[Avodah] Fwd: Rabbi Mordechai Willig - Rabbinic Error

[Micha Berger]

Interesting... R Mordechai Willing goes beyond emunas chakhamim on
halakhah and religious guidance and into daas Torah territory in a
defense of turning to gedolei Torah. Even cites RYBS in favor.

His focus, though is on defending the idea in the presence of other
gedolei Torah who made such fundamental errors during Corona. Basically,
that's not your problem; find a rav you personally can trust.

    Rabbinic error, then, can be responsible for the loss of life r"l.
    Whatever the reason, we must learn the bitter lesson and be vigilant...

    In the absence of the Sanhedrin, there is no majority rule amongst
    gedolim. One can choose a gadol, or his disciple, as his rav (see
    Pillars). In communal matters, the greatest gedolim should be our
    guides, in strictly halacha as well as in halachic policy decisions.
    Recent gedolim, from the Chazon Ish (Pe'er HaDor vol. 5 p. 52,53) to Rav
    Soloveitchik, (Yalkut Hamoadim p. 711, Divrei Hagos V'Ha'arach, p.187)
    have expressed this notion (even though they differ in their reaction
    to those who only defer to gedolim on strictly halachic matters.)

    Notwithstanding rabbinic fallibility, obeying the rulings and advice
    of one's rav is the better alternative, as the Chinuch teaches. May
    we learn these lessons and thereby merit the return of the Sanhedrin
    with the coming of the Mashiach.

(Anyone want to share with the chevrah scans of those mar'eh meqomos?
If you email me pictures, can put them up on aishdas.org and share
the URLs.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2021 19:33:39 -0400
From: torahweb at torahweb.org
Subject: Rabbi Mordechai Willig - Rabbinic Error

Rabbi Mordechai Willig
RABBINIC ERROR

I

> "That they [the Rabbis of the Sanhedrin in Yerushalayim] will teach
> you and the judgment that they will say to you shall you do. Do not
> stray from the word that they will tell you, right or left" (Devarim
> 17:11).

The Ramban, based on Rashi, explains that even if it is obvious to you
that the Rabbis are mistaken, you must do as they command; what Hashem
commanded is to perform His mitzvos as understood by the Sanhedrin, even
if they err in your eyes as one who exchanges right for left. Moreover,
you should think that they are correct, as Hashem protects them from
mistakes. There is a great need for this mitzvah for otherwise there
will be many (unresolved) disputes and many Torahs.

The Chinuch (496) adds that even if they err we should act according to
their error. It is better to suffer one error and have everyone subject
to their leadership always, than have everyone act according to his own
opinion. This would destroy the religion, split the people and undo the
nation completely. The Chinuch concludes that we must obey the gedolim in
Torah wisdom and our judges in our generation. Earlier (495) he concludes
that one who does not follow the advice (atzas) of the gedolim of the
generation in Torah wisdom violates this mitzvah. His punishment is great,
since this mitzvah is the strong pillar on which the Torah rests.

II

"If all of Israel will err, and a matter was hidden from the eyes of the
people, and they ruled that a serious Kares violation is permitted, and
the people sinned based on their ruling" (Vayikra 4:13 with Rashi). The
possibility that the Sanhedrin (the eyes of the people) err is thus
acknowledged by the Torah. Since the people properly followed the
Sanhedrin, each "sinner" is exempt from the korban chatas required of
one who commits such a sin unintentionally. Instead, when the mistake
becomes known, a single offering is brought for the entire nation, with
the participation of members of the Sanhedrin (4:14-15 with Rashi). This
reinforces the ideas expressed by the Ramban and the Chinuch in Parshas
Shoftim, regardless of whether such a serious error ever happened or not.

The Gemara (Gittin 56a) attributes the destruction of the second Bais
Hamikdash to an apparent[1] rabbinic error by R' Zecharya ben Avkulas. He
should have allowed a blemished offering to be brought as pikuach nefesh
demands, or ordered Bar Kamtza killed (Rashi) as a rodef. Some explain
that he was exceedingly humble (anvesanuso), and felt he was not qualified
to make such a difficult decision (Maharatz Chayos). Others suggest that
he was by nature indecisive (as in Tosefta Shabbos 17:4).).

The Chasam Sofer defends R' Zecharya by explaining that until that
incident it was unthinkable that a Jew would react to a small indignity by
actually slandering the Jews with a false accusation that they rebelled
against the Roman authorities. In retrospect, Bar Kamtza should not have
been embarrassed by another Jew, and R' Zecharya should have recognized
that there was in fact real danger to life. Henceforth, one should always
fear the consequences of his action or inaction (55b, Tosfos d.h. Ashrei).

The Kovetz He'aros (49:7,8) suggests a halachic error. The Rabbis wanted
to offer the blemished animal for the sake of peace with the Roman
kingdom, i.e. pikuach nefesh. R' Zecharya responded, "They will say a
blemished animal may be offered." If so, a violation will occur when
life is not in danger. This halachic argument, however, is incorrect,
since causing a sin (lifnei iver) is also set aside for pikuach nefesh.

In sum, R' Zecharya's error may have been halachic, similar to one of
Sanhedrin in Parshas Vayikra. Or, it may have been excessive humility,
indecisiveness, or a faultless inability to imagine an unprecedented
threat to life.

III

Later (56b), R' Yochanan ben Zakai (RYB"Z) asks the Roman general
Vespasian for Yavne and its scholars, R' Gamliel's family, and a doctor
to heal R' Tzadok. R' Akiva criticized RYB"Z, arguing that he should have
asked Vespasian to spare Yeushalayim. RYB"Z thought Vespasian would not
have agreed to such a great request, and settled for a small salvation
(hatzala purta).

R' Akiva invoked the pasuk (Yeshayahu 44:25), "Hashem turns wise men
backwards and their thinking foolish." In his view, RYB"Z made a colossal
error in judgement, not in halacha. Usually, the advice of gedolei Torah
is unerring. One who learns Torah lishma merits many things. From him
is the benefit of counsel (eitza) and wisdom (Avos 6:1). Only Hashem's
intervention caused RYB"Z to make an unwise decision.

But was it really unwise? Perhaps R' Akiva was wrong, and Vespasian
would not have granted a request to spare Yerushalayim! This can never
be proven or disproven. On his deathbed, RYB"Z did not know his fate
in the afterlife (Brachos 28b). He was still unsure if his momentous
decision was correct or not (Rav Soloveitchik, Chamesh Derashos, p. 35).

Errors have been attributed to great rabbanim over the generations, in
halacha and in advice. Yet, as the Chinuch writes, we are duty-bound to
follow gedolei Torah in every generation in both areas, as the alternative
is halachic anarchy and, usually, poorer advice. Major errors are the
exception, and, per R' Akiva, result from Divine Intervention. During
the past century, such mistakes of great Rabbonim, in the face of
unprecedented dangers, may be errors only retrospectively, as the Chasam
Sofer explains.

IV

Parshas Shoftim concludes with the egla arufa. The elders, i.e. the
Sanhedrin (Rashi 21:2), say "Our hands have not spilled this blood (of
the victim, 21:1) and our eyes did not see (21:7)." Would you think
that the Sanhedrin are murderers? Rather, [they are declaring that ]
we did not see him leaving and did not send him off without food and
without escort (Rashi, from Sotah 45b).

Sforno (21:4) writes that the killer was unknown to the Sanhedrin. Had
they known, they would have eliminated him. They did not spill blood
(21:7) means that they did not leave any known murderer in the land.

What if they did not escort the victim, or eliminate a known murderer? R'
Chaim Kanievsky (Nachal Eisan 15:2) rules that in such a situation they
cannot say "Our hands etc.," and perhaps cannot perform the egla arufa
ritual at all.

In a recent letter (24 Tishrei 5781) R' Asher Weiss wrote: We are ashamed
that each day people, including great rabbis, pass away from COVID-19,
and we cannot say "Our hands did not spill this blood." This presumably
refers to rabbanim who did not take and require precautions in the face
of the plague, as their illustrious predecessors, from Talmudic times
through the 19th century, did with alacrity. We must be more strict than
the government, not less.

Rabbinic error, then, can be responsible for the loss of life r"l.
Whatever the reason, we must learn the bitter lesson and be vigilant
in the face of the recent uptick in COVID-19 (through the Delta
variant). Proper medical and halachic rulings, and advice, must be
followed (see Rabbi Mayer Twersky, Do not be Exceedingly Righteous).

The Chinuch applies the mitzvah to obey the Sanhedrin to the rulings
and advice of gedolim in Torah wisdom of every generation. While the
definition of a gadol b'Torah is not precise, practices not sanctioned
by any gadol may not be adopted.

In the absence of the Sanhedrin, there is no majority rule amongst
gedolim. One can choose a gadol, or his disciple, as his rav (see
Pillars). In communal matters, the greatest gedolim should be our
guides, in strictly halacha as well as in halachic policy decisions.
Recent gedolim, from the Chazon Ish (Pe'er HaDor vol. 5 p. 52,53) to Rav
Soloveitchik, (Yalkut Hamoadim p. 711, Divrei Hagos V'Ha'arach, p.187)
have expressed this notion (even though they differ in their reaction
to those who only defer to gedolim on strictly halachic matters.)

Notwithstanding rabbinic fallibility, obeying the rulings and advice
of one's rav is the better alternative, as the Chinuch teaches. May we
learn these lessons and thereby merit the return of the Sanhedrin with
the coming of the Mashiach.

--

[1] See Contemporary Halachic Problems, vol. 3 p. 82.