On the essence of a voice actress
Hello Rabbi,
Continuing today’s lesson on quantity and quality, you mentioned the story of Akhnai’s oven, where it seems that Bat Kol was real. I remembered you wrote otherwise, and now I found what you wrote in reference to the iGod videos regarding the story of Akhnai’s oven:
What is the message of this story? Not very complicated for those who understand the ways of the legend. The sages wanted to clarify the meaning of the concept of dynamic tradition. Their intention was to tell us that tradition is not something frozen but is subject to interpretation and expansion by the sages. To this end, they use various literary devices, including the bringing forth of a voice from heaven. After all, no one there was a prophet and did not hear the voice of God. So what is the voice doing there? It represents the perception that the Torah is what God gave at Sinai. And against it stands the perception that prevailed there, which holds that the Torah is the interpretation that the sages give to the Torah given at Sinai. Tradition (which Rabbi Eliezer represents) does not have an exclusive status, and it is also subject to intellectual and logical criticism. As if God Himself admits that we must take the reins into our own hands. In the absence of prophecy and direct contact with God, when a halakhic question arises, the sages must decide it according to the tools of interpretation and the sermon they received and according to their own common sense. It is not easy to accept such a perception of tradition, so they created a legendary story that conveys the message clearly. This is not about taking the reins from God, since all the interpretations of the sages explain what the verses of the Torah mean and what God wants. God here does not represent his own opinion but the perception that humans have nothing to do with His Torah, the same perception that the missionaries in the video hold.
In other words, here you are essentially saying that the Bat Kol in the story of Akhnai’s oven (and in general in all of Shas) did not exist and was not created, but is in fact a literary tool that the Sages used to convey certain messages. Is the same also true regarding the Bat Kol in the dispute in the בהואה and בהואש regarding the methods of decision (quality versus quantity), which in fact was only a literary tool? And if so, why did they choose this particular literary tool? Why didn’t they simply rule that the law is according to Beit Hillel (=following the majority of the feet) like every dispute that the first generations ruled on?
This is an explanation, but of course it is possible that she was a real voice. In any case, usually the use of these tools serves to reinforce the content in question. A description as if she was a voice means that there was agreement among everyone and that this was strong among them. They wanted to assimilate this perception. For example, the expression “halakha” (law) from Moses of Sinai is used to reinforce some law (the Toss writes this).
My article describes the background to the controversy between the Hebrew and Hebrew Scriptures, and from there you can understand why it was important to strengthen this decision:
https://mikyab.net/%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9B%D7%9C-%D7%94%D7%99%D7%9B%D7%90-%D7%93%D7%90%D7% 9E%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%A0%D7%9F-%D7%91%D7%95-%D7%91%D7%99%D7%95%D7%9D-%D7%9 4%D7%94%D7%95%D7%90-%D7%99%D7%95%D7%9E%D7%90-%D7%94%D7%95%D7%94-%D7%99/
I recently heard a beautiful thing about this that identifies with the fact that Bat Kol really came.
It had to do with wanting to lie to distance his testimony, which is the opposite of what happened here, the sages brought evidence from something close to the Bat Kol that is found in every dispute for the sake of heaven, and the rabbi further proved in his sermon that there were 3 more witnesses here, the carob tree, the water well, and the walls, so that the sages, headed by R’ Yehoshua (R’ Eliezer's company) have no fear here because of testimony because they have already accepted that the halakha follows the majority. And that is what is beautiful here.
And you decide for yourself. If the sages wanted to lie as the missionaries show.
A dispute for the sake of heaven, it comes to teach us that the sages have the authority to determine halakha.
Now that I write this, the question arises: why did Bat Kol come out in the first place, after all, they could have told R’ Eliezer, the halakha is explicit in the Torah: “After many are persuaded” what wouldn't he understand? Why “to shame” a voice?
And the answer that came to me from the heart is: “You, the voice,” don't interfere anymore, and they politely told her “She is not in heaven” and she hasn't come since, and they determined that the halakha will be in the hands of the majority, even if R’ Eliezer is as wise as a thousand sages together!
Another beautiful verse, the voice was honest in admitting that everywhere the halakha was like R’ Eliezer, they probably wouldn't disagree with him in other places. But here there were many sages of a different opinion, and the halakha was ruled according to the majority. So there is no exclusion of evidence here, at all, just a desire to obey the Torah purely.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
