Q&A: Formal or Essential Halakhic Authority
Formal or Essential Halakhic Authority
Question
Hello Rabbi, in the trilogy the Rabbi says that the way the sages of the Talmud rule is intellectual and not by way of revelation, and therefore there can be cases where they are mistaken, like all human beings who draw conclusions with their minds, and therefore their authority is formal. But what about cases in the Talmud that show that the sages had mystical abilities (performing miracles, healing abilities, uttering sacred names), or that Jewish law was determined by a heavenly voice (“a heavenly voice went forth and said: both these and those are the words of the living God, but the law follows the House of Hillel”)? Doesn’t that indicate that even if the sages ruled by means of reason, their judgment also included mystical knowledge, or at least that in some cases Jewish law was decided not by an intellectual route but by a route above nature, which would mean that the authority of the sages is perhaps actually essential?
Answer
I assume that almost all of these cases involved nothing mystical at all. These are just literary forms of description. See, for example, Rabbi Reuven Margaliot’s introduction to his edition of the book Responsa from Heaven.
Incidentally, even if they ruled by virtue of divine inspiration, that still does not mean they have formal authority. It only means they are right. Formal authority is based on a formal mechanism, not on an argument that shows you are right. Such an argument assumes essential authority, not formal authority.
Discussion on Answer
If the heavenly voice is a literary description, then what really happened there? After all, you explained that if there is a dispute about the rules of decision, then you need some kind of deus ex machina.
What really happened there is that suddenly they understood that this is how one ought to conduct oneself, and a consensus emerged. That is called a heavenly voice (see Jerusalem Talmud Chagigah and Babylonian Talmud Shabbat: what is meant by a heavenly voice). As I recall, Rabbi Margaliot there also brings that the Raavad wrote, “divine inspiration appeared in our study hall,” and there were those who explained it exactly this way.
I didn’t understand. In the dispute between the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel, the heavenly voice is really needed. What do you mean, they understood? Did the House of Shammai retract?
When I search “heavenly voice” in Babylonian Talmud Shabbat there is no “what is meant by a heavenly voice.” In the Jerusalem Talmud I couldn’t find a good search site.
There is the well-known saying of Rabbi Joshua, if I remember correctly: “It is not in heaven,” and “we do not pay attention to a heavenly voice.” And see Tosafot there regarding the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel.
Yishai. From the expression, and from the fact that “we do not pay attention to a heavenly voice,” on the contrary it is proven that a heavenly voice is not a strong consensus fixed in everyone’s heart, but something that really happened or could have happened. Moreover, one could say that we do not pay attention to a halakhic heavenly voice when it contradicts an agreed rule of decision, but when there is a dispute about the rules of decision themselves (quantitative majority or qualitative majority), as Rabbi Michael explained somewhere, there is no choice but to go outside the system. In a place where we do pay attention to a heavenly voice, as in the dispute between the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel, it is apparently indeed something special and not just reasoning or aggadah.
Which Tosafot did you mean, Yishai? I didn’t find a relevant one either in Gittin 6 or in Eruvin 13. This is the second time in one thread that I’ve gone chasing after a ghost. The search options of mortals like me are limited to Google and Talmud/Tosafot search sites. Please, I beg you, give a searchable phrase or an exact reference.
What you said in Rabbi Michi’s name is actually written explicitly in Tosafot there. Bava Metzia 59a, I think, under the heading “we do not pay attention to a heavenly voice.” And from what you wrote it follows that the heavenly voice only comes to support the view we are already inclined toward, and a heavenly voice cannot (according to one of the answers in Tosafot) change our basic line of thinking. That means the authority ultimately remains with the sages, and we do not pay attention to a heavenly voice, and that is formal authority and not essential authority. (For a heavenly voice is essentially right, and yet we do not listen to it.)
The heavenly voice is the figure of the last decisor in those periods.
And we do not pay attention to him.
From the Cracks,
also in the disputes between the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel one can interpret it as meaning that the understanding prevailed that one should rule like the House of Hillel (even if they are not necessarily the ones who are right. The House of Shammai continued to conduct themselves according to their view). Especially if the meaning is that this understanding prevailed among the sages generally, and not only among the House of Hillel and the House of Shammai themselves (who, as stated, continued to conduct themselves according to their view).
Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat 6:9: “Rabbi Yohanan and Resh Lakish were eager to see Samuel’s face. They said: Let us follow the hearing of a heavenly voice. …” Compare Babylonian Talmud Chullin 95b.
Babylonian Talmud Megillah (not Chagigah) 32a: “Rabbi Yohanan said: From where do we know that one makes use of a heavenly voice?”
See also the Encyclopaedia Talmudit entry ‘Heavenly Voice’.
Thank you very much to both of you.
I’ll summarize what I came away with:
There is a heavenly voice that is just incidental hearing relevant only as a mere sign from someone speaking on the side, as in Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat and Babylonian Talmud Megillah, and of course that has no halakhic significance. There is a heavenly voice that is an understanding that became established (more sages systematically agreed with the words of the House of Hillel, meaning they joined the House of Hillel, thereby increasing the numerical gap and perhaps reducing the qualitative gap). And there is a heavenly voice that is purely a literary description.
In Yevamot 14a (the Tosafot Yishai pointed to refer there), according to the second “if you wish, say” according to Samuel, the House of Shammai continued to conduct themselves according to their view even ‘after the heavenly voice’.
And of course see also Maimonides’ introduction to the Mishnah commentary, on the three groups among those who interpret the aggadic statements of the sages.