In his dvar torah, Shlomo Riskin (an Israel Modern Orthodox rabbi) writes that according to Hungarian Rabbi Moses Sofer, aka "Chatam Sofer" (1762-1839):
when two people argue, one (or both) of the parties involved will claim that only he has a direct pipeline to G-d; consequently only he has the only right opinion, and the other view must be totally delegitimized. These individuals claim that they are arguing "for the sake of heaven, in the name of G-d and Torah."" Supporting his view, the Hatam Sofer reads the verse, "don't be like Korach and his company, [who argued that] G-d spoke by the hand of Moses [only] to him;" to Korah; it is forbidden for any individual to maintain that God speaks only to him, that only he knows the truth, and that there is no possibility of truth to his opponent. Hence an illegitimate and therefore improper debate is one which seeks to delegitimize the other side, declaring that only one side has the whole truth!
A relative of mine, when in his "crazy baal teshuva" phase, asserted that Reform Jews, secularists, etc. were "putting themselves in the place of God." Rabbi Ruskin reminds us that no side has the whole Divine truth.
And yet...Rabbi Sofer was one of the most aggressive traditionalists of his day, asserting that "Anything new is forbidden by the Torah." According to the OU website, Sofer believed:
that he represented the Jewish people of his generation. This historic sense manifested itself in many ways. For example, his son, Rabbi Shimon Sofer once asked him how he could respond to complex halachic questions so rapidly? To which the Chasam Sofer replied that in each generation G-d sends an individual to guide his people. Since most questions come to him he must be that person in this generation. Therefore, even if the rationale he gave for a ruling could be refuted, the ruling itself was correct since it was divinely directed.
So which of these remarks really fit Rabbi Sofer? Or are both stories true?
