Yirmeyahu's Confrontation With Chananyah/2

Yirmeyahu's Confrontation With Chananyah

Exegetical Approaches

This topic has not yet undergone editorial review

Overview

Commentators take one of two general approaches to the fundamental questions of Yirmeyahu 28.  Many commentators understand Yirmeyahu’s speech in verses 6-9 as asserting the veracity of his own prophecy and the falsehood of Chananyah’s.  This interpretation is based on the assumption that the authenticity of a prophet can only be established through a positive prophecy, not through a negative prophecy.  This understanding informs the commentators’ approach to the other questions of the chapter, such as understanding Yirmeyahu’s apparently respectful tone and the purpose of the sign of Chananyah’s death. 

Other commentators interpret Yirmeyahu’s speech to mean that there is no fundamental difference between positive and negative prophecies with regard to establishing a prophet’s authenticity, and therefore neither Yirmeyahu nor Chananyah can be assumed to be true prophets yet at this point in the narrative.  This understanding likewise shapes their approach to the other questions of the chapter.  

Prophets Can Only Be Tested Through Positive Prophecies

This approach understands Yirmeyahu’s speech as proving his authenticity as a prophet and Chananyah’s falsehood based on the difference between positive and negative prophecies.  

Sources:Yalkut ShimoniYirmeyahu 28:6Yirmeyahu 28:7About Yalkut Shimoni, RashiYirmeyahu 28:7About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki, R. Yosef KaraYirmeyahu 28:5Yirmeyahu 28:7About R. Yosef Kara, RadakYirmeyahu 28:6Yirmeyahu 28:7About R. David Kimchi, Metzudat DavidMetzudat David Yirmeyahu 28:8Metzudat David Yirmeyahu 28:9About R. David Altschuler, MalbimDevarim 18:21Yirmeyahu Beur HaInyan 28:5Yirmeyahu Beur HaInyan 28:7Yirmeyahu Beur HaInyan 28:9About R. Meir Leibush Weiser

How to Determine Whose Prophecy is True? 

• This approach maintains that a prophet can only be tested through the fulfillment of positive prophecies, since negative prophecies can be averted through repentance.  Therefore, it is a safer bet to believe Yirmeyahu because only Chananyah can be proven untrue.  
• Malbim adds that Hashem generally sends prophecies for the purpose of rebuke, since the primary role of the prophet is to inspire repentance.  The only reason Hashem gives a positive prophecy is to prove that someone is a prophet, so until the positive prophecy comes true Chananyah cannot be presumed to be a true prophet.     

Yirmeyahu’s Message to Chananyah – According to this approach, the goal of Yirmeyahu’s speech in 28:6-9 is to prove that his prophecy is true while Chananyah is a charlatan.  

How to Understand Verses 8-9 Linguistically?  – This approach subdivides as to how to parse verses 8-9, and specifically whether to read the verses as a “mikra katzar” (an abbreviated text, in which there is an implied clause that is not stated explicitly). 

• Rashi interprets these verses as a mikra katzar.  Verse 8, which refers to negative prophecies that were given in the past, concludes with the implied clause that such prophecies did not necessarily come true.  This is in contrast to positive prophecies, described in verse 9, which did always come true.  Metzudat David and Malbim do not read these verses as a mikra katzar. 
• Metzudat David interprets the verses as meaning: “When there was a prophet who prophesied about negative events, and another prophet prophesied about positive events, then when the words of the positive prophet came true, the people knew he was a real prophet.”  In other words, Yirmeyahu is referring to similar situations that happened previously in history, and is explaining that a prophet whose prophecies are positive can only be assumed to be a true prophet once his words come true.  Therefore, Chananyah cannot yet be assumed to be authentic.  
• Malbim reads verse 8 as meaning that prophets generally prophesy about negative events, since the purpose of prophecy is to inspire people to repent.  Verse 9 means that if there is a prophet whose prophecy is positive, this is only in order to establish him as a true prophet, and therefore he can only be assumed to be a true prophet once his words come true.  

Relationship to Devarim 18:22

– Rashbam suggests that Devarim 18:22 refers to a case in which there has not been an act of repentance that would avert the decree foretold by the prophet.  In such a situation, the words of an authentic prophet will come to pass; this does not contradict Yirmeyahu’s message that negative prophecies can be averted through repentance and good deeds.  Alternatively, Malbim suggests that Devarim 18:22 is referring only to positive prophecies, which must come true under all circumstances. 

Malbim also notes the negative formulation of Devarim 18:22 (“if the thing doesn’t follow, nor happen, that is the thing which Hashem has not spoken”).  He suggests that the reason for this formulation is that the Torah is foretelling the situation of Yirmeyahu and Chananyah, in which there were two opposing prophets and the question was whom not to believe.  

Why Does Yirmeyahu Show Respect to Chananyah’s Prophecy? 

– Given this position’s understanding of Yirmeyahu’s goal, it must interpret Yirmeyahu’s seemingly respectful language as furthering his point that Chananyah is demonstrably false.  Therefore, this approach generally reads Yirmeyahu’s language as sarcastic and mocking: 

• Malbim suggests that the word “ויאמר” appears twice (in verses 5 and 6) to underscore that Yirmeyahu’s words have a double meaning, and that he is actually mocking Chananyah while seeming to show him respect.  When Yirmeyahu says “amen,” he means that the vessels of the Beit Hamikdash will indeed be returned, but in 70 years (as he has prophesied) rather than two years (as Chananyah has prophesied).  Yirmeyahu’s true meaning was not understood by those around him; he spoke this way to mock his listeners through the use of double entendre.  
• Yirmeyahu is mocking Chananyah by pointing out that, if Chananyah’s false prophecy were actually to come true, it would be to Yirmeyahu’s good fortune and to Chananyah’s detriment, since Yirmeyahu is a kohen and Chananyah is perhaps descended from the Givonim¹, whose family is condemned to servitude as wood-cutters and water carriers due to his ancestors’ treachery in Yehoshua 9.  Therefore, Yirmeyahu’s “amen” is meant to poke fun at Chananyah’s lower status². 

¹ This suggestion about Chananyah’s lineage is based on 28:2, which identifies Chananyah as being from Givon, although Radak points out that he is most likely not descended from the original Givonim. 

² See Yalkut Shimoni, Rav Yosef Kara, opinion cited by Radak.