Devarim II - Moshe said it on his own

This is the beginning of the presentation of sources regarding who wrote Devarim. The most important text is the following gemora in Megilla which makes a halachic distinction between Devarim and Vayikra. The Malbim cited offers a solution as to how the whole Torah is Divine i Moshe wrote part of it.

Megila(31b): On fast days the portion of blessings and curses is read and there must not be any break in the reading of the curses. What is source of this rule? R’ Chiya ben Gamda said in the name of R’ Assi said that it is because it says “My son, don’t despise G‑d’s chastisement” – so don’t act as if you don’t want to continue with the reading. Reish Lakish said it is because the beracha on the Torah should not be said on misfortune. So what is the Torah reader to do? A Tanna taught that when the reader starts he should begin the reading with a verse before the curses and when he finishes he should end with a verse after the curses. Abaye said that this rule of not interrupting the reading of the curses only applies to the curses found in Vayikra. However it is permitted to interrupt the reading of the curses found in Devarim. What is the reason for this distinction? Concerning the curses in Vayikra, the Jewish people are addressed in the plural form and Moshe said them at G‑d’s command. In contrast the curses said in Devarim are expressed in the singular form and Moshe said them on his own initiative. Levi bar Buti was once reading the curses in Devarim in a hesitating manner in the presence of R’ Huna. Rav Huna said to him that he could interrupt if he wanted. He explained that the prohibition of interrupting the reading only applied to the curses in Vayikra while it is permitted to interrupt for the curses in Devarim.

Malbim(Devarim 1:3): And it was in the fortieth year – In other words these are matters which Moshe spoke on his own initiative on various occasions in the manner of a preacher who gives chastisement. However he did not have permission to write these words in a sefer and even if he had written them in a sefer they would not have had the sanctity of a Torah scroll. Rather they would be simply considered a collection of his sermons that he said based on his human understanding or as words spoke by a man with ruach hakodesh. However after 40 years G‑d commanded that they be said again to the Jewish people as specific command from G‑d. That is why the verse say, G‑d commanded Moshe to speak to the Jewish people saying.” Similarly G‑d commanded him to writes these words in a sefer at the command of G‑d. Furthermore G‑d said that they should be said and written in a different order than they were originally said in the 11 places but rather in the order that G‑d commanded…. Thus all of Moshe’s words were written by G‑d’s command and he didn’t write them on his own initiative even the point of the smallest letter. Consequently since all the words in Devarim were written at G‑d’s command they have the same halachic status as the rest of the Torah which was written from G‑d’s mouth…

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 [...]