Avira,
Back to that topic for a minute
“Halevi, where do you see Rashi deviating from the pashut teitch of the machlokes?”
It is true that Rashi is not the deal breaker here. What I see in Rashi and the כלומר, implying that the Pshat doesn’t read right out of the words, is that it goes along with the flow that there is no מחלוקת of מציאות.
Neither Rebbi Yochanan, nor Rebbi Yosi say expressly that Hashem will actually perform miracles to fulfill false proclamations, and in fact this never happened. This is why the Gemara quotes the Maamarim in this order, ending with Rebbe Akiva.
Although Rebbe Akiva clearly argues in the Pshat of the Pasuk, in that it can’t be that the Torah would discuss miracles happening for a false prophet, there is no practical argument. All agree that you ignore a prophet, no matter what kinds of miracles he shows you, and even if he was once a true prophet.
And here, too. I agree, and have written as much, that you can’t prove any Shita based on special experiences. (Aside, perhaps, for the שלש שבועות in that the whole point is that it won’t work out.) My entire point is a complaint against the attribution of wondrous success to an angel, rather than to Hashem. Of this, there is no precedent.
___
“As for your diyuk in the lashon of the braysoh, the fact that the “Torah” gave AZ power is no different than the “Torah” “giving” permission for things; the same way the beginning of the maamar is that the Torah understood the depths of how AZ works… it’s Hashem who made the Torah eithe way.”
This doesn’t work. The Torah is the Halachos. הן הן גופי התורה. It is a Sefer. The Sefer can indeed give permission for us to do something, and then we can decide to do so if we want to. The Torah is not what enables me to stretch my arms.
That the Torah delved into the mindset of the idol worshipers, is a statement about the Sefer.
___
“Look at Rashi on the pasuk; he comes laafukei your diyuk between Hashem/Torah on the word memshalah. Rashi on the pasuk writes that the miracle will happen either in the sky אות), or the land (מופת) and that אעפ”כ, לא תשמע לו, וא”ת מפני מה
נותן לו הקב”ה ממשלה לעשות אות, כי מנסה ה….”
אי תנא תנא
This Rashi does indeed sound like your description, that Hashem gave the false prophet the ability to perform miracles.
However, being that this actually never happened, where and when was this power given? Obviously, it is referring to being able to trick people, it perform כישוף. After all, כישוף is מכחיש פמליא של מעלה, which is quite a ממשלה.
And even with regard to signs in the sky, mentioned by Rebbi Yochanan, and you wondered how anyone can fool people about that, there is the famous legend of Columbus threatening to blot out the light of the sun. To those near him, there is absolutely no way to explain that away. This is why it is important to take Rashi’s paraphrase of Rebbi Yosi to heart.
Rashi is informing us of the correct Hashkafa which is that absolutely nothing can revoke the Torah, and if you see the greatest miracles, just know that it is a test.
Having said that, I realize that Rashi’s words ring stronger with your approach. I will say, though, that when you look around at all Meforshim you only see descriptions of כישוף, for example in the Ramban, and the Malbim spells it out as a matter of course.
The most extreme case would be the Medrash שיר השירים רבה פרשה ז:ט, about the ציץ causing the statue to talk. But these are all different than actual miracles. Regardless, if a miracle happens to you you thank Hashem, all while not accepting changes in Halachah because of it (חרוב, אמת המים).
___
“And i didn’t read the gemara backwards – rebbe yochanan is quoted first, but that doesn’t mean that the maskanah is not like him. He is an amora and halacha k’basra, we follow amoraim because they knew what the tannaim said and still said their statements. I’m sorry if i presented it as if the gemara sequentially went with rebbe yochanan – you’re correct that it did not, but that would only he significant if we’re talking about shitos of other amoraim, where sequence shows us the maskanah.”
The only time the Gemara would bring a Braysa that differs from an Amora would be as מיתבי, תניא כוותיה or מסייע ליה. Otherwise, it adds to the Sugya without affecting the words of the Amora.
There would be no other reason to quote it in reverse. In my reading, there is no מחלוקת, and the Gemara is truly only adding.
About the Basrai thing, that term was only said from after רבא. But you are probably referring to Nida 7 אין למידין הלכה מפי תלמוד. It is true nonetheless, that we would follow the Amora’s Hachraa.
To sum it all up: True that we do not change Halacha because of a miracle, even an unexplainable one. But in actuality, Hashem will not perform a real miracle to prove a lie. This second point made Rebbi Akiva reinterpret the Pasuk, while Rebbi Yosi explained it as lowering to the mindset of the impressed worshipers. And either way, the recipient of a salvation looks only heavenward.