Book of Decision (Commentary on Deuteronomy)

For the Lord your God is a consuming fire. (Deuteronomy 4:24)

Know that we do not explain a verse contrary to its plain meaning except in three cases. The first is if the verse contains something that reason rejects; then we must interpret the verse such that it conforms to [the dictates of] reason. The second is if a verse cannot be read [according to its plain meaning] because it contradicts [the plain meaning of] another verse; then we must interpret one of them until we can make them agree. The third is if the verse contravenes that which has been passed down by tradition; then we must interpret it until it conforms to the traditional view.

Now, it says here: [the Lord your God] is a consuming fire. This statement contravenes reason. For it is axiomatic that the Lord can resemble none of the things He created, nor can they resemble Him, and He cannot be defined as being like something He has created. He, however, is known through His deeds, for, of necessity, everything that is made must have a maker, since it is nonsensical that a thing should make itself. And we must conclude that “[is] a consuming fire” denotes His action of making [a consuming fire].

Now, the second case in which we must interpret [a verse] contrary to its plain meaning is exemplified by the rabbinic rule: “Two verses that contradict each other . . . ,” such as in the verse: [The Philistines had gathered where there was a plot of ground] full of lentils (2 Samuel 23:11), while in another [account of the same story, it says]: [there was a plot of ground] full of barley (1 Chronicles 11:13). We explain, through interpretation, that these are two different seasons. In one of them, the land is sown with lentils, while in the other, it is sown with barley.

The third case, in which the verse contradicts something passed down by tradition, is exemplified by the [description of the ritual of the sotah, the woman accused of adultery, which concludes with the] verse: [The priest shall take a handful of the offering, as its memorial portion, and burn it on the altar.] Afterward [ve-aḥar], he shall make the woman drink the water (Numbers 5:26). The plain meaning of this verse indicates that the sacrifice must be offered prior to making [her] drink. But according to [oral] tradition, the drinking comes first and then the laying of the handful [of the meal offering] on [the altar]. We are forced to conclude that the [letter] vav in the [word] ve-aḥar is [to be] omitted in translation [so that the verse instructs the priest to “burn it on the altar after he makes the woman drink”]. Then the verse conforms to that which is in oral tradition. Now, this is an important rule, which you must observe. [ . . . ]

If there arises among you a prophet or a dreamer of dreams, and he gives you a sign or a wonder, and if the sign or the wonder comes to pass, of which he spoke to you, saying, “Let us go after other gods”—which you have not known—“and let us serve them,” you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams, for the Lord your God is testing you to know whether you love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul. (Deuteronomy 13:2–4)

Concerning the phrase: if the sign or the wonder comes to pass, some of the ancients exclaimed: “Heaven forbid that the Holy One would cause the sun to stand still in the midst of the firmament for those who transgress His will!” This is because it is axiomatic to them that a miracle constitutes the proof of the veracity of the chosen prophet. For it is impossible that such a sign be granted to one who lies in the name of God, because this would lead to doubt and confusion among transgressors, because they would not be able to distinguish a true prophet from a false prophet, if they compared their signs. Now, some of the early rationalists argue that this is possible, as it would serve as a test for the transgressors: Will they scrutinize the words of the one pretending to be a prophet, or will they accept his words without confirmation? You can also find support [for this view] in scripture: For the Lord your God is testing you (Deuteronomy 13:4). However, I assert that it is possible to have this test without the appearance of a wondrous portent by the prophet—for example, should he foresee [the future] in certain celestial influences, as the proponents of this art contend, especially those caused by the Great Conjunction [i.e., the conjunction of Saturn and Jupiter] by which he foresees the future, thus creating a test, because great investigation is required to discern if this is due to a [real] prophecy or otherwise. For it would never be permitted that the Lord would make one who speaks truthfully in His name equal to the one who claims thus falsely with the same sign. The Lord is beyond such a thing.

So now, after the calling of Moses, may the prayers of the Lord be upon him, had been confirmed, there are only two ways a man can claim prophecy. Either he comes in truth, proclaiming what has already [been said] before him, or he calls for its abrogation. If he comes proclaiming its truth, then we ask him to provide a wondrous sign [to verify] his words. If his prophecy comes true, then we confirm him as a true prophet. But if it does not, then he must be put to death for claiming falsely that God prophesied to him. But if he calls for the abrogation of the law of Moses, or claims that Moses lied about it, then we need no wondrous sign from him. Because it has already been established and confirmed for us, by innumerable divine wonders, that He will send no prophet after Moses who contravenes His law. This has been handed down time and again by a nation who knew the meaning of His words, devoid of disbelief or treachery. Anyone who calls for the abrogation of His law must be immediately put to death [see Deuteronomy 13:6]. The confirmation of Moses’ calling clarified for us that anyone who calls for its contravention must be false; it was confirmed by scripture impervious to interpretation.