Chasidut zu Schemot 23:20
הִנֵּ֨ה אָנֹכִ֜י שֹׁלֵ֤חַ מַלְאָךְ֙ לְפָנֶ֔יךָ לִשְׁמָרְךָ֖ בַּדָּ֑רֶךְ וְלַהֲבִ֣יאֲךָ֔ אֶל־הַמָּק֖וֹם אֲשֶׁ֥ר הֲכִנֹֽתִי׃
Siehe, ich sende einen Engel vor dir her, dich zu bewahren auf dem Wege und dich zu bringen an den Ort, den ich bereitet habe.
Kedushat Levi
Exodus 19,9.“and they will also have enduring faith in you.” Rashi understands the word: וגם, “and also,” as referring to the people having faith in the prophets in future generations.
I believe, that this conforms to what Nachmanides has written in his commentary on Parshat Mishpatim on Exodus 23,20, commencing with:הנה אנכי שולח מלאך לפניך...ועשית כל אשר דבר אליך, “Here I shall send an angel ahead of you and you shall do all that I will tell you to do,” to tell us that “you must not listen and do what the angel (prophet) tells you unless it conforms to what I tell you,” i.e. you must not listen to prophets when they tell you to violate any of the commandments G’d has revealed in the Torah. The word בך “within you,” are the key to understanding this verse. [The difficulty appears to be also the word לעולם, which normally is understood to mean “forever,” but is a term that cannot be applied in that sense to mortal human beings. Ed.] The Torah hints that if and when future prophets will tell the people what to do and this conforms to what Moses during his lifetime had told them to do, then the people’s faith in such prophets will be not only justified but they are commanded to obey such prophets. Rashi hints at this with the word אחריך, “after you,” which in his commentary is not to be understood as a time frame, i.e. after Moses has died, but as a reference to prophets who would “take after you,” i.e. teach the same Torah without perverting any of it. The Israelites’ duty to have faith in prophets after Moses’ death, is contingent on the loyalty of these prophets to Moses’ Torah.
If we need to look for proof that this interpretation of the word אחריך, is linguistically correct, the Talmud B’rachot 61 refers us to Judges 13,11 וילך מנוח אחרי אשתו, normally translated as “Manoach walked behind his wife,” instead it translates it as “Manoach followed the advice of his wife.” Similarly, here, the Jewish people are to follow that advice of their outstanding leader Moses during all future generations, i.e. לעולם.
Incidentally, we find that in the Zohar the מצות are also referred to as עצות when the author speaks of עיתין דאורייתא, “the Torah’s suggestions.” [I have found עיטין in the Zohar 7 times, only as describing either good or bad advice, never as referring to the Torah. Ed.]
In Maimonides’ hilchot Temurah, near the end, the author the author refers to his having interpreted the word שלישים in Exodus 14,7, normally translated as “captains” to refer to advisors, experts, men who recognize the truth, מועצות. Prophets who do not hand down to their people their true tradition and urge them to abandon some of the laws of the Torah could certainly not qualify for the term “prophet.”
What we have written answers the question asked by many how a “prophet” who performs a miracle or more than one miracle to legitimize himself in the eyes of the people could have been allowed to do so by G’d? The answer is simple. The Torah commands us not to believe the “prophet” on the basis of any so-called miracles he performs unless he does not suggest that the people do anything that contradicts what is their collective tradition since the time of Moses.
The Torah repeats this theme in greater details in Deuteronomy 13,1-5.
The author proceeds now to explain the word לעולם according to a method of exegesis he calls: דרך חדוד אמת.
The Talmud Yevamot 90 states, and this is accepted as a halachically valid conclusion by Maimonides in his introduction to his monumental work Mishneh Torah in the section entitled yessodey hatorah, “fundamental principles of the Torah,” (chapter 9,2) that if a prophet commands violation of a negative Biblical commandment temporarily, when circumstance demand this, as for instance when the prophet Elijah offered sacrifices on Mount Carmel after repairing a defunct altar in violation of the commandment that the only place where this may be done is in the Temple in Jerusalem, the people are not only permitted to obey his command but are obligated to do so on pain of the death penalty. The same principle does not hold true when said prophet commands, even temporarily, to violate a positive commandment of the Torah. Positive commandments of the Torah are never to be abolished, not even temporarily. This is what G’d had in mind when He had Moses write in the Torah that the people would have faith in Moses as a prophet, לעולם, “forever,” (for want of a better word.).
I believe, that this conforms to what Nachmanides has written in his commentary on Parshat Mishpatim on Exodus 23,20, commencing with:הנה אנכי שולח מלאך לפניך...ועשית כל אשר דבר אליך, “Here I shall send an angel ahead of you and you shall do all that I will tell you to do,” to tell us that “you must not listen and do what the angel (prophet) tells you unless it conforms to what I tell you,” i.e. you must not listen to prophets when they tell you to violate any of the commandments G’d has revealed in the Torah. The word בך “within you,” are the key to understanding this verse. [The difficulty appears to be also the word לעולם, which normally is understood to mean “forever,” but is a term that cannot be applied in that sense to mortal human beings. Ed.] The Torah hints that if and when future prophets will tell the people what to do and this conforms to what Moses during his lifetime had told them to do, then the people’s faith in such prophets will be not only justified but they are commanded to obey such prophets. Rashi hints at this with the word אחריך, “after you,” which in his commentary is not to be understood as a time frame, i.e. after Moses has died, but as a reference to prophets who would “take after you,” i.e. teach the same Torah without perverting any of it. The Israelites’ duty to have faith in prophets after Moses’ death, is contingent on the loyalty of these prophets to Moses’ Torah.
If we need to look for proof that this interpretation of the word אחריך, is linguistically correct, the Talmud B’rachot 61 refers us to Judges 13,11 וילך מנוח אחרי אשתו, normally translated as “Manoach walked behind his wife,” instead it translates it as “Manoach followed the advice of his wife.” Similarly, here, the Jewish people are to follow that advice of their outstanding leader Moses during all future generations, i.e. לעולם.
Incidentally, we find that in the Zohar the מצות are also referred to as עצות when the author speaks of עיתין דאורייתא, “the Torah’s suggestions.” [I have found עיטין in the Zohar 7 times, only as describing either good or bad advice, never as referring to the Torah. Ed.]
In Maimonides’ hilchot Temurah, near the end, the author the author refers to his having interpreted the word שלישים in Exodus 14,7, normally translated as “captains” to refer to advisors, experts, men who recognize the truth, מועצות. Prophets who do not hand down to their people their true tradition and urge them to abandon some of the laws of the Torah could certainly not qualify for the term “prophet.”
What we have written answers the question asked by many how a “prophet” who performs a miracle or more than one miracle to legitimize himself in the eyes of the people could have been allowed to do so by G’d? The answer is simple. The Torah commands us not to believe the “prophet” on the basis of any so-called miracles he performs unless he does not suggest that the people do anything that contradicts what is their collective tradition since the time of Moses.
The Torah repeats this theme in greater details in Deuteronomy 13,1-5.
The author proceeds now to explain the word לעולם according to a method of exegesis he calls: דרך חדוד אמת.
The Talmud Yevamot 90 states, and this is accepted as a halachically valid conclusion by Maimonides in his introduction to his monumental work Mishneh Torah in the section entitled yessodey hatorah, “fundamental principles of the Torah,” (chapter 9,2) that if a prophet commands violation of a negative Biblical commandment temporarily, when circumstance demand this, as for instance when the prophet Elijah offered sacrifices on Mount Carmel after repairing a defunct altar in violation of the commandment that the only place where this may be done is in the Temple in Jerusalem, the people are not only permitted to obey his command but are obligated to do so on pain of the death penalty. The same principle does not hold true when said prophet commands, even temporarily, to violate a positive commandment of the Torah. Positive commandments of the Torah are never to be abolished, not even temporarily. This is what G’d had in mind when He had Moses write in the Torah that the people would have faith in Moses as a prophet, לעולם, “forever,” (for want of a better word.).
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy