Q&A: The Authority of the Sanhedrin in Place of Prophecy and the Will of God
The Authority of the Sanhedrin in Place of Prophecy and the Will of God
Question
Hello Rabbi,
I wanted to ask the Rabbi’s opinion about the power and authority of the Sanhedrin regarding the parameters of prophecy.
According to the plain meaning of the verses in Deuteronomy, in the sections dealing with “listening to the words of the prophet” in chapters 13 and 18, it seems that the conditions for having to listen to a prophet are: 1. his prophecies come true; 2. he does not incite to idolatry.
But in contrast, the Sages add further criteria for knowing that a prophet is a false prophet, such as trying to uproot commandments from the Torah (and not as a temporary ruling), and more.
My question is that there seems to be something strange in the Sages’ interpretation of these laws, because when the Holy One, blessed be He, commands the Jewish people about the conditions by which we know that the prophet is not a false prophet (and likewise in chapter 18 it says there is a commandment to listen to a true prophet), this is only in the cases written in the Torah. But in another case, He really does rest His Presence upon the prophet. This is a kind of factual claim by the Holy One, blessed be He, as to when He rests His Presence and when He does not. How can the Sages have the power to prevent that fact?
I thought of a good example for this question: if someone like Muhammad were to arise and indeed perform many wonders and his prophecies came true, and he said that God’s will is to nullify the Torah and that the Quran is the new Torah. According to the plain meaning of the Torah’s verses, it would seem that there is an obligation to listen to him, but the Sanhedrin, through various interpretations in the Torah, removed the force of his words and made his status, in halakhic terms, that of a false prophet.
Does the Rabbi think that the Sanhedrin really has the ability to nullify the will of God?
In a theoretical case like that of Muhammad above, would the Rabbi follow him?
I did think that perhaps there is a certain distinction in this case: the power of the Sanhedrin is to interpret the commandments of the Torah, and prophecy is written in the Torah as a commandment. But a revelation like the revelation at Mount Sinai is already something meta-halakhic, over which the Sanhedrin has no power at all. Likewise, perhaps the Sages have the power to forbid listening to this prophet even though this really is the will of God. But that is a bit strange — are we serving ourselves, or are we serving the Holy One, blessed be He…
(Though it may be that this very doubt requires a Sanhedrin, but on the other hand perhaps this doubt itself requires a prophet to explain the will of God ;))
Answer
I didn’t understand the question. How is this different from any other exposition that takes a verse away from its plain meaning? If indeed we trust the Sages’ interpretations and the Oral Torah, then this interpretation too is the will of God, and the prophet is indeed a false prophet. So there is no obligation to listen to him, and the Sages changed nothing.
Discussion on Answer
Why does that matter? If the ability and authority to interpret were given at Sinai, then the Sages have that ability and authority. And when they interpret the Torah, it becomes clear that the Holy One, blessed be He, did not say to listen to a prophet who does not meet the criteria, because that is what emerges from our interpretations. Again, this is no different from any other halakhic midrash.
Do you mean that once the Sages were given the ability to interpret, then the Holy One, blessed be He, rests His Presence in accordance with what they interpreted, and therefore when a prophet comes who does not fit the interpretive criteria, that is a sign that God did not reveal Himself to him?
Did I understand correctly?
In any case, the question still remains in a situation where the prophecy preceded the Sanhedrin’s ruling (for example, by an hour), and before the Sanhedrin heard about this prophet, they had already ruled that prophecy of this type is false prophecy.
In such a case, does the prophet come before the Sanhedrin?
What is the question?! Each time according to the Jewish law in force at that time. That is assuming the Sanhedrin’s innovation really is an innovation and was not accepted from ancient times.
Precisely in this case, it seems likely to me that this is not an innovation but a clarification that had always been practiced, but that is not essential to the discussion.
Thank you very much!
By the way, why does it seem to you that this is an ancient law that one cannot nullify actual commandments?
I didn’t understand the question. That a prophet cannot nullify actual Torah law? I said that this is how it seems to me, because this would be a move against the Torah. In the same way that he cannot instruct people to worship idolatry.
I meant that you wrote that in your opinion, the idea that a prophet cannot nullify commandments (not necessarily all the commandments, but even individual ones) is specifically an ancient law.
I agree that it indeed makes sense that this would be the case when the prophet wants to nullify the whole Torah as a whole. But why, when he claims that it is God’s will to nullify a single commandment, to change the parameters of commandments, should that be the case?! It דווקא sounds logical that the institution of prophecy should preserve the institution of the Sanhedrin, and vice versa.
Well, it doesn’t sound logical to me.
Can my teacher elaborate? Why does it sound logical that a prophet should not be able to nullify even a single commandment?
Examples that would help Kobi:
* There is no longer any idolatrous practice of boiling a kid in its mother’s milk, so the prohibition is nullified.
* There is no longer any idolatrous practice of tattoo writing, so tattoos are permitted.
And so on.
A,
I think these examples would help Michi in his battle with the conservatives. (When the reason is gone, the commandment is gone — and the prophet’s novelty is that this applies even to Torah-level law, unlike the Rebbe’s view that this is mainly only with rabbinic law.)
The examples that would help Kobi, if anything, are:
A prophet comes and claims that the commandment regarding leavened food on Passover has been nullified, and therefore the prohibition is canceled.
I do not see what there is to elaborate on here. If the Holy One, blessed be He, commands us to do X and says that this is what He wants from us, why would He send a prophecy that nullifies that commandment? Therefore it is only reasonable that a prophet cannot nullify anything from the Torah.
I do not see any point in this discussion. To me these things are self-evident and require no explanation at all. And whoever does not want to accept that need not accept it.
Thank you for the response,
I think the distinction is simple. After all, the Rabbi accepts that the Torah’s interpretive midrashim were not given at Sinai, only the ability to interpret the Torah.
If so, when the Holy One, blessed be He, writes you a factual claim as to when He communicates His will to a prophet whom you should listen to — before the Sanhedrin stated that such a prophet is invalid according to the Torah, he is valid.
But after the Sanhedrin wrote that he is invalid, how do they have the power to nullify God’s statement as to when He, blessed be He, will speak to a prophet? This is a kind of factual claim that God conveyed, not just a law like “Do not murder.”