We all hope and daven for Moshiach’s imminent arrival. One way to bring it about faster is to keep his arrival foremost in our mind and deal ahead of time with some of the practical issues. The Gemara clearly holds that when this happens, Eliyahu haNavi will arrive and resolve all halachic questions and dilemmas that have not been resolved. For example, please see the Gemara in Bava Metzia 20a.

In fact, many have said that when the Gemara concludes with a “Taiko,” it stands for “Tishbi (Eliyahu) yetaretz kushiyosainu vehavayosainu — Elijah will come and answer our questions and inquiries.”

But I have a question. There is a concept called, “Lo BaShamayim hi – Torah is not in the domain of Heaven!” Rather, it is up to the Torah leaders of each generation to determine the final disposition of halachic disputes. This question is referenced in Rashi Shabbos 108a “umai eem.” Also, the Rambam in Hilchos Yesodei Torah (9:4) writes that any Navi that attempts to undo something in the Torah is not to be believed and his punishment is most severe. Although one can draw a distinction between innovation versus resolution – we see that “Lo BaShamayim he” is a serious concept.

How can all this be resolved?

What follows are five of six possible answers that the Gedolei HaAchronim proposed; the sixth answer can be derived from theRishonim. There are a number of other possible answers as well.

1. The Yefei Toar (Rabbi Shmuel Yafeh Ashkenazi, 1525-1595), on Bereishis Rabbah 60:4, writes that there is a distinction between nevua — prophecy— and Ruach HaKodesh. When the Gemara informs us that Eliyahu will resolve outstanding questions it is through his power of Ruach HaKodesh and not prophecy.
2. Rav Elchonon Wasserman zt”l hy”d (1874-1941), in his Kovetz Shiurim on Bava Basra (640), initially entertains the idea that perhaps Eliyahu has the ne’emanus, the believability of one witness – eid echad. This is the view of the Chasdei Dovid (Rabbi David Pardo, 1719-1792, Italian Talmudist and author of commentary on the Tosefta), a commentary on the Tosefta (Ohalos 4:13). For various reasons, however, Rav Elchonon dismisses this approach. He concludes that the incorrect litigant will ultimately admit the truth because he will be too embarrassed to continue the lie in front of Elyahu haNavi.
3. The Chasam Sofer (Rabbi Moshe Sofer (1762-1839), in Likkutim Vol. VI, Siman 98, explains that the revelation of Eliyahu HaNavi will occur in two phases — one wherein his neshama is restored to his physical body and the second where they remain separate. In the former, he can act as a posek no different than any other Gadol B’Yisroel. He can resolve halachos and indeed, he is obligated in mitzvos. In the latter form, he may not issue rulings, or if he does they are not authoritative because of the principle of “Lo BaShamayim hi.”
4. The Mishna LaMelech (Rabbi Yehudah Rosanes (1657-1727), chief rabbi of Constantinople), in Hilchos Ishus 9:6, differentiates between questions of fact versus questions of Halachic reasoning. He writes that when it is merely revealing underlying facts there is no problem in relying upon him.
5. The Maharatz Chiyus (Rabbi Tzvi Hirsch Chajes, 1805-1855) in Brachos 3a, suggests that he would be believed to relatewhat he had seen or heard, and it has a logical basis to it. It is possible that these are two different responses rather than one combination — notwithstanding the implication of his syntax.
6. There may be a qualification for lo bashamayim hi – which may be different from the Rambam’s understanding. The Baalei Tosfos, in Yevamos 14a, pose the question as to how we follow the original Bas Kol that stated that the halacha is like Bais Hillel and not Bais Shammai and did not follow it regarding the concept of Tanur Achenai which resulted in Rabbi Eliezer Ben Hyrkenus being placed in Cherem.The Baalei Tosfos give two answers. The first answer is that the Bas Kol in the case of Rabbi Eliezer Ben Hyrkenus was only done to maintain Rabbi Eliezer Ben Hyrkenus’ personal dignity but in truth, we would listen to a Bas Kol! The second answer is that Bais Shammai was intellectually sharper than Beis Hillel, so even though the majority view was with Bais Shammai, we relied on the Bas Kol to follow Bais Hillel – even though they were less than the students of Beis Shammai from a pure brain-power point of view.

The author can be reached at [email protected]