B'HA Response to Chaim Millers Turning Judaism Outward Based on SourcesIs the identification of Moshiach's identity important?Recently, biographies of the Rebbe have been published which have created confusion regarding the Rebbe's views on Moshiach (the Messiah) and on publicizing the identity of Moshiach. This essay is provided to address such questions, but not to comprehensively review an entire book. Furthermore, this is not intended as a personal attack on any author, but rather a legitimate critical analysis of the work based on sources.

Before we start, I would like to give an introduction. The Frierdiker Rebbe (the 6th Lubavitcher Rebbe) writes that even criminals follow a set of rules and maintain certain standards. This was said in reference to writers associated with the Haskalah, the Enlightenment Movement who violated the most basic norms. One of their most egregious acts according to the Frierdiker Rebbe was to re-write history, creating facts that never occurred to accommodate their agenda. Turning Judaism Outward is plagued by the same errors. This book employs fabrications, omission of facts, and half-truths which obscures the truth from the reader. It can also be misleading by including one part of a sicha while omitting another part.This reminds me of the story from the beginning of the Chassidic movement. There was tremendous opposition coming from true Torah scholars and the greatest leaders of Jewry at the time. These leaders were misled by lies regarding the practices and beliefs of the Chassidim. One such example is a particularly harsh letter against the Chassidic movement written by the Vilna Gaon who was the head of the opposition. His antagonism was based on eyewitness testimony that Chassidim were eating and drinking on Tisha B'Av. This supported their claim that they were followers of Shabtai Zvi, G-d forbid, because he told his followers to not fast on Tisha Bav. Later it became clear this testimony was true except for one important detail: Chassidim were eating and drinking on Tisha Bav which had occurred on Shabbos, when it is not only permissible, but a mitzvah to eat and drink. It is precisely this detail which determined whether others were portrayed as following or violating Torah law. Unfortunately, Rabbi Miller discusses the subject of Moshiach in much the same manner. He only brings some of the story, leaving out other parts which creates a false and misleading picture. This review focuses on pages 404-407 concerning his treatment of the propriety of identifying the Rebbe as Moshiach according to the Rebbe's writings and responses.

Beginning with page 404, the book states that the Rebbe did not deem the identification of Moshiach's identity important. There could be nothing further from the truth! Rabbi Miller is entitled to his personal belief. But, the significance which the Rebbe attached to this is evident by the numerous times which he spoke about this. I would refer the reader to a few of the many sources most of which the Rebbe has edited:

1) In Lukkutei Sichos vol 29, page 360 in a sicha (talk) from Simchas Torah, 5746, the focus of the entire sicha is on the identity of Moshiach and on the subject of who is Moshiach in the generation. More particularly, he states that the Moshiach of every and any generation is the Nasi (leader) of the generation, and in our generation, it is the Rebbe my father in law.

2) In Sefer Hasichos, 5752, on page 365, the Rebbe writes, whoever is the Nasi in the generation, he is the Moshiach in the generation.

3) In Sefer Hasichos 5752 page 470, the Rebbe states whoever is the Nasi of the generation is the Moshiach of the generation and the Rebbe also explains why.

4) In Sefer Hisvaadiyos 5747 vol 1 page 266 on the sixth night of Sukkos, the Rebbe spoke about the Tzemach Tzedek (the 3rd Lubavitcher Rebbe). The recording of this weekday sicha is available. The Rebbe says in every generation, the Chassidim believed that their Rebbe is Moshiach, and in the times of the Tzemach Tzedek, his chassidim believed clearly that he was Moshiach of that generation. Had Moshiach come in that generation, the Tzemach Tzedek would have been Moshiach.

5) In Sefer Hasichos 5752, page 95, Parshas Vayera, the Rebbe writes that in every generation, there is someone that is designated to be Moshiach, and in our generation, it is the Nasi of the generation, the Rebbe my father in law. 6) In Sefer Hasichos 5752, page 110, Parshas Chayei Sarah, the Rebbe writes again, in every generation, Hashem designates one person to be Moshiach, and in our generation, it is the Rebbe My father in law, the Nasi of the generation.

7) One can see this again in the above sicha on page 111.

8) In Sefer Hasichos 5752 page 152, Parshas Vayeitzei, the Rebbe again says , in every generation, there is someone who is designated to be Moshiach, and in our generation, it is the Nasi Hador, The Rebbe my father in law.

9) In Sefer Hasichos 5752 page 243, you can see this again, on the 10th of Teves, the Rebbe says Moshiach tzidkeinu, the Rebbe my father in law, the Nasi Hador,

10) In Sefer Hasichos 5752 page 366, the Rebbe writes the Rebbe my father in law is the Nasi of the generation, the Moshiach of the generation.

11) In Sefer hasichos 5752, page 472 the Rebbe writes the Nasi of the generation is the Moshiach of the generation, and he is also the Nasi of the teachings of Chassidus.

12) In Sefer Hasichos 5752 page 373, again the Rebbe says the Nasi of our generation, is the Moshiach of our generation.

13) In Sichos Kodesh 5720 Parshas Naso chapter 3, the Rebbe discusses at length how the Frierdiker Rebbe publicized that Moshiach is coming and the Chassidim then added that the Frierdiker Rebbe is Moshiach.

In addition to the above there are many sichos where the Rebbe said Moshiachs name is Menachem:1) In Sefer Hasichos 5752 page 341

2) In Sefer Hasichos 5752 page 376

3) In Sefer Hasichos 5752 page 400

4) In Sefer Hasichos 5751 page 721

5) In Sefer Hasichos 5751 page 722

6) In Sefer Hasichos 5751 page 743

In addition to the above, the Rebbe said both 'Menachem' and 'Mendel' are the names of Moshiach.

1) In Sefer Hasichos 5751 page 14

2) In Sefer Hisvaadiyos 5750 page 287

3) In Sefer Hisvaadiyos 5750 page 337

This is a partial listing. There exists many other sources, some of which are explicit and some are subtle. For example, when the Rebbe says The two names of the Tzemach Tzedek are the names of Moshiach. Therefore, in sicha after sicha, the Rebbe has spoken about who is Moshiach and even referenced his name, yet there is a brazen disregard for these sichos. There is also a book exclusively dedicated to quoting all the sources where the Rebbe speaks about who is Moshiach.

Furthermore, in an attempt to support a flawed conclusion, on p. 404, Rabbi Miller compares the focus on the 'persona' of Moshiach to the theology of Christianity, rachmono l'tzlan, (G-d forbid). This stands in stark contrast to the Rebbe's emphasis on the identity of Moshiach as cited in the previously referenced writings which has always been a part of Judaism. For instance, in the Talmud, Sanhedrin 98b, it is recorded how students were discussing who is Moshiach and each one pointed to their teachers, and identified him as Moshiach. In the Encyclopedia Sdei Chemed, volume Paas Hasadeh, Mareches 1, page 1495, it states that in every generation, the rabbis speculated who is the Moshiach of that generation. In addition, Rabbi Shmuel Bluming published a pamphlet in which he compiled documented sources throughout Jewish history in which the rabbis speculated who would be Moshiach in their generation. Clearly, any reference to Christianity is without foundation and in fact no source is offered. Instead, open sources are treated as if they do not exist. In the process, he cavalierly impugns the teaching, writing and activism of hundreds of thousands of Chassidim and those close to Chabad, inlcuding roshei yeshivos, rabonim, and talmedei chochamim. This begs the question: Where is the source in Judaism that rules it is against the Torah to say who is Moshiach? There is no such source: not in Gemara, Shulchan Aruch , Midrashim, nor in any other place in Torah.The Rebbe's View of Identifying Him as Moshiach

In another statement on p 404, Rabbi Miller writes that it is the Rebbe's view that the focus on who is Moshiach detracts from the work of bringing Moshiach. He cites a source from 1984, on p 405, that the Rebbe said he is against Chassidim saying he is Moshiach which according to the author continues to this day. A closer examination of how to apply the Rebbe's response is necessary. In 1984, the Rebbe said that this would 'push people away from learning Chassidus.' However, at a later point in time, activities that identified the Rebbe as Moshiach received a completely different, positive answer. In retrospect, the Rebbe's initial response from 1984 implies that the right time had not come for this. Yet, it did not mean that talking about the subject will forever be inappropriate. The logical conclusion to Rabbi Miller's understanding of the Rebbe's position is there will never be a time when it would be appropriate to say that someone is Moshiach!! This is rather absurd. Here again, it is deceptive to treat an initial answer as forever rendering an action unacceptable when there are later publicly-known answers which approve. These will be discussed in depth later.

In fact, there are many examples in which the Rebbe first withheld his blessing for a project and at a later point said that now is the time that it should be done. This is commonplace as well in the history and practice of Chassidus. For example, there was tremendous opposition against the Arizal when he first began to teach Kabbalah. The basis for the opposition was It was never done before. It was true that Kabbalah was never studied publicly, but only by a select few out of the entire generation. To this the Arizal answered "That was before, but now the times have changed. So much so that in fact, now not only is it alright to study Kabbalah, but now it is a mitzvah legalos zos hachochma (to reveal this wisdom). (Incidentally, the Alter Rebbe (the 1st Lubavither Rebbe) brings these words in his work Igeres Hakodesh Siman 26 that it is a mitzvah to study Kabbalah and publicize the teachings of Kabbalah.)

The situation repeated itself with the Baal Shem Tov a few generations later when he introduced Chassidus, and again there was tremendous opposition. We never studied this. These things were never done before. "The teachings and way of life that the Baal Shem Tov introduced are an innovation." The Baal Shem Tov acknowledged that this was not done before. However, the time had now arrived for these concepts and practices to be publicized and adopted. It is well known how the explanations and metaphors in Chassidus explain how earlier it was unacceptable to reveal the concealed part of the Torah, and in the time of the Baal Shem Tov, it became not only acceptable, but a necessity.

Yet again this occurred in the time of the Alter Rebbe. When the Alter Rebbe began to teach Chassidus Chabad, great Chassidic masters came out against this change. They claimed that the Alter Rebbe was not following the way which the Baal Shem Tov had taught Chassidus. They complained that to explain these lofty Chassidic concepts in a manner of chochmah, bina and daas is a deviation. The Alter Rebbe answered that the Baal Shem Tov's method was proper for his generation. Yet, now the call of the hour is to reveal Chassidus in a different way. To emphasize this point further, the Alter Rebbe's method of teaching Chassidus even changed from the time prior to his arrest as compared to after his liberation from prison. And similarly from generation to generation, from Rebbe to Rebbe, practices and teachings which were concealed or deemed inappropriate in the previous generation were by necessity revealed and encouraged in a later generation. Naturally, no one today would dare say to ignore a directive from the Rebbe, G-d forbid, because it was not done in the time of the Alter Rebbe.

Another illustration can be found in Likkutei Sichos volume 20 p 386, where the Rebbe speaks about the custom of birthday celebrations. Private celebrations of birthdays were practiced by a select few individuals in a quiet way so it was not made known to the public. Then, the Frierdiker Rebbe gave instructions to publicize the importance of observing one's birthday. The Rebbe describes this as going from one end of the spectrum to the other. First it was totally hidden and concealed, so no one should know about it. Then it went to the other extreme where it became essential to publicize to every man, woman and child, so that everyone in the generation should follow it.

Similarly, for generations, Lubavitchers began wearing Rabeinu Tam's tefillin at the age of 18. On Purim 5736, the Rebbe instructed that boys should start putting on Rabeinu Tam's tefillin earlier, from the time of their bar mitzvah. A few years later, in 5749, the Rebbe then said that Rabeinu Tam's tefillin should be put on 2 months before bar mitzva as is the practice for Rashi's tefillin. Again, a custom which was previously not done consequently became necessary and important to do.

Another instance is from 1986 when Rabbi Yona Avtzon prepared a book entitled From Exile to Redemption, featuring excerpts from the Rabbeim of Chabad on the subject of Moshiach and Redemption. The Rebbe rejected the publishing of this book, saying that it will exacerbate the opposition to the coming of Moshiach. In light of the farbrengen of Parshas Tazria Metzora 5751, Rabbi Avtzon asked the Rebbe again for approval to print the book. This time the Rebbe gave strong encouragement to its immediate publication.

Yet another example is the process of the Rebbe accepting the leadership of Lubavitch. During the first year after the histalkus (passing) of the Frierdiker Rebbe, many people wrote letters to the Rebbe, begging him to accept the leadership of Chabad. The Rebbe consistently rejected it, emphasizing it is not a position that is suitable for him and it is a mistake to suggest for him to be Rebbe. Yet, a year later the Rebbe accepted the leadership. No one would say that the Rebbe is not the leader of Lubavitcher Chassidim because the Rebbe so strongly rejected it in 1950! Yet, Turning Judaism Outward disingenuously claims that the Rebbe's 1984 disapproval of publicly identifying him as Moshiach continues unchanged to this day. This requires disregarding later responses in which the Rebbe's stance changed to approve publicly identifying him as Moshiach.

Sources provided earlier document how the Rebbe personally publicized that 'the Nasi of the generation is Moshiach of the generation,' and 'that my father in law is the Moshiach of the generation'. In fact, the Rebbe specifically requested these sichos to be published in the newspapers. These sichos were edited by the Rebbe and were publicly disseminated in a magazine in Israel and in a newspaper in America leaving no doubt that it carried the official seal of approval from the Rebbe. In fact, as it is written on the cover page of Sefer Hasichos 5751-52, these sichos were originally prepared exclusively for the purpose of publication in the The Kfar Chabad magazine and the Algemeiner Journal. Only later were they published in book form as Sefer Hasichos. It is important to emphasize that in these talks the Rebbe speaks repeatedly about the identity of Moshiach.What really happened on 28 Nisan 5751 and other imporant farbrengens?

In discussing the seminal sicha of the 28th of Nisan 5751, the book mischaracterizes the Chassidim as 'desperately seeking some unexplored angle.' To describe the Chassidim in terms of desperation betrays an ignorance. The response was obvious to everyone present: the Chassidim were ecstatic! They were jumping out of their skin with excitement because they believed in the Rebbe with all their heart. On p. 406, Rabbi Miller writes that some Chassidim at a later farbrengen 'sang the same song' identifying the Rebbe as Moshiach, to which the Rebbe 'reacted critically' as he did in 1984. There could be nothing further from the truth. I was there. I saw it with my own eyes as did thousands of people. I am as sure as a historian who does research and knows exactly what happened. The author gives the appearance of conveying the facts, but again engages in the pretension of highlighting one part and ignoring another. The 1991 sicha was completely different than the one in 1984. In 1984, the Rebbe spoke with a lot of pain and harshness. The Rebbe was screaming that the publicizing of the Rebbe as Moshiach goes against and stands in the way of spreading Chassidus and pushes people away. Conversely, in the sicha of 1991, the Rebbe did not utter one word in that vein. In fact, the Rebbe was smiling and the Rebbe spoke in just a few words when he said 'you sing this song with these words while I sit here by the table. . . I should have walked out. But I won't. . '

There are 2 reasons which were given by the Rebbe for saying this which were left out of the book. The first reason is that 'it is not going to help anyway. The Chassidim are going to continue saying what they are saying.' The Rebbe smiled when he said that. There was no anger or talk about destroying or destruction. And the second reason the Rebbe gives is 'I don't want to disturb the sheves achim gam yachad.' It is a farbrengen, there is unity among chassidim. He didn't want to do anything that is going to disturb that unity. The book omits these points and ironically is written in a way that creates division between one chasid and another, the direct opposite of the Rebbe's stated intent. And whatever the Rebbe did say, he most certainly did not say it is wrong, terrible, or destructive to identify the Rebbe as Moshiach. There was not one word of that nature. All he said is I should have walked out. This basically means the Rebbe is saying if I am sitting here at a public farbrengen while you are singing this song, I am publicly admitting I agree with what the people are saying in this song.

At that time, the Rebbe did not publicly admit. He really would have walked out. In other words, it wasn't the time yet for the Rebbe to be publicly sitting there while we sing that song. This is something which gradually changed, similar to other subjects cited earlier, like the Rebbe's acceptance of the leadership of Lubavitch, Rabeinu Tam's tefillin, birthday celebrations, etc. Activities in 5751-52 whose theme was the public identification and acceptance of the Rebbe as Moshiach received the Rebbe's consent and blessing couched in unusually enthusiastic and positive languge. These are too numerous for this essay, but they are published and available to the public (And He Will Redeem Us pp 59-72). Some noteworthy responses included approval for Halachic Rulings from Beis Din, petition drives, letters of acceptance, Melaveh Malkas, and newspaper advertisements. Perhaps most telling was the Rebbe's consent to use the title Melech HaMoshiach in the preface to his works published by Kehos, the official publishing house of Lubavitch, and the Rebbe's public encouragement of the singing of 'Yechi' which identifies the Rebbe as Moshiach, both in 5753.

In supporting the thesis in Turning Judaism Outward that the Rebbe's 1984 opinion remained unchanged regarding identifying Moshiach, Rabbi Miller cites a response from the Rebbe in 5752 which disapproved of the distribution of a pamphlet identifying Moshiach. This case illustrates another aspect essential to understanding the Rebbe's responses. Namely, the Rebbe's answer would take into account the approach, tone and phraseology of the question and the one asking. According to the writer of the pamphlet, Rabbi Sholom Dov Ber Wolpe, the women who inquired of the Rebbe regarding distributing the pamphlet phrased their request in the form of a question with a decidedly negative view. Conversely , at the same time, Rabbi Wolpe received strong encouragement from the Rebbe to continue his lectures which identified the Rebbe as Moshiach. In general, the Rebbe's responses seem to strike a balance between refraining from lobbying for or obligating others in accepting or publicizing him as Moshiach and supporting activities based on the free choice, willingness and the initiative of others to accept and publicize the Rebbe as Moshiach. In short, answers reflect that acceptance can not be legislated from above, but rather must be at the initiative of the people.

Parenthetically, Turning Judaism Outward fails to fully discuss the book written by Rabbi Wolpe in 1984 which outlines how the halachic criteria for Presumed Moshiach is fulfilled in our time. This book was first rejected by the Rebbe in 1984 and referenced by Rabbi Miller on page 405 in the sicha (cited above) where the Rebbe discusses how actions such as these cause damage. Tellingly, this very same book then received an enthusiastic blessing from the Rebbe in 1991. The Rebbe writes 'I have received (the submission) and was greatly delighted. The enclosed work should be properly bound; accept my gratitude in advance. It should be successful; and I hope to hear glad tidings. Regarding all this, azkir al haTzion.' The Rebbe even asked Rabbi Wolpe to send him a copy. This is yet another proof of this principle. Namely, that the very same project discussing the identity of Moshiach which the Rebbe said would do harm at one time received approval at a later, proper time.

Another deceptive part of the book is where he selectively quotes from the sicha of Parshas Tazria Metzora 5751 which creates a false impression. Citing this sicha, Rabbi Miller speaks of how the Rebbe gave clear directives about what needs to be done: to learn about Moshiach and Geula (Redemption). The Rebbe also spoke in the sicha that the students in Gemara Sanhedrin p 98b all described their teacher as being Moshiach. Here the Rebbe writes 'anan naneh basrei', that we should follow their example! (Sefer Hasichos 5751, pages 496 and 497) Rabbi Miller omitted this part of the sicha where the Rebbe instructs that Chassidim should follow the example to say that our Rebbe is Moshiach.

In conclusion, when presented with the facts, the reader can readily see the flaws in Turning Judaism Outward's treatment of the subject of Moshiach, given its poor understanding and analysis of the Rebbe's sichos and responses and its faulty conclusions.