The Educated Prophet – Between Orthodoxy and Reform?

To Rabbi Shalom,
I wanted to ask you about an idea that has been very interesting to me recently. I am delving deeply into the concept of prophecy and I am interested in hearing your opinion on my latest conclusions. I wonder whether the concept of the individual’s prophecy about obligation itself can connect an Orthodox and Reform approach.
One can recognize in understanding the concept of prophecy as I understand it a combination of rational education, dialogism, and associative ease of the imagination. But it can also be understood in other ways.
I would like to phrase everything in the form of a question, since it is a response, but I can’t find a better formulation than what I wrote on Facebook as an opinion post.
Here I am dealing with the tension between the individual’s understanding of how he himself should live according to the truth he understands and the requirement of religious law, but specifically from the perspective of religion.
The question of whether a person should do what he believes in is one question. Here I believe that not only should a person do what he believes in, but that it is possible that the cleric has a duty to encourage a person to do the truth he believes in versus the rules of Halacha as part of the religious agenda itself. (This is also included in the tone of admiration for the “wise man who understands his own mind”.)
On the other hand, the reformer who advocates personal autonomy in the face of Halacha is obligated to strive for idealistic truth and not that which is merely convenient for him, as well as to study and delve deeper into religious laws day and night.
And here are the things from the post –
—
The Figure of the Prophet – Between Orthodoxy and Reform
The prophet stands in the storm, facing the lightning and thunder of the clouds of divine glory. What distinguishes the prophet in the law is that the word of God that his ears hear is more binding on him than the written law, according to the law itself. He hears directly. His word prevails over the law, precisely when he understands his prophecy as a temporary instruction – either for himself or when he instructs it to the people.
We, our ears are heavy with hearing, but still sometimes we hear some voice, something enters, and speaks its word. In fact, only thanks to this voice do we phenomenologically understand the concept of prophecy of the most pure prophets of truth and justice. Only thanks to our easy prophecies, can we understand the biblical story of hearing the voice at Mount Sinai.
As those who hold fast to the foundation of the foundations and the pillar of wisdom, we know that God alone is truth, and we say at the end of the Shema, “The Lord your God is truth,” and therefore every partial truth is actually the word of God. A prophet who prophesies in the name of idolatry testifies to himself that he did not prophesy from the truth, and therefore it is forbidden to listen to him. Idol worship is precisely the separation from truth to falsehood. It is precisely the barrier between the ear and the prophetic voice. It is not possible for a true prophetic voice to say to worship idolatry. This is a secret tenet.
In this sense, the concept of prophecy is a concept that compromises between the Reform idea of ​​personal autonomy to choose in the face of the laws of halakhah, versus the total commitment to what is said therein.
That is, as long as a person does not hear the voice of truth and recognize it as such, he is bound by halakhic law, and as long as he hears a truth that differs from what is stated in the law, and recognizes that this is his duty, he must act according to this truth.
The obligation to listen to the true voice of God is a halachic obligation of a prophet. A prophet who has suppressed his prophecy is liable to death at the hands of heaven. This is the spiritual death of one who listens to his own desires or the advice of men, even the most intelligent and learned of his generation, and forgets to listen to the truth that he understands.
It should be noted that the Halacha itself, in terms of its own narrative, is nothing more than a continuation of what Moses was commanded to tell the people of Israel. It is true that when one speaks to another, it is clear that he should speak in terms of the general, while one can always ask about the details and “general and particular, particular and general, general and particular and general, you judge only according to the individual.” Thus, the individual can always further investigate the individual truth that is being told to his ears in comparison to the general one.
On the other hand, a person is not exempt from dealing with rules. There needs to be a balance between Torah study and private prophecy. The law was given so that it would be heard, and you are not permitted to abrogate it, which is not your inheritance without the labor of study.
In this way, autonomy is created for the individual, but only one that concerns the making of truth, and not one that merely seeks concessions for itself. An autonomy for the individual that also requires constant study of tradition, and not one that abandons the past, thus depleting its legacy to the next generation.
In this way, prophecy allows a person to live in both Orthodox and Reform realities. The more unique a person is, the more they are required to follow their own private prophecies, and the more they want to follow the social trend, the more they will adhere to general halakha.
“You are one and your name is one, one nation in the land”

With thanks, Shabbat Shalom and a good final greeting,
Ofir