The need and importance of consulting psychologists and doctors and other experts in secular knowledge should not be regarded as against Torah. Aside from the fact that Moshe consulted with Yisro and that through the ages gedolim have always done such - the following Chasam Sofer asserts that secular wisdom itself is inspired by ruach hakodesh.
Chasam Sofer (Orech Chaim 1:208): And this that you have written a number of times concerning the issue of wisdom and prophecy and Azniel ben Kenaz who restored the lost Halacha by pilpul… You correctly explain that which the Raavad said that there was ruach hakodesh in his beis hamedrash and similar such expressions does not mean ruach hakodesh in the sense that Dovid HaMelech had. Rather it means the spirit of G‑d for those who engage in Torah for pure motivations who merit to ascertain the truth even if according to the nature of their wisdom and intelligence they should be incapable of comprehending it properly. Nevertheless, G‑d in His mercy gives extra inspiration of wisdom for a limited time. In this manner Azniel ben Kenaz merited to ascertain the truth through pilpul, kal v’chomer and gezera shaveh [Temurah 16a] that which his natural intelligence was incapable of doing. This is similar to what it says in Bava Basra 12a that 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. In addition, we also find that he says things which in fact are Halacha L’Moshe m’Sinai. The gemora rejects 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. This idea can explain the gemora in Megila (16a): “Whoever says wisdom even if he not Jewish is called a wise man.” The obvious question is why shouldn’t he be called a wise man? Don’t we in fact even say a beracha on the wise men of the non‑Jews “who gives of His wisdom to human beings” (Berachos 58a)? The answer is that without this gemora we would have mistakenly thought that Divinely inspired wisdom only comes to Jews while if a non‑Jew said something brilliant that seems to transcend his intellectual capabilities we would have thought it was just blind chance….
We already have it
ReplyDeletechochma b'goyim taamin
the Monsey Tzadik said...
ReplyDeleteWe already have it
chochma b'goyim taamin
================
That simply means that non-Jews have secular wisdom. The Chasam Sofer is saying the reason that we make a beracha on a secular scholar is only because his genius is based on ruach hakodesh.
What forces the Chasam Sofer to say that a brilliant insight in ruach hakodesh? Maybe the brain is simpler smarter than we realize. Does Hashem give chess masters, classic musicians, brilliant artists, etc. ruach hakodesh? Why ascribe spiritual causes unnecessarily???
ReplyDeleteHe explains why? Why say a beracha on something not essentially spiritual?
DeleteI have a different question but it's not totally unrelated.
DeleteWe know that the Yerushalmi often disagrees with the bavli. Why is the Bavli supposedly the dominant source of halacha? To say that the bavli says so, would not make sense. In fact it says that Torat Eretz Israel is greater than Bavel.
I know some individuals have been focused more on the Yerushalmi, but it hasn't become mainstream.
The same question, eh can someone say he prefers the Meiri to lets say the shulchan aruch. Or the Levush?
And what happens if someone does this on his own?
The Bavli came second which means it knew about the Yerushalmi's rulings and yet still disagreed, giving reasons. That's why it's more authoritative. That's why, for example, we following Shulchan Aruch and not the Tur or Mishneh Torah. Those who prioritize the Aruch HaShulchan over the Mishnah Berurah do so for the same reason.
DeleteDifferent communities might have different preferences. The Yemenites, for example, hold by the Mishneh Torah over the Shulchan Aruch.
Later isn't always better. Bavli was in Bavel, Yerushalmi was in Israel.
ReplyDeleteJust like you can choose eg the Mapah of the Rema vs the SA, or vice versa, so the same with the Talmud.
That's essentially the argument of mesora, but it's only the bavli that'd telling you to follow them.
Later usually is considered better because it's later - the Bavli crowd knew about the Yerushalmi and built on it in their version.
DeleteThe simple answer is what the Rambam and Beis Yosef say - The Bavli was accepted as the final authority by Jews throughout history. So follow another authority and all will not accept you!
DeleteVery interesting.. it's a big discussion. We have a degree of autonomy on which authority to follow. Sure rambam was great, but even with his authority, there's room to manoeuvre. He also brings the Yerushalmi. The question is how does anyone know what is the truth when the 2 talmuds disagree. I saw briefly a post about following the majority event if factually the minority are correct. The majority cannot change a fact, or history, or make even a falsehood true. There are limitations in the parameters of what a majority can do.
DeleteWhat the Rambam says? Didn't he often pasken according to the Yerushalmi over the Bavli?
Deletehttps://daattorah.blogspot.com/2024/08/talmudic-authority.html
DeleteIt's more likely that the Bavli became dominant because there was a strong population in Bavel, even though the era of the gaonim.
DeleteIn Israel, the population diminished, so the influence of the Yerushalmi became much weaker.
Rambam wrote this 950 years ago. And he is still in a situation where the Bavli hadn't been fully adopted.
ReplyDeleteIn the time of Ezra and Nehemiah there was no Bavli. Also no Yerushalmi.
So why don't we have a copy of their version?
During their time it was all oral. There would be no copy
DeleteI think that's just a soundbite. There were different methods of deriving the law. Ezra's psak would be apikorsus today.
DeleteAlso, I've heard a few times that we used to learn directly from the Chumash, but now we need to learn from halachic literature. I don't know the exact source for this statement. It could mean that tgr method of deriving halacha was more concentrated, so Ezra would look into the Torah and derive a law from it. Or did he use rabbi Ishmael's 13 methods?
If you are able to think like a physicist, you have to do a thought experiment of traveling back to any point in the past ,, and seeing if they had the same mesora. Etrog is a great example.
KA you are presenting many claims based entirely on "I heard" -The most authoritative source of nonsense possible!
DeleteMaybe, or perhaps there's a source for what I heard, that I have to present.
Delete