to what to do. And that's the Meshech Chochmah's vort. He doesn't make this distinction between Beis Hillel and Beis Shammai versus other divrei Torah. In any event, either to follow them or not, way to follow them or not. Meaning that the way the Bas Kol instructed us to follow divrei Beis Hillel, let's take one step back. לא תוסיף ולא תגרע, lo bashamayim hi, אלה המצוות אין נביא רשאי לחדש דבר מעתה. Yeshaya HaNavi can come and come to Chizkiyahu and bring him a nevuah and tell him make a tzeva'ah because you're gonna die. That's not a violation now. He's telling him what to do. He's telling him what to do, but he's not telling him he's not telling him a mitzvah mi-mitzvos HaTorah. He's not telling him a din mi-dinei Torah. So a Navi avada can bring a that's gonna be the second type of misnavei b'shem Hashem, one which is which which can be emes. A Navi can communicate, can transmit a communication from HaKadosh Baruch Hu instructing a yachid or the rabbim what to do. A Navi cannot allegedly communicate or transmit a communication from HaKadosh Baruch Hu about dinei Torah. That he not only to say that orlah is two years or four years, but even to say how we pasken in a machlokes Tanna'im about tzelof shel orlah. Which parts are are the fruit and therefore governed by orlah and which parts are are not the fruit and therefore not governed by orlah. He can't the Navi cannot because HaKadosh Baruch Hu already told us via Moshe Rabbeinu, lo bashamayim hi. And that's why not only a Navi but even a bas kol can't tell us dinei Torah. He can't can't tell us dinei Torah. So the question is if if if if you tell me follow what so-and-so says. If if I hear a bas kol that says there's a machlokes here, ich vays about the bones in the cholent, between Rav Shlomo Zalman and and Rav Moshe and and I hear a bas kol, follow Rav Shlomo Zalman. So that is that precluded by lo bashamayim hi or not, or does it just mean on the d'Oraisa level? It's not the next. Okay. So let's skip the last possibility and and focus on what will help us understand the Rambam here. So that's what the Mei Simcha says. If the bas kol says Beis Hillel is right, Beis Shammai is right. If the bas kol says there's a klal in hachra'ah that you follow those who are more nochim more aluvim, those who have the middah of שונה דבריהם ודברי בר פלוגתם, so then the bas kol is telling you dinei Torah. That's precluded by lo bashamayim hi. But if the bas kol does none of that and the bas kol just says do like Beis Hillel says, that's no different than Yeshaya telling Chizkiyahu it's time to make a tzeva'ah. There is there is a a one one of the most remarkable passages in in from the little bit that I've seen in in in the Sifrei Rishonim you find in the the Smag in his Sefer Mitzvos twice. He tells us this he tells us this in the hakdamah and then he repeats it again in the body of the sefer. He he writes that he had finished writing the the Smag was a was an itinerant darshan. He used to go around from from place to place being maz'hir and mochiach different different communities. And and he writes in the sefer about how he gave a drasha about the zilzul b'mitzvas tefillin and and different mitzvos. And anyway, so that's part of the background to why he wrote the Sefer Mitzvos. Kitzur maiseh, so he he spent I don't know how many years writing this the Smag, the Sefer Mitzvos, and then when he was ready to send it to the printer as it were, so then he has a dream, a chalom. S'iz a maiseh. This is in the Smag. You look it up in in both in the Minyan HaMitzvos and and in the in the body of the sefer. Says he has a that עיקר חסר מן הספר. Says you wrote a whole you wrote a whole Minyan HaMitzvos, Minyan Taryag and you left out, you left out the ikar. You don't have the issur ga'avah. You didn't include the issur ga'avah in the Minyan HaMitzvos. So then the Smag the Smag says he got up in the morning and he un az one can only imagine, all all agitated or whatever, and he says and then he takeh thought about it and and reminded himself of of the Gemara in Sotah of אזהרה לגס הרוח מנין, it's hi-shamer l'cha pen, and that ורם לבבך ושכחת את השם אלוקיך. So כל מקום שאמר השמר פן is lo sa'aseh Chazal say, so hi-shamer pen ve-ram. מכאן אזהרה לגסות הרוח I don't remember, I don't think the Smag tells us what he then had to delete, he had a muggah. There were no seats at the table at that point but anyway threw someone out and then he made a seat at the table for and in the mitzvos lo sa'aseh for the issur ga'avah. So the question is this Smag is against the Rambam or not? Again, Tosfot clearly it's Tosfot think that you can have a bat kol that is that is mevareir something. So Tosfot obviously does this, the question is not does anyone in the Rishonim disagree with the Rambam. The Kesef Mishneh and Tosfot do disagree with the Rambam. They don't give a metzin plus havannah and they say that as long as the bat kol is not contradicting anything you can have a communication from hashamayim that tells you how you how you paskin. But what about this Smag? This Smag is whose camp is he in? So if you take a look it's very meduyak and I don't remember the exact lashon but it's very meduyak. The Smag says he got up in the morning, he says, and I thought about it. What do you mean you thought about it? You had a dream, you were told from hashamayim to put the issur ga'avah in. What are you thinking about? No, that's lo bashamayim hi. Lo bashamayim hi but you can get a hint. And it's he wasn't he wasn't makhni'a himself to the substance of the chalom. But he did take the chalom seriously that he reviewed Shas and five minutes later decided, no, takeh, on my own I now agree with what I saw in the chalom. You take a look at the leshonot the Smag and it's meduyak. He's not, he doesn't defer to the chalom. He's maskim to the chalom but he doesn't defer to the chalom. Im kol zeh it's hard to imagine the Rambam would be in favor of such a chalom. Im kol zeh I don't think the Rambam would have appreciated such a chalom. But it's not against the Rambam. But we're in an inyan, I'm not sure, not so much the oto inyan more shlo b'oto inyan but very very stream of consciousness. Sometimes there's a tendency to interpret what happens in one's life, experiences one has, and oh, so that was hashgachah pratit that I should do such and such. I bumped into so and so, someone once seriously told me this. I bumped into so and so, I hadn't seen him for so many so many years, and he told me about a certain business venture, and I'm looking for opportunities presently ממש ממש מן השמים mamash min hashamayim. So that's not precluded by the pasuk lo bashamayim hi but it's wrong, but it's wrong. And it has nothing to do with which approach in the Rishonim and the Acharonim of hashgachah pratit that one subscribes to. Even if mitzad the shittah of hashgachah pratit that could be true but heichi taysi that it is true? Heichi taysi that it is true? Maybe that's why you bumped into this person, or maybe there's a thousand other reasons why you bumped into this person. Maybe it's aderabah, it's so you should sharpen your skills of being discriminating in terms of what opportunities are good opportunities and what opportunities are not good opportunities. How does a person even, even on the supposition... listen again, which obviously is is a major, major difference of opinion amongst Gedolei Harishonim, Gedolei Ha'acharonim, Ba'alei Machshava, but even even al hatsad that that everything that that happens in a person's life is hashgacha pratis, but how's a person know what it is? How's a person so sure to know what the Ribbono Shel Olam is what the message is that the Ribbono Shel Olam is is sending? So when a person has to make a decision, as a person has to make a decision al pi what he knows as though there were no hashgacha pratis. Because why do I know? I went to the refrigerator, I wanted to make myself a salami sandwich, there was no salami. It's a message min hashamayim I should be a vegetarian. I don't know, maybe it is, but maybe maybe it's a message min hashamayim that yesterday when my wife asked me to buy salami that I should've paid more attention to to her to her request or maybe it's that I should get some exercise by by going to the store now or maybe I don't know, a million possibilities that we can imagine and infinite possibilities that we can't imagine. A person can't make decisions that way, a person's not supposed to make decisions that way. A person's supposed to make decisions rationally. A person's supposed to assess is that a good business proposition that he's putting before me or not. Forget the hashgacha pratis shebo because a person doesn't know what the hashgacha pratis shebo. Sometimes, sometimes it's true, sometimes in retrospect, so in retrospect sometimes we we think and itochen that we do correctly recognize the Yad Hashem and and how Hakadosh Baruch Hu was was steering a person in a certain direction. Let's say the maysim we hear of people a lot that they lose a job. And then when looking for a job, the only place they're able to find a job, only in quotation marks, is in Eretz Yisrael. So mimah yetzei matok, so because of that really really devastating experience of of having lost a job and being unemployed, so they end up and their family ends up ledorei dorot in Eretz Yisrael. So itochen, ein hachi nami, itochen looking back in retrospect that one would think that that that that was a hashgacha and and that's what the Yad Hashem was was doing. But even even in those cases when we think we know what it means in retrospect, and I'm not sure that we score a hundred on that test either, but but even in those cases when we think we know it in retrospect, but that doesn't that doesn't mean that that in the present that that a person can oh I I bumped into you so that's a siman that I should it's a siman that I should look where I'm going, I don't know, who says heicha taysi what what it's what it's a siman for? So if I have a decision, a decision am I supposed to take this job or that job, should is this a good business opportunity for me or or not, should I should I marry this this young lady or not marry this young lady, the decision just has to be made rationally al pi nigleh, not by presuming to interpret hashgacha pratis signals min hashamayim. It's not chisaron emuna to do that and it's not an expression of emuna to to think that one is acting al pi such signals because it's very very rare that the signals should really be such that that a person can really know beshaito what the hashgacha pratis of of something is. Also me'inyan le'inyan loosely in terms of how a person may never really know. The Rambam has has a remarkable yesod that he presents in the perush hamishnayot towards the end of maseches Berachos. He says that that a person is not supposed to get too excited and have too much of a high over something good and a person shouldn't get too down and have too much of a low over something bad because there's plenty of things that beshaito seem good and end up not being so good, right? The the winning the lottery? It all, it ends up, it ends up gefallen, ends up gefallen for all of them or for many of them, I don't know about all of them. So the zman says a person never knows what seems good besha'ato. He says who knows what it's going to lead to and what seems bad besha'ato? So the zman says you can't get too excited over what we perceive besha'ato as good and you can't get too overwrought, you can't get too upset over what we perceive besha'ato as being as being bad. Because who knows? That same yesod of who knows is even given, even even if we'll stipulate like those shittas that whatever happened right now was hashgacha pratis, but who knows what the who knows what the hashgacha pratis shebo really is? It's a very, it's the exception to the rule and a rare exception, an unusual exception to the rule to to know. The rule is that a person doesn't know what the what the hashgacha pratis shebo is. כי מחשבותיי מחשבותיכם ולא דרכיכם דרכיי. And even and on those rare occasions when in retrospect we think we do know, and again, you tofeh that at least some of the time we are right in those retrospective examples. So often the hishtalshelus hadvorim, the reason we think we know is that the hishtalshelus hadvorim is just so otherwise unimaginable that it had to have been a, it had to have been hashgacha pratis. How can a person know in the middle of that? The whole point that that we think we know retrospectively is because it's just sort of defies a how did this lead to this to this to this to this to this and עם הא דאמר למשחיה דחס. Hachelek hasheini says the Rambam

שעיקר המאמין בהשם ויזדרז על מצות דתו ויזדרז בין אדם לחבירו לקיים את התורה מבלי תוספת ומגרעת כמו שאמר חותם הנביאים זכרו תורת משה עבדי אשר צויתי אותו בחורב חוקים ומשפטים.

Nevua ends with this nevua of Malachi because this is the prototypical nevua. This is the prototypical nevua.

זכרו תורת משה עבדי. ויבטיח למי שיקיים אותם טובות ויאיים על העובר עליה בעונשים כמו שעשה ישעיה וירמיה ויחזקאל וזולתם. ויצווה ציוויים ויעשה עשה שאינם מדברי תורה כגון שיאמר הלחמו על עיר פלונית או אומה פלונית עתה כמו שציווה שמואל לשאול להילחם בעמלק אז או שיזהיר מלהרוג כפי שהזהיר אלישע ליהורם מלהרוג לחיל חזאל הנמצא בשומרון כנודע וכמו שהזהיר ישעיה מלהכניס המים לפנים החומה כמו שהזהיר ירמיה את ישראל מלצאת מירושלים וכל כיוצא בזה.

So maybe next time bli neder we'll come back to the the example of milchemes Amalek. That actually is a very interesting example the Rambam gives here. ולכן כאשר טען הנביא לנבואה, he bears a nevua, right? He's bearing a nevua or he claims a nevua.

ולכן כאשר טען הנביא לנבואה ואינו מייחס אותה לעבודה זרה,

A. So in terms of that it's potentially true. B. ולא הוסיף בתורה ולא גרע ממנה. So in terms of that it's potentially true,

אלא דיבר על עניינים אחרים כמו שאמרנו. אזי נצטרך לבחון אותו כדי שתתאמת לנו טענתו.

So then we taka have to, then there's reason to assess to see if the nevua is true. כי זה שנתאמתה טענתו, if his if what he alleges that he received nevua, so then לחיובנו לקיים כל מה שיצווה מדברים קל ונכבד. So then eilav tishma'un. It's a mitzvas asei, you have to follow anything and everything the navi tells you to do.

וכל העובר על דבר מציוויו חייב מיתה בידי שמיים. כדבר השם במי שעובר על דברי הנביא אנכי אדרוש מעמו. ואם לא שמת טענתו ובזה יחנק.

But on the other hand, if the nevuah is, turns out the alleged nevuah turns out to be sheker, yumas b'chenek. ובירור אמיתת טענת הנביא הוא במה שאפרש. How do you assess whether or not this, the claim of the navi to have received nevuah is true? כאשר יתן לפנינו אדם לנבואה כפי שביארנו וראוי לה. So the first, the first precondition, the first way you check, again beyond what the substance of the nevuah is, the first way you check whether this nevuah can be true is whether or not the person alleging to receive nevuah is rauy lah. What does that mean?

והיינו שהיה מאנשי החכמה והאמונה והפרישות והשכל ונאה בכל המידות כפי העיקר שבידינו אין הנבואה שורה אלא על חכם גיבור ועשיר.

And again, gibor, the Rambam understands that to mean... it's a shaileh because it doesn't seem like that in Chazal, but the Rambam understands it to mean metaphorically איזהו גיבור הכובש את יצרו and איזהו עשיר השמח בחלקו. Means he's parush, he's not interested in getting things from Olam Hazeh and gibor that he's a gibor b'midosov. Here you have reflected the shittah of the Rambam again. Other Rishonim disagreed. The Rambam holds that Hakadosh Baruch Hu never ever without exception grants nevuah to someone who's not rauy l'nevuah. The individual to receive nevuah, a person has to be rauy l'nevuah and that's a rule which does not have any exceptions. There's no exception to that rule. If a person is not rauy l'nevuah and again, what does it mean to be rauy l'nevuah? So it means that there's character perfection, it means obviously to the extent that a human being can be perfect, so perfection doesn't really mean perfection, but it means that in all areas that maybe it means that there's no area that he totally totally neglects. Obviously he can't be 100 percent in every area. אין התמימות בלתי להשם לבדו. But using the word perfection again with that disclaimer means that there's character perfection, it means that there's intellectual perfection. Part of the character perfection is that he's a parush, is that he's totally disciplined in terms of his Olam Hazeh-dik involvement. Only what he needs, he eats only what he needs to eat and no superfluous taivos does he indulge from Olam Hazeh. Only such a person is rauy l'nevuah. Ad k'dei kach that the Rambam again, again against others, the Rambam says even by Ma'amad Har Sinai only those who were rauy l'nevuah had nevuah. It wasn't that everyone had nevuah by Ma'amad Har Sinai. In the Rambam's opinion, again the Drashos HaRan disagrees with it, the Malbim disagrees with it, others disagree with us. But in the Rambam's opinion even by Ma'amad Har Sinai only those who were rauy l'nevuah had nevuah and according to him that's the pshat in the Ma'amar Chazal that אהרן מחיצה בפני עצמו and נדב ואביהו מחיצה בפני עצמו and זקנים מחיצה בפני עצמו, that even by Ma'amad Har Sinai what a person perceived and experienced was determined, was dictated by his madreigah. How does that shtimm with Lavan who receives communications from Hashem? א ביסל געפאלן אין מידות I think by Lavan in addition to the chochmah and Bilaam and all these. Rambam says they didn't have nevuah, didn't have nevuah. What does it mean that ויבא אלהים אל לבן בחלום הלילה? I think that's how the pasuk goes or something to that effect. So Hakadosh Baruch Hu has different ways of communicating. Not every communication from Hashem is a nevuah. A nevuah is... some kind of call it a metaphysical experience. Mah she'ein kein, Hakadosh Baruch Hu, Hakadosh Baruch Hu can can create a sound that someone hears. That's not nevuah, right? If Hakadosh Baruch Hu creates a sound that a person hears with his ears, Hakadosh Baruch Hu gives a person a certain dream, makes a person have a certain dream, that's not a nevuah again and a nevuah is is is some kind of metaphysical experience. Hakadosh Baruch Hu has other ways of sending a a message, and that's what the Rambam says, the the fact that the pasuk says that so-and-so heard something from Hakadosh Baruch Hu doesn't necessarily mean that the that the mode of communication is is nevuah. In a very different sense that lichora is the answer to whatever otherwise seems to be a very, very big stirah. The Rambam again in in the Moreh says explicitly that not all Klal Yisrael had nevuah by Ma'amad Har Sinai, but that only only v'hi v'chaf. So the sheila is does that how does that shtim with what he writes in Perek Chet of Yesodei HaTorah? The Rambam writes as follows: משה רבינו לא האמינו בו ישראל מפני האותות שעשה. Our enduring belief in Moshe Rabbeinu is not because of all the miracles. Why? Because in the end of the day

שהמאמין על פי האותות יש בלבו דופי שאפשר שיעשה האות בלט וכישוף.

A person can never have 100% conviction, confidence, and trust based on a miracle because it could be kishuf. אלא כל האותות שעשה משה במדבר לפי הצורך עשאן. He wasn't looking to convince anyone,

לא להביא ראיה על הנבואה. צרך להשקיע את המצרים קרע הים והטביעם בו צרכנו למזון הוריד לנו מן. צמאו בקע לנו את האבן כפרו בעדת קרח בלעה אותם הארץ

ve-chein kol ha-otos. So im kein by meh he'eminu bo?

במעמד הר סיני שעינינו ראו ולא זר ואזנינו שמעו ולא אחר האש והקולות והלפידים. והוא ניגש אל הערפל והקול מדבר אליו ואנו שומעין משה משה לך אמור להם כך וכך.

Ve-chein hu omer פנים בפנים דיבר ה' עמכם. U-minayin skipping one line u-minayin

שבמעמד הר סיני לבדו היא הראיה לנבואתו שהיא אמת שאין בה דופי שנאמר הנה אנכי בא אליך בעב הענן.

Hakadosh Baruch Hu says to Moshe Rabbeinu referring to the Ma'amad Har Sinai that's going to happen,

הנה אנכי בא אליך בעב הענן בעבור ישמע העם בדברי עמך וגם בך יאמינו לעולם. מכלל שקודם דבר זה לא האמינו בו נאמנות שעומדת לעולם אלא נאמנות שיש אחריה הרהור ומחשבה.

So how does this shtim with with again what the Rambam is telling us here, also later in the Perek HaShmonah, when the Rambam has the yesod about nevuah, he says the same thing:

והיסוד הששי הנבואה והוא לדעת שזה המין האנושי יש שימצאו בו אישים בעלי כשרונות מפותחים מאד ושלמות גדולה ותתכונן נפשם.

Here too the Rambam says there is a yesod of nevuah. It's one of the yesodos emunah to believe in nevuah, but nevuah happens only to individuals who are re'uyim lekach in the same way in Perek Zayin of Yesodei HaTorah:

מיסודי הדת לידע שהאל מנבא את בני האדם ואין הנבואה חלה אלא על חכם גדול בחכמה גיבור במידותיו ולא יהא יצרו מתגבר עליו.

So how does how does all of that shtim with what we just read here in Perek Chet? So the teretz is, the teretz is that when the Rambam says it could have been a melitza, it could have been a melitza, but the point is that it isn't, mean and it could be that other Rishonim use it and they use it as a melitza, but the Rambam means it literally. When a navi says, when Yeshayahu says what he saw in nevuah, so he saw that because he put his lenses in and put his glasses on and and he saw nevuah? When a navi sees something in nevuah, so he sees that with with his physical eyes? When a navi hears something in nevuah, so he's hearing it with with his ears? Avada not, right? Avada not. It's it's a metaphorical description because again nevuah is a metaphysical experience. It's not it's not via the the organs of the body. It's not the navi is not hearing with his auditory sense and and. And he’s not nor is he seeing with with his eyes. So when the Rambam said again, it could have been a melitza, but it’s not. במה האמינו בו במעמד סיני שעינינו ראו ולא זר. We saw with our own eyes. You don’t see in nevuah with your own eyes. V’ozneinu shamu and we heard v’lo acher, we heard with our own ears. And what’s more what we saw were physical things: ha’eish fire and kolos we heard sounds. There were sound waves. We heard sounds with lapidim and there were torches. And we saw והוא ניגש אל הערפל. We saw Moshe Rabbeinu walking into that cloud cover. So the Rambam holds, what this what the Rambam is telling us in Perek Vav of Yesodei HaTorah is everyone experienced something at Ma’amad Har Sinai which became the basis. Everyone experienced something which was where they they knew the truth of what they were experiencing. Those who were ra’uy li’nevuah, it was in a prophetic experience. Those who weren't ra’uy li’nevuah, so then Hakadosh Baruch Hu created, again Hakadosh Baruch Hu has other ways of communicating other than nevuah, so Hakadosh Baruch Hu again, he created sound waves where we hear Moshe Moshe etcetera lech emor lahem. That’s the pshat of the Rambam.