For better or worse, our worldview of Torah is shaped by chumash and Rashi that we learned as children and that we re-learn every week (sadly often advancing no further in our understanding). We all "know" that Avraham sent Eliezer to fetch Rivka and bring her to his home, but nowhere does it say this in the text. It speaks about Avraham's eved, but Eliezer is not named. We just assume it because Rashi told us that's who the perek is talking about. It's an innocuous example, but not all examples are so innocuous. Rashi in our parsha comments:
לֹ֣א תָס֗וּר מִן־הַדָּבָ֛ר אֲשֶׁר־יַגִּ֥ידֽוּ לְךָ֖ יָמִ֥ין וּשְׂמֹֽאל׃
ימין ושמאל – אפילו אומר לך על ימין שהוא שמאל, ועל שמאל שהיא ימין, וכל שכן שאומרים לו על ימין ימין ועל שמאל שמאל.
This Rashi is so well known that I think comes as a shock to most people to discover it is against a black on white gemara. The first Mishna in Horiyot has a din: הוֹרוּ בֵית דִּין וְיָדַע אֶחָד מֵהֶן שֶׁטָּעוּ אוֹ תַלְמִיד שֶׁהוּא רָאוּי לְהוֹרָייָה וְהָלַךְ וְעָשָׂה עַל פִּיהֶם, בֵּין שֶׁעָשׂוּ וְעָשָׂה עִמָּהֶם בֵּין שֶׁעָשׂוּ וְעָשָׂה אַחֲרֵיהֶם, בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא עָשׂוּ וְעָשָׂה – הֲרֵי זֶה חַייָב
The gemara tries to figure out what case this could be talking about. מַתְנִיתָא כְּגוֹן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן עַזַּאי יוֹשֵׁב לִפְנֵיהֶן. The gemara (I am quoting the Yerushalmi) posits that we are dealing with someone who is a baki b'halacha like Shimon ben Azai. If so, m'mah nafshach: if he made a mistake in the din, then he is not really an expert; if he didn't make a mistake but rather intentionally violated the din, then he is not chayav a chatas because he is not shogeg. Answers the gemara: אֶלָּא שֶׁהוּא כְטוֹעֶה לוֹמַר: תּוֹרָה אָמְרָה אַחֲרֵיהֶם אַחֲרֵיהֶם The person is an expert in the case before B"D and knew that they made a mistake, but thought there is a chiyuv to follow them anyway. At this point the Bavli stops, but the Yerushalmi goes a step further and says that can't be the mistake because someone of a R' Shimon ben Azai would not err in something like that:
אֵין זֶה שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן עַזַּאי. כְּהָדָא דְתַנֵּי: יָכוֹל אִם יֹאמְרוּ לָךְ עַל יְמִין שֶׁהִיא שְׂמֹאל וְעַל שְׂמֹאל שֶׁהִיא יְמִין תִּשְׁמַע לָהֶם? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: לָלֶכֶת יָמִין וּשְׂמֹאל, שֶׁיֹּאמְרוּ לָךְ עַל יָמִין שֶׁהוּא יָמִין וְעַל שְׂמֹאל שֶׁהִיא שְׂמֹאל
Exactly the opposite of the derasha Rashi quotes! If B"D makes the wrong call and you know they are mistaken, of course you don't have to follow them. (The only difference between Bavli and Yerushalmi is the Bavli accepted the thought that following B"D even if they are in error is a potential mistake someone can make; the Yerushalmi thinks a Shimon ben Azai type expert would not make that mistake, but they both agree that it is a mistake. I quoted the Ylmi because it spells out the derasha that stands in sharp contrast to Rashi; the Bavli doesn't quote the derasha.)
If someone starts with Rashi's comment as their baseline, esp if they are not aware of the contradictory sugya, then a person might come to accept all kinds of things as true even if the face of evidence to the contrary. Call it emunah peshuta, call it daas Torah, call it some other name, at the end of the day it means the answer to Groucho Marx's question, "Who are you going to believe -- me or your own eyes? is "me" when that "me" is a Rabbi. That's a dangerous thing. There is no proof that will shake someone out of this state ut of their reverie, as what good is proof when the Torah says you have to believe אפילו אומר לך על ימין שהוא שמאל, ועל שמאל שהיא ימין? L'havdil, this is the same mindset of people still singing the accolades of Fauci, who still believe Russiagate, and who think Joe Biden had 81 million people who voted for him.
When you start with the Yerushalmi as your baseline, you start with the assumption that reality is reality, left is left and right is right, and there is no reason to listen to anyone, even the Sanhedrin, if they tell you otherwise. G-d does not want us to turn our brains off and unquestioningly accept falsehood.
What should be the baseline we start with? How do we square Rashi with the Yerushalmi? First off, who says we have to? Perhaps the two sources disagree, end of story. See Shu"T Melamed l'Ho'il who wants to be toleh the two derashos on the issue of whether yesh aim l'mikra or yesh aim la'masoret and you don't need to reconcile the two. At the end of the day, Rashi on chumash is a mefareish, not a posek. When it comes to halacha, if I am not mistaken, the derasha he quotes in not brought by the Rambam. This is far from the only place where Rashi's peirush on chumash is not consistent with the maskana l'dina. Rashi's concern is peshutp shel mikra, and if a derasha that is not k'halacha does a better job at explaining the pasuk (see Kli Yakar), that will be what Rashi goes with.
The problem gets sticky when we look at Ramban, who not only quotes Rashi, but expands upon it and holds that this is the normative view:
וענינו: אפילו תחשב בלבך שהם טועים, והדבר פשוט בעיניך כאשר אתה יודע בין ימינך לשמאלך, תעשה כמצותם, ואל תאמר: איך אוכל החלב הגמור הזה או אהרוג האיש הנקי הזה, אבל תאמר: כך צוה אותי האדון המצוה על המצות שאעשה בכל מצותיו ככל אשר יורוני העומדים לפניו במקום אשר יבחר, ועל משמעות דעתם נתן לי התורה אפילו יטעו. וזה כענין רבי יהושע עם רבן גמליאל ביום הכפורים שחל להיות בחשבונו (בבלי ר״ה כ״ה.)
.כי על הדעת שלהם הוא נותן לנו התורה, אפילו יהו בעיניך כמחליף הימין בשמאל. וכל שכן שיש לך לחשוב שהם אומרים על ימין שהוא ימין, כי רוח השם על משרתי מקדשו ולא יעזוב את חסידיו, לעולם נשמרו (תהלים ל״ז:כ״ח) מן הטעות ומן המכשול.
The Ramban is a bit unclear (see the whole thing inside and R' Elchanan in Kuntres Divrei Sofrim in Koveitz Shiurim) as to whether he holds you have to listen to B"D because it's just your impression that they are in error, or whether he holds you have to listen because even if they are in fact wrong, Hashem wants you to listen to them anyway.
I thought Ramban's amguity should be seen in light of Ramban later in our parsha by eidim zomimim, who asks why it is that if eidim are discovered to be zomimim after B"D carries out punishment on the defendant, they get off with no punishment. Why shouldn't they be liable for causing de or pain to the defendant? Ramban answers that if B"D meted out justice based on their testimony, then it means the defendant is guilty of some crime. Hashem would not allow B"D to mete out punishment in error to an innocent party. From that Ramban is would seem that a person might have the *impression* that B"D got it wrong, but in reality, they did not (I found R' Yehuda Herzl Henkin in Shu"T Bnei Banim II:23 also links these two parshiyot). Chasam Sofer goes down this same road. He writes that the reason you have to listen to B"D אפילו אומר לך על ימין שהוא שמאל is because Hashem would not allow righteous people to make such an error. The Lubavitcher Rebbe writes (Likutei Sichos v 5 end of the second piece on Toldos) that B"D's psak can change reality (see Yerushalmi (Kesubos 1 halacha 2) regarding the regrowth of besulim in response to psak of B"D). Therefore, if they tell you left is right, that will become the reality. All that being said, we know that B"D can make mistakes, otherwise we would not have a parsha of par he'elem davar shel tzibur!
What did Ramban do with the Yerushalmi?
Ramban elsewhere, in Sefer haMitzvos, tries to answer this question. Ramban writes that if B"D makes an error, you can do what you like until you raise the issue with B"D (which is what you should do) and have your day in court. Once you do have your day in court and B"D has heard your side of the story and still rejected it, then from that point onward you are bound to follow their view. Ramban is a but difficult to read into the sugya in the Yerushalmi. מַתְנִיתָא כְּגוֹן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן עַזַּאי יוֹשֵׁב לִפְנֵיהֶן -- when it says יוֹשֵׁב לִפְנֵיהֶן it means someone present in B"D but did not raise their own view for discussion?
Chida goes a step further and writes that there is no obligation to follow B"D unless you are dead wrong. Most things in life, halacha included, are seldom black and white. Chid"a suggests that if you make your argument to B"D and they think you are mistaken, then you have to follow their view. However, if things are not so clear cut -- your argument has merit, but for whatever reason, the majority of B"D feels their position has more merit -- you don't have to follow.
Other Achronim throw their own hat into the ring and offer other suggestions to resolve the discrepancy, but I am not going to do a full review of every shita here as this is as blog post, not a journal article. I do want to make just two other points:
1) Facts are facts. B"D can't pasken against empirical evidence. Yevamos 92a: הוֹרוּ בֵּית דִּין שֶׁשָּׁקְעָה חַמָּה, וּלְבַסּוֹף זָרְחָה — אֵין זוֹ הוֹרָאָה, אֶלָּא טָעוּת.
Along the same lines, Ksav v'haKabbalah explains Rashi as follows:
פי׳ דלפי מראה עיניך הם טועין בדין מ״מ תשמע להם; אבל אם ידוע בודאי שהם טועים, כבר אמרו בירושלמי (רשפ״ק דהוריות) אם יאמרו על ימין שהוא שמאל ועל שמאל שהוא ימין אין לשמוע להם
What he doesn't explain is how you know with certainty that you are right and they are wrong. Is it a case of factual error? Or perhaps it is a case where you have a kabbalah ish m'pi ish and B"D doesn't and is trying to figure things out mi'sevara. See end of ch 5 of Ediyot regarding עֲקַבְיָא בֶּן מַהֲלַלְאֵל).
2) B"D alone can determine public policy. To use an example from last week's post, if B"D says not to blow shofar on Shabbos, arguing that they are wrong because the Torah allows it is a non-starter. A gezeira or a hor'as sha'ah deliberately upends the din. Yes, B"D is going against what the Torah says, but they have a right to do so for the sake of public policy. You may disagree with their ruling, but that is a matter of perception, not one of clear cut error.
So much for matters of halacha. What can we walk away with from this pasuk? Derech derush the Divrei Shaul explains it as as a warning to follow the Rambam's famous golden mean. Don't become an extremist. (Everyone of course thinks he/she is a centrist and the other guy is the extremist.) ֹֹ֣֣לֹ֣א תָס֗וּר...יָמִ֥ין וּשְׂמֹֽאל׃ Stick to the middle of the road.
I would like to suggest derech derush another interpretation based on Shabbat 63a (I later found that Chasam Sofer also uses this gemara derech derush to explain the pasuk, but takes it in a different direction than I do):
אָמַר רָבָא בַּר רַב שֵׁילָא וְאָמְרִי לַהּ אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף בַּר חָמָא אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת מַאי דִכְתִיב אֹרֶךְ יָמִים בִּימִינָהּ בִּשְׂמֹאלָהּ עֹשֶׁר וְכָבוֹד אֶלָּא בִּימִינָהּ אֹרֶךְ יָמִים אִיכָּא עֹשֶׁר וְכָבוֹד לֵיכָּא אֶלָּא לַמַּיְימִינִין בָּהּ אֹרֶךְ יָמִים אִיכָּא וְכׇל שֶׁכֵּן עוֹשֶׁר וְכָבוֹד לַמַּשְׂמְאִילִים בָּהּ עוֹשֶׁר וְכָבוֹד אִיכָּא אוֹרֶךְ יָמִים לֵיכָּא
Rashi comments:
למיימינין. של תורה שמפשפשין טעמיהן בדקדוק ובוררין כימין המיומנת למלאכה
למשמאלין בה. שאין יגעים בה כל צרכן אי נמי מיימינין בה עוסקין לשמה משמאילים שלא לשמה
Sometimes a person thinks he is giving 110% in his learning, but his Rebbe, like a good coach, knows that in reality he has more to give and can work harder. His "yemin" = hard work is in reality "smol." By the same token, sometimes a person thinks that they are doing far less than they should be doing, leading to their feeling depressed. A Rebbe can right the ship and explain that what this person thinks is "smol" is really "yemin." Maybe he is already maxed out and there is no need for stress or depression. Sometimes we need someone who can look a things more objectively to guide us in how we measure ourselves. אפילו אומר לך על ימין שהוא שמאל, it's a good idea to listen.
