Did HaShem ever command a Navi (Prophet) to break a law?Did Abraham always follow halacha?Why Hashem send prophet to Niniveh to warn them against robbery instead of idolatry?Did the late Lubavicher Rebbe consider himself a to be a prophet and/or the mashiach?What's the difference between chozeh (seer) and navi (prophet)?Was there ever a prophet that was also a military commanderWhy Did God Directly Command Abraham to Sacrifice Isaac but Sent Angels to Stop Him?
Employer wants me to do something explicitly illegal
What is a recently obsolete computer storage device that would be significantly difficult to extract data from?
Implementing a hash table with true concurrency
Someone said to me, "We basically literally did." What were they trying to express to me?
Is the axiom of choice needed in proving that metric spaces in which every infinite subset has a limit point are compact?
What is the lowest percentage of the popular vote that a President has been elected on?
Plane ticket price went down by 40% two weeks after I booked it. Is there anything I can do to get a refund?
Project Euler problem 26 in Python
Suppose I capture encrypted data that I want to decrypt. Could I use a server farm to decrypt?
My professor changed a take-home test to an in-class test with no notice. Can I fight the grade?
How can I make my sealing ritual neccessary?
What does "können" refer to in this sentence?
Lewis Structure of OF+
Collision detection when falling: two identical cases?
Did the US embassy in Kyiv resist hanging Trump's picture while Yovanovitch was ambassador?
Proper Case Conversion (Performance)
Journal editor made bad edits to my (accepted) paper - how do I respond?
How do you call a note, that stays through the whole song?
Starting with D&D: Starter Set vs Dungeon Master's Guide
Why are file URLs marked as not secure while HTTPS URLs are marked as secure in browsers?
How to obtain sodium oxide from sodium chloride?
In the Trump Impeachment process what is the legal status of notes?
Are trigonometry functions Ratios or Distance?
What is "Chronological Order" in chess?
Did HaShem ever command a Navi (Prophet) to break a law?
Did Abraham always follow halacha?Why Hashem send prophet to Niniveh to warn them against robbery instead of idolatry?Did the late Lubavicher Rebbe consider himself a to be a prophet and/or the mashiach?What's the difference between chozeh (seer) and navi (prophet)?Was there ever a prophet that was also a military commanderWhy Did God Directly Command Abraham to Sacrifice Isaac but Sent Angels to Stop Him?
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty
margin-bottom:0;
.everyonelovesstackoverflowposition:absolute;height:1px;width:1px;opacity:0;top:0;left:0;pointer-events:none;
It’s well known that Avraham kept the entire Torah which clearly prohibits human sacrifice, but once HaShem tells him to sacrifice Yitzchak he was willing to break that law. So obviously HaShem can suspend the Torah’s laws. Is there any other case where HaShem asks a Navi to do something contrary to the Torah?
navi-prophets binding-of-isaac
asked Sep 17 at 13:48
LagesLages
8901 silver badge10 bronze badges
|
show 3 more comments
It’s well known that Avraham kept the entire Torah which clearly prohibits human sacrifice, but once HaShem tells him to sacrifice Yitzchak he was willing to break that law. So obviously HaShem can suspend the Torah’s laws. Is there any other case where HaShem asks a Navi to do something contrary to the Torah?
navi-prophets binding-of-isaac
asked Sep 17 at 13:48
LagesLages
8901 silver badge10 bronze badges
2
Are you specifically asking where it's specifically written that Hashem commands the Navi to break the law, or any time a Navi breaks the law (with implied permission)? There is the famous story with Eliyahu and the Baal worshippers, which was allowed due to Hora'as Sha'ah, but I don't think it was explicitly written in the Navi that Hashem asked Eliyahu to make that specific test.
– Salmononius2
Sep 17 at 13:52
2
@Salmononius2 It doesn't say "Hashem said to Eliyahu, etc.," but Eliyahu himself does say ובדברך עשיתי את כל הדברים האלה.
– Meir
Sep 17 at 14:05
1. The "Torah" as we know it, contains a logical contradiction allowing for any possible behavior and that is formulated as "עת לעשות לה' הפרו תורתך" - it's time to do for Hashem, to override Your Torah". So each time a commandment is broken by a prominent figure we can always justify it by that rule - Moses breaking the Tablets, Yaakov marrying sisters, etc.
– Al Berko
Sep 17 at 14:42
2. By definition, whatever G-d says becomes a part of the Torah. For example, G-d commands not to murder. Sometime later G-d says to stone the Mekoshesh (sounds a bit contradictory to me). But we don't raise an eyebrow, because once G-d commands - it becomes a new commandment.
– Al Berko
Sep 17 at 14:44
2
Hosea 1:2 doesn't sound very much in the spirit of the law.
– Loewian
Sep 17 at 15:19
|
show 3 more comments
It’s well known that Avraham kept the entire Torah which clearly prohibits human sacrifice, but once HaShem tells him to sacrifice Yitzchak he was willing to break that law. So obviously HaShem can suspend the Torah’s laws. Is there any other case where HaShem asks a Navi to do something contrary to the Torah?
navi-prophets binding-of-isaac
asked Sep 17 at 13:48
LagesLages
8901 silver badge10 bronze badges
It’s well known that Avraham kept the entire Torah which clearly prohibits human sacrifice, but once HaShem tells him to sacrifice Yitzchak he was willing to break that law. So obviously HaShem can suspend the Torah’s laws. Is there any other case where HaShem asks a Navi to do something contrary to the Torah?
navi-prophets binding-of-isaac
navi-prophets binding-of-isaac
asked Sep 17 at 13:48
LagesLages
8901 silver badge10 bronze badges
asked Sep 17 at 13:48
LagesLages
8901 silver badge10 bronze badges
asked Sep 17 at 13:48
LagesLages
8901 silver badge10 bronze badges
asked Sep 17 at 13:48
LagesLages
8901 silver badge10 bronze badges
asked Sep 17 at 13:48
LagesLages
8901 silver badge10 bronze badges
8901 silver badge10 bronze badges
2
Are you specifically asking where it's specifically written that Hashem commands the Navi to break the law, or any time a Navi breaks the law (with implied permission)? There is the famous story with Eliyahu and the Baal worshippers, which was allowed due to Hora'as Sha'ah, but I don't think it was explicitly written in the Navi that Hashem asked Eliyahu to make that specific test.
– Salmononius2
Sep 17 at 13:52
2
@Salmononius2 It doesn't say "Hashem said to Eliyahu, etc.," but Eliyahu himself does say ובדברך עשיתי את כל הדברים האלה.
– Meir
Sep 17 at 14:05
1. The "Torah" as we know it, contains a logical contradiction allowing for any possible behavior and that is formulated as "עת לעשות לה' הפרו תורתך" - it's time to do for Hashem, to override Your Torah". So each time a commandment is broken by a prominent figure we can always justify it by that rule - Moses breaking the Tablets, Yaakov marrying sisters, etc.
– Al Berko
Sep 17 at 14:42
2. By definition, whatever G-d says becomes a part of the Torah. For example, G-d commands not to murder. Sometime later G-d says to stone the Mekoshesh (sounds a bit contradictory to me). But we don't raise an eyebrow, because once G-d commands - it becomes a new commandment.
– Al Berko
Sep 17 at 14:44
2
Hosea 1:2 doesn't sound very much in the spirit of the law.
– Loewian
Sep 17 at 15:19
|
show 3 more comments
2
Are you specifically asking where it's specifically written that Hashem commands the Navi to break the law, or any time a Navi breaks the law (with implied permission)? There is the famous story with Eliyahu and the Baal worshippers, which was allowed due to Hora'as Sha'ah, but I don't think it was explicitly written in the Navi that Hashem asked Eliyahu to make that specific test.
– Salmononius2
Sep 17 at 13:52
2
@Salmononius2 It doesn't say "Hashem said to Eliyahu, etc.," but Eliyahu himself does say ובדברך עשיתי את כל הדברים האלה.
– Meir
Sep 17 at 14:05
1. The "Torah" as we know it, contains a logical contradiction allowing for any possible behavior and that is formulated as "עת לעשות לה' הפרו תורתך" - it's time to do for Hashem, to override Your Torah". So each time a commandment is broken by a prominent figure we can always justify it by that rule - Moses breaking the Tablets, Yaakov marrying sisters, etc.
– Al Berko
Sep 17 at 14:42
2. By definition, whatever G-d says becomes a part of the Torah. For example, G-d commands not to murder. Sometime later G-d says to stone the Mekoshesh (sounds a bit contradictory to me). But we don't raise an eyebrow, because once G-d commands - it becomes a new commandment.
– Al Berko
Sep 17 at 14:44
2
Hosea 1:2 doesn't sound very much in the spirit of the law.
– Loewian
Sep 17 at 15:19
2
2
Are you specifically asking where it's specifically written that Hashem commands the Navi to break the law, or any time a Navi breaks the law (with implied permission)? There is the famous story with Eliyahu and the Baal worshippers, which was allowed due to Hora'as Sha'ah, but I don't think it was explicitly written in the Navi that Hashem asked Eliyahu to make that specific test.
– Salmononius2
Sep 17 at 13:52
Are you specifically asking where it's specifically written that Hashem commands the Navi to break the law, or any time a Navi breaks the law (with implied permission)? There is the famous story with Eliyahu and the Baal worshippers, which was allowed due to Hora'as Sha'ah, but I don't think it was explicitly written in the Navi that Hashem asked Eliyahu to make that specific test.
– Salmononius2
Sep 17 at 13:52
2
2
@Salmononius2 It doesn't say "Hashem said to Eliyahu, etc.," but Eliyahu himself does say ובדברך עשיתי את כל הדברים האלה.
– Meir
Sep 17 at 14:05
@Salmononius2 It doesn't say "Hashem said to Eliyahu, etc.," but Eliyahu himself does say ובדברך עשיתי את כל הדברים האלה.
– Meir
Sep 17 at 14:05
1. The "Torah" as we know it, contains a logical contradiction allowing for any possible behavior and that is formulated as "עת לעשות לה' הפרו תורתך" - it's time to do for Hashem, to override Your Torah". So each time a commandment is broken by a prominent figure we can always justify it by that rule - Moses breaking the Tablets, Yaakov marrying sisters, etc.
– Al Berko
Sep 17 at 14:42
1. The "Torah" as we know it, contains a logical contradiction allowing for any possible behavior and that is formulated as "עת לעשות לה' הפרו תורתך" - it's time to do for Hashem, to override Your Torah". So each time a commandment is broken by a prominent figure we can always justify it by that rule - Moses breaking the Tablets, Yaakov marrying sisters, etc.
– Al Berko
Sep 17 at 14:42
2. By definition, whatever G-d says becomes a part of the Torah. For example, G-d commands not to murder. Sometime later G-d says to stone the Mekoshesh (sounds a bit contradictory to me). But we don't raise an eyebrow, because once G-d commands - it becomes a new commandment.
– Al Berko
Sep 17 at 14:44
2. By definition, whatever G-d says becomes a part of the Torah. For example, G-d commands not to murder. Sometime later G-d says to stone the Mekoshesh (sounds a bit contradictory to me). But we don't raise an eyebrow, because once G-d commands - it becomes a new commandment.
– Al Berko
Sep 17 at 14:44
2
2
Hosea 1:2 doesn't sound very much in the spirit of the law.
– Loewian
Sep 17 at 15:19
Hosea 1:2 doesn't sound very much in the spirit of the law.
– Loewian
Sep 17 at 15:19
|
show 3 more comments
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
Hashem tells Yechezkel that his wife is going to die, and that he specifically shouldn't observe several of the practices of aveilus (Yechezkel 24:16-17). It's a machlokes whether the first day's aveilus is Min Hatorah or Miderabanan (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 398), but either way these laws are part of Torah.
answered Sep 17 at 17:18
MeirMeir
2,9133 silver badges18 bronze badges
add a comment
|
Eliyahu at Har Carmel. Standard halachic opinion is that sacrifices away from the Temple were forbidden. So Eliyahu was either directly told to break this, or decided on his own and that decision was then endorsed by the resulting fire.
Rambam seems to understand the first way. See the Hilchos Yesodei HaTora 9:3 where he says that Eliyahu was acting under the command of Hashem to bring a sacrifice on a private altar while the Temple was in existence even though this was ordinarily forbidden.
Similarly, a prophet who violated his own prophetic instructions, and
one who refrains from prophesying, are liable for death at the hand of
God, since concerning the three of them, it is said, "I will seek
[retribution] from him."
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."
edited Sep 17 at 23:21
Double AA♦
87.4k6 gold badges210 silver badges470 bronze badges
answered Sep 17 at 22:15
JoshuaZJoshuaZ
1913 bronze badges
1
This is much better. I'm not convinced per se that Rambam didn't mean something more like "at the will of God", but he does literally say "at the word of God" so this is a plausible answer.
– Double AA♦
Sep 17 at 23:22
add a comment
|
The Talmud (Chullin 5a) states:
לימא מסייע ליה והעורבים מביאים לו לחם ובשר בבקר ולחם ובשר בערב ואמר רב יהודה אמר רב מבי טבחי דאחאב על פי הדבור שאני
Can we say that the following supports his [R. ‘Anan's] view? It is written: And the ravens
brought him bread and flesh in the morning, and bread and flesh in the evening, and Rab Judah
explained this in the name of Rab that [the ravens brought the flesh] from Ahab's slaughterers! —
Being a Divine command it is different.
(Soncino translation)
R. Anan's view appears earlier (4b):
דאמר רב ענן אמר שמואל ישראל מומר לעבודת כוכבים מותר לאכול משחיטתו
R. ‘Anan, who said in the name of
Samuel: In the case of an Israelite who is an apostate in respect of idolatry, we may eat of his
slaughtering.
(Soncino translation)
Thus, the Talmud attempts to support R. Anan's view by noting that Elijah seemed to have acted in accordance with it, by eating meat slaughtered by Ahab's slaughterers. The Talmud rejects this support, though, because it's possible that R. Anan is really wrong, and the meat in that case would actually have been forbidden, but Elijah was able to eat it anyway because God told him to.
According to this rejection, we have here an example of God telling (or at least allowing) a prophet to break a law.
answered Sep 17 at 23:50
AlexAlex
33.3k3 gold badges80 silver badges167 bronze badges
add a comment
|
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Hashem tells Yechezkel that his wife is going to die, and that he specifically shouldn't observe several of the practices of aveilus (Yechezkel 24:16-17). It's a machlokes whether the first day's aveilus is Min Hatorah or Miderabanan (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 398), but either way these laws are part of Torah.
answered Sep 17 at 17:18
MeirMeir
2,9133 silver badges18 bronze badges
add a comment
|
Hashem tells Yechezkel that his wife is going to die, and that he specifically shouldn't observe several of the practices of aveilus (Yechezkel 24:16-17). It's a machlokes whether the first day's aveilus is Min Hatorah or Miderabanan (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 398), but either way these laws are part of Torah.
answered Sep 17 at 17:18
MeirMeir
2,9133 silver badges18 bronze badges
add a comment
|
Hashem tells Yechezkel that his wife is going to die, and that he specifically shouldn't observe several of the practices of aveilus (Yechezkel 24:16-17). It's a machlokes whether the first day's aveilus is Min Hatorah or Miderabanan (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 398), but either way these laws are part of Torah.
answered Sep 17 at 17:18
MeirMeir
2,9133 silver badges18 bronze badges
Hashem tells Yechezkel that his wife is going to die, and that he specifically shouldn't observe several of the practices of aveilus (Yechezkel 24:16-17). It's a machlokes whether the first day's aveilus is Min Hatorah or Miderabanan (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 398), but either way these laws are part of Torah.
answered Sep 17 at 17:18
MeirMeir
2,9133 silver badges18 bronze badges
answered Sep 17 at 17:18
MeirMeir
2,9133 silver badges18 bronze badges
answered Sep 17 at 17:18
MeirMeir
2,9133 silver badges18 bronze badges
answered Sep 17 at 17:18
MeirMeir
2,9133 silver badges18 bronze badges
2,9133 silver badges18 bronze badges
add a comment
|
add a comment
|
Eliyahu at Har Carmel. Standard halachic opinion is that sacrifices away from the Temple were forbidden. So Eliyahu was either directly told to break this, or decided on his own and that decision was then endorsed by the resulting fire.
Rambam seems to understand the first way. See the Hilchos Yesodei HaTora 9:3 where he says that Eliyahu was acting under the command of Hashem to bring a sacrifice on a private altar while the Temple was in existence even though this was ordinarily forbidden.
Similarly, a prophet who violated his own prophetic instructions, and
one who refrains from prophesying, are liable for death at the hand of
God, since concerning the three of them, it is said, "I will seek
[retribution] from him."
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."
edited Sep 17 at 23:21
Double AA♦
87.4k6 gold badges210 silver badges470 bronze badges
answered Sep 17 at 22:15
JoshuaZJoshuaZ
1913 bronze badges
1
This is much better. I'm not convinced per se that Rambam didn't mean something more like "at the will of God", but he does literally say "at the word of God" so this is a plausible answer.
– Double AA♦
Sep 17 at 23:22
add a comment
|
Eliyahu at Har Carmel. Standard halachic opinion is that sacrifices away from the Temple were forbidden. So Eliyahu was either directly told to break this, or decided on his own and that decision was then endorsed by the resulting fire.
Rambam seems to understand the first way. See the Hilchos Yesodei HaTora 9:3 where he says that Eliyahu was acting under the command of Hashem to bring a sacrifice on a private altar while the Temple was in existence even though this was ordinarily forbidden.
Similarly, a prophet who violated his own prophetic instructions, and
one who refrains from prophesying, are liable for death at the hand of
God, since concerning the three of them, it is said, "I will seek
[retribution] from him."
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."
edited Sep 17 at 23:21
Double AA♦
87.4k6 gold badges210 silver badges470 bronze badges
answered Sep 17 at 22:15
JoshuaZJoshuaZ
1913 bronze badges
1
This is much better. I'm not convinced per se that Rambam didn't mean something more like "at the will of God", but he does literally say "at the word of God" so this is a plausible answer.
– Double AA♦
Sep 17 at 23:22
add a comment
|
Eliyahu at Har Carmel. Standard halachic opinion is that sacrifices away from the Temple were forbidden. So Eliyahu was either directly told to break this, or decided on his own and that decision was then endorsed by the resulting fire.
Rambam seems to understand the first way. See the Hilchos Yesodei HaTora 9:3 where he says that Eliyahu was acting under the command of Hashem to bring a sacrifice on a private altar while the Temple was in existence even though this was ordinarily forbidden.
Similarly, a prophet who violated his own prophetic instructions, and
one who refrains from prophesying, are liable for death at the hand of
God, since concerning the three of them, it is said, "I will seek
[retribution] from him."
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."
edited Sep 17 at 23:21
Double AA♦
87.4k6 gold badges210 silver badges470 bronze badges
answered Sep 17 at 22:15
JoshuaZJoshuaZ
1913 bronze badges
Eliyahu at Har Carmel. Standard halachic opinion is that sacrifices away from the Temple were forbidden. So Eliyahu was either directly told to break this, or decided on his own and that decision was then endorsed by the resulting fire.
Rambam seems to understand the first way. See the Hilchos Yesodei HaTora 9:3 where he says that Eliyahu was acting under the command of Hashem to bring a sacrifice on a private altar while the Temple was in existence even though this was ordinarily forbidden.
Similarly, a prophet who violated his own prophetic instructions, and
one who refrains from prophesying, are liable for death at the hand of
God, since concerning the three of them, it is said, "I will seek
[retribution] from him."
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."
edited Sep 17 at 23:21
Double AA♦
87.4k6 gold badges210 silver badges470 bronze badges
answered Sep 17 at 22:15
JoshuaZJoshuaZ
1913 bronze badges
edited Sep 17 at 23:21
Double AA♦
87.4k6 gold badges210 silver badges470 bronze badges
edited Sep 17 at 23:21
Double AA♦
87.4k6 gold badges210 silver badges470 bronze badges
edited Sep 17 at 23:21
Double AA♦
87.4k6 gold badges210 silver badges470 bronze badges
87.4k6 gold badges210 silver badges470 bronze badges
answered Sep 17 at 22:15
JoshuaZJoshuaZ
1913 bronze badges
answered Sep 17 at 22:15
JoshuaZJoshuaZ
1913 bronze badges
answered Sep 17 at 22:15
JoshuaZJoshuaZ
1913 bronze badges
1913 bronze badges
1
This is much better. I'm not convinced per se that Rambam didn't mean something more like "at the will of God", but he does literally say "at the word of God" so this is a plausible answer.
– Double AA♦
Sep 17 at 23:22
add a comment
|
1
This is much better. I'm not convinced per se that Rambam didn't mean something more like "at the will of God", but he does literally say "at the word of God" so this is a plausible answer.
– Double AA♦
Sep 17 at 23:22
1
1
This is much better. I'm not convinced per se that Rambam didn't mean something more like "at the will of God", but he does literally say "at the word of God" so this is a plausible answer.
– Double AA♦
Sep 17 at 23:22
This is much better. I'm not convinced per se that Rambam didn't mean something more like "at the will of God", but he does literally say "at the word of God" so this is a plausible answer.
– Double AA♦
Sep 17 at 23:22
add a comment
|
The Talmud (Chullin 5a) states:
לימא מסייע ליה והעורבים מביאים לו לחם ובשר בבקר ולחם ובשר בערב ואמר רב יהודה אמר רב מבי טבחי דאחאב על פי הדבור שאני
Can we say that the following supports his [R. ‘Anan's] view? It is written: And the ravens
brought him bread and flesh in the morning, and bread and flesh in the evening, and Rab Judah
explained this in the name of Rab that [the ravens brought the flesh] from Ahab's slaughterers! —
Being a Divine command it is different.
(Soncino translation)
R. Anan's view appears earlier (4b):
דאמר רב ענן אמר שמואל ישראל מומר לעבודת כוכבים מותר לאכול משחיטתו
R. ‘Anan, who said in the name of
Samuel: In the case of an Israelite who is an apostate in respect of idolatry, we may eat of his
slaughtering.
(Soncino translation)
Thus, the Talmud attempts to support R. Anan's view by noting that Elijah seemed to have acted in accordance with it, by eating meat slaughtered by Ahab's slaughterers. The Talmud rejects this support, though, because it's possible that R. Anan is really wrong, and the meat in that case would actually have been forbidden, but Elijah was able to eat it anyway because God told him to.
According to this rejection, we have here an example of God telling (or at least allowing) a prophet to break a law.
answered Sep 17 at 23:50
AlexAlex
33.3k3 gold badges80 silver badges167 bronze badges
add a comment
|
The Talmud (Chullin 5a) states:
לימא מסייע ליה והעורבים מביאים לו לחם ובשר בבקר ולחם ובשר בערב ואמר רב יהודה אמר רב מבי טבחי דאחאב על פי הדבור שאני
Can we say that the following supports his [R. ‘Anan's] view? It is written: And the ravens
brought him bread and flesh in the morning, and bread and flesh in the evening, and Rab Judah
explained this in the name of Rab that [the ravens brought the flesh] from Ahab's slaughterers! —
Being a Divine command it is different.
(Soncino translation)
R. Anan's view appears earlier (4b):
דאמר רב ענן אמר שמואל ישראל מומר לעבודת כוכבים מותר לאכול משחיטתו
R. ‘Anan, who said in the name of
Samuel: In the case of an Israelite who is an apostate in respect of idolatry, we may eat of his
slaughtering.
(Soncino translation)
Thus, the Talmud attempts to support R. Anan's view by noting that Elijah seemed to have acted in accordance with it, by eating meat slaughtered by Ahab's slaughterers. The Talmud rejects this support, though, because it's possible that R. Anan is really wrong, and the meat in that case would actually have been forbidden, but Elijah was able to eat it anyway because God told him to.
According to this rejection, we have here an example of God telling (or at least allowing) a prophet to break a law.
answered Sep 17 at 23:50
AlexAlex
33.3k3 gold badges80 silver badges167 bronze badges
add a comment
|
The Talmud (Chullin 5a) states:
לימא מסייע ליה והעורבים מביאים לו לחם ובשר בבקר ולחם ובשר בערב ואמר רב יהודה אמר רב מבי טבחי דאחאב על פי הדבור שאני
Can we say that the following supports his [R. ‘Anan's] view? It is written: And the ravens
brought him bread and flesh in the morning, and bread and flesh in the evening, and Rab Judah
explained this in the name of Rab that [the ravens brought the flesh] from Ahab's slaughterers! —
Being a Divine command it is different.
(Soncino translation)
R. Anan's view appears earlier (4b):
דאמר רב ענן אמר שמואל ישראל מומר לעבודת כוכבים מותר לאכול משחיטתו
R. ‘Anan, who said in the name of
Samuel: In the case of an Israelite who is an apostate in respect of idolatry, we may eat of his
slaughtering.
(Soncino translation)
Thus, the Talmud attempts to support R. Anan's view by noting that Elijah seemed to have acted in accordance with it, by eating meat slaughtered by Ahab's slaughterers. The Talmud rejects this support, though, because it's possible that R. Anan is really wrong, and the meat in that case would actually have been forbidden, but Elijah was able to eat it anyway because God told him to.
According to this rejection, we have here an example of God telling (or at least allowing) a prophet to break a law.
answered Sep 17 at 23:50
AlexAlex
33.3k3 gold badges80 silver badges167 bronze badges
The Talmud (Chullin 5a) states:
לימא מסייע ליה והעורבים מביאים לו לחם ובשר בבקר ולחם ובשר בערב ואמר רב יהודה אמר רב מבי טבחי דאחאב על פי הדבור שאני
Can we say that the following supports his [R. ‘Anan's] view? It is written: And the ravens
brought him bread and flesh in the morning, and bread and flesh in the evening, and Rab Judah
explained this in the name of Rab that [the ravens brought the flesh] from Ahab's slaughterers! —
Being a Divine command it is different.
(Soncino translation)
R. Anan's view appears earlier (4b):
דאמר רב ענן אמר שמואל ישראל מומר לעבודת כוכבים מותר לאכול משחיטתו
R. ‘Anan, who said in the name of
Samuel: In the case of an Israelite who is an apostate in respect of idolatry, we may eat of his
slaughtering.
(Soncino translation)
Thus, the Talmud attempts to support R. Anan's view by noting that Elijah seemed to have acted in accordance with it, by eating meat slaughtered by Ahab's slaughterers. The Talmud rejects this support, though, because it's possible that R. Anan is really wrong, and the meat in that case would actually have been forbidden, but Elijah was able to eat it anyway because God told him to.
According to this rejection, we have here an example of God telling (or at least allowing) a prophet to break a law.
answered Sep 17 at 23:50
AlexAlex
33.3k3 gold badges80 silver badges167 bronze badges
answered Sep 17 at 23:50
AlexAlex
33.3k3 gold badges80 silver badges167 bronze badges
answered Sep 17 at 23:50
AlexAlex
33.3k3 gold badges80 silver badges167 bronze badges
answered Sep 17 at 23:50
AlexAlex
33.3k3 gold badges80 silver badges167 bronze badges
33.3k3 gold badges80 silver badges167 bronze badges
add a comment
|
add a comment
|
2
Are you specifically asking where it's specifically written that Hashem commands the Navi to break the law, or any time a Navi breaks the law (with implied permission)? There is the famous story with Eliyahu and the Baal worshippers, which was allowed due to Hora'as Sha'ah, but I don't think it was explicitly written in the Navi that Hashem asked Eliyahu to make that specific test.
– Salmononius2
Sep 17 at 13:52
2
@Salmononius2 It doesn't say "Hashem said to Eliyahu, etc.," but Eliyahu himself does say ובדברך עשיתי את כל הדברים האלה.
– Meir
Sep 17 at 14:05
1. The "Torah" as we know it, contains a logical contradiction allowing for any possible behavior and that is formulated as "עת לעשות לה' הפרו תורתך" - it's time to do for Hashem, to override Your Torah". So each time a commandment is broken by a prominent figure we can always justify it by that rule - Moses breaking the Tablets, Yaakov marrying sisters, etc.
– Al Berko
Sep 17 at 14:42
2. By definition, whatever G-d says becomes a part of the Torah. For example, G-d commands not to murder. Sometime later G-d says to stone the Mekoshesh (sounds a bit contradictory to me). But we don't raise an eyebrow, because once G-d commands - it becomes a new commandment.
– Al Berko
Sep 17 at 14:44
2
Hosea 1:2 doesn't sound very much in the spirit of the law.
– Loewian
Sep 17 at 15:19