The Oven of Akhnai © 2014 Jeremy D

Jeremy D. Sher | [email protected] The Oven of Akhnai © 2014 Jeremy D. Sher. All rights reserved. Distribution of full, intact copies permitted. Talmud Bavli, Bava Metzia 59a-b For information, please contact the author.

This story is a great example of the Talmud’s way of teaching several lessons at once. There are at least two major plots in this short vignette, one nested inside the other.

First, read the excerpt below. This story is often quoted as a justification—as the justification— for our Jewish commitment to the rule of law and to decisions made rationally by human beings. In dethroning special revelation and establishing human authority over Jewish law, the Rabbis took a major step toward a more complex, more mature relationship with God. Note how God takes pleasure in human beings’ growth and newfound ability to out-argue the Creator. The Rabbis have won at their own game, and God, like a proud parent, loves it!

IF HE CUT IT. The We learnt elsewhere: If he cut it into separate tiles, placing sand R. ELIEZER . . . AND Talmud often uses a between each tile: R. Eliezer declared it clean, and the Sages THE SAGES. Rabbi telescoped style, Eliezer was one of the 1 which can keep a declared it unclean; and this was the oven of ‘Aknai. great scholars of the reader guessing what Talmud. In this story, they’re talking about. Why [the oven of] ‘Aknai? — Said Rab Judah in Samuel's name: [It he gets into a serious Elsewhere in the dispute with his Talmud, they’ve means] that they encompassed it with arguments2 as a snake, and colleagues, especially discussed ways to proved it unclean. It has been taught: On that day R. Eliezer Rabbi Joshua, the construct an oven to 3 head of the academy. ensure the food in it brought forward every imaginable argument, but they did not cannot become accept them. Said he to them: ‘If the halachah agrees with me, let EVERY IMAGINABLE impure. Here, they’re this carob-tree prove it!’ Thereupon the carob-tree was torn a ARGUMENT. Rabbi using an example of a Eliezer is unable to particular oven that hundred cubits out of its place — others affirm, four hundred convince the other caused a serious cubits. ‘No proof can be brought from a carob-tree,’ they Sages of his position dispute among the by argument, so he Sages. This oven was retorted. resorts to signs of evidently made by God’s power. gluing earthen tiles Again he said to them: ‘If the halachah agrees with me, let the together with sand. WHAT RIGHT HAVE stream of water prove it!’ Whereupon the stream of water flowed YE TO INTERFERE? They named it the backwards — ‘No proof can be brought from a stream of water,’ Don’t overlook the oven of “Akhnai,” but they rejoined. Again he urged: ‘If the halachah agrees with humor here. The they seem not to Talmud often uses remember why it was me, let the walls of the schoolhouse prove it,’ whereupon the humor to make a called that. walls inclined to fall. But R. Joshua rebuked them, saying: ‘When point. Here R. Joshua does not approve of NO PROOF CAN BE scholars are engaged in a halachic dispute, what have ye to R. Eliezer’s miracles. BROUGHT FROM A interfere?’ Hence they did not fall, in honour of R. Joshua, nor did In a way, the dispute CAROB TREE. One of they resume the upright, in honour of R. Eliezer; and they are still between them still the great statements stands, like the walls. of Jewish rationalism. standing thus inclined.

Talmud translation: Soncino (public domain, from halakhah.com) except as noted © 2014 Jeremy D. Sher Numbered footnotes are Soncino’s and appear at the end of this document. Page 1 of 9 WHY DO YE DISPUTE IT IS NOT IN HEAVEN. WITH RABBI ELIEZER! Again he said to them: ‘If the halachah agrees with me, let it be Rabbi Joshua quotes A fine example of Deut. 30:12. Rabbi hyperbolic humor. proved from Heaven!’ Whereupon a Heavenly Voice cried out: Jeremiah explains The rabbinic authors ‘Why do ye dispute with R. Eliezer, seeing that in all matters the that “the Torah had are making it clear already been given,” that Rabbi Eliezer halachah agrees with him!’ meaning the full and was right in the complete revelation dispute, and the But R. Joshua arose and exclaimed: ‘It is not in heaven.’4 What did from Heaven had other Sages were already happened in wrong. At the same he mean by this? — Said R. Jeremiah: That the Torah had already the past, so there time, the sweeping been given at Mount Sinai; we pay no attention to a Heavenly should be no further generalization of the appeals to signs and Voice, because Thou hast long since written in the Torah at Mount Heavenly Voice is miracles to prove funny because it is Sinai, After the majority must one incline.5 questions of law. over-the-top. The Rabbis seem to be 6 ELIJAH. Elijah often saying, even if Rabbi R. Nathan met Elijah and asked him: What did the Holy One, appears in the Eliezer had been Blessed be He, do in that hour? — He laughed [with joy], he Talmud to carry automatically right replied, saying, ‘My childrena have defeated Me, My children have messages back and about everything, forth between the others would still defeated Me.’ Sages and Heaven. have an equal right to speak and vote.

There are perhaps many morals to this story, but its punch line makes an important point about legal authority in Judaism: it rests with people, through defined processes that take place here on Earth. Not only do we not rely on divine revelation to ascertain what to do, but signs and omens are explicitly not valid ways of knowing what our obligations are. Rational argument and logic have replaced miraculous signs of God’s preferences as sources of authority.

This deeply empowering message about the human capability to decide legal questions for ourselves has inspired Jews for nearly two millennia, and is the reason this story is most often quoted. Nevertheless, the Talmud has more to say.

Now that you’ve read what is probably the most famous excerpt from this section of Talmud, read the story again in its context, with a little more Gemara before and after the passage we quoted above.

There is another moral—at least one—in addition to what we have discussed about human empowerment and God being proud of us for our increasing capabilities. These multiple morals do not negate each other, but exist side by side. As you reread the story with greater context, consider how the multiple, nested morals interact.

a The Soncino has sons here, but children is a better translation of the indeterminate gender of the original.

Talmud translation: Soncino (public domain, from halakhah.com) except as noted © 2014 Jeremy D. Sher Numbered footnotes are Soncino’s and appear at the end of this document. Page 2 of 9 First, the Mishnah we’re discussing, which appears on Bava Metzia 58b. The decisions, discussions and stories in the Gemara are all commenting on a Mishnah, which was written some 200–300 years earlier. The Oven of Akhnai story is a commentary on this Mishnah:

OVERREACHING. The JUST AS THERE IS OVERREACHING IN BUYING AND SELLING, SO IS WRONG DONE BY Mishnah is continuing THERE WRONG DONE BY WORDS. [THUS:] ONE MUST NOT ASK WORDS. The text a discussion that has ANOTHER, ‘WHAT IS THE PRICE OF THIS ARTICLE?’ IF HE HAS NO gives three examples. Evidently, the Rabbis been going on for INTENTION OF BUYING. IF A MAN WAS A REPENTANT [SINNER], several pages. regard embarrassing ONE MUST NOT SAY TO HIM, ‘REMEMBER YOUR FORMER DEEDS.’ someone to be a NEITHER WRONG A IF HE WAS A SON OF PROSELYTES ONE MUST NOT TAUNT HIM, wrong against them. STRANGER, NOR ‘REMEMBER THE DEEDS OF YOUR ANCESTORS,’ BECAUSE IT IS For the Rabbis, these OPPRESS HIM. The WRITTEN, THOU SHALT NEITHER WRONG A STRANGER, NOR hurtful words break the laws of Torah. Mishnah is quoting OPPRESS HIM. Exodus 22:20.

So, as we put the Oven of Akhnai story into context, our first major note is that it forms a large part of the gemara’s commentary on a mishnah that is about hurtful words.

Where are the hurtful words in the story we just read? For the most part, they haven’t happened yet. Very often when this story is quoted, the quotation ends just where we ended it above, with God laughing, “My children have defeated Me.” It is a beautiful ending to a fable that makes one clear point. But if we read ahead, we will find an altogether different fable.

After quoting the mishnah above, the Talmud presents several paragraphs of discussion about the power of hurtful words, with an emphasis on relations between acquaintances and between husband and wife. Pay special attention to marital relations in the larger story. While some of the discussion about women is sexist, even as the text attempts to take a progressive stance on how women should be treated by men, the wise reader will put that not only in historical context, but also in the context of the rest of the story. It is a story in which a prominent woman will play the decisive role.

There is not space here to reprint the gemara’s whole discussion about hurtful words; by all means, look it up at Bava Metzia 58b to 59a. We will pick up that discussion in the middle.

Follow the discussion of hurtful words through the story we already read—now in its intended context—and into the aftereffects of what happened. The moral about human self- determination still stands, but there is also another moral. The nestedness of the story about self-determination inside a larger story is proof that the Sages cared about people’s feelings.

WRONG NOT A R. Hanina, son of R. Idi, said: What is meant by the verse, Ye shall HER TEARS ARE PEOPLE. See Soncino not wrong one another [‘amitho]? — Wrong not a people that is FREQUENT. While note 9. Interestingly, with you in learning and good deeds.9 this is clearly sexist, it the Sages devote would fit the culture much time to the of the 19th century as situation of converts, Rab said: One should always be heedful of wronging his wife, for well as it did the 6th. i.e. people of a since her tears are frequent she is quickly hurt.10 The Rabbis’ point is, different ancestry given they believed who have joined the 11 women were highly Jewish people. The R. Eleazar said: Since the destruction of the Temple, the gates of sensitive, therefore Rabbis are against prayer are locked, for it is written, Also when I cry out, he men must be very “wronging” anyone shutteth out my prayer.12 Yet though the gates of prayer are careful not to hurt at all, by which they locked, the gates of tears are not, for it is written, Hear my prayer, their feelings— seem to mean hurtful O Lord, and give ear unto my cry; hold not thy peace at my because hurting a words; they spend 13 woman’s feelings is disproportionate time tears. “wronging” her. on converts and their descendants and on Rab also said: He who follows his wife's counsel will descend14 THERE IS NO marital relations. into Gehenna, for it is written, But there was none like unto Ahab DIFFICULTY. Two Why do these two [which did sell himself to work wickedness in the sight of the Lord, opposing opinions are cases receive such 15 presented, and then attention? It could be whom Jezebel his wife stirred up]. R. Papa objected to Abaye: resolved in different that, in context of the But people say, If your wife is short, bend down and hear her ways. Certainly both story about halakhic whisper! — There is no difficulty: the one refers to general resolutions are sexist, decision-making, matters; the other to household affairs.16 Another version: the but the idea that men both women and one refers to religious matters, the other to secular questions. and women enjoy converts were seen as separate sovereign having a lesser claim domains once again to the halakhic R. Hisda said: All gates are locked, excepting the gates [through strikes the critical autonomy celebrated which pass the cries of] wrong [ona'ah], for it is written, Behold reader as essentially in the central fable. If the Lord stood by a wall of wrongs, and in his hand were the Victorian, some 1500 so, the Rabbis are wrongs.17 R. Eleazar said: All [evil] is punished through an agent, years before its time. arguing against this. In fact, the Soncino’s excepting wrong, for it is written, And in his hand were the note 16 places the 18 OVERREACHING. wrongs. R. Abbahu said: There are three [evils] before which the translator in his own This seems to be a Curtain19 is not closed: overreaching, robbery and idolatry. Victorian context. reference to hurtful Overreaching, for it is written, and in his hand was the words, which overreaching. Robbery, because it is written, Robbery and spoil The second resolution “overreach” what 20 is more progressive might have been are heard in her; they are before me continually. Idolatry, for it than the first; while it appropriate to say. is written, A people that provoketh me to anger continually continues to assign The Mishnah (above) before my face; [that sacrificeth — sc. to idols — in gardens, and the religious sphere uses this term in burneth incense upon altars of brick].21 to men, it imagines explicit connection women as rulers of with hurtful words. the secular, setting Rabbi Abbahu reads Rab Judah said: One should always take heed that there be corn in the stage for a this in Biblical verses, his house; for strife is prevalent in a house only on account of millennium and a half thus placing hurtful corn [food], for it is written, He maketh peace in thy borders: he of strong Jewish words among the filleth thee with the finest of the wheat.22 Said R. Papa, Hence the women working and most serious sins. proverb: When the barley is quite gone from the pitcher, strife running businesses.

Talmud translation: Soncino (public domain, from halakhah.com) except as noted © 2014 Jeremy D. Sher Numbered footnotes are Soncino’s and appear at the end of this document. Page 4 of 9 ONE MUST ALWAYS comes knocking at the door23, R. Hinena b. Papa said: One should CORN . . . WHEAT . . . OBSERVE THE always take heed that there be corn in his house, because Israel BARLEY. In archaic HONOR DUE HIS were called poor only on account of [the lack of] corn, for it is English, especially WIFE. Contextually, British, “corn” was a the Rabbis’ point is said, And so it was when Israel had sown etc., and it is further generic term for deeper than merely written, And they [sc. the Midianites and the Amalekites] grain. Rab Judah and stating this important encamped against them, [and destroyed the increase of the Rabbi Hinena say that maxim. We have just earth], whilst this is followed by, And Israel was greatly strife appear because read that “strife is impoverished because of the Midianites.24 of a lack of food. prevalent in a house only on account of HONOR YOUR [the lack of] corn,” R. Helbo said: One must always observe the honour due to his WIVES, THAT YE MAY and that “Israel was wife, because blessings rest on a man's home only on account of BE ENRICHED. This is called poor only on his wife, for it is written, And he treated Abram well for her not a prediction of account of [the lack outcome—the Rabbis 25 26 of] corn.” Now, this sake. And thus did Raba say to the townspeople of Mahuza, consistently opposed pattern of words is Honour your wives, that ye may be enriched.27 such predictions, repeated in a positive believing them to formulation: We learnt elsewhere: If he cut it into separate tiles, placing sand show insufficient “blessings rest on a between each tile: R. Eliezer declared it clean, and the Sages deference to God’s man’s home only on control of the future account of his wife.” declared it unclean; —but rather a It is an analogy: just continuation of the as strife and poverty [BAVA METZIA 59b] analogy. If strife and are brought about by poverty arise from a a lack of food, so and this was the oven of ‘Aknai.1 lack of abundance blessings are brought and are the antithesis about by the wife and of blessing, and if mother of a family. Why [the oven of] ‘Aknai? — Said Rab Judah in Samuel's name: [It blessings arise from Therefore, honor is 2 the matriarch of a due to her. means] that they encompassed it with arguments as a snake, and house, then to the proved it unclean. It has been taught: On that day R. Eliezer extent a house is WE LEARNT brought forward every imaginable argument,3 but they did not blessed with plenty ELSEWHERE. The and peace, those Oven of Akhnai story accept them. Said he to them: ‘If the halachah agrees with me, let blessings arise from is introduced as one this carob-tree prove it!’ Thereupon the carob-tree was torn a the woman. of the Talmud’s hundred cubits out of its place — others affirm, four hundred characteristic stream- The Rabbis placed of-consciousness cubits. ‘No proof can be brought from a carob-tree,’ they this discussion tangents. The retorted. immediately before missing conjunction is the much more a “By the way,” or famous fable we have “That reminds me.” Again he said to them: ‘If the halachah agrees with me, let the already read. That The juxtaposition, stream of water prove it!’ Whereupon the stream of water flowed placement was very however, is highly intentional. As you intentional and backwards — ‘No proof can be brought from a stream of water,’ reread the story implies a topical they rejoined. Again he urged: ‘If the halachah agrees with establishing human connection. Since the decision-making fable is a tangent off me, let the walls of the schoolhouse prove it,’ whereupon the autonomy, consider a discussion about walls inclined to fall. But R. Joshua rebuked them, saying: ‘When the authors’ attitudes hurtful words, we can scholars are engaged in a halachic dispute, what have ye to about the strife, and infer that its main the role of women as topic is hurtful words. interfere?’ Hence they did not fall, in honour of R. Joshua, nor did sources of blessing.

Talmud translation: Soncino (public domain, from halakhah.com) except as noted © 2014 Jeremy D. Sher Numbered footnotes are Soncino’s and appear at the end of this document. Page 5 of 9 WHY DO YE DISPUTE they resume the upright, in honour of R. Eliezer; and they are still IT IS NOT IN HEAVEN. WITH RABBI ELIEZER! standing thus inclined. A climax of rabbinic This reading in self-determination, context does not this remains a paean negate the twinkle- Again he said to them: ‘If the halachah agrees with me, let it be to independent eyed antinomianism human responsibility. our first reading proved from Heaven!’ Whereupon a Heavenly Voice cried out: But we cannot now imputed to the ‘Why do ye dispute with R. Eliezer, seeing that in all matters the miss that this climax rabbinic authors; halachah agrees with him!’ occurs in the story however, we can now about a damaging see that more is and preventable going on here. By But R. Joshua arose and exclaimed: ‘It is not in heaven.’4 What did fight. God may be exaggerating Rabbi proud of us, but we he mean by this? — Said R. Jeremiah: That the Torah had already Eliezer’s claims to humans did not act correctness, the text been given at Mount Sinai; we pay no attention to a Heavenly wisely in our first seems to criticize him Voice, because Thou hast long since written in the Torah at Mount independent decision. for failing to show 5 respect for his Sinai, After the majority must one incline. DESTROY THE colleagues’ feelings. WHOLE WORLD. Soon, the disfavor will R. Nathan met Elijah6 and asked him: What did the Holy One, Soncino’s note 9 here be returned. explains that it would Blessed be He, do in that hour? — He laughed [with joy], he be sinful to inform ALL OBJECTS. Now replied, saying, ‘My children have defeated Me, My children have Rabbi Eliezer in a the Rabbis have gone “tactless” way. The overboard. Not defeated Me.’ text, however, seems content simply to let to regard R. Eliezer’s stand their victory It was said: On that day all objects which R. Eliezer had declared thaumaturgic power over Rabbi Eliezer at clean were brought and burnt in fire.7 Then they took a vote and and divine favor as argument, they make 8 real, and fears that if it personal. excommunicated him. Said they, ‘Who shall go and inform him?’ he loses his temper, ‘I will go,’ answered R. Akiba, ‘lest an unsuitable person go and destructive forces RABBI AKIVA was a inform him, and thus destroy the whole world.’9 What did R. could be unleashed. student of Rabbi Akiba do? He donned black garments and wrapped himself in Eliezer. Therefore, he black,10 and sat at a distance of four cubits from him. ‘Akiba,’ said THE WORLD WAS volunteers to speak 11 THEN SMITTEN. to R. Eliezer with the R. Eliezer to him, ‘what has particularly happened to-day?’ Apparently, these respect of a pupil. ‘Master,’ he replied, ‘it appears to me that thy companions hold fears (above) were aloof from thee.’ Thereupon he too rent his garments, put off his justified. The gemara GREAT WAS THE shoes, removed [his seat] and sat on the earth, whilst tears has twice mentioned CALAMITY. Rabbi streamed from his eyes.12 The world was then smitten: a third of the power of tears. Eliezer was so angry, Clearly tears are not and so spiritually the olive crop, a third of the wheat, and a third of the barley crop. the sole domain of powerful, that he Some say, the dough in women's hands swelled up. women, for now R. burned everything he Eliezer’s tears cause a saw. We today may A Tanna taught: Great was the calamity that befell that day, for heavenly response, not cause things to everything at which R. Eliezer cast his eyes was burned up. R. namely, that the burn with our gaze, 13 grain went bad, even but everyone who has Gamaliel too was travelling in a ship, when a huge wave arose to “in women’s hands.” ever been angry can drown him. ‘It appears to me,’ he reflected, ‘that this is on Symbolically, the understand the idea account of none other but R. Eliezer b. Hyrcanus.’ Thereupon he excommunication of of a burning gaze, arose and exclaimed, ‘Sovereign of the Universe! Thou knowest R. Eliezer disrupts the and why it is full well that I have not acted for my honour, nor for the honour peace of the Jewish dangerous. people’s home.

Talmud translation: Soncino (public domain, from halakhah.com) except as noted © 2014 Jeremy D. Sher Numbered footnotes are Soncino’s and appear at the end of this document. Page 6 of 9 IMA SHALOM—lit., of my paternal house, but for Thine, so that strife may not RABBAN GAMLIELb “Mother Peace”— multiply in Israel!’ At that the raging sea subsided.b was the President of now appears in the the Sanhedrin, while strong woman’s role, Rabbi Joshua was the at the crossroads of a Ima Shalom was R. Eliezer's wife, and sister to R. Gamaliel. From day-to-day leader. It disastrous dispute the time of this incident onwards she did not permit him to fall seems R. Gamliel was among men. upon his face.14 Now a certain day happened to be New Moon, absent while these but she mistook a full month for a defective one.15 Others say, a events occurred SHE MISTOOK A FULL poor man came and stood at the door, and she took out some under R. Joshua, but MONTH . . . SHE Soncino’s note 13 16 TOOK OUT SOME bread to him. [On her return] she found him fallen on his face. calls R. Gamliel “the BREAD. The reason is ‘Arise,’ she cried out to him, ‘thou hast slain my brother.’ In the prime mover in the unimportant; the meanwhile an announcement was made from the house of ban against R. point is that Ima Rabban Gamaliel that he had died. ‘Whence dost thou know it?’ Eliezer.” The story of Shalom took her eyes he questioned her. ‘I have this tradition from my father's house: a ship in danger may off R. Eliezer for a refer to Jonah. If so, 17 moment. See Soncino All gates are locked, excepting the gates of wounded feelings.’ it would portray R. notes 14, 15, and 16. Gamliel as running Our Rabbis taught: He who wounds the feelings of a proselyte away from his THE GATES OF transgresses three negative injunctions, and he who oppresses responsibilities. WOUNDED him infringes two. Wherein does wronging differ? Because three FEELINGS. Ima R. ELIEZER THE Shalom appears to be negative injunctions are stated: Viz., Thou shalt not wrong a GREAT. The honorific quoting a text we stranger [i.e., a proselyte],18 And if a stranger sojourn with thee in is a clear recognition read above. This your land, ye shall not wrong him,19 and ye shall not therefore by the later Rabbis signifies that her wrong each his fellowman,20 a proselyte being included in that R. Eliezer’s message is a major ‘fellowman.’ But for ‘oppression’ also three are written, viz., and excommunication moral of the story. had been wrong. 21 Indeed, the story ends thou shalt not oppress him, Also thou shalt not oppress a with this punch line. stranger,22 and [If thou lend money to any of my people that is A PROSELYTE. The poor by thee,] thou shalt not be to him as a usurer23 which text finally makes the THREE NEGATIVE includes a proselyte! — But [say] both [are forbidden] by three connection between INJUNCTIONS. After [injunctions]. the Oven of Akhnai the story we return to story and proselytes, discussing law. The who R. Eliezer feared teaching may have It has been taught: R. Eliezer the Great said: Why did the Torah could revert if treated been meant to show warn against [the wronging of] a proselyte in thirty-six, or as unkindly. Or, they that “wronging” a others say, in forty-six, places? Because he has a strong inclination might simply be convert is even worse to evil.24 What is the meaning of the verse, Thou shalt neither sensitive about their than “oppressing” belonging. Lest this him. But the Rabbis wrong a stranger, nor oppress him; for ye were strangers in the be read as casting seem to dislike the land of Egypt? It has been taught: R. Nathan said: Do not taunt doubt on proselytes, hierarchy, preferring your neighbour with the blemish you yourself have.25 And thus the next sentence to conclude that both the proverb runs:26 If there is a case of hanging in a man's family makes it clear that are impermissible. record, say not to him,27 ‘Hang this fish up for me.’ the text is not to be read in this way.

We have read a fable in two different contexts. Before debriefing the differences, let us remark on the importance of reading halakhah (legal discussions) as well as aggadah (legends). The

b Note: the spelling of Rabban Gamliel’s name varies among translators.

Talmud translation: Soncino (public domain, from halakhah.com) except as noted © 2014 Jeremy D. Sher Numbered footnotes are Soncino’s and appear at the end of this document. Page 7 of 9 aggadah of the Oven of Akhnai has one moral when taken out of context, as it so often is quoted. In the context of the surrounding halakhic discussion, the story has another moral entirely. Both morals are valid; in fact, the Rabbis seem to be drawing a correspondence between the two. But if we read the aggadah without the halakhah, we would miss the larger point of this story. This close connection between aggadah and halakhah, in which an aggadic tale teaches on multiple levels at once in close connection to its halakhic context, is typical of the Talmud. A cursory reading of aggadah is possible in isolation, but a full appreciation of the tale is unavailable without the surrounding halakhic context.

We have identified two different morals of the Oven of Akhnai story: that humans enjoy self- determination without appeal to direct divine intervention, and that we must always be kind to one another. The Rabbis seem to consider those morals as one lesson. We are granted self- determination by a God who is justly proud of us for progressing to sufficient maturity to inherit it—but just as when children grow into adults, new freedoms entail new responsibilities. With our power to determine what is correct, we must not forget the greater duty to be kind.

The Rabbis cared about people’s feelings. No determination of halakhah can please everyone all the time. But no determination of halakhah is complete without at least having taken seriously the feelings of the people involved. Lest one think halakhah is only about rules and logic, this story shows that halakhah is in fact about peacemaking and awareness of feelings. This may be why the climactic determination of rabbinic authority is rooted in a story about hurtful words and wounded feelings. Arguments and rulings that do not take people’s feelings seriously thereby fail to take seriously the very basis of halakhic authority.

עמיתו Soncino Notes to Bava Metzia 59a soldier of David's army gave his 9 This is a play of words on wife a conditional divorce before he (‘his fellowman’) reading it as two the ‘people that is ,עם אתו ,E.g., one who was freed with a left for the front, to take words 1 divorce, as to the validity of which retrospective effect from the time with him.’ doubts arose. of delivery in case he was lost in 10 Lit., ‘her wronging is near;’ — a 2 Ps. XXXV, 15. battle. So that when David took woman is very sensitive, and 3 Because of the many insults I am Bath Sheba it was doubtful whether therefore quick to feel and resent a made to bear, which as stated she would prove a married woman hurt. above, drain the flesh of its blood. at the time or not; and David 11 [MS.M. ‘For R. Eleazar said,’ the 4 Two tractates in the sixth order of maintained that his offence was not statement of R. Eleazar being thus the Talmud, called ‘Purity.’ These so grave as that of his companions. added in elucidation of Rab's are tractates of extreme difficulty 6 Var. lec.: Huna. dictum.] and complexity, and have no 7 Judah's daughter-in-law, with 12 Lam. III, 8. bearing upon adultery or the death whom he unwittingly cohabited. 13 Ps. XXXIX, 13; the idea is that the penalty. Thus David complained Subsequently, on her breach of destruction of the Temple may that even when engaged on totally chastity being discovered, he have made it more difficult to different matters which required all ordered her to be burnt, and only commune with God, yet earnest their thought, they yet diverted rescinded the order when she prayer from the depths of the heart their attention in order to humiliate privately sent proof to him of his is always accepted. him (Tosaf.). In Sanh. 107a, the own complicity; v. Gen. XXXVIII. 14 Lit., ‘fall’. reading is: ‘when they are engaged 8 Ibid. 25. She left it to him to 15 I Kings, XXI, 25; thus Ahab's in the study of the four modes of confess but did not openly accuse downfall is ascribed to his action in death imposed by the Court, etc. him, choosing death rather than allowing himself to be led astray by 5 Now Bath Sheba was a doubtful publicly putting him to shame. Jezebel. married woman, because every

Talmud translation: Soncino (public domain, from halakhah.com) except as noted © 2014 Jeremy D. Sher Numbered footnotes are Soncino’s and appear at the end of this document. Page 8 of 9 16 A man should certainly consult uncleanness. (This is the and peace-loving nature. his wife on the latter, but not on explanation given by Maimonides 13 The Nasi and the prime mover in the former, — not a disparagement on the Mishnah, Kel. V, 10. Rashi the ban against R. Eliezer. of woman; her activities lying a.l. adopts a different reasoning). 14 After the Eighteen Benedictions mainly in the home. ‘Aknai is a proper noun, probably there follows a short interval for Amos VII, 7 (E.V. ‘plumbline’) the name of a master, but it also private prayer, during which each אנך 17 means ‘snake’. (Gr. ** ) which person offered up his own ,אונאה is here connected with ‘overreaching’, ‘wronging’, i.e., God meaning the Talmud proceeds to individual supplications to God. is always ready to plead the cause discuss. These were called supplications and the suppliant prostrated (תחנון) .’of one who has been wronged. 2 Lit., ‘words 18 I.e., God in person punishes 3 Lit., ‘all the arguments in the himself upon his face; they were these. world’. omitted on New Moons and 19 The Curtain of Heaven. [Hiding. 4 Deut. XXX, 12. Festivals. — Elbogen, Der judische so to speak, human failings from 5 Ex. XXIII, 2; though the story is Gottesdienst, pp. 73 et seqq. Ima the Divine gaze.] told in a legendary form, this is a Shalom feared that her husband 20 Jer. VI, 7. remarkable assertion of the might pour out his grief and feeling 21 Isa. LXV, 3. independence of human reasoning. of injury in these prayers, and that 22 Ps. CXLVII, 14: the two halves of 6 It was believed that Elijah, who God, listening to them, would the verse are parallel to each other. had never died, often appeared to punish R. Gamaliel, her brother. 23 Lit., ‘house’. the Rabbis. 15 Jewish months consist of either 24 Jud. VI, 3, 4, 6. 7 As unclean. 30 days (full) or 29 (defective). 25 Gen. XII, 16. 8 Lit., ‘blessed him,’ a euphemism Thinking that the previous month 26 A large Jewish commercial town, for excommunication. had consisted of 29 days, and that situated on the Tigris. Raba had his 9 I.e., commit a great wrong by the 30th would be New Moon, she academy there. informing him tactlessly and believed that R. Eliezer could not 27 The foregoing passages are brutally. engage in these private prayers in Instructive on the Talmudic attitude 10 As a sign of mourning, which a any case, and relaxed her watch to women. Though recognising the person under the ban had to over him. But actually it was a full evil influence a bad woman can observe. month, so that the 30th was an wield upon her husband, as 11 Lit., ‘what is this day (different) ordinary day, when these prayers evidenced by Ahab and Jezebel, from yesterday (or to-morrow)?’ are permitted. these sayings breathe a spirit of 12 Rending the garments etc. were 16 I.e., she did not mistake the day, tenderness and honour. As she is all mourning observances. (In but was momentarily forced to highly sensitive, the greatest care ancient times mourners sat actually leave her husband in order to give must be taken not to wound her upon the earth, not, as nowadays, bread to a beggar. feelings, and a husband must adapt upon low stools.) — The character 17 Lit., ‘wrong’, v. p. 354, n. 4. She himself to his wife; whilst it is of R. Eliezer is hotly contested by felt sure that R. Eliezer had seized emphatically asserted that Weiss and Halevi. The former, the opportunity of her absence or prosperity in the home, as well as mainly on the basis of this story error to cry out to God about the the blessings of home life, are to a (though adducing some other proof ban. great extent dependent upon her. too), severely castigates him as a 18 Ex. XXII, 20. man of extreme stubbornness and 19 Lev. XIX, 33. Soncino Notes to Bava Metzia 59b conceit, who would brook no 20 Lev. XXV, 17. disagreement, a bitter 21 Ex. XXII, 20. (1) This refers to an oven, which, controversialist from his youth until 22 Ex. XXIII, 9. instead of being made in one piece, death, and ever seeking quarrels 23 Ex. XXII, 24 was made in a series of separate (Dor. II, 82). Halevy (Doroth 1, 5, 24 So Rashi in Hor. 13a. Jast.: portions with a layer of sand pp. 374 et seqq.) energetically because his original character is bad between each. R. Eliezer maintains defends him, pointing out that — into which evil treatment might that since each portion in itself is this is the only instance recorded in cause him to relapse. not a utensil, the sand between the whole Talmud of R. Eliezer's 25 Thus be translates the verse: Do prevents the whole structure from maintaining his view against the not wrong a proselyte by taunting being regarded as a single utensil, majority. He further contends that him with being a stranger to the and therefore it is not liable to the meekness with which he Jewish people seeing that ye uncleanness. The Sages however accepted his sentence, though he yourselves were strangers in Egypt. hold that the outer coating of was sufficiently great to have 26 Lit., ‘people say.’ mortar or cement unifies the disputed and fought it, is a 27 [So MS.M.; cur. edd. read, ‘to his whole, and it is therefore liable to powerful testimony to his humility fellow’.]