So if you've spoken to me in the last, say, two months, you may have known that I've been writing an essay about the Talmud, a post-biblical book of Jewish law (halakha) and legend (aggadah). You may have learnt it was about a figure called Rabbi Eliezer. I almost certainly would have told you it is too complicated to explain.

While all these things remain true, I can explain the legends that underpin the essay, and some other legends that don't. They are all a lot of fun, if I do say so myself! I could just link you to the original source, but I may as well just retell it in my own words, borrowing heavily from the phrasing of standard translation (though I studied it in the original Hebrew -- the essay, thankfully, was in English). A note about my transliteration: it is all over the place. It doesn't mean anything, I'm just very bad at sticking to one standard. "ch" and "kh" are both pronounced as in the Scottish "loch" or the German "Bach".

The central legend to my essay is a story known as the Oven of Akhnai (rhymes with bye), found in the Babylonian Talmud, in tractate Bava Metzia 59a-b. (There are two Talmuds -- the other is called the Jerusalem Talmud, but its version of the story doesn't make much sense at all, so we won't be referencing it.) It is one of the most well-known stories in Judaism, because quite frankly, it is absolutely bonkers very important to Jewish law.

The story goes like this:

There was once a specific type of oven. You could slice it into pieces and then put sand in between the slices and it would still function as an oven, and it was known as the Oven of Akhnai. The sages (the great rabbis of old, during the Second Temple and after it) were having an argument about whether it could become ritually impure or not. Now, the specifics of this argument are not important. It's complicated and there's no clear right answer, as the story kind of proves -- the ability to become impure is only granted to whole objects, but if the oven had been sliced into pieces, is it still whole? Rabbi Eliezer says no, because it's in pieces with sand in between. The sages say yes, because it's still a functional oven, and that's surely the most important part, right? And Rabbi Eliezer offered them every possible legal argument, and they still refused to agree with him.

The Talmud is full of disagreements. That's literally all it is, in between increasingly wacky stories.¹ We record the minority opinion of arguments in case things change in the future and we need to change our minds, so we have something to reference. Disagreement is not inherently a problem. The problem was what happened next.

Rabbi Eliezer faced the sages and he said, "If the halakha [Jewish law] agrees with me, this carob tree will prove it!" and the carob tree uprooted itself and walked. Some say it walked a hundred cubits, some say four hundred. Any cubits is too much for a tree to walk, so this seems like an irrelevant distinction, bless it. The rabbis looked at this carob tree that had definitely just walked in a distinctly non-tree way and said, "We don't take legal proof from carob trees."

Strike one against Rabbi Eliezer, but he was not deterred! He said, "If the halakha is in accordance with my opinion, the stream will prove it!" The water in the stream turned backward and began flowing in the opposite direction. The sages sighed and said, "We do not take legal proof from bodies of water."

Once again, Rabbi Eliezer rallied, and he said, "If the halakha is in accordance with my opinion, the walls of the study hall will prove it!" The walls of the study hall leaned inward and began to fall. Rabbi Yehoshua (don't worry, we will get back to him later) scolded the walls and said to them: "If Torah scholars are arguing with each other in matters of halakha, what is the nature of your involvement in this dispute?" And the walls stopped falling in, which is lucky, because otherwise everyone in this story might have died. They stopped falling inwards because of the honour accorded to Rabbi Yehoshua, but they didn't go all the way upright because of the honour accorded to Rabbi Eliezer -- and, the Talmud tells us, they are still like that to this day.

And, just when you think the third strike is probably the time for Rabbi Eliezer to give up, he had one more trick up his sleeve! Sitting in their now weird and wonky study house, he said to the sages, "If the halakha agrees with me, then Heaven will prove it!" And a bat kol, the Divine Voice of God, came down from the Heavens and said, "Why are you arguing with Rabbi Eliezer, as the halakha is in accordance with his opinion in every place that he expresses an opinion?"

Now, you'd think this settles it. God has declared R' Eliezer is correct, and who is more of an expert on God's law than God? Trick question. Rabbi Yehoshua stands up and he says to the Literal Actual Voice of God, "Lo bashamayim hi -- The Torah is not in heaven." This is a misquote from a very beautiful passage in Deuteronomy 30:

כִּ֚י הַמִּצְוָ֣ה הַזֹּ֔את אֲשֶׁ֛ר אָנֹכִ֥י מְצַוְּךָ֖ הַיּ֑וֹם לֹֽא־נִפְלֵ֥את הִוא֙ מִמְּךָ֔ וְלֹ֥א רְחֹקָ֖ה הִֽוא׃

Surely, this Instruction which I enjoin upon you this day is not too baffling for you, nor is it beyond reach.

לֹ֥א בַשָּׁמַ֖יִם הִ֑וא לֵאמֹ֗ר מִ֣י יַעֲלֶה־לָּ֤נוּ הַשָּׁמַ֙יְמָה֙ וְיִקָּחֶ֣הָ לָּ֔נוּ וְיַשְׁמִעֵ֥נוּ אֹתָ֖הּ וְנַעֲשֶֽׂנָּה׃

It is not in the heavens, that you should say, “Who among us can go up to the heavens and get it for us and impart it to us, that we may observe it?”

וְלֹֽא־מֵעֵ֥בֶר לַיָּ֖ם הִ֑וא לֵאמֹ֗ר מִ֣י יַעֲבָר־לָ֜נוּ אֶל־עֵ֤בֶר הַיָּם֙ וְיִקָּחֶ֣הָ לָּ֔נוּ וְיַשְׁמִעֵ֥נוּ אֹתָ֖הּ וְנַעֲשֶֽׂנָּה׃

Neither is it beyond the sea, that you should say, “Who among us can cross to the other side of the sea and get it for us and impart it to us, that we may observe it?”

כִּֽי־קָר֥וֹב אֵלֶ֛יךָ הַדָּבָ֖ר מְאֹ֑ד בְּפִ֥יךָ וּבִֽלְבָבְךָ֖ לַעֲשֹׂתֽוֹ׃ (ס)

No, the thing is very close to you, in your mouth and in your heart, to observe it.

You can see from the Deuteronomy context that this is not God saying, "Roland Barthes was correct, the Author Is Dead." It is God saying that we have a personal connection to Torah, and that we do not need some kind of intermediary, because it is in our mouths and in our hearts. The sages enjoy misquoting scripture for their own purposes, however; and the next example is going to be way, way worse.

Because then the Talmud asks, What is the relevance of the phrase “It is not in heaven” in this context? Rabbi Yirmeya says: Since the Torah was already given at Mount Sinai, we do not accept the legal authority of a Divine Voice, as You already wrote at Mount Sinai, in the Torah: “After a majority to incline”.

Now this is a extremely very terribly bad misquote from Exodus 23:2, which I loathe with my whole being, because in the actual Exodus context, it is saying exactly the opposite thing and yet it has remained an essential tenet of Jewish law. In context, Exodus is talking about people who are court judges:

לֹֽא־תִהְיֶ֥ה אַחֲרֵֽי־רַבִּ֖ים לְרָעֹ֑ת וְלֹא־תַעֲנֶ֣ה עַל־רִ֗ב לִנְטֹ֛ת אַחֲרֵ֥י רַבִּ֖ים לְהַטֹּֽת׃

You shall neither side with the many to do wrong—you shall not give perverse testimony in a dispute so as to pervert it in favour of the many.

Now, this "after the majority incline"? That's the last three words of this verse, which are translated VERY differently here. "Incline" and "pervert" are... well. (The verb that is translated as "side" in the first half of the verse is a completely different verb, so we can't even be so charitable as to say they're quoting from the beginning somehow.)

So! This is why the sages refused to accept R' Eliezer's miracles -- because they had already made a majority decision, and they outnumbered him.³

Some time later, the Talmud tells us, Rabbi Nathan met Eliyahu the Prophet² and asked him what God thought of these proceedings, specifically the bit where R' Yehoshua said that the Torah was not in Heaven. And Eliyahu the Prophet said to him that The Holy One, Blessed be He, laughed and said: "My children have triumphed over Me; My children have triumphed over Me!"

And that's often where this story ends. It's a very feel-good ending! God is laughing! The sages have secured their power as the only ones able to interpret Jewish law! Everything is hunky-dory! Except that this story comes in the middle of a Talmud discussion about mistreatment, and the second half is where the mistreatment happens. If you are like "emma please no this is,,,, so long,,,, don't do this to me personally,,,," then you may stop here. It's like stopping the Lion King before Mufasa dies. It's a valid choice, one that my parents made a lot when I was very small. But the rest of us shall continue, because I say so.

For unknown reasons, the sages decided to excommunicate Rabbi Eliezer. He hadn't done anything in particular to deserve it. Maybe they just didn't like him? Maybe they were sick of him always disagreeing with them, as he did often and much (but he never called in the Divine Voice of God at any other point). Maybe someone just got really drunk on power! We will never know, because neither Talmud tells us. They were, however, terrified of what would happen when they tell him, because Rabbi Eliezer was very powerful, and sages could do miracles in those days. Nobody wanted to tell him.

So Rabbi Akiva, who was Rabbi Eliezer's student, said, "I will do it, I will take the ring to Modor," and he dressed all in black, as if in mourning, and he sat four cubits away from Rabbi Eliezer (as is custom when you are dealing with someone excommunicated) and he said, "My teacher, it appears to me that your colleagues are distancing themselves from you," which sure is a hell of a way to phrase it. And Rabbi Eliezer, recognising what was going on, tore his garments and removed his shoes and sat on the floor. He was so sad and angry that it is said that one third of the world's olives, wheat and barley perished at that moment, and anything he looked at burnt. They were not kidding about him being powerful.

And Rabban Gamliel, who was the head of the Sanhedrin (the ruling body of rabbis) and whom R' Eliezer blamed for his excommunication⁴ was on a boat at the time, and a great wave rose up to swallow him. And he thought to himself, "This is definitely because of the thing with Rabbi Eliezer," which is a weird thought to have when you think you've done the right thing! Guilty conscience, buddy? But he stood on his feet and he made a great big speech to God, and he said, "I didn't excommunicate R' Eliezer for my honour or the honour of my family, but the honour of You, God, so that disputes will not proliferate in Israel!" And the speech worked, and the sea calmed.

Now, one of the problems is that R' Eliezer was actually married to Ima Shalom, who was the sister of Rabban Gamliel. She interrupted his prayer every weekday from then on so to prevent him from praying for the death of her brother. However, one day a pauper came to the door asking for bread at just the wrong moment, and she had to go help him. She missed the interruption, and when she returned, R' Eliezer's head was bowed in prayer. "You have killed my brother!" she said, and just at that moment a shofar (horn) sounded to notify everyone that Rabban Gamliel was dead.

And Rabbi Eliezer said to her, "From where did you know that your brother would die?" which is not exactly the tack I would have taken, because that sure is an admission of guilt. She said to him: "This is the tradition that I received from the house of the father of my father: All the gates of Heaven are apt to be locked, except for the gates of prayer for victims of mistreatment."

And there we have the story of the Oven of Akhnai. "Emma, does R' Eliezer go to prison for murder?" you may be wondering. He does not. "Okay but does he like, get punished for the murder?" Nope. Not unless you count continuing to be excommunicated -- it is unclear how long his original excommunication was, so maybe this was a punishment! We just don't know. I think it is probable that they simply would have been unable to convict him -- he was, after all, in a completely different house when Rabban Gamliel dropped dead. We have no record of any trial. We do know that Rabbi Eliezer died while excommunicated, because at the moment of his death, R' Yehoshua lifts the excommunication so he can weep over his body. R' Yehoshua treats R' Eliezer terribly during his excommunication, deliberately changing rulings that he knows are correct in accordance with R' Eliezer's opinion just to discredit him, and then changing them back after his death. Is R' Yehoshua just a really bad dude? Unclear!

If I get the urge to continue this series, R' Yehoshua will star in the next story, which doesn't have a snappy name, but which I like to refer to The Time Everyone Literally Did A Coup And Overthrew Rabban Gamliel Because He Was Too Cruel To R' Yehoshua And Wouldn't Apologise For It. Much like this one, it is a wild ride.

----

1. Referring to the Talmud as "wacky" is probably not a good idea if you are not Jewish, unless the person you are talking to is a Jewish person who trusts you. I love you all, and you are allowed to comment that this story is wild.

2. Eliyahu haNavi/Elijah the Prophet pops up a lot randomly. He never died, merely ascended into Heaven, and now he just waits around to see if the Jewish people are ready for the coming of the Messiah, so a lot of people in the Talmud (and legends far beyond that) claim to meet him. It's a thing. (Was God refusing to kill him a great big trick on him played by God because he begged for death? In my very scholarly opinion... yes. Now he is stuck being present at every circumcision and Pesach seder, seeing how we're still good Jews, thousands of years after he said Jews were the worst at keeping God's law. Suck on that, Eliyahu.)

3. There is a very interesting discussion in my essay about the different traditions in various texts about whether a majority decision can overrule a received tradition as R' Eliezer was claiming, which is why R' Eliezer did not give up earlier, but this blog post is already very long and we're only halfway through this story. Don't say I never did anything for you.

4. It is disputed among historians about whether R' Yehoshua or Rabban Gamliel are actually responsible. If you are very curious, I can send you an article about it, but once again, very technical, we are not getting into it here.