[Avodah] Prophets are infallible?

[Zvi Lampel]

Rabbi Daniel Eidensohn  Fri, 03 Nov 2006, wrote:

"Sefer Haikarrim 3:17 says that prophets other than Moshe are fallible
i.e. they can misunderstand what they are seeing.

"Does anyone else state that prophets are fallible?

I replied:
"...[W]hen true prophets report a prophecy, the Sefer Ikarrim 3:17 cited 
succinctly begins "sheh-kall divrei ha-neveim amati'im b'li safek,"--all the 
words of the prophets are true without question "

"The Sefer Ikarrim says--as does the Torah--that the prophets other than Moses 
perceived and related Hashem's thoughts through imagery and riddles. Thus, they 
perceived "seeing" Hashem which, as an impossibility, is an erroneous sight. 
Nevertheless, he says, they were fully aware that the image they saw was not 
literally true, being only true for the message intended. They did not 
misunderstand what they saw, any more than one misunderstands a model of an 
atom when he knows it's only a model of an atom'85.

RDE responded:
"I disagree with your reading of the Sefer Haikarrim. He is saying that
the words of the prophets are true in some sense - but not necessarily
absolutely true. He is clearly saying that Yeshaya had misunderstood
what he saw and that he lamented his error.

New ZL:
But he also says in what sense the prophets misunderstood., and the sense is as 
I stated. Again: They sometimes saw things that were false in their literal 
sense, and in this sense "misunderstood," but were also perfectly aware that 
what they saw was meant in a non-literal sense. What they lamented was the fact 
that unlike Moshe Rabbeynu, they were not on the level to be priveleged to 
perceive the prophecy in a non-metaphorical representation. This is clear from 
the words of the Sefer HaIkarrim:

"Yeshaya said ... ‘Oy li that my eyes saw the King Hashem Tsevakos and /I know/ 
that this is the work of the imaginative faculty, because it is without 
question impossible to attribute any form to Him, Yisborach.’" The Sefer 
Ikarrim is therefore clear that the prophet is /aware/ that the "literal" image 
is false, and that the real message is solely in the nimshal to which that 
imagery alludes (as RDE himself wrote: "He [Yeshaya] himself said that his 
perception of Gd was in fact a mistake because of the involvement of his 
imagination"). The Sefer Ikarrim clearly holds that the imagery the prophet 
perceives is true in its message, although untrue in its "literal" sense.*

Is this all you meant when you originally stated, "Sefer Haikarrim 3:17 says 
that prophets other than Moshe are fallible i.e. they can misunderstand what 
they are seeing"?

I.e., did you only mean to say that the prophet is "fallible" because he 
perceives things in imagery--although he understands perfectly well that the 
imagery is not meant for its literal sense, but for the alluded nimshal? If so, 
then the answer to your question -- "Does anyone else state that prophets are 
fallible?"--is an obvious "Yes." (Although personally I would not use the 
word "fallible"--which means mistaken or deceived--to describe someone who 
understands that a mashal is a mashal.)

Or perhaps you take it that the prophet only realizes the impossibility of the 
literal meaning of his vision after he awakens from it? Maybe; but sof kall 
sof, he’s not deceived once he awakens, and certainly not while he is relating 
his vision to the people.

In fact, according to your usage, the prophets other than Moses not only "/can/ 
misunderstand what they are seeing and are therefore "fallible," but by 
definition /all/ of them "misunderstand what they are seeing" and 
are "fallible." For the Torah itself makes clear, and the Sefer Ikarrim and the 
Rambam and all others who treat the subject emphasize, that by definition every 
prophet other than Moshe perceived (at least some) prophecies in imagery that 
is not literally true.

RDE:
The problem that comes from this analysis is that since Yeshaya realized
he had erred - why did he record the erroneous understanding in his
sefer? If he was required to record all his prophecy why didn't he
clearly state that it could not have been an accurate report? The Sefer
HaIkarrim notes that [Yevamos 49b] "...when Yeshaya was sentenced to death
for stating that he had seen Gd he had not defended himself. But that he
could have stated that even those in Moshe's time had made this error
and it had been recorded in the Torah [Shemos 24:10]." But why was an
erroneous description recorded in the Torah without any indication
that it was an error?

ZL:
Because it was not erroneous, just imagery which was obviously meant to be 
taken unliterally. The Sefer Ikarrim (op. cit.) explains that in the case of 
Yeshaya’s prophecy, he did not bother explaining this to the wicked Achav, 
because Achavr"s accusation was only a pretext to rid himself of the 
criticizing prophet. In other words, Yeshaya understood that Achav was only 
feigning ignorance of the common prophetic phenomenon, already used in the 
Torah itself, of anthropomorphistic imagery of G-d in vision and description.

Your question can be posed regarding all the numerous anthropomorphisms in the 
Torah. And actually, in those cases the question is even stronger, because the 
Torah is the prophecy of Moshe Rabbeynu, who himself did not see his prophecies 
in imagery--so why does Moshe Rabbeynu instruct us to tell our children that 
Hashem took us out of Egypt with "a mighty hand," and that the tablets were 
written by "the finger of G-d"? (And one might further ask, why did he 
attribute emotions to Hashem, and pray, "Do not be angry with Your people"?)

The first thing to establish is that Moshe Rabbeynu expected us, and correctly 
so, to realize that such references are not meant literally. And the prophets 
were no less aware of that when they perceived corporeal imagery, and the 
people to whom they spoke were no less aware of that when they heard such 
imagery from the prophets' lips. Rambam in Moreh Nevuchim 1:46 writes: "...our 
Sages were far from the belief in the corporeality of God, and they did not 
think anyone is capable of misunderstanding it, or entertaining any doubt about 
it. This is why they employ in the Talmud and the Midrashim phrases similar to 
those contained in the prophecies, without any circumlocution. They knew that 
there could be no doubt about their metaphorical character, or any danger 
whatever of their being misunderstood; and that all such expressions would be 
understood as being figurative, employed to communicate to the intellect the 
notion of His existence.

Why Hashem dictated to Moshe metaphorical language to express His "nature" 
and "actions" deserves study. (There has been discussion on Avodah regarding 
the Rambamr"s shita about this.) As I have come to understand it, it is because 
our psyches can only truly intimately relate to Hashem in this way. (After all, 
we are no greater than the prophets.) Rav Shamshon Raphael Hirsch, on "VaYiss-
atsave ell leebo" (Bereishis 6:6), echoing another passage in the Moreh 
Nevuchim (ibid.) (although with much disdain towards any philosophical 
involvement at all with such issues--ticularly when teaching children) 
expressed it as follows:**

"Regarding this and similar anthropomorphic expressions of G-d, we would like 
to make a general comment. For so long people have philosophized all around 
these expressions to remove the danger of the slightest thought of any 
materiality or corporeality of G-d, that at the end one runs very nearly into 
the danger of losing all idea of the personality of G-d. Had that been the 
purpose of the Torah, those kinds of expressions could easily have been 
avoided. But this last danger is greater than the first.

-------------------------------------
* "And the words of a prophet who is at a lower level than he is, will come 
veiled (sr"sumim) and in riddles andables, and not crystal-clear (mr"vur"arim). 
And in /this/ they will not be true (amatir"im) in their /literal/ meaning 
(/kepshutan/), /but [are true] only in respect to the concept alluded to by 
them (aval kr"fi ha-inyan ha-nirmaz ba-hen bilvad)./ And their /literal/ 
meaning would convey a different idea from the idea really meant by them (/u-
kefi peshutan/ yuvan may-hen inyan zulass ha-inyan ha-mekuvan bahem).

"Therefore you will find that Yechezkel, being that his prophecies occurred 
after the exile [and were therefore relatively later and therefore relatively 
inferior] would speak inables and riddles not true /in their literal meaning/ 
(bilti amatiim /kepshutan/) to such an extent that he complained to Hashem, 
l"they are saying to me "He is [just] a sayer ofables"! I.e., they knew what he 
said wereables, but they did not put in the effort to analyse their meanings. 
He felt that were he able to express himself more plainly, in prose rather than 
poetry, would be more productive in conveying Hashem's message.

"And likewise, you will find that all the prophecies of Zechariah, being that 
he lived towards the end of the prophetic era, were visions that were not 
true /according to their literal meanings/ (sheh-aynan amitos /kefi pashtan/) 
but only according to what was alluded to by them (ella kefi ha-nirmaz bahem 
bilvad) ... and therefore it is proper to interpret them in a way that they 
will agree to the words of Moshe." Proper for him, I would add, as well as for 
us.

** I seem to recall Rav Hirsch expressing this thought more forcefully 
elsewhere, with a clause like, "and why /shouldn't/ we refer to Hashem in 
personified terms?"I would appreciate it if someone would remind me where it is.

Zvi Lampel