Do Rabbis get punished in Heaven for wrong interpretations or claims?

Question

I had a Zchus of serving a great Rabbi Z"l here in Jerusalem who wrote lots of books on Torah as well as on Halacha and Shu"t. I helped him publishing his books for a decade and for his last years I was driving him to various medical procedures out of town and we had a lot of time to talk.

He revealed to me that he was afraid of Yom Hadin, that some of his interpretations or Shu"tim might be wrong (in the eyes of Hashem I suppose). He also added that this fear was constantly guarding him in his writings.

We know that many passages in Horayos or Makos deal with wrong [court or Halachic] judgments. So I would really like to focus on Torah interpretations or non-Halachic statements. For example, interpreting Maase Bereishit, Torah characters intentions, anatomical or scientific facts, etc.

Does such a concept exist - that G-d punishes Rabbis for wrong interpretations or claims?

Answer 1

Kiddushin 57a

כדתניא שמעון העמסוני ואמרי לה נחמיה העמסוני היה דורש כל אתין שבתורה כיון שהגיע לאת ה' אלהיך תירא פירש אמרו לו תלמידיו רבי כל אתין שדרשת מה תהא עליהם אמר להם כשם שקבלתי שכר על הדרישה כך קבלתי על הפרישה עד שבא רבי עקיבא ולימד את ה' אלהיך תירא לרבות תלמידי חכמים

As it was taught: Simeon the Imsonite — others state, Nehemiah the Imsonite, — interpreted every eth in the Torah, but as soon as he came to, thou shalt fear [eth] the Lord thy God, he refrained. Said his disciples to him, ‘Master, what is to happen with all the ethin which you have interpreted?’ ‘Just as I received reward for interpreting [them],’ he replied: ‘so do I receive reward for retracting.’ Subsequently R. Akiba came and taught: Thou shalt fear [eth] the Lord thy God, that is to include scholars.

(Soncino translation)

Here the tanna acknowledges that he had made thousands of incorrect interpretations. Yet not only does he not think he's going to get punished for them, he thinks he gets rewarded for them!

On the other hand, we might also derive from this case that there are some exceptions. Rashi explains why the tanna refrained from expounding the "eth" in the verse about fearing the Lord:

שירא לרבות שום דבר להשוותו למורא המקום

For he was afraid to include anything to equate it with fear of the Omnipresent.

It sounds like the tanna was afraid of giving an incorrect interpretation, but not because it was incorrect per se; rather because it would be incorrect in a way which dishonors God. Thus, there may be a distinction between incorrect interpretations that have negative ramifications, and incorrect interpretations that are merely incorrect.

This might also be supported by another Talmudic passage:

Shabbat 96b

ת"ר מקושש זה צלפחד וכן הוא אומר ויהיו בני ישראל במדבר וימצאו איש וגו' ולהלן הוא אומר אבינו מת במדבר מה להלן צלפחד אף כאן צלפחד דברי ר' עקיבא אמר לו ר' יהודה בן בתירא עקיבא בין כך ובין כך אתה עתיד ליתן את הדין אם כדבריך התורה כיסתו ואתה מגלה אותו ואם לאו אתה מוציא לעז על אותו צדיק

Our Rabbis taught: The gatherer was Zelophehad. And thus it is said, and while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man [gathering sticks, etc.]; whilst elsewhere it is said, our father died in the wilderness; just as there Zelophehad [is meant], so here too Zelophehad [is meant]: this is R. Akiba's view. Said R. Judah b. Bathyra to him, 'Akiba! in either case you will have to give an account [for your statement]: if you are right, the Torah shielded him, while you reveal him; and if not, you cast a stigma upon a righteous man.'

(Soncino translation)

Here it sounds like the objection to R. Akiva's interpretation is not merely that it is incorrect, but that it is incorrect in a way which slanders a righteous individual. This might indicate that if an interpretation is incorrect in an innocuous way then the interpreting rabbi will not face any repercussions for the rogue interpretation.

When it comes to mistakes in actual halacha, it would seem that there might be more to worry about. For instance, the Talmud strongly cautions people against being involved in matters of marriage and divorce:

Kiddushin 13a

דאמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל כל שאינו יודע בטיב גיטין וקדושין לא יהא לו עסק עמהן אמר ר' אסי אמר רבי יוחנן וקשין לעולם יותר מדור המבול

Again they sat and related: In reference to Rab Judah's statement in Rab's name, [that] one who does not know the peculiar nature of divorce and betrothal should have no business with them, R. Assi said in R. Johanan's name: And they are more harmful to the world than the generation of the flood,

(Soncino translation)

In a Mishnah in Berachot (28b) we are told how R. Nechunia would pray that he would not make a mistake in his halachic rulings:

ר' נחוניא בן הקנה היה מתפלל בכניסתו לבית המדרש וביציאתו תפלה קצרה אמרו לו מה מקום לתפלה זו אמר להם בכניסתי אני מתפלל שלא יארע דבר תקלה על ידי וביציאתי אני נותן הודאה על חלקי

R. NEHUNIA B. HA-KANEH USED TO SAY A PRAYER AS HE ENTERED THE BETH HA-MIDRASH AND AS HE LEFT IT — A SHORT PRAYER. THEY SAID TO HIM: WHAT SORT OF PRAYER IS THIS? HE REPLIED: WHEN I ENTER I PRAY THAT NO OFFENCE SHOULD OCCUR THROUGH ME,3 AND WHEN I LEAVE I EXPRESS THANKS FOR MY LOT.

(Soncino translation, capitals in original)

The Talmud there cites a Beraita elaborating about what this prayer actually is:

ת"ר בכניסתו מהו אומר יהי רצון מלפניך ה' אלהי שלא יארע דבר תקלה על ידי ולא אכשל בדבר הלכה וישמחו בי חברי ולא אומר על טמא טהור ולא על טהור טמא ולא יכשלו חברי בדבר הלכה ואשמח בהם

Our Rabbis taught: On entering what does a man say? 'May it be Thy will, O Lord my God, that no offence may occur through me, and that I may not err in a matter of halachah and that my colleagues may rejoice in me and that I may not call unclean clean or clean unclean, and that my colleagues may not err in a matter of halachah and that I may rejoice in them'.

(Soncino translation)

Elsewhere in the Talmud, judges are warned to imagine the danger they are in by possibly ruling incorrectly:

Sanhedrin 7a

ואמר רבי שמואל בר נחמני אמר רבי יונתן לעולם יראה דיין עצמו כאילו חרב מונחת לו בין ירכותיו וגיהנם פתוחה לו מתחתיו שנאמר שנאמר הנה מטתו שלשלמה ששים גבורים סביב לה מגבורי ישראל כולם אחוזי חרב מלומדי מלחמה איש חרבו על יריכו מפחד בלילות מפחדה של גיהנם שדומה ללילה

R. Samuel b. Nahmani further said, reporting R. Jonathan: A judge should always think of himself as if he had a sword hanging over his head and Gehenna gaping under him, for it is written, Behold, it is the litter of Solomon [symbolically the Shechinah], and round about it three score of the mighty men of Israel [symbolising the scholars]; they all handle the sword and are expert in war [in debates] and every man has his sword upon his flank because of the dread in the night. [the dread of Gehenna, which is likened unto night].

(Soncino translation)

The implication here seems to be that if the judge rules incorrectly, he will be subjected to "the sword" and "Gehenna".

Answer 2

Avot 4:13

רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, הֱוֵי זָהִיר בַּתַּלְמוּד, שֶׁשִּׁגְגַת תַּלְמוּד עוֹלָה זָדוֹן.‏

Rabbi Judah said: be careful in study, for an error in study counts as deliberate sin.

Bartenura ad loc:

אִם תִּטְעֶה בְּהוֹרָאָה מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁלֹּא דִּקְדַּקְתָּ בְּתַלְמוּדְךָ וְתָבֹא לְהַתִּיר אֶת הָאָסוּר, הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מַעֲלֶה עַל יָדְךָ כְּאִלּוּ עָשִׂיתָ מֵזִיד:‏

If you err in a legal decision from your not being exact in your study, and you come to permit the forbidden; the Holy One, blessed be He, considers it for you as if you had done it intentionally.

Answer 3

If one were to claim there is only one interpretation of the biblical text, and that they alone know the exact biblical meaning of the verse or passage, it is a general rule that the claimants are ignorant of other interpretations.[1] For example, many of the sages argued about their convictions in opposition. Yet their criterion may be rooted in a phrase that the rabbis often taught, (paraphrased) “That originally there was one Torah view. Arguments only arose out of man’s ignorance.” However, from man's ignorance, we get a wealth of views that are not necessary credence, but equally tenable. Although not every view is harmonious, we should respect all views for there is no consensus on matters of interpretation.

Different interpretations of Genesis 49:10

Thus, the Midrash Numbers Rabbah 13 reports that “there are seventy faces to the Torah.” Frequently, the translation differs from scholar to scholar. For instance, take the meaning of Jacob's statement in Genesis 49:10. This statement is disputed amongst the commentators. Jacob gives a prophecy to his son Judah, “The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor the staff from between his legs; ad ki yavo shilo, the obedience of the people shall be his.” Many commentators feel that Jacob is prophesying the fall of Judah, the tribe of Judah. Others see “scepter” and “staff,” as symbolic terms for kingship. Jacob says the kingship will last until, “ad ki yavo shilo.” That is until shilo comes. What does this mean? Rashbam felt shilo was referring to the city of Shilo in the kingdom of Judah. He relates to Kings’ David and Solomon and expressed that in reign 0f Rehovam, the northern ten tribes of Israel would rebel. This will occur when Rehovam enters the city of Shilo in a failed attempt to solidify his regime. But Chizkunee felt that Ahiyah came from Shilo and it is not that Rehovam came to Shilo. He interprets this passage to be speaking of the Davidic line but insists that the prophecy speaks of a time when the prophet Ahiyah left Shilo. That is when Ahiyah ripped his clothes in front of Jerovam.

David Kimchi (Radak) sees shilo as “David’s son,” or “afterbirth.” Joseph ibn Kaspi said no, it means “error” and the king is Zedekiah. It is speaking about the end of the Judean king (II Samuel 6:7). He posits that yavo does not mean “come” but “occur,” and that the word “until” denotes the end of the reign. Jacob is prophesying the Davidic kings until (ad) this occurs (yavo) in error (shilo). King Zedekiah rebelled against Babylon, and “Judah was carried away captive out of the land” (II Kings 25:21). Yet Abraham ibn Ezra opted for the former and not the latter. That the city is Shilo, but the prophecy is talking about the beginning of the Davidic line. He reads yavo as the “end” or “destruction” in relation to Samuel.

Was Jacob talking about the Messianic age?

Remarkably, Saadiah felt that shilo denotes shelo, “his” and that the prediction is predicting the coming of the Messiah. Midrash Genesis Rabbah, Midrashim, the Babylonian Talmud Sanhedrin 98b, Targum Onkelos, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, Targum Neophyti, Saadiah, Rashi, and Nachmanides all agree with this. Contrary to their thinking, Sforno was convinced that shilo means “boundary” or “peace,” that ad ki yavo shilo denotes a time when the State of Israel will be reestablished after the Hasmoneans kings and diaspora. Jacob was, therefore, informing his son about a period when Israel will set a boundary for the coming of the Messiah.

Summary

From the analysis above, it is safe to assume that there are many divergent opinions about Genesis 49:10. Indeed, the Midrash is correct when it says, “there are seventy faces to the Torah.” There is no set belief of dogma; it is not an all or nothing acceptance. It is not that there is one prevailing view over the other. Jews can believe whatever they what. They can hold conflicting views, regardless of the majority. What matters most is behavior. Following the mitzvahs and having a firm belief in the oneness of G-d. Other than that, people are free to accept or reject what fits their worldview so long as it conforms to the rules of morality and corresponds to religion. Even well-respected rabbis tend to disagree on certain interpretations. The endless volumes of debates found in the Talmud(s) validate this claim. We see from here that Jews can hold dissenting views because Judaism allows for a variety of opinions. As the saying goes “Two Jews, three opinions.”

Thus, it is inconvincible to imagine that G-d would punish or even condemn anyone for their opinion or nonconforming beliefs in matters of interpretation. For if this were so, then one would have to imagine that the majority of rabbis listed here are not in heaven — G-d forbid!

[1] This does not validate Jesus's claim to divinity in the Torah because that would be contrary to the spirit of the text.

Answer 4

I see you asked about halacha, Jewish law and science, and whether or not a person is judged if errored on one of these subjects.

(1) Abraham ibn Ezra says that one may hold any opinion regarding philosophical matters of interpretations. If one wants to imagine this would be misleading, they would have to account for the many seemingly contradictory statements made by the rabbis in the last answer. However, Ezra agrees that one must concur with every halachic statement. The implications for diverting from Jewish law is shocking. I would recommend your friend proof-reads his book and source his sources to be sure that he does not divert from Jewish law.

(2) In regards to science, the Rambam says that if an ancient rabbi erred in a scientific matter, it would not threaten religion because the rabbis were a product of their time. In Guide 2:24, for example, Maimonides even admits that future generations will be more knowledgable than him in the realms of science. As far as sceince goes, don't sweat it.

For a more in-depth analysis of this question, see my other answer.