Showing posts with label yirmeyahu. Show all posts
Showing posts with label yirmeyahu. Show all posts

Wednesday, April 29, 2015

Ibn Ezra on Lower Biblical Criticism, part i

In Sefer Tzachot, Ibn Ezra writes at length against a grammarian [מדקדק] who proposed more than one hundred words which should be replaced in Scriptures. Ibn Ezra writes that the book is fit to be burned. (Elsewhere, in his commentary to Shemot 19:12, he labels this fellow a meshuga.) I've seen it asserted, but alas, as I write now can't find the source [update: see here] , that this grammarian is the same as Yitzchaki (whom people identify as Isaac Ibn Castar Ben Yashush of Toledo), who claimed fairly late authorship of a lengthy passage in sefer Bereishit, about whose book Ezra said that it deserved to be burned.

Ibn Ezra's opposition seems somewhat grounded in religious sensibilities --
"Forfend, forfend, for this is not correct, not in non-sacred words and certainly not in the words of the Living God. And his book is fit to be burnt." 
Further, this grammarian describes difficulties in the text which can only be resolved by emending the text. Ibn Ezra argues that with a bit of deeper thought and analysis, many of these difficulties are readily resolved, such that the radical course of emending the Biblical text is unwarranted.

I am going to separate Ibn Ezra's words into several posts, each tackling a different difficulty / proposed change from this grammarian. His words follow:

"Beware and guard your soul exceedingly, that you do not believe the words of the grammarian who mentioned in his book more than one hundred words and said that all of them need replacing. Forfend, forfend, for this is not correct, not in non-sacred words and certainly not in the words of the Living God. And his book is fit to be burnt.

And behold I will explain to you a few of the difficulties he mentioned, due to which he was unable to explain them in their straightforward manner. And they are:

1) [Yirmeyahu 33:26]

כו  גַּם-זֶרַע יַעֲקוֹב וְדָוִד עַבְדִּי אֶמְאַס, מִקַּחַת מִזַּרְעוֹ מֹשְׁלִים, אֶל-זֶרַע אַבְרָהָם, יִשְׂחָק וְיַעֲקֹב:  כִּי-אשוב (אָשִׁיב) אֶת-שְׁבוּתָם, וְרִחַמְתִּים.  {פ}

26 then will I also cast away the seed of Jacob, and of David My servant, [so that I will not take of his seed to be rulers over the seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; for I will cause their captivity to return, and will have compassion on them.'] {P}
[Note: Ibn Ezra writes יעקב as chaser but it should be malei.]

He says that in place of "Yaakov" [at the beginning of the verse] should be "Aharon", because it states earlier [in verse 24] two families

[namely,

כד  הֲלוֹא רָאִיתָ, מָה-הָעָם הַזֶּה דִּבְּרוּ לֵאמֹר, שְׁתֵּי הַמִּשְׁפָּחוֹת אֲשֶׁר בָּחַר יְהוָה בָּהֶם, וַיִּמְאָסֵם; וְאֶת-עַמִּי, יִנְאָצוּן, מִהְיוֹת עוֹד, גּוֹי לִפְנֵיהֶם.  {ס}24 'Considerest thou not what this people have spoken, saying: The two families which the LORD did choose, He hath cast them off? and they contemn My people, that they should be no more a nation before them. {S}

and the reference should be therefore be to two distinct families, not one within the other, and those should be the Davidic dynasty and the Aharonic priesthood.]

And the correct explaination is to leave it in its simple implication [of Yaakov], and the proof is [the continuation of pasuk 26]

מִקַּחַת מִזַּרְעוֹ מֹשְׁלִים
so that I will not take of his seed to be rulers

and its explanation is as follows: 'how shall I [אֶמְאַס] cast away one who is of the seed of Yaakov, after it is stated in the Torah that there shall be no ruling king in Israel except Yaakov? And further, that he is of the family of David.' And so, there are two positives.

And behold, I will show him the like, against his will, which he will not be able to swap out at all, namely [Tehillim 77:16]:


טז  גָּאַלְתָּ בִּזְרוֹעַ עַמֶּךָ;    בְּנֵי-יַעֲקֹב וְיוֹסֵף סֶלָה.16 Thou hast with Thine arm redeemed Thy people, the sons of Jacob and Joseph. Selah


See also Ibn Ezra's interpretation of this verse in Tehillim, where he also makes mention that this is a good response to Yitzchaki:
[עז, טז]
גאלת, עמך -
הוא הפעול כאילו כתוב: גאלת עמך בזרוע נטויה.וטעם להזכיר יוסף עם יעקב כי הוא החיה ישראל, ככתוב משם רועה אבן ישראל. 
והטעם: כי בזכות יעקב ויוסף פדית בניהם וכמוהו גם זרע יעקב ודוד עבדי אמאס, שהטעם מי שהוא מבני נדיבים והעד שאמר מקחת מזרעו מושלים והאומר כי יעקב תחת אהרן, לא דבר נכונה.

Tuesday, May 15, 2012

How much silver did Yirmeyahu weigh out, and why?

Summary:  Was it 17 or 7 X + 10 Y? And either way, was it coinage or weight?

Post: The haftara of parashat Behar begins with Yirmeyahu locked up in prison, receiving word from Hashem to purchase a property, and purchasing it. Thus {Yirmeyahu 32}:

ו  וַיֹּאמֶר, יִרְמְיָהוּ:  הָיָה דְּבַר-ה, אֵלַי לֵאמֹר.6 And Jeremiah said: 'The word of the LORD came unto me, saying:
ז  הִנֵּה חֲנַמְאֵל, בֶּן-שַׁלֻּם דֹּדְךָ, בָּא אֵלֶיךָ, לֵאמֹר:  קְנֵה לְךָ, אֶת-שָׂדִי אֲשֶׁר בַּעֲנָתוֹת--כִּי לְךָ מִשְׁפַּט הַגְּאֻלָּה, לִקְנוֹת.7 Behold, Hanamel, the son of Shallum thine uncle, shall come unto thee, saying: Buy thee my field that is in Anathoth; for the right of redemption is thine to buy it.'
ח  וַיָּבֹא אֵלַי חֲנַמְאֵל בֶּן-דֹּדִי כִּדְבַר ה, אֶל-חֲצַר הַמַּטָּרָה, וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלַי קְנֵה נָא אֶת-שָׂדִי אֲשֶׁר-בַּעֲנָתוֹת אֲשֶׁר בְּאֶרֶץ בִּנְיָמִין כִּי-לְךָ מִשְׁפַּט הַיְרֻשָּׁה וּלְךָ הַגְּאֻלָּה, קְנֵה-לָךְ; וָאֵדַע, כִּי דְבַר-יְהוָה הוּא.8 So Hanamel mine uncle's son came to me in the court of the guard according to the word of the LORD, and said unto me: 'Buy my field, I pray thee, that is in Anathoth, which is in the land of Benjamin; for the right of inheritance is thine, and the redemption is thine; buy it for thyself.' Then I knew that this was the word of the LORD.
ט  וָאֶקְנֶה, אֶת-הַשָּׂדֶה, מֵאֵת חֲנַמְאֵל בֶּן-דֹּדִי, אֲשֶׁר בַּעֲנָתוֹת; וָאֶשְׁקְלָה-לּוֹ, אֶת-הַכֶּסֶף, שִׁבְעָה שְׁקָלִים, וַעֲשָׂרָה הַכָּסֶף.9 And I bought the field that was in Anathoth of Hanamel mine uncle's son, and weighed him the money, even seventeen shekels of silver.
י  וָאֶכְתֹּב בַּסֵּפֶר וָאֶחְתֹּם, וָאָעֵד עֵדִים; וָאֶשְׁקֹל הַכֶּסֶף, בְּמֹאזְנָיִם.10 And I subscribed the deed, and sealed it, and called witnesses, and weighed him the money in the balances.


How shall we understand שִׁבְעָה שְׁקָלִים, וַעֲשָׂרָה הַכָּסֶף? Should it be rendered 17 shekel, as above? The Targum renders it shava manan vaasar sil'in, namely 7 mana + 10 sela.  Refer to this chart:


שם המידהפרוטהאיסרפונדיוןמעהטרעפיקדינרשקלסלעדרכוןמנהשעוריםגרמים
פרוטה10.1250.0630.0310.0100.0060.0030.0017.72 x10-46.17 x10-50.50.025
איסר810.50.250.0830.0190.0090.0050.0021.85 x10-440.2
פונדיון16210.50.1670.0560.0280.0140.0075.56 x10-480.4
מעה, גרה324210.3330.1670.0830.0420.0210.002160.8
טרעפיק, איסתרא, רבעת96126310.50.250.1250.0630.005482.4
דינר, זוז19224126210.50.250.1250.01964.8
שקל (חז"ל), בקע3844824124210.50.250.021929.6
סלע (שקל הקודש)76896482484210.50.0438419.2
דרכון153619296481684210.0876838.4
מנה1920024001200600200100502512.519600480


"Shekel" obviously had different meanings in different time periods, and so this was interpreted in the Targum as:
שִׁבְעָה שְׁקָלִים:
7 whole coins of silver, the maneh,

וַעֲשָׂרָה הַכָּסֶף
and ten other silver coins.

Coinage is complicated. There are silver and gold coins, maneh and minah, and in different times, different names refer to different coins and values. So I may well have the above wrong, but regardless, the Targum renders the seven separate from the ten, and as a larger coin and a smaller coin.

So then Radak, Mahari Kara, Malbim, Metzudas David, etc.

My slight issue with this is pasuk 10, וָאֶשְׁקֹל הַכֶּסֶף, בְּמֹאזְנָיִם. If the payment is in coins, why weigh them on a scale? If they are valid coins, then they won't be missing enough to be invalid, and slight differences make no difference to the validity and therefore value of the coins.

Rather, it would seem that we are dealing here with silver bars, either 17 of them or else 7 or the large weight and 10 of the smaller weight. Recall that coinage was actually a fairly recent innovation in the world, at around 650 BCE. And these events occurred in about 588 BCE. Who says coinage spread to Israel by this time? If so, it makes sense that the proper amount of silver had to be measured out. And note shekel  / va'eshkol.

(This of course has repercussions to peshat in pesukim interpreted in regards to kesef vs. shaveh kesef and to maaser sheni, but enough for this post.)

Thursday, September 08, 2011

Some concluding thoughts about Ibn Caspi's theory of testing the false prophet

Summary: Wrap-up from this post and then this post. It might pay to skim those two posts first.

Post: Here are some concluding thoughts.

The prophecy of Yonah came up in the course of discussing what allows us to determine a false vs. true prophet. Yonah had delivered this prophecy to the people of Nineveh (Jonah 3:4): עוֹד אַרְבָּעִים יוֹם, וְנִינְוֵה נֶהְפָּכֶת, "Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown". Yet they repented, and the prophecy did not come to pass. This was a public negative prophecy. If so, how can we make this work with the rules of determining a false prophet described in parashat Shofetim?

An insight I think I might have heard a year or two from my father. The prophecy was indeed fulfilled. There is ambiguity in the word נֶהְפָּכֶת, and the people themselves overturned the city. They went from bad to good, and took extreme measures to develop and express their contrition. So, the prophecy could have been fulfilled by either act of God or act of man.

Somewhat related to this, there are several Biblical texts which must go into a developed theory of how one determines a false prophet. The pasuk in Shofetim, for certain. But, also the prophecy to Yirmeyahu in the potter's house (and the parallel in Yechezkel) about Hashem 'repenting' of delivered prophecy. Also, the competing prophecies of Yirmeyahu and Chananiah ben Azzur, and Hashem's needing to reassure Yaakov before he met with his brother, even though he had received previous assurance. And, of course, the prophecy of Yonah. One can explain each of these pesukim in different ways, but one must account for each of them.

The Rambam accounted for each of these in his introduction to his perush hamishnayos as well as in Mishneh Torah, in the laws of determining a false prophet. Namely, private prophecy can be taken back, and public negative prophecy can be taken back, and so testing a prophet is only based on public positive prophecy. (Now go to each source and see how his theory satisfies each constraint imposed by a separate pasuk.) But his interpretations are not necessarily binding. We saw another Rishon, Rabbi Yosef Ibn Caspi, account for each of these pesukim in another, legitimate, manner. Namely, that one can only test a prophet where the positive or negative prophecy contains an explicit condition, and the condition is fulfilled. (See the second post.) And I, as well, suggested ways in which this can work out, such as that this refers to neutral signs and wonders appointed by the prophet to establish himself as a prophet, prior to any prophecy of weal or woe. (See the first post.)

What do I think of Ibn Caspi's approach? Well, he started all this by rejecting the Rambam for not fitting into the plain text of the pasuk in Shofetim. That is, the pasuk never mentioned that there was a distinction between positive and negative prophecy which failed to come true. As such, this is a deviation from peshat and a possible bal tosif. But then, he imposes his own distinction which is not explicitly mentioned in the pasuk. If we are already imposing distinctions, why not revert to the Rambam's distinction? After all, if the pasuk just means test the prophet to see if it does not materialize, in cases where it is possible to test him -- and a specific philosophical approach combined with constraints imposed by interpretations of other pesukim defines where it is possible to test him -- then say as well that it is obviously impossible to test him based on negative prophecy, since we know that Hashem can retract it, and indeed, the most obvious purpose of the prophecy is to issue a threat in order to inspire teshuva.

Ibn Caspi would have an answer ready, that his constraint is more readable into the pasuk. He would be right, since the pasuk says וְלֹא-יִהְיֶה הַדָּבָר וְלֹא יָבֹא, and we cannot know for certain by prophecy with 'absolute' wording that it did not come to pass, because perhaps there was an implied condition. But there is still some measure of forcing into the words of the pasuk, and I believe that we could do the same with the Rambam's interpretation.

Ibn Caspi is not only constrained by peshat considerations of the local and remote pesukim, but by his philosophical theological beliefs as well. Even though Hashem speaks about 'repenting', ונחמתי, in Yirmeyahu 18:8, this cannot mean actual reconsideration, since Hashem knows everything in advance and is unchanging. It must be a change from the receiving end, which is falsely perceived by humans, with their limited perception, as change. And thus is born this distinction between conditional and absolutely worded prophecy, in which absolutely worded prophecy is often actually just implicitly conditional, and so when it is 'retracted' it is just a change of circumstance and an imposition of the implicit condition. Don't accept this philosophical approach to God, and suddenly this unstated caveat is not so obvious in the pasul.

I can see and appreciate Ibn Caspi's distinction. Yet I could have also imagined a distinction in ability to test a false prophet in the opposite direction. With an explicit condition, perhaps the people privately repented sufficiently. Or if it a condition which certainly perceptible, then indeed the prophet can be tested. But the pasuk was speaking about absolutely worded prophecy, in which case we should take him at his word and assume he is a false prophet if it fails to materialize.

This would possibly clash with other textual evidence, such as the repentance of Nineveh. But then, one just needs to use one's sechel. The people all accepted the prophecy as true, and directly addressed Hashem for mercy. When the public reaction was like this, then it is obviously assumed by the people that Hashem can and does retract, in His mercy. In other words, there is a ready teretz for him which is not a stretch at all, given the people's response and assumptions up to that point. This is not the same as a blustering false prophet, who boldly makes predictions, and the predictions just don't come true. Don't start taking all sorts of kvetches, and give him the benefit of the doubt, because of some misdirected sense of dan lekaf zechut, but rather, as the pasuk tells us, בְּזָדוֹן דִּבְּרוֹ הַנָּבִיא, לֹא תָגוּר מִמֶּנּוּ, you shall not fear him.

What do I think about the foreign psukim, outside of parashat Shofetim? In terms of Yirmeyahu in the house of the potter, nothing indicates to me that this was public or even private prophecy. It can just be Hashem's initial 'intention', from which He withdrew. (Except of course Ibn Caspi would say Hashem is unchanging. So say that this was Hashem's attitude towards the person, according to the scales of justice if imposed at that precise time.) In terms of Yirmeyahu vs. Chananiah, I am not sure that we are speaking of judging a prophet in accordance with the laws of Shofetim at all! Rather, Yirmeyahu is speaking rational words to the false prophet and to the hamon am, that Chananiah's positive prophecy is so out of the ordinary (compared with the words of most other prophets) that only time will tell, and they should treat Chananiah's prophecy with a healthy dose skepticism until it actually materializes. Note that Yirmeyahu does not speak of knowing that the prophet was false, but rather the reverse, knowing that the prophet was speaking the truth. And so, neither Yirmeyahu nor Chaninia was being 'tested' in this sense.

In terms of Yonah, it is quite possibly allegory. But if we take it historically, then I don't think anyone ever raised the possibility of Yonah being a false prophet. Yonah complains, sure, in the last perek -- אָנָּה ה הֲלוֹא-זֶה דְבָרִי עַד-הֱיוֹתִי עַל-אַדְמָתִי--עַל-כֵּן קִדַּמְתִּי, לִבְרֹחַ תַּרְשִׁישָׁה: כִּי יָדַעְתִּי, כִּי אַתָּה אֵל-חַנּוּן וְרַחוּם, אֶרֶךְ אַפַּיִם וְרַב-חֶסֶד, וְנִחָם עַל-הָרָעָה. That does not mean that Yonah's reluctance was that people would consider him a false prophet. Rather, I would understand it as that he was reluctant because he thought it was pointless, since the evildoers were not going to be punished anyway. (Chazal understand it as a reluctance because of the negative comparison to Klal Yisrael, who did not do teshuva in response to such negative prophecies.) Sure, if someone were interested in trying him as a false prophet, they could bring him to Beis Din. But no one was interested in this, and applying a little bit of seichel, in terms of the plausibility of Hashem's retraction, given the circumstances, would likely go a long was in an actual court case.

(And ignoring the halacha, the pasuk in Shofetim never actually said to execute him, just not to fear / heed him. And וּמֵת הַנָּבִיא הַהוּא need not be human imposition of the death penalty. The 'proof' might be in the contest between Yirmeyahu and Chaninah, where subsequently, Yirmeyahu predicts for the false prophet Chanania a death at the hands of Heaven within a year. And that prophecy comes true.)

Tuesday, August 30, 2011

How is the failed negative prophecy exclusion encoded in Shofetim? part i

Summary: Rav Chaim Kanievsky addresses it, with a remez based on beShem Hashem. And I analyze some of the pesukim in parashat Shofetim and sefer Yirmeyah myself.

Post: In parashat Shofetim,


22. If the prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, and the thing does not occur and does not come about, that is the thing the Lord did not speak. The prophet has spoken it wantonly; you shall not be afraid of him.כב. אֲשֶׁר יְדַבֵּר הַנָּבִיא בְּשֵׁם ה וְלֹא יִהְיֶה הַדָּבָר וְלֹא יָבוֹא הוּא הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר לֹא דִבְּרוֹ ה בְּזָדוֹן דִּבְּרוֹ הַנָּבִיא לֹא תָגוּר מִמֶּנּוּ:
Yet, based on Yirmeyahu's conflict with the false prophet Chanania ben Azur, and other Biblical evidence as well, the Rambam speaks of an exclusion for negative prophecy. In Hilchos Yesodei HaTorah, 10:4, the Rambam writes:

ח  [ד] דִּבְרֵי הַפֻּרְעָנוּת שֶׁהַנָּבִיא אוֹמֵר, כְּגוֹן שֶׁיֹּאמַר פְּלוֹנִי יָמוּת אוֹ שָׁנָה פְּלוֹנִית שְׁנַת רָעָב אוֹ מִלְחָמָה וְכַיּוֹצֶא בִּדְבָרִים אֵלּוּ--אִם לֹא עָמְדוּ דְּבָרָיו, אֵין בְּזֶה הַכְחָשָׁה לִנְבוּאָתוֹ; וְאֵין אוֹמְרִין הִנֵּה דָּבָר דִּבַּרְתָּ וְלֹא בָא:  שֶׁהַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא "אֶרֶךְ אַפַּיִם וְרַב-חֶסֶד, וְנִחָם עַל-הָרָעָה" (יואל ב,יגיונה ד,ב); וְאִפְשָׁר שֶׁעָשׂוּ תְּשׁוּבָה וְנִסְלָח לָהֶם כְּאַנְשֵׁי נִינְוֵה, אוֹ שֶׁתָּלָה לָהֶם כְּחִזְקִיָּה.

ט  אֲבָל אִם הִבְטִיחַ עַל טוֹבָה וְאָמַר שֶׁיִּהְיֶה כָּךְ וְכָּךְ, וְלֹא בָאָה הַטּוֹבָה שֶׁאָמַר--בַּיָּדוּעַ שְׁהוּא נְבִיא שֶׁקֶר:  שֶׁכָּל דְּבַר טוֹבָה שֶׁיִּגְזֹר הָאֵל, אַפִלּוּ עַל תְּנָאי--אֵינוּ חוֹזֵר.  הַא לָמַדְתָּ, שֶׁבְּדִבְרֵי הַטּוֹבָה בִּלְבָד יִבָּחֵן הַנָּבִיא.

י  הוּא שֶׁיִּרְמְיָהוּ אוֹמֵר בִּתְשׁוּבָתוֹ לַחֲנַנְיָה בֶּן עַזּוּר, כְּשֶׁהָיָה יִרְמְיָה מִתְנַבֵּא לְרָעָה וַחֲנַנְיָה לְטוֹבָה.  אָמַר לוֹ חֲנַנְיָה, אִם לֹא יַעַמְדוּ דְּבָרַי, אֵין בְּזֶה רְאָיָה שֶׁאֲנִי נְבִיא שֶׁקֶר; אֲבָל אִם לֹא יַעַמְדוּ דְּבָרֶיךָ, יִוָּדַע שֶׁאַתָּה נְבִיא שֶׁקֶר:  שֶׁנֶּאֱמָר "אַךְ-שְׁמַע-נָא אֶת הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה" (ראה ירמיהו כח,ז).ע
My translation: "Words or punishment which the prophet speaks of, such as saying person X will die or year Y will be a year of famine or war, or things similar to these -- if his words do not stand, this is not a disproof to his prophecy, and we do not say 'behold he said something and it did not come to pass'. For Hashem is 'long suffering, and abundant in mercy, and repents of the woe'. (See Yoel 2:13 and Yonah 4:2.) And it is possible that they repented and were forgiven, like the residents of Ninveh, or that it was suspended for them, like Chizkiyah


But, if he promises good things, and says that it will be such and such, and the good that he speaks of does not come, then it is known that he is a false prophet. For any positive thing which God decrees, even on condition, He does not retract. Learn this from here, that only by positive words can a prophet be judged.


This is what Yirmeyahu said in his response to Chanania ben Azur, when Yirmeyah prophesied woe and Chanania prophesied weal. He said to him: 'Chanania, if my words do not stand, there is not in this proof that I am a false prophet. But if your words do not stand, it is known that you are a false prophet, as is stated {in the relevant perek in Yirmeyahu}, 'Nevertheless hear thou now this word...' "

As a matter of peshat, there might be other ways of understanding the pesukim in Yirmeyah. But we would still need to grapple with the difficulty posed by the retraction of the negative prophecy against Ninveh.

Separate from this is how we can read this into the pesukim in parashat Shofetim, which make no overt distinction between prophecy of weal and prophecy of woe.

Rav Chaim Kanievsky, in Taama D'Kra, cites the pasuk and summarizes the Rambam, that a failed negative prophecy is no proof that a prophet is false. Then he writes:

"And it is difficult, how this is hinted to in the pasuk here. Behold it is stated simply, with no caveats, that if it is not fulfilled, then he is a false prophet and is executed. And one could say that this is hinted at in the phrase beShem Hashem, for Chazal say (in Tanchuma Tazria siman 9, and it is brought in brief in Tosafot Taanit 3a, d"h ve'ilu) 'Hakadosh Baruch Hu does not associate his name with the evil, but rather on the good. And therefore, if the prophet mentions beShem Hashem, perforce it is for good. (But certainly it is so that even by evil, he needs to say that he says this in prophecy; just that he does mention the name of Hashem.)"

I am not sure that I understand this. Firstly, one need not appeal to the prophet himself mentioning the name of YKVK. One could simply say that since YKVK is middas haChessed, the pasuk in Shoftim refers to a positive prophecy, while Elokim would have referred to a negative prophecy.

And we see prophets mentioning the shem YKVK even in negative prophecies. Sefer Yeshaya begins:

ב  שִׁמְעוּ שָׁמַיִם וְהַאֲזִינִי אֶרֶץ, כִּי ה דִּבֵּר:  בָּנִים גִּדַּלְתִּי וְרוֹמַמְתִּי, וְהֵם פָּשְׁעוּ בִי.2 Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O earth, for the LORD hath spoken: Children I have reared, and brought up, and they have rebelled against Me.


And indeed, Yirmeyahu's negative prophecy, which countered the false prophet Chananya ben Azur's positive prophecy, was stated in the name of YKVK. In Yirmeyahu 28:

יג  הָלוֹךְ וְאָמַרְתָּ אֶל-חֲנַנְיָה לֵאמֹר, כֹּה אָמַר ה, מוֹטֹת עֵץ, שָׁבָרְתָּ; וְעָשִׂיתָ תַחְתֵּיהֶן, מֹטוֹת בַּרְזֶל.13 'Go, and tell Hananiah, saying: Thus saith the LORD: Thou hast broken the bars of wood; but thou shalt make in their stead bars of iron.
יד  כִּי כֹה-אָמַר ה צְבָאוֹת אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, עֹל בַּרְזֶל נָתַתִּי עַל-צַוַּאר כָּל-הַגּוֹיִם הָאֵלֶּה לַעֲבֹד אֶת-נְבֻכַדְנֶאצַּר מֶלֶךְ-בָּבֶל--וַעֲבָדֻהוּ; וְגַם אֶת-חַיַּת הַשָּׂדֶה, נָתַתִּי לוֹ.14 For thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel: I have put a yoke of iron upon the neck of all these nations, that they may serve Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon; and they shall serve him; and I have given him the beasts of the field also.'


Writing as a pashtan, I would like to resolve the difficulty of
  1. the plain meaning of the psukim in Shofetim
  2. how to understand retracted negative prophecy such as that of Yonah
  3. how the psukim in Shofetim relate to the psukim in Yirmeyah
Here is what I would say, as a matter of peshat. Please note that there may be other interpretations which operate on the level of derash, which are of no concern to me here. Thus, my reinterpretation need not be a rejection / refutation of the Rambam.

(1) In terms of the pesukim in Shofetim, I would suggest that the pesukim are not referring to prophecies of weal or prophecies of woe. Rather, they refer to a prophet who sets a sign. People wonder whether he is for real, or they might wonder, and so this prophet, purely for the sake of establishing himself as a prophet, either (a) predicts some normal future event that a regular person would not be able to predict; or (b) creates some sort of wonder.

The first is an ot, a sign. Such as, before astronomy was something exceptionally known, predicting a comet. For instance, Shmuel telling that people would tell Shaul that his father's donkeys had been found. Some future event, not caused by the prophet, but known by the prophet. The second is a miracle created by the prophet. For instance, Moshe turning a staff into a snake. One is a demonstration of supernatural knowledge, and the other is a demonstration of supernatural power.

The context, after all, is hearkening to the prophet in his instructions, to lead them, like Moshe. To him they are obligated to listen. But there is a chance that he will lead them falsely, or lead them to idolatry.

We have to read this perek (18) in light of perek 13 of Devarim:

2. If there will arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of a dream, and he gives you a sign or a wonder,ב. כִּי יָקוּם בְּקִרְבְּךָ נָבִיא אוֹ חֹלֵם חֲלוֹם וְנָתַן אֵלֶיךָ אוֹת אוֹ מוֹפֵת:
3. and the sign or the wonder of which he spoke to you happens, [and he] says, "Let us go after other gods which you have not known, and let us worship them,"ג. וּבָא הָאוֹת וְהַמּוֹפֵת אֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר אֵלֶיךָ לֵאמֹר נֵלְכָה אַחֲרֵי אֱ־לֹהִים אֲחֵרִים אֲשֶׁר לֹא יְדַעְתָּם וְנָעָבְדֵם:
4. you shall not heed the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of a dream; for the Lord, your God, is testing you, to know whether you really love the Lord, your God, with all your heart and with all your soul.ד. לֹא תִשְׁמַע אֶל דִּבְרֵי הַנָּבִיא הַהוּא אוֹ אֶל חוֹלֵם הַחֲלוֹם הַהוּא כִּי מְנַסֶּה ה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם אֶתְכֶם לָדַעַת הֲיִשְׁכֶם אֹהֲבִים אֶת ה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם בְּכָל לְבַבְכֶם וּבְכָל נַפְשְׁכֶם:


What it means by "happens" even here is the sign or the wonder. It is possible to miss this correct interpretation because of the ambiguity of the word הַדָּבָר, and how it is used in the surrounding pesukim in perek 18. (At this point, one can read perek 18 and construct a counterargument. I encourage you to engage in this exercise. Still, one can then counter that counterargument. Below, I will suggest a different reading of these pesukim.)

(2) If so, this does not contradict negative prophecy being withdrawn, as in Yonah. His prophecy of doom for Nineveh was not a sign or a wonder. This was the actual substance of the prophecy. It was the message! And if they believe that Hashem "repents evil", then it is not problematic for Hashem to change His mind. But Hashem would not change His mind about a neutral thing whose sole purpose is to establish a prophet as true.

Now, one can extend from the neutral sign and wonder to the actual stuff of prophetic messages. But one need not do this. And if one does extend it, under the theory that prophesied weal or woe which fails to materialize is just as much a failure, then this might well be subject to intricate theological rules. For instance, shema yigrom hachet, or nicham al haraah. It need not be the seeming comprehensive statement of parashat Shofetim.

(3) As for the exchange between Yirmeyahu and Chananiah, this is perhaps the easiest. First, we can say like the Rambam, but only according to the parameters of the extension. Second, we can take an alternate path. Who says that Yirmeyahu was speaking from an halachic perspective, and making a diyuk into the general rule set out in Sefer Devarim? Here is how I would explain these pesukim in Yirmeyahu.

Chanania gave a prophecy of weal. Yirmeyahu responds as follows:

ו  וַיֹּאמֶר, יִרְמְיָה הַנָּבִיא, אָמֵן, כֵּן יַעֲשֶׂה ה; יָקֵם ה, אֶת-דְּבָרֶיךָ, אֲשֶׁר נִבֵּאתָ לְהָשִׁיב כְּלֵי בֵית-ה וְכָל-הַגּוֹלָה, מִבָּבֶל אֶל-הַמָּקוֹם הַזֶּה.6 even the prophet Jeremiah said: 'Amen! the LORD do so! the LORD perform thy words which thou hast prophesied, to bring back the vessels of the LORD'S house, and all them that are carried away captive, from Babylon unto this place!
ז  אַךְ-שְׁמַע-נָא הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה, אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי דֹּבֵר בְּאָזְנֶיךָ, וּבְאָזְנֵי, כָּל-הָעָם.7 Nevertheless hear thou now this word that I speak in thine ears, and in the ears of all the people:

He knows that Chanania is a false prophet, for Hashem has told Yirmeyahu a contrary message. Yet, on hearing a good idea, he says 'Amen'. Yet, now he is going to present a contrary position, both to Chanania and to all the people who might heed Chanania.


ח  הַנְּבִיאִים, אֲשֶׁר הָיוּ לְפָנַי וּלְפָנֶיךָ--מִן-הָעוֹלָם:  וַיִּנָּבְאוּ אֶל-אֲרָצוֹת רַבּוֹת, וְעַל-מַמְלָכוֹת גְּדֹלוֹת, לְמִלְחָמָה, וּלְרָעָה וּלְדָבֶר.8 The prophets that have been before me and before thee of old prophesied against many countries, and against great kingdoms, of war, and of evil, and of pestilence.


The mention of those prophets before him can be read as saying that this has been Hashem's constant message. We accept those prophets and Yirmeyahu's prophecy is in line with what they have said. Or, this is the typical prophetic message, and so there is nothing in it to raise suspicion that the prophet is false.

Then,

ט  הַנָּבִיא, אֲשֶׁר יִנָּבֵא לְשָׁלוֹם--בְּבֹא, דְּבַר הַנָּבִיא, יִוָּדַע הַנָּבִיא, אֲשֶׁר-שְׁלָחוֹ ה בֶּאֱמֶת.9 The prophet that prophesieth of peace, when the word of the prophet shall come to pass, then shall the prophet be known, that the LORD hath truly sent him.'


This might be because the message is so darn atypical of an Israelite prophet. Therefore, we should adopt a wait-and-see approach. Or, though we not need to read it into the pasuk, he could appoint some ot or mofet.

Note that the people did not execute Chanania for his false prophecy, via chenek. This was at the hands of Hashem, a misa biydei Shamayim, as we read at the end of that perek in sefer Yirmeyah.

___________________

That was one way of resolving these three points. Another way is as follows:

(1) Fulfilled prophecy vs. failed prophecy is NOT about the sign or wonder. It was about the actual substance of the prophecy. And either the negative vs. positive aspect is somehow unspoken throughout the Torah, or else it actually covers everything, including prophecy of woe.

(2) Yonah's prophecy to Nineveh had an implicit condition to it. If a prophet prophesied the destruction of a city to the people of the city itself, and it is a prophecy from Hashem, the idea is that those in the city are great sinners. Change the situation, and it makes sense that Hashem might decide to spare the city. Indeed, that might have been the very purpose of Hashem sending the prophet. It is not to taunt them of their impending doom!

The people of the city took Yonah's message to heart, and changed their ways. They repented, fasted, and donned sackcloth. In such a scenario, the doomsday not coming to pass would be readily understood by the populace as Hashem being swayed by the people's repentance. This is not the same as saying that doom X would come and, with no change in the world prompting a change in Hashem's plan, doom X does not come.

(3) In terms of Chanania's prophecy vs. Yirmeyahu's prophecy, we might say that the failed prophecy as evidence of false prophecy applies across the board, even to Yirmeyahu, but that it is not relevant, for the reasons details in the analysis of this section, above.

Rabbi Yosef Ibn Caspi, the Biblical exegete, discusses at length how to resolve the Rambam with the plain meaning of the pasuk. Perhaps I will consider this in a follow-up post.

Sunday, May 02, 2010

Behar sources

by aliyah
rishon (25:1)
sheni (25:14)
shelishi (25:19)
revii (25:25)
chamishi (25:29)
shishi (25:39)
shevii (25:47)
maftir (25:55)
haftara (Yirmeyah 32:6-27), with Mahari Kara, Abarbanel and Malbim

by perek

meforshim
Judaica Press Rashi in English
Shadal (here and here)
Daat -- with Rashi, Ramban, Seforno, Ibn Ezra, Rashbam, Rabbenu Bachya, Midrash Rabba, Tanchuma+, Gilyonot
Gilyonot Nechama Leibovitz (Hebrew)
Tiferes Yehonasan from Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz
Chasdei Yehonasan -- not untit Behaalosecha
Toldos Yitzchak Acharon, repeated from Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz -- not until Bechukosai
Even Shleimah -- from Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Ehrenreich
R' Saadia Gaon's Tafsir, Arabic translation of Torah (here and here)
Collected commentary of Saadia Gaon on Torah
Rashbam (and here)
Zohar, with English translation
Baal Haturim (HaAruch)
Imrei Shafer, Rav Shlomo Kluger
Ibn Gabirol -- not until Bechukosai
Rabbenu Yonah -- not until Bechukosai
Sefer Zikaron of Ritva -- not until Chukas
Chiddushei HaGriz -- not until Bemidbar

The following meforshim at JNUL. I've discovered that if you click on the icon to rotate sideways, change to only black and white, select only the portion which is text, it is eminently readable on paper.
Ralbag (pg 280)
Chizkuni (106)
Abarbanel (269)
Shach (191)
Yalkut Reuveni (pg 128)
Aharon ben Yosef the Karaite (182)

rashi
Daat, Rashi In Hebrew (perek 25)
MizrachiMizrachi (on Rashi, 224)
Gur Aryeh (Maharal of Prague)
Berliner's Beur on Rashi
Commentary on Rashi by Yosef of Krasnitz
R' Yisrael Isserlin (on Rashi, 12)
Two supercommentaries on Rashi, by Chasdai Almosnino and Yaakov Kneizel
Rav Natan ben Shishon Shapira Ashkenazi (16th century), (JNUL, pg 116)
Yeriot Shlomo (Maharshal)
Moda L'Bina (Wolf Heidenheim)
Mekorei Rashi (in Mechokekei Yehuda)
Also see Mikraos Gedolos above, which has Rashi with Sifsei Chachamim

ramban
Daat, Ramban in Hebrew (perek 25)
R' Yitzchak Abohav's on Ramban (standalone and in a Tanach opposite Ramban)
Rabbi Meir Abusaula (student of Rashba)

ibn ezra
Daat, Ibn Ezra in Hebrew (perek 25)
Mechokekei Yehudah (HebrewBooks)
R' Shmuel Motot (on Ibn Ezra, pg 40)
Ibn Kaspi's supercommentary on Ibn Ezra, different from his commentary (here and here) -- not until Bechukosay
Mekor Chaim, Ohel Yosef, Motot
Also see Mikraos Gedolos above, which has Ibn Ezra with Avi Ezer

targum
Targum Onkelos opposite Torah text
Shadal's Ohev Ger
Avnei Tzion -- two commentaries on Onkelos
Or Hatargum on Onkelos
Commentary on Targum Yonatan and Targum Yerushalmi

masorah
Tanach with masoretic notes on the side
Taamei Masoret -- not until Bamidbar
Rama (but based on alphabet, not parsha)

midrash
Midrash Rabba at Daat (25)
Midrash Tanchuma at Daat (25)
Vayikra Rabba, with commentaries
Midrash Tanchuma with commentary of Etz Yosef and Anaf Yosef
Commentary on Midrash Rabba by R' Naftali Hirtz b'R' Menachem
Matat-Kah on Midrash Rabba
Nefesh Yehonasan by Rav Yonasan Eibeshutz

haftarah
Haftarah in Gutnick Edition
In a separate Mikraos Gedolos, with Targum, Rashi, Radak, Ralbag, Minchat Shai, Metzudat David.
Daat, which includes Shadal, Yalkut Shimoni, and Gilyonot.
Shadal, page 9 in the PDF
Aharon ben Yosef the Karaite

Wednesday, February 10, 2010

Mishpatim sources

by aliyah
rishon (Shemot 21:1)
sheni (21:20)
shelishi (22:4)
revii (22:27, half-sefer in pesukim)
chamishi (23:6)
shishi (23:20)
shevii (23:26)
maftir (24:15)
haftara (Yirmeyahu 34:8-22; 33:25-26)

by perek
perek 21 ; perek 22 ; perek 23 ; perek 24

meforshim
Judaica Press Rashi in English
Shadal (and here)
Daat -- with Rashi, Ramban, Seforno, Ibn Ezra, Rashbam, Rabbenu Bachya, Midrash Rabba, Tanchuma+, Mechilta, Gilyonot.
Gilyonot Nechama Leibovitz (Hebrew)
Tiferes Yehonasan from Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz
Chasdei Yehonasan -- not until Terumah
Toldos Yitzchak Acharon, repeated from Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz -- not until Terumah
Even Shleimah -- from Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Ehrenreich
R' Saadia Gaon's Tafsir, Arabic translation of Torah (here and here)
Collected commentary of Saadia Gaon on Torah
Abarbanel
Torah Temimah
Kli Yakar (and here)
Zohar, with English translation
Baal Haturim
Baal Haturim (HaAruch)
Torat Hatur
Ibn Janach
Rabbenu Ephraim
Ibn Caspi
Ralbag
Dubno Maggid
Imrei Shafer, Rav Shlomo Kluger
Ateret Zekeinim
Mei Noach
Arugat HaBosem
Yalkut Perushim LaTorah
R' Yosef Bechor Shor
Meiri
Ibn Gabirol
Rabbenu Yonah
Rashbam (and here)
Seforno
Aderet Eliyahu (Gra)
Kol Eliyahu (Gra)
Mipninei Harambam
Sefer Zikaron of Ritva -- not until Ki Tisa
Malbim
Chiddushei HaGriz
Noam Elimelech
Michlal Yofi
Nesivot Hashalom

The following meforshim at JNUL. I've discovered that if you click on the icon to rotate sideways, change to only black and white, select only the portion which is text, it is eminently readable on paper.
Ralbag (pg 127)
Baal HaTurim (27)
Rabbenu Bachya (115)
Chizkuni (68)
Abarbanel (179)
Shach (110)
Paneach Raza (43)
Yalkut Reuveni (pg 97)
Sefer Hachinuch (pg 19)
Aharon ben Yosef the Karaite (106)

rashi
Daat, Rashi In Hebrew (perek 21)
Judaica Press Rashi in English and Hebrew
MizrachiMizrachi (on Rashi, 113)
Gur Aryeh (Maharal of Prague)
Maharsha
Siftei Chachamim
Berliner's Beur on Rashi
Commentary on Rashi by Yosef of Krasnitz
R' Yisrael Isserlin (on Rashi, 9)
Two supercommentaries on Rashi, by Chasdai Almosnino and Yaakov Kneizel
Rav Natan ben Shishon Shapira Ashkenazi (16th century), (JNUL, pg 79)
Taz
Levush HaOrah
Mohar`al
Yeriot Shlomo (Maharshal)
Moda L'Bina (Wolf Heidenheim)
Dikdukei Rashi
Mekorei Rashi (in Mechokekei Yehuda)
Bartenura
Yosef Daas
Nachalas Yaakov
Also see Mikraos Gedolos above, which has Rashi with Sifsei Chachamim

ramban
Daat, Ramban in Hebrew (perek 21)
R' Yitzchak Abohav's on Ramban (standalone and in a Tanach opposite Ramban)
Kesef Mezukak
Kanfei Nesharim
Rabbi Meir Abusaula (student of Rashba)

ibn ezra
Daat, Ibn Ezra in Hebrew (perek 21)
Mechokekei Yehudah (Daat)
Mechokekei Yehudah (HebrewBooks)
Mavaser Ezra
R' Shmuel Motot (on Ibn Ezra, pg 23)
Ibn Kaspi's supercommentary on Ibn Ezra, different from his commentary (here and here)
Mekor Chaim, Ohel Yosef, Motot
Avi Ezer
Tzofnas Paneach
Ezra Lehavin
Also see Mikraos Gedolos above, which has Ibn Ezra with Avi Ezer

targum
Targum Onkelos opposite Torah text
Targum Onkelos and Targum Pseudo-Yonatan in English
Shadal's Ohev Ger
Berliner
Chalifot Semalot
Avnei Tzion -- two commentaries on Onkelos
Bei`urei Onkelos
Or Hatargum on Onkelos
Targum Yonatan
Commentary on Targum Yonatan and Targum Yerushalmi
Septuagint (Greek, English)
Origen's Hexapla (JNUL)

masorah
Tanach with masoretic notes on the side
Commentary on the Masorah
Minchas Shai
Or Torah
Taamei Masoret
Masoret HaKeriah
Shiluv Hamasorot
Masoret HaBrit HaGadol
Rama (but based on alphabet, not parsha)
Vetus Testamentum

midrash
Midrash Rabba at Daat (21)
Midrash Tanchuma at Daat (21)
Shemot Rabba, with commentaries
Midrash Tanchuma with commentary of Etz Yosef and Anaf Yosef
Commentary on Midrash Rabba by R' Naftali Hirtz b'R' Menachem
Matat-Kah on Midrash Rabba
Nefesh Yehonasan by Rav Yonasan Eibeshutz
Mechilta

haftarah (Yirmeyahu 34:8-22; 33:25-26)
In a separate Mikraot Gedolot -- with Targum, Rashi, Mahari Kara, Radak, Minchat Shai, Metzudat David.
In a chumash, with Alshich, Mahari Kara, Malbim, Abarbanel
Rashis in English, from Judaica Press
Daat, with links to
Gutnick edition
Ibn Janach
Aharon ben Yosef the Karaite, pg 79

LinkWithin

Blog Widget by LinkWithin