5785/2025
Shabbat Chazal Additions – A TABC Shiur Discussion
In June 2025/Sivan 5785, my TABC Halachah Talmidim posed important questions about Chazal's additions to the Torah’s Shabbat restrictions.
Question #1 – Why Don’t the Torah Restrictions Suffice
Talmidim wished to know why Chazal felt compelled to add to the Torah’s Shabbat restrictions.
Response – Ramban VaYikra 23:24
VaYikra 23:24 instructs us: Yiheyeh Lachem Shabbaton, which Chazal interpret to include “Activities which are not in the category of Melachah (‘work’)”. The Ramban famously explains (slightly modified translation from Sefaria):
It appears to me that this interpretation intends to state that we are commanded by law of the Torah to have rest on a festival day even from activities which are not in the category of Melachah (“work”). Thus, we are not to be engaged the whole day in wearisome tasks: measuring out crops of the field, weighing fruits and gifts, filling the barrels with wine and clearing away the vessels, and moving stones from house to house and from place to place [although none of these activities is “work” in the strict sense of the term]. Similarly, if it be a city encompassed by a wall and its gates are locked at night, [and it is therefore according to law of the Torah treated as one domain, and the prohibition against taking out items from one domain to another is inapplicable there], they would be loading heaps on donkeys, as also wine, grapes, and figs and all manner of burdens they would bring on a festival; and the market place would be full for all business transactions, the shops standing open and the shopkeepers giving credit, the money-changers sitting before their tables with the golden coins before them, and the workers would rise early to go to their work and hire themselves out for such works [as described above] just as on weekdays, and so on! And since all these matters do not entail Melachah, they would be permissible on a festival day and even on the Sabbath itself! Therefore, the Torah said that [the festival should be a day of] Shabbaton (solemn rest), meaning that it should be a day of rest and ease, not a day of labor [and weariness]. This is a good and beautiful interpretation.
In other words, Shabbat would be unfathomable without the rabbinic additions to ensure and facilitate a proper Shabbat atmosphere.
Question #2 – Then Why Didn’t Hashem Incorporate the Rabbinic Additions in the Torah?
Response – Rabi Akiva and Turnusrufus
Midrash Tanchuma (Parashat Tazria) records the following striking exchange between Rabi Akiva and a Roman nobleman/philosopher named Turnusrufus:
"Once the evil [Roman governor] Turnus Rufus asked Rabbi Akiva, 'Whose deeds are greater - God's or man's?' He replied, 'Man's deeds are greater.' Turnus Rufus asked him, 'Is man then capable of creating heaven and earth, or anything like them?' Rabbi Akiva replied, 'I was not referring to the sphere beyond man's ability, over which he has no control. I refer to those creations of which man is capable.' He then asked, 'Why do you circumcise yourselves?' Rabbi Akiva replied, 'I knew that that was the point of your question, and therefore I answered in the first place that man's deeds are greater than God's.' Rabbi Akiva brought him grains of wheat and some bread, and said: 'These grains of wheat are God's handiwork, and the bread is the handiwork of man. Is the latter not greater than the former?' Turnus Rufus answered him, 'If God wanted you to perform circumcision, why did He not create the child already circumcised while still in the womb?' Rabbi Akiva answered, 'Why do you not ask the same question concerning the umbilical cord, which remains attached to him and which his mother must cut?
The Mitzvah of Brit Milah reflects a core mission of humanity, the completion of creation. Rav Soloveitchik (Halachic Man, page 101) explains that Hashem deliberately refrained from completing creation. Hashem charges Adam with the job of “conquering” the world (Ramban to BeReishit 1:28). Our job is to complete Hashem’s world.
Similarly, Hashem did not complete the Torah. He intentionally left it incomplete for Chazal and the Jewish people to complete it. The Maharal likens the relationship between the Chachamim and the Torah to that of someone assigned to complete an unfinished mansion. When completing the mansion, all added components must perfectly match the original.
Hashem deliberately chose not to complete the Torah. Instead, He tasked us with the job of finishing the Torah. However, it must be thoroughly compatible with the original to be a legitimate extension. The same applies to post-Talmudic rabbinic rulings. They constitute an authentic addition to Torah only if it is completely compatible with Torah.
Question #3 – How Do We Know that Hashem Approves of Chazal’s Additions?
Response – Tannur Shel Achnai
Our Talmidim wondered how we are to know that Hashem approves of Chazal’s additions. To this question, I cited Bava Metzia 59b’s unforgettable Tannur Shel Aschnai episode. Rabi Eliezer argued that a certain oven called a Tannur Shel Achani is Tahor, and the Chacham insisted it is Tamei.
After exhausting his logical proof which failed to convince the Sages, he performed several miracles to prove Hashem’s agreement with his views. The Chachamim insisted that miracles do not establish Halachah. Finally, Rabi Eliezer summoned a Bat Kol (heavenly voice) to descend and support him, which it did. Stunningly, Rabi Yehoshua arose and rejected the divine voice, noting that the Torah states that it does not reside in heaven, “Lo BaShamayim He.”
The story concludes:
Rabbi Natan encountered Eliyahu HaNavi and asked 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: 'Nitzchuni Banai, Nitzchuni Banai”. My children have triumphed over Me; My children have triumphed over Me.
Thus, we see that Hashem approves Chazal’s decisions even if He disagrees!
Question #4 – I Thought We Follow Hashem’s Will, not Chazal’s Will?
Response - סוֹד ה' לִירֵאָיו וּבְרִיתוֹ לְהוֹדִיעָם
The Mishnah (Yadayim 4:3) presents a fierce debate between the Chachamim as to whether in the Ammon and Mo’av regions (present-day Jordan) we separate Ma’aser Sheini or Ma’aser Ani in the seventh year. At the debate conclusion, the Rabbanan voted (“Nimnu VeGamru”) in favor of Ma’aser Ani.
When one sage reported this event to Rabi Eliezer (who was excommunicated due to his refusal to accept the Chachamim’s ruling regarding the Tannur Shel Achnai)
Rabbi Eliezer wept and said: "Sod Hashem Lerei’av Uvrito Lehodi’am, Hashem’s secrets are revealed to those who revere Him: and to inform them of His covenant" (Tehillim 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 Moav must give tithe for the poor in the seventh year.
This episode sheds great light on the Tannur Shel Achnai incident especially since it is none other than Rabi Eliezer who pronounces סוֹד ה' לִירֵאָיו וּבְרִיתוֹ לְהוֹדִיעָם. Yadayim 4:3 demonstrates that the Chachamim’s ruling (i.e., the consensus view) in the Tanur Shel Achnai case reflects Hashem’s subtle influence - 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, Eruvin 13b). However, the Maharal explains, more of the Emet lies with the Chachamim, and the Halachah follows this view. I suggest that Hashem subtly influences the Halachic consensus to adopt the view that captures more Emet. I add that in situations where no Halachic consensus emerges, both views capture equal shares of Emet and thus both views remain extant through the generations.
The Ramban to Devarim 17:11 explaining why we should follow the decisions of the Sanhedrin even if it appears incorrect to us, supports my suggestion. Ramban states that we follow the Sanhedrin’s decisions even if they seem incorrect since Hashem would not permit the sages to err. כי רוח השם על משרתי מקדשו ולא יעזוב את חסידיו לעולם נשמרו מן הטעות ומן המכשול.
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 of powering electric devices on Shabbat as if a Bat Kol (heavenly voice) had endorsed this view. Similarly, Pesachim 66a, while endorsing the view followed by devout Jews, unforgettably states, “If they are not prophets, they are the children of prophets.”
Thus, when we follow Chazal’s rulings, we follow Hashem’s Will, since He shapes rabbinic decisions.
Conclusion
The fact that Poskim find a Talmudic precedent for every scientific breakthrough to apply the Halachah to the contemporary context indicates Hashem’s subtle influence. How else can we account for the Gemara incorporating perfect analogies (to cite but a few examples) for airplanes, in vitro fertilization, refrigerators, electric shavers, and dishwashers? Yadayim 4:3 teaches that 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 subtly shapes the outcome. Perhaps this is why Hashem smiles while proclaiming “Nitzchuni Banai”, my children have defeated Me. The Chachamim’s victory is illusory since Hashm has quietly tilted their viewpoint.