This question discusses differences between positive and negative prophecy. The mentioned idea states that, while positive prophecy will always occur, negative prophecy may be negated by repentance. An answer there cites verses from Jeremiah 28 that seem to imply this idea. In fact, Maimonides in Laws of principles of Torah 10:8 (aka 10:4) states this explicitly.

Lehem Mishnah on Maimonides' law cites the Talmud on Shabbos 55b that discusses an exception to the endurance of positive prophecy, so I am wondering if Maimonides' stance is absolute? Is it sourced somewhere in the Talmud explicitly? Are there any other opinions about this matter? Any other interpretations of the verse in Jeremiah?

  • 2
    I don't have the time, sorry, but I searched for an article quoting the 15 or so sources that I knew of and found this: betmidrash.org/ariel-maagar/224.html I think the only sources he's missing is the Gur Aryeh and Divrei Dovid (Taz) on Rashi 32:8 and the Radak to Yirmiyahu there and at the beginning if Sefer Yonah but I didn't read it carefully Commented Dec 8, 2014 at 7:05

1 Answer 1


Metzudat David interprets the verse in Jeremiah differently, (though in the Mikraot Gedolot, he is the only one to do so). He says that Jeremiah is telling Hananiah that He hopes Hananiah is right, but that bad prophecies have happened before, and just because Hananiah is prophesying for good doesn't make him any more believable than Jeremiah, unless the good actually comes to pass, and proves Jeremiah's words wrong.

So according to this, Jeremiah is not saying that his prophecy might not come to pass because its for bad, but Hananiah's must because it is for good. He is rather saying that good prophecies are not more authoritative than bad ones, and we'll see what happens and who is right.

The Jerusalem Talmud in Sanhedrin 11:5 cites an aggadic argument between Jeremiah and Hananiah, wherein Jeremiah says that he need not give a sign for his prophecy, because God may relent from evil prophecy. Hananiah on the other hand must bring a sign, as he is prophesying for good. This implies that only positive prophecy must occur, as the prophet is only obliged to certify good tidings with a sign. The Ain Mishpat cites this exchange as Maimonides' source.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .