Sunday, August 20, 2023

Even though we know gedolim are fallible, woe is the person who points out their errors - Why?

I have been severely criticized for claiming that Rav Shmuel Kaminetsky and son have seriously erred in understanding modern psychology and how it relates to the din of kiddushei ta'us. I have been severely criticized for claiming that Rav Nota Greenblatt has seriously erred in blindly accepting the conclusion of the Kaminetsky's regarding the mental state of Aharon Friedman and paskening that he is incapable of being a husband.

Of course this isn't new. I have also strongly criticised gedolim in the Tropper case, Hirsch case, Kolko case etc etc. Sometimes I do this with the support of major rabbonim - as happened in the Tropper case, the Meisel's Seminary case and the Dodelson divorce and sometimes I rely on my own judgment.

The following are some thoughts which I hope to expand - perhaps into a book. The question is the degree which we must rely on ourselves and the degree which we must accept the views of gedolim.

As Rav S. R. Hirsch notes, the Bible does not cover up the mistakes of our forefathers and that this is one of the proofs of its validity. 

Rav S. R. Hirsch(Bereishis 18:24):  Moshe was not very perceptive in this area and this lack of talent was proof that whatever he did was from G-d's command. [Nothing is so instructive for us, as this information regarding the first legal institution of the Jewish State, coming immediately before the chapter of the law-giving. So little was Moshe in himself a legislative genius, he had so little talent for organizing that he had to learn the very first elements of state organization from his father-in-law. The man who tired himself out to utter exhaustion and to whom of himself did not occur to arrange this or some similar simple solution, equally beneficial to himself and his people, the man to who it was necessary to have a Jethro to suggest this obvious device, that man could never have given the People constitution and laws out of his own head, that man was only, and indeed just because of this the best and most faithful instrument of G-d.
Rav S. R. Hirsch(Bereishis 12: 10 – 13):.  The Torah does not seek to portray our great men  as perfectly ideal figures; it deifies no man. It says of no one: “Here you  have the ideal; in this man the Divine assumes human form!” It does  not set before us the life of any one person as the model from which  we might learn what is good and right, what we must do and what we  must refrain from doing. When the Torah wishes to put before us a  model to emulate, it does not present a man, who is born of dust.  Rather, God presents Himself as the model, saying: “Look upon Me!  Emulate Me! Walk in My ways!” We are never to say: “This must be  good and right, because so-and-so did it.” The Torah is not an “anthology  of good deeds.” It relates events not because they are necessarily  worthy of emulation, but because they took place.    The Torah does not hide from us the faults, errors, and weaknesses  of our great men, and this is precisely what gives its stories credibility.  The knowledge given us of their faults and weaknesses does not detract  from the stature of our great men; on the contrary, it adds to their  stature and makes their life stories even more instructive. Had they  been portrayed to us as shining models of perfection, flawless and  unblemished, we would have assumed that they had been endowed  with a higher nature, not given to us to attain. Had they been portrayed  free of passions and inner conflicts, their virtues would have seemed  to us as merely the consequence of their loftier nature, not acquired  by personal merit, and certainly no model we could ever hope to  emulate.
The Talmud also mentions mistakes of great people.
Sanhedrin (52b): Imarta the daughter of committed adultery. Rav Chama had her surrounded by bundles of twigs and burnt. Rav Yosef said that Rav Chama erred in two laws. He erred in Rav Masna dictum and he erred in this braissa, “And you shall come to the cohanim and the leviim and to the judge that shall be in those days (Devarim 17:11). This verse means that only in the time that there are the priesthood is functioning in the Temple is capital punishment carried out. However when there is no priesthood in the Temple then there is no capital punishment.”
Similarly Barbara Tuchman has an interesting book, "The March of Follies" where she discusses errors major historical figures have made.  We also find mentioned in the Talmud and other rabbinic rights where the mistakes of major rabbinic figures are discussed. David Halberstam wrote "The Best and the Brightest" which describes the disaster of America's involvement in Vietnam as being the result of brilliant men who had had a lifetime of success after success - unable to face the reality of failure -  because they couldn't conceive  that they had errred

In our times however it is assumed that even though gedolim can make mistakes - but the masses are not supposed to think that they can identify them nor even be aware of them. This is interesting in light of the Chazon Ish who says that our leaders are no different than plumbers in that it is permitted to speak lashon harah about their faults in order to know when and how to rely on them.

Chazon Ish(2:133): Knowledge about a talmid chachom who shapes yiddishkeit is similar to that of an artisan. Just as one is permitted to convey accurate information about an artisan if there is to'eles so it it permitted to reveal information about a gadol if there is to'eles. Of critical importance is to be totally accurate otherwise it is slander. This implies that expressing negative information about others is relevant for those who are considered influential authorities – in order to understand the degree to rely on them.
Yad HaMelech (Hilchos Mamrim 1:2): …It is clear that according to the understanding of Rashi and the Mizrachi the intent of the Sifre [that one must listen to the rabbis even when it apparently involves Torah prohibitions] is against the view of the Babylonian Talmud and also against the Yerushalmi. Furthermore since the Rambam omits mention of this Sifre therefore we have only the halachic view that is explicit in the Bavli and Yerushalmi. Thus all halachic rulings which appear to contradict the words of the Torah e.g., eating prohibited fats or killing an innocent man – irrespective as to the authority of the rabbi giving the ruling they are not to be accepted. It is stated explicitly in the Yerushalmi and also the Bavli that if someone errs in this matter and thinks it is an obligation to listen to these rabbis to eat fat prohibited by the Torah because he thinks it is a mitzva to always obey the rabbis – this individual is obligated to bring a sacrifice as he would be for eating any Torah prohibited food in error.
Yerushalmi (Horios 1:1): You might think that you must obey the [Sanhedrin or Rabbinic authorities] even when they tell you that “right” is “left” and that “left” is “right” – but the Torah says that you are to follow after them “right and left”. Thus it is only when they tell you that “right” is “right” and “left” is “left” that you should obey them.

So the issue is do we assume that for all intents and purposes they are guided by ruach hakodesh and even when they err - it is the Will of G-d which must be accepted. Or do we say that these are great men with much greater holiness, intelligence and wisdom than the masses - but that they are capable of error which must be questioned, criticized and at time even opposed?

Ramban (Devarim 17:11): Left and Right. Rashi explains that even if the Sanhedrin tell you that right is left or left is right – [you must obey them]. Meaning that even if you are certain that the Sanhedrin has erred and it is as obvious to you as the difference between your right and left – you still must comply with their understanding of the Torah. In other words you can’t argue, “How can I eat that which is prohibited by the Torah or how can I execute this person when I know he has not transgressed?” Rather your attitude must be, “The absolute obedience to the rulings of the Sanhedrin is what G d has commanded me and I must observe the mitzvos exactly as the Sanhedrin (which is in G d’s presence in the Temple) says. The Torah was given to me according to their understanding – even if they err.” This is what happened when R’ Yehoshua had a dispute with the Sanhedrin as to what day was Yom Kippur. R’ Gamliel the head of the Sanhedrin ordered R’ Yehoshua to appear before him on the day that he thought was Yom Kippur (Rosh HaShanna 25a). The necessity for this mitzva is very great. That is because the Torah was given to us in writing and it is known that people don’t think identically in all matters. Therefore it would be natural for disputes over what the Torah means to continually multiply and it would end up that there would be many Torahs instead of one. That is why this verse tells you that one must obey the Sanhedrin which convenes in G d’s presence in the Temple – in everything they say concerning the understanding of the Torah. There is no difference in the requirement to obey whether this Torah understanding is part of the Tradition which goes back what G d told Moshe or what their understanding of the meaning or intent of a Torah verse. This requirement to accept their Torah understanding is because the Torah was in fact given to us according to their understanding. Therefore they must be obeyed even if their view contrasts with your understanding as left contrasts with right and surely if you agree with their understanding. That is because G d’s spirit is on those who serve in His Temple and He does not desert His pious ones. G d always protects them from error and mistake. The Sifri (Shoftim 154) says that you must obey them even if appears that they have reversed right with left and left with right.
Michtav M’Eliyahu (1:75): The Talmudic sages (Chazal) have told us to obey the words of gedolim – even if they tell us that left is right. This expression isn’t meant to imply that we must obey them even when they have actually erred. But rather that we must listen to them even when we - with our lowly understanding – think that we definitely have observed that they have erred. That is because our senses are totally nothing as if they were the dust of the earth compared to the clarity of their intellect and the Heavenly support they have. Thus our belief that they have erred has no practical consequences since there is a rule that a beis din cannot nullify the ruling of another beis din unless it is greater in wisdom and number. Even without this rule it is clear that what we think is awareness or experience is only a figment of our imagination and unstable moods. This superiority is Daas Torah within the framework of emunas chachom (faith in our sages).
Rabbi Avi Shafran(spokesman for Agudath Israel of America – N. Y. Jewish Week): Da'at Torah is not some Jewish equivalent to the Catholic doctrine of papal infallibility. Not only can rabbis make mistakes of judgment, there is an entire tractate of the Talmud, Horiut, predicated on the assumption that they can, that even the Sanhedrin is capable of erring, even in halachic matters.  What Da'at Torah means, simply put, is that those most imbued with Torah-knowledge and who have internalized a large degree of the perfection of values and refinement of character that the Torah idealizes are thereby rendered particularly, indeed extraordinarily, qualified to offer an authentic Jewish perspective on matters of import to Jews - just as expert doctors are those most qualified (though still fallible, to be sure) to offer medical advice.

Any feedback or suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

40 comments :

  1. Overall, right on the mark. But I question the accuracy of your translation of the Chazon Ish. He writes:

    דעתי כי ראוי להמחזיקים בתורת ד' לדעת את גדוליה באופים האמתי, ואם הותר לדבר לשון הרע על אומן באומנתו, להאיש הדורש עליו לצורך, על מי שתורתו אומנתו לא כ"ש שמותר להודיע להמחזיקים בתורה וצריכים לדעת, כי הידיעה של חכמי הדור, לבם ומדתם הן הן גופי תורה.

    I think that 'המחזיקים בתורת ה is referring to the speakers/listeners. You overlooked this phrase in your translation. This may be a significant oversight, as the Chazon Ish is discussing lashon hara in a limited forum, not one that is open to all. He emphasizes this point when he refers to the מחזיקים בתורה וצריכים לדעת, which again is overlooked in the translation.

    ReplyDelete
  2. It would be remiss not to mention R' Aharon Kotler's speech in 1960 to Agudas Yisroel about how to teach Biblical stories, particularly the Avos.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Rebbe Nachman of Breslov once said, "The world labors under the
    misconception that a tzaddik cannot make a mistake. I say this is not
    so. A tzaddik can make a mistake. The mistake remains a mistake and the
    tzaddik remains a tzaddik."

    Rebbe Nachman "also said of certain Chassidic leaders of his day,
    'The tzaddikim are making a mistake by praying after the z'man
    tefillah.'" (Chayei Moharan 487).

    ReplyDelete
  4. Without getting into the details of your thesis, I would like to instead suggest that your premise is somewhat incorrect. By inference, you are placing Rabbi Shmuel Kaminetsky in basically the same category as Moshe Rabenu. In order to consider the issue of fallibility of Gedolim, it must be first accepted that the people in question are Gedolim, otherwise the issue is irrelevant. I humbly suggest that merely being an elderly rabbi with a white beard does not automatically make someone into a Gadol. I have even heard from a few great people that there are really no Gedolim left in Klal Yisroel. So this entire issue is really nothing more than academic and not applicable to the current events.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Agreed, but the question is WHO can criticize or point out errors?

    Any old Ba'al Habayis who thinks he knows a bit, or Rabbonim? The Chofetz Chaim criticizes strongly those who speak loshon horoh about rabbonim. So how do we reconcile this with the chazon ish? Ho b'talmid chochom, ho b'bal habayis.

    The problem is of course, Chareidi Rabbonim never criticize each other either in a serious way. They rub each others backs, if they are from the same camp. If they are not of the same camp, they criticise so much it's hard to take them seriously. I'm not talking about this case, which I know nothing about.

    ReplyDelete
  6. All the cited sources, from the Gemorah on down, of pointing out the errors of Sages and great men in Klal Yisroel are examples of where those errors were pointed out by other great men and not alleged errors of Chachomim pointed out by the Hamon Ho'am.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Are you talking about Gedolim who pasken the laws of Gittin and make mamzerim and even if you tell them the source in the Shulchan Aruch they refuse to change? There is no period no source to permit what Rabbi Greenblatt did. Reb Moshe Feinstein clearly says that he only permits a negation of marriage when the husband absolutely refuses a GET and Aharon would give a GET as he told me several times if a better custody could be worked out. Rav Henkin says that nobody ever permitted negation of marriage. So Rabbi Greenblatt has no source to permit negation of marriage. And the ridiculous claims that Aharon is insane is a joke that no Gadol would consider.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I think there is a pretty analogous case in אגרות משה יו"ד ג:קנה:


    הנה באשר שהדבר הוא פשוט וברור כל כך שאסור לכהן ליטמא למת ומפורסם זה בכל העולם אשר על כן פשוט וברור שאפילו אם יבואו גדולי עולם ויאמרו להקל אין שומעין להם דהא מצינו ביבמות שאף להחמיר לא נשמע אף לגדולי גדולים ביבמות דף ק"ב ע"א אמר רבה א"ר כהנא אמר רב אם יבוא אליהו ויאמר אין חולצין בסנדל אין שומעין שכבר נהגו העם בסנדל ופשוט שאין הכוונה שיאמר ע"פ נבואה דאף הכרעה קטנה א"א ע"פ נבואה דלא בשמים היא ואלה המצוות שאין נביא רשאי לחדש בדברי תורה אף לא להכרעת מחלוקת א"א זה בנבואה כדאיתא במגילה דף ג' ע"א ולר' יהושע לא הועיל אף הבת קול דהלכה כב"ה כדאיתא ביבמות דף י"ד ע"א והנביא שאומר דבר בנבואה איזה הכרעה בד"ת מפורש ברמב"ם שהוא נביא השקר וא"כ בהכרח שהפירוש הוא אם יבוא אליהו ויאמר לנו ע"פ חכמתו וגדולתו בתורה איך שהדין הוא שאין חולצין בסנדל אין שומעין לו מטעם שכבר נהגו בסנדל ומה שאמר אם יבא אליהו ולא אם יבא חכם אחר שאין חולקין עליו כגון עזרא נראה משום דאליהו הוא יבא להגלות במהרה ולברר המחלוקת ולפשוט הבעיות כדאיתא בסוף עדיות שגם אז אם יאמר אין חולצין בסנדל אין שומעין לו וכ"ש שלא שייך לסמוך על איזה אדם שמורה להקל בטומאת כהנים מחמת שהם כבר טמאי מת דאין יכולין ליטהר שלכן אין צורך אף לבדוק מי הוא מחבר הקונטרס הלזה שאף אם היה ת"ח אינו כלום אבל זה גופא מעיד שלא שייך זה המחבר לא לתורה ולא לחכמה אלא גס לבו שאף בהוראה הא ידוע מה שאמרו עליו חז"ל באבות והכא גס לבו לומר דברים שרוצה נגד כללי ההוראה



    Particularly relevant is: "פשוט וברור שאפילו אם יבואו גדולי עולם ויאמרו להקל אין שומעין להם"


    and: "אבל זה גופא מעיד שלא שייך זה המחבר לא לתורה ולא לחכמה אלא גס לבו"


    I won't make any specific applications, but it seems that R' Moshe is saying that not only do we not listen to gedolim when they are meikil on a known issur, it is even possible to use their heter as a proof that the person is not a gadol.

    ReplyDelete
  9. You are correct I think it is clear that it is referring to the speakers/listeners and not the gedolim as r eidensohn translates. However I think the group is not as limited as you think. I believe all commited religious Jews would fall into the category.

    ReplyDelete
  10. David so you disagree with the Chasam Sofer - where is the source for your views?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Nice! what makes you qualified. I'm sure you are some sort of talmud chacham but i'd rather hear it from someone who is spends his day in a beis medrash then from someone who spends hours a day blogging

    ReplyDelete
  12. I know you are his brother and all that, but please try to avoid hijacking threads with your harangues. I commented on the accuracy of the translation of the letter of the Chazon Ish, I said nothing about the Epstein case.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I did not indicate otherwise. I don't think one has to be a committed religious Jew to gain access to this blog.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Yeshoshua - don't understand your point. The Chazon Ish is saying that to'eles is a relevant heter not only for plumbers but also for rabbis.

    One needs to know what X is a competent posek. Does he understand hashkofa properly.

    Does he give good advice in chinuch or shalom bayis.

    The fact that he is a talmid chachom does not prevent people from talking about him for to'eles.

    Do you really think that the Chazon Ish said we should conceal information about the incompetence or weakness of a talmid chachom in a particular area that someone is relying on?

    ReplyDelete
  15. The Chazon Ish (twice) explicitly limits the heter to transmit negative information about Torah leaders to speakers and listeners who are מחזיקים בתורת השם / מחזיקים בתורה. You left this out of your translation. Therefore, your translation is not accurate. That is my point.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Yehoshua -no I didn't leave it out of my translation. See Prof Benny Brown's translation in my previous comment

    The Chazon Ish is saying that this heter is limited for those people who are frum and are dependent on a correct understanding of yiddishkeit.

    His heter clearly doesn't apply to someone who isn't going to accept the words of the talmid chachom. So therefore if the rabbi is not taken seriously than one can not speak about him since there is no to'eles.

    Clearly the heter applies to talking about gedolim when they say or do things that might influence other incorrectly.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Being that your readers can see the original (in my first comment) and your translation (in your post), we can leave it up to them to decide if they think you left something out.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Shmuel - you simply are clueless.

    ReplyDelete
  19. DT,

    It is important to point out that this article refers to real gedolim. Of course some of the so called gedolim were promoted without a real basis and apparently there are a number of them. This is important to point out to avoid the chilul hashem these people make by misrepresenting our holy Torah and Yidishkait in general.

    As far as real gedolim, I would suggest that although every person may err, however, it is expected that one should approach them respectfully and not in on internet blog, not even this one.

    ReplyDelete
  20. the question would be more interesting if it was regarding Gedolim who claim to have Daas Torah. If that were the case, it would be hard for any of their followers to question what they say. In fact, the very types of sources you bring were used by MOs such as Prof. Lawrence Kaplan when they challenged the Daas Torah ideology (and were then attacked by Agudah Jewish Observer).

    ReplyDelete
  21. The story you posted of the Chasam Sofer does not have the Chasam Sofer saying it is acceptable for a layman member of the general public to issue a public criticism of a Chacom B'Yisroel.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Chazal tell us there will be chachomim in every future generation.

    ReplyDelete
  23. David - you are adding something whichis not in the Chasam Sofer - but is wishful thinking on your point. In fact the story of the Chasam Sofer was sent to me by a well known posek specifically to reject the point that you are claiming.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Perhaps your anonymous posek interpreted as such, but it is certainly not written in the Chasam Sofer.

    ReplyDelete
  25. neither is your interpretation writting in the Chasam Sofer.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Right. So the story of the Chasam Sofer you cited isn't proof for anyone here. And while you brought good proof that one Chocom B'Yisroel can critique the halachic position or actions or deeds of another Chachom, none of the sources anywhere permit a layman member of the general public to publicly declare that a Chachom is halachicly wrong based on the layman's understanding of the facts and halacha.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Yehoshua,
    I did not direct my remarks to you. If you were the thread before me it isn't my fault. Also, when I quote proper sources that are the sources of the discussion, I don't consider it a "harangue."

    ReplyDelete
  28. David - you have not presented one source that supports your position. You are simply making it up.

    If you want to claim that a major talmid chachom can be presumed to know what he is talking about - I would agree.

    But as Rav Moshe Feinstein has pointed out - halacha is based on sevora. If the gadol uses a sevora which is wrong or which is based on false evidence - there is absolutely no reason why it can't be challenged by anyone.

    ReplyDelete
  29. The burden of proof is on you. You claimed its okay for a layman member of the general public to publicly attack the actions of a Chachom based on the layman's understanding of the facts and of the halacha and on that basis to declare the Chachom is wrong based on the layman's understanding.

    You then brought proofs that other Chachomim criticized a Chacom's halachic actions or positions.

    But a layman? We have Gemoras that tell us about the halachic status of someone who is mevaze talmidei chachomim.

    ReplyDelete
  30. David - you just keep repeating yourself as if repetition is itself proof. The Chasam Sofer was describing a case where a layman publicly criticized him. Since you obviously have not found a single source to defend you position you now claim it is my problem to find proof - not yours.

    Sorry that might be a nice debate tactic but has no significance. So you want to say that you feel my position is wrong - tough

    ReplyDelete
  31. The story of the Chasam Sofer does not have the CS saying or even implying that the layman's actions of issuing a public criticism (which turned out to be incorrect) was correct in issuing the public criticism.

    ReplyDelete
  32. See that little arrow next to your name that points to my name? That means that your comment was a response to mine. If you want to make a new comment, you must go to the "join the discussion" directly under the post.

    ReplyDelete
  33. how many of the people who say that normal (ya'ani not gedolim themselves) people can't criticize chachamim because they're not qualified also refrain from voicing an opinion on any subject matter about which they aren't experts?

    ReplyDelete
  34. David - enough of the repetition. We have a fundamental disagreement. You don't accept what I have to say and I don't accept your understanding. Unless you have something new to add - I am not responding anymore

    ReplyDelete
  35. Any feedback or suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

    FWIW, I am deeply thankful and appreciative that you stood up for the truth in this case, as well as in other cases. It is important, and healthy, for everyone to know that if they err, they will be called out for it. It is very important to know that no one has the right to twist the Torah, for any reason. There is a Teshuvas HaRashba which Rav Schach quoted when he protested Goren's heter, where he says that as long as he (the Rashba) is alive, he will not allow anyone to change the Torah. The Rashba was not protesting against some silly reform-type rabbi. He was protesting against a rabbi who had influence.

    When you speak out about these significant issues:
    1) It helps great people avoid common human pitfalls.

    2) It also helps ensure that the truth will be available for those who seek to know the truth.

    However, FWIW, I do feel there was an area where you could do things a bit differently. If you would offer a possible psychoanalysis in each situation of how the great person made his error, it would be helpful. The feeling that one comes out with should not be that there is little difference between a person who has spent his life immersed in Torah and chesed and the average Joe on the street. There is a difference. While it is true that the greatest person cannot free himself from basic human emotions and human feebleness - which is what brings about these errors - his greatness should still be pointed out. In fact, maybe explain why Rav Shalom Kaminetzky may have assumed that there would be a huge chilul Hashem if he did not find a way out of the whole he had dug himself into - after Mendel Epstein was arrested. etc. etc. Why he would think it must be ratzon Hashem for him and his father not to be seen as so wrong in this case. I think the post that you made with Reb Avrarohom Turn was great in this aspect.



    Thank you for all you do.


    Just one final note. The Gemara in Avodah Zara 4B says that the Bnei Yisroel were not worthy (read: fit) to have sinned with the eigel. The same with Dovid's sin - he was not worthy of doing it (he was better than that). However, their special protection was removed in order to open up the door for all sinners to do teshuvah. We can all say, if such greats made these terrible errors, and yet they repented and were able to be great - so too, we can also repent over our misdeeds and mistakes.


    In our generation, where so many people have fallen to unbefitting behavior, we all have a way out. We can say that if Rabbis Kaminetzky and Rabbi Greenblatt can make such errors, and have done teshuva (I sincerely hope that they will...) - then we can man-up and do teshuva as well. Rabbis Kaminetzky and Rabbi Greenblatt can be our Dovid Hamelech. They can compose their own perek (51) on teshuva.
    I say this sincerely and respectfully.

    ReplyDelete
  36. If a student in a course on the theory of relativity raised his hand and told the professor that Albert Einstein erred in part of his explanation on special relativity, he would not only not be taken seriously after the laughter died down, the student would be regarded as some kind of imbecile.

    ReplyDelete
  37. David and therefore what? Einstein has been shown to wrong about anumber of things including Quantum Mechanics.

    If a student got up and said that Einstein was infallible he would be considered some kind of imbecile.

    Either way - claiming an authority made a mistake is at most a lapse of judgment - it is not a moral or theological issue.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Which Chazal are you referring to?

    ReplyDelete
  39. More strength to you, Rabbi Eidensohn, you are an admirable man.

    ReplyDelete
  40. 1) The Chazon Ish seems to be referring to relevant information regarding the talmud chachum himself - not opinions about his p'sak.

    2) Assuming the words of gedolim and talmedei chachomim and NOT gospel (they don't BECOME halacha), it would still follow that since we are responsible adults, we defer to people with expertise in their respective fields. However, once you grant that talmedei chachomim are not infallible, it is up to each individual to use whatever resources to determine whether a particular p'sak is correct. Most of the time you (me) will end up deferring to someone with more knowledge, but sometimes you may be confident that the more knowledgeable person is wrong. At that point there is nothing left to do but follow your own decision. You may be wrong (not correct), but you're not 'wrong' (unjust, dishonest, or immoral).

    ReplyDelete

ANONYMOUS COMMENTS WILL NOT BE POSTED!
please use either your real name or a pseudonym.