Difference between revisions of "Invoking Hashem's Name Without Explicit Divine Sanction/2"

From AlHaTorah.org
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m
m
Line 20: Line 20:
 
<point><b>Biblical Cases</b> – These sources explain away most of the Biblical cases by asserting that though Hashem's words do not appear in the text, they can be assumed:<br/>
 
<point><b>Biblical Cases</b> – These sources explain away most of the Biblical cases by asserting that though Hashem's words do not appear in the text, they can be assumed:<br/>
 
<ul>
 
<ul>
<li><b>News of Plague of Firstborns</b> – According to these sources Hashem's words in 10:1-2, "עוֹד נֶגַע אֶחָד" are simply an abridgement and really included all the details said by Moshe in the subsequent verses. Most of these commentators assume that the command is found in its chronological place and that Moshe received a prophecy in Paroh's palace as he was speaking to him.&#160; R. Avraham b. HaRambam and R. D"Z Hoffmann, in contrast, suggest that the verses are achronological and Hashem appeared to Moshe before&#160; his conversation with Paroh.</li>
+
<li><b>Plague of Locusts </b>–</li>
 +
<li><b>News of Plague of Firstborns</b> – According to these sources Hashem's words in 10:1-3, "עוֹד נֶגַע אֶחָד" are simply an abridgement and really included all the details said by Moshe in the subsequent verses. Most of these commentators assume that the command is found in its chronological place and that Moshe received a prophecy in Paroh's palace as he was speaking to him.<fn>See Shemot Rabbah which asserts that since Moshe had told Paroh that he would no longer come to face him, and Hashem had not yet relayed news of the final plague, Hashem instantly appeared to Moshe so he could deliver the message to Paroh before leaving the palace for the final time.</fn>&#160; R. Avraham b. HaRambam and R. D"Z Hoffmann, in contrast, suggest that the verses are achronological and Hashem appeared to Moshe before his conversation with Paroh.<fn>As such, 10:4-8 continue directly from Moshe's words in 10:29.&#160; Immediately after telling Paroh that he will not come to see him again, he tells Paroh about the death of the firstborns and that it will be Paroh's servants who come to find Moshe and tell them to leave Egypt.&#160; The advantage of this approach is that it need not posit that Moshe prophesied in the midst of a conversation in the middle of the palace.</fn> </li>
 +
<li></li>
 
</ul></point>
 
</ul></point>
 
<point><b>Why isn't Hashem's command stated?</b> These commentators assert that it is the way of the text to be brief in one place and lengthy in another.&#160; Instead of tediously repeating both the command and its fulfillment, sometimes the Torah bring one, sometimes the other, and sometimes it nonetheless includes both.<fn>Most of the commentators do not explain the choice in any given story.&#160; R. D"Z Hoffmann, though, suggests that it might relate to literary factors.&#160; Thus, by the plague of locusts, since the text wants to highlight Paroh's officer's reaction to the news it&#160; includes Moshe relaying of the prophecy rather than Hashem's original command.&#160; One can similarly posit that in the story of the gathering of the manna, it is the interaction between Moshe and the people (and not between Hashem and Moshe) that the text wants to focus on.&#160; <br/>By the sin of the Golden calf, it is possible that when bringing the conversation between Hashem and Moshe, the text wanted to highlight Hashem's original desire to wipe them out and Moshe's subsequent defense of the nation which convinced Hashem not to.&#160; If the text then included Hashem's command to kill the active worshipers, it would lessen the impact of Moshe's words.&#160;</fn></point>
 
<point><b>Why isn't Hashem's command stated?</b> These commentators assert that it is the way of the text to be brief in one place and lengthy in another.&#160; Instead of tediously repeating both the command and its fulfillment, sometimes the Torah bring one, sometimes the other, and sometimes it nonetheless includes both.<fn>Most of the commentators do not explain the choice in any given story.&#160; R. D"Z Hoffmann, though, suggests that it might relate to literary factors.&#160; Thus, by the plague of locusts, since the text wants to highlight Paroh's officer's reaction to the news it&#160; includes Moshe relaying of the prophecy rather than Hashem's original command.&#160; One can similarly posit that in the story of the gathering of the manna, it is the interaction between Moshe and the people (and not between Hashem and Moshe) that the text wants to focus on.&#160; <br/>By the sin of the Golden calf, it is possible that when bringing the conversation between Hashem and Moshe, the text wanted to highlight Hashem's original desire to wipe them out and Moshe's subsequent defense of the nation which convinced Hashem not to.&#160; If the text then included Hashem's command to kill the active worshipers, it would lessen the impact of Moshe's words.&#160;</fn></point>

Version as of 05:11, 12 January 2016

Speaking in the Name of Hashem Without Divine Sanction

Exegetical Approaches

This topic has not yet undergone editorial review

Acting Upon Hashem's Words

Even where Hashem's speech is not mentioned in the verses it can be assumed that whatever a prophet says or does in His name, did in fact stem from His command.  This position subdivides regarding whether or not Hashem must explicitly direct the prophet or whether the prophet may intuit Hashem's desire from hints and allusions.

Explicit Command

When a prophet speaks in the name of Hashem, he is acting on a direct command of Hashem.

Prophetic Autonomy
  • No autonomy – This position might assert that a prophet has no autonomy to act or speak on his own at all.  In all cases he must do only as explicitly commanded.  R. Adonim goes as far as to say that even the words used by the prophet are all chosen by Hashem.
  • Some autonomy – However, many of these commentators disagree and believe that, when necessary, a prophet can act/speak on his own initiative.1  Nonetheless, a prophet would never do so in the name of Hashem and only invokes Hashem's words if He had in fact spoken previously.2
"הַנָּבִיא אֲשֶׁר יָזִיד לְדַבֵּר דָּבָר בִּשְׁמִי אֵת אֲשֶׁר לֹא צִוִּיתִיו" – This approach might understand this verse literally to mean that a prophet is prohibited from speaking in the name of Hashem unless so commanded. Thus, all verses which assume that a prophet did so (and was not punished) must be reinterpreted.
"מֵקִים דְּבַר עַבְדּוֹ" – This position could suggest that this verse has nothing to do with the autonomous speech of a prophet and instead refers to Hashem keeping His own promises as expressed by his messengers.  Hashem is contrasting the speech of "imposters" ("בַּדִּים") and "diviners" ("קֹסְמִים") whose words are not trustworthy, with those of His prophets, who are reliable precisely because they speak the word of God.  Alternatively, the verse speaks of fulfilling the prayers and hopes of his prophets.
Biblical Cases – These sources explain away most of the Biblical cases by asserting that though Hashem's words do not appear in the text, they can be assumed:
  • Plague of Locusts
  • News of Plague of Firstborns – According to these sources Hashem's words in 10:1-3, "עוֹד נֶגַע אֶחָד" are simply an abridgement and really included all the details said by Moshe in the subsequent verses. Most of these commentators assume that the command is found in its chronological place and that Moshe received a prophecy in Paroh's palace as he was speaking to him.3  R. Avraham b. HaRambam and R. D"Z Hoffmann, in contrast, suggest that the verses are achronological and Hashem appeared to Moshe before his conversation with Paroh.4
Why isn't Hashem's command stated? These commentators assert that it is the way of the text to be brief in one place and lengthy in another.  Instead of tediously repeating both the command and its fulfillment, sometimes the Torah bring one, sometimes the other, and sometimes it nonetheless includes both.5
Acting on own without invoking Hashem
Moshe versus other prophets

Implicit Command

Acting on Own