Q&A: Torah Insights by Rabbis Who Are Not Worthy
Torah Insights by Rabbis Who Are Not Worthy
Question
Hello Rabbi Michael Abraham,
I assume you recognize that among rabbis—even Torah scholars who studied in the best yeshivot, and rabbis from various sectors—there are some who, based on the general impression of their character, or at least the way they are presented to us, do not reflect the moral image of a rabbi that we would have imagined.
I am of course not talking about those who think differently, even in an extreme or zealous way, but who nevertheless are committed to their values because after careful analysis they believe those values are true, while at the same time treating every person with respect, etc.
I am talking about those whose names are associated with affairs such as taking bribes, sexual offenses (not necessarily that they themselves committed them, but that they saw fit to support those who did, even after they were convicted). Or even those who speak about people who do not think and act like them with an infuriating and disgraceful contempt that cannot be excused (such as those rabbis who spoke disgracefully about soldiers who risk their lives, for example).
My question is: when, for example, I am analyzing a Talmudic passage in depth, and I see that such a rabbi wrote some approach to the passage I am dealing with—does the stain of his immoral character (at least in my eyes) affect his Torah insights, which are supposedly meant to reflect some kind of divine ideal (not necessarily on the moral plane), so that perhaps one should avoid learning his words? Or should one relate to it the way one would to an innovation in science or mathematics—to address the substance of the matter and not the person, and examine whether what he says is true (for example, whether his words reflect the plain meaning of Maimonides/Tosafot or not), regardless of what he did or said, etc.?
I hope I phrased the question well. I would be glad to hear your take on it.
Answer
In my opinion, there is no connection at all. I study the ideas and judge them on their own merits. What is correct is correct, and what is not is not. Why should I care who the speaker is?
Discussion on Answer
Of course. If I thought it had substance and depth.
How does the Rabbi explain the saying of the Sages: “If the rabbi is like an angel of the Lord of Hosts, let them seek Torah from his mouth”?
The way I understand it, the point is that there is concern about a bad influence on someone who is not at a sufficiently high level, if he comes to admire someone unworthy.
And therefore, for someone who is at a sufficient level, this advice does not apply (as they said regarding this saying about Rabbi Meir: “He ate the inside and threw away the peel”).
What does the Rabbi think?
This refers to a different period, when Torah was transmitted mainly orally. In that situation, you need trust in the person teaching you. Rabban Gamliel also ruled that anyone whose inside is not like his outside should not enter the study hall. We are in a different time. For halakhic rulings, character traits do indeed matter. But not for learning.
So according to the Rabbi, is this basically parallel to an educator today?
I didn’t understand the comparison. But yes, in the role of an educator, character traits do matter.
Meaning,
would you read / study in depth / discuss a Torah insight, by the criteria that satisfy you, if it was written, for example, by a woman who dresses immodestly?