Laws of the Foundations of the Torah, Chapter 9 (Auto Translated)

Sefer HaMadda – Hilkhot Yesodei HaTorah, Chapter 9

The Torah Is Forever – A Prophet Cannot Change the Torah

—

Introduction: Connection to the Previous Chapters

Good evening, we are learning Sefer HaMadda, Hilkhot Yesodei HaTorah, Chapter 9, the ninth chapter. Barukh Hashem, we have already learned eight chapters, and we continue with the topic of prophecy (nevuah).

One of the foundations, one of the principles (ikkarim), is that the Almighty speaks to people through the prophets (nevi’im), and the Rambam continues with these laws.

I made a small observation, that people have in their minds that halakhah and hashkafah are like two separate topics, two different kinds of things, and because of that they might think that hashkafah is more like everyone can say whatever they want. But the Rambam does not hold this way. Halakhah — there are Hilkhot De’ot. Halakhah is how a person thinks, what a person needs to know, and so forth.

Review of Chapter 8

Yesterday we learned about this here. First of all, the matter that the Almighty speaks to prophets — that people who reach perfection of the soul (shleimut hanefesh), perfection of knowledge (shleimut hada’at), can, if the Almighty wills it, the Almighty gives them an additional tool. They do the preparation, and the Almighty gives them prophecy. And once they receive prophecy, and the prophecy is a prophecy that is relevant for other people, not just for themselves, one must obey them.

And in the next chapter, the Rambam spoke about the prophecy of Moshe Rabbeinu — that the prophecy of Moshe Rabbeinu was a different category, a different way in which the Almighty spoke to him, and that it is greater in level. And not only that, but at the end he derived that the reason we must obey all prophets is because of the prophecy of Moshe, because the prophecy of Moshe is the most binding upon us. And the reason why the prophecy of Moshe is the most binding upon us is because we ourselves saw it, and the prophecy of Moshe told us that we should also obey the other prophets.

A Third Reason Why a Prophet Cannot Go Against Moshe

Now the Rambam continues with this. And consequently, this is the important conclusion — which this chapter is apparently the conclusion of that — that since all prophets are only weaker than the prophecy of Moshe, and the prophecy of Moshe is their reason why we must believe them, therefore, if a prophet comes who goes against the prophecy of Moshe, he has no standing to speak. This chapter is essentially the definitions of precisely in what way a prophet can go somewhat differently from the Torah, or not differently from the Torah. That is the content of this chapter.

One should be able to say two reasons why — let us first learn the text inside — but based on the previous chapter, one can say two reasons why a prophet cannot say differently from Moshe Rabbeinu:

1. First — regarding the prophecy of Moshe, we all saw that the Almighty speaks to Moshe. Consequently, we are all witnesses to the prophecy of Moshe.

2. Second — because the authority of the prophets comes from the prophecy of Moshe.

Says the Rambam, there is a third thing that we are now going to learn. In other words, the third thing is that someone could still argue: “True, the prophecy is weaker than Moshe’s, but who says that when someone says a new commandment (mitzvah) or something different from what is written in the Torah — who says he is contradicting the Torah? Perhaps the Torah was for that time, and today there is a new Torah?” To this, the Rambam begins to say that no, it is clear in the Torah that the Torah is forever. Consequently, if someone says otherwise, he is going against it.

—

Halakhah 1: The Torah Is Forever — Lo Tosif v’Lo Tigra

The Rambam says:

“Davar barur u’mforash baTorah she’hi mitzvah omedet l’olam u’l’olmei olamim, ein lah lo shinui v’lo gira’on v’lo tosefet.”

What does this mean? That the Torah is a commandment, everything written in the Torah is a commandment, is a law. That the Torah is fixed and enduring, the Torah never changes. “Ein lah lo shinui” — it is not exchanged for something else, “v’lo gira’on” — nothing is taken away, “v’lo tosefet” — and nothing is added.

The Verses

“Shene’emar: et kol hadavar asher anokhi metzaveh etkhem oto tishmeru la’asot, lo tosef alav v’lo tigra mimenu” — only this shall you observe to do, one shall not add and one shall not take away.

“V’ne’emar: v’haniglot lanu u’l’vaneinu ad olam la’asot et kol divrei haTorah hazot.”

“Ha lamadta she’kol divrei haTorah metzuvin anu la’asotam ad olam” — you learn from these two verses that everything written in the Torah we are obligated to fulfill forever.

The Verse “Chukat Olam L’doroteikhem”

The Rambam brings additional verses: “V’khen hu omer: chukat olam l’doroteikhem” — that the Torah is an eternal statute (chukat olam), is an everlasting law, is an everlasting guide for your generations.

> Insight: One problem with this verse is that “chukat olam l’doroteikhem” is not stated about the entire Torah — it is stated about various individual commandments. It doesn’t appear just once — ten, twenty, thirty times the Torah states about certain things “chukat olam.” One could argue that this applies specifically to those laws. We see that the Rambam understood that if we already see that the other verses are certainly about the entire Torah — the two verses from the Book of Devarim — if we see that, then we understand that what is written “chukat olam” means that the Torah is an everlasting law.

The Verse “Lo Bashamayim Hi”

Further, the Rambam says: “V’ne’emar: lo bashamayim hi” — it is written about the Torah — “ha lamadta she’ein navi rashai l’chadesh davar me’atah.”

What does “lo bashamayim hi” mean? It is not in heaven.

> Insight: Consequently, since it is not in heaven, a prophet cannot change it. Because if it were in heaven, a prophet could say: “I was in heaven, I know what is happening in heaven, I speak with heaven, and in heaven something was changed.” But it is not so. Rather, the Torah has already been brought down to earth, and we are all obligated in the Torah.

The Rambam’s interpretation of “lo bashamayim hi” is: “Lo nishar mimenah klum bashamayim” — nothing of the Torah remains in heaven. The entire Torah has already come down to earth. It does not mean that the Almighty gave one message to Moshe, but there are still more messages of the Torah in heaven that can be brought down. The entire thing is already here. Just as “Torat Hashem temimah” — He gave the entire thing, nothing more remains. Consequently, “ein navi rashai l’chadesh davar me’atah” — a prophet is not permitted to innovate anything from now on.

The Rambam’s Approach to “Lo Tosifu v’Lo Tigre’u”

> Insight: I just want to pause briefly on a small point — that the way the Rambam derives the verse “lo tosifu v’lo tigre’u” is the Rambam’s approach. Other Rishonim learn it somewhat differently — that it is a different type of commandment, that one should not change the commandment. Meaning, one should not add, one should not have two etrogim, or eat matzah fourteen days instead of seven days — as the action itself.

>

> But the Rambam says that the primary prohibition is changing the Torah — saying that the Torah has changed, or saying that something in the Torah has changed. Not that an individual person does something differently — that is perhaps a different issue, one needs to know what the problem is with that — but this is a matter of belief (da’at), and not merely a matter of action (asiyah). Saying that something has changed — that is the prohibition.

Here he shows us clearly — the straightforward reading is that the Rambam is correct — that this is what the Torah means: do not add to the Torah and do not take away. It applies to the entire Torah, not to a specific commandment like five species in the lulav. The entire Torah — not to add another commandment.

—

Halakhah 2: A Prophet Who Goes Against the Torah Is a False Prophet

“L’fikhakh, im ya’amod ish, bein miYisrael bein min ha’umot” — here he says very clearly: someone will arise whom people might think is perhaps a prophet, “whether from Israel or from the nations.”

> Note: Incidentally, the Rambam means “from the nations” because Jews have had this experience, a historical occurrence — that gentile false prophets came and said that the Torah had changed, just as it says in the Gemara that the Christians did so. Yesterday we were precise that the Rambam writes “bnei adam” (human beings) — here he says it very clearly.

“V’ya’aseh ot u’mofet” — he will perform a sign and wonder, which we learned is how a prophet proves himself — his prophecy is also through signs and wonders.

“V’yomar she’Hashem sh’lacho l’hosif mitzvah, o ligro’a mitzvah, o l’faresh b’mitzvah min hamitzvot perush shelo shamanu miMoshe” — either to add, or to take away a commandment, or even just to change the Oral Torah (Torah sheb’al peh).

Discussion: What Does “L’faresh” Mean Here?

> Insight: Heaven forbid, the Rambam does not mean here to offer an interpretation of a verse. Offering an interpretation of a verse is what all commentators on the Torah do. He apparently means to say “l’faresh” — he means to say, as he began in his introduction, that the Oral Torah is the interpretation. That is, he won’t say — he will say: “I’m not changing anything, it says in the verse ‘pri etz hadar’ (fruit of a beautiful tree), I say that ‘pri etz hadar’ doesn’t mean an etrog, rather it means a lemon.”

Chavruta: What does a watermark mean?

Speaker 1: Yes, but he says that this is simply a new interpretation. He is going against the Oral Torah.

Chavruta: Right, but “interpretation” here means what the Rambam calls “perushim hamekubalim miMoshe” — the interpretations received from Moshe. What Moshe Rabbeinu said — that is the essence of the Oral Torah — how he said the commandments are to be performed. He doesn’t mean the Torah that is open, where one can create new Torah insights — that’s not a problem. Changing a commandment, going through and changing the interpretation.

“Mitzvot L’fi Zman Hayu”

“O she’amar she’otan hamitzvot sheniztavu bahen Yisrael einan l’olam u’l’dorei dorot ela mitzvot l’fi zman hayu” — or a prophet will say that the commandments that the Jews were commanded in the Torah are not forever and for all generations, but rather were commandments for a specific time.

> Insight: Someone could say that the Torah was given for the Jews at that time, but today something needs to change. He doesn’t even say that the Almighty came with a new commandment — he says that from the outset, “I don’t disagree with Moshe. Moshe said it then, Moshe was for a certain time, and now it’s a new time.”

The Ruling: False Prophet

Says the Rambam: “Harei zeh navi sheker.” We should know that the person who says this thing is a false prophet.

Why? “Sheharei ba l’hakhchish nevuato shel Moshe” — he comes to deny the prophecy of Moshe Rabbeinu, as he previously mentioned that Moshe Rabbeinu prophesied that the Torah is forever.

Chavruta: Yes, he means from the verses.

Speaker 1: Right. Not that Moshe Rabbeinu prophesied it — it is a statute, the Torah states that it is forever. And he goes against the Torah, so he denies the prophecy of Moshe.

“U’mitato B’chenek”

“U’mitato b’chenek” — his death is by strangulation.

Chavruta: Do you know which verse?

Speaker 1: I’m going to tell you.

“U’mitato b’chenek” — why? “Shehezid l’daber b’shem Hashem asher lo tzivahu.” As it says in the verse: “V’hanavi asher yazid l’daber davar bishmi asher lo tzivitiv… u’met hanavi hahu.” But the death penalty is by strangulation (chenek).

> Note: It is interesting that he mentions this law here. He wouldn’t have needed to mention it — he could have taught this when he would learn the laws of court-imposed death penalties. A false prophet is liable for death by strangulation, as we will learn in Hilkhot Avodah Zarah. A false prophet — his death is by strangulation — whether he prophesies in the name of idolatry, or he prophesies in the name of God something he did not hear — his death is by strangulation. But this is not relevant to the topic here. The Rambam’s point is not to rule on the law. The Rambam’s point here is to say that if a prophet comes and says something against the prophecy of Moshe, he is a false prophet. How do I know he is a false prophet? As he goes on to explain: “Sheharei ba l’hakhchish nevuato shel Moshe.”

“V’lo Ish El Vikhazev”

“She’hu barukh shmo tzivah l’Moshe she’hamitzvah hazot lanu u’l’vaneinu ad olam, v’lo ish El vikhazev” — the Almighty told us through Moshe that this commandment is forever. And the Almighty is not like a person who changes his mind and tells lies. The Almighty told us, and we know that it is forever.

Consequently, if someone comes and says otherwise, he is going against Moshe, and that alone is proof that he is a false prophet, and he is liable for the death penalty.

Halakhah 3: “Navi Akim Lahem Mikerev Acheihem” — What Does the Verse Mean?

The Historical Context of the Question

The Rambam continues: “Im ken, lamah ne’emar baTorah…” Now there is a problem. Let’s discuss this. I have a custom to present it as if there is someone who raises a question with an answer — the Rambam doesn’t frame it as a question and answer, but when we learn we can imagine it. Whoever knows a bit of the context can imagine that the Rambam is coming to answer certain questions that someone would have had.

Now, whoever studies — we have already mentioned that one of the great innovations of the Rambam came to answer problems that people had. Christians or Muslims who said that one of all the Torahs — that the Almighty added, or the Almighty changed, or Moshe Rabbeinu’s Torah is not forever, and the like.

And one of their great proofs was always that there is a verse, there is an explicit verse that the Almighty tells Moshe that He will bring a prophet for you and you will obey him. And the Muslims used to use this verse and say that this is a hint — we will mention this in the Iggeret Teiman — some gematria, “navi mikerev achikha” is the gematria of Muhammad. I mean, something like that exists in the Torah. They argued that it says explicitly that another prophet is coming and we must obey him, and what do you mean that we don’t obey a new prophet?

The Rambam’s Answer: The Prophet Does Not Come to Make a New Religion

Says the Rambam, that is not correct, it means something else. It says in the Torah: “Navi akim lahem mikerev acheihem kamokha” — I will raise up another prophet from among the Jews like you, Moshe Rabbeinu — “v’natati devarai b’fiv” — and I will speak to him as well — “v’diber aleihem et kol asher atzavenu” — he will convey commandments to the Jews.

So on the surface it could look like a contradiction to what the Rambam says. But the Rambam says: No — “lo la’asot dat ba” — the verse does not mean to say that another prophet can come and make a new Torah, new commandments. Rather — “ela l’tzavot al divrei haTorah u’l’hazhir ha’am shelo ya’avru aleha” — simply, the prophet will come to once again command, once again strengthen the original Torah, and once again warn the people “shelo ya’avru aleha” — that they should not transgress it.

The Proof from Malakhi — “Zikhru Torat Moshe Avdi”

“K’mo she’amar ha’acharon shebahem” — he says, he brings a very beautiful proof: the last of the prophets, the prophet Malakhi, said “Zikhru Torat Moshe avdi” — “Remember the Torah of My servant Moshe.”

It is very beautiful, because how one ends again with the first… not exactly the first, because yesterday he brought Avraham, Yitzchak, Yaakov, but in any case, one ends again with the great prophet, Moshe Rabbeinu — with what does one end? Once again strengthening his Torah.

So also the verse “Navi akim lahem mikerev acheihem” does not mean to say he will give a new Torah, but rather to once again give him certain parts of the Torah that need fresh strengthening, or that he should freshly warn the Jews.

Discussion: Is a Prophet Merely a Mussar-Sayer?

Speaker 2: So not give — so a prophet is only a mussar-sayer. A prophet doesn’t say what to do.

Speaker 1: No, he does tell you, he tells you mussar — the teaching of prophecy. The effect is, he tells you to once again warn the Jews once again about certain commandments.

Speaker 2: Yes, yes, yes, but not… not with Torah, not — he doesn’t innovate any commandments.

Speaker 1: Just as he brings a proof from Malakhi — although this language is not found by all prophets, but as he says, one can see from the end that the prophet comes and cries out: Why aren’t you following the Torah? He comes to remind — “zikhru” (remember).

In other words, the prophet is like what the Mesillat Yesharim says in his introduction: he never comes to say anything new, but rather “l’hazkir” — to remind them of what they already know.

The Concept of “Ha’acharon Shebahem” — Is Malakhi Really the Last Prophet?

But it is a bit interesting that he calls Malakhi “hu ha’acharon shebahem” (the last of them), because as we learned yesterday, it seemed that prophecy was specifically worthwhile… there is no law that Malakhi is the last.

This means to say: the last one who is called by the title “prophets” (nevi’im) in the words of Chazal — later they are already called the Men of the Great Assembly (Anshei Knesset HaGedolah). But I don’t know, one needs to know whether the Rambam held that this was the last one. In any case, the last one in the book called Nevi’im — in the printed book — is without question.

The Prophet Is Merely an “Awakener” — The Commandment Remains from Moshe

And seemingly, also when after the prophet warns, one continues to fulfill the mitzvah because Moshe commanded it, not because the prophet commands it. The prophet is merely arousing.

Just like when the rabbi comes to the synagogue and says one should strengthen oneself regarding lashon hara (evil speech) — one doesn’t need to guard against lashon hara because the Chafetz Chaim said so, but because the Torah said so. He came to warn them that they should do it.

Question: When a prophet arouses regarding a mitzvah — how many mitzvos is one fulfilling?

Speaker 2: Perhaps it’s a negative commandment implied by a positive one (lav ha-ba mi-klal aseh). Here you have a mitzvah — you learned that there is a mitzvah to listen to the words of the prophet. It’s true, one can simply ask: when one follows the Torah and fulfills that mitzvah because it’s a prophecy of Moshe, or when one follows that one, is one fulfilling the other mitzvah? Is it double, triple?

Speaker 1: And then a prophet comes and says: “Gentlemen, keep Shabbos.” Yes, keep Shabbos, good. That was a prophet. He says it — so is one fulfilling three mitzvos? Both listening to the words of the prophet, and the mitzvah of Shabbos, and the prophecy of Moshe Rabbeinu… One needs to think about this.

—

Halacha 4: Matters of Permission — The Prophet’s Special Role

The Rambam’s Words

The Rambam continues: “And similarly, if he commands us in matters of permission (divrei ha-reshus)” — what else does a prophet have the right to do? To command us regarding something that until the prophet said it was a matter of permission, something that is not written about in the Torah:

– “Such as ‘go to such-and-such a place’ or ‘don’t go'”

– “‘Make war today’ or ‘don’t make war'”

– “‘Build this wall’ or ‘don’t build it'”

These are prophecies that occurred at times. War certainly occurred, and Yirmiyahu warned not to wage war. Yes, he generally means to hint at certain things that are written in the books of the Prophets — “build a wall” or…

The Mitzvah to Listen to Him Regarding Matters of Permission

Or he says: all these things that have no connection, that are not written about in the Torah — then it is a mitzvah to listen to him, because the prophet has the right here, it’s not yet something that Moshe Rabbeinu already covered. Then it is a mitzvah to follow him, like the mitzvah we learned yesterday — the mitzvah of following a prophet. And this is what the verse means: “I will raise up a prophet for them… to him you shall listen (elav tishma’un).”

And there is a positive commandment (mitzvas aseh) to follow, and there is also a negative commandment (mitzvas lo sa’aseh) if one doesn’t follow. Perhaps we will see this shortly.

—

Halacha 4 (Continued): Liable to Death at the Hands of Heaven for Not Following a Prophet

The Punishment: Death at the Hands of Heaven

But what he says is that one is liable to death at the hands of Heaven (chayav misah bi-yedei Shamayim). If one transgresses the words of the prophet in matters of permission, one is liable to death at the hands of Heaven. As it states: “And the man who does not listen to My words that he speaks in My name, I will demand of him (anochi edrosh me-imo).”

Discussion: Does the Obligation Also Apply When the Prophet Warns About Torah

Speaker 2: Perhaps also when he warns about the Torah one should wonder about this, okay. It seemingly refers to the last thing he said.

Speaker 1: Okay.

Discussion: Death at the Hands of Heaven — Does There Need to Be a Negative Commandment

Speaker 2: But there is no negative commandment (lo sa’aseh). A negative commandment only exists regarding “not to diminish and not to add.” But if one is liable to death — usually when there is a liability of death there is also a negative commandment.

Speaker 1: Death at the hands of Heaven doesn’t necessarily require a negative commandment. Death at the hands of Heaven doesn’t mean nothing. There is such a thing — for example, when the Gemara says one is liable to death, the Gemara says: no, death at the hands of Heaven. Death at the hands of Heaven means that it is fitting for him to be liable, but the Almighty has His own calculations. It doesn’t mean a general liability of death. One doesn’t need any practical difference (nafka minah) for anything. Death at the hands of man (misah bi-yedei adam) requires a negative commandment.

Speaker 2: But as you say, death at the hands of Heaven — if I understand correctly, perhaps we’ll see later — he says that one is exempt, so it’s not relevant regarding repentance (teshuvah). It’s more between man and God (bein adam la-Makom).

Speaker 1: In short, the Almighty… a great repentance means that it shows it’s a serious matter (davar chamur), that one needs to do great repentance, not a small transgression. But it’s not something where one needs a negative commandment to say one is liable to death at the hands of Heaven.

Just like when there is a warning (azharah), it states “we heard the warning, from where do we know the punishment” — and when there is a warning there must be… the opposite, I mean “we heard the punishment, from where do we know the warning.” But at the hands of Heaven is not necessarily so.

Okay, anyway, we haven’t seen in the Rambam that there should be a negative commandment. It’s a positive commandment, and it’s a matter for which one is liable to death at the hands of Heaven.

Speaker 2: “And regarding all three it states”… I remember that even regarding rabbinic matters (de-rabbanan) it can sometimes state liable to death at the hands of Heaven. That means, he’s not liable to death, and the commentators say that this means death at the hands of Heaven.

Speaker 1: What do you mean he’s not liable to death? Death at the hands of Heaven means it’s an extremely serious matter, and he is liable to death — let Heaven take care of him, not at the hands of man.

The Language of the Verse — “I Will Demand of Him”

The language is indeed here as follows: “And the man who does not listen to My words that he speaks in My name, I will demand of him (anochi edrosh me-imo)” — I will demand from him, I will reckon with him, as it were.

[Insight:] This perhaps hints that the prophet doesn’t need to fight for his own honor. The Almighty has already taken it upon Himself — the Almighty will hold him liable.

—

The Asymmetry Between a False Prophet and One Who Doesn’t Follow

The Rambam states a very interesting halacha. The three halachos involve liability. But the main distinction is that in contrast, a prophet who says a false prophecy — he is indeed liable to death at the hands of man. This is the distinction:

– The prophet himself, who speaks falsely or in the name of idolatry or in the name of transgressing the commandments — he is liable to death at the hands of man, his death is by strangulation (chenek), as we learned. That is death at the hands of man.

– The one who doesn’t follow the prophet — regarding this, it says beautifully, there is an asymmetry between the speaker and the listener.

[Insight:] The prophet, when he speaks falsely, when he is not a good prophet — we take care of him. When we don’t follow the prophet — the Almighty will take care of it. Interesting.

Discussion: Does the Liability of Death at the Hands of Heaven Also Apply When Strengthening Torah

Speaker 2: But I mean, what you said that “who does not listen to My words” also means when he comes to arouse regarding the Torah — I don’t believe that can be, because if so, it would come out that even when he arouses about a transgression, for example a positive commandment, we would be liable to death at the hands of Heaven.

Speaker 1: No, the prophet also said it.

Speaker 2: I don’t believe that can be, because that alone would be a change in the Torah, no?

Speaker 1: No, the Torah says this — liable to death at the hands of Heaven. This is not a change in reality, this is a change that now, because the public that heard him.

Speaker 2: That means it’s not a change in the Torah.

Speaker 1: Just like for example there is a positive commandment — the angel told Rav Ketina that one is punished for not wearing tzitzis. That means a prophecy, but to come now — the Almighty has now sent a prophet.

Speaker 2: I understand that the halacha hasn’t changed. The prophet cannot say that for a regular positive commandment there is now a liability of death, but he can say that for this public — they will warn them — it will become more severe, he will become liable for it.

—

Halacha 5: A Prophet Who Transgresses His Own Words, and One Who Suppresses His Prophecy

The Rambam’s Words

The Rambam continues: Not only another person who hears from the prophet, but the prophet obligates himself as well. Because the prophet obviously heard the word of God. The word of God obligates him just like everyone else, perhaps even more, because he heard it directly himself.

Regarding this: “A prophet who transgresses his own words” — a prophet who violates his own words — “and one who suppresses his prophecy (ha-kovesh nevuaso)” — or something else: someone who receives a prophecy and holds it in, doesn’t follow it — not that he doesn’t follow it, he doesn’t transmit it to the public, he hides it — “is liable to death at the hands of Heaven.”

The Example of Yonah the Prophet

I recall that this is what Yonah did. Yonah suppressed his prophecy, and punishment came upon him. The Almighty cast him in, He gave him another chance, but he began receiving punishment because he suppressed his prophecy.

“And Regarding All Three It States ‘I Will Demand of Him'” — The Verse Covers All Three

“And regarding all three (u-vi-shloshtam)” — and regarding all three — it touches on:

1. Both when a stranger doesn’t follow the prophet,

2. Both when the prophet doesn’t follow himself,

3. Or when he suppresses his prophecy —

Regarding all three it states “I will demand of him (anochi edrosh me-imo).”

Because “and the man who does not listen to My words” can mean the prophet himself. And it is also in “does not listen to My words” — that the Almighty tells him to tell the Jews, and he doesn’t say it, that is also “does not listen to My words.” Regarding all three it states “I will demand of him.”

Discussion: Is “Suppressing Prophecy” Also a Type of “Transgressing His Own Words”

Speaker 2: But then there is a question — this is the principle, I think, that “suppressing his prophecy” is also: if one would learn that simply the Almighty told him go to the Jews, and he didn’t follow, then he’s simply one who transgresses his own words.

Speaker 1: I think that perhaps the question is that even if a…

—

The Distinction Between “Transgressing His Own Words” and “Suppressing His Prophecy”

Speaker 1: Because “who does not listen to My words” can mean the prophet himself. And it is also “who does not listen to My words” that the Almighty tells him he should tell the Jews, and he doesn’t say it, he is also “who does not listen to My words.” All three are also found in the prophet in “who does not listen to My words.”

Here I have a question. It’s the same thing. I think, suppressing prophecy is also a transgression of his own words. The Almighty told him go to the Jews, he didn’t follow. He’s simply transgressing his own words.

I think, perhaps the novelty (chiddush) is that even if the Almighty doesn’t tell him — a prophet, if he understands that the prophecy was not in a clear language of command, but he knows it’s a prophecy for the people. We learned yesterday that he has ordinary prophecies that he doesn’t need to transmit. But if he understands that this is a prophecy for the people, even though perhaps he is not transgressing his own words because there was no language of command, he is simply suppressing his prophecy.

Yes, is that what you wanted to say?

Speaker 2: Yes, yes.

Speaker 1: If there is no language of command that he must say it, he is suppressing his prophecy. If there is a language of command that he must say it, he is transgressing his own words.

—

Digression: The Tsanzer Rav

Speaker 1: I recall that the Tsanzer Rav said, when he wrote the letters against Satmar, that he said he had been suppressing his prophecy. So, we’ll talk more about this.

Speaker 2: Yes.

—

The Dilemma of a Prophet

Speaker 1: And so, okay, that is — so the three things. It’s a dilemma, that he has a certain inspiration (hashraah) and he trembles from his suppressing prophecy, because he can also very quickly become a false prophet. He needs to be careful about what he says, depending on what he says as prophecy.

—

The Third “Job” of a Prophet: Temporary Ruling to Transgress Torah Law

Summary of the Roles of a Prophet

Speaker 1: The Rambam continues: “And so, if the prophet tells us…” So this is another thing a prophet can do. So until now we’ve learned two things. What is the job of a prophet, other than Moshe? What are the jobs of the prophets?

So we have two jobs until now: telling the public mussar (ethical rebuke) — or this isn’t just mussar, right? This is how we now understood it. The Almighty now has a reckoning with this matter, there is some information. It could be a new liability of death, or a mitzvah that has become weakened that needs strengthening. Yes.

But you’re saying that there is a distinction between an ordinary prophet and an ordinary mussar speaker. A mussar speaker says according to his own understanding what he figures out needs strengthening. A prophet —

Speaker 2: A prophet can also administer lashes according to the need of the hour (tzorekh ha-sha’ah).

Speaker 1: True. For the need of the hour he can do what he wants. But a prophet tells you that the Almighty is now interested that one should notice that there is a problem. True? True? True?

—

The Rambam: A Prophet Can Say to Transgress Torah Law Temporarily

Speaker 1: Now there is a third thing that a prophet can indeed say. This is what the Rambam says, that a prophet has no right whatsoever to interfere with something that is written in the Torah — is not so simple. He doesn’t say he’s changing the Torah, he doesn’t want to say that one disagrees with the Torah. But if he says regarding a certain specific thing, for a certain specific time, that one should do something — he says as follows:

“If the prophet tells us” — but which prophet does he mean? A prophet “who is known to us as a prophet (she-noda lanu she-hu navi).” We know he is a prophet, because he is righteous, and as we learned yesterday, a scholar (chacham), and he performed signs and wonders (osos u-mofsim). And then he tells us — to transgress one of all the commandments stated in the Torah — he tells certain people to transgress something written in the Torah. But not only if he says it about one particular mitzvah, but even many mitzvos, whether light or severe — even not only small, light mitzvos, but also the severe ones. But he says it temporarily (l’fi sha’ah) — he says now is a temporary ruling (horas sha’ah), he says I’m not changing the Torah, but I’m saying that now there is a situation that now one should do this thing — then it is a mitzvah to listen to him, then it is a mitzvah to follow him.

—

The Source: From Oral Tradition, from Moshe Rabbeinu

Speaker 1: “And so we learned from the early sages through oral tradition (mi-pi ha-shemu’ah)” — what does “mi-pi ha-shemu’ah” mean? “Mi-pi ha-shemu’ah” means from Moshe. The sages found — because then regarding that novelty, this would have been an answer. This is something they heard from the ancient sages, and through the oral tradition that they heard from Moshe Rabbeinu.

The language he is about to bring you — a language of the Gemara and a language of the Mishnah. Seemingly, the Gemara looks at the page to see how they bring the source. This is — he says, it’s not something he thought up on his own. This is what the sages received through tradition.

Speaker 2: Exactly, mi-pi ha-shemu’ah. Yes, yes. What they transmitted to him.

—

The Sifrei on “To Him You Shall Listen”

Speaker 1: I don’t remember who has the language of the Sifrei, he has such a sort of language. In any case, on a verse in the Torah of “to him you shall listen (elav tishma’un),” the Sages say as follows: “In everything — if the prophet tells you to transgress Torah law, such as Eliyahu on Mount Carmel — listen to him, except for idolatry (avodah zarah).”

There was a prohibition — one may not offer sacrifices, one may not build an altar anyway, once the Temple (Beis HaMikdash) is built one may only build an altar at the place of the Temple. But Eliyahu the prophet went — at the time when there was the dispute with the false prophets of Achav — Eliyahu said: let’s make an altar, let’s build a high place (bamos) on Mount Carmel. There one must indeed follow him. “Listen to him (shma lo)” — follow him indeed. “Except for idolatry” — regarding idolatry one may never follow the prophet.

We see from the Sages that except for idolatry one must indeed follow the prophet, even when he says to transgress Torah law.

—

The Rambam: “Provided That the Matter Is Temporary”

Speaker 1: How can this be? The Rambam says: “Provided that the matter is temporary (l’fi sha’ah)” — because when it’s temporary, one must indeed follow. “Such as Eliyahu on Mount Carmel, who offered a burnt offering outside (she-hikriv olah ba-chutz)” — it was a specific act, “who offered a burnt offering outside.”

The Rambam speaks clearly about everything, right?

Speaker 2: Yes, he speaks clearly.

Speaker 1: Eliyahu offered a burnt offering outside, “and Jerusalem had already been chosen (vi-Yerushalayim nivcheres)” — it was already after the Almighty had chosen Jerusalem, one may no longer offer sacrifices on high places, because offering outside is liable to excision (kareis). How was Eliyahu permitted to do this? “And because he is a prophet, it is a mitzvah to listen to him, and regarding this too it states ‘to him you shall listen (elav tishma’un).'” “To him you shall listen” applies even when he tells you something prohibited, if he tells you it’s a temporary ruling, then “to him you shall listen.”

—

The Rambam’s Hypothetical Question to Eliyahu

Speaker 1: The Rambam says such a thing: “And if they had asked Eliyahu and said to him” — if someone would have asked Eliyahu HaNavi: “Has what is written in the Torah been uprooted — ‘lest you offer your burnt offerings in every place that you see’?” — from now on has the mitzvah changed? Has the “pen” changed, which is a language of a negative commandment? Has the prohibition changed?

“He would say” — Eliyahu would have answered: “No” — God forbid, the prohibition in the Torah has not changed — “rather, one who offers sacrifices outside the Temple is forever liable for karet, as Moshe commanded. But I today will offer outside by the word of God, in order to disprove the prophets of Baal.” I have a temporary ruling (hora’at sha’ah). At that time one must indeed listen to the prophet.

—

If He Says It Is Uprooted Forever — His Death Is by Strangulation

Speaker 1: He continues: “And in this manner, if all the prophets commanded to transgress temporarily — it is a mitzvah to listen to them. And if they said that the matter is uprooted forever — their death is by strangulation, for the Torah said ‘for us and for our children forever.'”

Why Does He Bring the Verse “For Us and For Our Children Forever” Again?

Speaker 1: He cites again — it’s interesting why he brings a new verse here. It’s the same verse he brought earlier: “And the revealed things are for us and for our children forever.” The reason he brings it here is because what he writes here, “his death is by strangulation” — the Rambam himself originated this. Perhaps there is a source, but here one sees in this chapter that he originated it based on the reasoning: since the Torah states “for us and for our children,” and someone says otherwise, he denies the prophecy of Moshe, it turns out that he is a false prophet, and therefore his death is by strangulation.

It’s not death by strangulation directly for transgressing the words of Moshe — it’s death by strangulation for being a false prophet, because he is the one “who presumes to speak a word in My name” — he is saying something that is not true. So for this he needs to bring the verse “for us and for our children,” because he is only a false prophet since the verse of Moshe states otherwise.

Speaker 2: Yes.

—

One Who Uproots Matters from the Oral Tradition or Rules on a Dispute in God’s Name — False Prophet

Speaker 1: “And similarly, if he uprooted a matter from things we learned from the oral tradition” — the Rambam now says a sharp thing. Not only if he uproots something that is written in the Torah, explicitly written in the Written Torah, but “and similarly, if he uprooted things we learned from the oral tradition” — he uproots something that is from the Torah through the oral tradition, because it was received this way from the Oral Torah.

If he states a Torah law — even more than that, even if he explains the interpretation of the laws that were learned from Moshe Rabbeinu, for example that an etrog is the “fruit of a beautiful tree” and the like.

Or even more than that — if he states regarding any law of the Torah, any halachah that the Sages ruled upon, even a halachah upon which the Sages disagree among themselves — even a halachah between Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yishmael, any halachah upon which the Sages disagree, something that is supposed to be a dispute — he comes and says that God told him that such and such should be the halachah, and he comes to say that “the halachah follows so-and-so” — this one is a false prophet.

When he says those words, he is saying a false statement. “And he is strangled” — he must receive strangulation. Because again, because he says something in the name of the Holy One, blessed be He, which He did not command him.

—

The Foundation: “It Is Not in Heaven”

Speaker 1: The Rambam says: even if he performed a sign — even if he made a sign. Why must he be given death? How does he say something — from where do we know for certain that God did not say this?

“For it is stated in the Torah, ‘It is not in heaven'” — God told us “lo bashamayim hi,” that in heaven one does not make halachot, halachot are left for the world. And he comes to say against this — he comes to say that they rule in heaven according to a certain opinion — he denies the Torah. It turns out that what he says is not true, we know it is not true because of “lo bashamayim hi,” and therefore he is now transgressing “the prophet who presumes to speak a word in My name which I did not command him,” and for this comes death.

—

Chiddush: The Story of Rabbi Eliezer (The Oven of Achnai)

Speaker 1: It turns out according to the Rambam that the fact that they only excommunicated him and placed Rabbi Eliezer in cherem was actually a great leniency, because he should have been liable for death as a false prophet. Because he did say that it is truly so — he brought proofs with wonders, with prophecies, to say that the halachah follows his opinion.

But what is it then? The Gemara does bring — the “lo bashamayim hi” comes from there, the Gemara does say “lo bashamayim hi.” The Gemara cites it in other places as well. The Rambam means he has additional sources, but the Gemara says there that at that time he said “lo bashamayim hi.” It turns out that he acted differently — so seemingly he was a false prophet.

And there are commentators who discuss this, and they explain why he is or is not a false prophet.

I only bring out that this is how it turns out according to the Rambam, with the same categories and the same classification — only he did not say it as prophecy. He did not say in the name of God that this is the ruling. This is perhaps the distinction for why he received cherem and not death.

“I Rely on My Father in Heaven” — Is This in the Category of Prophecy?

He only brings out that these are the categories, and this is the classification where he falls. He did not say it as prophecy, he did not say that God told him, he said “I rely on my Father in Heaven.”

—

I’m not so sure about you, I haven’t seen that. It doesn’t say against the idea that he is an established prophet. He only says this much, that when someone says “I rely on my Father in Heaven” — what does he mean to say? That Heaven — who is Heaven? God. What he is doing is committing a transgression in the name of God, a verse or a transgression, he says it in the name of God. That is what he is saying. He says “I rely on my Father in Heaven,” he says it in the name of God, that the halachah is so. I don’t see that it says anywhere in the Rambam a condition that a false prophet must have a verse, he must say “Thus says God.”

Why Don’t We Kill People Who Say Today That They Are Prophets?

The other side could be — I once asked, if there are people today who claim prophecy? I know, there was already that little speech about that one person, he says he is a prophet. So why don’t we kill him? The answer is that nobody believes him. The whole problem of a prophet has to be that people say…

It could be that even for a false prophet there is the Rambam’s condition that he follows the ways of prophecy. Remember that the Rambam says that someone who doesn’t follow the ways of prophecy doesn’t even begin? Someone is perhaps just a joker who comes and says “I am a prophet” — hello, he said it, it’s from Pesach Los, answer the prophet.

“Ruach HaKodesh” — Is This in the Category of Prophecy?

But I don’t know if there is a distinction when someone says “ruach hakodesh” (divine inspiration). For example, what someone says — but against you is the language “which I did not command him to speak thus.” This is also a question.

Let’s separate it, because I’m not telling you halachah l’ma’aseh, I’m only saying it in the manner of arousing hearts. I would investigate what the halachah tells me, but I’m only telling you to arouse hearts — that when a rebbe comes, for example, a tzaddik, I don’t know what, and he says “I’m telling you with ruach hakodesh, I hold that you should do such and such” — what is this, another prophet? What does he mean to say?

I think about it, what does he mean to say? Ruach hakodesh means that God wants this, right? “Thus says God.” What is the difference between “Thus says God”? He says a different formulation. In practice it’s the same thing — he claims something in the name of the Holy One, blessed be He, which He did not command him. I mean, if He did command him, very well, one may need to go into all the details. If it’s against the Torah, then it’s certainly the same question.

Proof from the Bnei Yissachar — The Sefer “Tzvi LaTzaddik”

I have a bit of a proof for my words. The holy Bnei Yissachar wrote a sefer — this is an important sefer that every Chassidic Jew should learn, as is known — it’s called “Tzvi LaTzaddik” from our grandfather Reb Hersh’ele Zisker, and on it there is a commentary from the Bnei Yissachar. From Rabbi Shmuel’ke Shapira, glosses, a very beautiful sefer, “Martacha Meinech” it’s called. And there is an extensive discussion about this, that he is upset that there are certain Chassidim who make disputes or they simply commit transgressions, and they say that the Rebbe commanded it.

The Bnei Yissachar says: What do you mean, dispute? This is a negative commandment in the Torah. Even if a prophet says one should act against the Torah, one may not listen, and he is liable for death by strangulation. Someone says that my Rebbe commanded that one should fight with you? A Rebbe has no right to command against the Torah, even a prophet has no right. And he also speaks about other Chassidic transgressions, that there are people who say one may commit various transgressions because the Rebbe commanded it. He says, this is all included in “and you shall not listen to the words of that prophet.”

The Practical Test — “Let’s Take It Seriously!”

Of course, there is the allowance of hora’at sha’ah. Then one needs to start thinking whether he is truly a prophet who can make a hora’at sha’ah, etc. But if it’s something that is clear, for example making a dispute with another Jew just because he has a different opinion, and this is certainly a Torah prohibition, then it’s obviously clear that even if the greatest Rebbe says so — so says the Bnei Yissachar — one may not listen, and it could even be that the Rebbe is liable for strangulation.

I mean that liable for strangulation is very harsh, nobody should attribute this to the Rebbe, nobody should say that their Rebbe needs to be killed because of this. But I mean that one can hold him responsible and ask him thus: “Dear Rebbe, if this is a hora’at sha’ah, I am obligated to do it, and if not, I am liable for death for not listening to a prophet. If this is not a hora’at sha’ah, you are liable for death. Rebbe, let’s take it seriously! One can’t just throw things around.”

A Rebbe commands making a dispute? Yes, he is saying a very strong thing. If the Rebbe takes it seriously enough, the Rebbe should say “this is in the manner of hora’at sha’ah, and whoever doesn’t listen is liable for death.” And if the Rebbe doesn’t mean it seriously enough, he is liable for death. One can’t just throw around words. If he says it for the sake of unifying the Holy One, blessed be He, if he says it for the sake of Heaven — that is not a Rebbe. It’s simply that one doesn’t need to.

Deciding Halachah Based on Ruach HaKodesh — “We Listen to Him in Everything” and Its Parameters

“Even though we don’t listen to him in everything” — this is all when he wants to say in a general manner that this is how the matter is in Heaven. But if he wants to say that now one should conduct oneself in such and such a way, then we listen to him in everything.

There are such matters, like for example regarding the prohibition of chadash, Chassidim said that the Baal Shem Tov was revealed the greatness of the Bach. But it’s not that he said one must forever rule such and such. It was something of a hora’at sha’ah matter, he ruled so for his people.

The Ra’avad, “The Secret of God Is for Those Who Fear Him,” and Responsa from Heaven

One may mention that it’s not so simple, it’s a bit more complicated regarding the topic of deciding halachah based on ruach hakodesh or a heavenly voice (bat kol). And also the Ra’avad, who disputes the Rambam, says many times, he mentions that “the secret of God is for those who fear Him,” he saw such and such. And it seems that regarding this, the Chazon Ish said: “The secret of God is for those who fear Him” means that he learned Torah lishmah, he learned so deeply and so it became clear to him — not that it’s specifically a heavenly matter. But the Responsa from Heaven (She’elot U’Teshuvot Min HaShamayim) is certainly a heavenly matter, it’s a dream inquiry.

There is the Ramban on the “Bilbul HaMegulah,” it’s at length, he brings all the Acharonim who discuss this, there is a sefer written about it. But the Rambam is very strict about this, and it appears that the Rambam would say that even temporarily, we listen to him, this also means when he decides a dispute. But not that he says the halachah is such — he says now one should conduct oneself according to such a Torah approach. Whether in this he can say now one should conduct oneself according to this approach, not as a halachic ruling but as a practice for this time — that is permitted, that one must listen to.

Similarly, the Responsa from Heaven were not accepted further because they are from Heaven. For example, according to the Responsa from Heaven one can only fulfill the mitzvah with woolen tzitzit, but this was not accepted as halachah.

—

Halachah 10: Idolatry — Even Hora’at Sha’ah Does Not Apply

The Words of the Rambam

The Rambam continues: In what case are these things said? Regarding other mitzvot. All the things that were said, that temporarily a prophet can go against something written in the Torah, that is only regarding other mitzvot. But regarding idolatry — already earlier the Rambam mentioned that with idolatry, we don’t listen to him even temporarily. Regarding idolatry one may not listen to the prophet even temporarily.

And even if he performed great signs and wonders — even if he performed great wonders — and said that God commanded him that idolatry should be worshipped today alone — only today should one serve idolatry — or at this moment alone, this one has spoken falsely about God — he has said false things in God’s name.

This is the language of the verse he is now going to bring: “And the sign and wonder comes to pass… you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or to that dreamer of dreams, for he has spoken falsely about the Lord your God” — even if he brings a wonder, but he says things that are false, “you shall not listen to the words of that prophet” — he has said false things about God.

Why? — He Denies the Prophecy of Moshe

Why? Why? For he comes to deny the prophecy of Moshe — he comes to deny the prophecy of Moshe. Therefore we know with certainty that he is a false prophet — because he denies the prophecy of Moshe, which we already know that God promised that it will never happen and he should not be like Moshe, because idolatry is forever forbidden.

Discussion: The Source for the Distinction of Idolatry

The Rambam does not give us a source. He does not bring a source that idolatry cannot have a hora’at sha’ah. This is the verse itself. The verse says “let us worship other gods” — when someone tells you “let us worship other gods,” the Rambam says from here there is a proof that when a false prophet says “let us worship other gods,” it is necessarily forever forbidden, it cannot be.

The Rambam should seemingly have had a difficulty, because here we see that Eliyahu HaNavi can change things, make a burnt offering, and here we see that when a prophet says idolatry one must immediately kill him. It must be, this is the distinction — that regarding hora’at sha’ah with other mitzvot, hora’at sha’ah is applicable, but regarding idolatry it is not applicable.

The Logical Structure — A Law in the Laws of Hora’at Sha’ah

I add, in other words: the fact that the verse says one should not follow idolatry is not because a prophet cannot say anything against the Torah — this is a detail in the laws of hora’at sha’ah, so to speak.

In other words, one could have said that regarding idolatry there is also hora’at sha’ah, but the fact that it states “let us worship other gods” means forever. It’s not clear how the Rambam derived a proof for this here. I don’t see a proof for this here. I mean that it states there as he tells you the law of idolatry.

Okay, one could talk all day. But one can easily say that seemingly it is indeed from the logic: since we know that hora’at sha’ah is always permitted, a prophet may indeed make a hora’at sha’ah. So the verse is a law in the laws of hora’at sha’ah, not a law in the laws of prophecy — I mean to say, it is a law in the laws of prophecy, but it is a premise that you need to have a qualification from the laws of hora’at sha’ah — that hora’at sha’ah, meaning even hora’at sha’ah, cannot apply to idolatry.

How Do We Know That the Wonders Are Sorcery?

Therefore we know with certainty that he is a false prophet, if he performed sorcery, and all that he did — what he did, I mean that he performed signs and wonders — is with trickery and sorcery — what he did with sorcery — and he shall be killed — he must be given strangulation.

It’s interesting to me that he must be given strangulation — or he also has the status of one who incites and leads astray (meisit u’meidiach), one needs to consider what his punishment would be among the punishments.

But it’s interesting: how do I know that it’s sorcery? It’s interesting that the Rambam says here an interesting thing, just as the entire logic goes in this direction. How do I know that you performed sorcery? Is this not a genuine sign and wonder?

The answer is: No. Why not? Because the Torah told you that a prophet will never say – because we know the prophecy of Moses. Therefore, we know that it is sorcery.

So, you should know: all wonders (mofsim) in the world, says the Rambam, are uncertain. Every time there is a wonder, there is a doubt whether it is sorcery or not. So how does one know? If it aligns with what we know and the wonders, then one can believe – rather, the halacha is that one should believe. If it doesn’t align, then we rule – it’s not the reality that matters, only the knowledge we had beforehand – and the prophecy of Moses is decisive that the wonder was sorcery, and therefore he is liable for death by strangulation (chenek). And that is the law.

An Inquiry: What is the Definition of “Idolatry” in This Law?

I have one inquiry here, a halacha that one needs to ask the rabbis about. I don’t think it’s so practically relevant – one never asks rabbis questions about the laws of idolatry (hilchos avoda zara) – but I want to know: what is the definition of the prophet [who commands] to transgress regarding idolatry?

There is the core prohibition of idolatry, and there are ancillary prohibitions (avizraihu). There is the core of idolatry – literally a law regarding a created being – ancillary aspects of idolatry. Yes, what about entering a place of idolatry, or something that is rabbinically considered idolatry, or other laws of idolatry?

A proof that it must be actual idolatry: I have a proof for you that it must be actual idolatry, because Elijah the Prophet himself took a piece of idolatry – yes, he went and made private altars (bamos), and some of the people offered sacrifices for idolatry, for Baal. Their place was there, that certainly wasn’t cleaned up. But regarding biblical idolatry – it’s very possible that he was participating with idolatry, it’s perhaps a case of “placing a stumbling block before the blind” (lifnei iver). But it could be that here is a proof that idolatry means literally “you shall not worship other gods” (lo sa’avdun elohim acheirim) as the verse says, which we are discussing.

But one can say a bit better – there are places where it appears that making a private altar (bama) is a foundational aspect of idolatry, it’s a category of idolatry. Yes, but one needs to know precisely what the halacha means.

—

This concludes Chapter 9.