📋 Shiur Overview
Summary of the Shiur: Hilchos Yesodei HaTorah, Chapter 8 (Halacha 1)
—
Structure of Chapter 8 – Introduction
The Rambam’s approach is to begin with a fact (reality) and then bring the halacha. In Chapter 7, the fact was how prophecy (nevuah) works, and the halacha was: one must obey a prophet when he brings a sign and wonder (os u’mofes). Chapter 8 is a continuation – a detail in the halacha of believing a prophet: If a prophet, even with a wonder, says something against the prophecy of Moshe, we do not believe him. To understand this, the Rambam must first explain how our faith (emunah) in Moshe Rabbeinu is fundamentally different from faith in a regular prophet.
[Novel point – Why “lo sosifu/lo sigre’u” is not here:] It is interesting that the Rambam did not include the mitzvah of “lo sosifu” and “lo sigre’u” (not to add or remove a mitzvah) in Hilchos Yesodei HaTorah, even though it would have fit well in this chapter.
—
Halacha 1 – “Moshe Rabbeinu lo he’eminu bo Yisrael mipnei ha’osos she’asah”
A) The Foundation: Faith in Moshe is Not Based on Signs
The Rambam’s words: “Moshe Rabbeinu – Israel did not believe in him because of the signs he performed. For one who believes on the basis of signs has a deficiency in his heart (yesh b’libo dofi), since it is possible that the sign was performed through trickery and sorcery (b’lat u’v’chishuf)… And all the signs that Moshe performed in the wilderness were done according to need, not to bring proof of his prophecy. He needed to drown the Egyptians – he split the sea… and so with all the other signs. And through what did they believe in him? Through the Standing at Mount Sinai (Ma’amad Har Sinai), where our eyes saw and not a stranger’s, and our ears heard and not another’s – the fire, the sounds, and the torches – and he approached the thick cloud, and the Voice spoke to him and we heard: ‘Moshe, Moshe, go tell them such and such.'”
Plain Meaning
A regular prophet is believed on the basis of two things: (1) he is worthy of prophecy (righteous, wise, etc.), (2) he brings a sign and wonder – this creates a Torah obligation to believe, similar to testimony (edus). But the faith in Moshe Rabbeinu is not built on signs and wonders, but rather on Ma’amad Har Sinai, where all Jews themselves saw and heard.
Novel Points and Explanations
1) “Yesh b’libo dofi” – The weakness of faith through signs:
The Rambam says that one who believes on the basis of signs has a “heart-flutter” – he is not one hundred percent certain. “Shema yesh devarim b’go” – perhaps there is something going on “behind the scenes.” “Shema ya’aseh ha’os b’lat u’v’chishuf” – perhaps it’s a trick, an optical illusion (achizas einayim). This means: even when Jews believe a regular prophet on the basis of a sign and wonder, it is not a one-hundred-percent truth – it is a Torah obligation to believe (just as one believes witnesses, even though witnesses can lie), but a “tendency toward doubt” remains. This is the distinction between faith in a regular prophet (by the law of presumption and testimony, as stated at the end of Chapter 7) and faith in Moshe Rabbeinu, which is a clearer, stronger matter.
[Note about “b’lat”:] The word “lat” means quiet/hidden – like “b’lahateihem” in the Torah regarding sorcery. The Rambam specifies two possibilities: actual sorcery (kishuf), or “b’lat” – a hidden trick, like someone working “under the curtains” that one doesn’t see.
—
B) Question and Answer: What About the Signs in Egypt?
2) Question: Hashem Himself gave Moshe signs in Parshas Shemos (the staff, the tzara’as, etc.) so that the Jews would believe him – as an answer to “v’hen lo ya’aminu li” (“and they won’t believe me”)!
Answer: When the Rambam says “lo he’eminu bo mipnei ha’osos,” he is speaking about the faith of Matan Torah – the law of believing in Moshe’s prophecy as a foundation of Torah. The signs in Egypt were for a practical need – that he is a messenger to take the Jews out – but that was before Matan Torah, and it is not the law of faith in Moshe’s prophecy. It is mentioned that Rishonim strongly debated the Rambam on this point.
The Rambam himself addresses this later in the halacha (see section 6 below), where he explains that the signs in Egypt brought a “ne’emanus she’yesh bah dofi u’meharher u’mechashev” – a trustworthiness that has a deficiency and one deliberates and thinks about it – Moshe Rabbeinu himself knew this, and that is why he said multiple times “v’hen lo ya’aminu li.” Hashem told him: “Elu ha’osos einan ela ad she’yetz’u mi’Mitzrayim” – these signs are only for the time until they leave Egypt. “Aval achar she’yetz’u v’ya’amdu al ha’har ha’zeh, yistalek ha’hirhur she’meharh’rin acharecha” – but after they leave and stand at this mountain, the doubts they have about you will be removed.
—
C) “L’fi ha’tzorech asa’an” – All of Moshe’s Miracles Were Practical
3) Novel point: The Rambam lists: the splitting of the Red Sea – “he needed to drown the Egyptians”; the bringing down of the manna – “they needed food”; the Well of Miriam – “they were thirsty”; the swallowing of Korach – to deal with the rebellion. All the signs were for practical needs of Klal Yisrael, not to prove Moshe’s prophecy. Moshe Rabbeinu, besides being a prophet, was also the leader, and he took care of Jewish needs.
[Interesting language:] The Rambam writes everything attributed directly to Moshe – “he split the sea,” “he brought down the manna” – he doesn’t say that Moshe asked Hashem. This is a noteworthy choice of language.
[Interesting – “ba’midbar”:] The Rambam says “all the signs that Moshe performed in the wilderness” – he doesn’t specifically count the signs in Egypt (the Ten Plagues), because those had a different purpose: to break Pharaoh, sanctification of God’s Name (kiddush Hashem), “l’ma’an tesaper b’oznei bincha u’ven bincha” (“so that you will tell in the ears of your son and grandson”) – but also not to prove Moshe’s prophecy to the Jews. “V’chen she’ar kol ha’osos” – includes everything.
4) Novel point – Against the “build-up” approach: One could say that all the miracles of Egypt and the wilderness were a preparation for Ma’amad Har Sinai – a “build-up” so that Jews would later believe at Matan Torah. The Rambam does not say this. He says that each miracle was for its own purpose, period. Ma’amad Har Sinai stands on its own, not as the culmination of a series of miracles.
—
D) “B’Ma’amad Har Sinai” – The Foundation of Faith in Moshe
5) Novel point – “Eineinu ra’u v’lo zar”: The main emphasis is not what was seen, but that one saw it oneself: “Our eyes saw and not a stranger’s, and our ears heard and not another’s.” With a regular prophet, the Jews are “passive listeners” – the prophet says, we accept. At Ma’amad Har Sinai, the Jews themselves “participated” – they themselves saw and heard. One doesn’t need to believe anyone for this. This is the fundamental distinction: with a regular prophet, faith is “by the law of presumption and testimony” (with a residual doubt); with Moshe Rabbeinu, it is direct knowledge.
6) Novel point – What exactly did the Jews hear? The Rambam writes: “And he approached the thick cloud, and the Voice spoke to him and we heard: ‘Moshe, Moshe, go tell them such and such.'” The Rambam does not say that the Jews heard directly from Hashem Himself (like “Anochi” and “Lo yihyeh lecha”). He says they heard how Hashem spoke to Moshe – “go tell them such and such.” This is surprising, because in the Zohar it says “man d’sham’u Anochi” – that they heard “Anochi” directly. But the Rambam’s emphasis is different: what they saw is that Hashem speaks to Moshe, and that alone is sufficient for the faith.
It is noted, however, that the details of exactly what was heard may not be the essential point – the essential thing is the fact that “our eyes saw and not a stranger’s.”
—
E) “Panim b’fanim diber Hashem imachem” – The Meaning
7) Novel point in the meaning of “panim b’fanim” (face to face): The Rambam already explained earlier (regarding Moshe’s prophecy) that “panim b’fanim” means directly, without an intermediary – not “face” in the literal sense. Just as when a person says “I want to speak with you face to face” – he doesn’t mean he wants to see the face, but rather “don’t send me a letter, don’t send me a messenger, you speak to me directly!” This is a characteristic of Moshe’s prophecy – “therefore there is no intermediary.”
A question: If “panim b’fanim” is a characteristic of Moshe’s prophecy, did all Jews for a moment have something similar to Moshe’s prophecy at Ma’amad Har Sinai? – This is set aside, noting that this is being read into the text, not what the Rambam actually says. What emerges is specifically the “not through an intermediary” aspect, not all the other elevated qualities of Moshe’s prophecy.
—
F) “Hinei Anochi ba eilecha b’av he’anan… v’gam b’cha ya’aminu l’olam” – Seeing for Oneself is Stronger Than a Wonder
The Rambam’s verse: “Behold, I am coming to you in the thickness of the cloud, so that the people will hear when I speak with you, and they will also believe in you forever (l’olam)”
Plain meaning: Hashem comes down close to the Jews (unlike other times when Moshe went to the Ohel Moed or Har Sinai) – the purpose is that the entire nation should hear how Hashem speaks to Moshe, and through this “v’gam b’cha ya’aminu l’olam.”
8) Major novel point – Seeing for oneself is stronger than a wonder: The Rambam holds that when a person sees something himself, it is worth more than a wonder. People think the opposite – “I saw it myself, maybe I imagined it, but a wonder is certain.” But the Rambam says: a wonder is a double imagination – first, you saw the wonder (perhaps that itself is an imagination), and second, the entire thing that the wonder proves is also perhaps an imagination. But seeing for oneself – that is a very powerful thing. And when so many people saw it together, it is even stronger.
9) Novel point in the word “l’olam” – Two approaches: The Rambam expounds: “Michlal she’kodem davar zeh lo he’eminu bo ne’emanus she’omedes l’olam” – until Ma’amad Har Sinai there was a “ne’emanus she’yesh bah dofi,” a trustworthiness that has behind it deliberation and thought. Miracles and wonders bring a belief where one can still think “perhaps it’s not so.”
The Rambam introduces a new meaning of “l’olam” – not merely temporal (forever), but qualitative: a true, firm, strong faith that cannot be denied at all. But it is also temporal – the Rambam added: once seen, one always believed.
The distinction between miracles vs. seeing for oneself: From miracles one has a “yesh lo hefsek” – a person is impressed, but the impression fades, and he begins to be able to think and question. But when he sees something himself, the absolute knowledge is not merely a constant thought (temporal), but because it is a stronger clarification, it endures forever.
[Digression: Pesach and Shavuos] With this one can understand the well-known distinction between Pesach and Shavuos found in Chassidic sefarim: Pesach is miracles and wonders – a flash, a beautiful thing, but “not l’olam,” the inspiration doesn’t last. Shavuos – Ma’amad Har Sinai – is “l’olam.”
—
G) The Jews as Witnesses – “She’hem v’hu echad ba’davar”
The Rambam’s language: “So too Moshe Rabbeinu – all of Israel are witnesses for him after Ma’amad Har Sinai, and he does not need to perform a sign for them… for they and he are one in the matter, like two witnesses who saw something together, where each one is a witness for the other that he is telling the truth, and neither one needs proof about the other.”
10) Novel point – “She’hem v’hu echad ba’davar”: Moshe Rabbeinu and the Jews were equal – they both received the prophecy at the same time. Moshe doesn’t need to show them any sign or wonder because all the Jews saw it themselves.
Question on the language “kol echad mehem ed l’chaveiro”: Seemingly it should say “kol echad ed l’atzmo” (each one is a witness for himself)! When two witnesses see something together, each one is a witness for himself, not for the other. How is one a “witness for his fellow”?
A suggestion: Perhaps it means that when two people see something together, each one might think “perhaps I saw an illusion” – but because the other one also saw it, they strengthen each other. But this is set aside – that would mean “I look to the other person for confirmation,” which is not the same approach as “each one is a witness for himself.” The language remains “unclear.”
[Digression: The Rogatchover] The Rogatchover notes that with two witnesses there is such a concept that each one is a witness for the other – connected to the law of “edus meyuchedes” (two witnesses who don’t know about each other), which is invalid because there is no combination (tziruf). This shows that witnesses are combined one with the other. Interesting, but “not clear.”
—
H) The Question of Later Generations
11) Novel point: The Rambam means that also for later generations, that generation serves as a sign forever – “we believe about this.”
A strong question: If so, we are still hearing a witness from a witness (ed mi’pi ed) – we didn’t see it ourselves! And if so, why when a second prophet comes with a wonder, can’t one say that this is “one more level of testimony”? There must be a deeper matter here.
A partial answer: “Rabim b’rabim” – an entire nation heard – is stronger than ordinary testimony. But it is indicated that there is a deeper answer that is not stated here.
—
I) The Signs of Moshe Rabbeinu in Egypt – “Ne’emanus she’yesh bah dofi”
The Rambam’s language: “And this is what the Holy One, Blessed be He, said to him at the beginning of his prophecy, when He gave him the signs to perform in Egypt, ‘and they will listen to your voice’… This implies that before this matter, they did not believe in him with a trustworthiness that stands forever, but rather a trustworthiness that has a deficiency, and one deliberates and thinks.”
12) Novel point – Why Moshe Rabbeinu hesitated: This is the reason why Moshe Rabbeinu said multiple times “v’hen lo ya’aminu li” – he knew that signs and wonders bring only a faith that has a deficiency in it, and this bothered him.
13) Novel point – The sign of Ma’amad Har Sinai as confirmation of Egypt: The Rambam brings the verse “V’zeh lecha ha’os ki Anochi shelachticha, b’hotzi’acha es ha’am mi’Mitzrayim ta’avdun es ha’Elokim al ha’har ha’zeh” (“And this is the sign for you that I have sent you: when you take the people out of Egypt, you will serve God on this mountain”) (Shemos 3:12) – Ma’amad Har Sinai was a sign (public confirmation) also for Moshe’s mission in Egypt. When Hashem was revealed as “King of kings of kings publicly,” this confirmed that not only is Moshe the bearer of the Torah, but also that all the miracles in Egypt were true miracles – “v’lo yisha’er b’libam hirhur” (and no doubt will remain in their hearts).
The “sign” of Ma’amad Har Sinai is not a sign in the ordinary sense (a wonder about which one can have a deficiency), but rather a “sign that has no deficiency” – a direct experience, not a wonder that needs to be interpreted.
A difficult question on the Rambam’s interpretation: The verse “v’zeh lecha ha’os” (Shemos 3:12) appears before “v’hen lo ya’aminu li” (Shemos 4:1) – so chronologically in the verses, the sign comes first, and “v’hen lo ya’aminu li” comes only afterward. How can the Rambam say that the sign of Har Sinai is the answer to “v’hen lo ya’aminu li,” when the sign appears earlier?
Answer: It’s a “general problem” in the order of the verses there – because afterward Moshe says again “v’hen lo ya’aminu li,” so there is a repetition. The Rambam was not bothered by this, and presumably he has a different explanation of the order of the verses.
—
J) The Distinction Between Believing Moshe and Believing Other Prophets – “Nimtzeis omer”
The Rambam’s language: “Nimtzeis omer she’kol navi she’ya’amod achar Moshe Rabbeinu – ein anu ma’aminim bo mipnei ha’os levado… ela mipnei ha’mitzvah she’tzivanu Moshe ba’Torah”
“It turns out that any prophet who arises after Moshe Rabbeinu – we do not believe in him because of the sign alone… but rather because of the commandment that Moshe commanded us in the Torah.”
Plain meaning: We believe a prophet after Moshe not because his sign is true, but because the Torah tells us to believe a prophet who brings a sign.
14) Novel point – The analogy of witnesses: This is like witnesses – one doesn’t know for one hundred percent that witnesses are telling the truth; perhaps they are lying. So what then? The Torah said that one should rely “al pi shnei edim” (on the basis of two witnesses) – one should conduct oneself according to witnesses even though it’s not one hundred percent certain. So too with a prophet: “ko’ach mitzvah lishmo’a” – one listens to a prophet because the Torah commands it, not because one knows for certain that it’s not sorcery.
15) Novel point – The role of chezkas kashrus (presumption of propriety): In Chapter 7, the Rambam spoke of chezkas kashrus as a reason why one believes a prophet (that he is not a sorcerer). How does this fit with the current principle that one believes only because of the commandment in the Torah?
Answer: Chezkas kashrus is only a condition (a necessary prerequisite), not the reason. Without chezkas kashrus one would not believe at all – but chezkas kashrus alone is not sufficient. The actual reason why one believes is because the Torah commands it.
—
K) The Logical Approach: Why We Don’t Believe a Prophet Against Moshe
The Rambam’s language: “L’fichach, im amad navi v’asah osos u’mofsim gedolim u’va l’hachchish nevuaso shel Moshe Rabbeinu – ein shom’in lo”
“Therefore, if a prophet arose and performed great signs and wonders and came to contradict the prophecy of Moshe Rabbeinu – we do not listen to him.”
Plain meaning: The Rambam’s language is “ein shom’in lo” – not as a law/Scriptural decree, but rather one simply doesn’t listen to him, because it doesn’t make sense. It is a factual impossibility, not a halachic prohibition.
“She’anu yod’im b’veirur she’osan ha’osos al yedei kishuf v’lachash hen” – we know for certain that his signs are sorcery. Why?
“L’fi she’nevuas Moshe Rabbeinu einah al pi ha’osos, kedei she’na’aroch osos zeh l’osos zeh” – if we had believed Moshe only because he had signs, there would be room to compare signs against signs. But “b’eineinu ra’inuhu u’v’ozneinu shma’anuhu k’mo she’shama hu” – we saw with our own eyes and heard with our own ears the same thing that he heard.
16) Novel point – Two problems with the prophet who goes against Moshe:
A) He comes with a weak thing (a sign and wonder) against what we ourselves saw – it’s like witnesses who testify against what a person saw with his own eyes. “She’eino shome’a lahem” – not because it’s forbidden, but because he knows that “hem edei sheker” (they are false witnesses). Witnesses only work when the matter could be true – when it cannot be true, the mechanism doesn’t work.
B) The entire basis for why we believe wonders is because the Torah commands it – if the prophet goes against the Torah, the entire foundation for why one should believe him collapses. It is a logical contradiction: “How can we accept from now on a sign and wonder that comes to contradict the prophecy of Moshe, which we saw with our eyes and heard with our ears?”
17) Novel point – The verse in Parshas Re’eh: The Rambam brings the verse “U’va ha’os o ha’mofes… lo sishma el divrei ha’navi ha’hu, ki menasseh Hashem Elokeichem eschem” (“And the sign or wonder comes to pass… do not listen to the words of that prophet, for Hashem your God is testing you”) (Devarim 13). The Rambam asks: Why shouldn’t I believe him? He is a prophet with a sign and wonder, just like Moshe! The answer: It involves “two entirely different levels” – “she’harei zeh ba eleinu b’os u’mofes l’hachchish mah she’ra’u eineinu” (for this one comes to us with a sign and wonder to contradict what our eyes saw). What could we possibly want that would be stronger and clearer than the perception of the eye?
—
Summary of the Rambam’s Approach in Halacha 1
The Rambam not only stated the halacha (that we don’t believe a prophet against Moshe), but also explained why with a lengthy Torah discussion:
– Moshe’s prophecy is not based on wonders – it is direct experience
– Consequently, a prophet who comes with wonders against Moshe has two problems: (a) he comes with something weaker against what we ourselves saw, (b) the entire basis for believing wonders comes from the Torah – if he goes against the Torah, the foundation collapses
– Consequently, we simply don’t believe him – it is not a Scriptural decree but a logical necessity
[Note:] The Rambam elaborates on this topic also in other places – in the Introduction to the Commentary on the Mishnah (right at the beginning), where he explains what a prophet can and cannot do, and also later in Chapter 9.
📝 Full Transcript
Laws of the Foundations of the Torah, Chapter 8 – The Prophecy of Moses and the Foundation of Faith
Introduction: The Structure of Chapter 8
So, we are learning Laws of the Foundations of the Torah, Chapter 8. Continuing about the prophet, a specific topic about the prophet — the prophecy of Moses.
In an interesting way, as we have learned, the Rambam has an approach of beginning with a fact, and then he states the mitzvah (commandment). The entire previous chapter was about the fact of how a prophet works, and at the end there was the one mitzvah of obeying a prophet when he brings a sign. So the law is about a sign — when he brings a wonder (mofes), then one follows him.
Now there is going to be another entire chapter, and if I look here, there is no fact in it in a certain way. That is, there are no actual laws in it. But one can say that it is roughly another detail in the law of believing in a prophet when he brings a sign and wonder (os u’mofes).
That is, let me explain: the law is, when a prophet comes and brings a wonder, one must believe him. But the Rambam is going to say that there are details in this law. One of the important details is that if the wonder — even with a wonder — and the prophet says something against the prophecy of Moses, one does not believe him.
Now, in order to understand why — we’ll see. In order to understand the law, the Rambam explains the fact that we already accept the prophecy of Moses, and they are also going to explain a fact about how we believe in the prophecy of Moses, what our relationship is to the prophecy of Moses. After one understands the fact, one will simply understand why when someone who performs wonders comes against the prophecy of Moses, one does not believe him. That is my explanation.
In the previous chapter, the Rambam explained the simple distinction between the prophecy of Moses and other prophets. Here he is going to tell us the distinction for us — how we believe an ordinary prophet, and why we believe differently in Moses our teacher, on a different level of faith (emunah).
> Insight: What I find somewhat interesting is that the Rambam did not consider the mitzvah of “lo sosifu” (you shall not add) and “lo sigre’u” (you shall not diminish) — which according to the Rambam means adding or removing a mitzvah — to be included in the Laws of the Foundations of the Torah. It could very well have been included in this chapter. True, that’s one way. But in another way, one can say that what was stated at the end of the previous chapter — that when one believes an ordinary prophet it is only based on the principle of presumption and testimony (b’din chazakah v’eidus) — is not accurate for the prophecy of Moses. And for that very reason, the prophecy of Moses is stronger than other prophets, because it is not a presumption. It is a clearer matter.
—
Law 1: “Israel did not believe in Moses because of the signs he performed”
Belief in a Prophet Through Signs — and Why This Does Not Apply to Moses
The Rambam says:
> “Moshe Rabbeinu lo he’eminu bo Yisrael mipnei ha’osos she’asah.” (Israel did not believe in Moses our teacher because of the signs he performed.)
The Rambam has just finished explaining that we believe an ordinary prophet for two reasons: we believe because we know he is a righteous person, and therefore someone who is fit for prophecy — he doesn’t make demands, he is wise, and all the things he lists that a prophet must be — he can be a prophet. And after he performs a sign and wonder, the Torah gives us the obligation to believe, that since he is fit for prophecy and he has shown a sign and wonder, this becomes like testimony, and therefore we should accept his prophecy.
Moses our teacher — the Jews did not believe in him because of the signs he performed.
Discussion: What About the Signs in Egypt?
Speaker 2: But there’s a whole thing that begins with Moses — the matter of God giving a sign and wonder so the Jews should believe, that’s taken from Parshas Shemos (the portion of Exodus), no?
Speaker 1: You’re asking a good question, but the Rambam is going to answer this question. When he speaks here about “he’eminu bo Yisrael” (Israel believed in him), he means to refer to the giving of the Torah (matan Torah), not to “they believed” that he was an emissary to take the Jews out of Egypt. The fact that he was an emissary to take the Jews out of Egypt — that was indeed because of the signs that God gave him.
He is speaking here about a law. There is no law that the Jews should believe in Egypt, because that was before the giving of the Torah. The Jews did not believe Moses because of some specific law. That’s how you’re raising a bit of a difficulty on the Rambam. There were Rishonim (early authorities) who argued very strongly against the Rambam about these kinds of proofs. But the Rambam himself addressed it in the next section. He is going to say: what about the wonders that Moses did perform?
—
“There is doubt in his heart” — The Weakness of Faith Through Signs
> “Ha’ma’amin al pi ha’osos yesh b’libo dofi.” (One who believes based on signs has a defect in his heart.)
This means to say, he has a heart-flutter, he is not certain that it is true. Why?
The Rambam says:
> “Shema yesh devarim b’go.” (Perhaps there are hidden matters behind it.)
Sometimes there is some reason “behind” it. It does look like a wonder, but when a person believes in some wonder, he thinks the whole time: maybe I’m not so clever, maybe it’s a trick, some kind of optical illusion (achizas einayim).
He says:
> “Shema ya’aseh ha’os b’lat u’v’khishuf.” (Perhaps he performed the sign through stealth and sorcery.)
What does “lat” mean? I don’t know. “B’lahateihem” is written in the Torah regarding sorcery — does it mean the same word? I think “lat” means quietly, some kind of… It’s interesting, earlier it just said “devarim b’go” (hidden matters), and here he specifies: it could be sorcery or stealth. It’s when a person does a trick, he has something up his “curtain.” You don’t see? He tells him something quietly over there. There is some trick underneath it.
> Insight: Even when Jews do believe based on a sign and wonder, they believe — as the Rambam said — when they believe, it is not for them a one hundred percent truth either. They do it because the Torah obligates them. There remains a certain inclination of doubt, there remains a certain inclination of doubt.
Just as when two witnesses come — and we know, it’s possible the witnesses are lying, it’s possible the witnesses are lying, there are many people who lie — but the Torah tells us to believe, so we believe.
Our entire life we don’t do things based on one hundred percent. When a person marries off a child, he is not one hundred percent sure that this is the right match (shidduch). But he is happy, because one goes according to the way of the world — so when it makes a lot of sense, it looks that way, maybe there are more chances, so one goes with it. That’s how things usually are. But this faith is more than that. Moses our teacher — the Jews believed in him much more than that.
—
“He did them according to the need” — All of Moses’s Miracles Were Practical
But if so — since he is about to say why the Jews did believe in Moses — he pauses here for a moment: but if so, what is the meaning of all the signs and wonders? The first few Torah portions, when one encounters Moses our teacher, one sees that there are many signs and wonders. A person might think that this is the foundation of Moses, that this is why we believe in Moses — because of the ten plagues and all those things.
Rather, it’s not that this was important. Rather, so what did Moses our teacher do so many signs and wonders for?
> “V’chol ha’osos she’asah Moshe ba’midbar l’fi ha’tzorech asa’an.” (And all the signs that Moses performed in the wilderness, he did them according to the need.)
All the signs and wonders that Moses our teacher performed in the wilderness — a touch interesting that he doesn’t count the signs and wonders in Egypt. In Egypt they had a different reason — to break Pharaoh, to make a sanctification of God’s Name (kiddush Hashem). Okay, he says a need. Look, he is going to count Egypt, why he says “in the wilderness.”
The signs that Moses our teacher performed in the wilderness, he did them according to the need, there was a certain need:
> “Lo l’havi ra’ayah al ha’nevuah.” (Not to bring proof of the prophecy.)
The reason Moses our teacher did them was not to bring proofs of the prophecy, but to do what he does as the leader of the Jewish people, statecraft. Moses our teacher, besides being a prophet, is also the leader, and he takes care of the Jewish needs.
So therefore:
– “Tzarich l’hashki’a ha’Mitzriyim” — It was necessary to drown the Egyptians in the sea, to end the long saga of Egypt — the sea, and they sank in it — and he caused the miracle, the wonder, that the Egyptians should be drowned there.
– The descent of the manna (horadas ha’man) — We Jews needed to have food.
– Thirst (tzama) — They were thirsty.
> Insight: Very interesting, he uses the language that everything is attributed to Moses directly — he doesn’t say that he made God do it, he asked God. In any case, it is a matter of note.
Okay, the point is that it is not proof of prophecy, but rather it was needed. It was needed. It was only that he did it because it was needed.
Like the swallowing of the congregation of Korach — what did he need? He simply needed to take revenge, he needed to remove the problem of Korach. He needed to show that the Jews should…
> Insight: There is a problem, it’s not quite as it says. Very interesting, the Rambam — I remember that the Rambam in… in… where is that? In the introduction to Perek Chelek (the chapter on the World to Come) he brings the proof of Moses’s prophecy from the verse “Im beriah yivra Hashem” (If God creates a new creation) from Parshas Korach. Here you see that apparently, the author of Avodas HaKodesh learned that the Rambam held that it was not the proof, it was only as you say, that Korach had an issue, but not in order to prove. The verses don’t entirely align with this section.
The Rambam says “v’chen she’ar kol ha’osos” — all other signs were also for a certain need. All the ten plagues were simply for the need that is stated so many times — “l’ma’an tesaper b’oznei vincha u’ven bincha” (so that you shall tell in the ears of your son and your grandson) — to show a spreading of God’s Name for Jews, to make a sanctification of God’s Name, not in order to prove to Jews that Moses our teacher’s prophecy is true. “V’chen she’ar kol ha’osos.”
> Insight: The Rambam is climbing onto a different approach. A different approach, I would have thought — I can hear it this way — that all these things are a preparation for the Revelation at Mount Sinai (ma’amad Har Sinai), that Moses our teacher is a build-up, that he does so many miracles and wonders in front of all the Jews, so that Jews should see and later they should believe at the Revelation at Mount Sinai. Perhaps there are others who say this, but the Rambam does not say this. All the signs were because they were needed at that time.
—
“How did they believe in him?” — The Revelation at Mount Sinai as the Foundation of Faith
And if so:
> “B’mah he’eminu bo?” (How did they believe in him?)
What was indeed the reason why Jews believed in Moses our teacher? Basically stated, why do we believe in Moses our teacher?
Yes, if a non-Jew asks you, why do you believe in Moses our teacher? Would you tell him because Moses split the sea? He split the sea because they needed to pass through. Why should you believe him? No, for a different reason.
Discussion: What Is Special About the Revelation at Mount Sinai?
Speaker 2: Perhaps the question is — doesn’t it even apply at the Revelation at Mount Sinai?
Speaker 1: No, no, the Revelation at Mount Sinai is the change.
Speaker 2: Why did they need there to be a Revelation at Mount Sinai?
Speaker 1: Yes, yes.
Speaker 2: When was it needed?
Speaker 1: Why?
Speaker 2: Because there was a Revelation at Mount Sinai.
Speaker 1: What was the Revelation?
—
“Our eyes saw and not a stranger’s” — Direct Knowledge, Not Through an Emissary
The Rambam says as follows: the Revelation at Mount Sinai was a time when all Jews saw:
> “She’eineinu ra’u v’lo zar” — Our own eyes saw, and not a stranger’s. This means, not a prophet told us.
> “V’ozneinu sham’u” — Our own ears heard, “v’lo acher” — not another person told us.
What did we see? He says:
> “Ha’eish v’ha’kolos v’ha’lapidim.” (The fire and the sounds and the torches.)
Okay, I want to stop for a second here.
> Insight: You are right, he is going to say what they saw, but I feel that the main emphasis one must make here is on this point. What exactly was seen — the Rambam is going to lay out what was seen — but one can perhaps have a different interpretation of what was seen or what was understood.
>
> The main emphasis here is that this is not like what Rashi says — “lo b’devarim ani mefateh eschem v’lo al yedei shaliach” (I am not persuading you with words, nor through an emissary). Not someone told us, and we must believe that since he performed a wonder one must believe him. We ourselves saw. When one has seen for oneself, there is no…
>
> Usually when a prophet says something, we have nothing to do with the prophecy. We are only recipients, we are the passive listeners. Here something — the Jews were something in this, some kind of partner, the Jews took something, participated in this event. Whatever it is, what we believe about the Revelation at Mount Sinai are things that we saw for ourselves. One doesn’t need to believe anyone for this.
—
What Exactly Did the Jews Hear at the Revelation at Mount Sinai?
The Rambam says, what did they see?
> “Ha’eish v’ha’kolos v’ha’lapidim, v’hu nigash el ha’arafel, v’ha’kol medaber eilav va’anu shom’im.” (The fire and the sounds and the torches, and he approached the thick cloud, and the Voice spoke to him and we heard.)
They saw Moses our teacher going into the thick cloud, and they heard the Voice speaking to Moses our teacher, and we hear. What the Voice says to him:
> “Moshe Moshe, lech emor lahem kach v’kach.” (Moses, Moses, go tell them such and such.)
They heard the Voice as God spoke to Moses our teacher.
> Insight: He does not say here that the Jews heard from God Himself directly. He says that they heard how God says to Moses, “Go tell them such and such.” Amazing. In the Zohar it says — “Ihu v’ihi man d’sham’u Anochi” (Who are those who heard “I am”). But that is a different matter.
>
> What we are saying here is — but this I say, the details of exactly how the Rambam pictures what was heard, I don’t know if it is essential. I think that the essential point here is that the Jews heard — “our eyes saw and not a stranger’s.” That is how he brings the verse.
—
“Face to face God spoke with you”
And not only did Moses our teacher tell them, but they themselves believed. Their own eyes saw.
> “K’hai inyana” — as it says in the verse: “Panim b’fanim diber Hashem imachem.” (Face to face God spoke with you.)
“Face to face” — no, “face to face” he is going to say — one remembers how the Rambam interpreted it, when we will return to the prophecy of Moses — “face to face” he interpreted as directly. “Face to face” means “l’fichach lo al yedei shaliach” (therefore not through an emissary).
> Insight: All Jews for a moment had something similar to the prophecy of Moses. This is not stated explicitly, this is what I myself have now read into it. “Face to face” is a characteristic of the prophecy of Moses.
Discussion: What Does “Face to Face” Yield?
Speaker 2: Yes, but what does it yield there?
Speaker 1: It doesn’t yield many things from the prophecy of Moses. What it yields is the “not through an emissary” aspect.
Speaker 1: They heard the Voice as God spoke to Moses our teacher.
Speaker 2: Right. He doesn’t say here that the Jews heard from God Himself directly, he says that they heard how God says to Moses, “Go tell them such and such.”
Speaker 1: Amazing. In the Zohar it says, “V’inun inun man d’sham’u Anochi.”
Speaker 2: But that is another version. What we are saying here is… but this I say, the details of exactly how the Rambam pictures what was heard, I don’t know if it is essential. I think that the essential point here is that the Jews heard “Anochi” (I am) and “Lo yihyeh lecha” (You shall have no other gods). Bring the verse.
—
The Meaning of “Face to Face”
Speaker 1: “Ki ani omer…” (For I say…)
Speaker 2: “Ki ani omer…”
Speaker 1: “Ki ani omer”, so a verse says, “Panim b’fanim diber Hashem imachem” (Face to face God spoke with you). In front of you…
Speaker 2: No, “face to face” the Rambam interpreted a minute ago regarding the prophecy of Moses. And we say that “face to face” he interprets as directly, “face to face” means “therefore not through an emissary.”
Speaker 1: Face to face.
Speaker 2: All Jews for a moment had something similar to the prophecy of Moses.
Speaker 1: That is not stated, that is what Tehillah herself has now read into it.
Speaker 2: Yes, “face to face” is a characteristic of the prophecy of Moses.
Speaker 1: Yes, but what does it yield there? It doesn’t yield many things in the prophecy of Moses. What it yields is the language regarding the emissary matter. Just as when I say, “I want to speak with you face to face,” I don’t mean to say that I want to see you don’t have a mask on. That’s not the point. The point is, “Don’t send me a letter, don’t send me an emissary, you speak with me!”
Speaker 2: Directly.
—
The Verse “And also in you they will believe forever”
Speaker 1: And he says, “V’lo es avoseinu livad karas Hashem es ha’bris ha’zos, ki isanu anachnu eileh poh ha’yom kulanu chayim.” (Not with our fathers alone did God make this covenant, but with us, we who are here today, all of us alive.)
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 1: He says, he brings the proof from the Torah that… but not exactly… He doesn’t say here basically that at the Revelation at Mount Sinai we didn’t believe in Moses, rather we believed in the event itself, we believed in God Himself, directly. We believe in the prophecy of Moses because we ourselves saw that he is a prophet. That is how you can say it.
Speaker 2: Yes.
—
Having Seen for Oneself Is Stronger Than a Wonder
Speaker 1: Not about a miracle — that’s the main point. Because a miracle is a problem. Something that you see yourself — the Rambam holds that when a person sees something himself, that becomes more than a miracle. A very important point.
> [Chiddush] People think, “I saw it myself — maybe I was imagining it.” And when there’s a miracle, then he doesn’t think, “Maybe I was imagining it.” A miracle is a double imagination. First of all, you saw the miracle, and maybe the whole thing is an illusion. But seeing something yourself — that is a very powerful thing.
Speaker 2: And when there are so many people who saw it…
Speaker 1: True, which we’re already discussing. The Rambam in the Moreh Nevuchim says that the standing at Mount Sinai was…
—
The Primary Proof of Moshe’s Prophecy — The Verse “Ba’avur Yishma Ha’am”
Speaker 1: The primary proof that the Jewish people have for the prophecy of Moshe (nevuat Moshe)… He brings the verse in Yisro, “shene’emar hinei anochi ba eilecha b’av he’anan” — “Behold, I am coming to you in the thickness of the cloud.” Hashem says, I will come speak to you from the cloud. “Ba’avur” — why does Hashem come down? So to speak, at other times Hashem was, so to speak, in heaven, and Moshe Rabbeinu would go to the Ohel Moed or near Mount Sinai, but here Hashem comes close to the Jewish people. Why? “Ba’avur yishma ha’am b’dabri imach” — so that the entire nation should hear how I speak with you — “v’gam b’cha ya’aminu l’olam” — and they will also believe in you forever. Through the fact that the Jewish people will hear how Hashem speaks to Moshe — just as the Rambam told us that the Jewish people heard the voice speaking and saying “Moshe, Moshe, lech emor lahem” — go tell them — it will be “v’gam b’cha ya’aminu l’olam,” they will believe in everything that Moshe Rabbeinu tells them.
—
The Meaning of “L’olam” — Two Approaches
Speaker 1: From this we already see, “kodem davar zeh lo he’eminu bo ne’emanut she’omedet l’olam” — before this event, they did not believe in him with a belief that stands forever. “L’olam” means that it is a certain truth that cannot be denied at all. Until now there had already been many miracles and wonders, but until now there was a ne’emanut she’yesh bah dofi — a belief that has a flaw — a ne’emanut she’yesh acharehah hirhur hamachshavah — a belief after which one can have second thoughts — a belief where one can think: maybe after all, maybe it wasn’t, maybe it’s not one hundred percent, maybe it was a sign and wonder that had…
> [Chiddush] Very good, so the Rambam also has a somewhat new interpretation of the word “l’olam.” But here, when the Jewish people will hear for themselves “b’dabri imach,” they will believe “l’olam,” meaning a true, firm, eternal, strong faith (emunah). The word “l’olam” here does not mean time.
Discussion: “L’olam” — Time or Quality?
Speaker 2: The Rambam made… No, it’s also time. The Rambam added that the simple meaning (peshuteh pshat) means that once they saw, they always believed.
Speaker 1: The Rambam says, what is the meaning that comes in? Until now they hadn’t seen, so they didn’t always believe? Why? They had already seen miracles. The Rambam says, no. From miracles one has a “yesh lo hefsek” — an interruption. A person believes through a miracle — okay, it holds for a few weeks, a few months. He becomes impressed — wow! But when one becomes impressed, the Rambam says, the impression fades, and he begins to be able to think critically.
But when he sees something himself, then he believes on his own forever. Because the absolute knowledge (yedi’ah muchletet) is not a constant thought as you say regarding time — it’s also because it’s a stronger clarification (birur), and therefore it holds forever.
Digression: The Difference Between Pesach and Shavuos
Speaker 1: With this one can understand the difference between… It says in all the Chassidic sefarim the Torah about the difference between Pesach and Shavuos. Yes, Pesach is the miracles and wonders — therefore the awakening (his’orerus) of Pesach, it says in all the sefarim, doesn’t last. It’s a flash, it’s a beautiful thing, but it’s not “l’olam.” But Shavuos is “l’olam.”
—
The Jewish People as Witnesses — “She’hem V’hu Echad Ba’davar”
Speaker 1: Furthermore, the Rambam says here a tremendous thing: that “elu she’shlacham” — the Jewish people to whom Moshe Rabbeinu was sent — “hem hayu eidim al nevuato she’hi emet” — they themselves are witnesses that his prophecy is true. They themselves are testimony, eyewitness testimony (eidut re’iyah), each one of them — that’s it. What is there to believe? On the contrary, they themselves are the testimony.
He brings out again what I’ve been saying all along — why? — “she’hem v’hu echad ba’davar” — Moshe Rabbeinu and the Jewish people were equal; they were one; they both received the prophecy at the same time, as is known, or something like that. “K’shnei eidim she’ra’u davar echad b’yachad, she’kol echad mehem eid l’chaveiro she’hu omer emet, v’ein echad mehem tzarich l’ra’ayah al chaveiro” — like two witnesses who saw one thing together, where each one is a witness for the other that he speaks the truth, and neither one needs proof about the other.
Discussion: What Does “Kol Echad Mehem Eid L’chaveiro” Mean?
Speaker 2: No, not like that. Two witnesses don’t have two separate testimonies. They themselves saw it, and each witness helps the other — the person knows it can’t be that I only saw an illusion, because another person saw it too.
Speaker 1: No, the second person doesn’t help him. Each one… “She’kol echad mehem eid l’chaveiro she’hu omer emet, v’ein echad mehem tzarich ra’ayah al chaveiro.” I don’t grasp what he wants to say. A second witness is a witness for the first witness? On the contrary, each one is for himself. I’m confused.
Let’s see. “She’hem v’hu echad ba’davar” — Moshe Rabbeinu and the Jewish people were together at that event. They are in agreement, he means to say. They are in agreement — the meaning isn’t that Moshe tells us; rather, both of us see the same thing. Just like two witnesses see something together, where each one comes as a witness for the other — that part confuses me a bit. Seemingly each one is a witness for himself. How do I know — “v’ein kol echad mehem tzarich l’ra’ayah al chaveiro”? What does “eid l’chaveiro” mean? Something about the wording doesn’t sit right with me.
Speaker 2: What are you asking? Something strong. Is the “v’ein kol echad mehem tzarich l’ra’ayah al chaveiro” a contradiction to “kol echad mehem eid l’chaveiro”?
Speaker 1: No.
Speaker 2: And he’s not a witness for the other — it should say “kol echad eid l’atzmo.” The two witnesses, when they come together, each one saw it himself, but one can perhaps sometimes question — maybe what I saw was an illusion — but the other one saw it too, together with me; we saw it together — so they strengthen each other.
Speaker 1: I didn’t know that. That would be further — that I look to the second person, I mean to say — but they both agree. Something is funny, no? I would have agreed if it said “kol echad eid l’atzmo.” But it’s already a note — I just want to make a note because I want it to work out. The language doesn’t sit right with me, but it’s not a terrible approach, right? I agree.
Digression: The Rogatchover on Special Testimony
Speaker 1: The Rogatchover notes that we indeed see by two witnesses that there is such a concept that each one is a witness for the other. I was thinking — what is the prohibition of “eidut meyuchedet” (separate testimony) being invalid? A witness for a witness — what does “eidut meyuchedet” mean? It means two witnesses who don’t know about each other — yes, that’s not valid. Then there’s no combination (tziruf). It seems that they are combined one with the other — yes, interesting to set it up that way. Not clear.
The Main Idea
Speaker 1: But in any case, the main idea here is that the Jewish people believed because they saw it themselves. Okay.
—
The Rambam’s Language: “Kol Yisrael Eidim Lo”
Speaker 1: But I think what he’s saying here is also — this is how he concludes — “kach Moshe Rabbeinu kol Yisrael eidim lo achar ma’amad Har Sinai, v’ein tzarich la’asos lahem os” — he doesn’t need to show them a sign and wonder because all the Jewish people are themselves a sign and wonder; all the Jewish people saw it themselves. I think he means to say that also for later generations, that generation is a sign forever.
Discussion: The Question of Later Generations — Eid Mi’pi Eid
Speaker 2: We believe about this. But then, just to be clear, that’s a very big problem, right? Because then… one must say clearly that if so, when we heard — we continue to hear as “eid mi’pi eid” (testimony from the mouth of a witness) — it becomes a difficult question: if so, why when a second prophet comes to us, I could have simply said just one more level of testimony? Very difficult. There must be a deeper matter in this.
But “rabim b’rabim” (many to many) is stronger than ordinary testimony, by the way. An entire nation heard…
Speaker 1: You can say that, but is it true? I think there is an answer for this. If one understands a few foundational principles (yesodos), one can understand the answer. But will you want — I’m not revealing the secret on YouTube. Will you want to hear the secret? You can come to another YouTube shiur; there the secret is stated, but not in this one.
—
The Signs of Moshe Rabbeinu in Egypt — “Ne’emanut She’yesh Bah Dofi”
Speaker 1: Now the Rambam mentioned what we just spoke about regarding the miracles that are stated earlier… The Rambam didn’t forget. The Rambam says, what is this that the miracles are stated earlier? What does he say?
“V’zeh she’amar lo HaKadosh Baruch Hu b’techilat nevuato…” — This is the meaning of what Hashem said to him at the beginning of his prophecy — “b’sha’ah she’natan lo ha’otot la’asotam b’Mitzrayim” — when Hashem gave him the signs to perform in Egypt, Hashem said to Moshe, “v’sham’u l’kolecha” — they will listen to your voice. Yes.
What does Hashem say to Moshe Rabbeinu? “Yode’a hayah HaKadosh Baruch Hu” — Hashem said this, and Moshe Rabbeinu knew, that even though he would bring signs and wonders and they would believe — “v’sham’u l’kolecha” — they would not believe fully; they would have a flaw (dofi). “Yesod ha’emunah she’yesh bo dofi u’meharher u’mechashev” — when a person sees signs, he still thinks it over, he reconsiders.
Why Did Moshe Rabbeinu Hesitate?
Speaker 1: Therefore Moshe Rabbeinu “hayah nimlach” — he deliberated. This was the reason why we see there that Moshe Rabbeinu multiple times — Hashem sends him, and Moshe Rabbeinu says he doesn’t want to go, or he hesitates — because he says “v’hen lo ya’aminu li” — “But they won’t believe me.” Why? Why was Moshe Rabbeinu troubled? Because Moshe Rabbeinu was troubled that Hashem is indeed giving him signs and wonders, but the Jewish people will only ever believe in him with a belief that has a flaw (dofi).
The Solution — Ma’amad Har Sinai
Speaker 1: What is the solution to this? Hashem told him, “elu ha’otot einan ela ad she’yetz’u mi’Mitzrayim” — all these signs that are needed now for the beginning of Moshe Rabbeinu’s prophecy, until they leave Egypt, will indeed be with a belief that has a flaw. “Aval achar she’yetz’u v’ya’amdu al hahar hazeh” — but after they leave and stand at this mountain — “yistalek hahirhur she’meharharim acharecha” — the doubts they have about Moshe Rabbeinu will go away — “she’ani noten lecha ka’an ot she’yeid’u she’ani”…
The Sign of Ma’amad Har Sinai as Corroboration for Egypt
But all those signs are only for the beginning of Moshe Rabbeinu’s prophecy. Until they leave Egypt, there will indeed be a prophecy with a flaw in their hearts. But “v’achar she’yetz’u v’ya’amdu al hahar hazeh” — after they leave and stand at Mount Sinai — “yistalek hahirhur she’meharharim acharecha” — the doubts they have about Moshe Rabbeinu will go away. “She’atah noten lahem ka’an ot” — that You give them here a sign — “she’yeid’u she’shlachtich be’emet” — that they will know that I truly sent you.
Seemingly, regarding all those miracles, perhaps the Jewish people reconsidered, just as Pharaoh reconsidered the entire time. Perhaps the Jewish people reconsidered — maybe it’s a genuine sign, maybe not. But now, when ma’amad Har Sinai will be revealed — the King of kings of kings revealed publicly (b’farhesya) — that not only is Moshe Rabbeinu the bearer of the Torah, but also Moshe Rabbeinu is the great redeemer who performed all those miracles — they were genuine miracles — “v’lo yisha’er b’libam hirhur” — no doubt will remain in their hearts.
The Verse “V’zeh Lecha Ha’ot” — A Sign for the Mission in Egypt
“V’zeh lecha ha’ot ki anochi shelachtich” — “This will be a sign for you that I sent you” — this will be a sign also for the mission, also for what Moshe Rabbeinu did in Egypt. That “b’hotzi’acha et ha’am mi’Mitzrayim ta’avdun et ha’Elokim al hahar hazeh” — “When you take the people out of Egypt, you will serve God on this mountain” — and then the Jewish people themselves will see with something close to prophecy; they will see face to face (panim b’fanim), and that will be a public corroboration (asmachta b’farhesya) also for Moshe’s mission in Egypt.
The Rambam’s Answer to “V’hen Lo Ya’aminu Li”
Very good. So the Rambam answers what has been difficult for everyone. And the verse truly agrees with what the Rambam’s Torah states — that the sign will also be a corroboration for Egypt.
Discussion: The Order of the Verses — Does the Rambam’s Interpretation Fit?
Speaker 1: Yes, it works if you imagine that “v’hen lo ya’aminu li” doesn’t have an answer that follows easily afterward — that the true… It’s not according to the order, but the Rambam interprets… I remembered that the same sign appears before “v’hen lo ya’aminu li,” so it doesn’t fit very well. But… yes, 3:12, 4:1 — yes, it’s backwards. So the Rambam’s interpretation doesn’t fit very well, and there are other verses.
Speaker 2: Yes, but the Rambam seems to have made an interpretation that fits with the same sign. The verse wasn’t disturbed.
Speaker 1: Yes, but it doesn’t work that one can answer “v’hen lo ya’aminu li.” The “v’hen lo ya’aminu li” — he says it afterward. So… I can’t say that he means until then.
Speaker 2: Okay, the verses there anyway — the order of the verses there is anyway understandable — it seems that several times it repeated again that Moshe Rabbeinu said “v’hen lo ya’aminu li.” Very well, and this is a general problem of how the verses are arranged, because afterward Hashem says — he says again “v’hen lo ya’aminu li.” So the Rambam wasn’t bothered by this, and presumably the Rambam has somewhere else an explanation for the order of the verses.
Okay, he’s just saying that it’s not so… there’s such a problem here. But I wanted to say that the Rambam answers the difficulty of what clearly states that Hashem gave a sign to Moshe Rabbeinu, and he says — the Rambam says no — regarding this it states “v’zeh lecha ha’ot.”
Chiddush: The Sign of Har Sinai — A “Sign Without a Flaw”
Speaker 1: So it’s not really a sign.
Speaker 2: Yes, it’s not a true revelation — it’s more like a sign without a flaw (os she’ein bo dofi). It’s called a sign; you can say in a manner of…
Speaker 1: This is the sign in a manner of “shetef Hashem” (overflow of God), a bit.
Speaker 2: Right, it’s the sign that has no miracle in it. No flaw in it (ein bo dofi).
—
The Difference Between Believing Moshe and Believing Other Prophets — “Nimtzet Omer”
Now, as the Rambam concludes, it comes out — “nimtzet omer” — he says, it comes out, “she’kol navi” — that every prophet…
With this the Rambam finished saying as follows — earlier he told us the difference between the prophecy of Moshe; now he tells us the difference between how we believe other prophets and the prophecy of Moshe. Right, and this is all as an introduction.
That the prophecy of Moshe — we believe him on our own, because we ourselves saw it at ma’amad Har Sinai. He emphasizes: when the generation that received the Torah (dor hamekablei haTorah) saw me at ma’amad Har Sinai. “Nimtzet omer” — it comes out — “she’kol navi she’ya’amod achar Moshe Rabbeinu” — every prophet who comes after Moshe Rabbeinu — here comes a very interesting twist.
Earlier we knew that we believe a prophet regarding… a prophet whom we know is fit (ra’ui) to be a prophet and brings a sign and wonder — the Rambam says, that’s until Moshe Rabbeinu. But after Moshe Rabbeinu — “ein anu ma’aminim bo mipnei ha’ot levado… ela mipnei hamitzvah she’tzivanu Moshe baTorah” — the reason we believe is not because of the sign, but because the Torah commands us to believe.
The Parable of Witnesses
As with witnesses — it was said, one brings a sign, “im tishma’un” — like two witnesses. Even when you have two witnesses, we don’t know for certain whether it’s true or false. It’s possible that sometimes witnesses might testify falsely. So what then? The Torah said it — that one should rely on the testimony of two witnesses (al pi shnayim eidim); one should act accordingly even though we don’t know for one hundred percent; one should conduct oneself as if one believes. The power of a commandment to listen — one sees a prophet, no difference whether it’s true, whether it’s sorcery or sleight of hand.
Discussion: Why Do We Believe a Prophet, and What Is the Role of Chezkat Kashrut?
Speaker 1: Why do we believe a prophet when he brings a miracle? Because Moshe said so. And why do we believe Moshe? Because we saw it ourselves. Where did the chezkat kashrut (presumption of propriety) that he mentioned earlier go? And you should know that regarding sorcery, he doesn’t do it because of chezkat kashrut. I told you, chezkat kashrut is only the reason without the Torah — what one wouldn’t believe otherwise…
Speaker 2: The chezkat kashrut is only a condition; it helps, it adds — it doesn’t add. What the Torah says is a simple matter of believing.
Speaker 1: If you understand that there is a difference between what we believe regarding Moshe and other prophets — that what we believe regarding another prophet is only by Torah law (mi’din Torah), just as he already said earlier, but now he’s explaining it — if so, there is a difficult question, yes?
—
A Prophet Who Comes to Contradict the Prophecy of Moshe — “Ein Shom’in Lo”
Let’s put it this way: if you say that one doesn’t believe a true prophet on his own, but only because the Torah commands it — then on what basis does one believe the Torah itself as truly authentic? You must say that the Torah doesn’t have this problem. The Torah we believe directly, because we ourselves saw it. No, fine, that shouldn’t be the problem. In the Torah that we ourselves saw, it states that even a prophet whom we did not see ourselves — we do believe him, even though we have a concern, we believe him, because so it states in the Torah.
Therefore, consequently, if a prophet arose and performed even great signs and wonders — he performed great wonders — but he comes and seeks to deny the prophecy of Moses our teacher, he says something against the prophecy of Moses our teacher — we do not listen to him, one may not listen to him.
A Novel Insight: “We Do Not Listen to Him” — Not a Law, but a Reality
Why? Not that one may not — one simply doesn’t listen to him. This is not a law, this is not a decree of Scripture, it simply works out this way. Why? One cannot, he says, one doesn’t believe him.
Why? Because we know with certainty — we know for sure — that those signs were performed through sorcery and witchcraft — they are sorcery. Why? Because the prophecy of Moses our teacher is not based on signs, such that we would compare these signs to those signs. And if one had only believed Moses our teacher based on signs, there would have been room for another to come and say “I will perform even greater signs and wonders,” and one would now compare which is stronger.
But that is not the reality. Rather the reality is, the reason we believe in the Torah of Moses our teacher is because we saw it with our own eyes — we saw the Torah of Moses with our own eyes, we saw the prophecy of Moses — and with our own ears we heard it, just as he heard it — we heard with our own ears that which Moses our teacher heard when the Almighty spoke to him.
Two Problems with the Prophet Who Goes Against Moses
Consequently, when a prophet comes who only has a presumption of credibility — the prophet doesn’t have the thing that we ourselves heard; all he comes with is something much weaker: signs and wonders. Not only does it come weaker — it comes as something that contradicts what we ourselves saw.
There is no reason at all to believe a prophet. We only believe a prophet because the Torah says so. If you are a prophet who goes against the Torah — could it be that the Torah tells you to believe him? No! Because I already believe in the Torah, so they have no reason whatsoever to believe this prophet.
The Parable of Witnesses Against Eyewitness Observation
The same applies — it is similar to witnesses who testified to a person about something he saw with his own eyes, that it was not as he saw it — a person saw something very clearly, and two witnesses came and told him clearly that what he saw is not true — he does not listen to them, he may not listen to them, he doesn’t listen to them. He judges them to be false witnesses — when it is clear as day that they are false witnesses, then he doesn’t believe them. Because witnesses are only relevant when it could be true — then there is a law to believe two witnesses. But when it cannot be true, then it simply cannot be true.
The Principle: The Torah of Moses Is Absolute Truth
The same thing — the Torah, the Torah of Moses, is the absolute truth, which we ourselves experienced. Consequently, every sign that comes regarding this is only valid if it accords with it. If it accords, then the Torah says one should believe even if it’s not one hundred percent certain. If it doesn’t accord — it contradicts what I know, and I have no reason to believe him.
—
The Verse in Parshat Re’eh — “For Hashem Your God Is Testing You”
And the main point — now the Torah itself addresses this, there is a prophecy, a sign and wonder. There is a verse in the Torah, in Parshat Re’eh, what does it say there? That a sign and wonder that doesn’t accord with the Torah… there is a wonder — so the Rambam learns, at the very least — “let us follow other gods”, technically it says “let us follow other gods,” he says one should serve idolatry, he says something against the Torah. Yes. So, if this is stated in the verse: “do not listen to the words of that prophet.”
Why? What is the language of the verse? “And the sign or the wonder comes to pass” — that the sign and wonder stood in the verse, something was stated in the verse. A prophet comes and performs a sign and wonder — don’t listen to him — for Hashem your God is testing you.
Discussion: Why Shouldn’t One Believe the Prophet?
The Rambam asks: why not? He asks a question here — why shouldn’t I believe him? I believe the Torah because it’s from a prophet, so why shouldn’t I believe this prophet?
The Rambam comes here to answer a very basic logical question: why should one believe when a prophet comes and says something against Moses our teacher or speaks about idolatry? The Torah says not to believe him. The prophet says: “But what is the Torah? A prophet. I’m also a prophet.”
The Rambam says: No, you don’t understand, these are two entirely different levels. For this one comes to us with a sign and wonder to deny what our eyes saw — he comes with some weak thing, a sign and wonder. What could we possibly have that is stronger and clearer than the perception of the eye? And we don’t even believe in wonders on their own — the entire reason we believe in wonders is because of the commandment of Moses, that Moses our teacher told us that through signs and wonders we should believe a prophet when he is worthy of it. But how can we now accept a sign and wonder that comes to deny the prophecy of Moses, which we saw with our eyes and heard with our ears?
—
Summary of the Rambam’s Approach in Halacha 1
So this is — up to here it is very interesting that the Rambam didn’t just state the halacha. You can learn it, bring the halacha, and he explains it in his words. And in other places he elaborates — in the Moreh Nevuchim (Guide for the Perplexed). If you want to learn a bit more details about this, you can look at the Rambam’s introduction to his Commentary on the Mishnah, right at the beginning he elaborates to explain the point of exactly what a prophet can do and what a prophet cannot do. He goes on to explain a bit more later as well in chapter 9.
And the Rambam didn’t just tell us the halacha, but also explained why, with this lengthy piece of Torah:
– It is self-evident that the prophecy of Moses is not based on wonders — consequently the prophet who comes after him with a wonder has two problems:
– First: that it is a wonder against what we saw ourselves
– Second: that we don’t believe in wonders at all on their own — we only believe wonders that the Torah tells us to believe. The Torah doesn’t say to, and here it goes against the Torah, the Torah doesn’t say to believe — consequently we don’t believe him.
This is the language up to here in chapter 8.