In a previous post we discussed the contention that since rishonim and acharonim had Ruach Hakodesh, it is legitimate to explain their words in a manner other than the one they themselves indicate that they meant it. The earliest source to this idea that I have been able to find is from Teshuvos Hamabit.
It has been claimed that this idea comes out of the Chasssidic world and that it represents another instance of "mystical" chassidic ideas penetrating the"rational" world of the misnagdim. The source in the Mabit seems to belie this, as does the following story of its application in way not usual from a devoted chossid. It is R. Hillel miParitch refusing to accept the Tsemach Tsedek's interpretation of his own maamor on the grounds that since "when the Rebbe says maamor, it is not he who is speaking but Shechina is speaking though him. However, once he said it, it is Torah and one is obligated to understand it to the best of his abilities and not through accepting explanations on kabbolas ol. So now he Rebbe understands this Torah this way and I understand it another way."
Pdf of this story, here:
This story illustrates that the claim that words of rishonim and acharonim are based on Ruach Hakodesh cuts both way - to not being able to argue with them but also to being able to reinterpret them even against their own testimony. It also betrays an understanding of Ruach Hakodesh as an externally imposed message that has nothing to do with the receiver's own intellect, imagination or personality. This is problematic in terms of the picture of prophecy presented in classic sources.
could you explain in english what this means, "since rishonim and acharonim had Ruach Hakodesh, it is legitimate to explain their words in a manner other than the one they themselves indicate that they meant it." i think i'd like to criticize and disagree but first i need to have this restated so that it means something
Posted by: tzvee | January 04, 2009 at 01:03 PM
As R. Hillel Mi Paritch explained it - since it came into their minds from the outside, from Heaven, they themselves did not fully understand it. We can explain their statements as if they were simply conduits, not authors, of what they said. They have no greater insight into their own teaching than anybody else.
Posted by: avakesh | January 04, 2009 at 01:53 PM
that's not much of an improvement, sorry to say. still incoherent. if you are saying that medieval sages were channeling incoherent messages from another source, then i have to say i never heard such a concept before in judaism and i do have some frequent student miles racked up. this conduit claim is basically saying my nonsense is not nonsense it is divine inspiration. you want to run off with that go ahead. i'll say so long to you and stand here at the starting line.
Posted by: tzvee | January 04, 2009 at 06:49 PM
Perhaps it would help to look at the original post, which I meant to highlight/link and neglected to do. I did it now, my apologies.
Posted by: avakesh | January 04, 2009 at 07:47 PM