I've heard that nevuah ended about 2000 years ago when the last neviim died. But I've also heard that Rashi had some kind of nevuah. If he didn't, then how could Rashi know so much hidden knowledge about the Torah without nevuah? Did nevuah actually end?
Asked
Active
Viewed 764 times
3
-
11Can you provide examples of how could Rashi know so much hidden knowledge about the Torah? Mostly it's paraphrasing Midrash and/or Targum Jonathan/Yerushalmi. – Danny Schoemann Feb 04 '16 at 10:42
-
Rashi's hidden knowledge is not neccesarily a function of any form of Nevuah. Besides the Medrashim he quotes constantly, Rashi was the heir to a rich oral tradition dating back to...Sinai. That is what he learned in the German schools, and that is what he based his commentary on. – LN6595 Feb 04 '16 at 20:46
-
1@LN6595 rashi's mesorah is a bit of an open question. It can be reliably traced to Yehuda HaKohen ben Meir, at which point it becomes contentious. http://judaism.stackexchange.com/a/29145/9629 – Yoel Fievel Ben Avram Feb 04 '16 at 22:31
2 Answers
15
Unfortunately, indeed we do not have prophets today, and Chazal say that the last prophets were Hagai, Zecharia and Malachi.
Rashi's momentous perush on most of the Bible and most of the gemara speak for themselves, however here are a few quotes (loose translations by me, except for the last Rashi) about his special work (this list can go on forever):
כי בכל דיבור ודיבור של רש"י יש בו נסתרים, עניינים מופלאים, כי חיבר החיבור שלו ברוח הקודש.
Because each and every word by Rashi contains hidden and wonderful things, as he composed his perush with Ruach HaKodesh.
ומכלל הדברים נראה שרש"י כתב פרושו ע"פ הסוד ויש בדבריו רזין עילאין ולכן התענה תרי"ג תעניות ומשה רבנו עליו השלום אמר לו אשריך וכו'.
And it seems that Rashi wrote his commentary based on the Torah Secrets (sod), and it contains heavenly secrets (razin ilain), and therefore he fasted 613 fasts, and Moshe Rabbenu said to him 'well done' (ashrecha).
Or HaChayim (BeMidbar 26, 16):
ורש"י ז"ל רוח הקודש הופיע בו...
שרש"י זכרונו לברכה הוא כמו אחיה של התורה הקדושה...
That Rashi z"l is like the brother of the holy Torah.
Rabbi Menachem ben Zerach, Tzeda LaDerech:
ושרתה רה"ק על רבינו שלמה וגברה ידו בגמ' וחבר פירושים על הבבלי בלשון צח וקצר אשר לפניו לא קם כמוהו ואלמלא הוא נשתכחה דרך הבבלי מישראל.
And Ruach HaKodesh lay on Rabbenu Shelomo and his hand was strong in the gemara, and he composed commentaries on the Bavli in a short and clear tongue, and there was no one like him before, and without him the Bavli would have been forgotten from the people of Israel.
And we can conclude with Rashi on himself:
ואני לא היה לי לא רב ולא עוזר בכל הבנין הזה אלא כמו שהראוני מן השמים
And I had no teacher or aid concerning this entire edifice; only as they showed me from heaven.
Cauthon
- 3,845
- 1
- 12
- 18
-
1
-
4No, it isn't. That's why I started off with the fact that there's no prophecy today (nor was there in Rashi's time). But one could think of Ruach HaKodesh as a lesser level of prophecy. – Cauthon Feb 04 '16 at 11:42
-
1Off topic it says .חכם עדיף מנביא translation smart man who learnt torah is more then a navi. – Nachmen Feb 04 '16 at 13:10
-
2Why not include less favorable reviews of rashi, such as ibn ezra, or mention the numerous disagreements with rashi that would undermine the claim of even ruah haqadosh? – Yoel Fievel Ben Avram Feb 04 '16 at 19:18
-
4@ShamanSTK I didn't mean to give a complete overview of Rashi and how he is considered in the eyes of Chachmey Yisrael, only to convey that even though he wasn't a prophet, many consider him to have had ruach hakodesh. Of course, many commentators disagreed with him as well (Tosfot, Ramban, Ibn Ezra, and more). Having ruach hakodesh by the way does not mean that the truth lies only there, as we learn from "לא בשמים היא" etc. – Cauthon Feb 04 '16 at 19:31
-
2@Cauthon That is a very inaccurate understanding of that phrase. That is a legalistic point that legal rulings are issued by men, which is entirely irrelevant to the question of ruah haqadosh. Ruah haqadosh does imply the inability to contest it. See Moreh Nevukim II:45. Ketuvim were written with ruah haqadosh, and they cannot be disagreed with. – Yoel Fievel Ben Avram Feb 04 '16 at 19:51
-
3@ShamanSTK I disagree. The term ruach hokodesh is used in many places with different meanings. There's the halacha point of view that you mentioned, but there are also philosophical ideas that were conveyed under the influence of ruach hakodesh, yet even so they are contested (Rabbi Yossef Karo's Magid, and others). The ruach hakodesh you mentioned (Ketuvim) is a higher form which is considered closer to prophecy. Some gedolim say that rabbis today may have ruach hakodesh, and of course they don't mean the same as the "Ketuvim".. – Cauthon Feb 04 '16 at 19:57
-
1@Cauthon I have brought a source that disagrees with your contentions. Do you have a source among the kadmonim that philosophical ideas can be conveyed via ruah haqadosh? – Yoel Fievel Ben Avram Feb 04 '16 at 20:00
-
1@ShamanSTK Ruach Hakodesh is a very broad spectrum. As Cauthon said, the level used in Ketuvim, the level used in Rashi, and the level of modern day gedolim are all different. – LN6595 Feb 04 '16 at 20:44
-
2@LN6595 I'm not arguing; I asked for a source from the kadmonim that either 1) disagrees with the rambam, or 2) redefines ruah haqadosh such that it could reasonably be asserted that rashi has it. – Yoel Fievel Ben Avram Feb 04 '16 at 20:57
-
3Regarding the last line, it was a common literary device in his day and is not evidence that he considered himself the recipient of any sort of divine revelation. – mevaqesh Feb 04 '16 at 21:25
-
1@ShamanSTK 2 of the sources quoted above (The Shela and the Tzeda Laderech) both describe Rashi with the term Ruach Hakodesh, and the others imply at the least some sort of spiritual guidance. Presumably no one considered Rashi a Navi in the Biblical sense, so they must have used the term 'Ruach Hakodesh' to refer to some other form of divine assistance. – Salmononius2 Feb 04 '16 at 23:28
-
@Salmononius2 yes, they were there before I posted asking for sources. Read my comments for what I'm looking for. – Yoel Fievel Ben Avram Feb 04 '16 at 23:36
-
2The quote from Ohr Hachayim is extremely misleading given that the opposite at length in a technical comment elsewhere. Evidently, this flowery appellation utilizes typical rabbinic exaggeration; e.g. כל רז לא אניס ליה, etc etc. If anything it ought to encourage the reader to reconsider some of these other sources, and wonder whether ir not they too were simply utilizing a common rabbinic honorific, rather than attempting to make some technical statement about the nature of Rashi's revelation. – mevaqesh Feb 05 '16 at 20:00
-
1Cancelling out their words by calling them honorifics can go a long way. Their words are clear and to the point. There are other opinions of course, but not accepting the above as what they are is simply turning a blind eye in my opinion.. – Cauthon Feb 06 '16 at 06:53
-
2@Cauthon It's not cancelling. There's no way they (or anyone) thought he was using the same inspirational technique as Ezra was, and also they (and everyone) had exceptionally high respect for him. We can play all the semantic games you want with the words "Ruach HaKodesh" but we all know exactly what they meant. Even all the Rishonim who argued on him vigorously would agree to that, and they all (myself included) mean it as serious praise, not a problem. However you want to understand God's hand working in history, Rashi's works are clearly moving things in the right direction. – Double AA Apr 04 '16 at 02:29
-
1@DoubleAA As mentioned before, I did not say that the level of ruach hakodesh was the same as Ezra's, but there are indeed different levels (as explicitly written in the tana devei Eliyahu, and other sources), and all I said was that some do say that Rashi has some level of it. I don't think these are semantic games - you're right that they meant to praise Rashi, but that doesn't mean they didn't mean what they said. – Cauthon Apr 04 '16 at 06:31
-
1@Cau How can you think these arent semantic games when you just had semantic arguments with multiple people about the phrase? Sure you can call it RHK if you want, but its so far removed from any classical kind of RHK that presenting it as such without qualification is to most people, who dont grasp the differences, misleading. The Rishonm in this answer assumed people would get it (and indeed to many of us their meaning is obvious). Unfortunately many people nowadays dont so this answer is hence misleading, and your comments emphasizing the "literal" nature of these quotes are incredibly so. – Double AA Apr 04 '16 at 14:08
-
1@DoubleAA "semantic games" and "semantic arguments" are not one and the same. I did not call it ruach hakodesh, those sources did. I simply am of the opinion that their meaning should not be interepreted as a totally different meaning than their actual words. I think it is simpler to understand that ruach hakodesh doesn't mean just one specific level of spirituality, simpler at least than to conveniently say that it's "not actually" ruach hakodesh. If the phrase has a complex meaning, it still shouldn't be simplified by explaining it in a completely different way. – Cauthon Apr 04 '16 at 14:14
-
@Cauthon That entire comment was just meaningless word games, and if you don't see that then it makes sense that you also don't see how this answer post is quite misleading to many people. – Double AA Apr 04 '16 at 15:37
-
-
@Cauthon Discussions that revolve around word games are generally not beautiful, but wasteful to all involved. Wikipedia even has a whole page about it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_dispute – Double AA Apr 04 '16 at 15:46
-
1@DoubleAA Discussions that revolve around word meanings are actually very importnat in Jewish literature. I think that if you'd ask the people involved in the discussion, most would say that it wasn't wasteful, and that is why they expressed their opinions. – Cauthon Apr 04 '16 at 15:49
-
@Cauthon You now are making a word game out of the phrase "word game". I'm unimpressed. If you'd spend more time trying to describe what it is that's unique about Rashi's work instead of debating how literally some Rishon meant a specific accolade, this answer might become useful. Insisting on certain meanings of words when they clearly don't carry a uniform connotation in the popular mind is not only childish, but confusing and hence wasteful. Find a clearly way to make your point if you want it to be useful. – Double AA Apr 04 '16 at 15:54
-
1@DoubleAA The OP asked about a term related to RH, and I brought sources who use this term to describe Rashi's work. A discussion about what it means to have RH is a wider one, and should be discussed separately. You can state your opinion that the mentioned sources didn't mean it literally, but then again, you could be wrong. Calling this discussion a "word game" means either you don't understand the importance of the meanings of words in Hebrew, or you simply want to force your opinion over others'. Anyway, I too don't think this is going anywhere, so I won't be commenting here anymore. – Cauthon Apr 04 '16 at 16:03
-
@Cauthon Indeed your sources are relevant, no doubt, but without proper interpretation they are liable to be misunderstood. A good start at an answer (though most it is probably better as a comment as is; hopefully you can complete it at some point). – Double AA Apr 04 '16 at 16:07
2
No. Rashi was a tremendously great scholar and recipient of oral traditions from the schools of Germany, but he did not receive supernatural ruah hakodesh.
The Ohr Hahaim (who lived a few centuries after Rashi) writes in his commentary to Genesis (6: 3) that after the destruction of the Temple prophecy ceased but Ruach Hakodesh continued. (I presume this refers to Chazal; the sages of the Talmud). Afterwards, however, there is no ruah hakodesh, and there is not even traces of "reiah hakodesh".
"Afterwards" seems to refer to the post-Talmudic era. (References to "these days" to refer to the post-Talmudic era are common in rabbinic literature):
ומשחרב המעון נסתם חזון ונשארה בחינת רוח הקודש, וכשנסתתמו עיני ישראל אין אתנו משיג ריח הקודש ואין צריך לומר רוח הקודש
A more limited form of his statement can be found in the Tosefta Sota (13:3), Bavli Sotah (48b) and Sanhedrin (11a) which states that after Haggai Zekharia and Malakhi died, ruah hakodesh was removed from Israel.
Note also the following passage penned by R. Dr. Haym Soloveitchik :
Most people...have heard in their childhood-the story goes back to the fourteenth-century Spain-that Rashi's commentary was written be-ruah hakodesh (inspired by the Holy Spirit.) Plausibly enough, for how else could he have known all of the minute details of the countless Talmudic narratives, not to speak of is command of the underlying concepts of all the talmudic discussion...? I here suggest that these astonishing feats can be explained without recourse to miracles-a proposal, if you wish, by a litavk to counter claims of the Holy Spirit. [2]
He proceeds to frame Rashi's knowledge as stemming from tradition.
[2] The 'Third Yeshiva of Bavel'. Published in Collected Writings II page 151.
mevaqesh
- 35,599
- 2
- 98
- 176
-
This may be Or Hachayim's opinion, which is indeed interesting, but it is definitely not the majority's opinion. Tons of sources exist from the Talmud through Rishonim and Achronim that describe ruach hakodesh throughout all periods of time. – Cauthon Feb 04 '16 at 23:35
-
2@Cauthon The table is tilted against the Ohr Hachaim since if others agreed with him; that there is no Ruach Hakodesh, they would generally be silent. They are much more likely to be vocal if they disagree, as it gives them something to talk about. Accordingly, we cannot know how many nameless rabbinic greats silently agreed with him. Indeed we can deduce that he was not alone in this from the fact that the nice survey you presented shows that the view of ruach hakodesh being around is primarily stated by mystical Acharonim and Chassidim. The silence of others is telling. – mevaqesh Feb 04 '16 at 23:58
-
1That is a very interesting point of view, however I did not collect sources here who think that ruach hakodesh still exists, but only those who specifically stated that Rashi had it. I do believe that there are many more "balanced" sources that believe in ruach hakodesh today, in some form. And besides, what of midrash sources such as "שכל מי שמוסר עצמו על ישראל זוכה לכבוד ולגדולה ולרוח הקודש", and "מעיד אני עלי את השמים ואת הארץ בין ישראל בין עכו"ם בין איש בין אשה בין עבד ובין שפחה הכל לפי המעשה שהוא עושה כך רוח הקודש שורה עליו" (Tanchuma and Tana Devei Eliyahu). – Cauthon Feb 05 '16 at 00:06
-
Please also see Or Hachayim on Bemidbar 26, 16: "ורש"י ז"ל רוח הקודש הופיע בו" :) – Cauthon Feb 05 '16 at 00:15
-
2@Cauthon The last source is very interesting and entertaining. It seems that the likeliest answer is that in Numbers he is simply using the flowery poetic style typical of rabbinic honorifics, given that his commentary to Genesis is lengthy and explicit. – mevaqesh Feb 05 '16 at 03:37
-
My opinion is the exact opposite. Taking into account the greater part of rabbinic texts (of all types), it seems to me that the quote from Bereshit is the flowery one, to depict the great loss. – Cauthon Feb 05 '16 at 09:18
-
1@Cauthon Read through the comment on Breishit. There is nothing flowery about it. It is technical in nature and lengthy. It is certainly a more informative source for gleaning ibn Attar's opinion, than noting a singular poetic appellation. – mevaqesh Feb 05 '16 at 19:55
-
@Cauthon Using the writings of his successors, especially students of radically different worldviews, to determne his view is IMHO a methodology that ignores historic reality and espouses the ahistoric approach of studying all rabbis from all regions, and of all intellectual schools and from all periods as belonging to a single homogeneous group. That is, you are welcome to follow later Hassidic writers; but don't shoehorn earlier writers who preached the opposite, into the Hassidic mold. – mevaqesh Feb 05 '16 at 19:56
-
I did read through the text on Bereshit. And there still is a contradiction in his words and one has to decide which is the one to "ignore". There are rock-hard principles that are stable throughout all chachmey Yisrael's teachings (again, not just Hassidic ones which are a very small part), and the existence of some form of ruach hakodesh to this day is in my opinion one of them. – Cauthon Feb 06 '16 at 06:48
-
@Cauthon do you have a single source for this " rock-hard principles that are stable throughout all chachmey Yisrael's teachings" in any Rishonim before the 14th century (preferably an actual conversation; akin to the Ohr Hachaim) rather than a mere flowery appellation which provides little evidence given the tendency towards such titles prevalent in the last millennia of literature)? – mevaqesh Feb 07 '16 at 01:10
-
Unfortunately this goes beyond my time limits. It is a very interesting subject, but it would take me too much time to delve into this and find the needed sources to support what I said. I will leave it for now, still thinking that we're arguing about different types of ruach hakodesh (the higher, prophecy-like level, which Or HaChayim probably meant in Bereshit, as opposed to a divine influence on one's thoughts and limud Torah, which he meant in his comment about Rashi). This also reconciles other contradictions in the gemara about this. – Cauthon Feb 07 '16 at 16:35
-