Ruach hakodesh is reason Biblical verses are omnisignificant - Netziv

Netziv(Kadmos HaEmek – She’iltos 2:2 -3): When there is some irregularity in the way a Torah verse was written, we find that our Sages often inferred information (derash) both for the subject of the verse and unrelated matters…. And surely this is true for Agada, mussar and ethical lessons – even when there is no obvious connection to the verses. Not only is this true for Torah but also for Biblical verses in Prophets and Writings which were put in writing through prophecy or ruach hakodesh. They are interpreted (drash) both according to the context and not according to the context. According to the context that means when the verse can be understood in a variety of ways. To say that all ways are true is an inherent property of something written with ruach hakodesh. An example of saying that interpretations which are not according to the context are also included in the verse is that of Rabbi Akiva who asks how do we know that a ship is spiritually pure? He answers from Mishlei(30:19),  “The manner of a ship in the midst of the ocean.” He says just as the sea is spiritually pure so is the ship. ...  And similarly we find with the words of Agada concerning the Shunamite woman and Elisha (Berachos 10b) that one who provides hospitality to a talmid chachom in his home is as if he brought a Tamid sacrifice. It  is clear that the Shunamite woman had no thoughts about a Tamid sacrifice when she provided hospitality to Elisha. What was asserted in the gemora is based on the idea that the words of a prophet can be broadly interpreted. This understanding of the Biblical verses is like a hammer striking a rock which sends out sparks both in its place and out of its place – to places where the one striking the rock never imagined they would fall. In a similar manner the verse alludes to many issued and principles even regarding matters which are not related to the verse at all. .

==================================================

To get a greater context of omnisignificance see the following article [fixed link]

Dr. Elman - Rebirth of Omnisignificant Biblical Exegesis

Rav S. R. Hirsch & his contemporary incarnation - Rabbi Slifkin

Rabbi Slifkin recently published an article on the Making of Post-Haredim  which I read and said "so what?" However Thursday night I got a call from a friend who was calling 4 a.m. from Jerusaelm who had just finished reading it and he couldn't believe that any frum person could say such things. In contrast over Shabbos, a relative who is a solidly chareidi thinker and educator told me that the article very accurately described what is happening in the Chareidi world. Coincidentally I noticed the following comment Rav S. R. Hirsh regarding Avraham - which reminded me very much of Rabbi Slifkin's article. Rav Hirsch was not Chareidi and his views were viewed by Chareidi gedolim - such as the Brisker Rav - as merely expedient or useful for a particular time and place. I heard this from Rabbi Bulman who lamented Rabbi Elias' attempt to make Hirsch into a Chareidi thinker in his edition of the 19 Letters.

Rav Hirsch (Bereishis 12:1) [Regarding Avraham being ordered to leave his homeland,  birthplace  and father's house]...It is certainly not meant to be belittleing of this factor if the planting of the first Jewish germ demanded forsaking fatherland, birth-place and the paternal home. It is rather just the appreciation of these factors wherin lies the greatness of the isolation demanded here. This demand itself placed Abraham in the completest contrast to the ruling tendency of his age. Not individualism, not recognition of the worth and importance of the individual, but centralization which makes men lose their personal value, and lower them to mere subordinate workers, mere bricks for the building of the fame of a supposed representation of the community, that was the tendency of the age, which under the slogan of "let us make a name for ourselves" began building the tower of the glory of Man. This tendency begot the erroneous conception of  a majority which has sway in every direction and in every case. So that finally everything is considered the highest by the majority, ipso facto becomes considered and honored as the highest by everybody. It is true of course that the majority of every community should be the representative of all that which is truly the highest and holiest; and it is in the presumption that such is the case, that Judaism, too, values attachment to the community as being supremely important. Nevertheless at the head of Judaism the words לך לך "go for yourself" stand as being higher still; nobody may say: I am as good, as honest, as everybody else is, as is the fashion here today. Everybody is responsible to G-d for himself. If necessary, alone - with G-d - when the principle worshipped by the majority is not the true godly one. this what was demanded from Abraham as the starting point of his and his future people's mission. Our very language teaches, as we have seen, in the word ארץ and בית how strong are the bonds that attach a person both; yet stronger than the bond that attaches us to fatherland and family should the bond be that attaches us to G-d. How could we have existed, how continue to exist, if we had not, from the very beginning received from Abraham the courage to be a minority!

Rav S. R.Hirsch - we can't emulate great men who are portrayed as flawless

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.

Rav Moshe Feinstein - untrue story being circulated

Yesterday on Tzom Gedaliya (Oct 2) I was at a well known shul where a well known Rav spoke between mincha & maariv. Amongst other things he was talked about the greatness and uniqueness of Rav Moshe Feinstein.  He said the following. There is a story in the Artscroll biography describing an incident in which Rav Moshe cited a Pri Megadin during a shiur. One of those present argued that the citation was off by one simon. Rav Moshe insisted on the spot that a sefer be brought and it be determined whether he was right. When he was asked why it was so important, he replied that since he poskened from memory - if his memory wasn't perfect he could no longer posken from memory.

The Rav who was speaking added that he had heard in the name of Rav Elimelech Bluth- who was Rav Moshe's shamash for 20 years - that he had not seen Rav Moshe learn from a sefer in the last 20 years of his life. He was so busy - he had to rely on his memory in order to posken.

Tonight I was a family simcha which was attended by Rav Bluth and I asked him whether he in fact had said that he hadn't seen Rav Moshe learn from a sefer in the last 20 years of his life. He responded, "I can't say it so because it isn't true."

UPDATE:

I called the rav this morning ( Oct 4). He is truly an ish emes. He said he had heard directly from Rav Bluth that Reb Moshe hadn't looked in sefer for 20 years, I told him Rav Bluth denied it. He immediately called Rav Bluth and was told he had misunderstood him. Rav Bluth told him that Reb Moshe was not constantly looking in a sefer but was constantly writing but he did use seforim to look up issues. The rav called me back to explain his error and said he would publicly announce his error today in shul after mincha. I was astounded that the rav was so focused on emes and the effort to correct what seemed a relatively minor issue (though important to understand the derech of psak of Rav Moshe Feinstein) , he said the Chazon Ish and others said to be careful to tell the precise truth about gedolim. He thanked me for informing him of the error.

This passion for the truth that this rav demonstrated is the foundation of emunas chachomim. We presume that our sages have such a concern for truth. However if we see in otherwise - there is no mitzva to be stupid. Emunas chachomim is not a synonym for intellectual laziness and lack of concern for reality.

They are trying to make it illegal to question the results of a bad election.”

 https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2023/aug/09/donald-trump/trump-says-doj-is-trying-to-criminalize-asking-que/

The Aug. 1 federal indictment against Donald Trump over efforts to subvert 2020 election results said the former president "had a right, like every American, to speak publicly about the election" and make false claims. It says Trump also was entitled to challenge the results lawfully through recounts, audits or lawsuits. 

 Trump was indicted for his actions, not for questioning the election. 

Guest posts request

 Anyone can submit a guest post describing the impact of blogging and blogs on a personal or community level. I will post them to see how they are received and then will possibly include them in my selections from the 15 years of the Daas Torah Blog

Pseudonyms can be used. They need to be submitted within next two weeks

Haredi minister condemns family who cursed IDF soldier

 https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/375312

Construction and Housing Minister Yitzhak Goldknopf (United Torah Judaism) on Wednesday morning published a statement responding to footage showing a haredi family cursing female IDF soldiers on a train.

"Anyone who humiliates another person in public has no share in the World to Come," Goldknopf said, emphasizing that this refers to "any Jew, no matter who he is."

"Even IDF soldiers are included in this rule," he added. "I condemn this behavior, which does not represent the Torah-observant community."

R Elchonon Wasserman: An Amora had the potential right to disagree with a Tanna

from Daas Torah - translation copyrighted

Rav Elchonon Wasserman (Kovetz Shiurim Bava Basra 170a #633): Rav said that the halacha is neither that of R’ Yehuda nor of R’ Yochanon. The Rashbam said that Rav was considered a Tanna and thus could disagree with other Tanaim. However Tosfos (Kesubos) says that R’ Yochanon disagreed with this halacha and since we have a rule that in a dispute between Rav and R’ Yochacon that we rule in accord with R’ Yochanon that means that Rav is not viewed as a Tanna and thus cannot argue with Tannaim. But this presents a question. How can it be that Rav is disagreeing with the Mishna here? This question I asked my teacher R’ Chaim Brisker and he answered, “That in truth an Amora has the right to disagree with a Tanna. This that we regularly find the Talmud rejecting the views of an Amora by simply showing that a Tanna rejects it – that is because as a general rule an Amora did not disagree with a Tanna. So if the Amora only knew the view of the Tanna we assume he would not disagree with it. However where we see that an Amora explicitly disagrees with a Tanna it is possible that the final halacha is in agreement with the Amora.” : …There is a major innovation proposed by the Ramban (Bava Basra 131a). He says the Talmud brings a refutation to an Amora from a Tanna – only when the words of the Tanna are taught in the Mishna or Braissa – but if it is just quoted by the Talmud it is possible to disagree with the words of the Tanna. We also find this view recorded in the Shita Mekubetes in the name of Rabbeinu Yona, “Even though it is not normal for an Amoraim to disagree with Tannaim – but that is only when the view of the Tanna is found in a Mishna or Braissa.” This appears true from the language of Gittin (42), “This is only a quote of his views and Rava doesn’t agree with it.” Rashi explains that it is a view stated in the Talmud but was not found in a Mishna or Braisa. It would seem that the reason for this distinction is that Mishna and Braissos were redacted and approved by all the Sages of the generation… In contrast a view quoted by the Talmud simply represents view of the Tanna himself. Thus we see that the distinction is not between Tannaim and Amoraim but Mishna and Braissa versus a cited view of a Tanna…

R. S. R. Hirsch: Dangers of losing grasp of G-d's personality is worse than dangers of corporality

Rav S. R. Hirsch (Bereishis 6:6): Regarding this and similar anthropomorphic expressions of G-d, we would like to make a general remark. For so long people have philosophized all round these expressions to remove the danger of the slightest thought of any materiality or corporality of G-d that at the end one runs very nearly into the danger of losing all idea of the personality of G-d. Had that been the purpose of the Torah, those kind of expressions could easily have been avoided. But this last danger is greater than the first. The two anthropomorphic expressions here save the two essential conceptions:the freedom, the free-will of G-d and that of Man. Not for nothing doesn't say, "when G-d saw etc." The wickedness of Man was not a matter of necessity. G-d had to see it before He knew it. This expression gives us the guarantee of human free-will. And the fate that overtook mankind was not the result of physical causes which followed set laws, it was preceded by an examination by G-d and His decision; the decision itself pained the Decider. All this presupposes the personality and free-will of G-d and keeps this clear in our minds. The Raavad already, one of the most Jewish of our thinkers, is of the opinion that such consciousness of the personality of G﷓d is of much greater importance than speculating about it, as to whether this or that can be asserted of G﷓d.

Misunderstanding Rashi: Punishment of family is mida keneged mida

Just received the following nasty put down regarding a recent posting regarding the Divine punishment of those who could but don't protect the helpless against molesters and abusers (Shemos 22:21-23) There are those who have eyes and don't see and brains but fail to understand.

DF has left a new comment on your post "Rashi indicates one's children are punished for no...":

I dont think've I seen a more dishonest heading for a blog post -on a blog purportedly run by a frum man, that is - than this one. Rashi's comment has nothing to do with molestors. As a man with a hammer sees a nail everywhere, your unhealthy obsession with molesters leads you to see references to them everywhere.

---------------------------

You clearly missed the point of Rashi's commentary.

Let me explain what Rashi is saying. The Torah is explicity saying that a man who allows widows and orphans to be tormented with be punished by being killed by G-d and thus his wife will become a widow and his children orphans. It is not enough that he be killed but his family must suffer too.

This is mida keneged mida. He failed to protect widows an orphans so he is punished that his wife and children suffer in the same way.That is the lesson of this verse according to Rashi.

In addition Rashi accepts the view of R' Yishmael that this verse is not limited to widows and orphans - but it includes all those who are weak and defenseless.

So what is the mida keneged mida for one who fails to protect a child from being molested? Is it enough that his wife is made into a widow and his children orphans? But how is the mida keneged mida aspect fulfilled? The punishment must be directly linked to what their father and husband failed to do.

I think it is reasonable to deduce from this Rashi that his wife and children will be put into situations that they suffer that which he failed to protect others from.

Similarly in all cases of the torment of the weak and unprotected - his family deserves suffering the indignity that he failed to protect others from.

 This is simple pshat

Shut HaRid: Basis of authority - midgets standing on giants

from Daas Torah - translation copyrighted

Shut HaRid (# 62): Whatever does not make sense to me – then even if Yehoshua ben Nun said I would not agree [Chullin 124a]. And I don’t stop myself from expressing what appears correct to me according to my limited intellect. Thus I do what it says in Tehilim (119:46), I speak regarding Your words even against kings and I am not ashamed…. Because even when it appears to me that I have successfully refuted the words of the early authorities – G﷓d forbid for me to be so arrogant to say that it is because of my superior wisdom (Koheles 2:9). Rather the reason that I can argue with the early authorities is because of the rationale provided by philosophers. I heard that a group of philosophers asked the greatest amongst them, “We acknowledge that the early scholars were wiser and more intelligent than us. But at the same time we acknowledge that we argue with their ideas and refute them in many issues and in fact our criticisms of them are correct. How could that be?” He replied to them, “Who can see farther – a midget or a giant? It is obviously a giant because his eyes are much higher than a midget. However if a midget stands on the shoulder of a giant – who can see farther? Obviously it is the midget because his eyes are now higher than the eyes of the giant. So it is with us. We are midgets riding on the shoulders of giants because we know that it is their wisdom that elevates us. Therefore our wisdom is based on their wisdom.” Thus what we say is not because we are greater than them. We can comment regarding the early scholars in a situation where we see that they disagree with each other – one permitting and the other prohibiting. So which authority should we rely on? … We can not simply say that one is greater and therefore the words of the others are refuted. Rather we must analyze all their words because they are the words of the living G﷓d. We need to debate and investigate their words to see which way the law seems to be going. That in fact is what the sages of the Mishna and Talmud did. We see the later Talmudic scholars did not refrain from disagreeing with the early scholars and to decide amongst what the early sages disagreed with each other as well as to contradict their words. We find that the Amoraim would refute a Mishna and say that it was not the halacha. The fact is the wisdom transcends the individual sage and there is no sage who is free from error. Only G﷓d is free of error.

Daas Torah: Divrei Chaim claimed heretic mislead gedolim to write that they agreed with him

One of the important and relevant problems when dealing with Daas Torah - is the reality of the possibility of Gedolim being misled by information fed to them. In an important tshuva in which the Divrei Chaim insists that ruach hakodesh of wisdom which enables gedolim in each generation to know the truth - he makes the ironic statement when his opponent asserts that in fact there are gedolim who have  written him that there is no longer any ruach hakodesh -  that these gedolim were deceived by this heretic

Divrei Chaim (Y.D. #105)... Thus we see that ruach hakodesh and the agreement with G﷓d never stopped from the sages who were deserving of this ability. This is also clear from the statement of Rav Pinchas ben Yair (Avoda Zara 20b). And this that is says in Sotah (48b) that after the days of the Prophets that ruach hakodesh was taken away – that means the ruach hakodesh of prophesy but not the ruach hakodesh of intellect and the ability to have one’s intellect be in agreement with the halacha that was given to Moshe at Sinai or Rav Avesar - that never stopped. Only a heretic denies this. And this that he claims that contemporary gedolim have written that ruach hakodesh has totally stopped – I don’t believe that such a statement would be issued by our gedolim. Who knows what this disgusting deceiver wrote them. The truth is that even in our days there is to sages of the truth - who are not influenced in the slightest by the material – ruach hakodesh as is explained in Moreh Nevuchim (2:36) and the Ramban explicitly.

Gedolim are not infallible - and this should be obvious but unfortunately is not

This is a continuation of the issue that was raised by my translation of the Divrei Chaim (Y.D. #105) in which  the Divrei Chaim asserts that gedolim were possibly mislead by someone he regards as a heretic. An objection was raised to my translation because of the concern for asserting that gedolim  might  have been deceived. Ben Torah said the Divrei Chaim means that the heretic misrepresented the gedolim and falsely claimed support from them. However the Divrei Chaim says he was a deceiver - not a liar and he didn't know what was presented to the gedolim.
========================================

Regarding the possibility of deceiving gedolim and the fact that they are not infallible - this should be obvious. In fact this was stated by the spokesman for the Aguda - Rabbi Shafran available on Wikipedia and other places

Rabbi Avi Shafran, the spokesman for the American Hareidi organization Agudath Israel of America, explains the concept as follows:

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.^[1]

Rabbi Bechhofer has written a fascinating article regarding the deception of gedolim concerning a forgery of the Yerushalmi.

available here
=================================
The Talmud Yerushalmi on Kodashim

Rabbi Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer, Editor Or Shmuel, Rosh Kollel, Frumi Noble Night Kollel of Hebrew Theological College.

 
It seems clear from the Rishonim that they had access to the Talmud Yerushalmi on Seder Kodashim, In the introduction to his commentary on the Mishnah, the Rambam states explicitly that on the first five sedarim, both the Talmud Bavli and Talmud Yerushalmi are extant. During the course of time, however, the Yerushalmi on the entire seder of Kodashim was lost, and for several hundred years no manuscript on this seder was known to exist. (See the introduction of Rabbi Mordechai Zev Segal of Lvov to the Zhitomer [1866] edition of the Talmud Yerushalmi.)

In the year 1907, however, a mysterious person suddenly appeared in Hungary, calling himself Rabbi Shlomo Yehuda Algazi-Friedlander. Rabbi Algazi-Friedlander j published what he claimed to be the Yerushalmi on tractates Chullin and Bechoros, thus instigating a battle royal amongst the Gedolei Hador. A personal account of this chapter in the history of the Talmud was written by Rabbi Yekusiel Yehuda Greenwald of Columbus, Ohio, and printed in the Sefer Hayovel of HaPardes (1953), Here is a synopsis of the story,

Daas Torah: Ramchal - knowledge obtained through ruach hakodesh is infallible

I was asked to show sources which make the claim that gedolim are infallible or at least make infallible pronouncements. There are in fact many.  Some of which I have published - such as Rav Eybshuetz's statement that the Shulchan Aruch was written with ruach hakodesh. There are two steps 1) gedolim have ruach hakodesh - from prophecy or intellect 2) knowlege obtained through ruach hakodesh is without error - is stated clearly by the Ramchal below.

Of course - this means that theoretically that gedolim can make mistakes - however it also clearly means that at least some of their statements are infallible. It is because of this claim that gedolim have ruach hakodesh - that is is considered presumption for a non-gadol to question the statements or deeds of a gadol.  It is obvious that while this is a wide spread contemporay belief - it is hand has not been universal. For example the Ravad asserted that he was correct in a halachic dispute because he had ruach hakodesh. This did not stop the Ramban and others from disagreeing with him. In fact the Chasam Sofer says that the basis of all knowledge is ruach hakodesh and that is why we make a beracha on a wise non-Jewish intellectual.

Ramchal (Mamar HaIkkarim): Below the level of prophecy there is a level known as ruach hakodesh. It  is a state in which G﷓d provides an emanation to a man’s intellect which fixes knowledge in his  mind without error and with which he is absolutely certainty.  As a consequence he knows this information totally with its causes and effects on every level. Through the inspiration of this ruach hakodesh it is possible to understand matters which are also known by ordinary human intelligence. However there is a distinct advantage of learning these matters through ruach hakodesh instead of natural intelligence. Learning through ruach hakodesh is effortless, without error and without doubts – something which is not characteristic of knowledge acquired by natural human intellect. Furthermore it is possible to obtain knowledge through ruach hakodesh that transcends the capabilities of normal human intellect e.g., hidden secrets as  well as  what will happen in the future. Another characteristic of ruach hakodesh is that the recipient is aware without any doubt that he is receiving the emanation. However, there are times when a person has a spontaneous inspiration in which he grasp fully some concept without his being aware of an emanation. This is sometimes inaccurately also called ruach hakodesh.