The Divrei Chaim about the Or HaChaim's Ruach Hakodesh

Shu"t Divrei Chaim, Yoreh Deah, Chelek II, Siman 105:

"A question about a certain melamed who insulted the honor of the Or HaChaim za"l and said that his did not make his sefer with ruach hakodesh:


Answer: I have received your letter and behold I don't know what doubt you have whether ruach hakodesh is manifest even nowadays on one who is fitting, even though prophecy has been nullified from the prophets. Is it not stated explicitly in the first perek of Bava Batra (12a), and this is the language of the Shas:

R. Abdimi from Haifa said: Since the day when the Temple was destroyed, prophecy has been taken from the prophets and given to the wise. Is then a wise man not also a prophet?¹²  — What he meant was this: Although it has been taken from the prophets, it has not been taken from the wise. Amemar said: A wise man is even superior to a prophet, as it says, And a prophet has a heart of wisdom.¹³  Who is compared with whom? Is not the smaller compared with the greater?¹⁴  Abaye said: The proof [that prophecy has not been taken from the wise] is that a great man makes a statement, and the same is then reported in the name of another great man.¹⁵  Said Raba: What is there strange in this? Perhaps both were born under one star.¹⁶  No, said Raba; the proof is this, that a great man makes a statement and then the same is reported in the name of R. Akiba b. Joseph.¹  Said R. Ashi: What is there strange in this? perhaps in this matter he was born under the same star. No, said R. Ashi; the proof is that a great man makes a statement and then it is found that the same rule was a halachah communicated to Moses at Mount Sinai. But perhaps the wise man was no better than a blind man groping his way through a window?²  — And does he not give reasons [for his opinions]?³

Thus, you have it that even after the Destruction of the Temple, the spirit of prophecy manifests upon those who are fit to it; this is ruach hakodesh of wisdom. For prophecy is one thing, and ruach hakodesh of wisdom is another thing, as is explained in the Moreh Nevuchim, volume II [chapter 38].

And according to his words, it is not difficult the question of the Ramban [in his answer] on Rashi za'l {dibbur hamatchil hachi kaamar}. And there is to say that the intent of the Ramban, za"l. as well was so. And so it appears from the Ritva who wrote so in the name of the Rambam, za"l, brought down here in Bava Batra in Ein Yaakov, and these are his words:

'And the Ramban, za"l, asked on the commentary of Rashi, etc., and my mind does not so incline. Rather, this is what it means to say. Even though prophecy was taken from the prophets, which is the sight and visions, the prophecy of the chachamim which is by path of wisdom was not taken. Rather, they know the truth via ruach hakodesh which is within them. And also the Ritva, za'l, wrote in his explanation of this statement, as follows: "And it was given to the Chachamim: its meaning is that they attain via their intellent many things which are not in the power of the natural intellect to attain, and a chacham is greater than a prophet -- to explain, than that prophet who has a power to see the future but does not possess the paths of prophecy which are by aspect of wisdom, that the Divine Presence rests upon him. And this as as the Rambam explained in his known sefer, that prophecy only rests upon a chacham. End quote.

End quote, see there. Behold, you have explicitly in Shas and Rishonim that ruach hakodesh of wisdom is not nullified from the chachamim. 

And so is it explicitly in Gittin [6b], regarding R' Evyatar, and this is the language of the Shas there:

 Nay more, R. Abiathar is the authority whose view was confirmed by his Master,⁸

{About Pilegesh BeGiveah.} And Rashi comments there, as follows:

to reveal to him a secret, to match hidden matters to their truth.

Thus you have that ruach hakodesh and the agreement of Hashem was not nullified from Sages who are fit to it. And so is implied in the maamar of Rabbi Pinchas ben Yair [Avodah Zarah 20b], see there.


And more than that is explained in Midrash Rabba, parashat Naso [9, 20] regarding a certain woman, who stayed a long time in the teaching of Rabbi Meir, and her husband told her that she was not permitted to ended her house until she spits in Rabbi Meir's face three times. Rabbi Meir saw via ruach hakodesh, etc., see there. Thus you have that he saw via ruach hakodesh. And so too Rabbi, who said prophecy on the day of his death, in Kiddushin 72a, even after he was taken.


And in truth, it is so that from this is implied not like the Rambam in Moreh Nevuchim [there, perek 37], for there is is implied that without prophecy of the imaginative faculties, the chacham is only called a great of the delvers, but not that he says things which go out of the realm of the intellect, rather they are only compared to things like prophecy. It will be as it will be; all the world admits that ruach hakodesh has not left from the Sages.

And that which they said [Sotah 48b] that from the days of the prophets, ruach hakodesh had been taken, this is the spirit of prophecy, but the ruach hakodesh of wisdom, and to match with his intellect with the halacha leMoshe miSinai, or like R' Evyatar, this was not nullified, and only apikorsim deny this.


And that which you wrote, teshuvot from the Gedolim of of generation, that ruach hakodesh has been nullified entirely, I do not believe that this left the mouths of our Rabbis. And who known what this misleading scoundrel wrote to them. But the truth upon its path is that even in our generation, there are to the chachmei haEmet, who do not incline after the chomer, they possess ruach hakodesh, and as is spelled out in the Moreh Nevuchim [there, perek 36] and in the Ramban, za'l, explicitly.

And therefore, the author of the Or Hachaim certain composed his sefer with ruach hakodesh. But not he alone. Rather, every author in our generation, if he is fit for it, composed his sefer with ruach hakodesh, that is to say that he matched with his wisdom to the truth of the Torah, just as they said in the Shas regarding R' Evyatar. And so wrote the Tumim to practical law [in Kitzur 420 {?}, siman 123 and 124] that one may not say 'I will establish against the Shulchan Aruch', for they wrote their words with ruach hakodesh, see there.


And therefore, the melamed who denies the ruach hakodesh of the Or Hachaim is an apikores, who does not believe in the Gedolei HaDor, who testified about his that he was fit for ruach hakodesh. And this melamed denies the fundamental of ruach hakodesh and mocks the aforementioned words of the Shas in Bava Basra. And you have done well to not abandon your children in his hand, and yasher koach in this.


However, the pay for teaching, I cannot sever when it is not before the litigant, without seeing his conduct. For perhaps he is simply erring in this. And in this, you are able to rely upon the posek in your community, and it should be peace."