Q&A: I copied my question here from WhatsApp
I copied my question here from WhatsApp
Question
Since I learned today that Rabbi Michael Abraham is also here and involved in this group, I’ll send you a question that came to mind while reading this week’s Torah portion, about an insight I heard from you about 20 years ago when you were invited to Ganei Hadar to give a lecture at the completion of tractate Rosh Hashanah. After the lecture you spoke with some kollel fellow, and in the course of it you asked him about the verse in Exodus, “And he saw that there was no man.” Did he ever think about how Rashi explains there that Moses our rabbi saw by holy spirit that no man would descend from him? Surely no one would descend from him—after all, he killed him—so how could he see by holy spirit who would come from him? And then you said an insight, that “holy spirit” does not mean some metaphysical thing, but rather the wisdom of the observer, who analyzes in his mind and reaches the conclusion that nothing will come of him. More or less—after all, this was about 20 years ago. And here I ask: even if that insight is correct, still holy spirit certainly sometimes also includes the metaphysical dimension, for in our portion it says, “And Esau said in his heart: Let the days of mourning for my father draw near, and I will kill Jacob my brother,” and immediately in the next verse it says, “And the words of Esau her son were told to Rebecca, and she called Jacob and told him that your brother Esau is consoling himself with the thought of killing you,” etc. And on this verse, “And the words of Esau her son were told to Rebecca,” Rashi explains there on the spot: “were told to Rebecca” — by holy spirit. And here it is seemingly clear that the meaning is something metaphysical, for how else would she know Esau’s thoughts? And if, as you said, the meaning of “holy spirit” were reduced to something earthly, meaning by way of analysis and inference and not something metaphysical, then the Torah should have written, “Rebecca suspected Esau,” or “Rebecca feared her son Esau’s anger at Jacob.” The language of the verse, “it was told,” seemingly implies that it was conveyed in some metaphysical way. I do not know how, because I have never received holy spirit, not even in the reduced and limited sense that you interpret it. And it does not seem right to explain it as prophecy, because otherwise Rashi would have written “by prophecy,” which is a higher level than holy spirit. May God enlighten my eyes.
Answer
If you’re already copying it over, you could delete the first words, which aren’t relevant here. 🙂
As for your question, there is plenty of evidence that holy spirit is a transcendent matter. For example, the Book of Esther was said with holy spirit, since there too there is a description of what happened in people’s hearts.
One can of course say that all of these are prophecy and not holy spirit. Prophecy is a higher type of holy spirit (as is explicit in the Jerusalem Talmud, Sotah 9:13, that Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi had holy spirit taken from them and used a heavenly voice), and therefore one cannot infer anything precise from Rashi. But beyond that, I did not claim that every instance of holy spirit is of that kind, only that such a thing is also called holy spirit. That is, it does not necessarily refer to something transcendent.
Many explained this way the words of the Raavad, author of the glosses, who wrote: “Holy spirit appeared in our study hall.” This is how the Jerusalem Talmud (Chagigah 2:1) and the Babylonian Talmud (Shabbat) write when describing a heavenly voice.
By the way, it seems to me that my original comments were about a heavenly voice and not about holy spirit. But as I said, that does not really change anything.
Discussion on Answer
I understand that the discussion was about Rashi, but the proofs I brought from the Jerusalem Talmud and the Babylonian Talmud dealt with a heavenly voice. It is from the same family. In any case, my point is that it changes nothing about the issue itself. Holy spirit too can be interpreted that way, even if not always.
As for finding the places, nowadays, alas, there is no need at all for the breadth of knowledge of the Shakh. There are searches in the Responsa Project.
I’ll reveal to you a little secret: today there is a person living among us who has 200,000 books in his head, who has covered nearly double what is in Otzar HaChochma, and I have seen with my own eyes that people come to ask him when they have already exhausted every possibility and found nothing in Otzar HaChochma and in the Responsa Project, and have also gone from rabbi to rabbi and from information specialist to memorizer, and he always surprises with his knowledge in a way that leaves them speechless. I’m sure you’re saying to yourself, “Another childish exaggeration,” but I assure you that even what I’ve written here does not exhaust it. I am so astonished that I no longer know whether this does not go beyond the bounds of nature. Even Iti Herman, the Chaser, would fall backward if he met him. I truly have no explanation for it. True, you might also like that he knows formulas in nuclear physics, but let’s leave that aside for a moment. Just think of 200,000 books verbatim, in an astonishing way. I have many examples, but I do not want to go on too long. You are welcome not to believe it and to investigate this phenomenon. In any case, neither I nor you has ever encountered anything like this. I remember that you once met in Bnei Brak some person who had a lot of knowledge, and you got excited and told me he was like Rabbi Ovadia or greater than him. I promise you Rabbi Ovadia did not know a quarter of what he knows. An interesting and fascinating phenomenon in itself. Maybe one day you’ll write a column about it, but only after you check whether this is empty excitement or whether there is really something there. And let’s also leave aside for a moment the matter of analytical depth, since naturally people immediately like to run there—“Turki, Turki.” Thanks for the answers.
Many thanks for the secret. I just don’t see what it has to do with us. But fine.
At the end of your remarks you wrote that there is no need anymore for the breadth of knowledge of the Shakh, since there are searches in the Responsa Project. In response to that I brought you my secret, because presumably you neither imagined nor meant such breadth of knowledge of the entire Jewish bookshelf throughout the generations. In such breadth there is also an aspect—though only one aspect—of understanding and clarity that will not be attained by any analysis, even by great analytical scholars. Food for thought. Or in our language: analyze this carefully.
Indeed, a sublime secret. I assume that you too do not understand what it has to do with the matter at hand. But if it gives you pleasure, why insist?!
Indeed, that is what I meant—that holy spirit should not be limited only to something earthly, but should also include a metaphysical dimension. Your original remarks were about that Rashi there in Exodus on the verse “and he saw that there was no man,” and there in Rashi holy spirit was mentioned, not a heavenly voice. By the way, Rashi, as far as I can tell, is very precise: there are places where he writes “prophecy” and places where he writes “holy spirit,” apparently intentionally distinguishing between them. And in both places I brought here he wrote “holy spirit,” implying specifically holy spirit and not prophecy. If this matters to you, I have the number one expert on Rashi, Rabbi Aharon Shapira is his name, who on the spot could sort out for me all the places of one kind and the other.