Rav Dessler - Daas Torah means not only total obedience but an inability to judge gedolim

from Daas Torah - translation copyrighted

Michtav M’Eliyahu (1:75): Our Sages have already told us to listen to the words of gedolim - “Even if they tell you that left is right.” Furthermore a person should not think, G﷓d forbid!, that they have certainly erred just because someone so insignificant as himself has perceived that they erred. In fact it is important to know that one’s perception of reality is totally null and void as the dust of the earth in comparison to the clarity of intellect and Divine assistance that they have. We have an important halachic principle that one beis din can not nullify the ruling of another beis din unless it is greater than the first in wisdom and number. Otherwise it is likely that that which he thought that he perceived is merely an illusion and distorted understanding of reality. This is what is meant by Daas Torah - which is an aspect of Emunas Chachomim (faith in the sages).

Chasam Sofer: Sanhedrin is not protected against error

From Daas Torah (translation copyrighted)

Chasam Sofer (Choshen Mishpat #191): The Sifri concludes, “Even if the Sanhedrin tells you that right is left… and surely if they tell you that right is right and left is left [you must obey them].” This doesn’t seem to consistent. What is the second part which starts with, “and surely”? The Zakein Mamre (rebellious judge) is asserting that what he considers right is truly “right” and that the position of the majority of the Sanhedrin is “left” i.e., false. Therefore who is to determine that the second  part is ,”and surely”? This seems to be a major difficulty. In fact, however, the clear explanation is as follows. The Zakein Mamre (rebellious judge) and his colleagues are major scholars who are in dispute with the Sanhedrin. And even though the Sanhedrin is  composed of the leading Jewish authorities - who sit in G-d’s presence in His house (i.e., the Temple) - there is no necessity that their reasoning in this matter is true. In fact it could be that the Zakein Mamre’s understanding of the Torah verse is closer to the truth than theirs is. This is so even if they are more numerous and in general sharper in their thinking. On the other hand it is possible that in fact that the Zakein Mamre and his supporters number in the tens of thousands while the Sanhedrin can not be more than 71 people. Nevertheless G﷓d has decreed we must follow the scriptural understanding of the Sanhedrin in halacha since its source is no longer in Heaven. Therefore we don’t pay attention even to bas kol (voice from Heaven) or a prophet who claims to know the halacha in Heaven. Furthermore a prophet who claims prophetic knowledge of halachic is deserving of the death penalty for this crime of being a false prophet – since G﷓d would never provide a prophet vision of a halachic question. Even when Yehoshua ben Nun forgot thousands of halachos, they weren’t restored through prophecy but rather through the legal reasoning of Ozniel ben Kenaz. Besides who knows for certain that Ozniel ben Kenaz ascertained the truth through his reasoning? The understanding of man is transient in its understanding of Biblical verses as well as the reasoning of kal v’chomer and other midos. The fact is that legal authority is because G﷓d gave the Torah according to man’s understanding in order that there shouldn’t be an every growing number of unresolved disputes – [and not because the truth was necessarily ascertained]. Therefore G﷓d made the provision that if chas v’shalom the majority of Sanhedrin erred and permitted a substance which was actually prohibited and the people ate it  – G﷓d would not count it as a sin. In other words since the Sanhedrin erred, the people did not commit a sin by eating the prohibited substance. Furthermore if the Zakein Mamre himself decided to be stringent and not eat this substance because of his original suspicions – even though in Heaven it is known that he was correct – he is deserving of death as the Rambam rules (Hilchos Maamrim 4). This punishment is deserved even if he merely refrained from eating the disputed substance. This law is very constructive in that it works to prevent unresolved disputes amongst the Jews. Consequently this Zakein Mamre should not have had the slightest concern about eating the substance that Sanhedrin had declared permitted – even if prior to the final ruling of Sanhedrin he was certain it was prohibited. Similarly if Sanhedrin declares a certain type of activity prohibited on Shabbos, he should not be concerned about his initial certainty that it was prohibited. In other words even if the Sanhedrin mistakenly tells you concerning a halacha which it is clear in Heaven [“right”] that it is the opposite of what they say [“left”]  - their ruling is in fact correct [“right”]. That is because G﷓d accepts what they do even though it is mistaken in the objective sense. However there is an alternative explanation of the Sifri. We are to believe that what the Sanhedrin is saying is true [“right”] and that they have not erred. In other words we are to believe that they have ascertained the proper understanding of what G﷓d expressed in the Torah because G﷓d gave the Torah according to their understanding. Thus we see that both side are sincerely motivated to discover the truth. However if the Sanhedrin errs in their rulings then all Jews end up erring also – but it is considered that they had been forced. However this alternative explanation assumes that G﷓d guards his pious ones from erring and thus misleading the Jewish people – since they want to do G﷓d’s will. Now we can properly explain the second part of the Sifri, “and surely they must be obeyed when they say that the truly right is right.” The explanation of the Sifri according to this alternative explanation is that even when they had erred in ascertaining what the Torah mandates, nevertheless they would have discovered what appears to them to be the truth – and G﷓d would accept the validity of their erroneous decision. And surely we are to understand that they have in fact not erred and have correctly told us what the Torah actually mandates. Thus the alternative explanation is based on the assumption that the Sanhedrin is protected from error. However this second explanation is problematic since it is asserting infallibility. In other words the second explanation is saying that by nature man is capable of error, however the sanctity of the Temple prevents it. However this seems to be a violation of Torah not being in Heaven – since even a Bas Kol and even a prophet can not make halachic decisions. Therefore it would seem that the first explanation is better. Thus the Sifri clearly means that even if the Sanhedrin errs, G﷓d will not count it as a sin and thus G﷓d is not allowing the Sanhedrin to cause the people to sin. If you study the comments of the Ramban to Torah you will understand that he is also expressing this view. So while the Sanhedrin is forgiven when it makes an honest mistake, G﷓d forbid to say that they have the power to deliberately alter even the slightest matter. Such a view is that of the Sadducees and early heretics.

Rav Ovadia Yosef: Obeying Rabbinic authority even when they are wrong?d

The Torah tells us that we must obey the Sanhedrin in the well known verse in Devarim (17:11) According to the Torah which I will teach you and the laws which they will tell you, don't turn from that which they say right or left. Rashi(Devarim 17:11) comments that this requirement to obey them is, Even if they tell you that "right" is "left" and "left" is "right" and surely if they tell you that "right" is "right" and "left" is "left". The Sifre (Devarim 154:11) modifies this a bit, Right and left - Even if it appears in your eyes that "right" is "left" and that "left" is "right" – you should obey them. Thus there is a clear requirement to obey the Sanhedrin or Rabbinic authorities even if they tell you the opposite of what is or seems to be correct.

On the other hand the Yerushalmi(Horius 1:1) states, 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" –therefore 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. On the surface then it seems to be simply a dispute between the Babylonian and the Yerushalmi.

However Horious (2b) states that if a person knows the truth and yet follows the mistaken ruling of the Sanhedrin he must be a korbon as an act of repentance. Thus clearly the Bavli also requires that you do what

you think is right - even against the Sanhedrin.

An interesting and persuasive explanation is given by Rav Ovadia Yosef.

Rav Ovadia Yosef (Yabiah Omer Y.D. 6:7.2): … The Yerushalmi (Horious 1:1) states, that you might think even if they tell you that "right" is "left" and that "left" is "right" that they must be obeyed. Therefore the Torah says that you should only obey them if they say that "right" is "right" and "left" is "left". But this is the opposite of the Sifre [that you must obey them even if they tell you that "right" is "left" and "left" is "right"…. However according to the explanation of the Ramban (Sefer HaMitzvos Shoresh I) and those who support him [Ran Sanhedrin 87a] there is a reconciliation. According to the Ramban as long as the dissenting view has not been directly presented to the Sanhedrin [or Rabbinic authority] then he must refuse to eat that which the Sanhedrin insists is kosher. [If he eats food that he regards as unkosher because he is relying on the Sanhedrin he must bring a korbon] However once he has directly discussed the issue with the Sanhedrin and they have rejected his view [despite his best efforts] then the halacha becomes that he must obey them [even if he is still convinced he is right.] 

Chofetz Chaim: Telescope invented in his time to validate G-d's supervision

Chofetz Chaim (Shem Olam 1:24): To understand properly the significance of the telescope, it is important to know that in the previous generation faith in providence was very strong. Everybody had perfect faith that even though G﷓d dwells above, nevertheless He supervises from His lofty abode all the inhabitants of the Earth… In that generation it was not necessary to have such things as telescopes. However now, because of our many sins, we find many people who deny Providence and claim that G﷓d does not see or pay attention to what occurs in the world since He is so far away in Heaven. To counteract this false claim, G﷓d shows us clearly - by giving the inspiration to build the telescope - that even lowly man has the ability to see at the great distances from the Earth to the Heaven. So we realize that surely G﷓d has the ability to see from above to below concerning all matters… It follows from our discussion that all the scientific knowledge and technological advances that have occurred in our time - is not an indication that we are greater and more knowledgeable than previous generations. In fact it is only to validate for us the idea of Providence.

Philosophy originated with the Jews - not the Greeks

Kuzari (2:66): Shlomo spoke with Divine power as well as his great intellect and natural talents concerning all types of knowledge. From the ends of the earth, people came to him to hear his knowledge and to transmit it to the world — even as far as India. In truth the root of all wisdom and its principles was copied from the Jews — first by the Chaldeans and afterwards the Persians and Medes. Afterwards this knowledge went to the Greeks and Romans. However, because these events are distant in time and there are many intermediaries in the process - it has not been mentioned in the books of science and wisdom that it was taken originally from the Jews. These books mention only that they originated in Greek and Roman sources. …

Rema (Toras HaOlah 1:11): In truth all the wisdom of philosophy and intellectual analysis originated from the Jews. All the secular wisdom is in fact contained within the Torah. The Rambam demonstrates in great detail in the Moreh Nevuchim that all philosophical wisdom is found in the medrash and aggados of our Sages. You should know that I saw a very ancient document that described the development of all philosophy. It stated that Socrates was considered the first philosopher. It also says that he obtained this wisdom from Assaf and from Achitofel. It also says in the Paths of Faith that the philosophy of Aristotle was stolen from the wisdom of Shlomo HaMelech. When Alexander the Great captured Jerusalem, he gave control of Shlomo HaMelech’s library to his teacher Aristotle. Whatever good things he found there he wrote his name on it and then added some of his own incorrect thoughts such as the world had no beginning and the denial of Providence. This was done in order to conceal the fact that his material was in fact stolen from the wisdom of the Jews. Alternatively, it is possible that whatever he found that did not have clear-cut proofs in the works of Shlomo - he simply did not believe. We see however that the basis of all wisdom hangs from this vine. In truth, every Jew should believe in this system and not to give a pride and glory to strangers - the wise men of the gentiles. In fact, Shlomo was praised for being able to speak to the cedars of Lebanon and the hyssop growing on the wall. If it hadn’t been for the fact that the basis of this wisdom was stolen from him, there would be nothing praiseworthy in Aristotle and those that came after him…Therefore it is proper to believe in these things. Just as we have written that is the way it is.

Rema (Toras HaOlah 3:4): And R’ Moshe Butreal wrote in his commentary to Sefer Yetzira that the wisdom of Kabbala is the wisdom of philosophy but expressed in a different language… The way of Kabbala is itself the way of true and reliable philosophy.

Validity of views R’ Sherira Gaon & Rambam’s son (page 138 in Daas Torah)

Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Shemiras HaGuf v'HaNefesh): [Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach was asked why the view of Rav Sherira Gaon and the Rambam's son - that the medical and scientific knowledge of our Sages was that of their times - should be listed as a minority view? He replied:] "At the present I don't remember whether there was anyone who actually disagreed with their views or even whether anyone has the authority to disagree with them. However, rabbinic authorities typically explain disparities in medical and scientific understanding [between the views of our Sages and contemporary science] as the result of change in nature. They do not utilize at all the reason that medical knowledge has advanced from the time of our Sages. That is why I commented that this view should be classed as a minority view. Especially since concerning the laws of Shabbos, there are rabbinic authorities that permit violating the Shabbos [in certain circumstances that our Sages say are medically dangerous] despite the fact that contemporary doctors assert there is no danger at all.

R' S. R. Hirsh: Consequences of religious anti-intellectualism

R’ S. R. Hirsch (Nineteen Letters #18): [The leaders of Orthodoxy] became at first enemies of this philosophical spirit, and later of all specifically intellectual and philosophical pursuits in general. Certain misunderstood utterances [e.g., Bereishis Rabbah 44:1] were taken as weapons with which to repel all higher interpretations of the Talmud . . . The inevitable consequence was, therefore, that since oppression and persecution had robbed Israel of every broad and natural view of world and of life, and Talmud had yielded about all the practical results for life of which it was capable, every mind that felt the desire of independent activity was obliged to forsake the paths of study and research in general open to the human intellect, and to take its recourse to dialectic subtleties and hairsplitting. Only a very few [e.g., R’ Yehuda HaLevi’s Kuzari and Ramban] during this entire period stood with their intellectual efforts entirely within Judaism, and built it up out of its own inner concept [Drachman translation]…. we are left with two generations confronting each other. One of them has inherited an uncomprehended Judaism, as practiced by men from habit, a revered but lifeless mummy which it is afraid to bring back to life. The other, though in part burning with noble enthusiasm for the welfare of the Jews, regards Judaism as bereft of any life and spirit, a relic of an era long past and buried, and tries to uncover its spirit, but, not finding it, threatens through its well﷓meant efforts to sever the last life nerve of Judaism - out of sheer ignorance [Paritzky translation].

Seridei Aish Key to learning Torah is challenging Sages who are presumed to be correct

Daas Torah page 193

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.

Accepting G-d's authority is difficult for Jews

Netziv (Shemos 13:9): Don’t be surprised that G-d requires us to do so many mitzvos and techniques to acquire bitachon (trust) and emuna (faith) in G-d’s Providence. The fact is that it is known that the Jews do not readily accept authority until they are forced as we see by the plagues. That is why G-d took us out of Egypt with a strong hand because it was not easy for us to accept His dominance. This is seen in the medrash which discusses, “The Jews did not listen to Moshe because of their irritability and stress of their enslavement.”  The medrash explains that they didn’t want to listen because they were immersed in idol worship. In other words, the medrash means that in fact they did not want to be redeemed. In truth though the first time when they were told that G-d had remembered them and sent Moshe to save them that all of them believed and bowed down. The reason that they responded differently the second time was that at that time He informed them that He wanted to be their G-d. In other words, they had no problem acknowledging G-d except when it meant they would be supervised and controlled by G-d depending on their behavior. Thus, they didn’t want to accept G-d’s control until G-d took them out of Egypt against their will. Something which is difficult for a person to accept requires many activities to implant in his heart.

Scientific statements of Chazal might only be according to the science of their day

page 142 Daas Torah

Michtav M'Eliyahu  (4:355): When Rav Dessler was asked concerning certain halachos that the reason that had been given for them is not in accord with modern science... [for example] (3) This that it is permitted to kill lice because they don't reproduce sexually (Shabbos 107b. Rav Dessler stated that concerning this matter and those like them the Halacha never changes even though the reason doesn't make sense to us. We are to hold on to the Halacha with two hands whether to be strict or lenient [not like the Pachad Yitzchok]. The reason for this is that the Halacha was known to Chazal by tradition through the generations and they also knew things through experience.... The important point is that the reasoning they gave did not create the Halacha but rather the reverse was true, the Halacha created the reasoning. The reasoning given in the gemora is not the only possible explanation. If they happened to give explanations on occasion which were only true according to the science of their day, we have an obligation to search out alternative explanations that will justify the Halacha according to modern science.... Even if one cannot find a convincing explanation,we must still believe with perfect faith that the Halacha is still true and we hope that G﷓d will enlighten us with an appropriate explanation.

Chasam Sofer - Jews were protected from assimilation by being despised and uncivilized

Chasam Sofer (Derashos—BeShalach): G-d took the Jews out of Egypt which was the lowest type of society that did all types of disgusting abominations which G-d hated. The Jews at that point were a despised lowly people - not even a distinct nation. In Egypt, they were primitive slaves working with bricks and mortar and were without doubt devoid of even minimal knowledge of culture or science. They even lacked elementary knowledge of civilized conduct. Our sages (Yoma 75b) say that the Jews in Egypt were comparable to chickens pecking in a garbage dump until Moshe came and taught them the concept of meal times - breakfast and dinner. [Seforno —they were like animals]. We see that they were totally primitive like the slaves of the barbarians. So how could this debased people be immediately brought to Sinai where they were shown the most profound secrets of the universe and became prophets with unbounded understanding of spiritual issues? This question is reinforced by the fact that they remained primitive and uncultured people as we can see from their lowly behavior and outrageous complaints during this time? Wouldn’t it have been better to gradually educate them in civilized conduct to the level of the best of the nations of the world. They should have at least been raised to the level where they could be considered a nation. Once they were civilized, they should then have been refined level by level until they were prepared for receiving the Torah at Sinai? In truth, it is impossible to keep the Jews as a distinctive people unless they are completely separated from the other nations. That is accomplished by not learning knowledge which is common to other nations even Bible on the level of translation. The natural tendency to assimilation can only be prevented by going to the opposite extreme. If G-d had first educated the Jews in worldly knowledge, they would never have acquired the truth of the Torah and faith. Before they would have reached, this final goal they would have already rejected them because these studies would have given them the universal identity common amongst all the nations. Moreover, even if the Jews had understood that the gods of the nations were worthless illusions and reject them, nevertheless they would also have completely rejected G-d also.

Kuzari: Commonsense is subordinate to Tradition

Kuzari (3:49): If a person relied entirely on his logic and commonsense in these matters he might in fact arrive at a very different conclusion. Therefore, it is best not to rely entirely on logical reasoning concerning the observance of the Torah commandments because it is likely just to create doubts which can lead to heresy. Furthermore, since people often have different opinions of what is commonsense, it will lead to significant disagreement with others who are relying entirely on their commonsense. Consequently, it is best to have one’s understanding rooted in traditional understanding and what is in the texts. With these as his starting point, he can then successfully apply logical reasoning - no matter where it leads - even if the conclusions are against one’s rational understanding and intuition… There are in fact many things in the physical world that reality conflicts with appearance or common understanding. Furthermore that which our Sages said is permitted, it was not because they followed their personal opinion or preference. Rather it was the conclusion of the inherited wisdom that had been transmitted to them by Tradition. It is exactly the same thing concerning that which they prohibit. A person who is unable to comprehend their wisdom and yet judges their words according to his own limited understanding will view their words as bizarre. This is comparable to the fact that the ignorant masses think that the words of philosophers and scientists are bizarre. The sages, when they ascertain the parameters of each Halacha and determine what is permitted and prohibited, do it entirely according to the objective principles of the law...

Chasam Sofer - explanations need to agree with scientific reality

Chasam Sofer (Nidah 18a): What are the meanings of the anatomical terms mentioned in this Mishna? After I researched medical books and medical writers as well as scholars and surgical texts, I have concluded that we cannot deny the fact that reality is not as described by Rashi, Tosfos and the drawings of the Maharam of Lublin. We have only what the Rambam wrote in the Mishna Torah and his Commentary to the Mishna - even though the latter has statements which are unclear. However, you will find correct drawings in the book Maaseh Tuviah and Shevili Emuna…. Therefore, I did not bother at all with the commentaries of Rashi and Tosfos in this matter since it is impossible to match them with true reality. You should know this.

Seridei Aish: The Mussar Movement as frum Haskalah

Seridei Aish’s (4:293—in Men of Spirit edited by Rabbi Leo Jung. page 223): The very leaders who fought so bitterly against the new movement [of Chassidus] were the first to recognize the need for some change. They admitted some truth in the charges by Hassidim that the Judaism of Lithuania had no soul, that “their Torah had no life and that their prayers lacked significance.” They recognized that they had been neglecting the spiritual content of the Torah by paying insufficient attention to the philosophical problems involved… [page 242:]: The Musar movement, rooted in the desire for spiritual perfection and the improvement of character, acquired a new factor in Kovno: concern for very survival of Judaism, which was threatened by the Haskalah movement, whose early romantic charm had long since passed and which could now be seen in its furious conspiracy against traditional Judaism. R. Israel’s slogan was: “Fight the Maskilim with their own weapons! Form an all‑Hebrew genuine Haskalah movement and educate rabbis and teachers to spread this pure Hebrew Haskalah among the people!” ... “Rejection of the secular Haskalah alone is not enough,” argued R. Israel. “It is the nature of a new cultural trend to seep in through small crevices. Fighting it with prohibitions and excommunications alone will not stem the tide, for the spirit of man is not to be stemmed by mere force. “The suppression of the spirit in itself is of no value. It cuts short spiritual development and results in but a spiritual sterility. The sole defense against a cultural movement breaking in from the outside is the establishment of an opposing cultural force, and the opening of doors to a fresh trend of thought, stemming from the very dept of our Jewish soul. Thus not a war against a foreign ‘enlightenment’ but a war for Hebrew original Haskalah, which means moral perfection, nobility of soul, and lofty ideals. Such a deep—rooted Haskalah need not fear foreign enlightenment, which is but external polish and technical proficiency, has no roots in Judaism, and cannot satisfy the yearnings of a Jewish heart.”