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.
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.
