Sanhedrin (90a)R. Abbahu said in R. Johanan's name; In every matter, if a prophet tells you to transgress the commands of the Torah, obey him,18 with the exception of idolatry; should he even cause the sun to stand still in the middle of the heavens for you [as proof of Divine inspiration], do not hearken to him.
Ramban (Bereishis 15:14): … When a person kills because of an order from a prophet then he is only doing what is required of him. Therefore if he obeys because he wants to fulfill the will of G d then there is no sin in the killing and in fact it is considered a meritorious act. However if he heard the command of the prophet to kill but he killed out of hatred then he is punished because he intended to do a sin and his compliance with the prophet is considered a sin… Thus we know that Nevuchadnezzar heard that all the prophets had said that he should go and destroy Yerushalayim. He and his entire people were commanded to do this by the prophet… Nevertheless they were eventually punished. There were two reasons for this punishment. 1) His intent was not to fulfill the command of the prophet but it was to destroy the land of Israel and thus increase the size of his empire…2) Because he caused the Jews to suffer much more than he had been commanded.
Radvaz (2:652): Question: We have an established principle that if an established prophet should command us to transgress one of the mitzvos of the Torah except for idolatry we are to listen to him. For example Eliyahu on Mt. Carmel transgressed on the command not to offer sacrifices outside of the Temple. He didn’t do this to nullify the mitzva but rather as an emergency measure to refute the prophets of Baal. Your question is whether such a prophet said to kill someone or destroy a particular city or to pillage a particular city as an emergency measure to protect the Torah – how can we obey such a command since no court would do such a thing even as an emergency measure? And even if it were commanded by G d – but we have the principle of “it is not in Heaven”? Since a person is not killed except with witnesses and with proper warning – how is it possible to listen to the prophet to transgress that which is stated in the Torah? Even if he gives an explanation for the need to do this – that would not be sufficient – but he says it is a mitzva to listen to him according to the Torah. Answer: Also in my eyes this is was puzzling until it occurred to me to say that this principle only applies to mitzvos between man and G d. But concerning mitzvos between men, there is no command to listen to him. However I saw in Sanhedrin (90a): Concerning all sins if a prophet tells you to transgress the words of Torah you are to listen to him except for idolatry, because it is possible that he has the ability to stop the sun in the middle of the sky so don’t listen to him…. Thus this gemora clearly states that the only sin not to commit at the command of a prophet is idolatry. … So since it is explicitly stated that it is a mitzva to transgress when commanded by a prophet…. therefore even to kill a person would be required or to destroy a particular city. This is similar to the statement that “I heard that one flogs and punishes not according to the law of the Torah but for the emergency needs of the times and to save the Torah and its mitzvos.
Mishneh Torah, (Foundations of the Torah 9:3) When a prophet - who has already proven himself to be a prophet - instructs us to violate one of the mitzvot of the Torah or many mitzvot, whether they be of a severe or light nature, for a limited amount of time, it is a mitzvah to listen to him. The Sages of the early generation taught as part of the oral tradition: If a prophet tells you to violate the precepts of the Torah as Elijah did on Mount Carmel, listen to him with regard to all things except the worship of false gods. This applies when his command is temporary in nature. For example, on Mount Carmel, Elijah offered a sacrifice outside [the Temple's premises], even though Jerusalem was chosen for such [service], and one who offers a sacrifice outside [the Temple's premises] is liable for karet. Since he was [already established as] a prophet, it was a mitzvah to listen to him. The commandment, "Listen to him," applies in these circumstances as well. If they would have asked Elijah: How can we violate the Torah's command [Deuteronomy 12:13]: "[Be careful...] lest you offer your burnt offerings everywhere"?, he would have told them: We should not say anything, but anyone who offers a sacrifice outside [the Temple premises] is liable for karet, as Moses said. [The present instance,] however, [is an exception]. I am offering a sacrifice today outside [the Temple] at God's command in order to disprove the prophets of Ba'al.
Similarly, if any [other] prophet commands us to transgress for a limited time, it is a mitzvah to listen to him. If, however, he says that the mitzvah has been nullified forever, he is liable for execution by strangulation, for the Torah has told us: "[It is] for us and our children forever."
Yermiyahu (35) The word that came to Jeremiah from GOD in the days of King Jehoiakim son of Josiah of Judah:
Go to the house of the Rechabites and speak to them, and bring them to the House of GOD, to one of the chambers, and give them wine to drink.
So I took Jaazaniah son of Jeremiah son of Habazziniah, and his brothers, all his sons, and all the men in the household of the Rechabites;
and I brought them to the House of GOD, to the chamber of the sons of Hanan son of Igdaliah, the agent of God, which is next to the chamber of the officials and above the chamber of Maaseiah son of Shallum, the guardian of the threshold.
I set bowls full of wine and cups before the Rechabites, and said to them, “Have some wine.”
They replied, “We will not drink wine, for our ancestor, Jonadab son of Rechab, commanded us: ‘You shall never drink wine, either you or your children.
Nor shall you build houses or sow fields or plant vineyards, nor shall you own such things; but you shall live in tents all your days, so that you may live long upon the land where you sojourn.’
And we have obeyed our ancestor Jonadab son of Rechab in all that he commanded us: we never drink wine, neither we nor our wives nor our sons and daughters.
Nor do we build houses to live in, and we do not own vineyards or fields for sowing;
but we live in tents. We have obeyed and done all that our ancestor Jonadab commanded us.
But when King Nebuchadrezzar of Babylon invaded the country, we said, ‘Come, let us go into Jerusalem because of the army of the Chaldeans and the army of Aram.’ And so we are living in Jerusalem.”
Then the word of GOD came to Jeremiah:
Thus said GOD of Hosts, the God of Israel: Go say to the citizenry of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem: “You can learn a lesson [here] about obeying My commands—declares GOD.
The commands of Jonadab son of Rechab have been fulfilled: he charged his children not to drink wine, and to this day they have not drunk, in obedience to the charge of their ancestor. But I spoke to you persistently, and you did not listen to Me.
I persistently sent you all My servants, the prophets, to say: ‘Turn back, every one of you, from your wicked ways and mend your deeds; do not follow other gods or serve them. Then you may remain on the land that I gave to you and your ancestors.’ But you did not give ear or listen to Me.
The family of Jonadab son of Rechab have indeed fulfilled the charge that their ancestor gave them; but this people has not listened to Me.
Assuredly, thus said the ETERNAL, the God of Hosts, the God of Israel: I am going to bring upon Judah and upon all the inhabitants of Jerusalem all the disaster with which I have threatened them; for I spoke to them, but they would not listen; I called to them, but they would not respond.”
And to the family of the Rechabites Jeremiah said: “Thus said GOD of Hosts, the God of Israel: Because you have obeyed the charge of your ancestor Jonadab and kept all his commandments, and done all that he enjoined upon you,
assuredly, thus said GOD of Hosts, the God of Israel: There shall never cease to be someone from the line of Jonadab son of Rechab standing before Me.”
"Eliyahu on Mt. Carmel transgressed on the command not to offer sacrifices outside of the Temple."
ReplyDeleteEliyahu did not offer sacrifices as such, he tested whether the followers of baal could have their sacrifice accepted,, or whether G-d would burn his own one. He poured water on his own one, so he did the opposite of a regular sacrifice - yet a fire came from above to engulf his animal. He was passive, it was Hashem who did the actual Korban
Radvaz already noted that so what is your point?
DeleteRadvaz is making the argument that normally it would be an aveirah to do what Eliyahu did, but in this case it was overridden because he had prophetic instruction.
DeleteMy point is that all Eliyahu did was to kill an animal and put water on it to prevent it from burring in a regular sacrificial way. Since the fire came from Shamayim, Eliyahu did not actually carry out the sacrifice. Unless the issur includes simply shocheting an animal outside the Temple.
You are ignoring the main point that the navi is apparently against the halacha.
DeleteIt's hard to follow what you mean in the title
DeleteWhen we had neviim, there was no Gemara or kitzur shulchan aruch. Now that we do have halacha, we find a posek eg to have insemination, giur, heter, etc.
So anything anti halacha, you just need to know the right person
The Navi did various things. Shimshon marries non Jews, he's a shofet, not even a navi.
Call me a cynic, whats a shabbes belt? It's an absurd invention but fully within halacha. It's just that our understanding of halacha is limited in scope.
Why did Moshe neglect to circumcize his sons? Tzipora, midianite, calls him chatan damim _ it was a conversion of blood (my chiddush ™️) , because there was No shulchan aruch then.
You are claiming this wasn't a korbon But it is described that way in the text וַתִּפֹּ֣ל אֵשׁ־יְהֹוָ֗ה וַתֹּ֤אכַל אֶת־הָעֹלָה֙ וְאֶת־הָֽעֵצִ֔ים וְאֶת־הָאֲבָנִ֖ים וְאֶת־הֶֽעָפָ֑ר וְאֶת־הַמַּ֥יִם אֲשֶׁר־בַּתְּעָלָ֖ה לִחֵֽכָה׃
DeleteThere is much discussion how this was permitted since it violates the prohibition in the Torah against sacrificing outside the Temple
KA thr Rambam clearly disagrees with your understanding
DeleteMishneh Torah, (Foundations of the Torah 9:3) When a prophet - who has already proven himself to be a prophet - instructs us to violate one of the mitzvot of the Torah or many mitzvot, whether they be of a severe or light nature, for a limited amount of time, it is a mitzvah to listen to him. The Sages of the early generation taught as part of the oral tradition: If a prophet tells you to violate the precepts of the Torah as Elijah did on Mount Carmel, listen to him with regard to all things except the worship of false gods. This applies when his command is temporary in nature. For example, on Mount Carmel, Elijah offered a sacrifice outside [the Temple's premises], even though Jerusalem was chosen for such [service], and one who offers a sacrifice outside [the Temple's premises] is liable for karet. Since he was [already established as] a prophet, it was a mitzvah to listen to him. The commandment, "Listen to him," applies in these circumstances as well. If they would have asked Elijah: How can we violate the Torah's command [Deuteronomy 12:13]: "[Be careful...] lest you offer your burnt offerings everywhere"?, he would have told them: We should not say anything, but anyone who offers a sacrifice outside [the Temple premises] is liable for karet, as Moses said. [The present instance,] however, [is an exception]. I am offering a sacrifice today outside [the Temple] at God's command in order to disprove the prophets of Ba'al.
KA you should study the sefer Parshat Hadrachim as well as Maharetz Chajes where these issues are discussed
DeleteThe verse earlier on in 1 Melachim , 18 says:
Deleteכג וְיִתְּנוּ-לָנוּ שְׁנַיִם פָּרִים, וְיִבְחֲרוּ לָהֶם הַפָּר הָאֶחָד וִינַתְּחֻהוּ וְיָשִׂימוּ עַל-הָעֵצִים, וְאֵשׁ, לֹא יָשִׂימוּ; וַאֲנִי אֶעֱשֶׂה אֶת-הַפָּר הָאֶחָד, וְנָתַתִּי עַל-הָעֵצִים, וְאֵשׁ, לֹא אָשִׂים.
So the question is whether at this point Eiyahu has been oiver the Torah in bringing a Korban. He has cut a cow into pieces and poured water on it, and the wood. In The Temple, there is a ner tamid and the fire is burned by the Kohanim. So does this at verse 23, constitute a korban at this stage?
The Holy pasuk you bring is G-d's melacha, He brings the fire , it is not a man made fire. So if the cutting up of an animal, and then pouring water on it constitutes a Korban, my argument fails. However, if the requirement is for it to burn, then my argument appears to have some validity.
It is the greatest honour to engage with the Nesher haGadol, the Rambam in this discussion, and to have him disagree with me, should be instructional.
DeleteIn the section you cite he says:
"If they would have asked Elijah: How can we violate the Torah's command [Deuteronomy 12:13]: "[Be careful...] lest you offer your burnt offerings everywhere"?, he would have told them:"
But Eliyahu has not not offered a burnt offering, he has offered a wet animal, and it is only Hashem who decides whether or not to send a fire down to consume the animal.
It is a fine point, I hope his Honour, the Rambam would have at least considered my argumentation, as it is a logical one, although the threshold for a Korban could be different.
Wow so you view yourself so learned you can disagree with not only the Bible and Rambam but also the gemora?! Do you accept any authority besides yourself?
ReplyDeleteSanhedrin (89b) Since if you do not say so, and claim that even the prophecy of one established as a prophet requires a sign, then in the case of Abraham at Mount Moriah, how did Isaac listen to him and submit to being slaughtered as an offering? Likewise, in the case of Elijah at Mount Carmel, how did the people rely upon him and enable him to engage in the sacrifice of animals slaughtered outside the Temple, which is prohibited? Rather, perforce, a case where he has already assumed the presumptive status of a prophet is different.
Where have I allegedly veered from what the Bible says? You are making up a false narrative.
DeleteRambam here is not paskening on how to make a sacrifice, he's paskening on how a navi can at times override Torah law. He brings eliyahu as a n example.
If you cite the Torah in devarim, you must also accept a verse a little further on
Notwithstanding thou mayest kill and eat flesh within all thy gates, after all the desire of thy soul, according to the blessing of the LORD thy God which He hath given thee; the unclean and the clean may eat thereof, as of the gazelle, and as of the hart.
This is what eliyahu did, .
He prepared an altar with 12 stones, so that could be questionable.
But the fire itself was not made by him.
So, if the issur of sacrifice applies even without fire, then he has violated normal law. If the requirements for the issur is olah - fire offering, the fire came from G_d, it would be heretical to say Elijah duped us and did the fire himself.
The Gemara appears to be saying that Elijah engaged in the sacrifice outside of the temple. Let's see what he did;
DeleteHe slaughtered an animal
Built aan altar of 12 stones
Placed wood beneath the animal.
Poured water on the flesh and wood.
He has done the preparation for a sacrifice, but made it impossible to burn, by pouring water on it.
So I would argue that he pours the water to be meakev the aveira of making an olah.
It is only Hashem that completes the sacrifice.
If however, his mere preparation is sufficient to violate the Torah ordinarily, then my argument doesn't hold. But I have already stated this in my original comment.
Why is pointing out a small detail so problematic? Does it have to be a legitimate detail that has previously been raised by a gadol?
Also, if you purport to accept Elijah as being a true prophet he knew through prophecy what to do. In other words, I don't think he was just some smart scientist or rabbi who set out to disprove the profits of Baal. He must have foreseen and been given instructions on what to do.
DeleteTherefore all he did was prepare an animal on an altar which couldn't humanly be set fire to. And then await a Divine miracle.
By the way, if you look at IBN Ezra and how he treats the whole story of the golden calf, he brings a million different qualifications to take away blame and wrongdoing from our forefathers. Even though many of his arguments are spurious.
So why are you so offended by me pointing out a fine detail that Elijah never actually prepared the fire for the offering the burnt offering and hence did not complete the sacrifice.
You are not pointing out a small problem but are claiming that all sources that say it was a korbon are mistaken. Do you acknowledge that everyone beside you says it was a korbon?
DeleteYou haven't read what I've said.
DeleteThe question is whether his melacha, preparing an animal but spilling water on it constitutes an olah, to the degree of violating the Torah.
That issue has not been clarified. Unless the sources are saying that it does. It is clear that the fire was a divine intervention, so it was no ordinary olah.
Now look in Joshua 22https://mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0622.htm
26 Therefore we said: Let us now prepare to build us an altar, not for burnt-offering, nor for sacrifice;
30 And when Phinehas the priest, and the princes of the congregation, even the heads of the thousands of Israel that were with him, heard the words that the children of Reuben and the children of Gad and the children of Manasseh spoke, it pleased them well.
So yes, it is possible to even debate with Pinchas b elazar,
Just as the altar of Manasseh had a shinui, so did that of Elijah
I suggested earlier that Eliyahu carried out his actions with Nevuah, and that G-d must have instructed him to do this. However, the Radak on v.36 says something different
DeleteWhen it was time to present the grain offering, the prophet Elijah came forward and said, “O ETERNAL One, God of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel! Let it be known today that You are God in Israel and that I am Your servant, and that I have done all these things at Your bidding.
ובדבריך. כתיב ביו"ד וקרי בלא יו"ד והענין אחד אלא שזה יחיד וזה רבים וטעם ובדברך שלא יאמרו מדעתי עשיתי כל מה שעשיתי ומה שאני עושה בכל זמן מדברי הנסים הם דברי כשפים או קסמים ואם תענני באש שירד מן השמים ידעו כי כל מה שאני עושה ברצונך ובבטחוני בך אני עושה וידעו כי אתה אלהים בישראל ואני עבדך לא כעגלים שהם עובדים ובדברי רבותינו ז"ל ובדברך עשיתי שלא יאמרו אליהו מקריב בבמה בשעת איסור הבמות ובדברך עשיתי בדבורך עשיתי:
The pshat suggests that he takes instruction from Hashem, but
Radak seems to be saying that he did it with Bitachon, and is now asking G-d to bring down a fire.
If he actually did this on his own initiative, it is even more remarkable than had it been done through Nevuah. It is like it was Eit l'asot. Of course he knew he was doing it L'shem shamayim - but that could also be a different halachic mechanism, if it was eit l'asot.
BTW, why didn't Baalists, say to Elijah "lo bashamyim hi" , that they don't accept miracles, and instead go by majority?
DeleteI can think of two possible reasons
Delete1) Having rejected the Torah, they can't then bring a psak to contradict what Eliyahu's doing
2) Even if they said "Well we reject the Torah but since you hold by it, what about 'Lo bashayim hi'?" the Eliyahu could point out that this only applies in a valid halakhic debate, not a confrontation with idolators.
Yes, there was obviously a joke element to my question, but there are more serious aspects, as per your answers.
DeleteThey may have held by the Torah + some baal worship. Or, Elijah was not conducting a discussion in a sanhedrin or Beis din, rather he was making an Empirical exercise. But if they were Talmidei chachamim, who went of the rails, they could have used this argument. All that is assuming that Lo Bashamyim Hi had this meaning in the time of Neviim.
There are various sources (DT can pull them out) that say that even the staunchest idolators recognized that God existed, only they figured He was this out-of-touch deity who didn't care about creation and left running it to the false gods.
DeleteThere are others that say that, in fact, our idolatrous ancestors were completely pious Jews who observed all the mitzvos except for murder, illicit sex and idolatry. The gemara even says that the only reason people turned to idolatry is because it offered the sexual freedom the Torah opposed.
And then there's the famous drasha on why, when Eisav only asked for stew, Yaakov served him bread as well.
Bottom line: A prophet of God facing off against a pack of debauched idol priests isn't a place to look for pilpul.
Your last 2 statements are contradictory.
DeleteHere is one of my comments which will again probably rile our blog master _ and it might go against all the usual sources.
The tanur of aknai was an episode after the end of all things biblical .No prophets, no temple, no urim u tummim, no bitter waters etc.
It is post biblical Judaism.
Today we are post chazal Judaism, whereas chazal no longer had the temple or priestly blessings, they framed halacha.
Today we don't even know how to do that.
Also think logically at least temporarily. If Rav elazar knew the oral law, he must have known lo bashamyim hi. We all know about it, do we know more than him? Or was it a new concept that came about because of the need of the time?
I always think logically. Sometimes people can't follow my logic but it's always logical. Ironic, since that's why Rabbi Eliezer (not Elazar) had his problems with the Tanur Achnai. He want right, his logic was impeccable, his colleagues couldn't follow it and came to a different conclusion and majority rules.
DeleteThe interesting thing about this example is that it is contradicted by how the disputes between Beis Hillel and Beis Shammai were solved.
Thank you for the correction.
DeleteWith these sorts of things, I see these being concepts introduced by chazal to explain a specific point, since lo bashamyim hi in its original verse has a completely different meaning.
The whole debate is irrational and contrary to scientific logic.
Perhaps rabbi eliezer failed because he couldn't explain his rationale clearly to his colleagues.
What happened afterwards is tragic, and not usually mentioned by those speaking on the subject
There's also a rambam in his intro to the Mishna commentary.
DeleteHe says sometimes a single sage will present a logical argument that is so clear, that the majority will accept it.
The difficulty with the akhnai system is that it is not concerned with any sort of objective truth.
please cite it in full. I could not find it
DeleteI will have to go through the book to find it 😁
DeleteI am honoured to find that no less a personage than the Radak, is taking my approach to understanding the issues related to a Navi and his "violation" of Torah laws
DeleteThus, in his commentary intro to the Mishnah, Rambam says
וכמו שעשה אלישע בצוותו להלחם עם מואב להכרית כל עץ עושה פרי כמו שאמר (מלכים ב ג) וכל עץ טוב תפילו והשם מנענו מלעשות כן באמרו (דברים כ) לא תשחית את עצה לנדוח עליו גרזן ואילו שאלו את אלישע אם בטלה המצוה הזאת ואם הותר לנו בעתיד לכרות האילנות העושות פרי כשנצור על עיר היה אומר שאינו מותר אבל זה המעשה נעשה עתה לענין צורך.
And like Elisha did in his commanding to fight with Moav to cut all the fruit-bearing trees, as he said (II Kings 3:19), "'and you shall fell every good tree.'" And yet God prevented us from doing this in His saying (Deuteronomy 20:19), "you must not destroy its trees, wielding the ax against them." And if they had asked Elisha if this commandment was negated, and if it was rendered permissible for us to cut down fruit-bearing trees when we besiege a city in the future, he would have said that it is not permissible; but [that] this deed was done now for the matter of a need.
Yet, the Radak there says that the Torah only prohibits cutting down fruit trees during a siege, and this was not actually a siege: https://www.sefaria.org/II_Kings.3.19?lang=bi&with=Radak&lang2=en
וכל עץ טוב תפילו. כי הכתוב לא אמר לא תשחית את עצה אלא כשיצורו על עיר כמ"ש הטעם כי ממנו תאכל ואע"פ שרז"ל קבלו כי בכל מקום ובכל זמן אסור להשחית עץ מאכל פשט הכתוב הוא שלא אמר אלא בעת המצור ואפשר שהיתה מצוה לשעה כאליהו בהר הכרמל שהקריב עולה בחוץ בשעת איסור הבמות, ובדרש כשאמר להם הנביא וכל עץ טוב תפילו אמרו לו הרי הוא אומר לא תשחית את עצה ואתה אומר כן אמר להם על שאר האומות נאמרה זה אבל אומה זו נקלה ונבזה לפני ה' שנאמר ונקל זאת בעיני ה' ונאמר לא תדרוש שלומם וטובתם אלו אילנות טובות שלהם:
This is the specific Rambam I mentioned previously
Deletehttps://www.sefaria.org/Rambam_Introduction_to_the_Mishnah.14.4?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en
It is 14; 4 on the notation used by Sefaria
אבל הטעם שהצריכום לכתוב דברי יחיד ורבים הוא מפני שאפשר להיות הלכה כיחיד ועל כן בא ללמדך כשתהיה סברא פשוטה ואפילו ליחיד שומעין לו ואע"פ שחולקין עליו רבים.
But the reason that required them to write the words of the individual [alongside those] of the many is because it is possible for the law to be like the individual. And therefore, it comes to teach us that when a line of reasoning is obvious (straightforward), even if it is [that of an] individual, we listen to him – even though the many disagree with him.
Actually you misquoted him
DeleteHe says sometimes a single sage will present a logical argument that is so clear, that the majority will accept it.
The difficulty with the akhnai system is that it is not concerned with any sort of objective truth.
Actually the Ravad explicitly says Eliyahu brought a Korbon which is against your view
DeleteActually what I said was from memory of reading the Fred Rosner translation, but I wasn't able to find the sefer. This is a different translation on sefaria.
DeleteHow does my original rendition affect the message? It is the same argument.
Is bringing the dead animal sufficient to violate the issur? Or do you require a fire? If so, who brought the fire? Was it directly from Hashem or did Elijah have a trick up his sleeve? Maybe he use lenses or mirrors to focus the The sun's rays. The 12 sons he placed around the altar could be a highly polished to be like mirrors which is the same thing they do today for solar energy. But even then it doesn't count. Just like if you fry an egg on a hot stone, you're not actually cooking it.
Delete12 stones it should be 👆🏻
DeleteActually, when Manasseh built an altar over the Jordan, the majority of tribes got into a dispute with them. But the minority tribes presented their argument to Pinchas, who was satisfied with their reasoning, and did not go to war.
ReplyDeleteI believe this may absolve Elijah in this case.
There is nothing to absolve!
DeleteTrue, but it's a question of whether he needed a heter by halachic argument, or by rules of nevuah, or that there was no d'oraita issur in the first place that required any sort of heter.
Delete