![Access and Ownership: “It is not in Heaven”
Consider the following 2 texts:
Deuteronomy:
11 For this commandment which I command thee
this day, it is not too hard for thee, neither is it far
off.
12 It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest
say: 'Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it
unto us, and make us to hear it, that we may do it?'
13 Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest
say: 'Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it
unto us, and make us to hear it, that we may do it?'
14 But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy
mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it. {S}
Babylonian Talmud, Baba Metzia 59b:
If a man made an oven out of separate coils [of clay, placing one upon another], then put
sand between each of the coils [1] — such an oven, R. Eliezer declared, is not susceptible to
defilement, while the sages declared it susceptible.[2]
It is taught: On that day R. Eliezer brought forward every imaginable argument, but the
Sages did not accept any of them. Finally he said to them: "If the Halakhah (religious law) is
in accordance with me, let this carob tree prove it!" Sure enough the carob tree immediately
uprooted itself and moved one hundred cubits, and some say 400 cubits, from its place. "No
proof can be brought from a carob tree," they retorted.
And again he said to them "If the Halakhah agrees with me, let the channel of water prove it!"
Sure enough, the channel of water flowed backward. "No proof can be brought from a channel
of water," they rejoined.
Again he urged, "If the Halakhah agrees with me, let the walls of the house of study prove
it!" Sure enough, the walls tilted as if to fall. But R. Joshua, rebuked the walls, saying, "When
disciples of the wise are engaged in a halakhic dispute, what right have you to interfere?" Hence
in deference to R. Joshua they did not fall and in deference to R. Eliezer they did not resume](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/accessandownershiptextstudy-120227150918-phpapp02/85/Access-and-Ownership-Text-Study-1-320.jpg)
![their upright position; they are still standing aslant.
Again R. Eliezer then said to the Sages, "If the Halakhah agrees with me, let it be proved from
heaven." Sure enough, a divine voice cried out, "Why do you dispute with R. Eliezer, with
whom the Halakhah always agrees?" R. Joshua stood up and protested: "The Torah is not in
heaven!" (Deut. 30:12). We pay no attention to a divine voice because long ago at Mount Sinai
You wrote in your Torah at Mount Sinai, `After the majority must one incline'. (Ex. 23:2)"
R. Nathan met [the prophet] Elijah [3] and asked him, "What did the Holy One do at that
moment?" Elijah: "He laughed [with joy], saying, 'My children have defeated Me, My children
have defeated Me.'"
Questions for Reflection:
What does “lo bashamayim hi” mean in the context of each story? Is it the same, different?
How does each text relate to ideas of access? Ownership?
Does one text demonstrate access more than the other? If so, which, and why? What about
ownership?
What is the difference between having access to the Torah and owning it?]()
Recomendados
Mais conteúdo relacionado
Mais procurados
Mais procurados (20)
Semelhante a It is Not in Heaven
Semelhante a It is Not in Heaven (20)
Mais de Miriam Brosseau
Último
Último (20)
It is Not in Heaven
- 1. Access and Ownership: “It is not in Heaven” Consider the following 2 texts: Deuteronomy: 11 For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not too hard for thee, neither is it far off. 12 It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say: 'Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, and make us to hear it, that we may do it?' 13 Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say: 'Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, and make us to hear it, that we may do it?' 14 But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it. {S} Babylonian Talmud, Baba Metzia 59b: If a man made an oven out of separate coils [of clay, placing one upon another], then put sand between each of the coils [1] — such an oven, R. Eliezer declared, is not susceptible to defilement, while the sages declared it susceptible.[2] It is taught: On that day R. Eliezer brought forward every imaginable argument, but the Sages did not accept any of them. Finally he said to them: "If the Halakhah (religious law) is in accordance with me, let this carob tree prove it!" Sure enough the carob tree immediately uprooted itself and moved one hundred cubits, and some say 400 cubits, from its place. "No proof can be brought from a carob tree," they retorted. And again he said to them "If the Halakhah agrees with me, let the channel of water prove it!" Sure enough, the channel of water flowed backward. "No proof can be brought from a channel of water," they rejoined. Again he urged, "If the Halakhah agrees with me, let the walls of the house of study prove it!" Sure enough, the walls tilted as if to fall. But R. Joshua, rebuked the walls, saying, "When disciples of the wise are engaged in a halakhic dispute, what right have you to interfere?" Hence in deference to R. Joshua they did not fall and in deference to R. Eliezer they did not resume
- 2. their upright position; they are still standing aslant. Again R. Eliezer then said to the Sages, "If the Halakhah agrees with me, let it be proved from heaven." Sure enough, a divine voice cried out, "Why do you dispute with R. Eliezer, with whom the Halakhah always agrees?" R. Joshua stood up and protested: "The Torah is not in heaven!" (Deut. 30:12). We pay no attention to a divine voice because long ago at Mount Sinai You wrote in your Torah at Mount Sinai, `After the majority must one incline'. (Ex. 23:2)" R. Nathan met [the prophet] Elijah [3] and asked him, "What did the Holy One do at that moment?" Elijah: "He laughed [with joy], saying, 'My children have defeated Me, My children have defeated Me.'" Questions for Reflection: What does “lo bashamayim hi” mean in the context of each story? Is it the same, different? How does each text relate to ideas of access? Ownership? Does one text demonstrate access more than the other? If so, which, and why? What about ownership? What is the difference between having access to the Torah and owning it?