Q&A: The Knowledge of the Sages
The Knowledge of the Sages
Question
Hello.
After your remarks (and even before them), it seems to me there is no need to prove that the Sages said many of their statements based on the scientific knowledge available to them, and certainly those things should change accordingly. In my view, there is no reason to doubt that.
I would be happy to understand, as seems to emerge from your words, what your opinion is regarding all the rabbinic sayings that deal with metaphysics. I’ll give a few examples I’ve come across recently:
“Because of vulgar speech, troubles are renewed and the young men of those who hate Israel die…”
“… whoever speaks vulgarly—even a decree of seventy years is turned against him for the worse”
“There are six things whose fruits a person enjoys in this world while the principal remains for him in the World to Come: hospitality to guests, visiting the sick, and concentrated prayer…”
And clearly these are not just random examples, since the Talmud relates them and specifically selects these, and even compares them to another source.
In all these examples, where the Sages claim spiritual knowledge regarding what causes the death of the young men of Israel, what is decreed upon one who speaks vulgarly, and what the “value” of certain commandments is in this world and the next—do you accept these statements of the Sages, or do you question them as well?
Best regards,
Asaf Nashri
Answer
I definitely do not accept their authority in this matter. Where would they get this information from? For that reason, I’m also not at all sure they really meant what they wrote literally. Sometimes preachers say or write such things simply in order to threaten and influence their listeners not to do those bad things. That is true nowadays as well.
Discussion on Answer
Because I know preachers throughout the generations who said such clever homiletic lines without having any information of their own, and I see no reason to think this started only in the sixth century CE. Prophecy was not given to the Sages, so I see no reason to assume they had some other transcendent source of information. That’s all. If you think otherwise—good for you.
Prophecy was not given to them, but they did have divine inspiration.
Why does the Rabbi deny it? How does the Rabbi know they didn’t have it?
If the Rabbi says he doesn’t know whether there is a messiah,
why shouldn’t the Rabbi rely on them as a last resort? Maybe they
did have divine inspiration. Is it because the Rabbi is clearly anti-mystical,
and therefore denies anything that is mystical?
What “last resort” is there here? Maybe as a last resort you should rely on me that I know they didn’t have divine inspiration? What is the meaning of these strange claims? I’ve exhausted this discussion.
1. What do you mean, where would they get this knowledge from? It seems that instead of believing the Sages, who made explicit statements about processes that occur in the spiritual world, the Rabbi is trying to present them as preachers threatening their listeners?! Why don’t you believe that the Sages believed what they said? Why is the possibility that they merited divine inspiration / encountered Elijah the Prophet, etc., and thus possessed knowledge of the spiritual world—not an option for you? If the Ramchal and the Ari, etc., speak of revelations they merited (or perhaps you don’t believe them either… in which case the question becomes why you don’t believe them), in what way were the Sages any less?
Best regards