Weekly Torah portion: Shoftim

By far the dominant view in Judaism is that of Rashi, which allows for the coexistence of reason and revelation as two sources of truth in arriving at the law

Dr Ari Ackerman |Published: 08.17.07 , 07:22

One of the most cardinal disagreements regarding rabbinic authority in modern Judaism concerns the fallibility of the decisions of rabbinic leaders. One school argues that despite their unquestioned authority, rabbis are human and therefore can make mistakes; consequently no rabbi has unimpeachable authority. In contrast, another school, which is associated with certain hareidi theologians, argues that the decisions of the chief rabbinic authorities of the generation (gedolei ha-dor) cannot be questioned. These rabbis intuitively grasp the singular Torah truth (da’at torah) and their views are therefore infallible.

The root of this debate is actually in differing interpretations of a verse from Shoftim that commands that Jews obey the decrees of the rabbis:

“You must not deviate from the verdict that they announce to you either to the right or to the left” (Deut. 17:11).

Commenting on this verse, Nachmanides maintains: “Scriptures laid down the law that we should obey the Great Sanhedrin that sits before the Lord in the place which He shall choose, whatever they instruct in their interpretation of the Torah. … For the spirit of God rests on the ministers of His sanctuary. He will never forsake His kindness and always preserve them from error and stumbling.” That is, Nachmanides avers that God ensures the veracity of their instructions. He speaks of the sages of the great Sanhedrin, but certain modern Torah scholars have argued that the principle of infallibility should be extended to include also the leading sages of each generation.

Rashi provides a contrasting interpretation of this verse. Basing himself on the Sifrei, Rashi comments: “To the right or to the left: Even if you are told that the right is left or the left is right.” That is, the Sifrei and Rashi maintain that the obligation to adhere to the rabbis applies even when the rabbis are mistaken. They aver that we must adhere to the rabbinic decisions continuously, but we can also recognize that the rabbis are able to err. According to this approach, the principle of infallibility is foreign to Judaism, which refuses to deify its rabbinic leadership and maintains a sharp division between God’s rule and any human leadership.

Much analysis has to be done to understand the theoretical underpinnings of each of these views. I would like to point briefly to one aspect of this debate. According to Nachmanides’ view, the authority of the leading rabbis of each generation is rooted in revelation and these rabbis should be viewed as the messengers of God’s word with little autonomy or independence. In contrast, the view of Rashi argues that all rabbis are given independence to interpret the word of God. Their tools are not prophetic ones that allow them to receive the word of God, but intellectual ones that bring them to an autonomous understanding of God’s will.

In conclusion, it should be noted that by far the dominant view in Judaism is that of Rashi, which allows for the coexistence of reason and revelation as two sources of truth in arriving at the law.