Monday, November 10, 2014

It's Not Ruach HaKodesh

Someone showed me an article this morning that went something like this, changed only to the extent necessary to avoid copyright infringement:

Last week, the mentor of a group of Baalei Teshuva from the US brought them to Rav Aharon Leib Shteinman's house for Chizuk.  Rav Shteinman spoke to them, and then turned to the man who had brought them in and said that two of the visitors did not have a proper bris milah and they should see to it that they have it done al pi halacha.

When this was conveyed to the visitors, two of them said that when they were born, their bris had been done in the hospital by a non-Jewish physician.    Indeed, the halacha is that in such a case, an additional minor procedure has to be done.

Rav Eliahu Mann, who learns with Rav Chaim Kanievsky, related this story to his chavrusa, and asked if this demonstrates that Rav Steinman has Ruach HaKodesh.

Harav Kanievsky responded that Harav Steinman certainly does have Ruach HaKodesh, but this story does not prove it, because "one can tell just by looking at someone's face whether he has a proper bris milah."

I had a similar experience with Harav Yitzchak Grodzinsky many years ago.  Harav Grodzinsky, the son of Harav Avraham Grodzinsky, the last mashgiach in Slabodka (Litteh) is very close with my family.  Thirty five years ago, he visited me at my apartment in Baltimore.  As we sat in the dining room, he pointed to the mezuza on the door to the kitchen and said that he thinks it might be on the wrong side of the door.  I ignored him, because it was obvious to me that it was exactly where it belonged.

Two weeks later, I noticed that the bottom nail of the mezuza case was missing, and I needed to put another nail in.  As I started moving the case around in order to nail it in, I realized that there was no klaf in the case.   The Klaf was simply missing.

I have no idea what happened to the klaf.  I bought it from a sofer, I put it up myself, and where it disappeared to I have no idea.  But lemaiseh, it was not there.  As far as the halacha of where to place the mezuza, I was 100% right.  But only Rav Grodzinsky looked at it and knew there was something wrong with it.  I suppose it's the same thing.  It's not ruach hakodesh.  It's just a matter of having spiritual eyes.

There are many stories like this- where people were amazed at a talmid chacham's seeming supernatural awareness that they think is Ruach HaKodesh, but actually is just the result of being a maamin and talmid chacham.  The father of these stories is in Brachos 34a,
תנו רבנן: מעשה שחלה בנו של רבן גמליאל, שגר שני תלמידי חכמים אצל רבי חנינא בן דוסא לבקש עליו רחמים. כיון שראה אותם עלה לעלייה ובקש עליו רחמים. בירידתו, אמר להם: לכו - שחלצתו חמה. אמרו לו: וכי נביא אתה? אמר להן: לא נביא אנכי ולא בן נביא אנכי, אלא כך מקבלני: אם שגורה תפלתי בפי - יודע אני שהוא מקובל, ואם לאו - יודע אני שהוא מטורף. ישבו וכתבו וכוונו אותה שעה. וכשבאו אצל רבן גמליאל, אמר להן: העבודה! לא חסרתם ולא הותרתם, אלא כך היה מעשה, באותה שעה חלצתו חמה ושאל לנו מים לשתות

Then there is the famous story about Reb Shlomo Kluger, that they say over in Parshas Vayeira.
כאשר עלה ר' שלמה קלוגר לכהן ברבנות בעיר ברוד כיבדו אותו בסנדקאות, וראה שמחכים שם ולא ידע למה, שאל אותם למי מחכים עוד, אמרו לו שהאב של הרך הנימול חולה מסוכן והולך למות רח"ל, ולכן מחכים שיוכלו ליתן שמו של הילד על שם אביו המת, וצוה עליהם ר' שלמה שיעשו מיד הברית ולא ימתינו, ואכן מיד לאחר כן הבריא האב לגמרי, והעולם תמהו על הנס הזה, ואמר להם ר' שלמה קלוגר שזה אינו מופת אלא שלקחתי זאת מפרשתנו, שבאו שלושה מלאכים ומלאך אחד בא גם לרפאות את אברהם וגם להציל את לוט שהצלה ורפואה דבר אחד הוא, והשאלה היא, וכי חסר מלאכים למעלה שיבואו שתים אחד לרפאות ואחד להציל, רק התירוץ הוא, שללוט לא היה כלל זכות שיבא אליו מלאך במיוחד להצילו, ורק כיון שכבר בא מלאך לרפאות את אברהם יכול היה כבר גם להציל את לוט, גם כאן כן הוא, שבשביל האב של הרך הנימול לא היתה זכות שיבוא מלאך מיוחד לרפאותו, ומכיון שכבר בא מלאך הברית לצורך הברית, התפללתי שמלאך הברית ירפא באותה הזדמנות גם את האב

Rav Micha Berger sent in an excellent he'ara.  He said that הא גופא- if you can see in a person's face whether he has a kosher bris milah, that is ruach hakodesh!  I responded that he is not seeing the man's neshama, he is just seeing his face, but if you have a refined and thorough kedusha, you become sensitive to things others do not see.  A person with a kosher bris, apparently, has a different face, but only a holy person can see that difference.  It's like fragrance and taste.  A professional "nose" will discern things we are totally unaware of, and a taster will tell you that the milk in the milk chocolate was not perfectly fresh.  We find this concept in the Gemara.  For example, Chagiga 12b:
אמר ריש לקיש כל העוסק בתורה בלילה חוט של חסד משוך עליו ביום שנאמר יומם יצוה הי חסדו ומה טעם יומם יצוה הי חסדו משום ובלילה שירה עמי
and the passuk in Koheles 8:1, חכמת אדם תאיר פניו.  The Ramban also says this in Bereishis 5:1 on זה ספר תולדות אדם.  Speculatively, it could be that this is the yesod of the limud in Yechezkel that an arel has a din of Baal Mum regarding kodshim (Zevachim 22b, and see Magen Avraham 128:sk54 and Igros OC II 33:2.)
The problem is that most of us are so insensitive that we simply don't recognize it when it's in front of us.  עינים להם ולא יראו.  A film of pritzus and nonsense obscures our vision.

It kind of reminds me of the Gemara in Brachos 58a about poor, blind, Rav Sheishes.  Poor, blind, Rav Sheishes could see better than some people with 20/20 eyesight.
רב ששת סגי נהור הוה הוו קאזלי כולי עלמא לקבולי אפי מלכא וקם אזל בהדייהו רב ששת אשכחיה ההוא צדוקי אמר ליה חצבי לנהרא כגני לייא אמר ליה תא חזי דידענא טפי מינך חלף גונדא קמייתא כי קא אוושא אמר ליה ההוא צדוקי אתא מלכא אמר ליה רב ששת לא קאתי חלף גונדא תניינא כי קא אוושא אמר ליה ההוא צדוקי השתא קא אתי מלכא אמר ליה רב ששת לא קא אתי מלכא חליף תליתאי כי קא שתקא אמר ליה רב ששת ודאי השתא אתי מלכא אמר ליה ההוא צדוקי מנא לך הא אמר ליה דמלכותא דארעא כעין מלכותא דרקיעא דכתיב צא ועמדת בהר לפני ה' והנה ה' עובר ורוח גדולה וחזק מפרק הרים ומשבר סלעים לפני ה' לא ברוח ה' ואחר הרוח רעש לא ברעש ה' ואחר הרעש אש לא באש ה' ואחר האש קול דממה דקה כי אתא מלכא פתח רב ששת וקא מברך ליה אמר ליה ההוא צדוקי למאן דלא חזית ליה קא מברכת ומאי הוי עליה דההוא צדוקי איכא דאמרי חברוהי כחלינהו לעיניה ואיכא דאמרי רב ששת נתן עיניו בו ונעשה גל של עצמות 

UPDATE:
I mentioned this discussion to Rabbi Shlomo Tennenbaum, (a landmark on the spiritual terrain of psak and yiras shamayim here in Chicago,) and he told me that this question was once asked in a sefer called Divrei or Dvar Yehoshua, from a Rav Aharonson in Tel Aviv- he asked, how could the Arizal identify graves in the Galil, if this has halachic relevance, when there's a לא בשמים היא issue.  He answers that identifying the location of the grave of a tzadik can be done with our physical eyes, if only our eyes were not dimmed by the other things we see and the things we do.  It is not Ruach HaKodesh. It's preternatural, not supernatural.  (Parenthetically, I want to mention that there are other ways to answer the question about the Arizal- for example, the famous discussion as to whether לא בשמים היא applies to determinations of fact.  See Maharitz Chiyus in his תורת הנביאים where he says a navi can determines facts even when the facts affect halacha.  Reb Elchonon in Kovetz Shiurim and the Torah Temima also say this is true.  However, not all agree.  Lo zu mekomo.)



Reb Micha also pointed out that the Litvishe derech is not interested in metaphysical abilities; we are only concerned that we should grow in middos and Torah, and an interest in other things distracts from what is really important.  He's right.  (I remember how surprised I was to hear from my mother that her father, Harav Akiva Berlin HY"D, of the great talmidim of the Talmud Torah in Kelm, was considered to be a baal mofeis by Jews and Goyim alike.)  When I was growing up, I would often hear from my father some variation of "Who cares that ploni is a baal mofeis?  Ehr kehn gut lehrnen!"  So I agree with Reb Micha.  But Rav Kanievsky's response is good anyway.

3 comments:

  1. Do you know how R' Chaim Kanievsky defines "ruach haqodesh"? To me it would seem that any observation of metaphysical reality, is operating on the plane of ruach rather than the more physical nefesh, and would qualify under R' Dessler's definition. (Again: "to me", in other words, "would qualify under my understanding of the Michtav meiEliyahu's position".) So I think R' Dessler might agree with the diagnosis of what's going on, but I think he would call it "ruach haqodesh".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. PS: Although I think REET -- and any other Litvisher gadol from any time before 1993 or so -- would warn us against focusing on such miracle stories.

      Delete
    2. I'm glad you pointed this out. I thought about it, and decided that the difference is that sometimes, spiritual things change the physical appearance of physical things. Most people are not sensitive enough to notice it, but some are. It's like Malcolm Gladwell's observation in his book about Tvias Ayin, Blink. An istenes will be bowled over by a smell others don't even notice.

      Rav Rudderman used to point out the Gemara in Sanhedrin 93b about paskening tumah and tahara on the basis of smell. I wrote a whole post about this eight years ago, at
      http://beisvaad.blogspot.com/2008/08/shoftim-devarim-1618-shoftim-veshotrim.html
      and I now see that I wasn't careful enough there to distinguish between ruach hakodesh and exquisite sensitivity that discerns physical changes that stem from spirituality.

      Delete