Rambam's 8th Principle - All Torah is from G-d

Rambam(Sanhedrin chapter 10:1 8th principle): The Eighth Principle of Faith is that Torah is from Heaven. It is to believe that the entire Torah we have today was given through the agency of Moshe and that it was entirely from G‑d. In other words that the entire Torah came to Moshe in a manner which we can best describe as speech. Even though this process is unknown to us, somehow the Torah was communicated by G‑d to Moshe. Moshe functioned like a scribe who receives dictation and records all the events, narratives and commandments. That is why Moshe was called Mechokek (engraver). Consequently there is absolutely no distinction between the words, “And the sons of Cham were Kush and Mitzrayim” [Bereishis 10:6] or, “The name of his wife was Mehaitavel [Bereishis 36:39] or, “Timna was a concubine” [Bereishis 36:12] and between the First Commandment, “I am the L-rd your G-d” [Shemos 20:2] or the Shema, “Hear Israel the L-rd our G-d the L-rd is One” [Devarim 6:4]. That is because the entire Torah is from G‑d and therefore all of it is G‑d’s perfect Torah – pure, holy and true. Consequently one who says that verses like these or the narratives were written by Moshe alone is considered by our Sages and our Prophets as the worst type of heretic and revisionist. That is because he thinks that there are genuine and spurious parts of the Torah i.e., that these historical descriptions and stories serve no purpose and that they were created by Moshe – and not by G‑d. This is what is referred to in the Mishna (Sanhedrin 90a) as one who says that Torah is not from Heaven – and he therefore has no share in the World to Come. Our Sages [Sanhedrin 99a] explain that it is even heresy to assert that the entire Torah is from G‑d - except for a single verse which was said entirely by Moshe. Such a heretical assertion is an act of despising G‑d’s word [Bamidbar 15:31]. In fact all the words of the Torah contain astounding wisdom for those who understand them. These words are so profound that they will never be completely understood…. This is true not only of the Written Torah but also of the Oral Torah i.e., the explanations of the Written Torah which we have also received from G‑d. Therefore that which we make a Sukkah in a particular manner and perform the mitzvos of lulav, shofar, tzitzis, tefilin and the other mitzvos is the manner which G‑d told Moshe and he in turn faithfully told us. The Torah verse which teaches us this principle is (Shemos 16:28), “And Moshe said: And by this you will know that G‑d sent me to do all these deeds and I didn’t make it up myself.”

Devarim II - Did Moshe compose it?

There are basically two ways of understanding the authorship of Devarim. The first is simply that G-d composed it just as He composed the other four books of the Torah. There is an alternative view that in fact Moshe composed Devarim. Below are examples of the two views.

Devarim composed by G-d

Chinuch(Introduction to Devarim before #414): The Ramban wrote in his introduction to Devarim that the nature of Devarim is well know – it is a restatement of the Torah. In it Moshe reviewed to the generation, that was about to enter Israel, most of the mitzvos that they would need to know to settle the Israel. He commands many mitzvos and threatens them strongly concerning the punishment for not keeping the commandments. Occasionally he adds explanations to some of these mitzvos. However he makes no mention of mitzvos which applied to the Cohanim. Furthermore he doesn’t add to the commandments of the Cohanim since they were highly motivated to keep their mitzvos (Shabbos 20a). Moshe also adds mitzvos in Devarim which have not been mentioned previously at all such as Yibum (levirate marriage), slandering one’s bride, divorce, scheming witnesses and others. There is no doubt that these were not new mitzvos but those which had already been told to Moshe at Sinai or in the Tent of Meeting (Ohel Mo’ed) in the first year. That is because on the Plains of Moav there were no new revelations of mitzvos except for the words of the Covenant as will be explained [Devarim 28:69]. Since there were no new mitzvos revealed by G‑d for the first time here – you don’t find in Devarim the expression “And G‑d spoke to Moshe saying, ‘Command the Jews’ or ‘Speak to the Jews and you say to them this mitzva’. These are the words of the Ramban. This that these mitzvos were not mentioned previously with the other mitzvos is not surprising. That is because our Sages say in many places [Pesachim 6b] the Torah is not presented in chronological order. The reason for this is that the Torah includes all wisdoms aside from the plain meaning of the verses of its sweet issues and the strong foundations of its mitzvos. Perhaps because of the concealed wisdom it had to be arranged in the pattern that we have. Thus all is precisely placed by the Master of Divine Wisdom and that is sufficient justification.

Devarm composed by Moshe

Ohr HaChaim(Devarim 1:1): These are the words that Moshe spoke to the entire nation… By saying “these are the words” it comes to exclude what was written previously in the Torah. In other words Devarim consists entirely of the words which Moshe spoke on his own initiative i.e., the chastisements and instructions to those who transgress G‑d words. Megila (31b) states the curses which are mentioned in Devarim were composed by Moshe. However even the laws which Moshe reviewed and explained, he did on his own initiative without a command from G‑d. Since Moshe composed the Book of Devarim, the Torah was concerned that we might mistakenly think that he might have also independently composed part of the previous four books of the Torah. That is why Devarim starts with “These are the words that Moshe spoke” - to tell you that only the words found in Devarim were Moshe’s own composition but not even a single letter of the Torah that preceded it. Those four books of the Torah were entirely from G‑d exactly as He commanded them without the slightest change – even a single extra letter added or subtracted.

Big Brother in Beit Shemesh II/ The true story

Bartley Kulp's comment to "Big Brother in Beit Shemesh":

"Tombeck charges that it is the modern Orthodox who are escalating the war by holding demonstrations, using political muscle and speaking to the media."

This statement from Rabbi Tombeck is pure unadulterated spin. Holding demonstrations and using political muscle is a time honored chareidi tradition. Especially in Beit Shemesh!

Now hear this! I am going to tell you all a story Years before the zeolots in Beit Shemesh broke into the national media spotlight things were already brewing there.

I do not know the exact year that people started moving into Ramat Beit Shemesh. Nor do I know which communities were promised what or who got there first in significant numbers.

What I do know is that by 2003 there were already two rapidly growing communities there that were competing to inherit the earth.

Just to make a note for background information, that was also a municipal election year. At stake was the question what kind of infrastructure the city was going to further invest in. The Chareidim wanted further housing developement for kollel families and the dati leumi wanted to invest in infrastructure that would facilitate businesses and possibly new factories in order to enhance employment prospects in Beit Shemesh. They were also on a better government anti corruption and efficiency platform. Both parties were fielding candidates for the city council. The chareidim also fielded their own candidate for mayor against the likud incumbent. In the end both sides took a beating to the Likud. Mayor vaknin kept his post and Shas who had a large presence in the city council lost many of their seats. They also subsequently lost their municipal posts. Another issue that was brewing was that all time favorite thing to fight about between secular dati leumi and chareidim, who will get what municipal resources for their schools. The fact that the unexpectedly rapid demographic increase in RBS out stripped the municipals ability to quickly facilitate school space for the various communities just aggravated the situation. In fighting and lawsuits just slowed down the situation fueling more aggravation and fights.

The reason why I am writing about all of this is because it is the backdrop of many of the cultural campaigns that were to follow. However I am not suggesting that there is a sinister plot connection between the culture campaign that has been waged by the chareidim in RBS and the issues that I have mentioned above. However they do not help things and increase an already incendiary atmosphere. Those issues might be part of the cause of that atmosphere.

Already in 2003 there were zealots blocking the main road that passes through RBS Bet and throwing rocks at cars that were driving through on Shobbos. Also during that same year the municipality gave the local Bnei Akiva a property to use in RBS Aleph, on a street called Nachal Micha. At the time this was a mixed street. I believe it still is. Residents of both groups were dissatisfied with their situation. They were stuck paying mortgages for properties in neighborhoods that were not shaping up to how each side originally envisioned. When Bnei Akiva received usage of that property, the local chareidi residents responded. The fear was that there would be teenagers of both sexes hanging out on the street in mixed company. The neighborhood rabbanim responded by circulating a petition around the neighborhood to give to the municipality against Bnei Akiva opening on the street. I do not know whether it was the petition on its own merit or wrangling in the municipality but that Bnei Akiva chapter never managed to open on that street.

In 2005 a demonstration was led by Rav mordechai Goldstein (the mora d'asra of Kehillat Yaakov RBS Alef) at the main shopping center in RBS Alef. This was a protest against the eateries there that they felt were becoming teenage hangouts at night. They wanted that those businesses should close earlier.

In 2006 during a Lag B'Omer bonfire celebration Rav Shlomo Perlststein (mora d'asra of RBS Alef) led a demonstration against this group of celebrators (all of whom were religious) after hearing that men and women were mingling and socializing. I would like to note that most of these people were husbands and wives who were sitting out of the dancing or just resting. There was no coed dancing going on there. He brought many of his close followers and forcefully broke up the celebration. These are just the examples that I am aware of. Then the rest is media history. These are just a few examples that Rav Tombek would lead you to believe did not happen. After all he has stated that it was the Modern who introduced protesting and the usage of political muscle in Ramat Beit Shemesh, hence escalating things. Not the fact that they have been the victims of violent attacks for the past two years. This is what is called an LSD spin.

Utopian Hishtadlus inversely related to belief in G-d?

LazerA's comment to "Post Zionism - Chief Rabbinate really necessary?":

Garnel Ironheart said...

"If there's no satisfactory solution, why tackle the problem?"

Well, while it may not be possible to truly solve a problem, this does not mean that we can't do anything to alleviate the problem. (Thus we give tzedaka even though we know we can't eliminate poverty.)

However, I feel you are onto an important point.

I have long wondered why there is a correlation between political conservatism (antagonistic to big government) and religious conservatism. At the first glance there wouldn't appear to be any connection.

After all, why should belief in God result in opposition to the welfare state? Why should "Pro-Life" be connected to opposition to gun control? Obviously, their are relgious people on the politically liberal side as well, but we do see a broad correlation of these views in the population. (As Obama put it, "religion and guns.") Why are they connected?

I think part of the reason is the attitude towards the issue we are talking about: accepting that some problems are unsolvable.

The Western religions teach that, ultimately, God controls the world and that the primary reason for the world's troubles is God's displeasure with human sinful behavior. It follows, therefore, that the primary means of solving these problesm is spiritual.

In the meantime, however, we must deal with an imperfect world. This imperfect world is called, in Jewish terms, galus. (Christians similarly believe that humanity is in a "fallen" state. The theology is, of course, very different, but in this regard the implications are similar.) We therefore have to accept that there simply is no natural solution to many of the worlds problems (poverty, war, crime, etc.). We, of course, do the best we can, in our small human way, to alleviate the problem, but we recognize that we cannot eliminate the problem.

Secularists (and those who absorbed its world view) generally will not accept this view. Although logically it is possible to be a secularist and also accept that there are no true solutions to the world's problems, emotionally this is very difficult. Most secularists believe, emphatically, that all of the world's problems can be solved ("If only people would listen to our wisdom!").

Thus, LBJ's "War on Poverty" and the modern welfare state, the United Nations (to eliminate war), assorted liberal policies to eliminate racism (affirmative action), socialize medicine, etc. WHile most of these goals are laudable, they are, in essence, attempts to solve the unsolvable. As a result these grand plans tend to just create new problems while exacerbating the old ones.

Fundamentally, what has happened, in my opinion, is a secular substitution for the Messianic age. Religious believers tend to believe that the Messianic age can only be brought about through Divine action. Secularists, who don't believe in the Divine, have put themselves in the Messianic role. Interestingly, the U.N. has been, almost explicitly, described in Messianic terms. Thus the famous "Swords into Plowshares" statue at the U.N. based on a messianic prophecy from Yeshaya HaNavi. (Even more interesting, the statue was donated by the atheist Soviet Union!)

Religious groups that have absorbed the secularist perspective (which includes various Christian factions, such as the Methodist church that mentored Hillary Clinton, and many Jewish groups, such as Reform Judaism) and have completely adopted their agenda as their spiritual purpose.

(Incidentally, while I don't have enough background on Islam to be certain, it seems to me that a similar process has led to the modern "radical Islamists." Today's radical Islam is a modern development, which was heavily influenced by secular Arab nationalism. In radical Islam we also observe the attempt to bring about a Messianic age through direct human action.)

Well, I guess I've rambled for long enough. Sorry!

Eternal Jewish Family Website - Returns

The EJF Website is fully functional including photos and video as well as application for potential converts to apply to their programs

Post Zionism II - Jews & Moslems

Garnel Ironheart said...

> Please elaborate on the Torah's moral justification for persecuting monotheistic inhabitants of the Land of Israel.

You mean: Persecuting monotheistic inhabitants who daily shout out loud for the destruction of Israel and use whatever means they can to bring it about. I don't think you'll find a functioning state on this planet that wouldn't "persecute" such a group.

> This included/includes expelling civilians from their homes,

Well at least you're sympathetic to the exiles from 'Aza.

> seizing their land

That they in turn originally seized from us. Yes, please continue.

> murdering 10,000 civilians

Only in your dreams. You've been reading too much Al-Jazeera.

> raping women and girls in order to incite enough terror that the majority of the native population would flee (Deir Yassin)

You probably also believe that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is an authentic historical document. Well, as PT Barnum said, there's a sucker born every minute.

> This is also very well documented from IDF achives by Meron Benvenisti former mayor of Jerusalem

Who was all for Israel and Yerushalayim until he lost his chance to become mayor of the Holy City and then, in what seems to be de rigeur for failed Israeli politicians, became a bitter enemy of the state willing to spread any and all lies about it. Sour grapes indeed.

> Please explain your source for the Torah justification for taking the Land of Israel by force in light of the Three Oaths.

The Torah tells us to stay away from false matters. By rejecting all the... oh he'll just censor the word... you've spewed, I'm doing just that!

Self-evident Belief vs. Reasonable Belief

LazerA's comment to "Chabad - With defenders like these...?

Garnel Ironheart said...

"One of the problems with Chabad and much of Chareidi philosophy nowadays is that at the core their view is the "right" view and must be defended with passion and aggressiveness."

While I also agree that the problem exists in the Chareidi world as well (though not as pervasively), I do not think the essence of the problem is that they consider their view "right" (which is really to be expected) but that they believe their view is obviously and self-evidently correct. Thus, those who disagree are not simply wrong or misguided, but hateful and arrogant (as we see from the accusations that have been made).

Interestingly, a similar phenomon existed during the Middle Ages when Christians accused the Jews of ritual murder, host desecration, and of being of a demonic/Satanic nature. This was premised on the Christian belief that Jesus' status as Moshiach/prophet/Divine was clearly self-evident to all who knew him. As the Jews knew Jesus best, their denial of his status as Moshiach/prophet/Divine could only be explained by their wilfully evil/demonic nature.

As I noted this tendency also exists in some circles of the Chareidi world, and can cause a good bit of trouble.

Firstly, those who have such an attitude are less likely to consider the impression their actions make on outsiders. (After all, in their hearts, the secular Jews know we're right!)

Secondly, this is one of the reasons kiruv workers sometimes get in trouble. Although they (usually) believe exactly the same things, they are sometimes seen as weaker in their beliefs because they will acknoweldge that these beliefs are not obvious.

This attitude appears to be far more common in Israeli chareidi circles than in American.

Big Brother in Beit Shemesh

Jerusalem Report just published this cover story. It is not the highest quality journalism but of the "he said this and she said that" type. However it is useful when read with a critical but open mind

[...]
Today's religious battles are being waged between different Orthodox factions in the suburban neighborhoods south of the city center known as Ramat Beit Shemesh (Beit Shemesh Heights). In the early 90s ultra-Orthodox haredi families, forced out of Jerusalem by the tight real estate market, settled there.

Some of them are adherents of the Eida Haredit, a small group of anti-Zionist extremists. An unusual coalition of modern-Orthodox religious Zionists and moderate, mainstream ultra-Orthodox residents complain that for the past year, a small group (60 families, it is estimated) of these zealots (kanaim in Hebrew) have engaged in acts of religious coercion and intimidation in order to impose their lifestyle on the majority. For now, the zealots are most vocal about women's modesty in dress and observance of Sabbath laws, although some anti-state activity has also taken place such as flag desecrations on Independence Day. There have also been reports in recent years of attacks on young people who stroll in co-ed groups together on Friday night; and of burning oil and gasoline thrown into a pizzeria where men and women sat together.

An unofficial zealot spokesman, Eli Tombeck, married and in his thirties, defends the attitude of his group. He tells The Jerusalem Report in an interview by telephone, We are merely trying to preserve our way of life." He denies belonging to the Eida Haredit, which is thought to have only 15,000 adherents across the nation, saying he's of Litvak orientation (i.e. more mainstream) and serves as a beadle at a large, normative ultra-Orthodox Beit Shemesh synagogue known as Kehillat Yaakov, led by Rabbi Mordechai Goldstein. Tombeck charges that it is the modern Orthodox who are escalating the war by holding demonstrations, using political muscle and speaking to the media. Moderates admit that they retaliate against the kanaim by waving Israeli flags from rooftops and terraces, hoping to irk the anti-state zealots.

Modern Orthodox residents paint a very different picture. "Rocks, dirty diapers and tomatoes have been pelted at and damaged our hospital van," says Judy Lev, an emergency room nurse, who works at the Hadassah Medical Center in Jerusalem and is required to work on Saturdays. The zealots' loud screeching at cars traveling on Shabbat near religious precincts is offensive to the moderates, although they too would prefer cars to stay away from their neighborhoods on the day of rest.

Sharon Ra'anan, an ex-Californian married with three children and a resident of bucolic Nofei Aviv, a modern Orthodox neighborhood of single family homes, reports that even "on a Tuesday" a friend's car was stoned as she drove through an adjoining zealot's neighborhood, Ramat Beit Shemesh Bet. A burning baby carriage was placed in the road, says Ra'anan. When her friend stopped her car to remove it, a brick was thrown into her back window narrowly missing her son. Ra'anan says it is unclear exactly why the woman was accosted, but the incident, she says, underscores the kind of hostile atmosphere, which has erupted in the town. She also knows of a doctor whose arm was broken "by hooligans" but could not elaborate on specific details and another modern Orthodox man who was roughed up by zealots. She also cites the case of a woman who had been harassed after she chose to sit in the forward "men's section" seating area of a neighborhood bus. Ra'anan, 43, who works as a technical writer in Jerusalem, immigrated 10 years ago. She says she was brought up as a "serious Conservative." She does not wear a head covering and she co-founded a women's payer group in Beit Shemesh after she moved in.

Post Zionism - Chief Rabbinate really necessary?

Anonymous' comment to "Conversion - Rav Druckman/Halachic debate?":

Bartley Kulp makes a number of excellent points that are easy to agree with.

If there is a separation of "shul and State" in Israel, then how can we call Israel the "Jewish State?"

What would be any more Jewish about Israel than for example, Brooklyn or Queens? (The demographics would be about the same, Jews, Russians, Arabs, Chinese).

If Israel is not a "Jewish State", but a State where Jews live, then what would be the basis of a Jewish claim to govern ANY Middle Eastern land as Jews comprise less than 1% of the population?

The basis for Jews to govern a non Jewish state in the Middle East boils down to a UN referendum and surely not a Biblical prescription.

The UN referendum granted war reparations to the Jewish people from Germany.

In other words, Germany committed a horrific genocide against the Jewish people. The UN passed a referendum to repay the Jewish people in allowing the Zionists to drive nearly a million Arabs from their homes and confiscate their lands and cities.

Today we risk the life of every 18 year old Israeli Jew to protect that UN entity that could just as easily be dissolved by referendum as it was formed.

I think that Bartley Kulp presents an excellent argument in support of "Post Zionistic" ideology.

Bartley Kulp responded...

anonymous said...

"I think that Bartley Kulp presents an excellent argument in support of "Post Zionistic" ideology."

This does not a support for post zionist ideology per say. I will admit though that on the surface it would seem to support their agenda though. Enough of post Zionism for now. I will touch on your other points. I am also not advocating a complete divorce between church and state in the American sense of the word.

First of all you are asking an existential question that without the bible what is our our excuse for dispossessing the Palestinians and being a center trigger for so much conflict? The truth is that there is no justification for it. This is why Ben Gurion sent a message through Aba Ebben to the U.N. on the eve of the vote over partition, that the justification for our presence in the holy land is the bible. Keeping in mind that Ben Gurion was himself an athiest, he was not just trying spin on a potentialy religious audience. The matter was and still is very simple without bringing in divinity. Besides being a book of laws the bible represents the oldest deed of land ownership known to mankind.

Again this was Ben Gurion who brought up this point before the U.N. and not Chief Rabbi Herzog z'l. In fact all of these things that you are bringing up such as German war reparations, the fact that we could be dissolved by refurendum (although I am not so sure that that is so simplistic) are irregardless of the fact on whether or not our country is a theocracy of any kind. Certainly the U.N. delegates who voted on these issues did not have frum interpretation of halacha or the rabbinate in mind while voting.

Nor do I think that soldiers when they risk there lives on the battlefield do they declare "G-d save the chief rabbi of Israel."

The thing is that I think you are mixing up Torah and nationalism. The law of return is essentially a nationalistic law, not a torah one. It is not that much different to the laws that exist in such countries like Germany, Hungary and China. The rabbinate does not have much of a part in the enforcement or carrying out this law. The jewish Agency and the ministry of the interior do. In fact they do so in spite of the rabbinate. Under the law of return individuals of Jewish patrilineage decent and non Jewish spouses can become citizens here. Thus the seeds of todays problem that Rav Druckman was desperately trying to deal with. This is hardly a torah based law and it is unlikely that much will change without a rabbinate.

You are also forgetting that the most powerful body that can facilitate Jewish identity through education and religious ordinances is not the Rabbinate but the Knesset. In this building the religious parties have a lot of clout.

Even with all of this said, the heart of the matter is that the ends do not justify the means. It is degrading to the torah to have beiti dinim that are not autonymous and are subject to government pressure. This is in spite of the problems that we are now existentially facing because of the 300,000 non Jewish Russian olim.

Also consider this, perhaps half of these people will not consider converting anyways. So why are we prostituting ourselves?

Chabad - With defenders like these...?

yankel's comment to "Chabad - Chasidim - not just Litvaks - are upset":

Rabbi Eidensohn
I respectfully ask that you forcefully repudiate the poster Hirshel Tzigs words against you.On his blog he has called you a 'hater' and other things that had he been a gentile he would have been accused of anti-semitism!

I imagine that you don't take it personally, but a stand has to be taken against this type of practice, accusing anybody who respectfully challenges some Chabad notions.

Most people I know would have a problem with some of the Lubavitcher practices and teachings that you discuss. For example I don't know of any non Lubavitcher who thinks that the Rebbe had the halachik classification of a Novi in the very literal sense of the word (if he did we'd have a major problem, since he said that Moshiach is coming 'ot ot' sixteen years ago! and a real novi who says prophecy on a good tiding ,it has to happen! according to the Ramba'm and if not he is a novi sheker. So, I think Lubavitch is better off saying that the Rebbe was saying it as a prayer to Hashem)Nobody I know is comfortable with the 'atzmus umahus shenislabesh beguf' So although things can be explained raising questions does not make one a hater.

N.B I also happen to know this fellow and he has no right accusing you of these things, especially since you are not hiding behind a cloak of anonymity and he is

========================================
The simple answer is that there are two ways of proving a group has a serious problems. One is to give learned discourses and analyses based on subtle clues. The other is just to let everyone observe their behavior and thought patterns.

While there is obviously a universally recognized valid core to Chabad views - the problem is and has always been what results from them. The same goes for Breslav. Regarding the latter I have heard from a number of Breslavers that their problems stem from the fact that Rebbe Nachman's derech is too demanding for the average person and thus it warps. The strongest opposition to Lubavitcher has historically been from other chasidim who think the teachings of the Tanya are not appropriate for the average Jew - not that they are wrong.

An additional problem occurs in any mass movement with a charismatic leader. A talmid chachom told me yesterday that there is no question that the Lubavitcher Rebbe was a genius in Torah as well as being a genius in understanding people. He said simply that the Rebbe created a strong spiritual excitement with his campaign regarding Moshiach - but then he periodically had to change and strengthen it to keep the momentum going. At some point he lost his perspective. Potential and theoretical understanding's became reality. Thus he went from being a possible or a presumed candidate to Moshaich himself.

It is hard for us peons to understand the pressures that exist on a brilliant and senstive person to loose his perspective when surrounded by thousands of admirers who hang on to your every word.

This is also what happened to Dovid and Shlomo.This is actually Rav Tzadok's explanation of why two high level talmidei chachomim - Yoshka and Shabtsai Tzvi went off the derech. I AM NOT SAYING THE REBBE WENT OFF THE DERECH. But spiritual boldness does carry a danger as we see with the Ramchal who was put in cherem by the gedolei hador of his time.

At this point there is not much intelligent discussion between the various factions. I have hoped that this blog would provide one of the rare venues for communication - even though obviously each side has a hermetically sealed core of beliefs.

The problem you are raising is when petty people want to build up their self esteem by acting as zealots. When these midgets get an ego surge with their self-righteousness. When they get a rush of adrenaline about torching the enemy. I simply feel sorry for Hirshel Tzig and his ilk who are not only not convincing anybody of the justness of their cause but as Rabbi Kahn has put it - they are disgracing the name of their great rebbe and making a laughing stock of his legacy. So perhaps one of the strongest proofs of the dangers of Chabad is to let these "zealots" display their thought processes and midos. They are more an embarrassment and debasement to the legacy of the Baal HaTanya than any criticism I might present. With defenders like these, the opponents don't have to work very hard.

Chabad II - The Rebbe had the status of a prophet?

LazerA's comment to "Chabad - The Rebbe had the status of a prophet?":

Anonymous said...
"The sicha about prophesy... can be viewed at 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 interpreted 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.