One of the most famous and frequently discussed stories in the Talmud is known as the “Oven of Akhnai.” This narrative is set in the first or second century of the common era at the great yeshiva in Yavneh (now northern Israel), established to preserve Judaism following the fall of the Second Temple. While the story is divided into two parts, set forth in two distinct tractates, b. Metz. 59b and b. Sanh. 68a, it seems quite clear that these two units are intended as a coherent whole.
The first part centers on a halakhic (legal) dispute among the sages of this historically important yeshiva. On one side we have Rabbi Eliezer and on the other all of his esteemed colleagues, including Rabbi Akiva and his mentor, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Chananiah. The subject of this disagreement is the ritual status of an oven with an unusual construction. R. Eliezer, known as an arch traditionalist, pronounces it “pure” (kosher) and thus fit for use, while all the other rabbis are opposed. Eliezer is convinced that his view is correct, and calls upon nature to confirm it. There follows a series of miraculous events that still fail to convince his interlocutors. Finally, a bat kol (heavenly voice) is heard to say, “Why are you disagreeing with Rabbi Eliezer, as the halakha is in accordance with his opinion in every place he expressed [one]?”
One might well assume that this would settle the argument in favor of R. Eliezer, but it is not so. Astonishingly, R. Yehoshua gets to his feet and replies to the bat kol by quoting Moses’ valedictory address to the Jewish people (Deut 30:11-14):
Surely, the Instruction which I enjoin upon you this day is not too baffling for you, nor is it beyond reach. 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? . . . No, the thing is very close to you in your mouth and in your heart, to observe it.”
R. Yehoshua is implicitly relying on the argument that God has foreseen the death of prophecy and the development of the Oral Law, and has already delegated legal decision-making to the Rabbis, with the majority to govern. Accordingly, R. Eliezer is living in the past, and because he is in the minority, his opinion must be rejected, even if it is correct in God’s eyes.
It initially appears that the Almighty accepts this “usurpation,” as the Talmud reports that soon after this heated dispute Rabbi Natan (an esteemed colleague of the Yavneh sages) happens to encounter the prophet Elijah and asks him God’s reaction to the majority’s refusal to follow the bat kol. The prophet replies that “The Holy One, blessed be He smiled [in other translations, “laughed”] and said: ‘My children have triumphed over me; My children have triumphed over me.’” However, things are not so simple, as God’s smile or laughter may be ironic.
Things take an ominous turn when R. Eliezer refuses to accept the judgment of all his fellow rabbis. Rabbi Gamliel, the head of the academy, orders that all objects previously ruled “pure” by Eliezer be burned and that he be ostracized. Gamliel justifies this harsh and humiliating treatment of the great sage on the grounds that it is required so that “disputes will not proliferate in Israel.” In other words, that without uniform, binding legal interpretations dangerous divisions may arise. God is not persuaded and gives R. Gamliel a veiled warning, but when it is ignored, Gamliel suddenly perishes.
Many rabbis and religious scholars interpret this brilliant narrative as conferring on them the power to modify the law in light of changing social conditions and improvements in our moral knowledge. However, this grant of authority is highly conditional and must never tip over into the arrogant mistreatment of dissenters or the repression of alternate views. Moreover, as becomes apparent in the dramatic conclusion to this narrative, when leaders innovate, they must not lightly disregard longstanding traditions, as they may have evolved for purposes and reasons not apparent upon casual inspection. I discuss this highly influential story, including its second half, in much greater detail in my book.