[Avodah] Looking for sources about Chazal's Ruach Hakodesh

[Gershon Seif]

<<the Zohar would be a great barometer for judging this - regardless of
its origins.>>

skeptics would likely not agree.

<<Tangentially, IIRC an early Ashk'nazi Rishon commented that the Hilchos
Alfasi were written b'ruach haqodesh....>>

it would be nice to have more specific details about that

[Email #2. -mi]

Someone who accepts the authority of chazal, the Geonim and Rishonim,
but looks at all esoteric statements of even chazal as allegory, and
uses the Mahartz Chajes as his reason for this, is not interested in
hearing from the zohar as an expert about anything. This person wants
sources from the halachic tradition itself stating that past the times
of Nevuah, and Chagai, Zecharia and Malachi, Ruach haKodesh was imbued
in chazal. Telling them about the experts of esoteric Torah is almost
laughable to them. It is circular reasoning. They agree to be bound
to Nevuah. That is the basis of the authority of the the Torah and
halacha. But beyond that, they wonder and want proof.

[Email #3. -mi]

[Micha:]
> In practice, such people are rare among O. You would be talking about
> someone who doesn't alternate hands three times when washing neigl vasr,
> which he doesn't necessarily wash until right before Shacharis. Washing
> before haMotzi would be equally vanilla.

Your point about negel vasser is a good point and I was also wondering
about that. The person I'm talking to certainly washes neigel vasser and
I assume he would never stop doing so. It's in the mishna b'rura but I
wonder why he would feel bound to the mishna berura if he is doubting
these fundamentals the mishna berura assumes are fact.

(Not that this would mean much to him, but as I recall, there's a story
in Shivchei HaBesh"t where the baal shem tov met up with a frog who was
a gilgul stuck in the body of this frog. He revealed to the BS"T that
all his sins started when he became lax in netilas Yadayim. Maybe it's
connected to this question of yours.)

As for your point about Hamotzi though, isn't washing before hamotzi a
takkana of chazal atu tumma with truma? Why would someone who accepts
the authority of chazal have a problem with that?

[Email #4. -mi]

Skeptics have a hard time dealing with the esoteric. So to say to a
skeptic "The Zohar, of questionable authorship to you, is the expert on
matter of the esoteric, which you don't understand or comprehend and
have no way of validating by using your reasoning, you must trust us
when we say this book knows about that stuff the best", means very little.

[Email #5. -mi]

Thank you Rabbi Eidensohn for your list of sources.

Of course the person that I am discussing this with will reject the Leshem
unless he considers his point to be absolutely convincing, which he will
not. The same goes for the letters of the Chazon Ish which don't show
us why he knows this, theyjust say these are ikarim and to not believe
this if kefira.

<<Bava Basra (12a): See *Ramban and Chasam Sofer>> looking forward to
learning this up.

<<*Sanhedrin (11a):**With *the death of the last prophets?Chagai,
Zechariah and Malachi?ruach hakodesh left the Jews. Nevertheless, they
still were able to utilize Bas Kol>>

Is Bas Kol the equivalent or greater than Ruach Hakodesh? Is there a
source for that?

<<*Chasam Sofer (1:208):*

*Meshech Chochma (Vayikra 26:44):*>>

I will look those up and get back to you if I have some questions.

Thanks again

[Email #6. -mi]

<<See the Hakdama of Rav Reuvein Margoliyas to his edition of the Sefer
"Shu"t Min HaShomayim">>

Sounds intriguing. It's not the kind of sefer you see in most Batei
Medrash. I might just order one. Is there a long list of what I'm after
in there?