Tuesday, August 12, 2008

Chabad - The Rebbe had the status of a prophet?

LazerA's comment to "Chabad II - The apologetics arent' satisfying":

Rabbi Yehoishophot Oliver said...
"...it is indeed true that based on a clear sicha of the Rebbe, I believe him to have the status of a prophet. Indeed, someone who learns that sicha inside (Shoftim 5750) will see that the Rebbe says that all the Rebbeim of Chabad had that status (I don't see why the same wouldn't apply to others too), because they gave advice in matters of gashmiyus, as based on the Rebbe's explanation of Tanya p. 267."

Actually, the LLR goes a bit further in the sicha (which can be found at ).

He refers to himself as "the leader of our generation -- the judge, adviser and prophet of our generation" and "G-d has chosen and appointed a person who of himself is far greater than the people of his generation, to serve as a judge, adviser, and prophet to the generation."

And, for clarification, he wasn't engaging in hyperbole, he was explicitly claiming the full halachic status of a navi whose word is binding on all Jews.

As I explained in a previous comment, his halachic justification [seems problematic].

To repeat the essence of my previous comment:

The LLR's claim is based on the halacha that if an established prophet testifies that another individual is a prophet, that second individual is immediately muchzak as a navi and requires no testing.

The assumption in the LLR's sicha is that, at some point in time, an established navi testified that the previous rebbe was a navi, and then the previous rebbe testified that "his disciples" were neviim.

Ok, so what are we left with? An individual claims to be a prophet. Now, normally, a prophet needs to be tested. Nope! Because, he tells us, another individual, who never publicly claimed to be a prophet, testified (in front of whom?) that he is a prophet! Did anyone hear this testimony? In fact, did anyone know that the first one was a prophet? Who established him?

All of the sudden we have a whole history of "hidden prophets" (an oxymoron - people with the halachic status of prophets are, by definition, publicly known) that we must accept because this person tells us to.

Ultimately, we have nothing to support any of this except [his assertion][...]

R' Oliver states additionally that the LLR's claim was "because they gave advice in matters of gashmiyus, as based on the Rebbe's explanation of Tanya p. 267." I don't see anything on this matter in the sicha. Perhaps the LLR said it elsewhere.

In any event, the claim is based on a statement by the Baal HaTanya (Igeres Hakodesh ch. 22) to the effect that it has never been the practice to ask for advice on material matters, for only prophets can give such advice. Even Torah scholars can only advise on matters of Torah. (Some Modern Orthodox have used this passage to claim that the Baal Hatanya rejected the concept of Daas Torah. This is incorrect, but not for now.)

It is clearly a difficult passage (apparently ruling out getting financial advice from your accountant among other things), and one is tempted to argue that it was stated somewhat hyperbolicly, in that it was clearly intended as an expression of humility before the Baal HaTanya proceeds to give mussar to his followers on matters associated with material affairs.

In any event, the Baal HaTanya is clearly not claiming in this passage to be a prophet. It is clear that he is giving his advice despite the fact that he is not a prophet, as evidenced by his following statement:

אך האמת אגיד לשומעים לי כי האהבה מקלקת השורה

"However, I shall tell the truth to those who listen to me for love destroys the measure"
In other words, "Even though, according to what I just said, I have no place giving such advice, I shall anyways because I love you so much."

To use this passage as a basis for a halachic claim of prophecy is [very problematic].

I also want to reiterate what I said previously on this topic. When R' Oliver first mentioned this sicha, I went to look it up. I did not expect to find anything as shocking as I found. I thought I would find something that had been distorted by over-eager talmidim. Sadly, this sicha has convinced me that the late Lubavitcher rebbe was personally engaged in a deliberate campaign [...]

8 comments :

  1. You know, with all this [...] floating around, it's hard to remember that once upon a time Chabad was actually a halachic force. Sometimes when I'm learning and the Graz is referenced, I have to remind myself to pay attention to what he said because his opinion DID matter.

    Why is he a prophet? Because he was. Why did he not have to test it? Because he's a prophet!?[...]

    ReplyDelete
  2. The Rebbe's footnote concerning the quote from Tanya and how it demonstrates that the Rebbeim of Chabad were nevi'im is in Hisva’aduyos 5751, Vol. 4, p. 200, fn. 101.

    The sheer arrogance of those who can make such nasty comments about such a great Tzadik--and without even having read his words from the original text, or bothering to discuss it with a leading Chabad rabbi or mashpia--is simply astounding. Definitely one of the signs that Moshiach is close ("chutzpah yizgei").

    ReplyDelete
  3. A question for our host... Didn't Lubavitch's Alter Rebbe explicitly say he was capable of making mistakes?

    I seem to recall this being cited in an on-list discussion of da'as Torah.

    -micha

    ReplyDelete
  4. Rabbi Yehoishophot Oliver said...
    "The sheer arrogance ... and without even having read his words from the original text, or bothering to discuss it with a leading Chabad rabbi or mashpia--is simply astounding."

    Being that most non-Lubavitchers don't have easy access to these things, this is simply another version of the "You are ignorant" arguments used to avoid responding to substance. The pattern simply repeats itself over and over.

    In any case, here we are, Rabbi Oliver, talking to YOU. You describe yourself (in your bio) as "a Chabad Rabbi, teacher, and writer." One of your blogs is devoted to "dispelling the confusion over the concept of the Tzaddik and the Rebbe."

    Why can't YOU respond to my challenges? After all, in all seriousness, I'm nobody special. Kiruv workers are always dealing with challenges that go far deeper than this, yet they don't simply accuse the challengers of arrogance. I'm sure that is not the approach you take with your non-Jewish students at the Monotheism Center.

    You have many options. You can send in a scanned copy of the sicha and other relevant material. That would truly advance the dscussion further.

    You could consult with one of your own mentors and post his response. That would be very appreciated.

    But instead you simply accuse us of arrogance and end the discussion.

    ReplyDelete
  5. 1) The sicha about prophesy was said shabbos parshas shoftim 5751, not (as mentioned by R' Oliver) 5750, and can be viewed at
    http://www.otzar770.com/
    in the 'hisvadius' section.
    2) In the Sicha the Rebbe refers to his father-in-law, the previous Rebbe who passed away some 40 years earlier, as prophesising that "Le'alter Le'Geulah" which roughly translates as "directly to redemption".
    Obviously this not to be taken literally, if we where to do so, we would have to conclude either; that The Lubavitcher Rebbe declared his father-in-law the previous Rebbe to be a false prophet, or; that Moshiach indeed came more than 40 years earlier.
    Chasidus in general should never be taken literally, instead one must use ones judgment to divest the concept of the limitations imposed by the use of human speech - "HaTorah Medaberes Beloshon Bnei Adom" - while in truth talking of much more subtle ideas.

    ReplyDelete
  6. -Sorry, I stand corrected, I meant 5751. That's what happens when posting at wee hours in the morning.

    -Clearly the Rebbe is talking about halachic nevuah, considering the halachic sources that he quotes there (though there are of course kabbalistic relevance as well to the Rebbe's words, as is this case with everything that the Rebbe says and does).

    -Kdarkoi ba'kodesh, the Rebbe refers to himself indirectly, by referring to the Frierdike Rebbe.

    -The sicha is not specific about a time when Moshiach will come, but is discussing the general concept that we are in the general historic time when Moshiach is very close, so the novi of our generation tells us in the sicha that we need to prepare accordingly.

    I will post more on this topic soon, G-d willing.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous said...
    "The sicha about prophesy... can be viewed at
    http://www.otzar770.com/
    in the 'hisvadius' section."


    Thanks! The website isn't the most user friendly but I was finally able to print out the sicha.

    "In the Sicha the Rebbe refers to his father-in-law, the previous Rebbe who passed away some 40 years earlier, as prophesising that "Le'alter Le'Geulah" which roughly translates as "directly to redemption".
    Obviously this not to be taken literally...."


    Having reviewed the relevant passages again in the Hebrew version, I'm afraid I have to agree with Rabbi Oliver, that the LLR intended his words in the full halachic sense.

    This is indicated, firstly, as Rabbi Oliver points out, by his use of halachic sources and terminology. His language is pretty emphatic. He applies the full halachic status of a prophet to his father-in-law and himself. To quote from the English translation:

    "He has to be obeyed immediately "even before he performs a sign." "It is forbidden to disparage or criticize his prophecy saying that it is perhaps not true.""

    Secondly, the LLR presumably knew his audience well enough to know that if he made such statements in such strong terms, they would be interpeted in a literal fashion (as Rabbi Oliver has done). The fact that he then did so strongly indicates that that was his intention.

    Unfortunately, none of this has changed my original assessment. In my opinion, it is clear that the LLR intended to declare himself a prophet, despite the lack of any valid halachic justification.

    ReplyDelete
  8. >>The sheer arrogance of those who can make such nasty comments about such a great Tzadik--and without even having read his words from the original text, or bothering to discuss it with a leading Chabad rabbi or mashpia--is simply astounding. Definitely one of the signs that Moshiach is close

    Arrogance and nastiness toward great tzadikim is found where someone like the rebbe claimed to know how the CI is faring in olam habah, little man.

    ReplyDelete

ANONYMOUS COMMENTS WILL NOT BE POSTED!
please use either your real name or a pseudonym.