1

According to Rambam (Yesodey Hatorah 7,2), a prophet sees a vision of prophecy, not receiving a clear verbal message:

וכולן אין רואין מראה הנבואה ...
...אלא בחלום בחזיון לילה או ביום אחר שתפול עליהן תרדמה

They receive prophetic visions only in a visionary dream or during the day after slumber has overtaken them...

How does a prophet translate it into words to pass the message to the masses? And if the vision IS G-dly, how the wording can be, as it is his own human interpretation? Is there only one way of possible putting/describing every prophecy?

Al Berko
  • 25,936
  • 2
  • 22
  • 57
  • 1
    A few versions of this process are nicely laid out in Sefer Daniel – יהושע ק Jul 12 '19 at 00:30
  • related https://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/38317/are-the-words-of-the-prophets-such-as-yeshayahu-the-literal-words-of-god – rosends Jul 12 '19 at 15:03
  • @AlBerko Your struggle with this subject is the artificial limitations that you place on it. There are an infinite variety of modes in which prophecy can be communicated to the prophet. Visions of letters is not a far reach. Regarding the UV’T, the Kohen Gadol would gaze at the Choshen HaMishpat after posing the question. The engraved letters on the UV’T relevant to the answer would glow and the K”G would be inspired to know the arrangement of the letters for the answer. – Yaacov Deane Jul 14 '19 at 03:16
  • @AlBerko All the discussions of prophecy are things taking place in the mind of the prophet, whether sounds, sights or other senses. See 4th section of Sha’ar Ruach HaKodesh from Rabbi Chaim Vital, for example. – Yaacov Deane Jul 14 '19 at 03:23
  • @yaacovdeane bottom line - is this verbalization exact to the letter? How trustful is it? – Al Berko Jul 14 '19 at 05:18
  • @AlBerko G-d is in control of both the vision and the understanding. So for a true prophet, the message is 100% reliable. From your responses it suggests to me, that for you, this entire discussion is purely intellectual. Not experiential. – Yaacov Deane Jul 14 '19 at 05:59
  • @YaacovDeane I didn't experience prophecy or, at least I don't attribute my thinking to it yet. I find it difficult to understand. I have a background in Cognitive Pshychology and I'd like to know it those processes were humanly natural or all-miraculous. – Al Berko Jul 14 '19 at 06:21
  • @TurkHill and others: comments on this question are not the place to argue about the validity of kabbalah, Tanya, or Zohar. Had the conversation been merely tangential I would have moved it to chat, but because some of the discussion is disrespectful and heated I'm purging it. As always, if you have an answer, use the answer space and not comments. – Monica Cellio Jul 14 '19 at 17:40

1 Answers1

2

"סגנון אחד עולה לכמה נביאים, ואין שני נביאים מתנבאים בסגנון אחד

one sign can appear to many nevi'im, but not two nevi'im prophecy using the same sign." (R Yitzchaq on Sanhedrin 89a)

It does seem to be a personal interpretation. Which would explain why the same revelation might not be described the same if seen by two prophets.

But then, according to the Rambam, the vision is also subjective. According to his understanding, nevu'ah is a glimpse of something that the brain can only comprehend by casting it in the familiar.

According to the Ramban, nevu'ah is a message sent in metaphor because only Moshe could handle more direct contact. There is reason to say the metaphor is chosen by HQBH, not the navi.

According to the Abravanel (on the end of Mishpatim) this is core to understanding their debate in Vayeira as well as on the Man in the Throne vision at Har Sinai.

The Rambam has no problem saying that Avraham could only see the angels prophetically. Because to the Rambam, "things" seen prophectically are really there, even if not physical substance that can be seen with the eyes. However, he says the "Man" the elders see at Mount Sinai is a created entity, the Kavod Nivra, because G-d cannot be seen, even by prophetic "vision".

Whereas to the Ramban, saying the angels came in a nevu'ah would mean that Hashem sent a message that included a vision of angels. Which would leave no one to heal Avraham, destroy the Cities of the Plains, or save Lot's family. He has to have the angels actually take the form of people. On the other hand, the Man in the Throne could be G-d Himself, since there is no theological problem with G-d sending the Elders a message in which He represents Himself as a person.

If we take the Rambam's position, then, the whole thing is subjective, followed by a creative element. And even by the Ramban's position, the vision is Hashem's choice, but the idiom in which it is is expressed is still personal choice.

Community
  • 1
Micha Berger
  • 9,648
  • 33
  • 41
  • Are we to draw from this that you are one of those who holds that Rambam actually studied kabbalah (including Kabbalah Navu'it, the teachings of Prophecy) and that he just didn't make that information know to the general public? Most people here at this site don't subscribe to that viewpoint. – Yaacov Deane Jul 12 '19 at 17:59
  • @YaacovDeane You're free to write your own answer from Kabbalah Nevu'it POV. This site does not obligate to include all viewpoints in one answer AFAIK. – Al Berko Jul 13 '19 at 22:41
  • @Micha Berger I like the answer you provided but the the last two paragraphs sounds almost blasphemous. I’m not accusing you of blasphemy but I think you do not understand Rambam’s position that we cannot describe G-d. This idea of G-d being represented as a man may date back to the Middle Ages when Jewish holy books had a picture of G-d looking like a man on the cover! Rambam sought to do away with that. – Turk Hill Jul 13 '19 at 23:05
  • 1
    @TurkHill: If you have problems with my description of the Rambam, check out the Abravanel (on Moreh Nevuchim 2:42 http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=30672&pgnum=79 ) for yourself, and see if I misunderstood him. Also, note that the Abravanel is talking about nevi'im "seeing" intellects (angels) and the Kavod Nivra, not G-d. It is this very point he uses to explain why the Rambam and Ramban understand the Man in the Throne at Sinai differently. – Micha Berger Jul 14 '19 at 02:35
  • @AlBerko: I do not mean the higher entities that Qabbalah discusses, I mean the chain of being the Rambam himself describes, e.g. in the beginning of Yesodei haTorah ch. 1 and the middle bulk of ch. 2. (Although the Leshem does note the similarlity between the Rambam's chain of intellects and Qabbalah's olamos, and holds they are two models of the same underlying metaphysical reality. The result is that the Leshem's Kelalim is a Qabbalah seifer that quotes the Moreh frequently. Perhaps his other works do too -- I've never looked at them.) – Micha Berger Jul 14 '19 at 02:38
  • Micha, I followed you up to "According to the Ramban" and I'd like to develop that idea of translating the vision into words, and not the essence of the vision (as it is very arguable). So acc. to the Gm, the interpretation is personal and wording is also. – Al Berko Jul 14 '19 at 05:49
  • Rambam felt that prophecy was dependent to the development of the intellect and a love of G-d. Whether one in-visions number, letters, or even images is beside the point. Einstein imagined letters and numbers when he thought up e=mc2. – Turk Hill Jul 14 '19 at 18:38
  • But he does say that all nevi’im but Moshe saw visions not words because at their distance, nevu’ah is filtered through koach hadimyon. – Micha Berger Jul 14 '19 at 19:39
  • @MichaBerger I have no problem with your position regarding Rambam. We can all agree that G-d has no body. Hashem is transcendent. They are many views on Rambam (Maimonidean controversy). I tend to take the stance of the rationalism perspective but everybody can believe what they want so long it is not Halakah. – Turk Hill Jul 16 '19 at 15:21
  • Again, not me, the Abravanel, in his commentary on the Guide. And he was indeed a rationalist. – Micha Berger Jul 16 '19 at 15:32
  • @MichaBerger, this is off-topic but was it you who responded to me about the Rambam regarding angels on the site, "Rationalist Judaism" about a month ago? – Turk Hill Jul 16 '19 at 19:40
  • I just noticed your picture; in which I present my response here. – Turk Hill Jul 16 '19 at 19:55
  • I agree that both Aristotle and Maimonides relied on the science of their day which was wrong in many ways. Yet, I think their thinking about angels is correct. G-d is not a Pasha surrounded by servants that carry out the Pasha's commands. G-d has no need for assistants. Yes, tradition came up with the idea that there are angels, meaning messengers from G-d. But they should not be understood as figures outside natural law. Natural law is fixed and needs no change. If one wants to think of the existence of angels, think of the natural forces such as rain, snow, the laws of gravity, etc. – Turk Hill Jul 16 '19 at 19:55
  • Although he was a rationalist, we should not agree with every authority. For example, Abravanel said the nonsensical notion that G-d made human movement faster, and relative to other motion, all else appeared to be stopped. This is regarding Joshua 10. But there is no proof that the earth ever stopped nor momentum slowed. And Spinoza mocked the Bible, calling for the ignorance of the writers' understanding of planetary motion: physics. If the earth were to halt, everything would die. But G-d desires we use our gifted intelligence; not blind faith. – Turk Hill Jul 16 '19 at 20:00
  • The earth cannot pause while human motion remains intact at the speed of 1000mph. You only don't feel the rotation of the earth because your body is used to it. Think of an airplane traveling smoothly at a constant speed and altitude. If the plane were to suddenly come to a complete halt in mid-air but human motion remains intact, such a phenomenon would contradict the law of gravity and motion. You cannot apply Einstein's theory of relativity here. – Turk Hill Jul 16 '19 at 20:02
  • Gersonides said Joshua did not perform a miracle greater than Moses. He dismisses Babylonian Talmud, Avoda Zara 25a since it contradicts Deut. 34:10:12. He explains it figuratively. That it appeared the sun stood still. Maimonides said it was a song (Perplexed 2:35). I think that the interpretation by Ralbag is enough. – Turk Hill Jul 16 '19 at 20:02
  • Also, the word with Joshua for the sun is dom which means became silent which means stops shining which implies an eclipse. It does not mean stands still. Aaron was dom when his 2 sons died. He was silent. – Turk Hill Jul 16 '19 at 20:10