The Burning of the Talmud - Interpretation of an Aggadeta - The Oven of Achnai.

תנן התם חתכו חוליות ונתן חול בין חוליא לחוליא ר"א מטהר וחכמים מטמאין
וזה הוא תנור של עכנאי מאי עכנאי אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל שהקיפו דברים כעכנא זו וטמאוהו תנא באותו היום השיב רבי אליעזר כל תשובות שבעולם ולא קיבלו הימנו אמר להם אם הלכה כמותי חרוב זה יוכיח נעקר חרוב ממקומו מאה אמה ואמרי לה ארבע מאות אמה אמרו לו אין מביאין ראיה מן החרוב חזר ואמר להם אם הלכה כמותי אמת המים יוכיחו חזרו אמת המים לאחוריהם אמרו לו אין מביאין ראיה מאמת המים חזר ואמר להם אם הלכה כמותי כותלי בית המדרש יוכיחו הטו כותלי בית המדרש ליפול גער בהם רבי יהושע אמר להם אם תלמידי חכמים מנצחים זה את זה בהלכה אתם מה טיבכם לא נפלו מפני כבודו של רבי יהושע ולא זקפו מפני כבודו של ר"א ועדיין מטין ועומדין חזר ואמר להם אם הלכה כמותי מן השמים יוכיחו יצאתה בת קול ואמרה מה לכם אצל ר"א שהלכה כמותו בכ"מ עמד רבי יהושע על רגליו ואמר לא בשמים היא מאי (דברים ל) לא בשמים היא אמר רבי ירמיה שכבר נתנה תורה מהר סיני אין אנו משגיחין בבת קול שכבר כתבת בהר סיני בתורה (שמות כג) אחרי רבים להטות אשכחיה רבי נתן לאליהו א"ל מאי עביד קוב"ה בההיא שעתא א"ל קא חייך ואמר נצחוני בני נצחוני בני

This is the story in Bava Metziah 59a-b known as תנור של עכנאי – The oven of Achnai. I will not translate just paraphrase.

In a Mishna, R. Eliezer and the Chachamim argue whether an oven made of broken shards assembled and held together by sand is considered a completed oven and can become impure or is it seen as an incomplete object which does not become impure. The Gemara explains the word Achnai as referring to a snake. The argument got so heated and the Chachamim surrounded R. Eliezer with so many arguments that he felt as if a snake had wrapped itself around him. As R. Eliezer saw that his arguments were not making an impact, he resorted to what appears to be the supernatural. He ordered the Boxer tree to move one hundred cubits if he is right and the water rivulet that was passing nearby to change the direction of its flow. As the Rabbis refused to be convinced by these extraneous events, he threatened that the walls of the Beit Hamidrash would cave in and R. Yehoshua stopped that from occurring. A “Bat Kol” was then heard announcing that being the Halacha is according to R. Eliezer everywhere, why don’t you leave him alone and concede? To which R. Yehoshua responded that since Sinai, the Torah belongs to man and heaven has no longer the right to interfere. Therefore, the majority rules and R. Eliezer using the supernatural to forward his position is out of place and unacceptable.

This story is very important in understanding how Halacha works. Much has been written about this issue of the role of prophecy and miracles in it. Rambam in his introduction to Pirush Hamishna has a long discussion about how prophecy, even when confirmed by extraordinary events, has no impact on Halacha. Maharatz Chayes has written a lot about the issue. That is however not where I am going here.

I was reading a very interesting article in Tarbiz ( volume 75 #3-4) by Dr. Izhak Brand on this Gemara. As a child, I used to live in Paris and went to public school where we studied as expected Histoire de France – French History. I liked the subject though dates are not my forte, but generally, the stories were quite exciting. The kings, dukes, counts and knights were heroic figures that a ten year old could look up to with awe. One of my heroes was Louis IX (1215-1270) – Saint Louis – the saintly king – crusader – warrior who also washed the feet of the poor on certain holidays. Of course, they never told us in school that he decreed the expulsion of the Jews from France and that he burned 12,000 copies of the Talmud in Paris in 1242. This brings me back to the subject of the Oven of Achnai and the Brand article.

The burning of Shas did not happen in a vacuum. By the time it happened, there was already a 100 years history of the Christian Church attacking the Talmud. Around the year 1143, Petrus Venerebilis of Cluny, a monk, wrote a polemical book against the Jewish religion. The fifth chapter deals with difficult Aggadot found in the Gemara. As he was trying to show that the Jews consider the Talmud superior to even God, as they say that God learns it, he quotes a Gemara in Bava Metziah 86a where God is uncertain of a Halacha and Rabah Bar Chana resolves the question and God acquiesces. To make his point Petrus ends the quote by adding the words ואמר נצחוני בני נצחוני בני – God said my children won over me – which he transposed from the Oven of Achnai Gemara. His argument was that the Jews considered the Talmud as more correct than even God. The Talmud is therefore blasphemous and it should be banned.

One hundred years later, Nicholas Donin of La Rochelle, an apostate and a pupil of Rabbeinu Yechiel of Paris, one of the great Ba’alei Hatosafot set himself the task to burn the Talmud and finish what Petrus started. He orchestrated the great debate in 1240, which was held in Paris in front of Louis IX and his mother the ex-dowager queen Blanche de Castile. Preparing for this event he dispatched letters to the Pope and other European men of clergy, Feudal Lords and Kings, attacking the Talmud and laying out his reasons for recommending the burning thereof. One chapter of the letters deals with our story of the oven of Achnai.

We have records of the debate in the French legal archives as well as Jewish sources and several scholars have worked with them and published articles discussing them. R. Yechiel addressed the attacks on this story in the disputation and explained that God is not at all involved in the argument with the Rabbis. He is just watching and following it because he has given them the authority to decide the issue according to the majority. When God says נצחוני בני , the word Nitzchuni is translated “they praise me, my children” or “they make me happy” from the word Lamenatzeach, which we find many times in Tehilim and is translated as praise and happiness. He explains that God gave the authority to decide the Halacha to each generation of Rabbis (Sanhedrin) who then decide according to the majority. We therefore find the same case where one generation would say that it is pure while the next may reverse the rule depending on the majority of opinions. Each ruling would receive God’s blessing and make Him happy. Regarding the bat Kol, R. Yechiel does not address it in this forum but in a Tosafot in Pessachim 114a s.v. De’amar ein Mashgichim be’bat kol he does address it saying that BK has no Halachik validity and comes as a way of soothing ruffled feathers and making peace. The BK that affirmed the Halacha like Beit Hillel happened to agree with the majority rule and reinforced it despite the Beit Shamai being sharper. The BK that supported R. Eliezer was to give him reverence as he was losing the argument. Professor Ephraim Auerbach in his ba’alei hatosafot traces these Tosafot to the Beit Midrash of R. Yechiel.

The article continues tracing the role this Gemara played in later disputations in the 14th and 15th centuries, in the internal Jewish arguments regarding philosophy and Kabbalah and the different interpretations that sprung from these. I may address some in coming posts. I picked this one because of my familiarity with French History and how my childhood preconceptions were shattered.