Ruach hakodesh: I don't get it!

amother

Purple

Sun, Mar 27 2016, 12:27 pm

Religious jews accept the concept that many generations before us there were holy people who had ruach hakodesh. To me that means they could see the future and know the truth. What doesn't make sense to me is how could these holy people who had ruach hakodesh say things that completely conflict with each other? A few examples: Some say that the mabul engulfed the entire world and others say it was only part of the world. Some say that the red sea split into 12 sections and some say just one. Some say that after pharoh there was an actual new king and others say it was the same pharoh with new policies. Dozens more of these examples exist. How can we reasonably explain how people with ruach hakodesh are disagreeing with each other about events that only one can be right and the other entirely wrong?

amother

Purple

Sun, Mar 27 2016, 1:01 pm

yo'ma wrote:

Where does it say that the ones who say this or that had ruach hakodesh?

op. Well when rashi is discussing specifics about events that happened thousands of years before his time, the only way to accept what he's saying is to accept that he has ruach hakodesh or the ability to know things that are beyond human comprehension. Case in point is the pasuk says" Vayakam melech chadash" A new king (pharoh) got up. Rashi says its a machlokes whether this was an actual new king or the same king with different rules. The rishonim that are debating are debating specifics of an event that happened thousands of years before their time. They don't have any evidence other then "they just know". That's ruach hakodesh.

imasoftov

Sun, Mar 27 2016, 1:14 pm

amother wrote:

But in this case there is evidence: Rashi just tells you that Rav and Shmuel disagreed, one says it was a new king, the other that it was the same king with new decrees. But if you look in his source, Sotah 11a, you find that each view is based on a close reading of the text rather than an external source of inspiration, "He who said that he was really new did so because it is written 'new'; and he who said that his decrees were made new did so because it is not stated that the former king died and he reigned in his stead".

Last edited by imasoftov on Sun, Mar 27 2016, 1:18 pm; edited 1 time in total

amother

Purple

Sun, Mar 27 2016, 1:17 pm

imasoftov wrote:

But in this case there is evidence: Rashi just tells you that Rav and Shmuel disagreed, one says it was a new king, the other that it was the same king with new decrees. But if you look in his source, Sotah 11a, you find that each view is based on a close reading of the text rather than an external source of inspiration " He who said that he was really new did so because it is written 'new'; and he who said that his decrees were made new did so because it is not stated that the former king died and he reigned in his stead".

Fair enough. But rashi and Tosvos are arguing-probably hundreds of times- throughout the gamara about how to interpret pesukim in the torah. One is right and one is seemingly wrong. How can this be?

imasoftov

Sun, Mar 27 2016, 1:24 pm

amother wrote:

Fair enough. But rashi and Tosvos are arguing-probably hundreds of times- throughout the gamara about how to interpret pesukim in the torah. One is right and one is seemingly wrong. How can this be?

And the amoraim disagree and the tanaim disagree, and midrashim tell us that there were also machlokot when prophecy existed, as early as at the time of Yehoshua.

How this can be is itself a matter of dispute. There are many opinions about it ...

marina

Sun, Mar 27 2016, 1:38 pm

amother wrote:

Well, no. The idea behind Torah She B'Al Peh is that it was all given at Sinai and that by the time everything was written down, different people had different versions passed down to them by their ancestors. These different versions are often supported by pesukim. Separately, there are a set of rules for deriving halachos from pesukim but these are also halachos that have been passed down via Torah She B'al Peh and the pesukim are just a textual support.

Nothing to do with Ruach Hakodesh at all. It's not that these people are looking back using their ruach hakodesh to figure out what happened and their powers are giving them different visions. It's that their fathers and grandfathers passed down different versions of the story to them.

If you want to ask how can two midrashim conflict with each other, there are many answers for that. Some people, for example, say that it's less important to reconcile midrashim with each other than to take away the allegorical lessons offered by each version.

amother

Indigo

Sun, Mar 27 2016, 1:46 pm

amother wrote:

When rishonim debate, they are making educated guesses based in their in depth learning and kedusha. They do not write that their answers are based on ruach hakodesh. I don't know where you're getting this whole rishonim / rashi / medrashim = ruach hakodesh.

AinOdMilvado

Mon, Mar 28 2016, 5:06 am

what happened to 70 panim latorah? the point is all of them can be true from a certain angle (or sometimes lfi pshat, remez, drash and sod), and we will understand when mashiach comes how they can all be correct "pshatim" for understanding it...

They say a mashal we can understand is that white light is made up of all the colors and if you see through a prism of all the different colors you could say its white, how can I see red or you see yellow, or green, or blue, but really they're ALL there making it white light

all the pshatim together help one to get to the true emes hatorah. it seems to conflict but one day be"H we'll understand how they really weren't in conflict after all...

Iymnok

Mon, Mar 28 2016, 5:19 am

Your question is not about ruach hakodesh, rather methods, or styles of learning Torah.
The more Torah one learns and makes it a part of himself, the more clarity he has in life in general.
We have a form of ruach hakodesh today when naming our children.
Some things you are bringing are mesorah, written down as medrashim that are not always taken at face value as Marina said.
אלו ואלו דברי אלוקים חיים.

Chayalle

Mon, Mar 28 2016, 10:19 am

Torah is Lo Bashamayim Hi - it's not up in the heavens, it's down here on this earth that our Talmidei Chachamim learned and delved into sources to arrive at interpretations that they feel are truth. I think you are confusing Ruach Hakodesh with methods and styles of learning Torah and interpreting texts.