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

[Micha Berger]

RZLampel deals with a number of texts in his sefer that to me
would more literally say that any of the valid shitos are Retzon haBorei.
In general discussion, we tend to repeat the same three, at our peril:
    - Tanur [shel] Akhnai
    - Eilu va'Eilu (Eiruvin 13b)
    - Kulam miRo'eh Echad nitnum

For example, the Ritva on Eilu vaEilu
<https://www.sefaria.org/Eruvin.13b.10?p2=Ritva_on_Eruvin.13b.2>:
   Eilu vaEilu divrei Elokim Chayim: The French Rabbanim z"l...

Interruption: This is a school of Baalei Tosafos, no?

   The French Rabbanim z"l asked: How is it possible that these and those
   are both DEC, and this one prohibits and this permits? And they answer,
   for when Moshe went up leMarom to recieve the Torah, they taught him...

Interruption: "Her'u"? "They taught him"? Not "He"? I thought the whole
revelation was directly from HQBH!

   [W]hen Moshe went up leMarom to recieve the Torah, they taught him
   49 panim (facets) to prohibit and 49 panim to permit.
   And he asked HQBH about this, and said, "This should be given to
   Chachmei Yisrael who are in every generation, and the hakhra'ah
   should be like them.

   This is correct according to the Derash, and in the Derekh haEmes
   there is a ta'am sod in the matter.

So the Ritva, on the level of the Derash, appears to be saying that
Retzon haBorei is for us to do as our Chakhamim pasqen. Not either
shitah specifically.

Also, "panim" is an interesting word. It tends to be mistranslated in
this context as though the word was "derakhim". "Panim" sounds *to me*
more like there are different ways of looking at it, and each way would
show a different facet / face. And Hashem wants us to pasqen based on
how we, as we exist in that generation, are looking at the topic.

On Thu, Sep 28, 2023 at 05:54:48PM -0400, Zvi Lampel via Avodah wrote:
> RMB:

Well, to be accurate, I said I was summarizing a list in Encyc. Talmudis
"Bas Qol". Which means that I didn't really get a chance to read the
sources BEFORE someone told me what they said, to form my own blank-slate
opinion.

>>    1- Rav Nissim Gaon (Berachos 19a-b), 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.

>>     ... RNG gives authority to BQ to override halachic process, and
>>    the Achnai story's bas qol is a special case for two different reasons.
>>     ....

...
> In the first answer the bas kol was not making a halachic statement at all.

How is "halakhah kemoso bekhol maqom" not a halachic statement? As I
explained it, it's not a statement about the specific halakhah of
whether tanu akhnai is a keli when assembled. If that's what you mean,
I would agree.

But this answer is saying the reason why we ignore the BQ is because
its statement wasn't about the tanur! And what does that imply about
a situation where the BQ *did* give a pesaq in that case?

> In the second answer the bas kol was as illegitimate as a false prophet,
> because there is no place for a bas kol in the halachic process....

Are you saying that the tannaim in the beis medrash were fooled by a bas
qol sheqer? A navi sheqer is one you know is outright lying, because such
a nevu'ah couldn't be. And so I would take it that R Nissim Gaon is also
saying that such a BQ, one that pasqens agains the rabbim, couldn't be.

And therefore I understand the ET's reading of R Nissim Gaon, that both
answers are based on the idea that the BQ is not giving the halakhah
in this case. In the first answer, the BQ spoke up about the rest of R
Eliezer's pesaqim, for his kavod. In the second, the BQ was sent even
though it was false, to test the rabbim. But there too it wasn't really
meant as pesaq.

And RNG giving two ways in which the BQ wasn't paqening in order to
justify not following it, it would seem that if the machloqes couldn't
be resolved by humans, we would follow the BQ. As what happened with
eilu va'eilu.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 You will never "find" time for anything.
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   If you want time, you must make it.
Author: Widen Your Tent                        - Charles Buxton
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF