דף הביתשיעוריםSanhedrin

Sanhedrin 132

נושא: Sanhedrin




Sanhedrin 132

BET MIDRASH VIRTUALI
of the Rabbinical Assembly in Israel


RABIN MISHNAH STUDY GROUP

Bet Midrash Virtuali

TRACTATE SANHEDRIN, CHAPTER TEN (ELEVEN), MISHNAH FIVE:

נְבִיא הַשֶּׁקֶר הַמִּתְנַבֵּא עַל מַה שֶׁלֹּא שָׁמַע וּמַה שֶׁלֹּא נֶאֱמַר לוֹ, מִיתָתוֹ בִידֵי אָדָם. אֲבָל הַכּוֹבֵשׁ אֶת נְבוּאָתוֹ וְהַמְוַתֵּר עַל דִּבְרֵי הַנָּבִיא וְנָבִיא שֶׁעָבַר עַל דִּבְרֵי עַצְמוֹ, מִיתָתָן בִּידֵי שָׁמַיִם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: "אָנֹכִי אֶדְרשׁ מֵעִמּו"":

The false prophet is one who prophesies about something which he has not heard and which has not been spoken to him: his death in is the hands of man. But he who suppresses his prophesy, he who dismisses the words of a prophet, or the prophet who transgresses his own words – their death is in the hands of heaven, as it is said, "I shall demand of him".

EXPLANATIONS

1:
At the start of this present chapter we were given a list of those offences whose punishment is death by strangulation. The list included "a false prophet" and it is the false prophet who is the subject of our present mishnah. Since the next mishnah will have as its subject the idolatrous prophet it is perhaps worth while to distinguish between the two. The false prophet is a Jew who claims to have had a revelation from God when he has not had such a revelation. The idolatrous prophet is a Jew who claims to have had a revelation from a deity other than God (which is a self-evident falsehood by a biblical standard). Both of these situations are fraught with problems for the objective person.

2:
The source of the case of the false prophet is in the Torah:

A prophet who shall dare to utter in my name that which I have not commanded him to say … that prophet shall die [Deuteronomy 18:20].

Since the Torah does not specify which of the four modes of execution applies to the false prophet we can apply the general rule that we learned in Sanhedrin 122: "a rule of exegetical thumb states that wherever the Torah does not stipulate the specific mode of execution to be used, strangulation applies". Our mishnah also adds three other offences and they form the seifa [last section] of our mishnah. At this stage we shall concentrate on the reisha [first section] of our mishnah.

3:
The verse which comes immediately after the verse that we have quoted above introduces the problematica of the situation: "And should you ask yourself how can we know what which God did not say…" [Deuteronomy 18:21]: how can anyone know who is a true and who is a false prophet? Both claim to speak in the name of God and both seem to use similar language and oratorical techniques. We cannot say that this is not "our" problem and that we can "safely leave it to God", since, as our mishnah states quite clearly, the doom of the false prophet is left to the human court to execute.

4:
Before we continue, I am going to make a short excursus into the problematica of the prophetic phenomenon. To start off with, let us examine the case of one true prophet – Jeremiah. Much of the material here was originally posted by me in Sanhedrin 025, but I am going to repeat it in toto for two reasons: firstly, as long as the search apparatus of our web archive is out of commission it would be foolish of me to refer people to it; secondly, many people are constantly joining our group and they would have no access to the material – not even from memory.

Since there was no outward sign that he could offer the general public to "prove" that he had a commission from God, the true prophet was in a cleft stick: he could prove that he had a commission from God, and by the same token he could not disprove a similar claim from a false prophet. Jeremiah is a perfect example of a prophet in such a predicament. One of the major differences between the genuine prophet and the false prophet, from our point of view, is a psychological one that can only be appreciated with benefit of hindsight. The false prophets seem to have been self-motivated and they seem to pursue their task with enthusiasm. This is not the case with those genuine prophets whose attitude to their status is known to us – and Jeremiah was a person who revealed his innermost feelings with great pathos. We know of the reluctance of Moses and of Isaiah to accept their commission [Exodus 4 and Isaiah 6], but Jeremiah can serve as a paradigm for them all. His "call" is described in the very first chapter of the book that bears his name. The title of his book [1:1-3] describes him as being of priestly descent, from a village just to the north of Jerusalem. His career is said to have begun in the 13th year of King Josiah and to have continued until after the collapse of Judean independence and the mass deportation to Babylon. We know from later chapters in his book that Jeremiah was not among the deportees, and that he ended up as a refugee in Egypt (one of the greatest ironies in the history of Israelite prophecy). The Deportation to Babylon took place in the summer of 587 BCE and Jeremiah's unwilling flight to Egypt must have taken place within a couple of months after that. Since Josiah ascended the throne of Judah in the year 640/39 BCE, we can date Jeremiah's call with considerable exactitude to the year 627 BCE. If his career extended until after 587 BCE, he was publicly active for at least forty years! This means also that he must have been a teenager or in his early twenties at the most when he received his call.

In verse 5 of Chapter 1 Jeremiah hears God telling him that he was chosen to be a prophet even before he was born! The young man is aghast and (like Moses) makes excuses why he shouldn't be required to perform this task: "Oh dear God, I don't know how to speak publicly, I'm only a boy" [verse 6]. "Don't you tell me that you are only a boy! Wherever I send you you will go, whatever I order you will say!" [verse 7]. Not a very encouraging start! God's next words are even more discouraging: "Do not be afraid of them: I will be with you to save you" [verse 8]. From this, Jeremiah can learn that there is, indeed, something to be afraid of! (Very many times during his career as a prophet he was in mortal danger; he was publicly humiliated by the authorities, he was imprisoned, he was threatened, he was ridiculed, and assassins – both paid and unpaid – threatened his life. And all this is faithfully documented in his book.) The rest of the chapter explains why Jeremiah will be in danger: his message will be a socio-political one, and it will involve direct confrontation with the government and the priestly hierarchy. (It is noteworthy that this chapter is the Haftarah for the first of the three Sabbaths preceding Tish'ah b'Av.)

We thus see that Jeremiah did not choose to become a prophet, and would rather have declined the invitation. Being a prophet in biblical Israel was not a pleasant occupation. There must have been many times during his career that Jeremiah wanted to give up and just become an "ordinary" citizen. We know of one such occasion, described in chapter 20. Jeremiah had been preaching his usual message in the Temple precincts, but his "usual" message was not one that the priests could agree with. Socially, Jeremiah taught that if Judean society in general did not start acting with greater moral and ethical identity with God's law it could not survive and the very Temple itself would be destroyed. The priestly caste held that God would never destroy His own house, therefore Judah was inviolate regardless of the behaviour of her citizens. Jeremiah's preaching on the occasion in question must have been similar to his preaching elsewhere.

Do you think you can rob, murder, fornicate, perjure yourselves… and just come and stand before Me in this House which bears My Name, and think that you are saved thereby in order to [continue doing] all these atrocities?! Has this House become then a den for reprobate wretches?…" [7:9-10]

This is a society that we can recognize.

On another occasion [29:26] one of Jeremiah's enemies had reminded the priests in Jerusalem that they had the authority to incarcerate "every madman and prophet" or to put them in the mahapekhet. This was exactly what happened on this occasion: one of the senior priests arrested Jeremiah and put him into this contraption called a mahapekhet. We may guess that this was some kind of stocks, but that the victim was rotated in some way. When he is finally released from this public indignity Jeremiah is outwardly unrepentant, but in the privacy of his own room he pours out his anguished soul before his God, whom he views as a tyrant, or as a rapist:

You seduced me, God, and I let myself be seduced! You were stronger than me and it was You who prevailed. I am an object of public derision all day long, everyone laughs at me. Whenever I preach I have to cry "violence! pillage!" [instead of the nice things I would like to say] So God's word has nothing but reproach and shame for me all day long. So I tell myself that I will no longer speak in God's name. But then there is a kind of fire in my heart, a burning within my very bones; I become weak from trying to hold it in and can no longer do so. I hear the many slanders, terror on all sides. "You denounce him and then we'll denounce him." All my so-called friends watching my every step… [20:7-10]

This does not sound like a person who has taken this task of his own volition. He is motivated, as he himself admits, by some inner compulsion over which his rationality has no control. Thus far the etiology of the genuine prophet.

To be continued.

DISCUSSION

On February 6th I wrote about …how we have "deteriorated" from such halakhic unanimity to our modern halakhic pluralism… Rambam addresses this issue… Mishneh Torah… we do not necessarily head either the former of the latter opinion, but whichever seems to us more reasonable… Granted that this picture is greatly idealized in its details, but… it has the hallmark of authenticity…

My colleague David Bockman writes:

I agree that the description is a simplified version of historical fact, but Rambam's 'conclusion' (you follow what seems more 'reasonable') is just that: a conclusion he draws from the circumstances, filtered through the powerful lens of his Neo-Aristotelian reliance on logic and reason as ultimate arbiters. Not that I quibble with his method (since that makes sense), but it seems to me that even in the orthodox world today, among people who venerate the Rambam, they tend to rely much more on 'halachic authority' or provenance (meaning 'who says it') than the Rambam's statement would allow. No?


My old friend Ed Frankel has sent me this message concerning the colour of Tefillin (which was part of the shiur in Sanhedrin 130):

Regarding the discussion of tefillin, I remember years ago studying the Beta Yisrael [from Ethiopia – SR] who had theoretically had no contact with rabbinic Judaism. Apparently they wore phylacteries that resembled our tefillin from their understanding of Torah law. If I recall, theirs were red.

I respond:

I have checked with a knowledgeable Jew from Ethiopia and he knows nothing of Tefillin coloured red.




דילוג לתוכן