Transcript

Yeah, I don't remember exactly where we left off, but maybe we'll pick up here: ומתנבא בשם ה' נחלק גם כן לשני חלקים. If we're reviewing, it's always a good thing to review. If we're skipping, it's always a good thing to skip. So whatever we're doing is good, okay. Umisnabe beshem Hashem. I think Umisnabe beshem Hashem is the Rambam had that phrase, the Hebrew in his original. So, in whatever edition you're using should have that phrase:

ומתנבא בשם ה' נחלק גם כן לשני חלקים. החלק הראשון שמתנבא בשם ה',

so he's not attributing the Nevuah to Avodah Zarah or something. No, he's attributing the Nevuah to Hakadosh Baruch Hu. However, וקרא להאמין בו מצד שעבודה זו, but

ואומר שה' הוסיף על המצוות מצוה או גרע מהן מצוה מכל המצוות הנכללות בספר התורה. ואין חילוק בין שיוסיף ויגרע בכתובים או שיוסיף ויגרע בפירוש המקובל.

Vehinei... again, what it doesn't whether or not he's adding something to Torah shebiksav or whether he's adding something to Torah sheba'al peh is the same. והנה הוספתו וגריעתו בכתובים. What would be an example of that? כגון שיאמר ה' אמר לי sheha'orlah lishnasayim bilvad. Right, the pasuk says שלוש שנים יהיה לכם ערלים, and he comes and says Hakadosh Baruch Hu said two.

או שיאמר שה' אמר לי שארבע שנים אסור לאוכלן במקום שאמר יתעלה שלוש שנים יהיה לכם ערלים וכל כיוצא בזה. או ישנה בקבלה איזה שינוי שיהיה, אף אם היה פשט הכתוב מסייעו.

Now the Rambam is illustrating if he'll come to contradict to change a perush hamkubal.

כגון שיאמר כמה שאמר בתורה וקצותה את כפה לא תחוס עינך,

he'll come and say sheketzitzas hayad mamash. It means literally, to chop off the hand.

ואין הוא קנס המבייש כמו שבא בקבלה, וייחס זאת לנבואה ויאמר שה' אמר לו כמה שאמר וקצותה את כפה הוא כפשוטו. הרי זה גם כן יומת בחנק לפי שהוא נביא שקר ומייחס לה' מה שלא אמר לו. ואין משגיחין גם בו זה על אות ומופת.

Here too, just like by the מתנבא בשם עבודה זרה, even though he tries to support his alleged nevuah by seemingly performing an os umofes, so here too, we pay no attention to it.

שהרי הנביא שהפליא את כל העולם במופתיו והחדיר ה' בלבבנו את צדקתו והאמונה בו כמו שהבטיח יתעלה וגם בך יאמינו לעולם כבר הגידנו בשם ה' שלא יבא מאת ה' תורה זו לזו. והוא אמר יתעלה לא בשמים היא לאמר מי יעלה לנו השמימה.

So, let's maybe stop here for a minute. So these last few lines we read are challenging to understand. Lefum rihata, the Rambam seems to be saying, why do we... the Rambam is invoking the fact that whatever os umofes this alleged misnabe beshem Hashem performed must have paled in comparison to the mofsim of Moshe Rabbeinu. Right? שהרי הנביא שהפליא את כל העולם במופתיו, etcetera. Now what's difficult here is two things: Number one, kayadua, the Rambam in יסודי התורה פרק ח' הלכה א' says

לא האמינו בו ישראל מפני האותות שעשה שהמאמין על פי האותות יש בלבו ספק. שאפשר שיעשה האות בלט וכישוף אלא כל האותות שעשה במדבר לפי הצורך עשאן. ובמה האמינו בו במעמד הר סיני שעינינו ראו ולא זר ואזנינו שמעו ולא אחר האש והקולות והלפידים והוא ניגש אל הערפל והקול מדבר אליו ואנו שומעים משה משה לך אמור להם כך וכך. וכן הוא אומר פנים בפנים דיבר השם עמכם ונאמר לא את אבותינו כרת השם את הברית הזאת. ומנין שבמעמד הר סיני לבדו היא הראיה לנבואתו שהיא אמת שאין בו דופי שנאמר הנה אנכי בא אליך בעב הענן בעבור ישמע העם בדברי עמך וגם בך יאמינו לעולם.

So the Rambam says that our belief in Moshe Rabbeinu is based on Maamad Har Sinai. It's not based on the osos u'mofsim. Now it's true that temporarily during the course of Yetzias Mitzrayim the osos u'mofsim bolstered Moshe Rabbeinu's standing. That's why the Rambam writes that כל האותות שעשה במדבר לפי הצורך עשאן. It's true that the osos of Mitzrayim were again not just for nevuas Moshe Rabbeinu, it was to teach

למען תדע כי אני השם אני השם בקרב הארץ אין כמוני בכל הארץ.

But in terms of ledoros, our belief in nevuas Moshe Rabbeinu is based on Maamad Har Sinai because all of Klal Yisrael heard Hakadosh Baruch Hu appoint Moshe Rabbeinu as His shaliach. And the pshat in that is that belief על פי אות ומופת can never be absolute, can never be categorical. Maybe there's some kind of, it's bekishuf. It's not only agav, the pshat here is it's not only nevuas Moshe Rabbeinu, but that all ikarei emunah require absolute belief. And that's what the Rambam is saying. So that's why Hakadosh Baruch Hu didn't, didn't, I mean, what are the chances, I mean, what are the chances that Moshe Rabbeinu pulled off the Eser Makos belat u'bekishuf and Keriyas Yam Suf? Not too great. But lemaaseh, it's possible. It's possible. And emunah is supposed to be categorical, is supposed to be without any, even a theoretical shemetz shel dofi. That's the level of emunah that a person is supposed to have. The Rambam says in Perek Aleph of Yesodei HaTorah that a person violates

לא יהיה לך אלוהים אחרים על פני וכל המעלה על דעתו שיש שם אלוה אחר חוץ מזה עבר בלא תעשה שנאמר לא יהיה לך אלוהים אחרים על פני.

Doesn't have to believe it. See, he entertains the possibility. He has such a tzad. לא יהיה לך אלוהים אחרים על פני doesn't mean he very adamantly categorically subscribes to it, no, it means he has a tzad. He has a tzad. Okay, fine. So al kol panim the Rambam is very clear in Yesodei HaTorah that the osos u'mofsim are not the source of our belief in Moshe Rabbeinu. So what's, why is the Rambam invoking the mofsim of Moshe Rabbeinu? שהרי הנביא שהפליא את כל העולם במופתיו. Why, why is he invoking that here? Now it is true that It is true, and this isn't something that we sort of accept bedi'avad. It's something that one expects lechatchila. Obviously there are things in which the Rambam changed his mind. It's not a point of weakness, but it's part of the gadlus. How is it possible through a lifetime of study not to ever revise something, not to ever change one's mind on something? So obviously there are things in which the Rambam changed his mind. Agav, maybe that's pshat. You know, you have the mishna by חצי עבד וחצי בן חורין, so Beis Shammai say that כופין את רבו לשחררו and Beis Hillel say

עובד את עצמו יום אחד עובד את רבו יום אחד.

And Beis Shammai object and say that tikantam es rabo ואת עצמו לא תיקנתם because

לישא שפחה אינו יכול לישא בת חורין אינו יכול והעולם לא נברא אלא לפריה ורביה,

and then the mishna says חזרו בית הלל להורות כדברי בית שמאי. So why do we need the whole hishtalshelus for? Just tell me, tell me Beis Shammai's opinion, because at the end of the day there was no מחלוקת בית שמאי בית הלל. No, maybe that's what the mishna is teaching. No, it's not a... it has to be that in something Beis Hillel... they never ever in being me'ayen further? But that having been said, this is so yesodis, what the Rambam tells us in פרק ט מהלכות יסודי התורה. What the basis of belief in nevuas Moshe Rabbeinu is and in Moshe Rabbeinu's status is so yesodis, it's very, very difficult to imagine that this is something that he changed his mind on. Very difficult to imagine. But ella mai, lekhora the pshat is like this. If you go back a little earlier, where was it? Yeah, in my edition it's just the Amud Aleph of this page. It's right before where we began, right before we began u'misnabi b'shem Hashem. So if you go back to the paragraph before that, here the Rambam was talking about the

מתנבא בשם עבודה זרה. ואין פונים לנבואתו ולא נדרש ממנו אות.

We're a few lines before כי מנסה השם אלקיכם אתכם. If you see where כי מנסה השם אלקיכם אתכם is, we're a few lines before that.

ואין פונים לנבואתו ולא נדרש ממנו אות ואפילו עשה מן המופתים כדי לקיים את הנבואה הזאת דבר שלא שמענו נפלא ממנו הרי זה נחנק ואין פונים לאותם המופתים כי הטעם שנתקיימו אותם המופתים הוא כפי שאמר הכתוב כי מנסה השם אלקיכם אתכם.

So here too the Rambam says that we disregard any mofes, but he gives a different explanation. Right? Here the explanation is not look at mofsei Moshe Rabbeinu. Here the explanation is a pasuk. The Rambam is quoting a pasuk, it's not his explanation, it's meforash in the psukim, כי מנסה השם אלקיכם אתכם. Oh, so lekhora the pshat is like this. Our Rambam, when he says

אין משגיחין גם בכל אות ומופת שהרי הנביא שהפליא את כל העולם במופתיו,

the Rambam is not looking to explain to us how we know to believe in nevuas Moshe Rabbeinu. The Rambam is coming to address the question of given that this misnabi b'shem Hashem who says orlah is two years, orlah is four years, given that he's clearly a navi sheker, so how do we process the fact that he was able to do an os u'mofes? Because the answer that the Torah provides, which the Rambam quoted by מתנבא בשם עבודה זרה, lekhora doesn't apply here. The Torah's explanation that

כי מנסה השם אלקיכם אתכם לדעת הישכם אהבים את השם אלקיכם

is this misnabi is trying to wean you, rachmana litzlan, away from Hakadosh Baruch Hu. Right? The מתנבא בשם עבודה זרה, he's coming and he's saying go be oved avoda zara. So there the Torah says the explanation for why he's able to perform an os u'mofes. is because it's a nisayon to see will you remain, will you remain firm in your, in your emuna bashem, in your connection to Hashem, or or will you allow yourself to be niftah acharei acharei avoda zara. But that explanation doesn't carry over here. So the Rambam says, so you're wondering, so how do I process the misnabe beshem Hashem who's not saying to go be oved avoda zara? He's saying all this to us. So how do I process that os or mofes? So that's what the Rambam, the Rambam is not coming to explain how we know nevuas Moshe Rabbeinu is emes. No, the Rambam is coming to to say sort of what how do we how do we view the fact that that this person whom we know is a navi sheker is is performing an os o mofes? So the Rambam says, it it's not a kasha because even on the level of osos u'mofsim, his os pales in comparison to the osos of Moshe Rabbeinu. So it's bikhlal, it's not something which is which is troubling. And and notice the diyuk, notice the diyuk here, right? In in in this morning's passage, again, talking about the misnabe beshem Hashem, so the Rambam says

אין משגיחין גם בזה על אות ומופת שהרי הנביא שהפליא כל אות ומופת והחדיר השם בלבבנו את צדקתו והאמונה בו כהגיד לנו בשם השם שלא תבוא מאת השם תורה זו לזו.

Earlier, by the המתנבא בשם עבודה זרה, he says

אפילו עשה מן המופתים כדי לקיים את הנבואה הזאת דבר שלא שמענו נפלא ממנו.

He's describing a different caliber os u'mofes. And he's saying that that ein hachi nami, a המתנבא בשם עבודה זרה may perform such a seemingly, may perform such an outstanding extraordinary os u'mofes that on the level of os u'mofes, it would make you, it would make you think. By the misnabe beshem Hashem, that's not going to happen. It's not going to happen. The os u'mofes that he'll be able to perform is going to so pale in comparison to the osos u'mofsim of of Moshe Rabbeinu that you're not going to have any questions. It's going to be obvious that it was laat or or kishuf. It's going to be obvious, okay, so he he pulled the he pulled the joker out of the the deck of cards. It's going to be something on on that on that scale. You hear rabosai, it's so so meduyak. Okay, so let's continue here.

אין משגיחין גם בזה על אות ומופת שהרי הנביא שהפליא כל אות ומופת והחדיר השם בלבבנו את צדקתו והאמונה בו כמו שהבטיח יתעלה באמרו וגם בך יאמינו לעולם,

meaning Hakadosh Baruch Hu hechtir bilvavenu the emuna bo from Ma'amad Har Sinai, which is what the pasuk of וגם בך יאמינו לעולם is referring to, right?

הנה אנכי בא אליך בעב הענן בעבור ישמע העם בדברי עמך וגם בך יאמינו לעולם. כי הגיד לנו בשם השם שלא תבוא מאת השם תורה זו לזו. והוא אמר יתעלה לא בשמים היא לאמר מי יעלה לנו השמימה.

Okay so here the right, the Rambam leshitaso, there are two understandings of of those psukim in Parshas Nitzavim lo bashamayim hi. The Ramban famously says it refers back to mitzvas teshuva, refers to mitzvas teshuva. Rashi already quotes from Chazal that it refers to talmud Torah. And that's the havana that the Rambam has as well, which is why the Rambam never quotes those psukim in with regard to teshuva. His makor for mitzvas teshuva is is the pasuk of of vehisvadu etc.

והוא אמר יתעלה לא בשמים היא לאמר מי יעלה לנו השמימה.

It's not bashamayim, it's not me'ever me'ever layam, rather the Torah then says it's beficha uvilvavcha la'asoso. Uve'omro beficha uvilvavcha, so what does it mean that Torah, talmud Torah is beficha uvilvavcha? Niskaven laksus

הזכורים פה והלימודים הנדרשים על ידי העיון שהוא מכלל הכוחות הנמשכים מן הלב.

To understand Torah, it's lo bashamayim. There's not going to be any nevuah, there's not going to be any - it's not going to be through that. Aleph, it's beficha, to read the psukim in Chumash, and it's uvilvavcha, the understanding of the psukim. After Matan Torah, so then it's nimsar, that based on the Torah she'bichsav that we received, based on the perushim hamkubalim, so it's beficha, that refers to the Torah she'bichsav, you read the Torah she'bichsav, uvilvavcha, that's the iyun.

והזהירנו גם כן מבלהוסיף עליהם ומלגרוע מהם, ואמר לא תוסף עליו ולא תגרע ממנו, ועל כן אמר עליהם השלום אין נביא רשאי לחדש דבר מעתה. ומאחר שידענו מטענתו שטען שקר על השם וייחס אליו מה שלא אמר לו נתחייב מיתה, כמו שאמר הכתוב אך הנביא אשר יזיד ומת הנביא ההוא.

So one tziyur that the Rambam doesn't, I think, doesn't seem to give here, that he does have in Yesodei HaTorah. So the Rambam initially in Perek Tes of Yesodei HaTorah is very much the symmetrical to what we have here.

דבר ברור ומפורש בתורה שהיא מצוה עומדת לעולם ולעולמי עולמים.

Right? The Torah is nitzchos. אין לה לא שינוי ולא גירעון ולא תוספת. You can't add, you can't subtract, you can't adjust.

שנאמר את כל הדבר אשר אנכי מצוה אתכם אתו תשמרו לעשות לא תוסף עליו ולא תגרע ממנו, ונאמר והנגלת לנו ולבנינו עד עולם לעשות את כל דברי התורה הזאת.

So divrei Torah are ad olam.

הלמדת שכל דברי תורה מצווים אנו לעשותם עד עולם, וכן הוא אומר חקת עולם לדרתיכם, ונאמר לא בשמים היא, הלמדת שאין נביא רשאי לחדש דבר מעתה.

Good. Okay. So no shinui, no garon, no tosefes. But later in Halacha Dalet, the Rambam also adds - it's a question here even minei u'vei in Yesodei HaTorah why this is only in Halacha Dalet, not earlier in Halacha Aleph. But the Rambam later adds, וכן אם עקר דבר מדברים שלמדנו מפי השמועה. Okay, that's also either a tosefes or a shinui or a garon.

או שאמר בדין מדיני תורה שהשם צוה לו שהדין כך הוא והלכה כדברי פלוני.

Even if the navi will allege that he received a nevuah saying that in the machlokes between the mechaber and the Rema, this is the way you should pasken. If he'll say - so that's lichora, it's not tosefes, it's not garon, it's not shinui. It's yet another application of לא בשמים היא. So it's sort of the same question. I'm not sure that the Rambam gave that example here. He also didn't give that example in Halacha Aleph. The Kesef Mishneh famously asks here on the Rambam, according to the Rambam, what's pshat in the bas kol like Beis Hillel? How can we follow that bas kol? If לא בשמים היא again precludes not only something which goes against divrei Torah, either shinui, garon, or tosefes, but even something which clarifies divrei Torah, again, to say how we pasken is clarifying divrei Torah, and the Rambam says no, that's also precluded by לא בשמים היא, so the Kesef Mishneh asks and remains be'tzarich iyun, what's pshat in the bas kol like Beis Hillel? So the Or Sameach has a... has a very fascinating teiretz. He said what is the bas kol, the Gemara in Eiruvin records the bas kol, right? That... אלו ואלו דברי אלוקים חיים that הלכה כדברי בית הלל. Lu yehei that the bas kol that there would have been a bas kol, I mean there wouldn't have been, but lu yehei that there would have been a bas kol that Beis Hillel were מכוון לאמיתה של תורה. And therefore we pasken like Beis Hillel. So then ein hachi nami, such a bas kol would have been precluded and we would have ignored such a bas kol based on this Rambam. The bas kol wasn't mityaches to the divrei Torah. The bas kol didn't didn't say that halacha k'divrei ploni in the sense that... it wasn't being meva'er anything in dinei Torah. It was just telling us what to do. When the Rambam gives the example of halacha k'divrei ploni, so it means halacha k'divrei ploni he's right, halacha k'divrei ploni because he's the rov. It's... there's some beirur in dinei Torah. Aderaba, that's pshat in the bas kol as it were. That's a beautiful omek in the bas kol. That it's not stam that the bas kol wants us to fully appreciate the Beis Shammai as well and telling us אלו ואלו דברי אלוקים חיים. No, but it's only because the bas kol said that, that the bas kol is nishmah, because the bas kol again, what the Rambam is talking about is that lo bashamayim hi. That... even even the halachic process is lo bashamayim, in terms of how you arrive at a psak, in terms of who's right, who's wrong. The bas kol simply said, no, I'm not telling you who's right, who's wrong, they're both right. But do like Beis Hillel. Do like Beis Hillel. So it's not a... and according to according to the... according to Rav Meir Simcha it's very good, right? So the Gemara continues and says מפני מה זכו בית הלל that the Beis Hillel were nochin v'aluvim

והיו שונין דבריהם ודברי בית שמאי ולא עוד אלא שהיו מקדימים דברי בית שמאי לדבריהם.

So why don't we find those qualities... listed l'halacha? That if you if you have a machlokes... so the Gemara in Avodah Zarah says if you have a machlokes between two chachamim, so how do you know which chacham to follow? So the Gemara says... if if it's a machlokes on d'Oraisa, so go l'chumra, if it's a machlokes d'Rabbanan, it's a baraisa, go l'kula v'chulu. Why not say look and see who's more who's more noach v'aluf? Who has the middah of being shoneh dvarov and the divrei his bar plugta? And what's more he's even maqdim the divrei bar plugta? Because the answer is no, the bas kol, if the bas kol would have said that, so vaite the bas kol would have been telling us divrei Torah. Because the bas kol would have then been telling us klalei hachraa, klalei psak. That also would have been a violation of lo bashamayim hi. The bas kol is not telling us anything about divrei Torah, it's just telling us what to do. And lo bashamayim hi means the divrei Torah. Nothing about divrei Torah is is bashamayim. That's... that's what the Or Sameach says. Ready to start explaining why following Beis Hillel is not... is not a klal halacha but following... No, it's a klal halacha but it's not a klal in halacha that that is being megaleh anything about dinei Torah. Meaning if you if you would follow... so there was a stalemate between Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel. Beis Hillel were rov but Beis Shammai tained since we're mechadei tfei, so we think there's enough of a qualitative difference that acharayim l'hatos shouldn't apply, so mimeila it was a stalemate. It was a stalemate. If the bas kol would have come and said you follow rov even against mechadei tfei, so the bas kol would have been mityaches to divrei? To divrei Torah. If the bas kol would have said the pshat in beshachbecha uvkumecha is just בשעה שבני אדם שוכבים ובשעה שבני אדם קמים. It doesn't mean actual posture or shkiva or kima vaite, the bas kol would have been mityaches to... The bas kol didn't even tell us that when you don't know which chacham or which group of chachamim to follow, here are klalim. No, because that also would have been telling us a new din in divrei Torah. The bas kol said: "You don't know what to do, this is what you should do." Because Beis Hillel is... no, aderaba, the bas kol is bending over backwards that we shouldn't think that. So why? Because this is what you should do. This is what you should do. It's no different than... it's not... the bas kol is not endorsing the divrei Torah of Beis Hillel, it's not being misyacheis to the divrei Torah. And that's why the Reb Simcha says it's consistent even with the Rambam's understanding that lo bashamayim hi precludes psak halacha. Why? Maybe you say the following: if the bas kol tells you to follow the noach and the aluv, then that's also not being misyacheis to the divrei Torah, just telling us... No, it is. It's being misyacheis. It's not being misyacheis to the machlokes of beshochbecha uvekumecha, but it's being misyacheis to how to pasken a shaila, it's telling you a new din. According to the Rambam, nothing... you can't learn anything about divrei Torah from a bas kol. Not only can't you change, not only can't you add, not only can't you subtract, you can't learn anything about divrei Torah from a bas kol. If the bas kol would have been megaleh that when you have a machlokes between groups of chachamim you look to see which group is more noach ve'aluv, so the bas kol vada'i would have been telling us divrei Torah. The bas kol can't tell us anything about divrei Torah. What the bas kol can do, if you have a bas kol that's not misyacheis to the divrei Torah and the bas kol just says: "This is what you should do," it's no different than the navi coming and say... the Rambam's about to give the example: go, go fight against this nation or something. It's telling us what to do, there's no hissachsus to the divrei Torah. And that's what the... that's what he was saying. How does the Gemara know then that the bas kol said Beis Hillel because of noach ve'aluv? Do you have it in your computer? Can you read the Gemara, please? I think it's yud gimmel... יג עמוד ב maybe. Maybe not. יג עמוד א? No, I think it's יג עמוד ב. Maybe, I don't know. Not יג עמוד ב? יד עמוד א? יג עמוד ב. Yeah, that's it. יג עמוד ב. Three from the bottom.

יצאה בת קול ואמרה אלו ואלו דברי אלקים חיים הן והלכה כבית הלל ומאחר שאלו ואלו דברי אלקים חיים הן מפני מה זכו בית הלל לקבוע הלכה כמותן מפני שנוחין ועלובים היו ושונין דבריהן ודברי בית שמאי ולא עוד אלא שמקדימין דברי בית שמאי לדבריהן.

Maybe a mashal on that same point. Let's say someone wins the lottery. That's also let's assume it's a good thing to win the lottery, maybe maybe a little bit of a dubious assumption, but someone wins the lottery. So then we'll naturally, he had a one in a hundred million chance and he wins the lottery. So we'll say, you know, what was his zechus that he won the lottery? The fact that Beis Hillel, the fact that הלכה כדברי בית הלל, despite אלו ואלו דברי אלוקים חיים, I don't know, maybe אלו ואלו דברי אלוקים חיים, so de'avad k'mar avid, de'avad k'mar avid, you know, take your choice. But that's not the way it is. So that represents an incredible zechus, right? It represents an incredible zechus. But the explanation for the zechus is just like why were they given that beracha, why were they given that zechus? It's also not, you know, how is the Chofetz Chaim zocheh that his Mishnah Berurah was niskabel in throughout Kol Yisrael? I think the answers we would give to that question don't deal with, you know, that his piskei halacha are more true than... no, I think we'd say because he was such a tzaddik, he was so moser nefesh for every tzorach that he saw amongst Kol Yisrael, so in that zechus. But that's not... it's right but not... there's no... but you can say that misvarah, right? You can the same way we in sevarah could answer in the mashal, you know, why was this person zocheh to win the lottery? So we could have a sevarah. So Chazal are saying, A, so the answer to your question is it's a zechus to have the halacha nigbas k'mosom. That's A. B, we can then look as Chazal did for what the reason or reasons are that Beis Hillel were given that zechus. But the same way in the mashal that the reasons that we'll give for why this person was zocheh to win the lottery will in no way explain how, you know, it's because he had someone put his... no, it in no way accounts for the fact that he won the lottery, but it's explaining why min hashamayim he was just given this present. The Gemara in Bava Metzia when the bas kol comes out for Rabbi Eliezer, so it seems like there also it's not referring to the din Torah itself, it's referring to how we pasken as opposed to the din Torah itself. How so? Well it says the bas kol comes and says מה לכם אצל רבי אליעזר שהלכה כמותו בכל מקום, meaning we pasken like Rabbi Eliezer everywhere. So it doesn't really sound it's referring to a specific din Torah, it's just that the hanhaga is whenever Rabbi Eliezer says something, we pasken like him. And the Gemara rejects that by saying lo bashamayim hi, it was already in the Torah that we go like acharei rabbim lehatos. So it sounds like this is just a machlokes in terms of... no, but that's the answer, right? And by Beis Hillel and Beis Shammai it was a total stalemate. It was a total stalemate because it was gufa what was she'nu be'machlokes was whether or not acharei rabbim lehatos was relevant. So because of that the bas kol So the Meshech Chochmah's explaining B, right? But the A is that the Bas Kol wasn't going against anything in the deOraisa because it was a stand-up whether or not acharei rabim lehatos was valid by Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel. Then the fact that it's only masiach, that it's not masiach the deOraisa, mah she-ein kein here that the Bas Kol was going against the din of Yochid ve-Rabbim. Okay, well we'll stop here.