Invoking Hashem's Name Without Explicit Divine Sanction/2

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.

Sources:Lekach TovShemot 11:1Shemot 32:27About R. Toviah b. Eliezer, RashbamShemot 11:1Bemidbar 16:4Bemidbar 16:28-29About R. Shemuel b. Meir, R. Yosef Bekhor ShorShemot 10:2Shemot 11:1Shemot 16:11, 23Vayikra 10:3About R. Yosef Bekhor Shor, R. Avraham b. HaRambamShemot 11:1About R. Avraham Maimonides, RambanShemot 10:2Shemot 11:1Shemot 14:15Shemot 16:4Shemot 32:27Vayikra 9:2Vayikra 10:3Bemidbar 16:5Bemidbar 17:6About R. Moshe b. Nachman, AbarbanelShemot 9:29, 10:1, 4Shemot 16:23Shemot 32:27Vayikra 9:5-6Vayikra 10:3Bemidbar 16:3Devarim 34:11About R. Yitzchak Abarbanel, ShadalShemot 11:1-2Shemot 16:4, 22Vayikra 10:3About R. Shemuel David Luzzatto, NetzivShemot 16:16Shemot 16:23Shemot 16:34Shemot 32:27Vayikra 10:3Bemidbar 16:4, 17About R. Naftali Tzvi Yehuda Berlin, R. David Zvi HoffmannShemot 8:8Shemot 10:1-2Shemot 11:1-3Shemot 14:15Shemot 16:12, 15, 23Vayikra 10:3About R. David Zvi Hoffmann

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 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.³

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.  Often, part of Hashem's command is recorded and just some details are missing from the text:

• Plague of Locusts – R. Avraham b. HaRambam, Ramban and R. D"Z Hoffmann assert that when Hashem said to Moshe "go to Paroh" in 10:1, He also included the specifics of the coming plague.  Ramban points out that if He did not say any more, what was the purpose of telling Moshe to go?
• 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 the prophecy in Paroh's palace as he was speaking to him.⁴  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.⁵
• Manna – R. D"Z Hoffmann asserts that Moshe's statement in  Shemot 16:16 regarding gathering an omer's worth of manna were also commanded when Hashem said "וְלָקְטוּ דְּבַר יוֹם בְּיוֹמוֹ" in 16:4, and the words "הוּא אֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר י"י שַׁבָּתוֹן שַׁבַּת קֹדֶשׁ" in vs. 23 refer to the (unmentioned) continuation of Hashem's directive in vs 5, "וְהָיָה בַּיּוֹם הַשִּׁשִּׁי וְהֵכִינוּ אֵת אֲשֶׁר יָבִיאוּ וְהָיָה מִשְׁנֶה".‎⁶‎‎ 

• Killing those who worshiped the Calf – According to Lekach Tov, Moshe received this command on the spot as he gathered the Levites and it is not mentioned at all in the text. Ramban, in contrast, asserts that Hashem must have told him to do this while still on the mountain as part of the conversation recorded in 32:7-14.⁷

• "הוּא אֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר י"י לֵאמֹר בִּקְרֹבַי אֶקָּדֵשׁ" – According to Ramban,⁸ Moshe did not mean to say that Hashem actively said these words elsewhere, but more simply told Aharon that this was Hashem's will. The word "דִּבֶּר" means thought or decreed rather than said.‎⁹

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 a command and its fulfillment, sometimes the Torah bring one, sometimes the other, and sometimes both.¹⁰  Most of the commentators do not explain the choice in any given story.  R. D"Z Hoffmann, though, suggests that it might relate to literary factors:

• Plague of Locusts – R. D"Z Hoffmann explains that since the text wanted to highlight Paroh's officer's reaction to the news, it needed to include Moshe relaying of the prophecy rather than Hashem's original command.¹¹
• Plague of Firstborns – According to Shadal and R. D"Z Hoffmann, Moshe's words in 10:4 are a direct continuation of the conversation with Paroh begun in 9:24 and so it is natural for the text to focus on Moshe's words rather than Hashem's command.  In fact, they claim that the partial record of Hashem's command in 10:1-3 (עוֹד נֶגַע אֶחָד) is really parenthetical¹² and appears only so the reader can understand how Moshe was able to tell Paroh, "לֹא אֹסִף עוֹד רְאוֹת פָּנֶיךָ"‎ and speak with such confidence in the continuation.
• Sin of the Golden Calf – According to Lekach Tov who maintains that the command was issued right before Moshe relayed it, the text might have omitted the directive so as not break up Moshe's speech and thereby lessen its dramatic impact.¹³

Acting in one's own name – Many of these commentators maintain that a prophet might declare a miracle on his/her own, as long as they do not do so in the name of Hashem.  In such cases usually the prophet is seen to pray to Hashem asking Him to uphold his words.

Moshe versus other prophets – Abarbanel contrasts Moshe and other prophets, pointing out that most of Moshe's wonders were done only upon the command of Hashem while other prophets at times are forced to act on their own.  Moshe was fortunate to be at such a high level that he was constantly connected to Hashem's will, never leaving him in doubt as to what to do or whether it would be accomplished.

Implicit Command

A prophet might understand Hashem's will from only indirect comments or suggestions and can apply Hashem's commands from one situation to another.

Sources:Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael Shemot12About Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael Shemot, Shemot Rabbah42:5About Shemot Rabbah, RashiShemot 32:27Vayikra 10:3About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki, Ibn EzraShemot Long Commentary 11:1Shemot Long Commentary 16:4Shemot Short Commentary 11:4About R. Avraham ibn Ezra, R. OvadiahShemot 10:2About R. Yosef Bekhor Shor, Yalkut ShimoniShofetim 43About Yalkut Shimoni, RalbagShemot Beur HaParashah 11:1, 9-10About R. Levi b. Gershom,

Prophetic Autonomy

• Limited autonomy – According to this approach a prophet is not limited to acting upon direct orders and is allowed to intuit Hashem's will from other commands or situations. 
• More autonomy - Ibn Ezra and Ralbag allow a prophet to also call on Hashem to perform miracles that He did not promise beforehand, but in these cases the prophet can not say, "As Hashem commanded" or the like.

"הַנָּבִיא אֲשֶׁר יָזִיד לְדַבֵּר דָּבָר בִּשְׁמִי אֵת אֲשֶׁר לֹא צִוִּיתִיו" – This position might understand the prohibition to refer only to acting against the will of Hashem.  A prophet is permitted to say something in the name of Hashem even if Hashem only implied it or said it in another context, as long as the speech/action is in line with Hashem's will.

"מֵקִים דְּבַר עַבְדּוֹ"

Biblical Cases – In contrast to the first position above, these commentators are not satisfied with suggesting that Hashem's command is simply assumed and attempt to find an explicit source which served as a hint to the prophet each time he claims to speak in Hashem's name:

• Plague of Locusts – R. Ovadiah asserts that when Hashem said that the plague's purpose was that in the future people would speak of Hashem's wonders, Moshe understood on his own that He was speaking of locusts since it is usually a natural phenomenon, lending people to compare the natural occurrence with the extreme supernatural example wrought by Hashem. He points out Yoel, too, claims that the locust plague of his time will be spoken about form one generation to the next.¹⁴
• Plague of Firstborns – Ibn Ezra and Ralbag assert that the phrase "וַיֹּאמֶר י"י אֶל מֹשֶׁה עוֹד נֶגַע אֶחָד" is in the past perfect and refers back to Hashem's conversation with Moshe  en route from Midyan  in Chapter 4.  Moshe knew the identity of the last plague, not from a present revelation, but from Hashem's statement there that if Paroh refused to set the nation free, his first born was to die.  Though Hashem did not mention that this would be nation-wide plague, nor set a date for it, Moshe understood His intent and on is own recognized when the time had come.¹⁵
• Shabbat (Shemot 16:23) – According to Mekhilta and Yalkut Shimoni, Moshe was able to tell the nation (in Hashem's name) about Shabbat and the corresponding laws of the manna, because Hashem had mentioned collecting double on Friday, allowing Moshe to intuit the rest.
• Killing those who worshiped the Calf - According to Rashi,¹⁶ Moshe simply applied the law of "זֹבֵחַ לָאֱלֹהִים יׇחֳרָם" to these idolators.¹⁷  R. Meir in Shemot Rabbah, suggests instead that Hashem's words "לֶךְ רֵד" hinted to the fact that the nation deserved to be disciplined (מַרְדּוּת הֵם צְרִיכִים).
• "הוּא אֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר י"י לֵאמֹר בִּקְרֹבַי אֶקָּדֵשׁ" –

Acting on Own

A prophet, at times, will speak or act on his own initiative and nonetheless attribute the action to Hashem's command.

Sources:Pesikta DeRav Kahana7:3About Pesikta DeRav Kahana,Tanchuma (Buber)Bo 17About the Tanchuma, ChizkuniShemot 10:3Shemot 11:4Bemidbar 30:2About R. Chizkiyah b. Manoach, Avvat NefeshCommentary on Ibn Ezra Bemidbar 20:8, R. Yosef AlboSefer HaIkkarim 4:22About R. Yosef Albo, SefornoShemot 16:6-9About R. Ovadyah Seforno, MalbimShemot 16:12Yeshayahu 44:26About R. Meir Leibush Weiser, Cassuto

¹ See RambanBemidbar 16:5Bemidbar 17:6About R. Moshe b. Nachman and AbarbanelBemidbar 16:3About R. Yitzchak Abarbanel on the story of Korach, AbarbanelShemot 8:8About R. Yitzchak Abarbanel, ShadalShemot 8:8About R. Shemuel David Luzzatto, and R. D"Z HoffmanShemot 8:8About R. David Zvi Hoffmann on Moshe's removing of the plagues of frogs, and AbarbanelShemot 16:9Shemot 16Devarim 34:11Melakhim I 17:1About R. Yitzchak Abarbanel regarding Moshe's announcing the coming of meat and the miracles wrought by other prophets such as Eliyahu and Elisha.

² Thus, these commentators are motivated not by an understanding of prophecy which limits autonomy, but rather by the idea that a prophet would not lie and speak in Hashem's name if he had not been spoken to, and by the prohibition regarding this in Devarim 18.  [See next point.]

³ According to Ramban, Abarbanel and r. D"Z Hoffmann it could also refer to fulfilling miracles announced by a prophet in their own name.

⁴ See Shemot Rabbah which asserts that since Moshe had told Paroh that he was not going to approach him again (לֹא אֹסִף עוֹד רְאוֹת פָּנֶיךָ), 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.

⁵ As such, Moshe's speech in 10:4-8 continues directly from his words in 10:29.  This reading explains how Moshe was able to tell Paroh that he was not going to visit the palace again; since Hashem had previously told him about the final plague, Moshe knew that there would be no reason for further negotiations.  Another 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.

⁶ ShadalShemot 16:4, 22Vayikra 10:3About R. Shemuel David Luzzatto posits that though Hashem had already told Moshe all, he had not yet relayed it to the nation. The Netziv, in contrast, understands the phrase "הוּא אֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר י"י" to mean that it was Hashem's will (not command) that everyone find two omer's worth on Friday.  Cf. Ramban on Vayikra 10:3 who explains the same phrase there the same way.

⁷ In other words, the record of Hashem's conversation with Moshe in 32:7-14 is missing some details, including this directive.  Ramban posits that after Hashem agreed not to totally destroy the nation,He told Moshe that he still must at least kill the active worshipers.

⁸ Shadal and Netziv follow his lead.

⁹ As evidence for such usage, he points to Kohelet 1:16, Bereshit 24:51, and Melakhim I 16:34.

¹⁰ See RambanShemot 10:2Shemot 11:1About R. Moshe b. Nachman for a list of other examples.  Most of the commentators do not explain the choice in any given story.  R. D"Z Hoffmann, though, suggests that it might relate to literary factors:

• Thus, by the plague of locusts, he explains that since the text wants to highlight Paroh's officer's reaction to the news, it  includes Moshe relaying of the prophecy rather than Hashem's original command.  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 upon.
• R. Hoffman claims that by the Plague of Firstborns, the text only shares the part of Hashem's command which stated that there was one more plague so the reader could understand how Moshe was able to tell paroh, "לֹא אֹסִף עוֹד רְאוֹת פָּנֶיךָ".  It then resumes Moshe's speech of teh previous verses.
• By the sin of the Golden Calf, it is possible that when bringing the conversation between Hashem and Moshe, the text wanted to highlight Moshe's defense of the nation which convinced Hashem not to destroy the people.  If the text then included Hashem's command to kill the active worshipers, it would seem to lessen the impact of Moshe's prayer.

¹¹ 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 upon.

¹² See above that the other sources disagree and assert that the prophecy itself occured where it is written and would have to find a different explanation for why the text focuses on Moshe's delivery and not Hashem's command.

¹³ According to Ramban, in contrast, the command was given during the conversation on the mountain.  It is possible that there the text wanted to highlight Moshe's defense of the nation which convinced Hashem not to destroy the people, and if the text simultaneously included Hashem's command to kill the active worshipers, it would seem to lessen the impact of Moshe's prayer.

¹⁴ Cf. Shemot Rabbah13:4About Shemot Rabbah who also suggests that the words "וּלְמַעַן תְּסַפֵּר בְּאָזְנֵי בִנְךָ" recall Yoel's similar language "עָלֶיהָ לִבְנֵיכֶם סַפֵּרוּ" and thus hint that Hashem was referring to locusts.  Shemot Rabbah, however, claims that Hashem actually revealed the plague's identity to Moshe (גִּלָּה הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְמשֶׁה מַה מַּכָּה יָבִיא עֲלֵיהֶן), but Moshe only included the allusion when writing the Torah.

¹⁵ Cf. Malbim who claims that 11:1-3 are in their chronological place and, in the palace, Hashem hinted to Moshe that the time had come for the last plague which he already heard about in Midyan.  Cassuto, in contrast, suggests that the verses are a parenthetical aside telling the reader Moshe;s iner thoughts.  After Paroh's angry retort at the end of Chapter 10, Moshe remembered Hashem's previous discussion about killing firstborns, and realized that the last plague was at hand.

¹⁶ See also Yalkut Shimoni.

¹⁷ Rashi is consistent in explaining that this took place according to due process and only where there were witnesses and warning was someone killed.