A Rebbi of mine in elementary school told me that me that the Talmud was written with Ru'ach Ha'kodesh, an idea that is accepted by many in the Orthodox world. What does it mean?

  • I was taught that the Mishnah was divinely inspired,and therefore halacha could be derived not only from what is said but how it is phrased and what is omitted. The gemara, in contrast, is a great analytical work and is the source of many laws, but there are discussions there which need not be taken as authoritative. For instance, I don't think one is violating anything if one doesn't belive some of the Agadah, like the story of spirits giving a Rabbi financial advice on Yom Kippur eve, related early in Berachos. – Mark Fischler Jan 15 '17 at 7:37
  • 3
    It's hard for anyone here to know what your rebbe meant. I suggest you ask him. – msh210 Jan 15 '17 at 10:39
  • 1
    @msh210. He's been in the next world a long time already. He was saying over an idea that is accepted by many in the Orthodox world so I'm sure somebody besides him can help me out. But thanks for the eitzah anyhow. – Mark A. Jan 15 '17 at 16:17
  • Saying something was written with Ru'ach HaKodesh generally means that it was written with Divine Inspiration. Namely, it was G-d's Will that someone write down something a certain way. – ezra Jan 15 '17 at 20:48
  • I've always understood it to mean that they specific words they used were divinely inspired. Which is why we can learn things out of their words that they perhaps did not intend themselves when they wrote it. – Menachem Jan 17 '17 at 2:01

In HaYom Yom, entry for 6 Sh'vat:

My father wrote that he heard in the name of the Alter Rebbe that all rabbinic authors until and including the Taz and Shach, composed their works with ruach hakodesh, the Divine Spirit. An individual's ruach hakodesh, as explained by Korban Ha'eida in Tractate Sh'kalim (Talmud Yerushalmi), end of ch. 3, means that the mysteries of Torah are revealed to him. This comes from the aspect of chochma in its pre-revelation state.

I vaguely remember an explanation of this entry also to mean that they were able to find their sources through ruach hakodesh.

| improve this answer | |

It means they had a certain prophetic spirit within them as the Shomer Emunim writes:

Included in Emunah is to believe all the words of our sages, of blessed memory, even though there appears something in their words which appears far and outside nature. We must attribute the lacking on our own understanding rather than theirs. For all their words were said with a prophetic spirit (ruach nevuoh) within them.

Even in the Midrashim where they argued, one sage says this and another says that - both are the words of the living G-d, and there is not in their words anything superfluous. Rather, everything is truth, both lines of reasoning are correct.

from http://dafyomireview.com/456 see there for more

another source

"the primary principle which is obligatory on anyone who is called a Jew is to believe with complete faith that all that is found in the words of chazal in the halachot and agadot of the shas and midrashim are all words of the living God" (Leshem - Niglot Leshem parsha shoftim).

Thus he holds their words are imbued with some kind of prophetic spirit.

| improve this answer | |
  • 2
    The first paragraph of the quote seems totally irrelevant to the OP's question. – mevaqesh Feb 3 '17 at 7:40
  • 1
    The question is what it would mean that the Talmud was written with ruah hakodesh. This seems to do very little (or nothing) to actually answer that question. Instead, it simply finds a quote (or more accurately, a translation of it by an unknown translator) that contains the claim that the OP wanted a claim, with a minor variation in its wording. | The only defense is that the question was poor and didn't identify what it was looking for, so we can't know conclusively that this wasn't it. – mevaqesh Feb 3 '17 at 7:42
  • 1
    @mevaqesh i knew you would hate it. but it refers to all the words of chazal. including the talmud,mishna, zohar, – ray Feb 3 '17 at 8:01
  • 2
    It speaks of the Oral Law (implicitly affirming its legitimacy), without identifying the extent of this corpus. Significantly, it says nothing about a prophetic spirit associated with it, and is therefore irrelevant to the question at hand. – mevaqesh Feb 3 '17 at 8:16
  • 1
    Thus he holds their words are imbued with some kind of prophetic spirit. No he doesn't! Nothing whatsoever was stated by the quoted text! – mevaqesh Feb 19 '17 at 0:27

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .