Torah and Jewish Idea > Torah and Jewish Idea

Asking advice of Tzaddik (* What NOT to do)

<< < (17/18) > >>

muman613:
Just what is a 'Heavenly Voice'? This may help understand...

http://ohr.edu/364
Heavenly & Human Voices

If a "bat kol" is heard announcing that a certain man has died, says the mishna, we permit his wife to marry another man on the assumption that she is indeed a widow.

This "bat kol" is clearly a sound coming from a mysterious source unknown to us. We encountered such a sound earlier in this mesechta (Yevamot 14a), in which a "bat kol" was interpreted as a Heavenly declaration that we must rule according to Beit Hillel in their disputes with Beit Shammai. Is the "bat kol" in our mishna of the same nature?

Definitely not, says Tosefot Yom Tov in his commentary on Mishnayot. The "bat kol" heard in regard to Beit Hillel, and in the dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and the Sages (Bava Metzia 59b), was the Divine communication which was occasionally received in the form of an echo of a Heavenly voice after prophecy came to an end. The "bat kol" in our mishna was the voice of a human whom we failed to locate after hearing his announcement.

As support for this approach, he cites Rambam in his commentary on the mishna, who writes that the "bat kol" is explained in the cases which follow in that mishna. One case is that of a person who stood atop a hill and identified himself, announced that he had been bitten by a snake and died. But when they reached the source of the voice the corpse they found was disfigured beyond recognition. In both cases the wife of the man identified by the voice as having died was permitted to remarry. Rambam is thus suggesting that the "bat kol" in the mishna is not the Heavenly voice we have encountered in the aforementioned disputes of the Sages, but rather the untraced human voice mentioned in the ensuing cases. It is interesting to note that the Shulchan Aruch (Even Haezer 17:10) refers to our case as hearing a "kol" -- a voice -- rather than a "bat kol." This seems to support the approach of the Tosefot Yom Tov.

Another support put forward by the Tosefot Yom Tov -- that we do not heed a "bat kol" in halachic matters -- is challenged by Rashash who points out that Tosefot (Yevamot 14a) states that this is only the view of Rabbi Yehoshua and not of the other Sages.

Yevamot 122a

Tag-MehirTzedek:
Muman that is a great question (I had it recently) about the Bat Kol and why in this case it decided (seemingly) the Halacha yett with the story of the "oven like the snake" where it did not.
 Here is the answer.

http://www.dafyomi.co.il/bmetzia/insites/bm-dt-059.htm

59b----------------------------------------59b
2) TORAH IS NOT IN HEAVEN
QUESTION: The Gemara relates the incident of "Tanuro Shel Achna'i" and the miraculous ways in which Rebbi Eliezer attempted to convince the Chachamim that the Halachah was in accordance with his opinion. He miraculously uprooted a carob tree, had the waters of a river shift direction, and caused the walls of the study wall to lean inwards, and still the Chachamim did not change their mind. He then declared that Heaven should prove that he is correct, and a Bas Kol emanated and pronounced, "Why are you challenging Rebbi Eliezer, when the Halachah is like him?" Rebbi Yehoshua stood up and declared, "Lo ba'Shamayim Hi" -- "It (the Torah) is not in the heavens!" (Devarim 30:12).

TOSFOS (DH Lo ba'Shamayim) asks that the Chachamim had a different reaction to the Bas Kol which decided the question of whether the Halachah should follow the view of Beis Shamai or the view of Beis Hillel. The Gemara in Yevamos (14a) relates that when the Bas Kol declared that the Halachah should follow Beis Hillel, the Halachah indeed was established in accordance with the view of Beis Hillel. Why does the Gemara here say that the Halachah is not decided based on a Bas Kol?

The MAHARAM explains that Tosfos is not asking his question on the view of Rebbi Yehoshua, as the Gemara in Yevamos itself cites Rebbi Yehoshua who said there as well that we do not rely on a Bas Kol. The question of Tosfos is on the Gemara in Yevamos (and other places) which follows the view of Beis Hillel because of the Bas Kol. If the Gemara there follows the view of Beis Hillel because of the Bas Kol, why does the Gemara here not follow the view of Rebbi Eliezer because of the Bas Kol?

ANSWERS:
(a) TOSFOS answers that in this case, the Bas Kol contradicted the Torah's principle of "Acharei Rabim l'Hatos" -- "turn after the majority" (Shemos 23:2). In the case in Yevamos, the Halachah presumably followed the view of Beis Hillel, whose opinion was that of the majority. However, the fact that the students of Beis Shamai were sharper caused a doubt to arise about whom the Halachah should follow. The Bas Kol resolved the doubt when it proclaimed that even in this case the verse of "Acharei Rabim l'Hatos" applies.

(b) In another answer, Tosfos explains that the Bas Kol in the case in Yevamos was spontaneous, and therefore considered more "neutral." In contrast, the Bas Kol in the case of "Tanuro Shel Achna'i" was in response to Rebbi Eliezer's demand that "Min ha'Shamayim Yochichu," and therefore the Halachah does not follow its declaration. (Y. Montrose)

muman613:
Tag,

Yes I learned that one also, about the attempt by Rabbi Eliezer to establish his decision about the Oven through the bat kol. Indeed Halacha is determined by the majority, I did not intend to suggest that is not the case. But it is an interesting demonstration about how both schools can be the way of Hashem, even while one is the Halacha today.

muman613:
http://www.steinsaltz.org/learning.php?pg=Daf_Yomi&articleId=37

After quoting the baraita which suggests that a person can choose to follow either the position of Beit Shamai or of Beit Hillel (6b), the Gemara is disturbed by the fact that the selfsame baraita opens by stating that in arguments between Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel, the opinion of Beit Hillel prevails. Several possible answers are suggested by the Gemara:

1) The section of the baraita that offers a choice in the matter was taught prior to the Bat Kol.

2) The baraita is presenting the position of Rabbi Yehoshua, who does not believe that one should pay attention to a Bat Kol

3) The baraita did not mean that one could choose to follow either Beit Shamai or Beit Hillel; rather it was using their argument as an archetype. When two Sages argue ? like Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel ? one cannot choose the leniencies or stringencies of both; one must choose to follow one or the other.

The "Bat Kol" (=heavenly voice) mentioned here refers to a Gemara later on in Eruvin (13b) that describes how Beit Hillel and Beit Shamai argued for three years, at which time a Bat Kol came out and declared that while both opinions are true, the halakhah follows Beit Hillel (Elu v'Elu divrei Elokim hayyim, v'halakhah K'Beit Hillel.)

The Ritva and Rabbi Nissim Gaon explain this difficult statement by referring to a Midrash that appears in the Jerusalem Talmud. According to the Midrash, when the Torah was given to Moshe on Mount Sinai, he was also given 49 ways to declare something pure and 49 ways to declare it impure, indicating that within the Torah itself there are levels of meaning that allow for the possibility of contradictory conclusions, leaving it to the leaders of the generations to choose the appropriate ruling for their time. According to this explanation, each position has its place in the Torah as it was given, so "both opinions are true."

The second suggestion made by the Gemara ? that the baraita is presenting the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua who does not believe that one should pay attention to a Bat Kol ? is a reference to the story told in Masechet Bava Metzia (59b), where all of the Sages disagreed with Rabbi Eliezer regarding the ritual purity of an oven that could be taken apart. Rabbi Eliezer brought a series of miraculous proofs to his position, culminating with a Bat Kol that declared the halakhah to be like Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Yehoshua's response was "Lo ba-Shamayim hee" (a reference to Devarim 30:12) ? halakhah is not decided by heaven, rather by human courts.

muman613:
A little more on this topic, Beit Hillel vs Beit Shammai:


http://www.halachabrura.org/parsha-e.htm

Nitzavim

Deciding Halacha by Prophecy or Bat Kol
(based on Birur Halacha, Bava Metzia 59b)

When there was a dispute between R' Eliezer and the Sages (Bava Metzia 59b), and a Bat Kol from heaven declared that the Halacha is always as R' Eliezer says, R' Yehoshua brought the pasuk in our parsha "It is not in heaven", to show that a Bat Kol is not to be relied upon.

On the other hand, in Yevamot (14a) the gemara states that the rule that Halacha is like Bet Hillel against Bet Shammai is based on a Bat Kol.

Tosafot give two explanations to reconcile the sources: A) In the case of R' Eliezer it was clear that the Halacha was like the Sages since they were the majority, and a Bat Kol cannot overcome a clear Halachic rule; whereas in the case of Bet Hillel, it wasn't clear if Halacha is like Bet Hillel since they were the majority, or like Bet Shammai since they were more sagacious, and a Bat Kol is decisive where the halacha is unclear. B) In the case of R' Eliezer the Bat Kol came out only to honor him, after he requested "Let heaven prove me right", and not as a true decision, and therefore it is not to be reckoned with.

R' Nissim Gaon explained that in the case of R' Eliezer the Bat Kol was disregarded since it was worded generally: "Halacha is always like R' Eliezer", which could be construed to mean that Halacha is always like him except here. This can explain why the Bat Kol in the case of Bet Hillel is decisive: because it had exact wording.

The Rambam brings the pasuk "It is not in heaven", to show that a prophet cannot add or omit a mitzvah, nor interpret a mitzvah in a manner not delivered by Moshe Rabbenu. Ma'ase Rekach explains that the Rambam agrees with the first opinion in Tosafot, that where Halacha is unsettled, a Bat Kol or prophecy can be used to settle the halacha, since this does not contradict anything in the Torah. But Pri Chadash holds that in the Rambam's view, in no case can prophecy decide Halacha, and the reason for the rule that halacha is like Bet Hillel isn't because of the Bat Kol, rather because they were the majority, and the Bat Kol came only to honor them.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page