[Avodah] Rav Nissim Gaon on Bas Kol's place in Pesak (Was: Re: Does the psak of bet din evidence the ratzon Hashem?)

[Zvi Lampel]

>
>
> On Thu, Sep 28, 2023 at 05:54:48PM -0400, Zvi Lampel via Avodah wrote:
> > RMB:
>
> ...summarizing a list in Encyc. Talmudis
> ...
> >>    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.
> >>     ....
>
> ...
> ZL: > (Disagreeing with the Encyclopedia Talmudis' presentation of Rav
> Nissim Gaon's answers regarding the Bas Kol in the Tanur d'Bei Achnai
> account as summarized by RMB, that  "normally BQ would have halachic
> power," and "RNG gives authority to BQ to override halachic process":)


 ZL:  I don't think so. Rav Nissim Gaon explicitly explains that his
explanations are in response to the problem that the majority view was so
buttressed by proofs that R. Eliezer had no way of countering them (so how
could a bas kol disagree),

In the first answer the bas kol was not making a halachic statement at all.
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. "The Torah
of Hashem is complete, and already given to us at Sinai, and He let us know
that He would switch over not one statement of it. Our Torah lacks nothing
and has no doubts for which we would need a proof from Heaven.

In other words, according to RNG, the human halachic protocol discovers the
true intent of the Torah (read, the ratzon haSheim), and any bas kol
disagreeing with it is a miscontrance of its intent.


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

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.
>

 ZL: Yes, that's what I mean.

>
> RMB:

But this answer is saying the reason why we ignore the BQ is because
> its statement wasn't about the tanur!


ZL:  As I wrote, RNG's question was not why we ignore the Bas Kol, but just
the opposite: How could the Bas Kol ignore the Sages. Rav Nissim Gaon
explicitly explains that his explanations are in response to the problem of
how the Bas Kol could disagree with the majority view that was so
buttressed by proofs that R. Eliezer had no way of countering them. And
ultimately, RNG focuses on the impossibility that a Bas Kol could tell the
sages  to transgress acharei rabim l'hatos  So the answer is it wasn't
doing that.

And what does that imply about
> a situation where the BQ *did* give a pesaq in that case?
>

ZL: The answer was that no Bas Kol would do that. As the maskana of the
account makes clear, we don't pay attention to a bas kol that contradicts
what the majority of chachamim decided.

RMB:
> > 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....
>
> RMB: Are you saying that the tannaim in the beis medrash were fooled by a
> bas
> qol sheqer?

ZL: No. They passed the test. Led by Rebbi Yehoshua, refused to be swayed
by it.

RMB:

> 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.
>
.
ZL:  Right...unless it  was sent as a test--just like the miracles of a
navi sheker.

RMB:

> And therefore I understand the E[ncyclopedia] T[almudis]'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.
>
>   ... RNG gives authority to BQ to override halachic process, and
>    the Achnai story's bas qol is a special case for two different reasons.
>     ....
>

ZL: But my objection to that understanding of RNG remains. He strongly
opposes the idea that a Bas Kol plays a role in determining halacha. Again,
I quote RNG:

"The Torah of Hashem is complete, and already given to us at Sinai, and He
let us know that He would switch over not one statement of it. Our Torah
lacks nothing and has no doubts for which we would need a proof from
Heaven."
How does one get from that to "if the machloqes couldn't be resolved by
humans, we would follow the BQ"??

Zvi Lampel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20231114/e1f15886/attachment-0002.htm>