Tuesday, November 14, 2006

Of false prophets and Sinai.

Rambam also understands the word Nissayon to mean demonstration when used with reference to a false prophet. The traditional idea that God would send a false prophet to test us is abhorrent to him. He is referring to the following text (Devarim 13:4):


ד לֹא תִשְׁמַע, אֶל-דִּבְרֵי הַנָּבִיא הַהוּא, אוֹ אֶל-חוֹלֵם הַחֲלוֹם, הַהוּא: כִּי מְנַסֶּה יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם, אֶתְכֶם, לָדַעַת הֲיִשְׁכֶם אֹהֲבִים אֶת-יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם, בְּכָל-לְבַבְכֶם וּבְכָל-נַפְשְׁכֶם.
4 Thou shall not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or unto that dreamer of dreams; for the LORD your God puts you to proof, to know whether ye do love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.

Note how sensitive the translator is here – Ki menasseh is translated puts to proof – which does not necessarily mean test but also demonstrate.( Robert Alter in his translation misses this).

Here is Rambam’s understanding of this verse:

The sole object of all the trials mentioned in Scripture is to teach man what he ought to do or believe; so that the event which forms the actual trial is not the end desired: it is but an example for our instruction and guidance. Hence the words "to know (la-Da’at) whether ye love," etc., do not mean that God desires to know whether they loved God; for He already knows it; but la-Da’at, "to know," has here the same meaning as in the phrase "to know (la-Da’at) that I am the Lord that sanctifies you" (Exod. xxxi. 13), i.e., that all nations shall know that I am the Lord who sanctifies you. In a similar manner Scripture says:--If a man should rise, pretend to be a prophet, and show you his signs by which he desired to convince you that his words are true, know that God intends thereby to prove to the nations how firmly you believe in the truth of God's word, and how well you have comprehended the true Essence of God; that you cannot be misled by any tempter to corrupt your faith in God. Your religion will then afford guidance to all who seek the truth, and of all religions man will choose that which is so firmly established that it is not shaken by the performance of a miracle. For a miracle cannot prove that which is impossible; it is useful only as a confirmation of that which is possible, as we have explained in our Mishne-torah. (Yesodei ha-torah vii. f. viii. 3.)”

Rambam thus understands that a false prophet will come. It is human nature that some will try to use the idea of prophecy to take control. It is a potential side effect of our belief in prophecy. However if a miracle maker shows up and tells us to serve other gods, by denying him, we show the world how one should treat such situations. (Rambam here was addressing, in an indirect way, Christianity and Jesus).

Another interesting point made by Rambam is the word lada’at which usually is translated to know, as our translator did, really should be translated as “to make known”. He does it in other instances too, with the Mann as we will see and כִּי עַתָּה יָדַעְתִּי at the Akedah which he understands to mean “now I can use this to teach others what it means to fear God”.

A related case addressed by Rambam is Sinai and its impact on the immutability of the laws given there and in the torah. In Shemot 20:16 we read:

טז וַיֹּאמֶר מֹשֶׁה אֶל-הָעָם, אַל-תִּירָאוּ, כִּי לְבַעֲבוּר נַסּוֹת אֶתְכֶם, בָּא הָאֱלֹהִים; וּבַעֲבוּר, תִּהְיֶה יִרְאָתוֹ עַל-פְּנֵיכֶם--לְבִלְתִּי תֶחֱטָאוּ.
16 And Moses said unto the people: 'Fear not; for God is come to prove you, and that His fear may be before you, that ye sin not.'

Here again we are confronted with the word nassot (translated to prove you which is ambiguous apparently on purpose). Here is Rambam:

“The passage, "For God is come to prove you, and that his fear may be before your faces that ye sin not" expresses the same idea as is expressed in Deuteronomy (xiii. 4) In reference to a person who prophesies in the name of idols, namely in the words: "For the Lord your God puts you to proof to know whether you love the Lord." We have already explained the meaning of the latter passage. In the same sense Moses said to the Israelites when they stood round Mount Sinai: "Do not fear; the object of this great sight which you perceived is that you should see the truth with your own eyes. When the Lord your God, in order to show your faithfulness to Him, will put you to proof by a false prophet, who will tell you the reverse of what you have heard, you will remain firm and your steps will not slide. If I had come as a messenger as you desired, and had told you that which had been said unto me and which you had not heard, you would perhaps consider as true what another might tell you in opposition to that which you heard from me. But it is different now, as you have heard it in the midst of the great sight.”

The experience at Sinai where all had a perception of what prophecy is even though it scared them, was meant to give them certainty that Moshe’s prophecy is different and supersedes any future prophet who will try to contradict him. This applies, not only to Avodah Zara as before, but to any Mitzvah or law given by Moshe; it must not be changed. Here clearly one has to read Nassot as demonstrate to themselves and future generations that Torah is immutable. (Here I believe Rambam is addressing Christianity and Jesus as well as Islam and Mohammed.)

So far we have seen Rambam addressing three out of the four instances where he understands that the word Nissayon cannot mean testing but demonstration. We are left with one last one, the Mann, which I will address in an upcoming post.

This is very important to our understanding of providence. Accepting the traditional interpretation sees God as unjust. The idea that God tests someone to give him an opportunity to get rewards or to put into practice a potential (Ramban) is to Rambam a foreign influence into Judaism. In 3:17 he states:

According to this doctrine it is possible that a person be afflicted without having previously committed any sin, in order that his future reward may be increased; a view which is held by the Mu’tazilites, but is not supported by any Scriptural text. Be not misled by the accounts of trials, such as "God tried Abraham" (Gen. Xxii. 1); "He afflicted thee and made thee hungry," etc. (Deut. viii. 3); for you will hear more on this subject later on (chap. xxiv.).”

7 comments:

  1. the story of Iyov seems to describe God testing a man to see if he will sin or not. We are never shown what Iyov did to deserve any punishment, that's why the test was so great.

    ReplyDelete
  2. BS, I love you. I was thinking of making a comment about iyov but decided it would distract. It will be a good post - probably a few. Rambam dedicates two full chapters to him.

    ReplyDelete
  3. R. David,
    There seem to be two issues in this post. Let me question the second one-
    that the idea of “nissayon” is foreign to Judaism; that:

    “it is possible that a person be afflicted without having previously committed any sin, in order that his future reward may be increased ; a view which is held by the Mu’tazilites, but is not supported by any Scriptural text.”

    I would just like to direct your attention to Brachos 5ab, “yissurin shel ahava”. There does not seem to be a dissenting opinion. Several Biblical sources are cited, beginning with Proverbs 3:12, “es asher ye’ehav hashem yochiach”.

    How do we jettison tradional, unambiguous, explicit sources in favor of the latter day Rambam (with all due respect), who is apparently not relying on tradition to make such claims?

    Now, I’m not conversant with all of shas and there may be conflicting opinions cited elsewhere – but certainly this concept can not be denigrated as merely a foreign influence on Judaism.

    PG

    ReplyDelete
  4. PG,

    The Rambam acknowledges in the Moreh that this concept was accepted by some Amoraim, but he believes it to be incorrect.

    There is no obligation to follow any particular opinion of Hazal in Aggadic matters, especially when there are conflicting opinions within the Talmud itself. This is a guiding principle of many Rishonim when it comes to Hashqafa - after all, we have no way of knowing, and no reason to believe, that the Baale Mesorah all had the same philosophical views about everything, so why should we?

    Tosafot explains in Masechtot Shabbat and the 7th Chapter of Berachot that the question of whether there can be punishment without sin is a dispute among the Rabbis.

    Although Tosafot ultimately agree with the conclusion that Yisurim Shel Ahava exist, they acknowledge that there are different opinions on this point.

    ReplyDelete
  5. R. Phil, Rabbi Maroof's answer is correct. As I was copying the piece in Moreh this morning i was toying whether to start with a line earlier where Rambam addresses Yissurim shel ahavah. As he is cryptic I decided to skip it.

    In regard to your comment about rambam. You are not the only one and it is a misconception. Chazal are not monolithic. They have varied opinions from believing in magic to seeing it as idolatrous, from understanding providence as HKBH controlling every little detail to a laissez faire attitude day to day and so on. It is wrong to conflate these Shitot. Each one has a leg to stand on but one cannot say that both really agree and come up with a pilpul shel hevel to prove it. There were several schools of thought that were distinct and usually each school's thinking was consistent on all issues. The rishonim tried to seperate and categorize these schools and then analyzed them again and each chose his derech according to his understanding.

    That is why one cannot ask a Kashye from an Aggadata. It is not halachik and the Mesora never developed a method of deciding probably with good reason. Among the Rishonim there were two broad schools, Rambam's and Ramban's. Rambam based his thinking on the Rishonim that preceded him (his father, Ree Migash, Rif probably back to Rav Hai Gaon and his son in law R. Shmuel Ben Hofni) adding his own input while Ramban was more a follower of the Kuzari, Raavad of posquiere and his son R. Ytzchak the Blind with of course his own input.

    It is a matter of preference. Different people take to different ways of thinking. They all have one goal in mind, finding HKBH and understanding him to the utmost limit of their abilities. Being that HKBH is the ultimate truth, (see Rambam Yesodei Hatorah 1:2), they were wedded to truth. Let us hope we can emulate them.

    ReplyDelete
  6. >from believing in magic

    Correction: nobody permits magic. The question is does it work or is it nonsense.

    ReplyDelete
  7. >Let us hope we can emulate them.

    Amen, brother!

    ReplyDelete