Bizarre Prophetic Commands/2

Bizarre Prophetic Commands

Exegetical Approaches

This topic has not yet undergone editorial review

Overview

Commentators debate whether the bizarre, burdensome, and potentially distressing actions demanded of prophets were fulfilled in real life or not. Rambam asserts that most, if not all, of these took place in prophetic visions, assuming that Hashem would never command His prophets to act in ways which could be perceived as inappropriate.  The Rid and Shadal, in contrast, take a more literal reading of the text and assume that prophets lived symbolic lives, actively and publicly performing the deeds commanded of them. While the Rid does not attempt to mute the harshness of such commands, in many cases, Shadal reinterprets the directives in ways that mitigate the shame or pain that they might cause the prophet.  Finally, Abarbanel assumes that the issue is case dependent.  Wherever the narrator explicitly shares that a command was fulfilled, it must be assumed that the symbolic action was performed for real; otherwise it is possible that it took place only in a prophetic dream.

Prophetic Vision

The various bizarre actions demanded of prophets took place only in prophetic visions.  They were meant to serve as analogies, and not intended to be active public displays.

Sources:Ibn EzraHoshea First Commentary 1:2About R. Avraham ibn Ezra, Rambam2 46About Rambam Moreh Nevukhim, RadakYeshayahu 20:2-3Yirmeyahu 13:1Yirmeyahu 16:2Yechezkel 4:4Yechezkel 4:9Yechezkel 5:1Hoshea 1:2About R. David Kimchi

Maintaining prophetic standards and reputation – These sources find it unfathomable that Hashem would command His prophets to act in ways which would cause others to view them as unstable or mad. If a prophet walks around naked, marries a prostitute, or eats bread baked in dung, how can he earn the respect of the people and have his rebukes be heard?

Commanding a transgression? Rambam is further bothered by commands which appear to entail transgressing Biblical commands (such as Yechezkel's shaving of his hair and beard).¹  Since a prophet who sins can not earn the trust of the people, Hashem would never command one to actively transgress a law.

Burdensome or distressing actions – These sources differ in how they read these commands:

• Vision – Rambam suggests that even actions which might only burden a prophet took place in a vision and not in reality.  Thus, for instance, he claims that Yirmeyahu did not  travel hundreds of kilometers to Bavel to hide his girdle in the Perat but only saw himself doing this in a prophecy. 
• Reality – Radak, in contrast, appears to maintain that only symbolic actions which might be viewed as illegitimate or strange by the nation need be assumed to have taken place in a vision. Actions which were only personally distressing to the prophet, on the other hand, might have taken place in reality.  Thus, he allows for the possibility that Yirmeyahu actively traveled to Perat,²  and claims that the command not to marry was meant literally. However, he lessens the harshness of the command by suggesting that it applied only in Anatot itself (as the verse states, "בַּמָּקוֹם הַזֶּה)".  Moreover, he assumes that the purpose of the command was not for Yirmeyahu to act as a symbol for the people, but to spare Yirmeyahu the loss of any children who might be born.³ [Thus, it would not matter if no one took heed of Yirmeyahu's single state.]

Polemical motivations – It is likely that both Rambam and Ibn Ezra  are influenced by the Islamic doctrine of prophetic impeccability ('isma).⁴  The doctrine claims that a prophet cannot lie or sin, and implies that he cannot act in any way which might distance the people from accepting his word and mission.⁵ As such, both stories in which a prophet appears to transgress one of Hashem's commandments and those which might make him appear foolish n the eyes of the people, need be reinterpreted.

No mention of vision – These sources are not bothered by the fact that none of the relevant texts share that the event discussed was just in a dream, as they assume that most prophets (besides Moshe) received their prophecies via a vision⁶ and not while awake.⁷  In addition, they claim that once it is recognized that a chapter speaks of a prophetic dream, it can be assumed that all events described therein similarly took place in the vision and not in reality.⁸

"וַיַּעַשׂ כֵּן" – Ibn Ezra and Rambam maintain that even the fact that a chapter might relay that the "prophet did as told" (see Yeshayahu 20:2 and Hoshea 1:3) does not refute this approach.⁹ These words merely mean that the prophet saw himself fulfilling the command in his dream.¹⁰

Yechezkel's questioning – Yechezkel's expressing concerns about eating impure food and Hashem's resulting softening of His command (see Yechezkel 4:14-15) present a difficulty for this position.  If this did not really happen, why incorporate such a conversation into the prophetic vision? How does it enhance the message of the visual analogy?

Intended audience – If the symbolic actions were not performed publicly, it is unclear for whom they were intended. This position could suggest any of the following:

• The prophet – It is possible that Hashem wished for the prophet himself to internalize Hashem's messages, for only then would he be able to effectively relay them to the people, in whatever manner he wished. [This assumes that the prophet need not have relayed the vision he saw, but only the message which emerged from it.] Alternatively, certain messages were not even intended to be relayed further and held import only for the prophet.
• The nation – The messages were relayed as analogies to the nation, but without the accompanying visuals.  Though verbal parables would seem to have much less impact on an audience than symbolic actions, the honor of the prophet precludes the latter.¹¹ Moreover, in cases where the audience is a foreign nation, it is possible that verbal analogies were preferred, since any symbolic action would have reached them only via hearsay regardless.

Variation of this approach – According to Targum Yonatan, it is possible that many of the troubling symbolic actions¹² commanded by Hashem might have been relayed even initially only as a parable, and the prophet never saw himself performing such actions even in a dream.

Symbolic Action

Hashem's commands were actively fulfilled, despite the embarrassment or pain they might have caused the prophet. This position subdivides regarding whether or not the commands should be reinterpreted so as to mitigate the difficulties that a literal understanding would pose for the prophet.

Literal Fulfillment

Hashem's commands are understood literally, without an attempt to soften the directives.

Sources:RidYeshayahu 20:2Yechezkel 4:12-13Hoshea 1:2About R. Yeshayah of Trani¹³

Prophetic trials – Rid maintains that prophets are initiated into prophecy with the understanding that their lives will be filled with trials and tribulations.  The fact that a command might entail suffering pain, sorrow, or humiliation is part of the prophetic package. Thus, the idea that Yeshayahu could have been told to walk literally naked, Yirmeyahu could not marry, or that Yechezkel could be expected to lie on his side and eat meager rations of food kneaded in dung,¹⁴ should not trouble the reader.

Commanding a transgression? The Rid is not bothered by the possibility that a prophet might be commanded to transgress a Biblical commandment. Hashem can both prohibit or permit whatever He wants ("הפה שאסר הוא הפה שהתיר").  Thus, even when understood literally, Hoshea's sleeping with a prostitute or adulteress and Yechezkel's shaving his sideburns would not be problematic.

Maintaining prophetic standards and reputation – Rid does not address how a prophet's engaging in bizarre behavior would impact his reputation and how it might affect how his future prophecies were heard.  It is possible that people were used to their prophets performing symbolic actions and recognized them as such.  And, even if at first they found the prophet's behavior odd, once the actions were explained, they accepted it as part of the prophet's job.

Purpose of such actions

• This approach might suggest that one of the best ways to get a message across to an apathetic audience is to shock them into attention. This would support reading the verses as literally a possible since the more unexpected the prophet's behavior, the more of an impact it would have had on the listeners.
• In the case of Yechezkel, it is also possible that Hashem's directive that he be mute and not rebuke the people (Yechezkel 3) might have necessitated substituting verbal chastisement with symbolic actions.

Intended audience – The public nature of the symbolic actions would suggest that they were intended for the nation itself, rather than for the prophet or future generations.

"אוֹת וּמוֹפֵת" – Hashem's announcement that Yeshayahu's walking naked and barefoot will be a "sign and wonder" supports the idea that it ocurred publicly.¹⁵  Had the actions simply taken place in a vision and were then relayed as a parable, is hard to see how they would qualify as either an "אות" or "מופת".‎¹⁶

Non-literal Fulfillment

Many of Hashem's commands are reinterpreted, easing their fulfillment and making them accord more with the standards of behavior expected of a prophet.

Sources:ShadalYeshayahu 20:2Yirmeyahu 13:1-4Yirmeyahu 16:2Yechezkel 4:4Yechezkel 4:12About R. Shemuel David Luzzatto

Maintaining prophetic standards and reputation – Though this position agrees that the symbolic deeds were actively performed, it attempts to mitigate the shame that would have been caused by certain commands by reinterpreting them:

• "עָרוֹם וְיָחֵף" – Shadal claims that Yeshayahu removed his sackcloth, which resulted in his bare skin showing, but not that he walked around totally naked.¹⁷ He points out that if the latter were true, there would be no point in the verse sharing that he walked barefoot for that would be redundant.
• "שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים" – According to MalbimYeshayahu Beur HaInyan 20:1-3About R. Meir Leibush Weiser Yeshayahu derobed only for one day or a short while in the privacy of his home.¹⁸ The phrase "שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים" refers not to the duration of Yeshayahu's symbolic act but to the length of time until the prophecy against Egypt would be fulfilled.¹⁹
• "וְהִיא בְּגֶלְלֵי צֵאַת הָאָדָם תְּעֻגֶנָה" – According to Shadal,²⁰ Hashem did not command Yechezkel to actively mix dung into his bread, but to cook it on top of coals made of dried human excrement.

Commanding a transgression?

• Yes –  This position might claim, like MalbimYeshayahu Beur HaInyan 20:1-3Hoshea Beur HaInyan 1:2About R. Meir Leibush Weiser, that sometimes Hashem gives one time commands (הוראת שעה) which do not accord with Torah law so as to achieve a larger goal.  As an example, Malbim points to Eliyahu's sacrificing on a private altar when such altars were prohibited.²¹ However, one might question whether all laws are equal; would Hashem really relay a one time command to engage in illicit relations (or murder or idolatry), especially if the whole point is only to be a parable?²²
• No – Alternatively, this approach might posit that none of Hashem's commands entailed transgressing any prohibition. It is possible that Yechezkel was not commanded to shave the areas of his hair which are not allowed to be cut, and Hoshea, not being a priest, was allowed to marry a prostitute. Though the children born are referred to as "יַלְדֵי זְנוּנִים" this might only be due to the stigma of having a mother who had previously prostituted, but is not meant to insinuate that she continued to do so. Similarly, in Hoshea 3, the prophet is commanded to love, but not to have relations with, an adulteress.

Burdensome actions

• "קוּם לֵךְ פְּרָתָה" – Shadal raises the possibility that that there was a place called "Perat" close to Jerusalem where the people could congregate and view the prophet's symbolic deed. Yirmeyahu was not expected to travel all the way to the Euphrates, especially considering that if he had, no one would have viewed the act regardless.
• "שְׁכַב עַל צִדְּךָ" – Shadal assumes that Yechezkel did not lie on his side straight for 390 days, Rather, during that period of time, whenever he went to sleep at night, Yechezkel would lie on his side facing the brick engraving of the besieged Yerushalayim. Though Hashem says, "וְהִנֵּה נָתַתִּי עָלֶיךָ עֲבוֹתִים וְלֹא תֵהָפֵךְ מִצִּדְּךָ אֶל צִדֶּךָ", this just means, "it will be as if I have tied you".²³

Yirmeyahu's not marrying – Shadal does not attempt to reinterpret these actions (perhaps because there is no shame involved), assuming that they were fulfilled as commanded. Yirmeyahu did not marry, have children, attend a funeral or wedding for years, all to be a visual analogy for the people. Shadal (following Abarbanel) assumes that the people would have taken notice of both his absence from festive gatherings and his bachelorhood (an unmarried public figure was probably a rarity in the time of Tanakh). As such, his actions prompted questions and served their prophetic function.

"אוֹת וּמוֹפֵת" – Shadal, following Abarbanel, suggests that these words prove that Yeshayahu was meant to actively walk around naked, and that this did not occur in a vision.

Case Dependent

Any bizarre command which the narrator states was fulfilled by the prophet must be interpreted as having been fulfilled literally and not in a dream.  Those commands whose fulfillment is not explicit might have been given only in a prophetic vision.

Sources:AbarbanelYeshayahu 20:1Yirmeyahu 16:9Yechezkel 5:1Hoshea 1:2About R. Yitzchak Abarbanel

The various cases – Abarbanel distinguishes between three types of cases:

• Where the text explicitly states that something occurred in a vision, such as Yechezkel being taken "בְּמַרְאוֹת אֱלֹ-הִים" to Yerushalayim (8:3), the prophecy and all actions mentioned therein can be assumed to be have taken place only in a prophetic dream.
• Where the text explicitly states that a prophetic command was fulfilled, such as Yeshayahu's walking naked and Hoshea's taking a prostitute in marriage,²⁴ one must assume that the action happened literally.
• In cases where the text is silent, neither mentioning a vision nor an active deed,  such as the commands that Yechezkel shave his hair, lie on his side, or eat bread baked in dung, one can take either option.

Loyalty to the simple meaning of the text – Abarbanel is motivated by a desire to stay true to the simple meaning of the text. He questions how someone can arbitrarily decide that the narrator's statement,²⁵ "and he did so" was only within a dream?

Maintaining prophetic standards and reputation – Abarbanel argues that the degree of "absurdity" of a commanded action should play no role in determining whether or not it was merely a vision. It is not for the reader to decide what is "strange" or whether or not they are comfortable with Hashem's commands.

Transgressing a command? Abarbanel does appear to be bothered by this issue and it is likely one of the reasons that he agrees with Rambam that Yechezkel's shaving was only in a prophetic dream.²⁶ As he makes no comment about Hoshea's marriage, he presumably assumes that this did not entail a Biblical transgression since Hoshea was not a priest.

Yirmeyahu's not marrying – Abarbanel assumes that this directive was actively fulfilled and that Yirmeyahu's abstaining from marriage, eulogizing etc. would have provoked questioning on the part of the people. [Presumably, in Biblical times, it was exceptional to find a public figure who was not married and who did not attend social gatherings.] The symbolic act was necessary since viewing and then hearing Yirmeyahu's explanation for his odd behavior would have had far greater impact on the nation than had he simply relayed the message orally.

¹ He assumes that this directive entailed transgressing the prohibition, "לֹא תַקִּפוּ פְּאַת רֹאשְׁכֶם וְלֹא תַשְׁחִית אֵת פְּאַת זְקָנֶךָ".

² He writes, "ענין האזור אפשר שהיה ממש ועשה כן ירמיהו מה שצוהו האל".

³ It should be noted, that Radak is not troubled by the fact that the command might cause Yirmeyahu distress, since  the command is meant to spare Yirmeyahu loss.  Radak is instead bothered by the question of why the sons of the righteous prophet would ever deserve death, as they have not sinned and they cannot be held accountable for the sins of parents who also did not sin.  This leads him to conclude that there was a unique decree of collective total punishment on Anatot, from which even the righteous would not be spared (see Yirmeyahu 11:21-23).

⁴ For a discussion of the Islamic doctrine and how it influenced various Geonim living in Islamic lands, see M. Zucker, "האפשר שנביא יחטא", Tarbitz 32 (1966): 149-173. See also Endangering Sarai in Egypt and Why Did Yonah Disobey Hashem for two examples where R. Saadia's reading of the text appears to be motivated by a desire  to prove that a prophet can not lie or disobey Hashem.

⁵ They claim that prophets must be faultless because otherwise people can't trust that they are true messengers of God.  If a prophet lies, how can you trust that he is correctly relaying God's word and not simply fabricating them?  If he sins, how can you know that what he claims to be God's will really is? Similarly, if he acts in an extremely bizarre manner, who would not question whether he was really sent by God?.

⁶ Moreover, one mention of prophetic visions in a book can suffice for a reader to assume that other prophecies were given in the same manner. Thus, for example, the opening of Yechezkel, "וָאֶרְאֶה מַרְאוֹת אֱ-לֹהִים" applies to the whole book.

⁷ See Bemidbar 12:6, " וַיֹּאמֶר שִׁמְעוּ נָא דְבָרָי אִם יִהְיֶה נְבִיאֲכֶם י"י בַּמַּרְאָה אֵלָיו אֶתְוַדָּע בַּחֲלוֹם אֲדַבֶּר בּוֹ."

⁸ Thus, for example, Rambam and Radak assume that all of Bereshit 15, including the various actions done by Avraham, such as leaving his tent to view the stars and the slicing of the animals in half, are part of the prophetic vision. See their understanding of that chapter in Bereshit 15 – One Prophecy or Two?

⁹ See Abarbanel who actually rejects this approach because of such verses.

¹⁰ Similarly, if a verse says that time passed (as in Yeshayahu 20:3, "כַּאֲשֶׁר הָלַךְ עַבְדִּי יְשַׁעְיָהוּ עָרוֹם וְיָחֵף שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים"), this, too, refers only to the feeling that time passed in the dream.

¹¹ One would think, however, that it would be possible to find an equally effective deed which did not require shaming a prophet.

¹² He says this with regards to Hoshea's marriage specifically, but the approach might be adapted to other cases as well.

¹³ Rid brings both the possibility that the verses should be read literally and that they might have been relayed only in a prophetic vision.

¹⁴ Rid is somewhat unique in understanding that Yechezkel was not commanded to merely cook the bread using coals of dung, but that he actually kneaded it on top of them.  See also the Hoil MosheYechezkel 4:12About R. Moshe Yitzchak Ashkenazi who goes a step further to suggest that Yechezkel was meant to mix these into the bread itself, to symbolize the severity of the famine and the measures which would be taken when no other food was available.

¹⁵ See Abarbanel who makes this point.

¹⁶ There is nothing wondrous about an analogy. Radak counters that these words are part of what Yeshayahu heard Hashem say in his vision. Hashem was simply telling him that the actions he was seeing in his vision were symbolic.

¹⁷ See R"E of Beaugency Yeshayahu 20:2About R. Eliezer of Beaugencyand Ibn KaspiYeshayahu 20:2About R. Yosef ibn Kaspi who similarly claim that Yeshayahu was "מכוסה קצת".  See also Bavli YomaYoma 77a-77bAbout the Bavli, Targum YonatanYeshayahu 20:2About Targum Yonatan (Neviim), and RashiYeshayahu 20:2-3About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki who maintain that he wore old, tattered clothing, which perhaps revealed more skin than usual.

¹⁸ As opposed to Shadal, he assumes that Yeshayahu was totally naked, leading him to mitigate the shame by suggesting that it was for only a short while and in private.

¹⁹ See RashiYeshayahu 20:2-3About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki and R. Eliezer of BeaugencyYeshayahu 20:2About R. Eliezer of Beaugency who also has the words "שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים" qualify the second half of the verse and refer to the downfall of Egypt and Kush.

²⁰ Most other commentators explain the verse similarly, but Yechezkel's complaint about not wanting to eat anything which is defiled might suggest that the simple meaning of the verse was that the dung would be somehow mixed into the bread. [See RidYechezkel 4:12-13About R. Yeshayah of Trani and Hoil MosheYechezkel 4:12About R. Moshe Yitzchak Ashkenazi discussed above.]

²¹ It is not clear, however, whether Eliyahu as acting on Hashem's command or by his own volition. See Prophetic Actions Without Explicit Divine Sanction.

²² This issue takes center stage in discussions of the Binding of Isaac, where commentators question how Hashem could command Avraham to do an action which is later prohibited in the Torah. See Purpose of Akeidat Yitzchak for elaboration.

²³ See RashiYechezkel 4:8About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki and R. Yosef KaraYechezkel 4:8About R. Yosef Kara.

²⁴ See Yeshayahu 20:2 and Hoshea 1:3.

²⁵ If, on the other hand it is the prophet (rather than the narrator) who says of himself that he performed a certain action, it is possible that this was just in a dream.

²⁶ Since Abarbanel maintains that the verses here are ambiguous, neither explicitly mentioning a deed nor a vision, external factors (such as the philosophical problem of Hashem commanding someone to transgress a command) can help the reader decide.