Mishneh Torah (Moznaim)
Featuring a modern English translation and a commentary that presents a digest of the centuries of Torah scholarship which have been devoted to the study of the Mishneh Torah by Maimonides.
Mishneh Torah (Moznaim)
Featuring a modern English translation and a commentary that presents a digest of the centuries of Torah scholarship which have been devoted to the study of the Mishneh Torah by Maimonides.
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.