Divrei Chaim (Y.D. #105): Question: There is a teacher who has insulted the honor of the Ohr HaChaim by claiming that his seforim were not written with ruach hakodesh. Answer: I received your letter and I don’t know what doubt you have as to whether ruach hakodesh occurs today to those who are fit for it – even though prophecy has ceased from the prophets. This is explicitly stated in Bava Basra (12a), “From the day that the Temple was destroyed, prophecy was taken from the prophets but it was not taken from the sages. Therefore a sage is superior to a prophet…” We see from this that even after the destruction of the Temple that ruach hakodesh rests on those who are deserving, i.e., the ruach hakodesh of intellect. It is important to realize that ruach hakodesh is not the same thing as ruach hakodesh of intellect as is explained in Moreh Nevuchim (2:38)… So Bava Basra (12a) is understood as, “Even though they took the power of prophesy from the prophets which is visions and imagery, but the prophesy of intellect was not taken away but the sages were able to know the truth through the ruach hakodesh that was in them. The Ritva says this explicitly. He says, “And it was given to the sages, meaning that the sages comprehend with their intellect many things which their natural intellect was not capable of understanding. Therefore a sage is superior to a prophet. In other words, he is superior to a prophet who has the power to see the future but is lacking the type of prophesy which the Shechina rests on him because of his intellect. This is explained by the Rambam in his well known sefer [Moreh Nevuchim 2:38] that this type of intellectual prophesy only rests on the sage.” Thus we see explicitly in the Talmud and Rishonim that the ruach hakodesh of the intellect of sages never stopped. This is also explicitly in Gittin (6b) concerning R’ Avesar. “R Avesar’s views were in agreement with G d.” Rashi explains, “G d revealed to him the secret to ascertain the truth that has been concealed.” 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. Therefore the Ohr Hachaim definitely composed his sefer with ruach hakodesh – but he wasn’t the only one. In fact all authors – even in our generation – if they are deserving compose their sefer with ruach hakodesh. In other words their ideas and reasoning are in agreement with the truth of the Torah as they said in the Talmud regarding Rav Avesar. This principle is also expressed by Rav Yonason Eibshuetz (Urim v’Tumim Kitzur Takfu Cohen C.M. 25:123-124). He says that a person cannot claim “kim li” (rely on a minority opinion) against what is stated in the Shulchan Aruch because the Shulchan Aruch was written with ruach hakodesh. Therefore the teacher who denied the ruach hakodesh of the Ohr HaChaim is a heretic who does not believe the gedolim. They testified that the Ohr HaChaim was deserving of ruach hakodesh. This teacher denies the fundamental belief in ruach hakodesh and ridicules the words of the Talmud that we mentioned before. Therefore you have done well in not leaving your children in his hands – yasher kochachem. However in regards to the paying his wages – it is not possible to issue a ruling regarding this without him being present and being able to witness his deeds. Because it is possible that he simple erred in this matter. In this it is possible to rely on a teacher in your community and there should be peace.
Ohr HaChaim (Vayikra 11:43): We find that our Sages (Pesachim 49b) said, That the ignorant masses are detestable and their daughters are vermin … All the Sages words were said with ruach hakodesh and are very profound and deep.
Rav Yosef Ber Soloveitchik (Hesped for Rav Chaim Ozer): The very same priest, whose mind was suffused with the holiness of the Torah of R. Akiva and R. Eliezer, of Abbaye and Rava, of the Rambam and Rabad, of the Beth Yosef and the Rema, could also discern with the holy spirit [roeh be-ruah hakodesh] the solution to all current political questions, to all worldly matters, to all ongoing current demands
Ohr HaChaim (Bereishis 6:3): … When the Temple was destroyed and the vision was blocked then we were left with ruach hakodesh. However when the eyes of Israel became blocked, we no longer experienced the fragrance of holiness and surely not ruach hakodesh itself. This is the worst of the sufferings of the Jewish people who are thirsty to smell the fragrance of our Father in Heaven and have our spirits revived.
Ohr HaChaim (Bereishis 1:1): You should know that we have permission to explain the implication of the verses after careful study - even though our conclusions differ from the explanation of our Sages. That is because there are 70 faces to Torah (Bamidbar Rabbah 13:16). There is no prohibition against differing from the words of our Sages except if it changes the Halacha. Similarly, we find that even though the Amoraim did not have the right to disagree with Tannaim in halachic matters - but we find that they offered alternative explanations to verses.
Ohr HaChaim (Bereishis 46:8): Don’t be bothered by the fact that our explanation is the opposite of what our Sages stated. We have already asserted that concerning the understanding of the non halachic verses of the Torah permission is given to the diligent student to innovate.
Ohr HaChaim (Devarim 32:1): Even though I am explaining this differently than our Sages but we know that there are 70 faces to Torah (Bamidbar Rabbah 13:16). Concerning Agada it is permitted to offer explanations even if they contradict those of our Sages as long as they don’t contradict the Halacha….
Ohr HaChaim (Vayikra 26:3): Vayikra Rabbah (22:1) states that Scripture, Mishna, Halacha, Talmud, Tosefta, Agada and even what a faithful student would say in the future - were all taught to Moshe on Sinai. It is clear from this medrash that permission has been granted for Torah scholars to explain and interpret in various ways and for the diligent students to provide new insights in expounding verses - to the degree that it can be justified with the verse.
Igros Moshe (Orech Chaim 1:109): It is apparent that there is no one today who has the status of a gadol that cannot be [theoretically] disagreed with …
Kuntres HaSefekos (5:3): It seems to be me that Tosfos and the Nemukei Yosef are talking about a dispute between Tannaim and Amoraim as can be seen from their language. In such a case the judge does not need to struggle and find proofs to the validity of the different opinions. That is because it is impossible for us to refute the view of a particular Tanna or Amora with decisive proofs – because ruach hakodesh is manifest in them. Our Sages have already said about Talmudic sages, “These and those are the words of the living G d. Therefore the judge must decide based on what makes sense to him – but he can’t prove or disprove whether a particular view is correct. In contrast the Rosh was describing the post Talmudic situation and wrote that when two gedolim are in disagreement about a matter then the judge needs to look for proper proofs to decide between them. That is because from the day that the Talmud was closed – the fountains of wisdom have been sealed and therefore each person has the right to disagree with his predecessors with what he considers proof. Thus in the post-Talmudic world it is within the realm of the possible to decide between views by bringing proofs to the reasoning of one side over the other. We see this in the books of the Achronim where they refute the words of their predecessors with clear proofs.
