Ruach hakodesh & Ruach hakodesh of the intellect are not the same

Daas Torah - translation copyrighted

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, ie., the ruach hakodesh of wisdom. It is important to realize that ruach hakodesh is not the same thing as ruach hakofesh of wisdom 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 wisdom 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 that this type of intellectual prophesy only rests on them through their own power.” Thus we see explicitly in the Talmud and Rishonim that the ruach hakodesh of the intellect never stopped. This is also explicit 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 Pinhas 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 such as Rav Avesar - that never stopped. Only a heretic would deny this....

Heretic: Denies the Mishna Berura and other major seforim were written with ruach hakodesh

from Daas Torah - translation copyrighted

Rav Menashe Klein (7:160): A shochet who wants to pasken like the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch in all matters and not like the Mishna Berura… I don’t understand what you are asking. Do you mean that he is being disrespectful of the Mishne Berura or you mean that he comes form a place that relies on the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch even against the Mishne Berura and he is simply following the custom of his community? The distinction between these two is simple. If he is being disrespectful then he is in the category of one who doesn’t believe in the words of our Sages in every generation and he doesn’t believe that contemporary gedolim merit ruach hakodesh. It is obvious that someone who lacks ruach hakodesh is not able to composes a holy work such as the Mishne Berura. If he doesn’t believe that the Mishne Berura was written with ruach hakodesh then he is an apikorus and denier of G﷓d’s Torah…Look at Divrei Chaim (Y.D. 2:105) concerning a teacher who insulted the honor of the Ohr HaChaim and said that the sefer wasn’t written with ruach hakodesh. After much discussion he concludes, “That in truth even in our days there are true sages who are not influenced by earthly matters and they have ruach hakodesh as we see stated explicitly in the Moreh Nevuchim and Ramban. Therefore not only did the Ohr HaChaim clearly compose his sefer with ruach hakodesh but all authors even in our generation if they are worthy of it compose their works with ruach hakodesh. That means that their wisdom and understanding is in agreement wth the Truth of the Torah. This is mentioned in the gemora with Rabbi Eliezar. It is also stated as a practical halachic ruling in Takfo Cohen (C.M. 25:123-124) where he says that one can not say “kim li” (use a minority opinion) against the ruling of the Shulchan Aruch because all of its rulings were written with ruach hakodesh. Therefore a teacher who denies the ruach hakodesh of the Ohr HaChaim is an apikorus because he doesn’t believe the gedolim who testified on the Ohr HaChaim that he was deserving of ruach hakodesh. Thus this teacher is a denier in the principle of ruach hakodesh and ridicules the words of the Talmud mentioned before and it is good that you did not leave your sons in his hands. “ See these words which are like firery coals. Therefore concerning this shochet, I say that if he doesn’t believe that the words of the Mishna Berura were composed with ruach hakodesh and therefore are in agreement with the truth of the Torah – he is a heretic and denier of the foundations of our faith. It is not only this shochet but all schochtim who do not believe in this their shechita is unkosher. (Unfortunately due to our many sins there are many teachers in our time that do not believe that even in our generation that there are contemporary gedolim who have ruach hakodesh and are able to ascertain and be in agreement with their wisdom to the truth of the Torah. See Orchos Tzadikim (Shaar HaTorah) where he writes that a person who studies Torah for pure motivation merits that his two kidneys are made into two fountains. And he produces new insights into Torah that were never heard before. A person who does not believe this is unquestionably an apikorus and denier. If he teaches others then they also will be drawn after him – due to our many sins.).

Rav Ovadiah Yosef: ruach rah - does it exist today?

Yabiah Omer (O.C. 3:2.4): … we should combine this with the view of Achronim that in modern times, ruach rah doesn’t exist. This is the view of the Lechem Mishneh and the Eliyahu Rabba concerning netilas yadayim in the morning (washing the hands) because they say that there is no ruach rah anymore. This is also the view of the Yam Shel Shlomo. Also look at Maharam ben Chaviv … who says that in modern times we do not see or hear that anyone who touches his eyes before netilas yadayim in the morning is blinded or that one who touches his ears becomes deaf…Therefore the ruach rah of the morning does not exist today. This is like the ruach rah of food that will choke a child if the hands are not washed but Tosfos (Chullin 107b) says it does not exist today. I also saw in the sefer Soles Belulah (4:3) who also comments on the issue of ruach rah and says that our experience is the opposite of what is says in the Talmud. However he says the gemora means that not washing your hands in the morning and touching your eyes or ears causes you to not understand the Torah that you see or hear. But how will he explain (Shabbos 109) which says touching with unwashed hands causes bad breath? In fact if you examine the gemora objectively you will conclude that the words are meant literally [contrary to the understanding of the Soles Belulah]. The Minchas Aaron (1:13) also rejects his understanding. Thus it is seems that the more correct understanding is in accord with the Maharam ben Chaviv we mentioned before. In sum, it seems that ruach rah has become very weak until it almost entirely gone from the world… So this is surely so regarding the ruach rah of the bathroom which is not as strong as that of the morning. So even though there are those who are concerned about ruach rah even today, nevertheless it is appropriate to combine these understanding which we mention in order to lenient in times of need to allow washing the hands under the faucet with is found in contemporary bathrooms. That is because the bathroom is always kept clean by the flushing of water. However if it is not necessary, then we should not be lenient in this matter - and surely we should not say words of holiness there. If the toilet is not constantly clean in the bathroom then one should not be lenient at all even concerning netilas yadim.

Chasam Sofer: Ruach Hakodesh of poslkim - is not binding authority

fraom Daas Torah - translation copyrighted

Chasam Sofer (Orech Chaim 1:208): And this that you have written a number of times concerning the issue of wisdom and prophecy and Azniel ben Kenaz who restored the lost Halacha by pilpul… You correctly explain that which the Raavad said that there was ruach hakodesh in his beis hamedrash and similar such expressions does not mean ruach hakodesh in the sense that Dovid HaMelech had. Rather it means the spirit of G﷓d for those who engage in Torah for pure motivations who merit to ascertain the truth even if according to the nature of their wisdom and intelligence they should be incapable of comprehending it properly. Nevertheless, G﷓d in His mercy gives extra inspiration of wisdom for a limited time. In this manner Azniel ben Kenaz merited to ascertain the truth through pilpul, kal v’chomer and gezera shaveh [Temurah 16a] that which his natural intelligence was incapable of doing. This is similar to what it says in Bava Basra 12a that even though prophecy was taken from the prophets but not from the sages. However, your understanding of this gemora to be that wisdom was not taken from the sages is incorrect. Rather it is that prophecy was not taken from the sages. In other words, that type of prophecy which is attainable through the wisdom of one who studies Torah for pure motivation merits many things [Avos 6:1] with his intellect and his wisdom even though he doesn’t have the natural ability for it. The gemora wants to prove this from the common fact that a talmid chachom comprehends something on his own which in fact is according to the understanding of Rabbi Akiva. We know that this person’s level is not up to Rabbi Akiva’s heels. This proves that it happened by the prophetic ability we mentioned. In addition, we also find that he says things which in fact are Halacha L’Moshe m’Sinai. The gemora rejects this proof by saying that perhaps this occurs by chance like a blind person groping through a window. However, the gemora concludes that it is not by chance since he gives justifications for his views and thus it is like a prophetic form of wisdom. This idea can explain the gemora in Megila (16a): “Whoever says wisdom even if he not Jewish is called a wise man.” The obvious question is why shouldn’t he be called a wise man? Don’t we in fact even say a beracha on the wise men of the non﷓Jews “who gives of His wisdom to human beings” (Berachos 58a)? The answer is that without this gemora we would have mistakenly thought that Divinely inspired wisdom only comes to Jews while if a non﷓Jew said something brilliant that seems to transcend his intellectual capabilities we would have thought it was just blind chance….

Words of our Sages are from G-d

Baal HaTanya (Likutei Torah Acharei 27b): Concerning this matter we find the statement of our Sages, “These and those are the words of the living G-d.” [Eiruvin 13b] That means that the words of Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel as well as the words of Abaye and Rava are not literally their words. Rather they are G d’s words that are in their mouths. This is just as the Magid said to Rabbi Yosef Karo, “I am the Mishna which speaks through your mouth.”

Leshem (Shaarei Leshem 2:4:19): The critical point is that every Jew is obligated to believe with perfect faith that all which is found in the words of our Talmudic Sages - both in halacha, Talmudic agada and medrashim - are in their entirety the words of the living G d. That is because everything that they say is with ruach hakodesh (Sanhedrin 48:). This includes even that which isn’t relevant to halacha and deed…Also all their decrees and statutes are not the product of human intellect at all but rather are the result of ruach hakodesh in which G d has expressed Himself through them. This is the great sound that doesn’t end (Devarim 5:19) of the giving of the Torah at Sinai and it expresses itself in the Oral Torah…. Thus, the Sages are just like messengers in what they say…. This is why the Bal Halachos Gedolos includes the Rabbinic mitzvos with the Torah mitzvos since all of them were given by G d (Chagiga 3b)…We can conclude from all this that anyone who tries to analyze the words of the Sages in order to establish the nature of their truth places himself in great danger. That is because man’s intellect cannot properly comprehend this matter and thus a person can come to heresy from the endeavor. This is what Koheles (7:16) states: Don’t make yourself too wise - why destroy yourself? A person who gets involved in this matter will find it very difficult to resist following his human understanding. He will end up going back and forth between the view of the Torah and that of his own understanding…. The righteous person lives by his faith because that is the foundation of the entire Torah….

Checking for genetic disease

Igros Moshe (E.H. 04:010) Checking for genetic disease. Concerning children who are born with short life span’s of only two or three years because of a genetic disease Tay Sachs. It requires that both parent’s have the defective gene, though  this has no effect on the parent’s health. The question is whether to check for this gene before marriage because if only one parent has the defective gene the condition does not appear in the children. The test involves a blood test of the man and woman. If it is found in the test of either then they are careful to marry only someone who doesn’t have the defective gene. I am being asked whether it is proper for a young man or woman to be tested for this? Furthermore if it is good to know, this, should it be done when they are children or only when they are ready to get married and should it be done openly or secretly? After studying the matter and finding that this condition happens to a small number of children and therefore normally one should say Tamim Tihiye - be innocent or trusting with G-d and don’t investigate the future [Rashi]. Nevertheless since the test requires very little effort, we need to ask if the test is not done when it is relevant then it is like closing one’s eyes to avoid seeing what is there and since that if G-d forbid it happens that there is a baby born with this condition which causes very great distress to the parents that therefore it is appropriate for someone looking to get married to be tested? I think that it is obvious that it is necessary to publicize through newspapers and media so that the test is known however the testing should be secret so that no one knows the identity of the person, The doctor doing the test should not reveal the results to anyone because even though scientifically the condition only occurs if both parents have the defective gene, many people will not believe this and the man or woman with the defective gene will not be able to get married. Therefore the whole matter needs to be done secretly and it is also a good idea to test a large group at one time like the entire yeshiva or school. Also since it is well known that people suffer from nerves and they imagine things that are insignificant to be overwhelmingly great especially in America, G-d forbid that this test be done to boys prior to their interest in marriage which for the majority is the age of 20 and it should not be mentioned to them at all. Girls generally should not be tested before the age of 18.

Natural Childbirth

 Igros Moshe (Y.D. 02:075):Natural child birth. This that your wife wants to be fully conscious  during childbirth because she was told that the birth pains are reduced a bit by distracting herself. If you asked me I would not have advised this because birth pains are very strong and distraction doesn’t help and thus the idea is false. However if she really wants this there is no prohibition. .. Also you want to know whether the you can be with her during the delivery to see  things are done properly and to encourage and reassure her? If this is really needed I don’t see any reason to prohibit it and even if not really needed I don’t see that it is prohibited. However it is prohibited to watch the actual birth because it is prohibited to look at places that she normally covers when she is a Nida and the genital area is prohibited even when she is not a Nida. Therefore if you are careful not to look even by means of a mirror,  there is no prohibition.

Divorcee covering head

Igros Moshe (E.H. 04:032.4):Is it permitted for a divorcee to go with an uncovered head so that it isn’t obvious that she had been married? You are uncertain about a young divorcee who doesn’t want it known that she had been married by covering her She doesn’t want to deceive anyone and it is obvious that her status can be readily known from the records of City Hall. Rather her intent is that after a new prospective husband gets to know her and likes her to marry her then she will reveal the fact that she is a divorcee and thus won’t be viewed less favorably. However if this is known initially obviously no one will be interested in marrying her. So you want to know  whether this is permissible like I gave permission in the case recorded in  Igros Moshe (E.H. 57) regarding a widow who could not get needed employment  if she covered her head.I agree with you that it is correct to permit her since this constitutes  a genuine great loss if it prevents her from remarrying. It is not a Torah obligation for a divorcee to cover her head but only Jewish custom (Das Yehudis). However it is important to know that in a situation where there is no such concern she needs to cover her head because she does not have an absolute heter.  

Mechitza

Igros Moshe (O.C. 01:039):Concerning the need for a mechitza (divider) in the synagogue between the men and women and its height. The basic rule is that even if the men are all on one side and the women are on the other side, it is still prohibited to be without a mechitza and in my view this is a Torah requirement. The proof is from Succah (51) where a question is raised concerning the balconies that were made in the Ezras Nashim at the end of the Yom Tov so that the women were above and the men were below. Also see the Yerushalmi (Sukkah 5:2) and Tosfos (Zevachim 33)….We see from Sukkah (51) that even with a mechitza but that it is possible to have levity there is still a Torah prohibition. Because even initially when the men and woman were separated but the woman were able to stand to watch the simcha and it was possible to interact with the men and have levity despite the barrier - the Torah still prohibited this. Thus we see the need not only to have a divider – mechitza but it needs to be high enough to prevent levity or else an elevated balcony is required for the women. I think it is reasonable that a mechitza which is shoulder high is sufficient – 18 tefachim. We saw that the reason for the mechitza is not to prevent seeing the women but levity. It is best however – especially in America -  where many women are dressed improperly and don’t cover their heads that it should be high enough so the women are not seen. If it is only 18 tefachim and there are some woman with uncovered heads, it is possible to rely on the Aruch HaShulcan and pray there.If the mechitza is less than 18 tefachim prayer is prohibited to pray and it is required to protest forcefully. This applies to all gathering of men and women. 

 Sukka(51) AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE FIRST FESTIVAL DAY etc. What was the GREAT ENACTMENT? — R. Eleazar replied, As that of which we have learnt. Originally [the walls of the Court of the Women] were smooth, but [later the Court] was surrounded with a gallery, and it was enacted that the women should sit above and the men below.

Our Rabbis have taught, Originally the women used to sit within [the Court of the Women] while the men were without, but as this caused levity, it was instituted that the women should sit without and the men within. As this, however, still led to levity, it was instituted that the women should sit above and the men below.

But how could they do so?[Alter the original structure of the Temple.]
Is it not written, All this [do I give thee] in writing as the Lord hath made me wise by His hand upon me? — Rab answered, They found a Scriptural verse and expounded it:

Mechitza for how many women?

Igros Moshe (O.C. 05:12):When is mechitza needed? 1) Is a mechitza needed when praying in a place not normally used for prayer e.g.the house of mourning? Do the women need to go into a separate room or is it enough to be physically separated?. It would seem that the halacha is that women in a house of mourning need to go into a separate room. The reason is that a house of mourning is open to the public which according to halacha always requires separation between women and men and surely at the time of prayer as I have already explained in Igros Moshe (O.C.. 1:39) However if the women don’t agree to leave, this does not prevent praying since it is is not common. However in the house of a chasan there is no requirement for a mechitza since it is not open to the public but only to family members. Therefore it is sufficient for the men to pray in one corner 2)Is a mechitza needed if there is only a small number of women- one or two? In Igros Moshe (O.C.1:39) at the end I brought a proof from Kiddushin (52b) that there isn’t a need to have a mechitza for just a couple of women. So how many women don’t require a mechitza.e.g. in a house of mourning or in a yeshiva where they pray only Mncha during the week and Shabbos and it doesn’t have a mechitza? Is it permitted to allow a number of women to enter and sit at the end of the room? It has been true that in every generation that the normative practice to allow occasionally for a poor woman to enter the yeshiva to collect tzedaka or for a woman in mourning to say kadish, However the actual halacha needs to be researched and it depends on how many poor people there are. Nevertheless it appears that in yeshiva, that if they come every Shabbos and Mincha that there is no basis for leniency for prayer without a mechitza but it is permitted if this isn’t a fixed occurrence.  But this is true only when there is not more than two women. As you mentioned that according to halacha one woman can enter the yeshiva as can be seen in Shulchan Aruch (O.C. 282:3) that a woman can be counted as one of the seven.  3) Can a woman give a lesson in Shul or yeshiva when it is not time to pray such as Friday night when normally a lay person gives a lesson regarding the Torah reading and men and woman come? It appears that it is a great problem if men and women sit together but I don’t want to deal with that. The giving of a lesson by a woman is permitted but only if it happens occasionally. It is also required that everyone be seated during the lesson so it is more modest. It is also better to do it only in a private house and not yeshiva or shul.

Remarrying after only secular divorce

 Igros Moshe (Y.D. 02:044):A Jewish couple received a civil divorce 2 years ago but never got a religious divorce. Now they have reconciled, and must remarry according to secular law to be considered married but they find it degrading to go to the local city judge and they simply want to make a religious ceremony even though according to halacha they are still married and thus there are no berachos. It is correct in my humble opinion not to have any wedding at all so that it won’t be said that they had been divorced also by Jewish law by the secular divorce.  However it is possible to fill out a marriage license and have it witnessed and signed because this will not cause people to view secular divorce as having religious consequences. It is also proper and helpful to say that they are getting remarried.

Talmid chachom needs an attractive wife

Orchos Chaim (Hilchos Kesuba) And a Talmid chachom needs an adorned woman (Shabbos 25b). The reason he needs her is so that he won’t desire another woman because he has greater lust than other men as our Sages (Sukkah 52a) said whoever is greater than others has greater lust than they because the yetzer harah threatens to overwhelm him everyday. It would seem from this that it is prohibited for a talmid chachom to allow his wife to be unattractive ever – even if she is in mourning. This is so he isn’t repelled by her because he might become overwhelmed with lust for another woman, While this is a problem all men have but since a talmid chachom has greater lust it is particularly said about him.

Ohr HaChaim (Bereishis 29:18) And Yakov loved Rachel Not because of her beauty but because they were a predestined couple or alternatively as our Sages (Shabbos 25b) say that a talmid chachom should have a beautiful wife to protect against lust. So even though Yakov was a very spiritual man who defeated his lust nevertheless the Torah  teaches a person to have common sense