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.
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 Gd 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.
"this means that theoretically that gedolim can make mistakes - however it also clearly means that at least some of their statements are infallible."
ReplyDeleteIn this case, obviously, the only problems lies in telling them apart.
And therefore, you have to start from the assumption that any pronoucement of the sages could fall into the "error" category. So you could not assume infalliblity of sages...
Same goes for ruach hakodesch: Some sages have ruach hakodesh... But which ones? So you have to treat them all as though they hadn't, because we have not "ruach-hakodesh-meter" that would allow us to distinguish between Rabbis who have ruach hakodesh and those who haven't.
"this means that theoretically that gedolim can make mistakes - however it also clearly means that at least some of their statements are infallible."
ReplyDeleteIn this case, obviously, the only problems lies in telling them apart.
And therefore, you have to start from the assumption that any pronoucement of the sages could fall into the "error" category. So you could not assume infalliblity of sages...
Same goes for ruach hakodesch: Some sages have ruach hakodesh... But which ones? So you have to treat them all as though they hadn't, because we have no "ruach-hakodesh-meter" that would allow us to distinguish between Rabbis who have ruach hakodesh and those who haven't.
"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."
ReplyDeleteI don't see the ruach hakodesh necessarily as being the reason it is presumptuous for a non-godol to dispute ("question"s are okay) a godol. In fact, the Ramchal here doesn't seem to say that all of a godol's statements are coming from ruach hakodesh.
But in any event, the reason a non-godol cannot dispute a godol, is simply because the non-godol himself is not infallible. The non-godol himself is prone to error. The non-godol is probably much more prone to error than the godol. So who is an error-prone non-godol to dispute a godol, claiming it is the godol (rather than he the non-godol) who in fact is in error?
The Ramchal also said that the means to obtaining Ruah Hakodesh was through the Baraitta of R' Pinchas Ben Yair, which the Ramchal codified in his sefer Mesilat Yesharim.
ReplyDeleteThe Gra ZTz"L said that he only managed to complete(as in rectify himself) half of the Mesilat Yesharim. So if the Gra could not complete the Ramchal's necessary perquisites, where does that leave the Gedolim of today?
I think one has to make an important distinction here. When one makes the statement "gadol X has ruach hakodesh," is one saying that gadol X continuously has ruach hakodesh? Or is one saying that there are periods during which he has ruach hakodesh?
ReplyDeleteFor example, let's start with the proposition that the Shulchan Aruch was written with ruach hakodesh. Does it then follow that all statements made by the Mechaber from the time he achieved ruach hakodesh until his petira, written or verbal, were made with ruach hakodesh?
I also found the following fascinating:
"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."
IOW, a defining characteristic of ruach hakodesh is that its recipient is fully aware that he is receiving a supernatural infusion of knowledge while said infusion of knowledge is occuring. If someone, even a bona fide talmid chacham of the highest caliber, says, "you know, I think that tremendous insight in Torah I had last week may have been from ruach hakodesh," it's a siman that it really wasn't ruach hakodesh.
(As an aside, is there an autobiographical account by the Mechaber of his writing the Shulchan Aruch that contains such a description?)
Ramchal , in the quoted text, does not mention "Gedolim", or that all Gedolim have Ruach Hakodesh. He is speaking of the next level below prophecy. Ramchal was an inspirational figure, to whom new Zohar on many other Books of the TeNaKh were revealed. Apparently, not much of those Zoharic revelations still exist - and were never accepted by majority of Gedolim as being authentic Zohar. Indeed, teh Ramchal was a controversial figure, and accused by Gedolim of his day of certain things which we today would find hard to accept! So did any of the Gedolim in that controversy err?
ReplyDeleteEvery claim for daas Torah, infallibilty, and true knowledge comes agaisnt the same problem - no views were universally accepted, some Mega Gedolim such as Rambam and Ramchal were accused of apikorsus!
A good example of this is found in the RambaN's Letter to the French Rabbis, defending RamBaM against their accusations. The stature of Ramban is unassailable, but he had great respect to both sides - so obviously they were all Gedolim.
In any case, in the Torah, which is the Book that really counts, even a Navi is not infallible - and nor is a claim to nevua. We are instructed to test a Navi, and reject him if his words do follow, ie he talks nonsense or makes false predictions. Any discussion of this subject has to take this into consideration.
It is also a symptom of low self esteem to talk ourselves down as nobodies. If non Gedolim are nobodies, then even their choice of which Gadol to follow is a nothign choice, which is as meaningless as the "presumptiousness" to question a Gadol.
Das Torah
ReplyDeleteMoshe Abarbanel
The first time I heard the concept of “Das Torah” it struck me as strange. It is widely understood as current Torah leaders possessing flawless knowledge.
A friend explained that the great wise men (chachamim) receive divine inspiration allowing them to make correct decisions. This is why they are consulted for answers to our problems. But I asked him if we have greater divine providence today than back in the day of the prophets. Did the prophets – who were of the greatest moral and intellectual character – never make mistakes? If so, how could it be that today when we have no prophecy and even our greatest intellectual minds are nothing in comparison, that our current Rabbis might be infallible? His explanation struck me as well-meaning, but he projected papal infallibility onto Judaism.
I asked Rabbi Israel Chait about this concept. He told me that people have it all wrong. In fact, Rabbi Chait used this weeks Haftorah as a proof. When King David planned to build a permanent house for God, he first consults with Nathan the prophet: “See now I dwell in a house of cedar wood while the Ark of God dwells within a curtain.” (Samuel II 7:2) Nathan the prophet thinks this is a great idea, and in fact he tells King David “Whatever is in your heart go and do for Hashem is with you.” (ibid 7:3) At that point in time, Nathan, one of our great prophets analyzed the plan presented to him and gave it his blessing. That night Hashem appears to Nathan in a prophecy telling him that David shall not build the Temple. We learn from this prophecy that Nathan mistakenly endorsed David’s plan to build the Temple. Now, if one of our prophets could be so wrong in a case involving such holiness as constructing the Beit Hamikdash, certainly, our current leaders are fallible.
A second proof that our leaders can make mistakes appears in this weeks Torah portion, Shemini. After the death of Nadav and Avihu, Aaron and his remaining sons entirely burn a sacrifice on the altar. This disturbs Moshe. He inquires. There are many different interpretations of what actually happened to the sacrifice, but Aaron explains what happened: “Were I to eat this day's sin offering, would Hashem approve?” When Moshe heard Aaron’s answer the Torah tells us, “Moshe heard and it was well pleasing in his sight.” (Leviticus 10:20) Clearly, Moshe – our greatest prophet – mistakenly accused Aaron and his sons of wrongdoing. In fact Rashi supports this saying “He admitted and was not ashamed to say ‘I did not hear’ ”.
If the greatest prophet who ever lived made a mistake, how much more so does any wise man who came after him? In fact the greatness of Moshe here, according to Rashi, is his humbleness. He admitted his mistake to his brother and nephews without hesitation. He did not allow his exalted position to justify any expression of arrogance, or conceal his error. This is a great lesson for all of us. Those who have a misconception of Das Torah must take an example from Moshe Rebbenu.
So what is Das Torah? I believe it is a strength and inspiration given to our leaders in their time of need. This does not make them infallible. I would like to note that on decisions pertaining to Jewish Law (Halacha) we must listen to the Rabbis; even if they tell us our left hand is our right. (They have rights to define our relationship to reality) If each person chooses the law for himself, Judaism will cease to exist. But we are not commanded to give up our minds. We must question the Rabbis and point out inconsistencies in thinking and in law. In the end we are all truth-seekers. We must question even our great Torah Scholars.
Have a good shabbos.
Anyway you slice and dice it, it is clear from the translations by R. Eidensohn that the idea of Daas Torah / Emunas Chachomim / Ruach HaKodesh is ancient and NOT "contemporary", as the age of the Rishonim/Achronim quoted so far easily demonstrate.
ReplyDeleteI once asked 2 different rabbis in London, one Hassidic and one Mitnagdic, if it was possible that they were bribed , in regard of their views on certain matters. One of them denied that he was bribed, the other said " how would I know if i am?"
ReplyDeleteThe Torah says that even the Tzaddikim and Hachamim can have their views skewed by bribes and gifts.
So how do we know that somebody isn't bribed today, whether financially or ideologically? I do not wish to give particular examples, as I am not attacking one group or other. But here is another example where the Torah explicitly says that even Gedolim can be compromised if they are not balanced perfectly.
Even prophets can have false prophecy, or lie out of narcissism.
ReplyDeleteSo how does the ethereal ruach kodesh, suddenly become more reliable than nevuah. And what if they are merely conning themselves (or us) that they have ruach kodesh?
On his death-bed, the Arizal (preeminent Kabbalist, 16th century Safed, Israel) told Rabbi Yitzchak Hakohen: "Tell the disciples in my name that from today they are to stop studying Kabbalah." He warned that they might misunderstand it and thus come to harm.
ReplyDeletehttps://ohr.edu/ask_db/ask_main.php/99/Q2/
Obviously not a widespread belief!
ReplyDeletebut it is very good ammunition, for those who won't listen to "logic"
ReplyDeleteRamchal was a very interesting figure -
ReplyDeletea genius and brilliant thinker and mystic. Clean shaven, and a "YU" type, whilst he was at University in Italy.
As far as i am aware, he didn't write any halacha, but only mystical books.
His career was not a pleasant one - he was banned by the frum communities wherever he went, was ordered to stop teaching kabbalah;
his books were burned, and he spent the last years of his life as a diamond cutter, and no longer a rabbi or teacher.
According the diary of one of his close group (Valle) , he considered himself the gilgul of Moshe rabbeinu; David Valle was the Moshiach, and Shabbatei Zvi was Moshiach ben Yosef.
It was only after he was niftar that his remaining books became accepted by orthodoxy.
It is not clear if he was strictly within the parameters of "orthodox" halachic Judaism , or was he above them? His detractors certainly didn't consider him to be infallible.