Q&A: The Status of a Scribe in Relation to Moses
The Status of a Scribe in Relation to Moses
Question
In the recent lectures in the Dogmatics series, you referred to Maimonides’ remarks regarding the eighth principle — Torah from Heaven. You quoted a passage in Hebrew where the expression “the status of a scribe” appeared in relation to Moses.
Maimonides’ Commentary on the Mishnah, as is well known, was written in Arabic and translated into Hebrew.
In the editions I have, I see a different expression:
The eighth principle
That the Torah is from Heaven, namely that we believe that this entire Torah given through our teacher Moses, peace be upon him, is entirely from the mouth of the Almighty — meaning that it all reached him from God, blessed be He, in a manner metaphorically called speech. And it is not known how it reached him, except that he, Moses, peace be upon him, received it, and that he was like a secretary to whom one dictates and he writes all the events, stories, and commandments. Therefore he is called lawgiver.Vilna edition
Source: nli.org.il
I wanted to know whether in your opinion this changes the interpretation you gave (since you focused on the precision of the phrase “the status of a scribe,” which at first glance seems like an oxymoron).
In addition, I would be glad if you could expand a bit on the nature of Moses’ prophecy, and in exactly what way it differs from that of other prophets, if in the end the words were not dictated to him but rather he wrote what he understood from his prophecy.
Answer
A valid point about nuances in Maimonides’ wording in his Arabic writings. Still, I don’t think anything changes here. A secretary who writes what is dictated to him is exactly a scribe.
I didn’t understand your question regarding Moses’ prophecy. Maimonides explains the matter at great length, and you can find it there. As for me personally — I have no idea.
Discussion on Answer
That’s Chinese to me.
Let me explain.
If you mean that Moses is both a scribe and a lawgiver — that is, that his apprehension of prophecy constitutes a lawgiving event for the Jews, but there is no necessity that he grasped God’s message in full — then there is no essential difference between him and other prophets.
And it seems from Maimonides’ words that the nature of his prophecy is different.
Or perhaps you would explain that his prophecy is not essentially different, but it has much greater formal implications. And therefore the argument here is normative and not necessarily factual.