Horios (2a): If the Sanhedrin 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….
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.
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 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. 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 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).
Chinuch (#495): And you obey all Sanhedrin’s rulings - … This applies in the time when there was a Sanhedrin in Jerusalem and it applies equally to both males and females. Everyone is commanded to do exactly as they teach. Included in this mitzvah is the obligation to listen in every generation to the judge. In other words to a major sages who live in your time and generation. This is explained in Rosh HaShanna (25b), “And to the judge which will be in your days. Yiftach in his generation is like Shmuel in his.” In other words we are required to listen to Yiftach in his generation just as we listen to Shmuel in his generation. Therefore if one transgresses this commandment and does not obey the directives of the gedolim of his generation according to that which they teach – he has nullified this commandment. The punishment for transgressing it is very great since this is the strong foundation that the Torah rests on and it is well known to all who are intelligent.
Minchas Chinuch (#496): … It appears as if the Torah commandments to obey rabbinic authority only apply to the Sanhedrin of Jerusalem. Consequently the status of zakein mamrei only applies to the Sanhedrin as we will explain later [section 6]. Thus the prohibition of lo sasur only applies to it. Therefore after the Sanhedrin moved from the Temple mount it is possible that these Torah commandments do not apply to the beis din in subsequent times. This is apparent from the language of the Torah itself which states “When you will go up” which refers to the Sanhedrin and “And you shall do according to what they tell you… from that place do not turn…”. All of this is clearly referring to the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem. So the question is what is the source that requires obeying the sages in each generation? The Chinuch writes here - included in the mitzvah to listen to the Sanhedrin is the requirement to listen and do what the sages say in all generations…Therefore he concludes that if one does not obey the directives of the gedolim in his generation he transgresses these mitzvos. But how does the Chinuch know this? The Sanhedrin is obviously unique because the glory of G d is present there every day and the Torah was entrusted to them… However it appears that this is from the words of the Rambam in Sefer HaMitzvos and his Introduction to Mishneh Torah and in the Ramban and they certainly must have found a source for it. However the Ramban restricts the authority of Sanhedrin which is learned from these verses. He says that this commandment to listen to the Sanhedrin only applies to their explanation of a Torah verse or what they say is from Moshe based on the oral tradition or what they learn using the 13 Hermeneutic Principles. Thus it only applies to Torah laws… Consequently the Torah says that it is necessary to act according to the words of the Sanhedrin when they explain Torah laws or else it is a transgression of this prohibition and commandment. In contrast those things were decreed by the Sages are not included in this Torah obligation. The Sages merely associated this Torah verse with the obligation to listen to their decrees – but in fact that is not the intent of the verse. See the Ramban for an extensive discussion of this. Be aware that even according to the view of the Ramban – there are many Torah laws which are learned from the 13 Hermeneutic Principles or from Moshe based on the oral tradition. Therefore when these are transgressed – not only is it a violation of the Torah verses but it is also a violation of the verses to obey the Sanhedrin. Thus they are to be viewed more seriously than Torah laws which are stated explicitly in the Torah.
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.
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.
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.
Torah Temima (Devarim 17:11.62): 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…
