Difference between revisions of "Invoking Hashem's Name Without Explicit Divine Sanction/2"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
This topic has not yet undergone editorial review
m |
m |
||
| Line 46: | Line 46: | ||
<li>Ibn Ezra and Ralbag present prophets as also calling 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.</li> | <li>Ibn Ezra and Ralbag present prophets as also calling 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.</li> | ||
</ul></point> | </ul></point> | ||
| − | <point><b>"הַנָּבִיא אֲשֶׁר יָזִיד לְדַבֵּר דָּבָר בִּשְׁמִי אֵת אֲשֶׁר לֹא צִוִּיתִיו"</b> – This approach understands the word "צִוִּיתִיו" to include | + | <point><b>"הַנָּבִיא אֲשֶׁר יָזִיד לְדַבֵּר דָּבָר בִּשְׁמִי אֵת אֲשֶׁר לֹא צִוִּיתִיו"</b> – This approach understands the word "צִוִּיתִיו" to include any speech of Hashem, even if not directed personally at the prophet.   Thus, 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 overall plan.</point> |
<point><b>"מֵקִים דְּבַר עַבְדּוֹ"</b> – This approach could explain that the verse only refers to Hashem answering the prayers of his prophets, not their prophetic announcements in His name.<fn>Ralbag claims that it refers to Hashem fulfilling a prophet's announcement to perform a wonder that was not previously decreed by Hashem (but were also not said in the name of Hashem.)</fn></point> | <point><b>"מֵקִים דְּבַר עַבְדּוֹ"</b> – This approach could explain that the verse only refers to Hashem answering the prayers of his prophets, not their prophetic announcements in His name.<fn>Ralbag claims that it refers to Hashem fulfilling a prophet's announcement to perform a wonder that was not previously decreed by Hashem (but were also not said in the name of Hashem.)</fn></point> | ||
<point><b>Biblical Cases</b> – 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:<fn>Rashi is consistent in looking for such verses anywhere the text alludes back to speech that was not recorded previously, even not in the context of prophetic utterances in the name of Hashem.   See, for example, his comments on Bereshit 32:13, Shemot 14:12, Bemidbat 11:12, Devarim 6:19, Devarim 11:25, Devraim 15:6 and many more.  Cf. Mekhilta and Yalkut Shimoni who also bring an extensive list.</fn><br/> | <point><b>Biblical Cases</b> – 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:<fn>Rashi is consistent in looking for such verses anywhere the text alludes back to speech that was not recorded previously, even not in the context of prophetic utterances in the name of Hashem.   See, for example, his comments on Bereshit 32:13, Shemot 14:12, Bemidbat 11:12, Devarim 6:19, Devarim 11:25, Devraim 15:6 and many more.  Cf. Mekhilta and Yalkut Shimoni who also bring an extensive list.</fn><br/> | ||
Version as of 06:24, 13 January 2016
Speaking in the Name of Hashem Without Divine Sanction
Exegetical Approaches
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 Tov, Rashbam, R. Yosef Bekhor Shor, R. Avraham b. HaRambam, Ramban, Abarbanel, Shadal, Netziv, 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 understands 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 included when Hashem said "וְלָקְטוּ דְּבַר יוֹם בְּיוֹמוֹ" in 16:4, and the words "הוּא אֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר י"י שַׁבָּתוֹן שַׁבַּת קֹדֶשׁ" in vs. 236 refer to the (unmentioned) continuation of Hashem's directive in vs 5, "וְהָיָה בַּיּוֹם הַשִּׁשִּׁי וְהֵכִינוּ אֵת אֲשֶׁר יָבִיאוּ וְהָיָה מִשְׁנֶה".7
- Killing those who worshiped the Calf – According to Lekach Tov, Moshe received this command on the spot as he gathered the Levites. 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 32:7-14.8
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 brings one, sometimes the other, and sometimes both.11 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.12
- 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 parenthetical13 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.14
Acting in one's own name – Many of these commentators15 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. He explains that Moshe was 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, but other prophets who lacked this direct line to God, were sometimes forced to trust their own judgement.
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 Shemot, Shemot Rabbah, Rashi, Ibn Ezra, R. Ovadiah, Yalkut Shimoni, Ralbag,
Prophetic Autonomy
- According to this approach a prophet has a certain amount of autonomy in the interpretation, application and expression of Hashem's words, but is still limited by His commands.
- Ibn Ezra and Ralbag present prophets as also calling 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 approach understands the word "צִוִּיתִיו" to include any speech of Hashem, even if not directed personally at the prophet. Thus, 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 overall plan.
"מֵקִים דְּבַר עַבְדּוֹ" – This approach could explain that the verse only refers to Hashem answering the prayers of his prophets, not their prophetic announcements in His name.16
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:17
- 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 (לְמַעַן תְּסַפֵּר בְּאׇזְנֵי בִנְךָ וּבֶן בִּנְךָ), Moshe understood on his own that He was speaking of locusts. Since it is a repeatedly occurring natural phenomenon, it lends people to compare their natural experience with the extreme supernatural example wrought by Hashem. He points out that the prophet Yoel, too, claims that the locust plague of his time will be spoken about from one generation to the next.18
- 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 his own recognized when the time had come.19
- 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,20 Moshe simply applied the law of "זֹבֵחַ לָאֱלֹהִים יׇחֳרָם" to these idolators.21 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" – Mekhilta, Rashi and Yalkut Shimoni claim that Moshe is referring to Hashem's words in Shemot 29:43, "וְנֹעַדְתִּי שָׁמָּה לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְנִקְדַּשׁ בִּכְבֹדִי".22
Why not command explicitly? These sources could suggest that explicit commands were simply not necessary in these cases since Moshe on his own figured out Hashem's will.23 Moreover, in those cases where Moshe is simply applying a previously stated law, his acting upon it should be expected, as that is the whole purpose of a legal system.
Can a prophet err? This approach would seem to leave room for human error in interpreting and applying Hashem's words. See though R. Mevaser who claims that Hashem would make sure to correct a prophet if He saw that he had erred in understanding his mission.
Motivation for this position – It seems that many of these sources are motivated less by the theological issues related to the degree of prophetic autonomy granted to a prophet and more by the textual need to find an explicit source for any place where the verse alludes to a previous statement.
Acting on Own
A prophet, at times, will speak or act on his own initiative and nonetheless attribute the action to Hashem's command.
Prophetic Autonomy – According to these sources, a prophet has a high level of autonomy and in certain instances is allowed to determine his own course of action even without Hashem's prior approval. Moreover, he may even invoke Hashem's name to lend authority to his deeds/speech.
"הַנָּבִיא אֲשֶׁר יָזִיד לְדַבֵּר דָּבָר בִּשְׁמִי אֵת אֲשֶׁר לֹא צִוִּיתִיו" – This position would have to limit this prohibition to refer only to prophets who have not yet proven their status, or reinterpret it to mean that a prophet cannot say something in hashem's name that contradicts His will or commandments ["אֲשֶׁר לֹא צִוִּיתִיו" is not to be understood literally to refer to a command aimed at the prophet personally, but more generally.]
verse would seem to prohibit a prophet from speaking in thename of ashemwithout prior
verse would seem to prohibit a prophet from speaking in thename of ashemwithout prior
"מֵקִים דְּבַר עַבְדּוֹ"
Biblical Cases
