Leviticus – 19:3  A person should fear his mother and his father and guard my Sabbaths, I am the L-rd your G-d.

Gemora: Kedoshim 31(a): Our rabbis learned as follows: what is the fear referred to in the posuk? Don’t stand in his place, don’t sit in his place, don’t contradict his words and don’t “tip the scales against him”.

DBS Note: For an explanation of “don’t tip the scales”, read the Torah Temimah below. However, this is not the focus of the Torah Temimah’s comments here.

Torah Temimah Colloquial Translation Of Comment #9:
If your father is having a dispute with others, one should not say “I agree with so-and-so”, nor should one say this in front of his father. Additionally one may not even say “I agree with father.” This would not be an honorable way [because it seems you are passing judgment on your father’s opinion]. Regarding contradicting one’s father in a halachic issue of prohibitions, it is understood from Rashi and the Tur on Yoreh Deah Section 250 that even in a halachic issue one should not contradict one’s father. The Shach there notes that even not in front of his father, one may not contradict him in a halachic issue. However, in my opinion, this is astounding. Behold, isn’t the Torah equal to Truth? Why can’t the son prove his point to his father if the truth is on his side? We do find [for example] in the Gemora Eruvin 32(a) that Rav says, “I prefer my opinion over my father’s.” Further in Kidushin 32(a) Rav Nachman quotes the opinion of Shmuel and then states his own opinion and Rav Nachman was the student of Shmuel. Being that the honor due to one’s teacher is equal to the honor due to one’s parents, how can this be the case that Rav Nachman says the opposite of his teacher? Further, the Rambam in Shchita 11:1states [regarding some particular] “my father, my teacher is amongst those who forbid it, but I permit it”.

Therefore, it appears that the intent of the commandment not to contradict one’s parents is regarding one who just says “I disagree” without trying to prove his point. But to disagree with one’s parents AND bring proofs to one’s point of view is certainly permitted.

DBS Note: The Torah Temimah proves in this note that the more traditional and older interpretation of how to demonstrate honor/awe of one’s parents is the more lenient, permissible interpretation.

Deuteronomy:17:11 – According to the Torah that they will teach you, according to the judgment that they will say to you, do it; don’t deviate from the word that they say [neither] right nor left.

Gemora: Jerusalem Talmud: Horayot: Chapter 1: Halacha 1: I might think that even if they say right is left or left is right, you should listen to them anyway. No. Since it says “right nor left” it means, if they tell you right is right and left is left, you should not deviate from them

Sifri: Even if it appears in your eyes that they are telling you right is left or left is right, you should listen to them anyway.

DBS Note: The Jerusalem Gemora and the Sifri appear to contradict each other. Also, note that the Rashi on this posuk is often quoted to support blind obedience to the rabbis. Rashi omits the words “appears in your eyes”.

Torah Temimah Colloquial Translation:
The Gemora needs to comment here because it should have said: Don’t deviate right nor left from the word that they tell you. [The modifier in the sentence is basically a misplaced modifier.] From the fact that is relates right nor left to the WORD that they tell you, we see that the teachers are actually saying “go right” or “go left”.

Also, we have quoted the text in the Sifri according to the emandations of the Vilna Gaon and used the words “appears in your eyes”. However, the meaning is still the same. In other words, even if your opinion is the opposite of the rabbis, you should do it anyway. This is because, as is well known, in many topics there are a variety of thoughts and opinions. As it says in Gemora Berakot 58a – anyone who sees a large multitude of Jews should say the blessing, “Blessed are You, G-d, who knows all secrets”. This is because of the multitude of opinions that occur and no individual mind is like any other. As we also see about any given halacha that there are often opposite opinions. These say “impure” and these say “pure”. These say “forbidden” and these say “permitted”. To such an extent that even something that appears easy in your eyes and that the true view is yours just as clearly as your know your right from your left, never-the-less you should still listen to the rabbis.  

It is clear from this that only under these conditions should you listen to the rabbis when they tell you to go right even though IN YOUR EYES the correct answer is to go left. But if, in truth, they tell you that right is left and left is right one should not listen to them. For example, if they tell you that forbidden fat is permitted or that sexual immorality is permitted certainly it is forbidden to listen to them. This is shown explicitly in the Jerusalem Talmud section quoted above.

The Ramban in his commentary says the following, “Even if you think in your heart that they are mistaken and the thing appears obvious in your eyes like right and left, you should do as the rabbis command. You should NOT say ‘how can I eat this forbidden fat or how can I kill this innocent person?’ Rather you should say that this is what the rabbi who is the commander has commanded and it is required of me to listen to him even if he is in error.” [end quote of the Ramban]

 These words of the Ramban seem to imply that even if the rabbis were to say something completely forbidden in the Torah, it is still required to listen to them. However, the words of the Jerusalem Talmud quoted above explicitly show exactly the opposite. Furthermore, such a view would be totally illogical.

The truth is that we do find in Gemora Rosh haShana 25(a) a comment on the posuk “these are the holidays that you should announce”. The Gemora states that by emphasizing the word “you” we see that even if the rabbis intentionally announce the wrong date for the holiday, the date that they announced is still binding. This, apparently, supports the position of the Ramban. However, I have already proved in my commentary on Parshat Emor that the text in the Gemora that states the word “intentionally” is a scribal error. Rather the word should be written “coerced”. That reading is also the reading of the Rambam and the Torat Cohanim.

So, one needs to be forced to explain the words of the Ramban as I originally wrote in the first paragraph above.  It can’t mean that the rabbi explicitly commands to eat forbidden fat.

DBS Note: The Torah Temimah is saying that the Ramban could not have meant what he wrote literally.

Genesis 45:14 – And he (Yosef) fell on the neck of Binyamin, his brother and wept; and Binyamin wept on his neck.

Gemora: Megilla 16b: How many necks did Binyamin have? Rabbi Elazar states, “He wept due to the two temples that would in the future be in the portion of Binyamin and would be destroyed.”

DBS Note: in the posuk itself, both times that the word “neck” is used, it is written in the plural

Torah Temimah Colloquial Translation of Note #4:
The Gemora comments as it does due to the fact that the Beit haMikdash is [often] referred to by the word “neck”. As we say on the posuk in Shir HaShirim “Your neck is like the Tower of David” where the word “neck” refers to the Beit haMikdash.

Rashi in commenting on our Gemora, states that the phrase “How many necks did Binyamin have?” must be removed. Rashi states that it is common in classical Hebrew to refer to “neck” in the plural even when it means singular.

If that is Rashi’s reason for suggesting a textual change in the Gemora, he could have left the original text as it was. Even though there certainly are examples where the word “neck” is used in the plural form to have a singular meaning, it is equally true that there are many places where the word “neck” is used in the singular form to mean singular.  That being the case, it would be the way of Chazal to explore and explain such a word when it is used in the plural form.

However, even if that is the case, it appears that Rashi’s comment is never-the-less valid and we should emendate the text of the Gemora. The very next comment is that Binyamin wept on Joseph’s neck due to the destruction of the Tabernacle at Shilo which was located in the territory of Yosef and would, in the future, be destroyed. If so, we see that in the same biblical sentence “necks” is used to refer to both plural and singular.

If that is the case, then why is there even a comment from the Gemora on this sentence? It is because the Gemora is commenting on the fact that immediately after Yosef says that he carries no ill will towards any of his brothers just as he carries no ill-will towards Binyamin [who was not involved in selling him into slavery], he immediately thereafter falls on Binyamin’s neck and cries. Why did he not fall on all his brother’s necks? The answer is that the reason for the crying is hinted at by the word “neck” which refer to the temple and the tabernacle.

DBS Note: I liked this note of the Torah Temimah because initially he critiques Rashi and then he ends up defending Rashi. The Torah Temimah sees his duty as explaining the text and the Gemora in the best way possible even if this may mean disagreeing with other preceding famous commentaries. As he lived from approx. 1860 – 1940, I find this attitude close to amazing; especially, as we shall see, the extent to which he takes this approach.