Concerning the issue of saying someone is a prophet - even though he hasn't been certified as such. There are perhaps two alternative understandings. 1) It was suggested to me that a person can be "like" a prophet. Thus he has certain features in common but is not a halachic prophet. Thus if he tells the future or provides guidance - features found in true prophets. 2) It can be referring to the prophecy of chochma. This understand is expressed in Bava Basra (12a). The Chasam Sofer has the following to say about this gemora.
Chasam Sofer(Orech Chaim 1:208): Bava Basra (12a) even though prophecy was taken from the prophets but not from the sages. However, your understanding of this gemora to be that wisdom was not taken from the sages is incorrect. Rather it is that prophecy was not taken from the sages. In other words, that type of prophecy which is attainable through the wisdom of one who studies Torah for pure motivation merits many things [Avos 6:1] with his intellect and his wisdom even though he doesn’t have the natural ability for it. The gemora wants to prove this from the common fact that a talmid chachom comprehends something on his own which in fact is according to the understanding of Rabbi Akiva. We know that this person’s level is not up to Rabbi Akiva’s heels. This proves that it happened by the prophetic ability we mentioned. Moreover, we also find that he says things which in fact are Halacha L’Moshe m’Sinai. The gemora questions this proof by saying that perhaps this occurs by chance like a blind person groping through a window. However, the gemora concludes that it is not by chance since he gives justifications for his views and thus it is like a prophetic form of wisdom.
The distinction between "private" prophets (i.e. one who receives personal prophecies from Hashem which are not binding) and "public" prophets whose words are binding on the Jewish nation is very significant.
ReplyDeleteThe Drashos HaRan (drush 2) makes such a distinction regarding the Avos. Although they were clearly prophets in the sense of communicating with Hashem, they were not prophets in the halachic sense of making binding statements.
The Ran argues, therefore, that the rule that a positive prophetic prediction must come true did not apply to the Avos, as that rule only exists so that we can test a prophet to grant him halachic status. As a "private" prophet does not have any halachic status, the rule doesn't apply to him.
All this points at the confusion surrounding a different issue we are discussing. The idea that a great tzadik might be a prophet in various ways, and we may well find statements in various seforim to that effect, has little bearing on a person's halachic status as a prophet whose word is binding.
Confusing these categories can cause a great deal of trouble.
Good post. Combining this with the issues discussed before, it is clear that both Rav Schach and the Lubavitcher Rebbe were like prophets. Both human, both fallible, but great Jews, with prophetic insights.
ReplyDeleteIf only they would have, if only we would, combine their insights.
I feel this is possible and the following is a critical example.
The Rebbe said that the time of Moshiach has come. Rav Schach said no, we live in the same old golus, and the Jewish nation is not at the level that we can go against the will of the world's nations. The Rebbe said we can do this, and we have Zechuyot beyond the apparent level of the nation, and there are other considerations. In the matter of going against the will of the world's nations, the Rebbe said that if we give in to pressure to compromise with the Arabs, davka that will lead to bloodshed.
Have in mind that the Vilna Gaon taught that in settling the Land, and all other matters of redemption, we should do things carefully and step by step, but must try to make progress, and we can use force and we can go against the nations, except when it comes to building Beit HaMikdash. That is were the three oaths apply.
How do the insights of the Rebbe and Rav Schach combine? By taking what the Rebbe said as a correction to what Rav Schach said, and vice versa. There are other considerations than the spiritual level of the nation, and therefore we are no longer in the long old golus, but also the time of Moshiach has not come yet. We are in a period in between.
If only we would be able to combine the understanding of all Jews with prophetic insights. If only we would be able to do just one thing. A Mitzva D'Oraita - unite, establish Sanhedrin.
There are also private prophacies that are binding. Many times a prophet would receive a message for a particular individual. This would be in a non-predicting capacity. He merely had to tell someone to do tshuva or something of the like. The prophet was bound to inform the tell the individual this message even if it placed him in great danger. For instance he might have to chew out a powerful official or the king.
ReplyDeleteAre you saying that according to the Ran that Natan hanavei was not halachicly bound to give Dovid Hamelech reproof?
"The Rebbe said that the time of Moshiach has come. Rav Schach said no, we live in the same old golus, and the Jewish nation is not at the level that we can go against the will of the world's nations. The Rebbe said we can do this, and we have Zechuyot beyond the apparent level of the nation, and there are other considerations. In the matter of going against the will of the world's nations, the Rebbe said that if we give in to pressure to compromise with the Arabs, davka that will lead to bloodshed."
ReplyDeleteThe rebbe actually paskined that giving away the territories would put Jews in sakana. This is the pikuach nefesh issue trumping all. As far as settlements were concerned, he told Ariel Shoaron 30 years ago that he did not have any strong opinions either way because the policy of the Israeli government itself was ambiguous on the issue.
As far as I know, the Rebbe never dispenced Geopolitical advice based on ruach hakodesh. Rather from his understanding of the situation at hand.
The only time he ever gave the Israeli government advice from what may be considered ruach hakodesh was a few years before the big Russian immigration of the 90's. He suggested that they should prepare a lot of housing. Now mind you, this was not dilemma solving political advice.
Bartley Kulp said...
ReplyDelete"There are also private prophacies that are binding. Many times a prophet would receive a message for a particular individual. ... Are you saying that according to the Ran that Natan hanavei was not halachicly bound to give Dovid Hamelech reproof?"
Nasan Hanavi was a "public" prophet. In the Ran's terms, he was a "navi nischayev l'shmoa eilav".
Public prophets frequently had prophecies that were only relevant for private individuals.
A "private" prophet (i.e. one who never presented himself as a navi and was never publicly confirmed as one) cannot make statements binding on anyone. This should be self-evident; we simply have no way of knowing, prior to testing (or confirmation from a different prophet), that he is actually a prophet. He is, halachicaly, just a private citizen.