זכריה, פרק י״ג, פסוק ו׳

In the midst of a sharp confrontation, a former false prophet attempts to deny his past, but physical scars on his body betray his secret and provoke demanding questions. Confronted about his suspicious wounds, he must explain how a supposedly simple man came to bear such marks. The primary approach among commentators is that these scars are the result of self-flagellation and cutting with swords and spears, a common practice among false prophets and idolaters seeking to induce a prophetic spirit [מצודת דוד, מלבי״ם, אברבנאל, ביאור שטיינזלץ]. These marks are located either on his back between the shoulders [רש״י, מצודת דוד], or along his arms [מלבי״ם]. The interrogator challenges the man's cover story: if he is truly just a simple farmer, there is no reason for him to carry such specific scars [מלבי״ם, ביאור שטיינזלץ]. Alternatively, the questioner suspects that the wounds prove the man is still secretly engaging in idolatrous practices [מצודת דוד, אברבנאל]. Taking a different perspective, some suggest the wounds were not self-inflicted at all, but were rather beatings administered by his own parents to discipline him and forcefully stop him from prophesying [רד״ק].

Pressed to explain his injuries, the former prophet claims he was beaten in the home of those who love him, a response that is understood in three distinct ways. The first approach views his answer as a continuation of his lies. Desperate to avoid the permanent disgrace of being exposed as a false prophet, he invents a convenient excuse [מלבי״ם]. He claims that his family and friends bound and beat him because he was a wild, rebellious youth who refused to work the land [רד״ק], or that he was simply beaten in the home of friends [ביאור שטיינזלץ]. In contrast, a second approach interprets his response as an expression of true atonement and correction. According to this view, the marks on his back are lashes he received from the court to atone for his sins. He refers to the court as his loved ones because they genuinely cared for him, rebuking him to guide him back to the proper path and the love of God [רש״י, מצודת דוד]. A third approach reads his answer as a completely open confession. Rather than hiding his past, he publicly admits his disgraceful history out of sincere remorse. In this interpretation, the home of his lovers refers directly to the temples of idolatry, and he freely confesses that he received these wounds during his former life as a false prophet [אברבנאל].

Another layer of interpretation shifts the events to the distant future, to the time of the resurrection of the dead. According to this view, false prophets will be resurrected bearing physical wounds and plagues as a punishment and a public mark of disgrace to expose their lifetime of lies. Overcome with shame, they will deny their past and claim to be nothing more than simple farmers. When pressed about the scars on their bodies, they will offer excuses, claiming they were affectionately struck by loved ones in the study hall while learning or writing a marriage contract. However, this future-oriented interpretation is critiqued by other commentators, who argue that it strays too far from the simple, immediate context of the events [רד״ק בשם אביו, אברבנאל].