How an Am Ha'aretz Reads Torah Sources

.

We are all used to the fact that academic amei ha’aretz regularly distort Torah sources in the most unbelievably incompetent ways, while insisting on the right to sit at a table in the Beis Medrash together with the big boys (what I mean is a virtual Beis Medrash, they never actually get within 4 amos of a real one). Usually, the results are pretty funny. A bit less than a year ago, we had our favorite person repeatedly insisting that the Tashbetz, who allows Torah students to take financial support, is only referring to “elite scholars”, despite his explicit statements to the contrary. This is a glaring error that this person literally built his entire ideology on for the past 15 years. Ah well, nevertheless. Two weeks ago, we had him bringing from his friend Eric Lawee that Rashi was considered “very problematic”' because he quoted a Gemara word for word, as is his habit in thousands of places. This person is a veritable font of amusement, and recently gave us some more material for our entertainment.

The Chasam Sofer

In last week’s post, Natan brings the Chasam Sofer to show that a Zaken Mamre must follow Beis Din even when he knows they are in error, because this is what the Torah commanded, and Hashem forgives the mistake. So far, so good, although has nothing to do with his conclusion about following the “obvious mistakes” of the Rabbis from 1,500 years ago.

But then our friend Dovid pointed out something else the Chasam Sofer mentions, that Natan conveniently ignores. The Chasam Sofer says, very very mystically, that there is an assumption that Beis Din was not mistaken because Hashem would protect His righteous from error.

ושוב אומר סברא אחרת מאחר שהנחנו כנ"ל ממילא יש לנו להאמין שבודאי אומרי' על ימין ימין באמת ולא טעו אלא כיוונו כוונת נותן התורה ית"ש כיון שהקב"ה נתן התורה על דעתם והבנתם של אלו ושני הכתות כוונתם לשם שמים לכוון האמת וכשיטעו אלו הרי כל ישראל מוטעי' באונס' חזקה על הקב"ה שרגלי חסידיו ישמור ולא תצא כזאת מלפניו להטעות כל ישראל כשהם חפצים לעשות רצונו והיינו דמסיים מכ"ש שאומרי' על ימין ימין פי' שהרי אפי' כשבאמת טעו מ"מ כיונו האמת לדעתם והקב"ה מסכים לטעותם ומכ"ש שיש לנו להבין שלא טעו ומיהו בטעם זה האחרון לא סגי לומר חזקה על היושבי' לפני ה' שלא יטעו כי הקב"ה לא יניחום לטעות ז"א כיון דלפי טבע האנושי יכולים לטעות ורק מצד קדשת המקום נבוא על הזקן ממרא דהוא בכלל לא בשמים אפי' בת קול ואפי' נביא לא יכול להכריע ע"כ עיקור הסמיכה הוא על סברא ראשונה שאפי' טעו ח"ו ויתר הקב"ה טעותם זה פי' הברור בספרי וממילא לא נחשד את הקב"ה ית"ש שהניחום בטעותם והמעיין בנימוקי רמב"ן על החומש יבין לאישורו כי לזה נתכוון

The entire point of this part of the Chasam Sofer is to interpret the Sifri that saysאפי' יאמר לך על ימין שהוא שמאל וכו' ומכ"ש שאומר לך על ימין שהוא ימין. The Chasam Sofer explains that כ"ש שאומר לך על ימין שהוא ימין, we should definitely trust that they are actually correct. Natan responds with the following foolish comment, several times:

You are misreading Chasam Sofer. He raises Shomer Raglei Chasidav as an additional explanation and then rejects it, because, as he says, humans can make mistakes.

….

You're skipping the part where he says that this sevara acheres is problematic. He says that people DO make mistakes and therefore they could have made a mistake. But he says it's okay because in such cases Hashem is fine with it.

….

Sorry but you are totally misreading it. He says that the second sevara (that they don't make mistakes) is WRONG, because they are human and humans make mistakes. And THEREFORE, he says, we will go BACK to the first sevara, that they DO make mistakes, but it's okay because Hashem is mevater. And that's why, he continues, it's not as though Hashem is just allowing them to lead everyone astray, because Hashem is mevater.

…

Also, the two sevaras are not the Sifri

Anybody who looks at the Chasam Sofer, and looks at Natan’s interpretation, will be astonished at how badly he mangles it. Natan maintains that the Chasam Sofer REJECTS (IN ALL CAPS) the part about trusting that Hashem will lead them to the truth, which is how he interprets כ"ש שאומר לך על ימין שהוא ימין. But the Chasam Sofer does no such thing, rather, he says that this chazaka is לא סגי, not enough, because it is still technically possible for humans to err. You have to exceptionally dishonest or stupid to assert that “not enough” means “false” or is a rejection in any way. And then the Chasam Sofer ends off וממילא לא נחשד את הקב"ה ית"ש שהניחום בטעותם, he reiterates that what he said before, and refers us to the Ramban who says וכל שכן שיש לך לחשוב שהם אומרים על ימין שהוא ימין כי רוח השם על משרתי מקדשו ולא יעזוב את חסידיו לעולם נשמרו מן הטעות ומן המכשול. He could not possibly be any clearer in rejecting Natan’s distorted reading and confirming Hashem’s extremely mystical hashgacha on the Gedolei Hador.

The Drashos HaRan

Natan mentions the Drashos HaRan in drasha 7, who explains the story of Tanur shel Achnai, as if that supports his idea that we should follow the “obvious mistakes” of Chazal. Is there any merit whatsoever to his claim? Let us look at the what the Ran says.

וזהו ענין רבי אליעזר הגדול ומחלוקתו, כדאמרינן שם במציעא (דף נט:) עמד ר' יהושע על רגליו ואמר "לא בשמים היא" (דברים ל, יב) כבר ניתנה למשה על הר סיני וכתוב בה "אחרי רבים להטות" . הנה ראו כולם שר' אליעזר מסכים אל האמת יותר מהם, וכי אותותיו כולם אמיתיים צודקים, והכריעו מן השמים כדבריו, ואף על פי כן עשו מעשה כהסכמתם. שאחר ששכלם נוטה לטמא, אף על פי שהיו יודעים שהיו מסכימים הפך מן האמת, לא רצו לטהר. והיו עוברים על דברי תורה אם היו מטהרים, כיון ששכלם נוטה לטמא. שההכרעה נמסרה לחכמי הדורות, ואשר יסכימו הם הוא אשר צוהו ה'.

The Ran explains that even though Rebbi Eliezer reached the truth of the matter more than the Chachamim did, they ignored the Heavenly signs because the Torah commands that they follow their seichel to understand the Torah, and their seichel informed them of the opposite of Rebbi Eliezer.

Now you tell me- what in the world does that have to do with the claim that we follow the “obviously incorrect” rulings of the Talmud, such as that lice don’t have eggs? Absolutely nothing, that’s what. It’s not as if we can’t possibly see lice eggs, but a Navi came and informed us they exist. Rather, it is our own observations, our own seichel demonstrating to us that they do exist. If Chazal were “obviously incorrect”, then the story of Tanur shel Achnai and the principle of לא בשמים היא affords us absolutely no excuse to rely on the “incorrect” Chazal and kill them on Shabbos.

The upshot

Neither of these are cases of forced interpretations that are otherwise consistent with a sugya, but are complete fantasies, figments of the imagination of a mind that has not approached a Beis Medrash in over 20 years. And in the case of the Chasam Sofer, is the opposite of what the Chasam Sofer says explicitly, repeatedly, right there on the spot. Now my friends, I ask you again. When you consistently see how secularist academics butcher Torah sources beyond recognition, is there any reason to take them seriously any longer?

For more about Torah and Science, see this post.