Q&A: Substantive Authority and Formal Authority
Substantive Authority and Formal Authority
Question
The Rabbi writes in his book Two Wagons and a Hot-Air Balloon that halakhic authority is substantive in its origin, and because the later generations felt that substantive superiority in relation to the earlier generations, they also established formal authority. The Rabbi explains there that the substantive superiority among the sages stemmed from the fact that the intuition of sages in the past was stronger than the intuition of the later generations, because the development of analytical thinking caused a decline in intuitive ability.
In the trilogy, the Rabbi writes that the sages have formal authority regarding the realm of Jewish law.
I asked the Rabbi in one of the classes in the past two weeks why science advances whereas in Torah study there was decline, since both use intuition. The Rabbi explained that the difference is that in science people began using empiricism, and that is what caused all the developments.
My question is: granted, in matters of science there is no reason to listen to the words of the sages, but shouldn’t we listen to the sages in matters of spiritual facts? In those areas there is no empiricism, and so ostensibly we should listen to them because they had stronger intuition. Maybe regarding divine providence this is not so according to the Rabbi’s approach, because in providence there was a decline as the generations progressed, but with spiritual facts, ostensibly we are supposed to listen to the sages because of substantive authority…?
Answer
I don’t think so. I am not aware of any indication that the sages have a better spiritual perception. In Jewish law, which was received at Sinai, it makes sense that someone closer to the source would understand things better. But worldview is a human invention/discovery, not something received at Sinai, and here I do not see any advantage that the sages of the Talmud have over later sages.
Discussion on Answer
Are you willing to accept the substantive authority of a prophet regarding the future? Why shouldn’t we say that the Sages of blessed memory have substantive authority in Jewish mysticism, “Kabbalah,” and the like? We could call it divine inspiration, and perhaps then we could accept those same spiritual facts, like the World to Come and so on. It seems to me that you once wrote about mysticism and were willing to accept that those mystics had a capacity for “vision” that not every person possesses.
I am willing to accept anything, as long as it is well-founded, reasonable, and argued for. If there is someone for whom I have indications that he has knowledge of the future, and this also stands up to tests, I will accept what he says about the future. The burden of proof is on him.
By the way, it is always worthwhile to listen to everyone, and certainly to the sages of the Talmud. I was addressing the question of whether there is an obligation to accept their words, or whether there is some substantive advantage to what they say.