Комментарий о цитате к Ирмеяу 27:19

and some of the vessels of the House of God he took, and some of them remained, as is stated (in Jeremiah 27:19): “so has the Lord of Hosts said concerning the pillars, concerning the sea, concerning the bases, and concerning the rest of the vessels, which Nebuchadnezzar did not take into exile (sic).”

The sin of Moses and Aaron in the [matter of the] waters of Meribah⁸³Further, Verses 7-13. I.e., the verses do not state explicitly what constituted the sin of Moses and Aaron, but it was clearly considered a grave one. Ramban proceeds to discuss various explanations at length. is not clearly expressed in Scripture. Rashi explains⁸⁴Verses 11-12. that [their sin consisted of hitting the rock], because He had commanded them, and speak ye unto the rock,⁸⁵Verse 8. and did not say “and ye shall strike it.” For had they spoken [to the rock and it had brought forth water] the Holy One, blessed be He, would have been sanctified before the whole congregation, since the people would have said: “If [even] this rock, which does not hear and does not speak, nonetheless obeys the command of the Holy One, blessed be He, how much more so should we [obey His commands]!” These words are [in the nature of] a homiletic interpretation,⁸⁶Found in Midrash Agadah, here on Verse 8. — In other words, Ramban does not question the homiletic truth of this interpretation, for it is surely conducive to gaining the proper awe for the word of G-d. But it does not clarify the matter of the verses. but they do not clarify [the matter]. For since G-d had commanded Moses: Take the rod,⁸⁵Verse 8. it implied that he should smite [the rock] with it, for had He only wanted that he should speak to it, what was [the point of] this rod in his hand? Similarly, in the [case of the] plagues of Egypt where He said, and the rod which was turned to a serpent shalt thou take in thy hand⁸⁷Exodus 7:15. it was in order to smite with it;⁸⁸Ibid., Verse 17: I will smite with the rod that is in my hand upon the waters which are in the river. and sometimes He said, Stretch forth thy hand [with thy rod],⁸⁹Ibid., 8:1. when the meaning is: “to smite with the rod,” since Scripture writes briefly when the subject-matter is self-understood. Moreover, the miracle [involved in the rock giving forth water] is no greater if [accomplished] by speech than by smiting, for as far as the rock is concerned both are equal. Furthermore [if the sin consisted of smiting the rock], why did He say about this: ye [Moses and Aaron] trespassed against Me?⁹⁰Deuteronomy 32:51. [It cannot be because they failed to speak to the rock], for the [fulfillment of the] command to [Moses to] speak to the rock is indeed [also] mentioned at the occurrence [of the event]! Thus He commanded [Moses and Aaron] to say whilst the rock “listens” that G-d will bring forth water out of this rock, similar to [that which Joshua said about a stone which he put up as a witness to the covenant which he made with the people], for ‘it hath heard’ all the words of the Eternal.⁹¹Joshua 24:27. And they [Moses and Aaron] indeed did so, as Scripture states, And Moses and Aaron gathered the assembly together before the rock, and he said unto them etc.⁹²Further, Verse 10. Thus it is obvious that Moses did utter the Divine message whilst the rock “listened.” And so why did Rashi attribute to Moses the lack of speaking in this event! Thus the rock did “hear” when he [Moses] spoke these words to all the people!
Now Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra has already refuted many claims of the commentators in [their explanations of the nature of] this sin. But the secret⁹³Ibn Ezra alludes to the Cabalistic concept that when a person’s mind cleaves solely to G-d, he can accomplish miracles. Now G-d told Moses to speak to the rock, and had he done so with single-minded devotion to G-d, he would have been able thereby to bring forth water. But when he began rebuking the people for their complaints, he lost that complete concentration of mind which was required for invoking G-d’s miraculous intervention to bring forth water, and he then proceeded to smite the rock. When this failed to produce any water, he smote it a second time, by which time he had regained his original complete concentration of mind on G-d, so that the water then came forth. Ramban rejects this interpretation. to which he alluded is also incorrect. For if Moses lost his concentration of mind because of the strife of the people, and [therefore] did not speak to the rock, so that the water did not come forth [when he smote the rock] the first time, and only when he hit the rock again, a second time, with concentration of cleaving unto [the Creator of] all, did the water come forth [as Ibn Ezra explains] — then they [indeed] sinned the first time, but it was not such [a sin] about which He would say: ye believed not in Me, to sanctify Me,⁹⁴Verse 12. since there was no lack of “faith” here at all!
Now Rabbeinu Rabbi Moshe [ben Maimon] advanced the following reasoning,⁹⁵In his Shemonah Perakim (The Eight Chapters), Chapter 4. These chapters are Maimonides’ introduction to the Tractate Aboth, which contains the roots of ethical and moral teachings of the Rabbis of the Mishnah. and explained “that the sin of Moses our teacher, of blessed memory, consisted of tending towards anger, when he said, Hear now ye rebels,⁹⁶Verse 10. and G-d, blessed be He, treated this as a failing, that a man like him should show anger in front of the congregation of Israel, in a situation in which anger was not warranted. All similar actions of such a man are treated as a profanation of G-d’s Name, because the people take an example from all his [Moses’] movements and words, hoping thereby to achieve successes⁹⁷In our “Shemonah Perakim” it is in the singular: “success.” The word is here indicative of achievement of those qualities of character which make one’s life “a success” in the noblest sense of the word. in this world and the World to Come. How could he [permit himself to] appear angry, since it [anger] is an evil trait, and is derived only from a bad characteristic of the features of the soul! But when He said of this sin: ye trespassed against Me,⁹⁰Deuteronomy 32:51. [the meaning thereof] is as I shall explain. Moses was not speaking to simpletons, nor to those of insignificant status, for the least important of their women was [equal in prophetic vision] to [the prophet] Ezekiel the son of Buzi, as the Sages have mentioned.⁹⁸“A maidservant saw at the [splitting of the Red] Sea what the prophet Ezekiel never saw” (Mechilta, Exodus 15:25). See Vol. II, p. 228. Thus whatever Moses said or did the people would examine, so that when they saw him becoming angry, they said that he — may his memory be blessed — did not lack moral perfection, and therefore ‘unless he knew that G-d was angry with us for demanding water, and that we have aroused His anger, blessed be He, Moses also would not have been angry with us.’ But we do not find that G-d, praised be He, was angry [with the people] when He spoke to Moses on this matter. But [instead] He said: Take the rod, and assemble the congregation, thou, and Aaron thy brother, and speak ye unto the rock before their eyes, that it give forth its water; and thou shalt bring forth to them water out of the rock; so thou shalt give the congregation and their cattle drink.⁸⁵Verse 8. [This statement does not indicate that G-d was angry with the people for having demanded water, and hence Moses’ anger was unjustified.] Thus we have solved one of the most difficult problems in the Torah, concerning which many things have been said, and which has been asked many times, namely: ‘what was the sin which Moses committed?’ Consider what has been said [by others] about it, and what we ourselves have explained, and let the truth prevail.” These are the words of Rabbi Moshe [ben Maimon] of blessed memory.
He has added vanity upon vanities!⁹⁹See Ecclesiastes 1:2. — In other words, yet another interpretation has been added to those of the previous commentators which are not satisfactory. For Scripture says ye trespassed against Me,⁹⁰Deuteronomy 32:51. meaning that they transgressed His command, and He [further] stated, ye believed not in Me,⁹⁴Verse 12. meaning that they lacked faith in Him, [and if so] the punishment [of Moses] was not because he showed anger! [Were this to be his sin], Moses would have deserved punishment [not so much here as] when he was wroth with the officers of the host¹⁰⁰Further, 31:14. for no reason. Moreover, Scripture [here] does not mention anything about him being angry, for the expression Hear now, ye rebels⁹⁶Verse 10. is [merely a form of] rebuke, similar to that which he [Moses] said: Ye have been rebellious against the Eternal.¹⁰¹Deuteronomy 9:24. Furthermore, Aaron never in his life became angry, for he always walked in peace and uprightness.¹⁰²Malachi 2:6. — Yet Verse 12 clearly states that Aaron too, was to be punished, although according to Rambam’s explanation he had not sinned! Besides, it is impossible [to suggest, as Rambam does], that G-d was not very angry with them [the people] for their strife with Moses! For throughout all their [previous] trials in the wilderness, their greatest sin was when they said, wherefore hast thou brought us up out of Egypt?¹⁰³Exodus 17:3. and they preferred to be slaves to their enemies doing rigorous work, rather than to be G-d’s [people], like a son who serves his father. Thus Scripture says: because that ye have rejected the Eternal Who is among you, and have troubled Him with weeping, saying: ‘Why, now, came we forth out of Egypt?’¹⁰⁴Above, 11:20. On the first occasion they said even less than this, [namely], Wherefore hast thou brought us up out of Egypt, to kill us and our children and our cattle with thirst?¹⁰³Exodus 17:3. and yet there was great [Divine] wrath against them, and [it was considered] a great sin, just as it is said, And the name of the place was called Massah [Trying] and Meribah [Strife], because of the striving of the children of Israel etc.¹⁰⁵Exodus 17:7. And here it says expressly, These are the waters of Meribah [Strife], where the children of Israel strove with the Eternal!¹⁰⁶Further, Verse 13. Thus Scripture here emphasizes that the people’s sin consisted of striving with the Eternal, and this is not so according to Maimonides’ explanation, as Ramban continues. What greater transgression can there be than this! Woe unto him that striveth with his Maker!¹⁰⁷Isaiah 45:9. And Moses said, Also the Eternal was angry with me for your sakes, saying: ‘Thou also shalt not go in thither.’¹⁰⁸Deuteronomy 1:37. If so, it was they [the people] who sinned and brought about all this misfortune! But according to the explanation of the Rabbi [Moshe ben Maimon], they did not commit any transgression and sin at all in this whole affair! And as for that which Rabbi Moshe said: “We do not find that G-d, praised be He, was angry [with the people when He spoke to Moses on this matter], but instead He said: Take the rod etc.”⁸⁶Found in Midrash Agadah, here on Verse 8. — In other words, Ramban does not question the homiletic truth of this interpretation, for it is surely conducive to gaining the proper awe for the word of G-d. But it does not clarify the matter of the verses. — know that whenever the people needed something for their sustenance, even though they murmured and transgressed [in asking] for it, He, being full of compassion, forgiveth iniquity … and does not stir up all His wrath,¹⁰⁹Psalms 78:38. nor does He hold [their sin against them], but He gives them their request.¹¹⁰See ibid., 106:15. Similarly in the [case of the] first [request for] water He said in a peaceful manner, Pass on before the people etc.,¹¹¹Exodus 17:5. even though there was trial and strife there,¹⁰⁵Exodus 17:7. such that He warned them [not to try G-d] in future generations [using it as an example].¹¹²Deuteronomy 6:16 — Ye shall not try the Eternal your G-d, as ye tried Him in Massah. (See also “The Commandments,” Vol. II, pp. 63-64). So also in connection with the manna [He said], Behold, I will cause to rain bread from heaven for you,¹¹³Exodus 16:4. Thus G-d showed them love and affection although they sinned in murmuring and complaining. in a phrase indicating love and affection. Only at the end, in the second communication, He said, I have heard the murmurings of the children of Israel,¹¹⁴Ibid., Verse 12. merely in order to tell them that they had sinned. But [it is only] when they complained for no [good] reason, that He poured upon them the fury of His anger.¹¹⁵Isaiah 42:25. And here there is an additional allusion to great wrath, and [the people] being liable to a plague, as it is said, and the glory of the Eternal appeared unto them.¹¹⁶Verse 6. [The expression unto them] refers to the assembly mentioned [in the first part of the verse], which indicates “the hand of the Eternal” that is present in plagues, as you may note in [incidents of] the spies,¹¹⁷Above, 14:10-12: and the glory of the Eternal appeared … ‘I will smite them with the pestilence.’ the day of Korach’s punishment,¹¹⁸Ibid., 16:19: and the glory of the Eternal appeared … The destruction of Korach and his company followed, as related ibid., (Verses 31-33). and the following day.¹¹⁹Ibid., 17:7: and the glory of the Eternal appeared … This was followed by a plague, as related there in Verses 11-14. And one must [moreover] wonder at the Rabbi [Moshe ben Maimon, who wrote that the people committed no sin in this affair] since the verse explicitly states, They angered Him also at the waters of Meribah, and it went ill with Moses because of them!¹²⁰Psalms 106:32. — See my Hebrew commentary, pp. 274-276 for various defenses of Rambam’s interpretation of Moses’ sin at Meribah. In his Sefer Hazikaron (see Vol. I, Preface pp. x-xi) Rabbi Yom Tov ben Abraham (Ritba) concludes his defense of Rambam’s opinion as follows: “And although I know that the tradition of our master, Rabbi Moshe ben Nachman (Ramban) of blessed memory, in the matter of Moses’ sin is the true tradition which one cannot criticize, yet there are seventy [different] interpretations of the Torah, and they are all the words of the living G-d.” Ramban’s own explanation follows now in the text. And the verse [there] counts this sin amongst the great trials with which they [the people] tested G-d in the wilderness!
The most likely explanation amongst all those that have been said about this matter, and the one best suited to answer a questioner, is that of Rabbeinu Chananel,¹²¹See above, Seder Korach, Note 48. who wrote [in his commentary] that the sin consisted of their saying, are ‘we’ to bring you forth water out of this rock?⁹⁶Verse 10. They should [not have said “are we”, but] “shall the Eternal bring you forth water?” just as they had said when ‘the Eternal shall give’ you in the evening flesh to eat etc.,¹²²Exodus 16:8. and similarly in [the case of all the] miracles they [Moses and Aaron] informed them that the Eternal would do wonders for them. And [since they did not say so here], perhaps the people thought that Moses and Aaron brought forth the water for them out of the rock through their own wisdom [and that it was not a Divine miracle]. This is [what G-d referred to in saying], ye sanctified Me not.¹²³Deuteronomy 32:51. Now in the case of the first episode with the rock, He said, Behold, I will stand before thee there upon the rock in Horeb,¹²⁴Exodus 17:6. and the seventy elders saw the pillar of the cloud¹²⁵Ibid., 13:21. hovering over the rock, and thus it was made apparent to all that the miracle was the deed of the Great G-d. But here, since the people saw nothing, they misunderstood the words of Moses and Aaron [as explained above].¹²⁶See the comments of later scholars on Rabbeinu Chananel’s explanation of this topic, quoted in my edition of Rabbeinu Chananel al Hatorah (Mosad Harav Kook, Jerusalem, 5732).
It is possible that He said ‘m’altem bi’ (ye ‘trespassed’ against Me),¹²³Deuteronomy 32:51. because if one derives benefit from a sacred object, it is called me’ilah.¹²⁷Here too, a deed which was in reality a Divine miracle came to be ascribed to Moses’ and Aaron’s own doing, as explained above, because they said, are ‘we’ to bring you forth water out of this rock? In a way, then, Moses and Aaron thereby “derived benefit” from a sanctified matter. Similarly, He said ‘m’rithem pi’ (ye rebelled against My commandment)¹²⁸Further, 27:14. because He had commanded them to speak unto the rock before their eyes,¹²⁹Verse 8. in order that I should become sanctified in their eyes. Or [it may be that m’rithem pi¹²⁸Further, 27:14. means] “you have ‘changed’ My commandment,” related to the expression ‘vatemer’ (and she changed) My ordinances,¹³⁰Ezekiel 5:6. since I did not command you to speak in this manner [are ‘we’ to bring you forth water out of this rock?]. And [according to Rabbeinu Chananel’s explanation, the criticism that] lo he’emantem bi¹³¹Verse 12. (ye believed not in Me) refers [not to Moses and Aaron themselves lacking in belief, but] to the children of Israel [i.e., it does not mean, as it is generally translated, “ye believed not in Me,” but “‘ye did not cause the children of Israel to believe in Me’ because you did not attribute to Me the bringing forth of the water from the rock”]. Or [the word he’emantem] may mean “strengthening,” as if to say: “you did not strengthen yourselves to sanctify Me in their eyes,” related to these expressions: ‘va’amanah’ (and a ‘sure’ ordinance) concerning the singers;¹³²Nehemiah 11:23. Meaning: “a strong” ordinance. the peg that was fastened ‘bimkom ne’eman’ (in a ‘sure’ place).¹³³Isaiah 22:25. Meaning “a strong” place.
The Truth [Cabalistic explanation] is that this subject [i.e., the nature of Moses’ sin in the incident of the waters of Meribah] is one of the great secrets amongst the mysteries of the Torah. For on the first [occasion with the rock] He said to Moses, Behold, I will stand before thee there upon the rock in Horeb; and thou shalt smite the rock,¹²⁴Exodus 17:6. meaning to say: “My Great Name will be upon the rock in Horeb,” which is the Glory of the Eternal, the devouring fire on the top of the mount.¹³⁴Exodus 24:17. The verse reads: ‘like’ devouring fire. Therefore he only hit it there once, and a great amount of water came forth. But here He did not tell him so, and so both of them [Moses and Aaron] agreed that they would smite the rock twice — and that was their sin. Therefore He said, lo he’emantem bi,¹³¹Verse 12. “you did not put faith in My Name [when you should have known]¹³⁵Abusaula. See my Hebrew commentary p. 276. that by faith [alone] the miracle will be done.” It states, ‘m’rithem pi’ (ye rebelled against My commandment),¹²⁸Further, 27:14. because they rebelled against His holy spirit,¹³⁶See Isaiah 63:10. which is always called pi Hashem (the commandment of the Eternal).¹³⁷See Ramban above, 10:6. Therefore He said, ‘m’altem’ bi,¹²³Deuteronomy 32:51. and the term me’ilah always denotes “untruth.”¹³⁸In this case the “untruth” consisted of thinking that there would be no water unless they would hit the rock twice (Abusaula). Thus the sin [of Moses and Aaron] is clearly expressed in Scripture. And so did the Psalmist say, [Tremble thou earth …] at the presence of the G-d of Jacob; Who turneth the rock into a pool of water.¹³⁹Psalms 114:7-8. And you can understand this from Moses’ prayer, when he said, O G-d Eternal, Thou hast begun,¹⁴⁰Deuteronomy 3:24. pleading before the Glorious Name¹⁴¹Ibid., 28:58. to forgive him.
And in the opinion of our Rabbis¹⁴²Sifre, Matoth 157. who mention Moses’ anger [as a factor in his sin], it is possible that he hit the rock but [only] a few drops came forth as a result of the diminution in his concentration because of his anger, and they both [Moses and Aaron] were astonished at this, and decided to hit the rock a second time, as I have mentioned, and that was the sin of both of them.
In my opinion, the meaning of the phrase, and speak ye ‘el’ (unto) the rock¹²⁹Verse 8. is like ‘al’ (concerning) the rock. Similarly, Thus saith the Eternal of hosts ‘el’ the pillars, and concerning the sea, and concerning the bases … they shall be carried unto Babylon.¹⁴³Jeremiah 27:19; 22. The verse clearly does not mean “unto the pillars,” but “concerning the pillars.” Thus He commanded them [Moses and Aaron] to say in the presence of the congregation, when they are all gathered together, that G-d will bring them forth water out of the rock, as He indeed did. Now do not find a difficulty¹⁴⁴The difficulty is as follows: If we explain [as we have done hitherto] that speak ye ‘el’ the rock means “to” the rock, and the rock will listen, then the following word l’eineihem (before their eyes) fits in perfectly. The speaking by Moses and Aaron with the rock listening, is to be done before “the eyes” of the people. But if as we now explain speak ye ‘el’ the rock as meaning ‘al’ the rock [“concerning” the rock] while the people are to listen, how is the word l’eineihem in accord with the thought, since people do not listen with “their eyes?” Hence Ramban proceeds to remove this difficulty by pointing out that the word l’eineihem is Scripturally not always used in a literal sense and here it means “in their presence.” in the verse, and ‘speak’ ye unto the rock ‘before their eyes,’¹²⁹Verse 8. for the meaning thereof is like “in their presence”, so that they should all hear it. Similarly [we find]: And Hananiah ‘spoke before the eyes of’ [which means: “in the presence of”] all the people, saying: ‘Thus saith the Eternal: Even so will I break the yoke of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon etc.’¹⁴⁵Jeremiah 28:11. There are many cases like this. Or the meaning of the word l’eineihem (before their eyes) here may be that [Moses’] speaking [to the rock] should be when the people are all gathered there, and the rock is before their eyes, as it says when the event [actually took place], And Moses and Aaron gathered the assembly together ‘before the rock’.⁹⁶Verse 10. For when they had gathered together there and saw the rock face to face, they [Moses and Aaron] said, are we to bring you forth water out of this rock?⁹⁶Verse 10. — as the Sages have mentioned¹⁴⁶Tanchuma, Chukath 6. — so that they should not say that there were springs [hidden at that place]. It is possible that the verse is to be [interpreted] as if it were transposed, meaning: “assemble the congregation unto the rock, and speak ye before their eyes, that it give forth water.”

V’CHI'(AND WHEN) THOU SAY IN THY HEART: ‘HOW SHALL WE KNOW THE WORD WHICH THE ETERNAL HATH NOT SPOKEN?’ “You are destined to say this when Hananiah the son of Azur [the false prophet] will come and prophesy, Behold, the vessels of the Eternal’s House shall now shortly be brought back from Babylon²¹⁵Jeremiah 27:16. while Jeremiah [the true prophet] stands and proclaims concerning the pillars, and concerning the sea, and concerning the bases, and concerning the residue of the vessels²¹⁶Ibid., Verse 19. which were not exiled with Jeconiah,²¹⁷Eleven years before the destruction of the First Temple, Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, took into captivity Jeconiah, king of Judah, together with some of the vessels of the Temple. In the interim, during the reign of Zedekiah the last king of Judah, the false prophet told the people that shortly the sacred vessels will be brought from Babylon and that, therefore, Zedekiah need not submit politically to Babylon. Jeremiah the true prophet warned that, if they would not submit to Babylon, even the vessels still remaining in the Sanctuary would be carried away. they shall be carried to Babylon²¹⁸Ibid., Verse 22. with the exile of Zedekiah.” This is Rashi’s language from the Sifre.²¹⁹Sifre, Shoftim 178. This interpretation [of the Sifre] is based on the fact that the verse does not state “v’im (and if) thou say in thy heart” [but it states ‘v’chi’ — (and when) thou say in thy heart]. This is as I have mentioned²²⁰Above, 4:25. that the Torah tells future events through allusions. But the purport of the verse is to say, “How shall we know the word which the Eternal hath not spoken, so that we can slay the one who so prophesies?” And he commanded that if the event does not come to pass then he should be killed because the Eternal hath not spoken it.²²¹Verse 22. Do not fear him²²¹Verse 22. because of his wisdom or because of the sign that he gave [even though] the sign or the wonder did come to pass.²²²Above, 13:3. Similarly the people could ask, “How shall we know the word which G-d had spoken, to which we have been obligated to hearken in whatever He shall command?” But this [Verse 22] is the answer to both questions,²²³I.e., how shall we know the word which G-d had not spoken, and how shall we know the word which He had spoken? for, in the case of every prophet we should look ahead to that which he foretold. If it does not come to pass we shall know that he is a false prophet and he is to be killed, and if all that he predicted does come to pass he is established to be a prophet of the Eternal,²⁰⁵I Samuel 3:20. and we are bound to hearken to him in all that he commands in the name of G-d, just as he said, unto him ye shall hearken.²⁰⁹Verse 15. Even to transgress the words of the Torah, [we are required to obey him] provided that it is to meet the particular need of the time, as in the case of Elijah on Mount Carmel²²⁴I Kings 18:23-39. See also Ramban above, 13:4. [who, in his attempt to discredit idolatry, brought offerings to G-d on Mount Carmel despite the fact that it was forbidden to do so outside the Sanctuary Court in Jerusalem]. This is the sense of the expression, [a prophet] like unto me,²⁰⁹Verse 15. [And G-d said, I will raise them up a prophet] like unto thee,²²⁵Verse 18. meaning that he will first be established a prophet of the Eternal either by a sign or wonder, similar to what is said [of Moses], and he did the signs in the sight of the people. And the people believed,²²⁶Exodus 4:30-31. — or that he foretells some future event and it occurs. And thus the Rabbis have said in Tractate Sanhedrin:²²⁷Sanhedrin 89 a-b. “Whoever disobeys a prophet, is liable to death by the hands of Heaven, as it is written, I will require it of him.”²²⁸Verse 19. And there the Rabbis asked: “And how is one to know that someone is a prophet [and that, for refusing to obey him,] he will be punished? If the prophet gave him a sign. But in the case of Micaiah²²⁹In I Kings 20:35 it is told that, following a decisive battle in which Ahab king of Israel defeated Ben-hadad of Syria, Ahab befriended Ben-hadad instead of killing him as a prophet had commanded him to do. To show G-d’s displeasure with Ahab, Scripture relates, And a certain man of the sons of the prophets said unto his fellow by the word of the Eternal: ‘Smite me, I pray thee.’ And the man refused to smite him. The following verse says that the man was slain by a lion because of his refusal to obey the prophet. The lesson was clear: just as that man was punished, so would Ahab be punished for disobeying the prophetic command to smite Ben-hadad. Now this certain man of the sons of the prophets is identified by tradition as having been Micaiah [a prophet mentioned there in Chapter 22 Verse 13]. When Micaiah ordered the man to smite him, he gave no sign that he was a prophet, yet the man was punished for disobeying! Hence the Gemara’s question: How was he to know that Micaiah was a prophet? the prophet gave him no sign and yet he was punished [for refusing to hearken to him! The Gemara answered]: It is different when a person is known to be an established prophet [in which case he need not give a sign]. And if this is not the case, how did Isaac hearken to Abraham on Mount Moriah [to submit himself to slaughter, a command, which had been given to Abraham but not to him]? And how did we rely on Elijah on Mount Carmel to bring offerings outside [the Sanctuary Court in Jerusalem? Obviously we must say that] it is different if the prophet is established [in which case he must be obeyed even if he does not offer a sign].”
Now Rashi wrote:²³⁰Verse 22. Rashi attempts to answer the question, how we are to know when to obey some one who claims to be a prophet? Regarding such a case, he writes, “they have already etc.” “They have already been commanded that if one comes to entice you from [observing] one of the commandments [of G-d] you are not to hearken to him²³¹Above, 13:9. unless it has been clearly established by you that he is an absolutely righteous man, like Elijah on Mount Carmel [who brought the offerings outside the Sanctuary Court] because of the needs of the time. Therefore it states, unto him ye shall hearken.”²⁰⁹Verse 15. — But this does not appear to be correct, for the necessary verification is not that he is a righteous man but that he is a true prophet known to all by having previously foretold future events which indeed came to pass, this being his “sign” as referred to in this section,²³²Verse 22: When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Eternal, if the thing follow not … or some wonders which he has done in our presence.²³³Above, 13:2. This constitutes the presumption of prophets. In saying “a perfectly righteous man,” perhaps Rashi meant what Harav Rabbeinu²³⁴“The Rabbi our teacher.” Moshe [ben Maimon] wrote in Hilchoth Yesodei Hatorah:²³⁵“The laws of the Foundations of the Torah,” 7:7. “When a prophet is assigned a mission, he is given a sign or wonder so that the people might know that G-d had truly sent him. We do not believe everyone who shows a sign or wonder to be a prophet. Only a man whom we already know to be worthy of prophecy — by reason of his wisdom and deeds wherein he stands pre-eminent among all his contemporaries, and follows the paths of prophecy, in its sanctity and renunciation [of physical lust] — who then comes and performs a sign or wonder and says that G-d sent him, it is a commandment to hearken to him, as it is said, unto him ye shall hearken.²⁰⁹Verse 15. It is possible that such a man may perform a sign or wonder and still not be a prophet [in which case] the sign must have some [other] meaning.²³⁶“There is something hidden in this matter which requires scrutiny” (Rashi, Kethuboth 111a, in explanation of a similar expression in the Gemara there). Nevertheless, it is a commandment to listen to him, since he is a great man, learned and worthy of prophecy, we assign him the presumption [that his claim is true], just as we have been commanded to render a decision [in court] by the testimony of two proper witnesses even though it is possible that they testified falsely, because we consider them to be legitimate witnesses [having no basis to assume the contrary] we assign them the presumption of legitimacy in their testimony. On such matters it is said, The secret things belong unto the Eternal our G-d,²³⁷Further, 29:28, meaning that we are required to judge human affairs based only on the available evidence. and it is further said, for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the Eternal looketh on the heart.”²³⁸I Samuel 16:7.

וכי תאמר בלבבך AND IF THOU SAY IN THINE HEART [HOW SHALL WE KNOW THE WORD WHICH THE LORD HATH NOT SPOKEN]? — you will once ask this — when Hananiah the son of Azur (the false prophet) comes and prophesies (Jeremiah 27:16) “Behold, the vessels of the Lord’s house will now shortly be brought again from Babylon”, whilst Jeremiah (the true prophet) stands and proclaims (Jeremiah 27:19—22) “concerning the pillars, and concerning the laver, and concerning the bases, and concerning the residue of the vessels [which remain in this city which Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon took not,…]” which did not go into exile to Babylon with Jeconiah, king of Judah, “they shall be carried to Babylon [and there they shall remain]” together with Zedekiah when he will go into exile (Sifrei Devarim 178:2).