Q&A: On the Nature of a Heavenly Voice
On the Nature of a Heavenly Voice
Question
Hello Rabbi,
Following today’s lesson on quantity and quality, you mentioned regarding the story of the Oven of Akhnai that there it seems the heavenly voice was real. I remembered that you had written otherwise, and now I found what you wrote in response to the iGod videos about the story of the Oven of Akhnai:
What is the message of this story? It is not very complicated for someone who understands the methods of aggadic literature. The Sages wanted to clarify the meaning of the concept of a dynamic tradition. Their intention was to tell us that tradition is not something frozen, but is subject to interpretation and expansion by the Sages. For that purpose they use various literary devices, among them bringing a heavenly voice out of heaven. After all, no one there was a prophet and no one heard the voice of God. So what is the heavenly voice doing there? It represents the view that Torah is what the Holy One, blessed be He, gave at Sinai. Opposed to it stands the view that prevailed there, which holds that Torah is the interpretation the Sages give to the Torah that was given at Sinai. Tradition (which Rabbi Eliezer represents) has no exclusive status, and it too is subject to rational and logical critique. As it were, the Holy One, blessed be He, Himself admits that we must take the reins into our own hands. In the absence of prophecy and a direct connection with the Holy One, blessed be He, when a halakhic question arises the Sages must decide it using the interpretive and exegetical tools they received, and according to their sound judgment. It is not easy to accept such a conception of tradition, and therefore they created an aggadic story that conveys the message clearly. This is not taking the reins away from the Holy One, blessed be He, since all the interpretations of the Sages explain what the verses of the Torah mean and what the Holy One, blessed be He, wants. Here the Holy One, blessed be He, does not represent His own opinion, but rather the conception that human beings have no business meddling in His Torah—the same conception held by the missionaries in the video.
So here you are basically saying that the heavenly voice in the story of the Oven of Akhnai (and in general throughout the Talmud) never actually existed, but is really a literary device that the Sages used in order to convey certain messages. Does the same apply to the heavenly voice in the dispute between the House of Hillel and the House of Shammai regarding methods of decision-making (quality versus quantity)—that it too was really just a literary device? And if so, why did they choose דווקא this literary device? Why didn’t they simply rule that the Jewish law follows the House of Hillel (= we follow the numerical majority), just like in any dispute among the medieval authorities (Rishonim) that later generations decided?
Answer
That is a reasonable assumption, but of course it is possible that there really was a heavenly voice. In any case, usually the use of these kinds of devices comes to reinforce the content being discussed. A description as though there were a heavenly voice comes to say that there was agreement among everyone and that the matter was deeply established for them. They wanted to instill this approach. For example, they use the expression “a law given to Moses at Sinai” to reinforce some law (Tosafot write this).
In my article I describe the background to the dispute between the House of Hillel and the House of Shammai, and from there you can understand why it was important to reinforce this ruling:
כל היכא דאמרינן 'בו ביום' ההוא יומא הוה – יום מכריע אחד בהשתלשלותה של תושבע"פ
Not long ago I heard a nice idea about this that identifies with the view that a heavenly voice really did come.
It was connected to the saying “if one wants to lie, let him distance his testimony,” which is the opposite of what happened here. The Sages brought proof from something close by—the heavenly voice, which is present in every dispute for the sake of Heaven. And the rabbi also proved in his sermon that there were another 3 witnesses here: the carob tree, the water channel, and the walls. So there was no concern for the Sages, headed by Rabbi Joshua (the counterpart of Rabbi Eliezer), because of testimony, since they had already accepted that the Jewish law follows the majority. And that is what is beautiful here.
And you decide for yourselves. If the Sages wanted to lie, as the missionaries portray it—
A dispute for the sake of Heaven comes to teach us that the Sages have authority to determine Jewish law.
Now that I’m writing this, a question occurs to me: why did the heavenly voice come out in the first place? After all, they could in any case have said to Rabbi Eliezer: there is an explicit law in the Torah, “follow the majority.” Wouldn’t he have understood that? Why “embarrass” the heavenly voice?
And the answer that occurred to me, which settles it, is: “Heavenly voice, don’t get involved anymore,” and they said to it politely, “It is not in heaven,” and from then on it did not come, and they established that the Jewish law would be in the hands of the majority, even if Rabbi Eliezer is equal to a thousand Sages together!
Another nice insight: the heavenly voice was honest in admitting that everywhere the Jewish law is in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer. Apparently they did not disagree with him in other places. But here there were many Sages of a different opinion, and the Jewish law was ruled according to the majority. So there is no distancing of testimony here at all, only a desire to obey the Torah purely.