2021/5782
Are Poskim “on their own '' when arriving at Halachic decisions or are they being subtly influenced by Hashem? I do not necessarily refer to the individual Posek’s decisions but rather to the emergence of a Halachic consensus. Might Hashem continue to influence the Halachic consensus even today? The answer might hinge upon the harmonization of two major stories of the Mishna/Gemara.
In this exploration, we must bear in mind the great tension between Bechira Chofshit and Hashgacha Peratit – which (as understood by some Mefarshim such as the Rambam) is expressed in the Mishna (Avot 3:15) הכל צפוי והרשות נתונה, all is foreseen but free will is nonetheless granted.
Tannur Shel Achnai
On the one hand, the great story of the Tannur Shel Achnai (Bava Metzia 59b; translation from Sefaria) indicates that Hashem allows the Chachamim independence in the Halachic process:
And this is known as the oven of akhnai. The Gemara asks: What is the relevance of akhnai, a snake, in this context? Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: It is characterized in that manner due to the fact that the Rabbis surrounded it with their statements like this snake, which often forms a coil when at rest, and deemed it impure. The Sages taught: On that day, when they discussed this matter, Rabbi Eliezer answered all possible answers in the world to support his opinion, but the Rabbis did not accept his explanations from him.
After failing to convince the Rabbis logically, Rabbi Eliezer said to them: If the halakha is in accordance with my opinion, this carob tree will prove it. The carob tree was uprooted from its place one hundred cubits, and some say four hundred cubits. The Rabbis said to him: One does not cite halakhic proof from the carob tree. Rabbi Eliezer then said to them: If the halakha is in accordance with my opinion, the stream will prove it. The water in the stream turned backward and began flowing in the opposite direction. They said to him: One does not cite halakhic proof from a stream.
Rabbi Eliezer then said to them: If the halakha is in accordance with my opinion, the walls of the study hall will prove it. The walls of the study hall leaned inward and began to fall. Rabbi Yehoshua scolded the walls and said to them: If Torah scholars are contending with each other in matters of halakha, what is the nature of your involvement in this dispute? The Gemara relates: The walls did not fall because of the deference due Rabbi Yehoshua, but they did not straighten because of the deference due Rabbi Eliezer, and they still remain leaning.
Rabbi Eliezer then said to them: If the halakha is in accordance with my opinion, Heaven will prove it. A Divine Voice emerged from Heaven and said: Why are you differing with Rabbi Eliezer, as the halakha is in accordance with his opinion in every place that he expresses an opinion?
Rabbi Yehoshua stood on his feet and said: It is written: “It is not in heaven” (Deuteronomy 30:12). The Gemara asks: What is the relevance of the phrase “It is not in heaven” in this context? Rabbi Yirmeya says: Since the Torah was already given at Mount Sinai, we do not regard a Divine Voice, as You already wrote at Mount Sinai, in the Torah: “After a majority to incline” (Exodus 23:2). Since the majority of Rabbis disagreed with Rabbi Eliezer’s opinion, the halakha is not ruled in accordance with his opinion. The Gemara relates: Years after, Rabbi Natan encountered Elijah the prophet and said to him: What did the Holy One, Blessed be He, do at that time, when Rabbi Yehoshua issued his declaration? Elijah said to him: The Holy One, Blessed be He, smiled and said: My children have triumphed over Me; My children have triumphed over Me.
Yadayim 4:3 - סוֹד ה' לִירֵאָיו וּבְרִיתוֹ לְהוֹדִיעָם
On the other hand, the Mishna in Yadayim (4:3) indicates otherwise. This Mishna clearly communicates that Hashem influences the emergence of the consensus opinion after a very spirited debate among the Chachamim.
On that day they said: what is the law applying to Ammon and Moab in the seventh year? Rabbi Tarfon decreed tithe for the poor. And Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah decreed a second tithe. Rabbi Ishmael said: Elazar ben Azariah, you must produce your proof because you are expressing the stricter view and whoever expresses a stricter view has the burden to produce the proof. Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah said to him: Ishmael, my brother, I have not deviated from the sequence of years, Tarfon, my brother, has deviated from it and the burden is upon him to produce the proof. Rabbi Tarfon answered: Egypt is outside the land of Israel, Ammon and Moab are outside the land of Israel: just as Egypt must give tithe for the poor in the seventh year, so must Ammon and Moab give tithe for the poor in the seventh year. Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah answered: Babylon is outside the land of Israel, Ammon and Moab are outside the land of Israel: just as Babylon must give second tithe in the seventh year, so must Ammon and Moab give second tithe in the seventh year. Rabbi Tarfon said: on Egypt which is near, they imposed tithe for the poor so that the poor of Israel might be supported by it during the seventh year; so on Ammon and Moab which are near, we should impose tithe for the poor so that the poor of Israel may be supported by it during the seventh year. Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah said to him: Behold, you are like one who would benefit them with gain, yet you are really as one who causes them to perish. Would you rob the heavens so that dew or rain should not descend? As it is said, "Will a man rob God? Yet you rob me. But you: How have we robbed You? In tithes and heave-offerings" (Malachi 3:8). Rabbi Joshua said: Behold, I shall be as one who replies on behalf of Tarfon, my brother, but not in accordance with the substance of his arguments. The law regarding Egypt is a new act and the law regarding Babylon is an old act, and the law which is being argued before us is a new act. A new act should be argued from [another] new act, but a new act should not be argued from an old act. The law regarding Egypt is the act of the elders and the law regarding Babylon is the act of the prophets, and the law which is being argued before us is the act of the elders. Let one act of the elders be argued from [another] act of the elders, but let not an act of the elders be argued from an act of the prophets. The votes were counted and they decided that Ammon and Moab should give tithe for the poor in the seventh year. And when Rabbi Yose ben Durmaskit visited Rabbi Eliezer in Lod he said to him: what new thing did you have in the house of study today? He said to him: their votes were counted and they decided that Ammon and Moab must give tithe for the poor in the seventh year. Rabbi Eliezer wept and said: "The counsel of the Lord is with them that fear him: and his covenant, to make them know it" (Psalms 25:14). Go and tell them: Don't worry about your voting. I received a tradition from Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai who heard it from his teacher, and his teacher from his teacher, and so back to a halachah given to Moses from Sinai, that Ammon and Moab must give tithe for the poor in the seventh year.
Other Examples of סוֹד ה' לִירֵאָיו וּבְרִיתוֹ לְהוֹדִיעָם
I believe that we find a similar phenomenon of סוֹד ה' לִירֵאָיו וּבְרִיתוֹ לְהוֹדִיעָם in regards to the following two cases: Rashi and Rabbenu Tam famously argue about 1) The order of the Parshiyot in Tefillin 2) Whether a Mezuza is affixed vertically or on a slant (this Machloket is practice stems from a Machloket Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam).
In the twentieth century, archaeologists discovered, both in regards to Tefillin and Mezuza, that in the time of Bayit Sheini, some Tefillin were arranged following Rashi’s view and some Tefillin followed Rabbeinu Tam’s opinion! Some homes had Mezuzot affixed in accordance with Rashi and others like Rabbeinu Tam (for further discussion and sources see my Gray Matter 3:250 and 260)!
Resolving the Contradiction – Hashem Subtly Influencing the Consensus
How might one resolve the seeming Setirah (contradiction) between Bava Metzia 59b and Mishna Yadayim 4:3 (especially since it is none other than Rabbi Eliezer who pronounces סוֹד ה' לִירֵאָיו וּבְרִיתוֹ לְהוֹדִיעָם)?
My thought is that there is no Setirah: The Chachamim’s ruling (i.e. the consensus view) in the Tanur Shel Achnai case reflects the subtle influence of Hashem - סוֹד ה' לִירֵאָיו וּבְרִיתוֹ לְהוֹדִיעָם. The Bat Kol, as Tosafot to Bava Metzia 59b (d”h Lo BaShamayim Hi) say, was issued merely as Kavod to Rabi Eliezer.
Maharal (Be’eir HaGolah 1:5; explicated in Rav Netanel Wiederblank’s “Illuminating Jewish Thought” pages 242-247) adds that both Rabi Eliezer and the Chachamim reflect the Dvar Hashem in a stunning expression of epistemological pluralism (Eilu V’Eilu Divrei Elokim Chaim). However, the Maharal explains, more of the Emet lies with the Chachamim and the Halacha follows this view. I suggest that Hashem subtly influences the Halachic consensus to adopt the view which captures more Emet. I also suggest that in situations where no Halachic consensus emerges, both views capture equal shares of Emet and thus both views remain extant through the generations.
I believe that my approach can be supported by the Ramban to Devarim 17:11 explaining why we should follow the decisions of the Sanhedrin even if it appears incorrect to us כל שכן שיש לך לחשוב שהם אומרים על ימין שהוא ימין כי רוח השם על משרתי מקדשו ולא יעזוב את חסידיו לעולם נשמרו מן הטעות ומן המכשול ולשון ספרי (שופטים קנד) אפילו מראין בעיניך על הימין שהוא שמאל ועל שמאל שהוא ימין שמע להם:
The Chatam Sofer (cited by his grandson in his Chut HaMeshulash page 97; quoted by Dr. Abraham S. Abraham, Nishmat Avraham 4:15) similarly told his son the Ketav Sofer that a consensus view among fully observant Jews is an expression of divine influence. The Aruch HaShulchan (Orach Chaim 345:18) describes the Halachic consensus regarding relying on community Eruvin as if a Bat Kol (heavenly voice) rang out in favor of this view. Rav Asher Weiss (Teshuvot Minchat Asher 1:30) similarly describes the Halachic consensus regarding the prohibition to turn on electric appliances on Shabbat as if a Bat Kol (heavenly voice) rang out in favor of this view. We may in this vein understand Pesachim 66a, which while endorsing the validity of the view followed by the devout Jewish community, states “if they are not prophets, they are the children of prophets”.
Conclusion
The fact that for every new breakthrough in science, technology, medicine etc. Poskim find a precedent in Chazal to apply the Halacha fairly seamlessly to the contemporary context, indicates subtle divine influence in the works of Chazal. How else how we can explain why the Gemara contains perfect analogies (to cite but a few examples of this phenomena) for airplanes, in vitro fertilization, refrigerators, electric shavers and dishwashers? הכל צפוי והרשות נתונה, the Chachamim exercise their free will and exert every effort to master Torah and apply it properly, but it is Hashem who is subtly shaping the outcome. Perhaps this is why (Bava Metzia 59b) Eliyahu HaNavi reports Hashem smiles when He proclaims “Nitzchuni Banai”, my children have defeated Me. The victory of the Chachamim is an illusory defeat since ultimately their view has been quietly tilted by Hashem in the direction of the most truthful conclusion.