Torah and Jewish Idea > Torah and Jewish Idea

Are the Sages Infallible?

<< < (2/3) > >>

muman613:
http://ohr.edu/yhiy/article.php/38

Standing for Torah

When the question was posed to Rabbi Chilkiya, Rabbi Simon and Rabbi Elazar whether one is obligated to stand up in honor of a Sefer Torah (since the Torah explicitly orders such respect only in regard to Torah scholars) their response was:

"If we are obligated to stand up as respect for those who study the Torah how much more so must we stand up for the Torah itself!"

This statement seems to be at odds with another gemara (Mesechta Makkot 22b) where the Sage Rava is quoted as saying:

"How foolish are those people who stand up in respect for a Sefer Torah but fail to stand up in respect for a Torah sage. In the Torah it is stated that one who violates a Torah commandment is punished with forty lashes and it is the Sages who interpreted this as meaning only thirty-nine."

Rabbeinu Nisim (Ran) quotes Tosefot as resolving this apparent contradiction in the following way: Since the Torah does not explicitly order standing up for a Sefer Torah and this obligation is only deduced through the logic of the Torah Sages, it makes sense that one must stand up for the Sages themselves!

This approach seems to ignore Rava’s mention of the reduction in the number of lashes. But it can perhaps be understood in conjunction with the resolution which Ran himself offers. Rava, he writes, never intended to suggest that Torah Sages are more important than a Sefer Torah; rather, his intent was to point out that without the Sages’ guidance the Sefer Torah cannot be properly understood. The proof of this is the number of lashes which appears in the literal text and the true number explained by the Sages. Respect for the Sages is therefore respect for the Torah itself. Tosefot’s approach may merely be an extension of this very idea by demonstrating that even the respect required for a Sefer Torah cannot be derived from an explicit text, but rather depends on the interpretation of the Sages.

Maharsha (Mesechta Makkot) offers an entirely different approach. The respect due to the Torah itself is certainly greater than that due to the Sages. Rava’s statement was directed to "those people" — the ignoramuses who scorn the Torah Sages by saying that they never innovated anything with their study beyond what is written in the Torah because "they never made a raven kosher nor a dove non-kosher" (Mesechta Sanhedrin 99b). For this reason they stand up for the Torah itself but do not show this respect for the Sages. Rava exposes the folly of their attitude by citing the example of the lashes in which the reduction by the Sages in the number of lashes could have life and death ramifications, and for such a lifesaving interpretation alone they deserve the respect of these foolish people.

    * Kiddushin 33b

muman613:
http://www.torah.org/learning/yomtov/omer/5755/vol1no20.html

YomTov, Vol. I, # 20
Sefiras Ha'Omer and the Students of R' Akiva
by Rabbi Yehudah Prero

Now that we know what an Omer is, what does it have to do with counting?

The Gemora in the tractate of Yevamos 62b, tells us that "Rabbi Akiva had 12,000 pairs of students...and all of them died in one period of time because they did not conduct themselves with respect towards one another...they all died between Pesach and Shavuos...and they all died a terrible death. What was that it? R' Nachman said "As'kerah" (a death from suffocating, from a croup-like illness). "

The Aruch HaShulchan says that " these days between Pesach and Shavu'os are established by all of Israel as days of judgement and mourning, because in this short period of time, the students of Rabbi Akiva died. Furthermore, in the past, we have seen that the main fulfillment of decrees against us in Germany and France took place during this time period, and ..." therefore, the Aruch HaShulchan says, we have the custom to maintain certain practices associated with mourning.

The Iyun Yaakov, a commentator on the Talmud, adds some insights as to what happened with the students of R' Akiva, and why they were punished so harshly. He comments that we find that there are times when a great sage and scholar is taken from us, as an atonement for the generation. How does the passing of a great sage an atonement for the generation? The atonement is not automatic. Rather, the passing of a giant is to be an inspiration for the whole generation to take note of their deeds, and see if improvement or modification is necessary. The passing of a great sage is meant to grip the nation, to cause them to note "If such a great sage can be taken from this earth, a sage whose deeds were better than mine, who commitment to G-d and His commanments was firmer than mine, who knowledge of Torah was more vast than mine, a fortiore I can be taken from this earth at any time." The re-awakening will inspire the nation to repent, thereby acheiving atonement. This, the Zohar says, is comparable to the practice of blood-letting, where a small anount of blood is drawn from one part of the body so that the whole body will heal and become healthy.

This could have happened in the time of Rabbi Akiva's students. The students of Rabbi Akiva were the greatest sages of that generation. The Gemora in Yevamos says that the world was desolate and deviod of such scholarship and Torah knowledge after the students died. These students were not merely students of one of the great sages of the time: they were great sages in their own right as well. Therefore, as soon as the first of the students passed away, all the other students should have been alarmed: A great sage died! The students should have realized that they, just as their colleague, could be taken from this earth. This should have inspired the students to engage in introspection, to determine where improvement was needed, and to act on the inspiration of the moment. However, the very flaw which they were being warned to repair prevented them from taking any inspiration. The students, as the Gemora tells us, did not treat each other with respect. Because they did not treat each other with respect, no one student viewed any other student as "anything great." Beacuse they did not accord each other respect, when the first student died, the others did not gain any inspiration, as they did not acknowledge the greatness of their comrade, and hence did not make the a fortiore as to their own mortality. The students, therefore, did not refine their character and did not start treating each other with respect. The students, therefore, caused their own death. Beacuse of their failure to accord respect, not only were the students punished, but they passed up an opportunity to repent for this flaw. The students, therefore, truly died "because they did not conduct themselves with respect for one another."

The Maharsha explains that they died because we know the pasuk says "Ki hu chayecha..." "Because it (Torah) is your life, and that which lengthens your days..." The students of Rabbi Akiva, could not have this verse apply to them, as the lack of respect to another Torah scholar who was their friend indicated that there was Torah lacking among them. Therefore, they lost their life and their "long days." The lesson that we learn from the students of Rabbi Akiva is one that we must carry with us. We see how important it is to act towards one another with respect. We see how imporant it is not to let our own personal feelings cancel out an opportunity for inspiration. We have to remember that we must take inspiration from tragedy. Even now, years after the students of Rabbi Akiva died, we must be "inspired" by their death.

muman613:
http://www.aish.com/ci/be/48918612.html

The Jewish Ethicist - Respect and Suspect
by Rabbi Dr. Asher Meir, Business Ethics Center of Jerusalem

Drawing the line between prudence and paranoia.

Q. I understand business should be based on a relationship of trust. But I hear so many stories of people being cheated. Where do we draw the line between prudence and paranoia?

A. Certainly the Torah educates us to create a society of honesty and mutual trust. We are on the one hand commanded to act with integrity towards others: "Distance yourself from any falsehood" (Exodus 23:7); "You shall have righteous scales, righteous weights, and righteous measures" (Leviticus 19:36), and so on. But we also have various commands meant to reinforce trust towards others: "Judge your fellow righteously" (Leviticus 19:15), which our Sages interpreted to mean, give others the benefit of the doubt. (1) ; "Don't act vengefully and don't bear a grudge" (Leviticus 19:18) and others.

Our Sages went so far as to say, "Anyone who casts suspicion on the upright is stricken." This is learned from the story of Moses, who was commanded by God to free the people of Israel from slavery. Moses was concerned that the people would not listen to him, and protested, "They won't believe me". God replied, "Put your hand into your garment." The hand then came out stricken, which in Biblical times was considered a punishment for slander. (Exodus 4:1, 6-7.) Although this miraculous "punishment" lasted only a few moments, Moses was reminded that he should have faith in others. (2)

However, this does not mean we should naively rely on others to keep their commitments. On the contrary, the rabbis of the Talmud insisted that we should never rely on someone's honesty alone when we have the ability to properly document and enforce a transaction: "Anyone who has money and lends them without witnesses, transgresses 'Don't place an obstacle before the blind'. Reish Lakish said, he brings a curse upon himself." The "obstacle before the blind" is that the borrower will be tempted to deny the loan, thus engaging in a transgression. The Talmud then goes on to tell that the great sage Ravina refused to lend money for a mitzvah to his friend, the equally eminent sage Rav Ashi, without having witnesses and drawing up a proper contract. (3)

A common Hebrew expression is "Respect them and suspect them". We should always act in a respectful way towards others, but that doesn't obligate us to trust them with our property. The source of this is in a story of the Talmudic sage Rabbi Yehoshua. A complete stranger asked to stay the night. Rabbi Yehoshua obliged him by giving him a room in the attic, but also exercised prudence by removing the ladder so that the guest wouldn't be able to sneak out. The guest turned out in fact to be a thief; he wrapped all the valuables in the top floor in a cloak and tried to sneak out, but fell in the dark because of the missing ladder, and was caught red-handed.

    One of the most common reasons people end up in litigation in rabbinical court is that they make "friendly" informal agreements, leading to endless misunderstandings.

Our sages summarized: "Other people should always be like thieves in your eyes, yet respect them as if they were Rabban Gamliel" (an especially honored and dignified Torah leader). Of course that doesn't mean we should treat every guest this way, and the passage explains that a person who has a good reputation should be trusted more. But it shows how we can simultaneously respect and suspect someone, by helping them to the best of our ability but taking reasonable safeguards against harm. (4)

A few years ago, the eminent scholar and Rabbinical court judge Rabbi Zalman Nechemia Goldberg gave an interview in which he stated that one of the most common reasons people end up in litigation in rabbinical court is that they make "friendly" informal agreements, leading to endless misunderstandings. This shows the wisdom of the Talmud's admonition that the failure to record transactions leads ultimately to mischief.

Of course there is always a gray area of ill-defined obligations, but trust is augmented when as little as possible is open to interpretation and misunderstanding. This is the secret of an ancient and seemingly bizarre Jewish custom. At any Jewish wedding, a guest is honored with reading the ketuba, or marriage contract, which clearly defines the legal obligation of the husband to the wife, including a divorce settlement. A marriage is the ultimate relationship based on trust; why should be launching it with a dry enumeration of legal obligations? The answer is that trust thrives when there is a clear and mutual understanding of obligations. Once this foundation is achieved, the sides can be flexible and understanding, but there is a need for an underlying bedrock of agreed-upon commitments.

SOURCES: (1) Babylonian Talmud Shevuout 30a (2) Babylonian Talmud Shabbat 97a (3) Babylonian Talmud Bava Metzia 75b (4) Tractate Kallah Rabati 9:1

muman613:
http://www.torah.org/learning/pirkei-avos/chapter6-3.html

Pirkei Avos

Creating Souls
Chapter 6, Mishna 3

By Rabbi Dovid Rosenfeld

"One who learns from his fellow a single chapter [of Torah], a single law, a single verse, a single statement, or even a single letter, must treat him with honor. For so we find with David, King of Israel, who learned from Achitofel two things alone, and he called him his teacher, his guide, and his intimate friend, as it is said: 'And you are a man of my worth, my guide and intimate friend' (Psalms 55:14). And does not this matter allow for logical deduction: If David, King of Israel, who learned from Achitofel two things alone, called him his teacher, guide and intimate, one who learns from his fellow one chapter, one law, one verse, one statement, or even one letter, all the more so must he treat him with honor. And honor is [only due for] Torah, as it says: 'Honor -- the wise shall inherit' (Proverbs 3:35); 'And perfect ones will inherit good' (ibid., 28:10). And there is no good other than Torah, as it says, 'For a good possession have I given you; do not forsake My Torah' (ibid., 4:2)."

(Achitofel was an adviser to King David who turned against him, siding with Absalom's rebellion and eventually committing suicide. See II Samuel, 15-17. According to some commentators, Achitofel assisted Absalom in the hope of ultimately usurping power himself.)

This week's mishna discusses the respect one must have for one who has taught him Torah. As we will discuss, enlightening another with Torah knowledge is a far greater act of giving than helping him in any other way. The Sages liken this obligation to honoring one's parents (the fifth of the Ten Commandments). The Mishna writes that in certain cases, if one has the choice between assisting his father or his Torah teacher, his teacher comes first, "for his father brought him into this world, whereas his teacher who taught him wisdom brings him to the World to Come" (Bava Metziah 2:11). Teaching Torah is thus viewed as one of the greatest acts of giving, far beyond any kindness this world has to offer.

Our mishna goes so far as to state that a single letter of Torah is invaluable. The commentators (e.g., Rav Hirsch) point out that Hebrew is a very precise and compact language. Single letters are used to represent many prepositions and conjunctions. Likewise, verb forms (singular vs. plural, masculine vs. feminine, tense, etc.) may differ by a single letter alone. Finally, the Sages often deduce laws and principles from the insertion or omission of a single letter in the Torah. (The Talmud lauded R. Akiva for learning "mounds upon mounds" of laws from the "crowns" (serifs) on top of the letters of the Torah (Menachos 29b).) Thus, one may enlighten his fellow in the meaning of a single letter of the Torah -- and it may open a world of meaning.

This is one reason why Jews have always been so meticulous in their preservation -- to the letter -- of the Torah. Jewish communities isolated from each other for millennia, ranging from Eastern Europe to Yemen, have found that after thousands of years their Torah scrolls differ by a handful of letters alone.

The commentators question the logic of our mishna. If the basis for this principle is the two laws which Achitofel taught David, how can our mishna conclude the same for a single letter? Some (in the name of Rabbeinu Ephraim) suggest that the reference to a single statement and letter should be omitted. Others explain as we said above -- that much can be deduced from a single letter -- far more than two laws alone. Finally, others answer that if David, King of Israel, held Achitofel in high esteem, who though an accomplished scholar was thoroughly wicked (the Sages list him as one of the few individuals who did not merit the World to Come), so too should we respect our teachers for enlightening us in an even smaller amount of Torah (Ya'avetz).

Returning to the theme of our mishna, it's important to note that the Sages limit their statement to Torah study alone. Say one person assists another in performing a mitzvah (commandment) -- which the other did not know how to perform. Here too, we would suppose, the instructor has aided his fellow in a manner far greater than the father or mother who brought him into the physical world. Yet the Sages make no such statement praising such a person. Although he's certainly done something beyond the kindness of this world, the Sages do not seem to get very excited about it (for lack of better term) -- not nearly as much as they do for a single letter of Torah. What makes Torah study so far superior?

The Talmud in fact makes a stronger statement regarding Torah study. In Genesis 12, we read that Abraham followed G-d's command to emigrate to the Land of Israel. Verse 5 states that he took with him the souls he "made" in Charan. The simple meaning is the servants he acquired, as "making" in Hebrew is sometimes used in this sense. The Sages, however, interpret it to mean the souls he created -- by instructing them in the ways of G-d, thereby bringing them to the truth of G-d's reality, or as the Sages state it, "bringing them under the wings of the Divine Presence." Based on this the Talmud comments: So too, anyone who teaches Torah to another is as if he created him (Sanhedrin 99b). Thus, instructing another in Torah is akin to creating him anew -- far greater than assisting him in a mitzvah and certainly greater than forming him in this world. What is so unique about teaching another Torah?

R. Naftali Tzvi Yehuda Berlin (the "Netziv" (ni-TSEEV), great 19th Century Lithuanian rabbi) asked further on the Talmud above: What is the comparison between Abraham, who converted souls to monotheism, to one who teaches another Torah? We can perhaps appreciate that instructing pagans in belief in G-d is a form of creation. It is taking people from a meaningless and empty existence and providing them with a connection to G- d and eternity. But how can the Talmud equate teaching Torah to this? If you help your fellow study it is obviously a great act. But if he was a believing Jew yesterday, and today he is the same believing Jew -- just slightly more knowledgeable -- how have you "created" him?

The Netziv answers that Torah study is unlike every other mitzvah. (In a way this class may seem repetitive to previous ones in this chapter. But we are dealing with a fundamental -- really, what makes us Jews -- well worth the entire chapter devoted to it.) If I help someone perform a mitzvah -- say how to don tefillin (phylacteries) -- he is helped in that way alone. As great a mitzvah it is, the "helped" is only one mitzvah better than he was before. Torah study, however, is very different. If I teach you so much as one letter of Torah, you are not only helped in that one particular. You become a new and transformed person -- entirely new horizons have opened before you -- and in a way I have created you anew.

Torah study is not a collection of thoughts or information. It is a link and connection to G-d Himself. Every part of the Torah forges that connection in its own way. One can study what would otherwise seem the driest and most technical part of the Torah (the classic example invoked at such points is, "If an ox gores a cow..." (Mishna Bava Kama 5:1)), and find himself becoming a more sensitive, caring person. (One needs only see how enthused and energized yeshiva students become when delving into such subjects -- how their very souls become ignited with the word of G-d. Imagine, conversely, studying such detailed civil law of any other legal code -- without falling asleep.) Torah study has this effect on an individual. It is not only the knowledge per se. It is that link to the infinite, one which both awakens and overwhelms. It takes the entire person -- by his soul -- and transforms him into a greater, wiser, and more sanctified human being.

Kahane-Was-Right BT:
Re:  Are the sages infallible?

No.  They're not.   No person is infallible.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page