From my sefer Daas Torah
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.
Abarbanel (Devarim 17:11):… Rashi wrote that even if the Sanhedrin tells you right is left or left is right and surely if they tell you right is right and left is left [you must obey them]. That means that what is stated in the Sifre that even if they tell you that right are left… means that this is merely the perception and understanding of the one asking the question to the Sanhedrin but not according to what the actual truth is. That is because the right of the Sanhedrin is always right and the left is always left. [i.e., they are infallible]. This is the correct understanding because the Sifre that Rashi cites actually says, “Even if it seems in your eyes that right is left… you must obey them.” The Ramban agrees with this explanation. However the Ran [Derashos HaRan #11] disagrees and says that left and right are to be understood literally and thus the Sanhedrin must be obeyed even if they err…. He also explains that even though a person is harmed by doing something against the Torah – but if this is done because of the mistaken ruling of Sanhedrin then the reward of listening to them compensates for the harm… G d forbid to say that that is the meaning of our Sages. The Torah does not rely on an illusion that one is spiritually pure when in fact he is impure or that something is permitted when in reality it is prohibited or that harm is permitted. Because the Torah is concerned with righteousness and G d is the G d of Truth and His Torah is True.
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).
Rabbeinu Bachye (Devarim 17:9): And bring your halachic questions to the judge who is in your days… Your final authority is the judge who is in your days and therefore Yiftach in his generation has the same authority as Shmuel in his generation. That is the meaning of the expression “who is in your days.” Even if he doesn’t have as much wisdom as judges in previous generations – you still must listen to him. Even if he tells you that right is left and that left is right and surely if he tells you that right is right and left is left. The Ramban wrote, “The need for this mitzvah is great. That is because the Torah was given in written form and that there is a great diversity of opinions about new issues that arise. That leads to great disputes and consequently the Torah would become many Torahs. Therefore the Torah legislated for us that we must obey the Sanhedrin, which stands before G d in the Temple in all that they tell us in regards to the understanding of the Torah. Furthermore that we must view all that they say as if it were told us by Moshe as a messenger of G d. That is because the Torah was given based on their understanding. Consequently even if it appears in your eyes that their view is the opposite of your understanding just as the reversal of right and left – we must obey them. And surely we are to view that they are the possessors of truth and that ruach hakodesh rests on them to always determine the truth.
Rambam (Hilchos Mamrim 1:2): Who ever does not obey the rulings of the Sanhedrin transgresses the commandment of Lo Sasur (Not to turn away from whatever they tell you – either to the left or right). There are no lashes for violating this commandment because it is associated with the death penalty. Any scholar who rebels against their rulings is liable to the punishment of strangulation… There is no distinction whether their rulings are based on the Oral Law or whether they are learned from the 13 Hermeneutic Principles and they are convinced that it is correct or that it is a law that they made to protect the observance of a Torah commandment and it is what is needed for that time. Rulings from all three categories are required to be obeyed because of a positive Torah commandment. Violation of these three categories involves a negative Torah prohibition. Thus the Torah says, “According to the Torah which they will teach you” – that refers to the decrees and behavior that they require of the population in order to strengthen religion and to correct the world. “According to the laws which they will say to you,” refers to those things which are learned from the Hermeneutic Rules. “From all which they will say to you”, refers to the Tradition which they have received through the generations.
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.
Ramban (Sefer HaMitzvos Shoresh 1): … The Torah was given through Moshe in writing and it is obvious that there are different understandings of all those matters which are derived and learned through interpretation of the text. Therefore G d commanded us that we should listen to the Sanhedrin in all that they say whether it is interpretation or simply what the Torah means according to their understanding. That is because the Torah was given based on what the Sages understood it to be saying. That is stated by the Sifre, Even if they tell you that left is right and right is left. That is because G d commanded us to listen to the Sanhedrin, otherwise there will be disagreements and people will claim that only they know the right answer and others are mistaken. This is what happened with the disagreement between Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Yehoshua concerning which day was Yom Kippur (Rosh Hashanah 25a).
Rashi (Devarim 17:11): 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”.
Sifri (Devarim 154:11): Right and left - Even if it appears in your eyes that “right” is “left” and that “left” is “right” – you should obey them.
Sefer HaIkkarim (3:23): Since it is possible that there will be a dispute amongst the sages regarding a matter which has not been received by Tradition but has been generated by one of the 13 Hermeneutic Principles or someone other intellectual method – therefore the Divine Wisdom decided in order for G d’s Torah to be perfect and devoid of disputes to the degree possible – the principle of decision making was given to every generation i.e., to the majority of sages. That is why the Torah says, “follow after the majority” (Shemos 23:2) and “Do deviate from what they tell you right or left” (Devarim 17:11). Our Rabbis have commented that means that if even if they tell you that right is left and left is right. The Rabbis’ intent was that every man values his thoughts and understanding more than that of others - to the degree that we find that many fools, women and ignoramuses who insist that the sages are mistaken and their understanding is superior. Thus this verse is saying that even if it appears that the sages are saying the opposite of the truth - right is left and left is right – you should never disobey their words but accept that the final decision is always based on the view of the majority of sages. This is true even though it is possible that an individual can have greater knowledge and that he has a greater grasp of the truth then they – the halacha still follows the decision of the majority. An individual or minority is not allowed to act in disagreement with the majority. This was the issue in the dispute between Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Eliezer (Bava Metzia 59b). Even though Rabbi Eliezer was clearly superior to the others in wisdom as we see that a Heavenly Voice announced that his disputants had no basis to disagree with him since the halacha was always in accord with him – but Rabbi Yehoshua stood up and declared that the halacha was not in heaven. In other words that even if the truth was in accord with the view of Rabbi Eliezar, the view of the majority could not be abandoned in deference to the minority since the Torah has stated that halacha is determined by the majority. Even if in a single matter we would follow the minority against the majority, it would create a major dispute in every generation. That is because it will set a precedent for allowing each individual to claim that he is right and allow him to follow his own views against the majority and this will cause a general collapse of the Torah system. Therefore we can’t allow exceptions to the rule of following the majority in order to accept a minority opinion. Of course the authority of the majority is only if they are sages and not the ignorant masses who are typically fools in these matters and their views are not trustworthy….
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.
Torah Temima (Devarim 17:11): Don’t turn right or left … Even if your view and reasoning inclines the opposite of the view of the Sanhedrin and their reasoning. That is because it is well known that in all matters – people’s views and reasoning differ. This is mentioned in Berachos (58a), “When you see a crowd of Jews you should say the beracha, Blessed is He who discerns secrets. That is because the views of men are not the same.” We see that even in one halacha that there are strongly divergent views – some will declare it to be impure while others say it is pure, some say it is prohibited while others permit it. So even when it is obvious in your eyes that the truth is with you - since you know how to distinguish between right and left – nevertheless you should listen to the Sanhedrin in their ruling and reasoning. It is clear from this that you are only obligated to obey them concerning right and left only if seems that they are wrong. But if you in fact know that they are wrong e.g., they are permitting eating forbidden fats or allowing a marriage between prohibited partners – then it is prohibited to listen to them. This is stated explicitly in the Yerushalmi (Horios) that I mention in the previous drasha… However this understanding is contradicted by the Ramban who writes, “Even if you think in your heart that they are in error and it is obvious to you as your right and left – you should still follow what they say. Don’t be bothered by the fact that you are eating prohibited fats or that you will be executing a person you view as innocent – but you should say that is what G d has commanded me to do… according to their understanding the Torah was given to me – even if they err.” These words seem to teach that even if the Sanhedrin permits something which is absolutely forbidden by the Torah that you are obligated to obey them! However the words of the Yerushalmi (Horios) that I cited in the previous section explicitly refute such an understanding. Furthermore commonsense rejects this entirely… Therefore we are forced to explain that the intent of the Ramban is what we have written. It must be in a case where it is not definitely prohibited fats… but it merely seems to be that way based on their deduction and reasoning which you view as mistaken…
Derashos HaRan (#11): The Torah takes care to correct the loss which is always possible from disputes concerning the understanding of the Torah. If these disputes were not taken care of, the result would be two Torahs. The corrective to this constant problem is that the authority to decide disputes is given to the sages of each generation. This approach is beneficial and produces the correct rulings most of the time because it is much more unlikely for great sages to err than lesser scholars. And surely the Sanhedrin which convenes in the presence of G d in the Temple has the Divine Presence resting on them. Granted that there are extremely infrequent times they can err, however the Torah is not concerned with such rare loss. That is because it is better to tolerate relatively minor loss in order to obtain the great benefit that typically occurs. It is impossible to make greater improvement than this.
Horios (2a): If the Sanhedrin (beis din) mistakenly rules that it is permissible to transgress one of the mitzvos of the Torah and an individual does so by error because of their ruling… he is exempt from bring a sin offering [according to R’ Yehuda but not according to the Sages] because he relied on the ruling of the Sanhedrin. However if when the Sanhedrin issued their erroneous ruling, one of its members was aware that the ruling was mistaken or even a student who was capable of deciding the law himself was aware that the ruling was mistaken – and yet he acted according to the mistaken ruling…. he is obligated to bring a sin offering since he wasn’t dependent on the ruling of the Sanhedrin….
Maharal (Devarim 17:11.9): Even if they say that right is left - … The explanation of “right” is that concerning something which is permit and kosher to do the Sanhedrin says it is prohibited. Similarly concerning “left” it is something which is prohibited and yet they say it is permitted. Nevertheless the Sanhedrin is to be obeyed. It would appear that even if they tell you not what seems to be right and wrong to do the opposite but even if they tell you something which is unambiguously the opposite of what you know to be right and wrong. That means that even if there is a law from a previous Sanhedrin that is greater in wisdom and number than the contemporary court – there is still a requirement to listen to the contemporary court because of the verse “lo sasur.” The reason is that G d commanded us in the Torah what is prohibited and permitted and He also commanded us not to deviate from the rulings of the contemporary Sanhedrin (Ramban). That means that this ruling which is contrary to the accepted ruling is in fact the prerogative of the Sanhedrin according to the command of G d Who is the sole determiner of that which is permitted and forbidden. Therefore even if they are in error and teach the opposite of the halacha you are still commanded to listen to them. This is what is taught in Sanhedrin (88a) concerning Zakein Mamrei. Even if he teaches according to Tradition while the Sanhedrin bases themselves on reasoning – nevertheless he is deserving of capital punishment for disagreeing with them. The gemora explains that this obedience to contemporary Sanhedrin – even if wrong – is necessary in order to reduce disputes.
Chinuch (#496): We are enjoined not to dispute the authorities of the Oral Law, not to change their words and not even to avoid fulfilling their commands regarding any aspect of the Torah. Concerning this matter, the Torah (Devarim 17:11) says: You shall not turn aside from that which they tell you right or left. The Sifre (Devarim 154) explains: Not to turn aside - this is a Torah prohibition. The reason for this commandment is the fact that the views and understandings of people concerning issues are not identical. In other words, you will not find total agreement on an issue amongst a large group of people. G-d knew that if everyone was given the authority to follow his own interpretation of the Torah, each person would understand the Torah differently and there would be a large number of disagreements between Jews. Consequently instead of having a single Torah there would be many Torahs. (This is similar to what I wrote concerning the need for the principle of majority rule Mishpatim #75). Therefore G-d, the master of all wisdom, made our Torah of Truth complete by commanding us to obey the true understanding of our Sages. We are to obey not only our ancient sages but those of each generation. That is because the sages in each generation have received their words and drunk the water from their books and have toiled mightily day and night to understand the depths of their words and the wonder of their views. With this principle of agreement we have the path of truth to knowing the Torah, while without it we will be ensnared by our thoughts and poor understanding and not succeed at all. As an indication of the greatness and truthfulness of this mitzva, our sages (Sifre) have said that we are to obey our Torah authorities even if they say to you that right is left and the left is right. In other words, even if they are mistaken in one issue they are not to be disobeyed but their error must be followed. It is better to suffer from this one error in order to assure that everything is always under their authority. The alternative is that everyone follows his own opinion which will result in the destruction of the religion and anarchy and ultimately the complete loss of the entire people. Because of this the determination of the correct meaning of the Torah has been given to the Torah authorities and amongst these authorities the governing principle is that the minority must submit to the view of the majority for the same reason. And illustration of this principle is found in the astounding Bava Metzia (59b) concerning the dispute between R' Eliezar and the Oven of Achnai. It states that Eliyahu was asked what G-d was doing during the dispute. He answered that He smiled and said My children have triumphed over me. G-d was happy that His children followed the way of the Torah and its command to always obey majority rule. This that it says there My children have triumphed over Me obviously is not meant literally - Heaven forbid! The explanation is that in this dispute the truth was in fact with R' Eliezar as was testified to by the Heavenly Voice (bas kol). Therefore even though the truth was with R' Eliezar but since his thinking was too profound for them and they did not want to concede to him even after the bas kol. Their claim was that the Torah clearly establishes the requirement to listen to the majority always whether their position is true or they are mistaken. That is why G-d said that My children triumphed over me. In other words since they have deviated from the path of the truth which R' Eliezar had determined and not them they asserted their authority based upon the principle of majority rule. therefore it had to be concede that in this case truth was vanquished and it was like the Master of Truth was vanquished.
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 be consistent. What is the second part which starts with, “and surely”? The Zakein Mamrei (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 Mamrei (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 Mamrei’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 Mamrei and his supporters number in the tens of thousands - while the Sanhedrin cannot 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 Mamrei 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 Mamrim 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 Mamrei 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 sides 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 cannot 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.
