Moshe's prophecy: an incomprehensible comprehension

At the conclusion of Parashat Beha’alotecha the Torah emphasises the gulf between ‘standard’ prophecy and the form received by Moshe. Prophecy in general, and the supremacy of Moshe’s perception of the divine word in particular, features strongly in all of Rambam’s primary works as he explores the precise nature of this ‘meeting of minds’ between the human and divine realm.

Rambam describes several unique features of Moshe’s prophecy, most importantly that he received God’s message directly (“panim e l panim”) rather than by means of an ‘angelic intermediary’. This direct intellectual encounter with the divine intellect granted Moshe a precise comprehension (“temunat Hashem yabit”) as opposed to the “riddles” and “dreams” that regular prophets were required to interpret. As we analyse in Judaism Reclaimed, Rambam understood the distinctive nature of Moshe’s prophecy – like all variations in prophetic ability – to be a result of his supremely balanced character traits. Each imbalanced trait is understood to create an additional “mechitzah” which impedes the prophet’s perception of God’s word. Moshe’s superior prophecy resulted from his success in perfecting all of his traits and thus removing all barriers to his comprehension.

While this explanation provides an understanding of Moshe’s distinct prophecy which is consistent with Rambam’s more rationalist natural approach to prophecy, it produces a number of further difficulties:

How are we to understand Rambam’s claim that Moshe had completely perfected his character traits? The biblical text openly discloses instances where Moshe appears to have fallen short – most notably in his anger with the people and in his lack of trust in God. Rabbinic commentaries typically expand upon these shortcomings, detailing their impact upon his ability to transmit God’s word (according to Vayikra Rabbah 13:1, three laws were hidden from Moshe, corresponding to three occasions on which he lost his temper). Can it be argued from Rambam’s perspective that these instances were all somehow justifiable? Or otherwise temporary aberrations that were not part of Moshe’s core personality? Perhaps the fact that he was “more humble than any man” meant that his personality could be completely negated and any imbalances therefore not encroach upon his intellect’s perception of God’s word?

A further question can be asked from within Rambam’s own writings. We read in Hilchot Teshuvah that all people have the ability to become “great like Moshe our teacher”. Does that mean that others can, in theory, reach his level of character perfection and, with it, prophetic perfection? If this is correct, then might the Torah’s statement -- that no prophet will arise like Moshe -- rely upon divine interference in (what Rambam regards to be) the broadly natural phenomenon of prophecy?

The discussion thus far has focused on the distinct nature of Moshe’s prophecy primarily from Rambam’s teachings in Mishneh Torahand various parts of his Commentary on the Mishnah. As is so often the case, the matter becomes significantly more complicated once we include the relevant passages of Moreh Nevuchim with its uniquely peculiar intrigue and dynamic.

Our previous post touched upon the subject of how deliberate contradictions within the Moreh are to be interpreted. The nature of Moshe’s prophecy offers another apparent example of this phenomenon, with Leo Strauss highlighting how Rambam first states that the Moreh will not discuss the nature of Moshe’s prophecy before making several considerable mentions of it in the subsequent chapters. Consistent with his broader approach to interpreting the Moreh, Strauss argues that this constitutes a ‘contradiction’ which indicates that Rambam did not truly subscribe to the ‘necessary religious belief’ of distinct Mosaic prophecy. According to this approach, the contradiction is a subtle esoteric signal to the sophisticated reader that in truth there is no superior ‘Mosaic’ religious teaching which can raise revelation over rational truth.

As in our previous post, Strauss’s theory is challenged by Prof. Marvin Fox in Interpreting Maimonides. Fox argues, among other points, that Rambam does not explain anything positive and substantial about the actual nature and functioning of Moshe’s unique prophecy. Rather, Rambam limits himself in these chapters to using Moshe’s ‘purely intellectual’ form of prophecy as a point of contrast to regular prophecy. Perhaps Rambam means to convey to his readers that – in keeping with other complex components of the Maimonidean system – we are forced to accept our inability to fathom the inner workings of Mosaic prophecy. We are unable to explain how Moshe’s unimpeded intellectual perception of divine truths is translated into precise biblical laws and words – including numerous anthropomorphic and other metaphors which appear to bear the hallmark of the imaginative faculties rather than the pure intellect. Ultimately, the most meaningful statements we can make about it are negative, such as that it does not involve the imagination or angelic intermediaries.

First posted to Facebook 11 June 2020, here.

Moshe's prophecy and a Maimonidean fascination

Prophecy – the interface and means through which information is conveyed from the divine to the human realm – lies at the very heart of Judaism and many other religions. As a phenomenon which is understood not to have existed for thousands of years, it nevertheless has remained a source of fascination and debate for religious scholars throughout the ages.

This is particularly true when we examine the writings of Rambam, for whom prophecy was a focal point in all of his major works. Indeed his apparent pre-occupation with the subject led some commentators to speculate as to whether prophecy was a particular Maimonidean pursuit – and perhaps that he even believed he may have achieved some degree of prophecy.

As Judaism Reclaimed examines in several of its chapters, prophecy for Rambam is not an isolated concept – a divine communication visited upon a person simply in order to instruct or rebuke. Rather it represents the crowning glory of long process of refining and perfecting all facets of the human personality and intellect.

This process also connects to the Maimonidean approach to providence. People who gradually improve and gain control over their characters traits – and refine their intellect – will find that their mind will be able to transcend the limitations of its physical associations. What starts off with flashes of intuition and knowledge from the spiritual realm, can develop into ru’ach hakodesh (holy spirit) and eventually to prophecy.

Crucially therefore, for Rambam, the degree of insight, understanding and clarity that a person is able to attain through prophecy is largely related to his or her own personal development and training.

Against this backdrop, God’s rebuke of Aharon and Miriam for their apparent slander of Moshe takes on particular significance. Rambam writes in Shemonah Perakim that Moshe had perfected his mind and character to such an extent that no barrier remained to impede his intellect's perception of God's will. This meant that Moshe perceived God on the level of "Peh el peh adaber bo" — a 'word-for-word' grasp of God's will. Through this principle we learn that Moshe received instruction from God without any ambiguity or need for interpretation. It is possible that only this degree of clarity as to God’s will could facilitate the communication of a set of precise laws – therefore no subsequent prophet can ever be permitted to revoke or manipulate the laws that Moshe has taught.

This can be contrasted with the regular mode of prophecy in which God makes Himself known to the prophet in a “vision” or “dream”, which allows for a certain degree of ambiguity and flexibility in its interpretation and application. Such flexibility is demonstrated in the Gemara’s account of an episode in which King Josiah decided to consult the prophetess Chuldah rather than the less popular Yirmiyah in the hope of receiving an interpretation of God's will that was more favourable and compassionate.

This fundamental principle – which is listed in Rambam’s list of 13 Principle of Faith – was made abundantly clear in this parashah, with its contrast between the quality of Moshe’s prophecy and that of his siblings. Despite the heights of religious piety and leadership displayed by Miriam and Aharon, the prophecy that they and any others will receive must be recognised as qualitatively distinct from that of Moshe.

First posted to Facebook 12 June 2022, here.

Laws, narratives and post-Mosaic additions to the Torah

The concluding chapter of Judaism Reclaimed explores a controversial yet fascinating subject – whether later prophets or other figures might have been authorised to amend or add to passages of the Torah.

Unusually, our analysis of this delicate subject begins with a remarkable passage written by the Maharal, who analyses a statement of Rashi’s commentary to the first verse of parashat Mattot. Rashi teaches that Moshe prophesied on two distinct levels: the exclusive and precise "peh el peh" type mentioned above, as well as the more general "koh amar Hashem" prophecy – the level at which other prophets received their transmissions from God. Thus, while Moshe received the passages of the Torah which contained the permanent mitzvot in the unique, unparalleled manner of “peh el peh”, other parts of the Torah – those which contained narratives or specific one-time-only instructions—were transmitted through the standard form of prophecy.

Maharal offers a possible explanation for the discrepancy that exists between the levels of prophecy granted by God to Moshe in order to transmit different parts of the Torah. He suggests that, in order for a commandment from God to become eternal law, irrespective of the context of the time and place in which it was taught, it must be clearly and unambiguously identified as being God's explicit and exact word. The permanent mitzvot in the Torah, which were delivered through the precision and accuracy of the “pel el peh” process, can thereby withstand the force of claims that the applicability of those mitzvot was limited to ancient times or subject to adjustment when framed within the context of disparate social, political or cultural settings.

With regard to the Torah’s broader teachings as well as its narrative sections, however, there was no need for such a precise “word for word” medium of communication. Therefore these messages were relayed to Moshe in the regular prophetic manner – which required the prophet to contribute his or her own interpretation and could be influenced by their personality.

We noted how Maharal’s distinction between the Torah’s legal and narrative passages dovetails with Ibn Ezra’s stated methodologies for interpreting different parts of the Torah. Towards the end of the introduction to his Torah commentary, Ibn Ezra distinguishes between the approaches for interpreting verses with legal content, which often bear a single specific and immutable meaning transmitted to us via the oral law, and the narrative passages of the Torah which are capable of bearing multiple understandings—"shivim panim latorah".

This connection between Maharal’s theory regarding different levels of prophecy and Ibn Ezra’s distinction between narrative and legal passages of the Torah may allow us to resolve another difficult issue. Ibn Ezra writes that the final 12 verses of the Torah were a prophecy received and recorded by Yehoshua. Elsewhere in his commentary, Ibn Ezra cites other verses which are troubling, in that they permit the suggestion that they are the product of later, non-Mosaic, authorship. Referring to the “secret of the 12” – a phrase which is widely understood to refer to Yehoshua’s authorship of the final 12 verses of the Torah — Ibn Ezra mysteriously informs his reader that one who understands these verses will “recognise the truth”.

Manuscripts which appear to contain Torah commentary of distinguished earlier commentators such as Rabbi Yehudah HaChassid make similar suggestions regarding later prophetic authorship of certain verses in the Torah. Without wishing to enter the debate as to the authenticity of these manuscripts or the proper interpretation of Ibn Ezra’s secret, we can maintain on the basis of our analysis that, even if they do involve the suggestion that certain verses were added through the medium of a later prophecy, we can distinguish these verses, which all pertain solely to the Torah’s narrative, from verses which impart permanent mitzvot. In a similar vein, suggestions that some of the Torah’s earlier passages were incorporated into the Torah by Moshe on the basis of previous (prophetic) works are limited to narrative and do not pertain to any legislative sections.

Following Maharal’s suggestion that narrative portions of the Torah’s text were transmitted by means of regular prophecy, it may be possible to accept that another prophet was divinely authorised to contribute to them (a Tannaic opinion suggests that this was the case for the Torah’s final verses). The Torah’s permanent mitzvot, however, were transmitted through Moshe’s unique prophecy of “peh el peh”, making them immune to any form of supplementing or interference–even by a later prophet.

Notably none of this appears to be accepted by Rambam–at least in the way his principles of faith are expressed in the list contained in the introduction to Chelek. Rambam’s understanding of prophecy as a relatively natural result of a person’s development implies that Moshe's prophecy, through which the entire Torah was transmitted, was constantly on this supreme "peh el peh" level, and did not fluctuate between different biblical passages. Consistent with Rambam’s understanding of Moshe’s constantly supreme level of prophecy with which the entire Torah was relayed, Rambam also insists that it is entirely illegitimate to claim that any additions or amendments were made following Moshe’s death.

This represents the conclusions reached at the end of Judaism Reclaimed. God-willing the final chapter of my upcoming book will reopen this question and probe further approaches to reconciling this difficult topic.

Moshe: consistently supreme or a varying visionary?

One of the first pieces of feedback I received from a Judaism Reclaimed reader noted that I’d kept the most controversial content for its final chapter. Unexpectedly for many, this content did not originate with Ralbag, Yeshayahu Leibowitz or even Rambam – it was based upon an interpretation of Rashi’s commentary to yesterday’s Torah reading and advanced by none other than the Maharal.

Writing in his Gur Aryeh super-commentary of Rashi, the Maharal interprets a fascinating statement of Rashi to mean that the Torah was not received by Moshe in an entirely uniform fashion. Rashi teaches that Moshe prophesied on two distinct levels: the exclusive "peh el peh" type mentioned above, as well as the more general "koh amar Hashem" prophecy – the level at which other prophets received their transmissions from God. Thus, while Moshe received the passages of the Torah which contained the permanent mitzvot in the unique, unparalleled manner of “peh el peh”, other parts of the Torah – those which contained narratives or specific one-time-only instructions —were transmitted through the standard form of prophecy.

The Maharal offers a possible explanation for the discrepancy that exists between the levels of prophecy granted by God to Moshe in order to transmit different parts of the Torah. He suggests that in order for a commandment from God to become eternal law, irrespective of the context of the time and place in which it was taught, it must be clearly and unambiguously identified as being God's explicit and exact word. The permanent mitzvot in the Torah, which were delivered through the precision and accuracy of the “pel el peh” process, can thereby withstand the force of claims that the applicability of those mitzvot was limited to ancient times or subject to adjustment when framed within the context of disparate social, political or cultural settings.

All this stands in stark contrast to Rambam’s more naturalistic understanding of Moshe’s prophecy, which places it on an unwaveringly supreme level of intellectual perception of God’s will. In Rambam’s theory, this heightened form of prophecy was not simply a divine gift that was to be turned on and off based on necessity – rather it was a natural result of Moshe having achieved the highest level of human refinement, both of his mind and character traits. This may be reflected in Rambam’s assertion as part of his Principles of Faith that there is no distinction whatsoever between the holiness, divinity and clarity of the Torah’s most fundamental commandments on the one hand, and its apparently mundane narratives on the other. It was all relayed with precise clarity by Moshe “as a scribe taking down a dictation”.

Judaism Reclaimed then highlights that one early Jewish thinker may benefit from Maharal’s insights. Avraham Ibn Ezra is often placed in the camp of controversial rabbinic thinkers for his apparent willingness to accept that certain passages of the Torah were added or amended after Moshe’s death.

Looking at Ibn Ezra’s introduction to his Torah commentary, a clear distinction already seems evident between the prophetic style of the legal and narrative passages. Towards the end of the introduction to his Torah commentary, he distinguishes between the methodologies for interpreting verses with legal content, which bear a single specific and immutable meaning transmitted to us via the oral law, and the narrative passages of the Torah which are capable of bearing multiple understandings — "shivim panim latorah". These "shivim panim" may be the result of God's choice to transmit these more educational narrative sections of the Torah through the standard mode of prophecy, the flexibility of which enables the Torah to guide and educate people from different societies and eras, steering them towards a common goal of human perfection.

Putting all of this together, Ibn Ezra writes that the final 12 verses of the Torah were a prophecy received and recorded by Yehoshua. Elsewhere in his commentary, Ibn Ezra cites other verses which are troubling, in that they permit the suggestion that they are the product of later, non-Mosaic, authorship. Referring to the “secret of the 12” – a phrase which is widely understood to refer to Yehoshua’s authorship of the final 12 verses of the Torah — Ibn Ezra mysteriously informs his reader that one who understands these verses will “recognise the truth”.

Manuscripts which appear to contain Torah commentary of distinguished earlier commentators such as R’ Yehudah HaChasid make similar suggestions regarding later prophetic authorship of certain verses in the Torah.

We can maintain on the basis of our analysis that, even if they do involve the suggestion that certain verses were added through the medium of a later prophecy, we can distinguish these verses, which all pertain solely to the Torah’s narrative, from verses which impart permanent mitzvot. Following Maharal’s suggestion that narrative portions of the Torah’s text were transmitted by means of regular prophecy, it may be possible for another prophet to have contributed to them, particularly if instructed to do so in a subsequent prophecy (a Tannaic opinion suggests that this was the case for the Torah’s final verses). The Torah’s permanent mitzvot, however, were transmitted through Moshe’s unique prophecy of “peh el peh”, making them immune to any form of supplementing or interference– even by a later prophet.

First posted on Facebook 16 July 2023, here.