[Avodah] Does the psak of bet din evidence the ratzon hashem?

[Micha Berger]

On Thu, Sep 21, 2023 at 06:03:28PM -0400, Zvi Lampel via Avodah wrote:
> From: Joseph Kaplan Tue, 19 Sep 2023 18:56:27
> > Doesn?t the Talmudic story of the tanur of Akhnai teach us that ratzon
> > Hashem is not particularly relevant in halachic disputes?
> 
> The commentators take a much more nuanced view towards the relevance of
> ratzon haShem in halachic disputes...

Al rishon rishon.... Starting with the initial question about whether
a judgment of beis din is necessarily an expression of Retzon haBorei
we got to pesaq.

I would argue that pesaq is different in kind. Because if it's not a mesechtes
Horiyos kind of situation, we could say, kulam meiRo'eh Echad. (Chagiga 3b
<https://www.sefaria.org/Chagigah.3b.3-4>). Or, "eilu va'eilu divrei
Elokim Chaim".

To me it would seem that when both shitos are valid, they are both Divine
Will.

That is different than asking about a particular person losing money in
BD that he didn't actually owe the other party. (Or worse.)

At least, according to everyone below but RNG, that would work. How
he understands that gemara as well as the words "eilu va'eilu"
requires discussion. Or maybe someone could write a whole book on the
subject. <wink>

(See https://amzn.to/48z1n0f, Understanding Machlokes, by the same R
Zvi Lampel. A/k/a The Dynamics of Dispute, plus 30 more years of ameilus.)

Whether one takes eilu va'eily or kulam meiro'eh echad literally seems
to depend on how one reads the tanur [shel] Akhenai story. I once
blogged my retelling of the Ency Talmudit's list of shitos on the subject:
<https://aspaqlaria.aishdas.org/2005/01/08/legislative-authority-of-bas-qol>

The problem is that while we didn't follow the bas qol in this story, we
do follow the bas qol that said "eilu va'eilu... vehalakhah keBeis Hillel."
So VIDC -- vos is der chiluq (as RYGB used to pose in Avodah's early days) --
between the two cases?

   1- Rav Nissim Gaon (Berachos 19a), opinion I: The bas qol said
   "halachah k'moso b'chol makom". As a general rule, the halachah is like
   R' Eliezer, but not here. The halachic conclusion does not contradict
   the bas qol, and it's even possible that the BQ caused them to reach
   their decision.

   2- Ibid, opinion II: The bas qol was only a test for the sages. Again,
   normally BQ would have halachic power.

   3- Tosfos (Eiruvin 6b) I: The bas qol was only for the kavod of R'
   Eliezer, who called down the opinion of Shamayim. BQ does NOT have
   halachic authority.

   #3 is only possible (assuming that G-d doesn't lie) by saying that R'
   Eliezer and R' Yehoshua were in an eilu va'eilu situation -- both were
   right. Therefore, to show R' Eliezer respect, G-d asserts that R
   Eliezer isn't wrong even though the halachah is like R' Yehoshua. In
   short, exactly the same point made by the BH vs BS story.

   4- Tosfos II: There is a difference between whether the bas qol runs
   counter to metahalachah (normal halachic process), or in accordance
   with it. Bas qol can confirm a ruling, but not run counter to normal
   halachic process. Metahalachically, we follow BH because they are the
   majority. The BQ only confirms that fact.

   (Why did it need confirmation? Probably because this is the first
   generation that the Sanhedrin was in exile, and because BS were
   generally considered the sharper group. Therefore there was a crisis in
   confidence in rejecting BS's opinion without word from the Chamber of
   Hewn Wood.)

   5- Or Samei'ach (Yesodei HaTorah 9:4): There is a distinction between
   whether the bas qol is clarifying a particular halachah and whether it
   speaks of a person's ruling. In the first case, BQ is certainly
   not followed -- metahalachah is the G-d-given means of creating new
   halachah. (cf Temurah 16:1, where the prophet Yehoshua refuses to
   retrieve lost halachos via prophecy.) In the second, we do follow
   Beis Hillel, as per the BQ. (Although R' Yehoshua disagreed about
   this use of bas qol as well.)

   #5 appears to be nearly identical to #4, but with the added statement
   that given two true answers (speaking of one of two extant rulings),
   i.e. metahalachah allows one to follow either, BK can be followed. His
   conclusion is that even had BH and BS been of equal number, the
   halakhah would still be like BH.

   In short: RNG gives authority to BQ to override halachic process, and
   the Achnai story's bas qol is a special case for two different reasons.
   Tosafos and the OS agree that BQ has less authority than metahalachah,
   and possibly even no halachic say at all.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 Nothing so soothes our vanity as a display of
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   greater vanity in others; it makes us vain,
Author: Widen Your Tent      in fact, of our modesty.
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF            -Louis Kronenberger, writer (1904-1980)