4

Tons of Jewish responsa (incl. this site) is based on a common belief/premise that the Talmudic Sages knew what they say and that everything they said is true - אמונת חכמים (see this question on this term). While it is difficult to classify all Talmudic statements, I'd like to distinguish between Halachic and factual ones.

  • Halachic statements rule Halochos - this thing is Kosher or Mutar or liable, etc. The Sages had the full Heavenly authority to rule the Halochos and we are obligated to follow them, which also includes Hashkafah and Mussar issues (thanks @Micha). This is out of the question.

  • Factual statements (this is so and so or this happened so and so) describe the world, its history, and its phenomena. My question is strictly about factual statements, for example "צלופחד הוא המקושש" or "there are billions of stars out there" or "snake is pregnant for 7 years" or "lice create spontaneously".

We can clearly see from the Talmud itself that the Sages did not accept axiomatically each other's opinions and argued strenuously, frequently relying on common non-Jewish knowledge. I know that this remained disputable and many late Rabbis did not accept many Talmudic statements, Rambam didn't canonize it in his principles, and some of the statements were proven as "very hard to reconcile with our empirical knowledge".

But eventually, in common perception, אמונת חכמים was expanded by some to the domain of knowledge also, beyond the realm of Halachah.

I would like to know the earliest source for the claim of אמונת חכמים expands to trusting Sages' knowledge. Did Tannayim or Amorayim themselves say that their knowledge is absolute and indisputable? Were it Gaonim, Rishonim or Achronim?

Al Berko
  • 25,936
  • 2
  • 22
  • 57
  • 2
    possibly a duplicate of https://judaism.stackexchange.com/q/11617/170 – msh210 Jul 29 '19 at 21:28
  • @msh210 Thank you I edited the question. I'd like to narrow it down ONLY to the realm of empiric knowledge. Would you help me to phrase the question more clearly? If we don't have a solid base for this claim, we should be more flexible when arguing on scientific topics. – Al Berko Jul 30 '19 at 04:46
  • If you're asking for the first clear reference to rabbinic infallibility, you might want to clarify as such. The first answer seems to assume you're looking for the earliest reference that the rabbis received divine inspiration. – Loewian Jul 30 '19 at 13:47
  • @Loewian Maybe, but only to relation to plain knowledge, not Halachic rulings. – Al Berko Jul 30 '19 at 16:31
  • 1
    But are you asking for the earliest source that the Sages are trustworthy regarding general knowledge or infallible? See, e.g.: https://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/37196/are-the-works-of-maimonides-treated-as-divinely-inspired – Loewian Jul 30 '19 at 17:43
  • Do you really want to say "halakhah", to the exclusion of hashkafah or mussar? (Or any other subtypes of aggadita beyond those two I cannot think of?) – Micha Berger Jul 31 '19 at 14:18
  • I can give you three URLs:

    Anti Daas Torah: http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/cohen_DaatTorah.pdf

    A pro-DT reply: http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/observ-on-daat.html

    And R Aharon Lichtenstein affirming the principle, but saying it hasn't had application since the passing of gedolim like R SZ Auerbach: http://etzion.gush.net/vbm/archive/17-sichot/%20RAL-im-ein-daat-manhigut-minayan.pdf

     – Micha Berger Jul 31 '19 at 14:20
  • @MichaBerger THanks, included that in the Q. – Al Berko Jul 31 '19 at 17:39
  • See http://www.zootorah.com/RationalistJudaism/SodHashem.pdf – robev Aug 13 '19 at 21:05
  • The general rule is that the rabbis all always correct regarding things woth halachic law but not always correct regarding things like stories or science. Additionally men like Mechamen Kellner does not think the sage are infallible even in halachic law! Nevertheless we should observe Judaism (Commandments) as the rabbis explain. – Turk Hill Aug 13 '19 at 22:45
  • @TurkHill Please stop preaching, this site is for sharing knowledge not promoting ideas and making Teshuva. – Al Berko Aug 17 '19 at 21:32
  • @AlBerko I’m not preaching. I’m sharing information which is imperative. And who ever said anything about Teshuva, though good to make. – Turk Hill Aug 18 '19 at 03:57
  • I once heard that emunat chachamim doesn't mean saying their words are false is blasphemous. Rather, it means that when we are learning from a Sage, we don't start with kashes. As the teacher is teaching, we just accept everything he states as true and don't analyse it with no scepticism or lack of trust. This enables us to get into the lesson properly. Once we have truly absorbed and understood the lesson as the teacher intended it, then we are able to ask kashes and whatnot. This is the secret to our success as a nation of the book, as this is the only proper way to learn... – Rabbi Kaii Jan 11 '23 at 15:49
  • ... as we see from nowadays in the social media age, nobody even bothers to listen to the other side, and if they do, it's only the first 2 sentences until they feel they have "figured out" what the person is "really" saying, which is then shamelessly stereotyped, mocked and attacked. – Rabbi Kaii Jan 11 '23 at 15:50

1 Answers1

2

I like to point out that the Gemara Sotah 4b gives you multiple options on this:

א"ר יצחק בר <רב> יוסף א"ר יוחנן כל אחד ואחד בעצמו שיער והאיכא בן עזאי דלא נסיב איבעית אימא נסיב ופירש הוה ואיבעית אימא מרביה שמיע ליה ואיבעית אימא (תהילים כה) סוד ה' ליראיו

Several rabbis were discussing the minimum time that if a woman was secluded with a man, it's possible they had relations; each gave a different answer.

Said R. Yitzchak bar Yosef in the name of Rabbi Yochanan: eacho f these rabbis' numbers came from their own [intimate] experience. But what about Ben Azai, who never married?! If you want, you could say he married [briefly], then separated; if you want, you could say he heard it from his teacher [R. Akiva]; and if you want, you could apply Psalms 25 -- G-d gave His secret to those who fear Him.

So the Talmud is giving you the option of believing that his study of "pure" Torah mystically imparted him with empirical knowledge that he'd never otherwise know; it also gives you the option to not go there.

By the way that phrase from Psalms was invoked in the vigorous discussion between the late Rabbis Yisrael Shapira and Aharon Lichteinstein zt"l concerning disengagement from Gaza; if I recall correctly Rabbi Lichtenstein felt it was arrogant for any armchair rabbi today to wield it and claim perfect knowledge of military/political outcomes.

Shalom
  • 132,602
  • 8
  • 193
  • 489
  • A very interesting source. But on the second sight, were they discussing the empirical or Halachic reality/truth (time to finish). Were they talking about the average time, minimum? Maybe a special interval can be set as de-jure TTF, say 150 seconds no-matter-what. – Al Berko Jul 30 '19 at 20:07
  • Anyway, it is a very important source for Rabbinical indifferenticy to the sources of their claims, I would even mark it as accepted, but I'd like to hear additional opinions. Thank you very much, it was very helpful. – Al Berko Jul 30 '19 at 20:15
  • Interestingly, this passage proves another point - none of them had the tradition they all speculated on a topic that wasn't passed along with the tradition – Al Berko Jul 30 '19 at 20:18
  • In בכורות ח ע"ב we see that, at least in some cases, Chazal considered their knowledge (of a snakes gestation period) to be better than Greek knowledge. – Mordechai Aug 13 '19 at 21:29