Parashat Nitzavim is always read before Rosh Hashanah, preparing us for the High Holy Days by reminding us of covenant, teshuvah, and choice. In Deuteronomy 30:11-16, we are told that Torah is not far away, not in heaven or across the sea, but “very near to you, in your mouth and in your heart, to do it.”The rabbis of the Talmud seize on this verse in the famous story of the “Oven of Akhnai” (Bava Metzia 59b). There, they reject a heavenly voice in favor of their own interpretive authority: Torah belongs not to heaven, but to us. Modern voices continue to probe this question: how do we balance text, tradition, interpretation, and moral responsibility in our generation?

The Jerusalem Talmud takes an opposite approach, saying that the heavenly voice supports the halakhic authority of Beit Hillel as authoritative.

Why might the Jerusalem Talmud emphasize heavenly authority when the Bavli rejects it?

Contemporary Halakhic Problems, Vol. I, Introduction, The Methodology of Halakhah 4. Rabbi David Bleich, 1977
Although the Torah itself is immutable, the Sages teach that the interpretation of its many laws and regulations is entirely within the province of human intellect. Torah is divine but "lo ba-shamayim hi—it is not in the heavens" (Deut. 30:12); it is to be interpreted and applied by man. A remarkable corollary to the principle of the immutability of the Torah is the principle that, following the revelation at Sinai, no further heavenly clarification of doubt or resolution of ambiguity is possible. Clarification and elucidation are themselves forms of change. Since there can be no new revelation, a prophet who claims the ability to resolve disputed legal points by virtue of his prophetic power stands convicted by his own mouth of being a false prophet.

How do we balance humility (knowing we might be wrong) with responsibility (having to decide)?

Rabbi Bradley Shavit Artson, Everyday Torah, pages 200-201 (2008)
What Is the Authority of the Torah?
Each Sunday morning, some TV preachers hold up Bibles and presume that ultimate authority can be lifted straight out of that book. They argue that the Bible says it, so that settles it. Many Jews have adopted that same approach, insisting that “Torah” Judaism is one in which the Torah has the final word—specifically that the p’shat is final. Thus, anyone who acts against the p’shat of the Torah is violating the will of God and going against the teachings of Judaism.
Yet that assessment of how we should live the Torah is really an act of assimilation, taking on the standards of one type of Christianity as though it were all of traditional Judaism. In reality, Judaism has always insisted that the Torah means what the rabbinic sages say it means and that the p’shat may be interesting from the perspective of study and scholarship (that is, to find out what the Torah meant in its ancient Near Eastern context), but the p’shat is virtually irrelevant to what the Torah means for us today. For that relevance, we have always turned to the drash—the Torah as it is read by each generation of Jews. Not only is that nonfundamentalist Judaism traditional, it is a necessary implication of a belief in Torah sheh be-al peh (an oral teaching that parallels, elucidates, and implements the written teaching). The written Torah means what the oral Torah understands it to mean.
One need not look far for examples in rabbinic writings. The Torah specifies that one cannot exempt oneself from a vow, yet the rabbis disregard the p’shat of the Torah to allow for rabbinic annulment of unwise vows. The Torah specifies the death penalty for certain crimes, but rabbinic interpretation virtually reads capital punishment out of existence—in disregard of the biblical view. The Torah prohibits touching the corpse of an animal that is tamei, yet Jewish law permits it. These are not acts of rebellion, but an assertion that the Torah “is not in heaven”; it is ours to interpret and align with the moral insights of each age. It is a way of continuing to hear the voice of the living God through its words.


• How does Rabbi Artson’s framing (Torah is interpreted through drash, not p’shat) align with or challenge your own sense of authority in Torah?

Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, z'l
“Behind Jewish belief in Torah shebe’al Peh, the “Oral Law,” lies a fundamental truth. The meaning of a text is not given by the text itself. Between a text and its meaning lies the act of interpretation – and this depends on who is interpreting, in what context, and with what beliefs.”
The Meaning of Texts (Mishpatim, 5770)

Rabbi Sacks emphasizes that interpretation always depends on the reader and the context. How does that fit with your experience of Jewish study or practice?

Who do you think “owns” Torah today — and who still needs to be invited into the circle of interpretation?
Does the Oven of Akhnai story empower the whole community, or mainly the rabbis? Who should be included today?