

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer

The Talmud Yerushalmi (Meggilah 1:5) says that the Neviim and the Kesubim will be annulled in the future. The Rambam (Hilchos Meggilah 2:18) that it is talking about the days of Moshiach. What does this mean since we know the Torah can not change from the Rambam's thirteen ikkarim (principles of faith)?

share|improve this question
Since when does Torah=Navi? – Double AA Nov 24 '12 at 23:30

The Gemara in Nedarim says that had the Jews not sinned, they would have just received the 5 book of the Torah and sefer Yehoshua:

אלמלא (לא ) חטאו ישראל לא ניתן להם אלא חמשה חומשי תורה וספר יהושע בלבד שערכה של ארץ ישראל הוא מאי טעמא כי ברוב חכמה רב כעס

The ran explains that the main purpose of divrei neviim was to rebuke the Jews for their sins:

שעיקרן של שאר נביאים לא היה אלא להוכיח ישראל על עבירות שבידם ואלמלא (לא) חטאו לא הוצרכו לתוכחה:‏

It may be that this purpose will no longer be as necessary in the times of Mashiach, so in a way they will be considered "batel", i.e. that Nach will not be as relevant. There are other interpretations also. But either way, as @jake said, it doesn't seem connected to changing the Torah.

share|improve this answer

First you must define what it means that "the Torah cannot change" and what it means that Neviim and Kesuvim are "עתידין ליבטל".

That the Torah cannot change is the ninth of the Rambam's thirteen ikkarim. He defines it as the belief that no mitzvos can be added to nor subtracted from the Torah, nor can there be any "new" or "alternative" Torah.

Now, what can "עתידין ליבטל" possibly mean? Does it mean that they will cease to exist? Unlikely. Maybe that they will not be considered part of the Tanach? Perhaps. Or, as Raavad suggests, maybe it means that they will not be read publicly.

But do any of these possibilities negate the immutability of the Torah? I think not.

share|improve this answer
so you are saying the Ravad answers that they will not be read publicly good answer I wonder if that is the complete agreed upon as we know he tended to argue with the Rambam There is the greatest understatement ever – simchastorah Nov 17 '11 at 6:19
@simchashatorah, Yes. In fact it is the Raavad there on Rambam Hilchos Megilla 2:18. I don't see how he is arguing on Rambam necessarily, though. It seems more like he is explaining what Rambam means. – jake Nov 17 '11 at 6:22
hence I said I wonder and not that he did – simchastorah Nov 17 '11 at 6:38
@simchashatorah, Oh sorry, I didn't get what you were saying. – jake Nov 17 '11 at 6:46

Your Answer


