Rav Chaim Voloshner (Ruach Chaim 1:4): … It is prohibited for a student to accept the words of his teacher if he has questions about them. Furthermore sometimes the truth is with the student and not the teacher.” Avos (1:4) says, One should sit in the dust at the feet of one’s teachers and drink with unquenchable thirst what they say. “The word for sitting - avek - can also mean struggle or warfare. That is because this is an obligatory struggle. The holy rabbis who have composed the books we study have in fact given us permission to struggle and to fight over their words and to answer the difficulties they raise. Therefore, we have the right to question what they say and not to blindly accept their words - but one must love the truth…. Since ascertaining the truth is the prime concern - we must be very careful not to be conceited and egotistical in the discussions and to imagine that we are as great as the teacher or author with whom we are disagreeing. We should be aware in our hearts that we might simply be misunderstanding their words. Therefore we must always be very humble. We must have the attitude, ‘I am not worthy to argue but this is Torah and I must know the correct answer’. Furthermore, the Mishna states that the struggle is conditional on being ‘in the dust at their feet’ which means we must be humble and submissive and figuratively sit on the ground before them in these discussions.
Seridei Aish (1:113): I frequently comment on the apparent contradiction found in Avos (6:5) concerning those factors involved in acquiring Torah i.e. analysis of the students and faith in our Sages. Furthermore, what does faith in our Sages have to do with acquiring Torah? However, the explanation is that if one doesn’t believe in the truth of the words of the sages then one readily dismisses them for the slightest reason. With an attitude of condescension, one proclaims that they didn’t know what they were talking about. Consequently, one makes no effort to investigate and try to validate what they said. However, in the end we find that in fact we are the ones who have erred. … Therefore it is characteristic of the truly wise to presume that the sages have not erred, G d forbid! In fact we, with our limited perspective and limited understanding, have erred. On the other hand to blindly believe and not struggle to comprehend with our intellect the apparent difficulties, saying simply that they knew and we need merely to mindlessly rely on them, that is also not correct. We need to wrestle mightily with the apparent contradictions and doubts as if they are people like us. With this approach, we will come to a much profounder and sharper comprehension. Thus, we see that both factors - emunas chachomim (faith in our sages) and pilpul (intellectual evaluation) - work together to the purpose of the acquisition of Torah.
Michtav M'Eliyahu (4:269): Why
was Miriam punished with leprosy - indicating the sin of lashon harah -
when all she did was inquire about her brother’s conduct? G d Himself
answered this question by stating (Bamidbar 12:8): Why weren’t you
afraid to speak against My servant Moshe? It is permitted to question
the teacher’s conduct if he knows in his heart that his teacher is right
and he only wants a clarification. In other words, he wants to
understand but is not challenging or criticizing his teacher. In such
circumstances, it is not only permitted but is required as we see in
Berachos (62a). However when the student’s attitude is, “I also know
what to do and to judge the validity of my teacher and I am convinced he
is wrong” - then there is problem with his faith in scholars and such a
challenge is a manifestation of lashon harah…. An example of an
appropriate question is when Rabbi Akiva Eiger, one of the greatest
scholars in the last several hundred years, raised a difficult question
about the words of Tosfos. He concluded his words by stating:” I have
not merited to understand the holy words of Tosfos.” [G d forbid to
think he was just being polite. In fact, he, despite all his greatness,
understood that Tosfos was superior and he was nothing in relation to
them. A great person is upset that he doesn’t understand while a little
person in his arrogance readily accuses his superiors of error.]
Maharal (Introduction to Be’er HaGolah): The precondition for achieving perfection, through knowledge and comprehension of reality, is accurate self evaluation. However self knowledge is not easily achieved and in fact it is rare to find someone who has an objective understanding of whom he is. Paradoxically this should be the easiest thing to know - he needs to simply open his eyes. He is not far away and is not in Heaven - in fact, there is nothing closer! However, the majority of people perceive themselves inaccurately. In particular, they mistakenly think that they are the equal of the early sages and say, “I also have a brain and that the early days were not better than now.” They insist the intellect of man is identical in all ages. True sages, however, know their own value. They do not distort justice concerning their money and surely concerning themselves. An example of this accurate self-evaluation is found in Eiruvin (53a): “The hearts of the early generations were as open as the 20 amos wide door of the Ulam of the Temple, while that of recent generations is like that of the 10 amos wide door of the Heichal of the Temple while our heart is like that of the eye of a needle….” We see that they are not embarrassed to admit their inferiority relative to earlier generations and describe how they differ….
Maharal (Introduction to Be’er HaGolah): The precondition for achieving perfection, through knowledge and comprehension of reality, is accurate self evaluation. However self knowledge is not easily achieved and in fact it is rare to find someone who has an objective understanding of whom he is. Paradoxically this should be the easiest thing to know - he needs to simply open his eyes. He is not far away and is not in Heaven - in fact, there is nothing closer! However, the majority of people perceive themselves inaccurately. In particular, they mistakenly think that they are the equal of the early sages and say, “I also have a brain and that the early days were not better than now.” They insist the intellect of man is identical in all ages. True sages, however, know their own value. They do not distort justice concerning their money and surely concerning themselves. An example of this accurate self-evaluation is found in Eiruvin (53a): “The hearts of the early generations were as open as the 20 amos wide door of the Ulam of the Temple, while that of recent generations is like that of the 10 amos wide door of the Heichal of the Temple while our heart is like that of the eye of a needle….” We see that they are not embarrassed to admit their inferiority relative to earlier generations and describe how they differ….
So in summary: assume perfection, blame yourself for anything that seems wrong and don't think.
ReplyDeleteHonestly, do we really believe Chazal were arrogant like that? That they wouldn't appreciate having a concern with their statements being pointed out to them to ensure the best possible understanding of Torah? That they'd want us to be mindless sheep like this?
Shabbos 112b:
ReplyDelete“Im Rishonim b’nei malachim anu b’nei anashim. V’im rishonim b’nei anashim – anu k’chamorim”
When is volume two coming out? Is it out already?
ReplyDeleteNot sure what you mean. The second edition is in two volumes the first being the English translations and the second is the Hebrew sources. I have published 3 additional volumes in the Daas Torah series dealing with child abuse. I am presently working on a source book on gender and sexual issues. I also have material or Rabbinic authority, conversion, Matan Torah, Science etc which I hope to eventual publish.
DeleteAt times it is warranted to question certain specific statements of previous generations, although I fully accept that it is incumbent on us to do so respectfully, as R Chaim Volozhiner says.
ReplyDeleteI will give an even clearer example, also involving the Abarbanel.
The Abarbanel, contrary to the advice of Chazal, made several predictions for the date of the coming of Moshiach. these have proven to be false.
There are several problems with those predictions;
a) they are likely unhalachic or at least unwise.
b) they are proven to be false imaginations, and hence weaken the credibility of his otherwise great standing.
c) There is no way of claiming this was Dass Torah or that we must have emunas Hachamim, even though the predictions were clearly false.
If such a false prophecy is "canonised" , i.e. the extreme dumbing down approach that says it was already revealed to Moses on Sinai, then it makes a mockery of Torah.
In more modern times, some great rabbis added their names to false messiahs including Shabbetai Zvi, who had backing of some gedolim, and R Schneersohn, who aslo had backing of some gedolim, signing the petition declaring him "bechizkat moshiach".
Again, these cases are nonsense, and apikorsus. One cannot suggess that such false claims be treated with respect. They were totally treif attempts to mislead Am Yisrael. So some Gedolim got caught up in the hype, and made mistakes. We can't accept blidly those mistakes, regardless of how great the peopel were who made them.
Your examples are not helpful - the Rambam for example said that we don't have a mesorah regarding the details of the messianic age and yet he also predicted the year Moshiach would come. It is not always clear when a statement is nonsense and/or apikorusus - including that which was said about the Lubavitcher Rebbe.
DeleteActually, my examples are very good ones. Nobody, from a Navi, all the way down to a rabbi, can make a false prediction, and still maintain that it is a valid one.
DeleteMy understanding is that Chazal advised us not to engage in predicting the dates of Biat Hamoshiach. You obviously have forgotten that the Torah tells us not to be afraid (Lo Tagur) of someone claiming to make a prophesy if that prophecy is falsified. Chananiah is a good example of someone who was otherwise a giant in Torah, but ended up making nonsense predictions.
As for the Messianic pretentions of Shabbetai Zvi and,lehavdil, the Lubavitcher Rebbe, how exactly can these be taken seriously by any Adook Jew? One can falsify the Rambam all he likes, but rambam's crtieria for Hizkat Moshiach are a King who fights wars and ingathers the exiles. The Rebbe was no King, he never fought a war, and never even visited Israel, claiming once that Lubavitch is Jerusalem until Moshiach comes.
@ DT "the Rambam for example said that we don't have a mesorah regarding the details of the messianic age and yet he also predicted the year Moshiach would come. "
DeletePlease provide evidence that Rambam predicted the year of Moshiach coming.
I have found a quote saying that he only predicted the time that Prophecy will return:
"A recent article mentioned that many Rishonim including Rambam made predictions of Moshiach. Actually, Rambam did not make a prediction of Moshiach but of the return of prophecy to Israel. Rambam explains in Iggeres Taiman that Saadia Gaon, due to specific circumstances, was coerced into breaking the rule of predicting Moshiach. This does not mean in any way that the halacha of the Rambam and the scholars is compromised or that we need not understand or pay heed to their admonition. These Rishonim were operating on the principle of Ais laasos lashem heferu Torasecha which means that at certain times it is in the hands of the gedolim to determine that a law created to safeguard Torah be broken since a greater threat to Torah would be created by keeping this law"
http://www.mesora.org/MoshiachRavChait.htm
Thank you
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Epistle_to_Yemen/Complete
DeleteThe precise date of the messianic advent cannot be known. But I am in possession of an extraordinary tradition which I received from my father, who in turn received it from his father, going back to our early ancestors who were exiled from Jerusalem, and who were mentioned by the prophet in the verse, "And the exiles of Jerusalem that are in Spain" (Obadiah 20). According to this tradition there is a covert indication in the prediction of Balaam to the future restoration of prophecy in Israel. Incidentally it may be stated that there are other verses in the Torah which contain cryptic allusions in addition to their simple meaning. For example, the word "r'du" in the remark of Jacob to his sons, "r'du Shamah," "Get you down thither" (Genesis 42:2), has the numerical value of 210, and contains a hint to the length of Israel's stay in
xvi
Egypt. Likewise, the statement of Moses our Teacher, "When thou shalt beget children, and children's children and ye shall have been long in the land," (Deuteronomy 4:25), embodies a reference to the duration of Israel's stay in Palestine, from the date of their arrival to the exile in the time of Jehoiakim, which was eight hundred and forty years, corresponding to the numerical value of the word WeNoSHaNTeM. Similarly, many other verses could be cited.
To come back to Balaam's prophecy, the verse "After the lapse of time, one will tell Jacob and Israel what God hath wrought," (Numbers 23:23), contains a veiled allusion to the date of the restoration of prophecy to Israel. The statement means that after the lapse of an interval equal to the time that passed from the Six Days of Creation to Balaam's day, seers will again tell Israel what God hath wrought. Now Balaam uttered his prediction in the thirty-eighth year after the Exodus which corresponds to the year 2485 after the Creation of the World, for the Exodus took place in the beginning of the year 2448. According to the interpretation of this chronology, prophecy would be restored to Israel in the year 497015 after the creation of the world. It is doubtless true that the reappearance of prophecy in Israel is one of the signs betokening the approach of the Messianic era as is intimated in Scripture "And your sons and your daughters shall prophecy ... And I will show wonders in the heavens and in the earth ... Before the great and terrible day of the Lord come" (Joel 3:1, 3, 4). This is the most genuine tradition concerning the Messianic advent. We were admonished against, and strictly prohibited form blazening it abroad, lest some folk deem it unduly postponed. We have already apprised you concerning it, but God knows best what is true.
Yes, a date is given for the return of prophecy, not the Messiah. The whole epistle cautions against giving dates for the Moshiach. Yet official prophecy has still not returned, and neither has the Messiah come. This Epistle was not a prediction of date of Moshiach, but to give Chizuk to the Yemenite Anusim. Indeed, Rambam in the same epistle warns against reckoning the date of the Moshiach, and quotes r Yochanan who says blasted be the ones who make predicitons.
DeleteMessianic era, btw, is not the same as Moshiach. The Nazir, who was very close to Rav Kook, was famous for saying we are in the Messianic era now, but even since his passing, the Messiah has not come.
It is important to point out that many statements are made in aggadahs which are not normative, and some could be "heretical" today. An example is the statement that there is NO Moshiach for Israel. If someone made such a statement today, claiming it is in the Talmud, he would be called an apikores.
There was one rabbi in London, who had a little BT yeshiva, and was "dating" one of hsi female students. This is a married man with family, in Golders Green. The same man would embaarrass students, with his vile comments. This kind of thing is common place , unfortunately.
ReplyDeleteOne of the most respected Lomdim in London, who I was rude enough to ask a Torah question, on one occasion simply walked of and then chose to put his arm around the waist of a married woman in his kehillah. That is behaviour of goyim in night clubs, and even then it is chutzpah! Such great people are the graudates of gateshead yeshiva! It must the overarching influence of Rabbi dessler!
ReplyDeleteThe Gra is very interesting, he was able to disagree with the Rambam, for example. Perhaps that generation was not the same as today. Rav Emden would openly criticize everyone , including the Moreh Nevuchim. The Noda B'Yehuda (who was the Dayan in the Emden-Eybeshutz controversy) was great enough to dispute important claims of the Kabbalists, and attacked heretical ones such as "l'shem Yichud". And the Chatam sofer, famously said Chazal were wrong on anatomy. today, such views would be thrown out as being apikorsus - but they are entirely rational, and also true.
ReplyDeleteI was once criticized here for "making a statement" as opposed to "asking a question". However, Rav Chaim Volozhiner says it is a mitzvah to argue, and not just to ask questions.
ReplyDeleteThe fallacy of the yeshiva institutions who a) claim to be litvish and/or b) claim to be open to questions, is that their invitation to ask questions are meaningless and the bottom line is that you must accept their answers, however sheker-dik they are.