Editor’s note: This series is reprinted with permission from “Insights & Attitudes: Torah Essays on Fundamental Halachic and Hashkafic Issues,” a publication of TorahWeb.org. The book contains multiple articles, organized by parsha, by Rabbi Hershel Schachter and Rabbi Mayer Twersky.
In his opening comment on the parsha (Shemos 21:1), Rashi points out (quoting theTanna’im) that the correct location of the Sanhedrin is in the Beis HaMikdash. The particular room (known as the lishkas hagazis) in which they met during the period of Bayis Sheini was divided into two parts. One half was sanctified with the kedusha of the Azara, while the other half only had the kedusha of the Har Habayis. No one may sit in the Azara except for a king who is a descendant of malchus Beis Dovid. Even the 71 members of the Sanhedrin had to be careful to only sit in the half of the room which did not have kedushas ha’Azara.
According to Talmudic tradition (Yoma 52), the pasuk in Divrei Hayamim (II 35:3) reports that toward the end of Bayis Rishon, Yoshiyahu HaMelech instructed the leviyim to remove the Aron Kodesh, with the luchos in it, from the Kodesh Hakodashim, and place it in the basement in a vault specially designated for this purpose from the days of Shlomo HaMelech. The reason for this move is given in Divrei Hayamim, but is very unclear. The Netziv (in his introduction to his commentary on the Sheiltos, Kidmas Ha’emek 1:8-9) understood this as follows:
Ramban writes (Devarim 17:11) that the need for the Sanhedrin to meet in that special location was in order for them to be close to the Aron which contains the luchos. This proximity was to ensure that the Sanhedrin would have Divine assistance in paskening shailos. In the days of Yoshiyahu HaMelech, they were not yet afraid that the Beis HaMikdash would be destroyed and the Aron taken into captivity; that concern only began years later. What motivated the removal of the Aron with the luchos was that the rabbanim realized that there would soon come a time when they would no longer have this heavy siyata diShmaya in the area of pesak, and would have to work hard, with much פלפולה של תורה, to arrive at a proper conclusion, so they decided to start practicing this new style of pesak by removing the Aron with the luchos.
Even after this major change, our ability to rely on the pesak of a human being is still based on the assumption that “סוד ה’ ליראיו” (Tehillim 25:14). Whenever we don’t know one way or another, we should assume that a talmid chacham who is God-fearing has had Divine assistance to pasken properly. When the Sanhedrin sat in their office near the Aron with the luchos, we assumed that they had an even stronger degree of siyata diShmaya not to err. Whether during the earlier years of the first Beis HaMikdash (when the Aron was in the Kodesh Hakodashim), during the period of the second Beis HaMikdash (when the Aron was in the specially designed vault in the basement), or nowadays (when the rabbanim are nowhere near the Aron at all), the right (and the obligation) to assume that the pesak of a rabbi is not in error is certainly based on the supernatural assumption that the rav was granted Divine assistance not to err.
Some mistakenly think that this notion contradicts the principle of “לא בשמים היא” — “the Torah is no longer in heaven” (Devarim 30:12), i.e., once HaKadosh Baruch Hu gave the Torah to Moshe at Har Sinai, He no longer gets involved in determining any pesak halacha. This is not correct! The Talmud invokes לא בשמים היא to explain why we cannot have a navi tell us, by way of explicit prophecy, what the halacha should be; and that we should not be swayed by a bas kol from heaven on a matter of pesak halacha. We still recognize, however, that human beings are fallible, and as such the only reason any pesak from any rav may be relied upon is because we have the right to assume that the rav, if he is a yarei Shamayim, must have had Divine assistance to pasken correctly without erring.
The Talmud (Eruvin 13b) notes that one reason we follow the opinions of Beis Hillel is because they were more humble than Beis Shammai. The Talmud doesn’t state that Beis Shammai were arrogant, rather that Beis Hillel were humble. What does humility have to do with pesak halacha? Perhaps the humble person ought to be granted a middos award, but why ought the reward be that his opinion is accepted halacha lema’aseh?
The answer apparently is that the navi (Yeshaya 57:15) tells us that HaKadosh Baruch Hu chooses to be with the humble people. Therefore, the anav stands a better chance of having that Divine assistance to be מכוון לאמיתה של תורה. When following the instruction of the Mishna in Avos (1:16) to choose a rav to follow in matters of halacha, we must try to choose an intelligent, learned, honest rav who also posseses yiras Shamayim and humility. These last two qualities are essential to be more secure in the knowledge that the particular talmid chacham who is issuing the pesak will be granted siyata diShmaya not to err.
The famous Tanna R. Eliezer ben Horkenus is often referred to as R. Eliezer HaGadol, and the Talmud Yerushalmi comments that the appellation “HaGadol” means that R. Eliezer was unusually humble. In “Veyitten Lecha” (recited in many shuls on motzaei Shabbos) we recite the Talmudic statement, based on the pasuk in Yeshaya alluded to above, that whenever we read in Tanach about the “gedula – all-powerfulness” of Hashem, the pasuk will always mention His humility. The real gadol must be humble.
Rabbi Hershel Schachter joined the faculty of Yeshiva University’s Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary in 1967, at the age of 26, the youngest Rosh Yeshiva at RIETS. Since 1971, Rabbi Schachter has been Rosh Kollel in RIETS’ Marcos and Adina Katz Kollel (Institute for Advanced Research in Rabbinics) and also holds the institution’s Nathan and Vivian Fink Distinguished Professorial Chair in Talmud. In addition to his teaching duties, Rabbi Schachter lectures, writes, and serves as a world renowned decisor of Jewish Law.
