Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

Having discussed two relevant — but still particular — mitzvot, the Rambam returns to the primary subject matter of these halachot: the essential principles that serve as a foundation for our Torah practice.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Introduction to the tenth chapter of Sanhedrin), the Rambam lists as the sixth of his Thirteen Principles of Faith: the concept of prophecy. In Hilchot Teshuvah 3:8, the Rambam includes in the category of heretics who have no portion in the world to come: “One who says prophecy does not exist and knowledge is not communicated from the Creator to the heart of man.” (See also the Guide for the Perplexed, Vol. II, Chapters 36-46.)
The Rambam was personally very interested in the concept of prophecy. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Principle 7 of the Thirteen Principles of Faith), he writes that he was involved in the composition of an entire book on the subject. There is, however, no record of that book ever having been published.

With this expression, the Rambam could be implying that prophecy can be granted to all men, gentiles as well as Jews. (See Iggeret Teiman, Chapter 2.)

Note the Rambam’s Introduction to his Commentary to the Mishnah, Chapter 2, where he explains that prophecy is of an entirely different nature from wisdom. Thus, although wisdom is prerequisite for prophecy, prophecy involves stepping beyond one’s normal thinking processes.

The Kessef Mishneh suggests that a possible source for the Rambam’s statements is Nedarim 38a, which states: “God will cause His presence to rest only upon one who is strong, rich, wise, and humble.” Others quote Shabbat 92a: “God will cause His presence to rest only upon one who is strong, rich, wise, and of prominent physical stature.” It is significant that the Rambam refers to these statements in his Commentary to the Mishnah twice while discussing prophecy: once in Chapter 2 of the Introduction to that work and once in Chapter 7 of Shemonah Perakim. In the latter reference, he explains: “Wise” — This includes all the positive intellectual qualities.” Rich” — This refers to the ultimate emotional quality, the ability to be satisfied with what one has... as our Sages said: “Who is rich? One who is satisfied with his portion.” “Strong” — This also refers to an emotional quality, that one controls his behavior according to knowledge and counsel... as our Sages said: “Who is strong? One who conquers his inclination.” [Note Rabbenu Nissim in his Derashot, who explains that wealth and strength should be interpreted in a strict physical sense. If a prophet lacks these qualities, he will not be respected by the common people. Sefer HaIkkarim offers a similar interpretation regarding “of prominent physical stature.” It can be explained that these physical characteristics do not themselves bring prophecy, but remove obstacles that a prophet might face were he to lack them.] Likkutei Sichot (Vol. 23) questions why the Rambam does not mention humility, and explains that the Rambam does not mention humility because humility is a fundamental element of man’s service (see Hilchot De’ot 2:3). Thus Sotah 5a quotes God as saying: “A proud person: He and I cannot dwell in the same world.” Accordingly, well before a person has reached the spiritual peaks of prophecy, he must have attained the quality of humility. Therefore, it is unnecessary for the Rambam to mention it here.

The phrase “in any regard” is somewhat problematic when compared to the Rambam’s statement in Shemonah Perakim, that a prophet must have “all the positive intellectual qualities and most of the positive emotional qualities.” However, in that text as well, the Rambam stresses the importance of overcoming one’s inclinations.

See Hilchot De’ot 1:4, which defines “The straight path [as involving discovering] the midpoint temperament of each and every trait.... A man should evaluate his traits, calculate them and direct them along the middle path. “Thus, the Rambam sees using one’s mind to control one’s character as fundamental to all refined human behavior. However, for a prophet this process is of fundamental importance. In his Commentary to the Mishnah, (introduction to the tractate of Avot, Shemonah Perakim, Chapter 7), the Rambam explains that natural character traits are obstacles that prevent us from appreciating the Divine Presence. The more one rises over his natural traits, the clearer his appreciation of God.

Kiddushin 76b states that a person upon who the Divine Presence rests should not have any physical blemishes. Perhaps this is also a reference to the “prominent physical stature” mentioned in Shabbat (ibid.). (See also Hilchot De’ot 4:1, which states that a person cannot comprehend any spiritual concepts while sick.)

The realm of spiritual knowledge the Rambam described in the first four chapters of this text. (See Chapter 4, Halachah 13.)

I.e., separate, concerned with spiritual truth and not the material world.

For prophecy is not acquired in a short time, but rather requires continued, diligent effort.

I.e., worldly, secular matters.

See Chapter 2, Halachah 7.

That are above physical reality. (See Chapter 2, Halachah 3.)

The holy chayyot (Chapter 2, Halachah 7)

See Chapter 2, Halachah 2 and Chapter 4, Halachah 12.

Note the Rambam’s statements in the Guide for the Perplexed, Vol. II, Chapter 32, which state that prophecy is dependent upon a person’s efforts of self-refinement. Once a person has made the proper preparations for prophecy, the setting is prepared for him to attain that level. Nevertheless, there is the possibility that God will withhold prophecy even from a person who is worthy of it.

See the Kessef Mishneh, which quotes Rabbenu Asher as differentiating between a person who attains the spirit of prophecy only temporarily (about whom the Rambam is speaking in this halachah), and one upon whom the spirit of prophecy rests continuously. However, many other commentaries on the Rambam do not accept this distinction.

As the Rambam mentioned in Chapter 2, Halachah 7, these are the lowest level of angels who communicate with the prophets.

Since the attainment of prophecy is the result of a process of internal refinement and not a Divine miracle, once a person attains these levels, the way in which he views reality changes. It is, nevertheless, questionable if the Rambam means that a prophet will continue on the same elevated plane at all times, or if he will attain these levels only when he is actually prophesying. Compare with Halachah 7.

The passage continues, explaining how Samuel’s prophecy came to fruition. Saul prophesied, and everyone who knew him previously were amazed at the transformation of his personality.

See Aggadat Bereshit, Chapter 14, which differentiates between the levels of the different prophets, stating “Isaiah was the greatest of the prophets, Ovadiah was the least of the prophets.”

In Shemonah Perakim (Chapter 7), the Rambam explains that these levels are dependent on the prophet’s degree of spiritual refinement. See also the Guide for the Perplexed, Vol. II, Chapter 45.

With the exception of Moses, as stated in Halachah 6.

Though prophecy is a result of a person’s service of self-refinement, since these prophets’ level of refinement is not complete, their conscious minds cannot operate in their normal fashion while they prophesy.

With regard to all prophets other than Moses.

This reflects another difference between the other prophets and Moses.

Due to the nullification of their normal thinking processes.

That passage describes the covenant God established with Abraham and the prophecy of the Egyptian exile.

This describes his vision of the four kingdoms.

Other than Moses (see Halachah 6).

Rather than reveal the message in words, God shows the prophet an image. However, because of the prophet’s level of spiritual refinement, he is able to perceive the meaning of the imagery, as the Rambam proceeds to explain.

See Genesis 28:12.

See Bereshit Rabbah 68:19. The Rambam offers another interpretation of this vision in the Guide for the Perplexed, Vol. I, Chapter 15.

See Jeremiah 1:11-13.

See Ezekiel, Chapters 2 and 3.

See Zechariah 5:6.

For example, in the prophecy of Jeremiah cited above, the almond rod implied that just as the almond is the first tree to blossom, so, too, the retribution intended for the Jews would come quickly. Alternatively, the word שקדים is related to the word שוקד, “hasten” (Guide for the Perplexed, Vol. II, Chapter 43). The boiling pot coming from the north alluded to the source of the retribution being the kingdom of Babylon.

Whenever we see a prophetic statement, we can assume the prophet received it by means of metaphoric imagery, even though he did not communicate the imagery in his prophecy.

Except those granted to Moses.

Because, as explained in Halachah 6, they are communicated through the medium of an angel.

With the exception of Moses (Halachah 6)

Though, as explained in the commentary to Halachah 1, the Rambam sees the attainment of prophecy as a natural result of man’s spiritual refinement, ultimately the choice of whether or not a person will prophecy is left to God.

For social contact would disturb their concentration.

See II Kings, Chapter 3, which relates that after Yehoram, King of Israel, had aroused the wrath of Elisha, the prophet, it was necessary to have a minstrel play before him before he the spirit of prophecy would rest on him again.

See the Guide for the Perplexed (Vol. II, Chapter 36), which explains that the reason prophecy ceased shortly after the destruction of the first Temple is that the difficulties of the exile prevented our people from experiencing the genuine happiness necessary to be fit recipients of the prophetic spirit.
See also Shemonah Perakim (Chapter 7), which explains that because of the melancholia which beset him, Jacob did not receive any prophetic insight during the 22 years he was separated from Joseph.

Lit., “the sons of the prophets.” We find the term used several times in the Bible: e.g., II Kings 2:3, 5, 15, 17.

The commentaries explain that the Rambam is emphasizing that, despite the fact that a person has undergone the proper spiritual refinement necessary to attain prophecy, the Divine Presence may not rest upon him. They cite his description of Baruch ben Neriah, Jeremiah’s disciple, as being ‘fit for prophecy, yet God held it back from him’ (Guide for the Perplexed, Vol. II, Chapter 32).

The closing verse of the Torah clearly proclaims the supremacy of Moses’ prophecy stating, “No other prophet like Moses arose within Israel.”

The seventh of the Thirteen Principles of Faith listed by the Rambam in his Commentary to the Mishnah states:
We believe that Moses was the master of all prophets. He was superior to all other prophets, whether they preceded him or arose afterwards....He was the ultimate of the human race. His comprehension... of God surpassed that of any man who existed or who will exist. He rose above the human level and attained an angelic rung.
See Chapter 1, Halachah 10 (and the passage from Shemonah Perakim (Chapter 7) referred to in the notes), which relates that Moses had refined himself completely, and the only barrier separating him from God was the very functioning of an independent human intellect. Note also that Hilchot Teshuvah 3:8 includes a person who denies Moses’ prophecy in the category of apikorsim. (See also the Guide for the Perplexed, Vol. II, Chapter 35.)

The four distinctions the Rambam makes here are also mentioned in his Thirteen Principles of Faith (ibid.).

As explained in Halachah 2.

God would communicate various commandments to Moses in this manner.

Because their level of refinement is insufficient for them to receive the Divine revelation openly. See the Guide for the Perplexed, Vol. II, Chapter 6, which explains that the term מלאך (angel) refers to a medium of Divine influence, and associates this definition with prophecy. The angels are spiritual entities without any physical form or dimensions (Chapter 2, Halachah 3). Nevertheless, since each angel represents a specific spiritual quality, the fact that the Divine revelation passes through such a medium before the prophet receives it “colors” the revelation, and causes it to be associated with particular imagery.

Which reflect the nature of that particular angel.

But rather hear the word of God directly

With this verse (and those which precede and follow it), God contrasts Moses’ prophecy with that of Aharon and Miriam.

See the Guide for the Perplexed, Vol. I, Chapter 37, where the Rambam explains that this refers to a process of direct communication without any intermediary.

See the Guide for the Perplexed, Vol. I, Chapter 4, which explains that this refers to gazing with ‘the eye of the mind... meditating on the concept until one comprehends it.’

Based on these statements, we can understand why the Rambam considers Moses’ supremacy over other prophets as a principle of faith in its own right. Because Moses perceived God’s word openly, without metaphor or allegory, he was able to bring man the Torah in a manner in which, as the Rambam states in the eighth Principle of Faith: ‘He was like a scribe, recording what was related to him.’

As mentioned in Halachah 2.

He would not tremble or become agitated when he heard God’s word (Principle 7, Thirteen Principles of Faith)

Rather, as explained in Halachot 4 and 5, they must prepare themselves intensely and then, await Divine revelation.

In Principle 7 of his Thirteen Principles of Faith, the Rambam refers to Torat Kohanim (Acharei), which quotes Leviticus 16:2: “Speak to Aharon, your brother, that he not enter the holy place at all times,” and comments: Aharon could not approach God whenever he desired, but Moses could. See also the Sifri (B’ha’alotcha) which refers to Moses as follows: “Happy is he. A man born to a woman... who speaks to God whenever he desires.”

From the revelation at Sinai onward

Though he also could perceive material existence, his natural mental state was, like that of the angels, concerned with the spiritual reality.

This passage describes how men who were impure approached Moses and questioned him whether they could compensate for their inability to offer the Paschal sacrifice at its proper time. Unabashed, Moses gave them the above reply, which reflects his confidence that whenever he would inquire of God, he would receive a reply. See also Numbers 27:5, which describes how Moses brought the claim of the daughters of Tzelofchad before God.

This passage describes how the Jewish people were overawed by God’s revelation of the Ten Commandments. They told Moses to communicate with God alone and relate His words to them. Though Moses, himself, had misgivings, God agreed.

Shabbat 87a explains that with this command, God allowed the Jewish people as a whole to resume marital relations after separating for three days in preparation for the receiving of the Torah. Moses was told to remain with God — i.e., to separate himself from such behavior. The Rambam interprets that Talmudic passage in a deeper manner, in which its simple meaning is retained, but given far greater significance.

The marriage relationship being symbolic of the totality of material concerns.

The rays of Divine light described in Exodus 34:30, 35. As a result, the people were overawed by his appearance, and he had to cover his face.

Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 172) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 515) consider this to be one of the Torah’s 613 mitzvot. See also Chapter 8, Halachah 2, which elaborates further on the nature of this commandment and Chapter 9, Halachot 2 and 3, which describe how we must heed a prophet’s commands.

I.e., he may perform a wonder through sorcery (see Chapter 9, Halachah 1), or divine the future through various pagan practices (see Chapter 10, Halachah 3).

According to the criteria the Torah has given us.

See Hilchot Sanhedrin 20:1.

The Rambam mentions the criteria for acceptable witnesses in Hilchot Edut, Chapter

See also Chapter 9, Halachah 2, and Iggeret Teiman, Chapter 2, where the Rambam uses the same example to illustrate this concept.

The Rambam is implying that it is impossible for man ever to know the absolute truth about a situation. Therefore, the Torah gives us criteria with which to govern our decisions. Though they may not be totally foolproof, they are, nevertheless, applicable to our circumstances. If we follow these criteria and an error does occur, God does not hold man responsible.

The performance of a wonder which transcends the natural order appears to indicate that the person has been granted special powers by God. Nevertheless, this is not a substantial basis for faith, as the Rambam proceeds to explain.

The Rambam’s statements are problematic when compared to his statements in Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 11:16, which states: All these matters [sorcery, witchcraft, divination, and the like] are all deception and falsehoods with which the ancient idol worshipers misled the peoples of the earth to attract them to them. It is not fitting for Israel, who are sophisticated and wise, to be drawn after such emptiness or to think they are of any value...Anyone who believes in such matters and considers them to be true and a product of wisdom, but, [merely] forbidden by the Torah, is foolish and inane....All these practices forbidden by the Torah... are emptiness and vanity. If so, why does the Rambam say that one can perform a wonder through sorcery? A possible resolution to this question can be given in terms of the Rambam’s statement (Chapter 10, Halachah 2), that it is possible for some of the foretellings which sorcerers and diviners relate to come true. There will, however, never be total truth to their statements. Thus, the signs and wonders the Rambam mentions could be a prediction which was fulfilled to a partial degree. It must be noted that many other Jewish thinkers disagree with the Rambam’s entire approach and believe that sorcery and other occult arts are powerful and can produce change within the world.

See Exodus, Chapter 14. Avodat HaMelech questions why the Rambam considers the drowning of the Egyptians to be the purpose of the miracle. On the surface, the purpose was the salvation of the Jewish people. He explains that had God desired, He could have saved the Jews through other means. The fact that He slew the Egyptians implies that taking retribution against them was part of His intent.

See Exodus, Chapter 16.

See Exodus, Chapter 17.

See Numbers, Chapter 16. This particular instance presents somewhat of a difficulty. Moses tells the people (16:28-30) that, “With this [the opening of the earth to swallow Korach] you will know that God sent me to do these deeds.” However, it can be explained that the legitimacy of Moses’ prophecy had already been established, and the sign was intended with regard to the appointments of Aaron and Elitzafon.

None of them were performed in order to demonstrate that Moses’ prophecy was inspired by God, but rather to deal with practical difficulties which arose.

I.e., the entire Jewish people were present at Mount Sinai, witnessed the miracle, and accepted Moses as a prophet. The revelation was not confined to a single individual or to a small group, but rather affected the entire Jewish people who — when counting all the men, women, and children — numbered approximately 2 million people.

The latter verse emphasizes that, with the expression ‘Moses’ prophecy,’ the Rambam refers to the Torah as a whole.

Thus, God explicitly told Moses that the Jews’ faith in him was dependent on the revelation at Sinai.

At Mount Sinai.

The authoritative manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah have a slightly different text, which would be translated as “for he and they are alike in this matter.”

For a person will never cease believing in something that he has seen with his own eyes. See Halachah 3.

To reinforce their belief in him. Nevertheless, as the Rambam notes in the Guide for the Perplexed, Vol. II, Chapter 35, there is a unique difference between the miracles performed by Moses and those performed by the other prophets. Moses performed his miracles in the presence of the entire people (and also, frequently in the presence of many gentiles) and, for the most part, the miracles were of consequence to the people as a whole. In contrast, the other prophets performed their miracles in the presence of only a portion of the people, and for the most part, these wonders affected individuals or groups, but not the people as a whole. This concept is alluded to in the closing words of the Torah: “No prophet like Moses ever arose in Israel... [to perform] the signs and miracles... which Moses performed before the eyes of all of Israel.”

I.e., the transformation of his staff into a serpent, the affliction of his hand with tzara’at, and the transformation of the water into blood.

Because of these wonders.

Both the revelation at the burning bush and the Giving of the Torah took place on Mount Sinai.

The Lechem Mishneh and others question the Rambam’s statement, because the order of the verses in the Torah differs from the order which would be apparent from the Rambam’s statement. (This verse — which according to the Rambam appears to have been stated last — is mentioned first in the Torah.) There are some commentators who resolve the question by quoting the principle: There is no chronological order in the Torah’s verses. What was written first may have been recited last. Rav Levi ibn Chaviv does not accept this attempted resolution and explains that, at the outset, God informed Moses of the means through which he would ultimately be accepted by the people. Afterwards, He informed him of the signs that he would perform to win their belief until they were prepared for that total revelation.

Since a wonder can be performed by sorcery, it is not sufficient proof that God has appointed this person as a prophet

Belief in a prophet.

Note the Sefer Chakirah of the Tzemach Tzedek, which questions the status of a prophet who performs a wonder that could not be performed by sorcery (e.g., the plague of lice). Is he also to be believed only because of the Torah’s command, or should he be believed by virtue of the wonder he performed? Note Likkutei Sichot, Vol. 19, which resolves that question, explaining that the Torah’s command endows a prophet with a higher status than that which he could attain on his own.

See the words of Rav Saadia Gaon in his introduction to his Book of Legal Documents:

I.e., deviate from the Torah and its mitzvot, as stated in Chapter 9, Halachah 1.

His appointment as a prophet.

The Rambam elaborates on this subject because the signs and wonders which a false prophet performs are likely to make a powerful impression on a person. Therefore, the Rambam explains that we must take past history into consideration and realize that the authority of the Torah was proven to us in a way that precludes any and all disputation.

Likkutei Sichot, Vol. 19, explains a parallel concept within the realm of Torah law. Rosh HaShanah 26a states that a person who witnesses the commission of a murder cannot serve as a judge. Since he saw the deed being committed, the impression made upon him is so powerful that he will never be able to accept any of the arguments advanced by the defense. Similarly, having witnessed the appointment of Moses through actual sight, there is no way anything can sway it.

In Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 5:7 and in Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 28), the Rambam uses this verse as a prooftext for the prohibition against listening to a person who prophesies in the name of a false god. (Note Chapter 9, Halachah 5.) From his statements in Hilchot Avodat Kochavim, one may conclude that listening to the words of a false prophet is also included in the scope of that prohibition. [Note the Hasagot of the Ramban to Sefer HaMitzvot (loc. cit.), which argue against including as a mitzvah listening to one who prophesies in the name of false gods, but which are willing to grant that status to the prohibition mentioned here. See also the comments of the Megillat Esther, who writes that the prohibition against listening to a false prophet is included in the mitzvah not to detract from the Torah, and should therefore not be considered to be a mitzvah in its own right.]

Thus, by denying Moses’ prophecy, the ‘prophet’ denies the only basis on which his words could be accepted as binding upon us.

As explained in the commentary to Chapter 9, Halachah 1, the Rambam’s statements — though immutable Torah law — were also timely in nature, intended to negate the claims of the Christians and Moslems. This theme is also evident in these halachot which emphasize how no miracles or wonders may be regarded as grounds to forsake the Torah.

The five books of Moses.

The commentaries compare these statements to those the Rambam makes in Hilchot Megillah 2:8: All the books of the prophets and the sacred writings will ultimately be nullified in the Messianic age, with the exception of the Scroll of Esther. It will remain forever, like the five books of Moses and the statutes of the Oral Law. This contrast sheds light on the sequence of the previous two chapters and Principles 6-9 of the Thirteen Principles of Faith. First, the Rambam explains the concept of prophecy. Then, he distinguishes between Moses’ prophecy and that of the other prophets. He explains how Moses was a fit receptacle to receive God’s truth as it is, without his human intelligence creating any interference. Therefore, the prophecy he communicated — the Torah — is eternal and unchanging.

This verse is the prooftext for two of the Torah’s 365 prohibitions, as explained in Hilchot Mamrim 2:9.

In this context, it is significant to quote the Rambam’s statements in Hilchot Melachim 11:3, which describe the Messianic era and carefully specify: “This Torah, its statutes and laws, are everlasting. We may not add to them or subtract from them.”
Thus, the Rambam clarifies that in the Messianic era, when the Jews return to Eretz Yisrael, establish dominion over the entire world, and rebuild the Temple, “[the observance of] all the laws will return to their previous state... according to all the particulars mentioned by the Torah.” The ultimate era of mankind will not involve the establishment of a new faith, but rather the complete observance of those ideals and mitzvot that we have cherished since the giving of the Torah.

No specific source is cited, since this phrase appears frequently in the Torah — e.g., Leviticus 3:17, 23:14, Numbers 10:8. Note the comments of the Ben Yedid, which questions the Rambam’s use of this quote here, since this phrase refers to individual mitzvot, and not to the Torah in its entirety. Rav Kapach explains that the Rambam is quoting this verse only to clarify that the word עולם used in the verse cited previously indeed means “forever.”

The Torah.

But rather, has been given to us here in this world. Hence, prophetic vision is of no significance with regard to the establishment of Torah law. A prophet can merely encourage the people to observe the Torah and give them specific directives, as the Rambam states in Halachah 2. Note the Rambam’s Introduction to his Commentary to the Mishnah, where he uses this verse as a support for similar statements, quoting it in its entirety, including the phrase, “but it is within [reach of] your mouth and your heart to do it.” He explains that “your mouth” refers to the discussion of Torah concepts; “your heart,” to the contemplation of them. After the Torah was given, these mediums of expression — and not prophetic vision — are the means to define Jewish law. A parallel to the Rambam’s statements can be found in Temurah 16a, which relates that when the Jews asked Joshua to clarify some points of Torah law based on prophetic vision, he refused, quoting the above verse as a prooftext. Similarly, Devarim Rabbah 8:6 uses this verse as a prooftext to teach that “a second Moses cannot arise and bring us another Torah from heaven.”

Note the Rambam’s introduction to his Commentary to the Mishnah, and the distinction he makes between the contributions of a prophet and those of a sage.

See the commentary to Chapter 7, Halachah 1, which explains that, according to the Rambam, a gentile can also attain the heights of prophecy.

See Hilchot Mamrim, loc. cit.

An example of such a perverted interpretation would be to state that Deuteronomy 25:12, “And you shall cut off her hand,” should be interpreted literally, rather than be understood to mean paying a stiff fine (the Rambam’s Introduction to his Commentary to the Mishnah).

Since the Oral Law was also given to Moses (see the Rambam’s Introduction to the Mishneh Torah), any different interpretation of a mitzvah represents a denial of Moses’ prophecy.

This is an obvious reference to Christianity and Islam, which accept the Bible as true, but explain that it was intended to be superseded by other teachings. (See Iggeret Teiman, Chapter 2.)
[Note also the uncensored text of Hilchot Teshuvah 3:8, which includes among those who have no portion in the world to come, “those who deny the Torah,” and specifies that the latter term applies to “One who says the Creator exchanged one mitzvah for another, or that the Torah has been nullified even though it originated from God — i.e., the Christians and the Arabs.”]

See Chapter 8, Halachah 3.

The Rambam mentions the laws regarding the execution of a false prophet and the prohibition of fearing to execute him (one of the Torah’s 613 commandments) in Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 5:8-9. He chooses to elaborate on this subject in those halachot (although it is somewhat out of context, since that entire chapter deals with the worship of false gods, while a false prophet prophesies in the name of the true God) because such elaboration would be out of place in the present context. Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah — as its name implies — deals with those laws which are the foundation for our Torah practice. The command not to listen to a false prophet and the criteria which establish him as a false prophet are “foundations of Torah.” The details concerning the execution of such a person are not.

Note the comments of the Lechem Mishneh, who (based on Sanhedrin 89a) suggests that it would appear that such a prophet should be executed by being stoned to death.

As explained in Chapter 8, Halachah 3, the fact that a person’s statements contradict Moses’ teachings is clear proof that his ‘prophecy’ is false (Kessef Mishneh).

See the Guide for the Perplexed, Vol. II, Chapter 39, which explains that since the Torah is the ultimate and perfect Divine truth, it is impossible that there ever be other truths which compare to it or replace it.

The latter phrase is quoted, out of context, from Numbers 23:19.

If a prophet does not have the authority to develop new modes of expression within Judaism, as mentioned in the previous halachah, one might ask: What contribution will the prophet be making?

As in the previous halachah, this is a reference to Christianity and Islam.

The Rambam’s intent was that Malachi was the final prophet whose prophecies were recorded in the Bible. He does not imply that he was the last prophet who will ever exist. On the contrary, we are promised that prophecy will return in the Messianic age. Even in the present era, were a person to meet all the conditions for prophecy, God could grant him the gift of prophecy.

This statement is one of the concluding verses of the final book of prophecy ever written.

In his Introduction to his Commentary to the Mishnah, the Rambam elaborates on this concept, explaining that one of the functions of a prophet is to advise the Jews regarding their material affairs, lest they consult pagan diviners or soothsayers. Similarly, a prophet’s insight may be beneficial to the nation as a whole.

In his introduction to his Commentary to the Mishnah, the Rambam cites Samuel’s command to Saul to wage war on Amalek (I Samuel, Chapter 15).

As an example, the Rambam (loc. cit.) cites Elisha’s command to Yehoram not to slay the troops of Aram (II Kings, Chapter 6).

In this context, the Rambam (loc. cit.) cites Isaiah’s directives (22:9-11) concerning the wall of Jerusalem, as an example.

As mentioned in the commentary to Chapter 7, Halachah 7, the Rambam considers this to be one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

By failing to fulfill a command or heed a prohibition the prophet gives.

This does not mean that the person must die immediately. However, the life span allotted to him will be shortened, and he will die before the age of 50 (Mo’ed Katan 28a).

This implies that an earthly court has no authority to punish the offender. A court can administer punishment only for the violation of one of the Torah’s negative commandments. The commandment to heed a prophet is a positive commandment. Hence, retribution is left in God’s hands.

E.g., Ido, the prophet, who was commanded to prophesy against the altar established by Yorov’am in Bethel. God also told him not to eat or drink until he returned. He disobeyed this command, and was therefore slain by a lion (I Kings, Chapter 13).

E.g., Yonah, who tried to flee to Tarshish rather than deliver his prophecy (Yonah, Chapter 1).

Sanhedrin 89b states that an earthly court is also required to administer lashes to a prophet who refrains from prophesying. The Rambam’s omission of this point leads to the conclusion that he accepts the opinion of Tosafot, who state that the Talmud is not referring to the forty lashes administered by the court for the violation of a Scriptural prohibition, but rather to “stripes for rebellious behavior,” the punishment administered for disobeying Rabbinic commandments or failing to fulfill a positive commandment.

The two individuals mentioned in this halachah and a person who does not heed a prophet’s instructions, as mentioned in the previous halachah.

Although this verse is mentioned only once in the Torah, it refers to these three individuals. The simple meaning of the expression “who will not heed” refers to a person who disobeys a prophet’s instructions. Similarly, the Hebrew original of this phrase lo yishma can be read lo yashmia meaning “who does not pronounce,” referring to a prophet who refrains from prophesying, and also lo yishama “who does not listen himself,” referring to a prophet who violates his own instructions (Sanhedrin 89a)

According to the criteria explained in Chapter 7, Halachot 1-7, and in Chapter 10, Halachot 1-5.

A prophet cannot nullify one of the Torah’s commandments, as stated in Halachah 1. Nevertheless, since the prophet is commanding that the mitzvah be violated only temporarily, he is not considered to have nullified that commandment.

In Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 172), when describing the mitzvah to listen to a prophet, the Rambam also mentions this point.

Sifra, Deuteronomy 18:19; Yevamot 90b; Sanhedrin 90a

Avodat HaMelech notes that in Hilchot Mamrim 2:4, the Rambam states that any Rabbinic court can also instruct people to violate a Scriptural commandment temporarily. The uniqueness of the dispensation granted a prophet is that his instructions must be followed even if they are not supported by anyone else. In contrast, a court can issue such instructions only after they meet as a body of judges and the majority supports a particular position.

I Kings, Chapter 18, describes Elijah’s confrontation with the prophets of Ba’al.

In which case we are forbidden to listen to him, as stated in Halachah 5.

See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 2:2.

See Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot, Chapters 18 and 19, which describe the prohibition against offering.

Sacrifices outside the Temple courtyard.

In his Introduction to his Commentary to the Mishnah, the Rambam elaborates on this concept, illustrating it with the following example: If a prophet will arise and instruct us on a Sabbath that we all — men, women, and children — should kindle fires, forge weapons,... and wage war... we are obligated and commanded by the Torah of Moses to get up immediately and fulfill his directives eagerly, without any hesitation...Should an aged person who pictures himself as righteous and honest say, “I am an elderly man... I have never transgressed any of the commandments at all. How can I go out and violate a commandment punishable by stoning by waging war on the Sabbath. My presence will neither add or detract and there are many others to fulfill this command...,” such a person has transgressed the word of God and is worthy of death at God’s hand. The same authority who commanded the observance of the Sabbath commanded us to listen to a prophet.

According to the Rambam’s Introduction to his Commentary to the Mishnah, it appears that the people are obligated to ask such a question (see Rav Kapach’s translation).

I.e., and today alone.

I.e., Elijah’s behavior is not to be understood as an isolated event, but a paradigm for other similar situations.

In his Introduction to his Commentary to the Mishnah, the Rambam offers another example of a prophet temporarily nullifying a mitzvah. When King Yehoram waged war against Moav (II Kings 3:19), Elisha commanded him: ‘Destroy every good tree, stop up every stream of water, and fill up every good field with stones.’ Though these activities violate the commandment “Do not destroy its trees (בל תשחית, Deuteronomy 20:19), in this instance, God commanded that such measures be taken.

By an earthly court, as stated in Halachah 1.

The Hebrew מפי השמועה refers to laws which were transmitted by the oral tradition and have no direct source in the written law (Yad Malachi).

As a prophecy, as opposed to rendering a halachic decision as a judge. All the prophets were also Torah sages who participated in Rabbinic courts and rendered decisions in Torah law. Here, the Rambam is speaking about decisions proclaimed on the basis of “prophecy” alone.

The Kessef Mishneh explains that even if the decision he renders or the law he proclaims is halachically correct, the fact that he claims that he did not arrive at his decision through prophetic insights rather than using the standard processes of Torah deduction, demonstrates that he is a false prophet.

As stated in Halachah 1.

Halachah 1 uses this verse as a prooftext for the concept that a prophet cannot change Torah law. Since the Torah states that halachic decisions should be based on a rational process of deduction rather than on prophetic insight, stating a decision based on prophetic insight is a denial of the Torah. Note the Rambam’s Introduction to his Commentary to the Mishnah, where he states: If one thousand prophets like Elijah and Elisha held one halachic position, and one thousand and one sages held another position, the Halachah follows the sages.... The Holy One, blessed be He, did not allow us to learn from the prophets, but rather from the Sages, who are men of logic and knowledge. [Deuteronomy 17:9] does not state: “You shall come to the prophet who will be in that age,” but rather: “And you shall come to the priest, the Levites, and the judges who will be in that age.”

As explained in the previous halachah.

Stipulation allowing a prophet to call for the violation of Torah law for a limited period of time.

The definition of God given in the first chapter of this text precludes the existence of any other entities worthy of being worshiped or served. Since these principles are ‘the foundations of the Torah,’ any departure from them — even for a limited time — represents a denial of God, and hence, a denial of His Torah.

In his Introduction to his Commentary to the Mishnah, the Rambam states: Our intellect, which appreciates the falsehood of his prophecies, is more faithful than our eyes, which perceive his wonders. It has been clearly proven to the men of wisdom that it is improper to honor or to serve any entity other than the One who brought into being all creations.

Though previously the Rambam quoted this verse as a prooftext for the prohibition against listening to any false prophet (Chapter 8, Halachah 3), the simple meaning of the Biblical verses involves a situation where the prophet encourages the worship of false gods.

In Chapter 8, Halachah 1, the Rambam explained that the basis for our belief in Moses’ prophecy was the revelation at Sinai. That revelation clearly established that there is only one God. (See Likkutei Sichot, Vol. 19.)

In Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 5:6, the Rambam mentions “one who prophesies in the name of false gods.” He defines such a person, however, not as one who calls people to worship false gods, but as one who relates a prophecy in the name of the false gods. Note that this represents a change of mind from his statements in his Introduction to his Commentary to the Mishnah, where he states that any “prophet” who urges others to worship false gods — even if he states that his prophecy was granted to him by the true God — is categorized as “one who prophesies in the name of false gods.”

See Chapter 8, Halachot 1-2; Chapter 10, Halachah 2.

Note the comments of the Lechem Mishneh mentioned in the commentary to Halachah 1, which question why strangulation is chosen as the means of execution for such a person. The question is stronger in the present instance, for in Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 5:1, the Rambam mentions how a mesit — one who encourages another Jew to worship false gods — should be executed by being stoned to death. Furthermore, in Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 5:2, he states that a prophet who leads many people astray in the worship of false gods should be stoned to death. It is possible to explain that here, the Rambam is speaking only within the context of the laws of prophecy. Although such a “prophet” may be sentenced to execution by stoning on other counts, the sin of false prophecy is punishable by strangulation.