〒 2026, Bava Metzia 59b, The Tikun Project

When God Laughed

According to a Talmudic tradition, the story of God laughing at rabbis arguing, refers to a discussion in the Babylonian Talmud (Bava Metzia 59b) known as the Oven of Akhnai.

In this story, the rabbis are debating a point of ritual purity, and when God (via the Bat Kol) attempts to intervene to support the side of Rabbi Eliezer, the other rabbis reject this divine intervention.

Their reason for doing so is that since the Torah is no longer in heaven - but now down on earth - it should be decided by human logic.

Even if the majority are wrong.

I put my 2 cents below.

Bava Metzia 59b

This story starts off in the ("Talmud" Talmud ) Bava Metzia 59a with Rabbi Ḥelbo.

And Rabbi Ḥelbo says: A person must always be careful about sustaining the honor of his wife, as blessing is found in a person's house only because of his wife, as it is stated in allusion to this: "And he dealt well with Abram for her sake, and he had sheep and oxen" (Genesis 12:16).

And that is what Rava said to the residents of Meḥoza, where he lived: Honor your wives, so that you will become rich.

§ Apropos the topic of verbal mistreatment, we learned in a Mishna there ("Talmud" Talmud 5:10): If one cut an earthenware oven widthwise into segments, and placed sand between each and every segment, Rabbi Eliezer deems it ritually pure.

Because of the sand, its legal status is not that of a complete vessel, and therefore it is not susceptible to ritual impurity.

And the Rabbis deem it ritually impure, as it is functionally a complete oven.

Bava Metzia 59b ↟↟

And this is known as the "Oven of Akhnai" (תנור של עכנאי).

The Gemara asks: What is the relevance of akhnai (עכנאי), a snake, in this context?

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: It is characterized in that manner due to the fact that the Rabbis surrounded it with their statements like this snake, which often forms a coil when at rest, and deemed it impure.

The Sages taught: On that day, when they discussed this matter, Rabbi Eliezer answered all possible answers in the world to support his opinion, but the Rabbis did not accept his explanations from him.

After failing to convince the Rabbis logically, Rabbi Eliezer said to them: If the Halakha is in accordance with my opinion, this carob tree will prove it.

The carob tree was uprooted from its place one hundred cubits, and some say four hundred cubits.

The Rabbis said to him: One does not cite halakhic proof from the carob tree.

Rabbi Eliezer then said to them: 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.

They said to him: One does not cite halakhic proof from a stream.

Rabbi Eliezer then said to them: 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 scolded the walls and said to them: If Torah scholars are contending with each other in matters of Halakha, what is the nature of your involvement in this dispute?

The Gemara relates: The walls did not fall because of the deference to Rabbi Yehoshua, but they did not straighten because of the deference to Rabbi Eliezer, and they still remain leaning. (at that time of discussion)

Rabbi Eliezer then said to them: If the Halakha is in accordance with my opinion, Heaven will prove it.

A Divine Voice (the Bat Kol) emerged from Heaven and said: Why are you differing with Rabbi Eliezer, as the Halakha is in accordance with his opinion in every place that he expresses an opinion?

Rabbi Yehoshua stood on his feet and said: It is written: "It is not in heaven" (Deuteronomy 30:12 ).

The Gemara 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 regard a Divine Voice, as You already wrote at Mount Sinai, in the Torah: "After a majority to incline" (Exodus 23:2 ).

Since the majority of Rabbis disagreed with Rabbi Eliezer's opinion, the Halakha is not ruled in accordance with his opinion.

The Gemara relates: Years after, Rabbi Natan encountered Elijah the prophet and said to him: What did the Holy One, Blessed be He, do at that time, when Rabbi Yehoshua issued his declaration?

Elijah said to him: The Holy One, Blessed be He, smiled and said: My children have triumphed over Me; My children have triumphed over Me.

My 2 Cents

In "Old" Hebrew, the expression "The left hand does not know what the right hand is doing" refers to small children who do not yet know their left from their right.

For Christians - 1 Corinthians 13:11.

"When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things".

I have no problem with true Gaonim (גְאוֹנִים) interpreting The Torah.

What I have a problem with is arrogance.

In the Talmud "Sanhedrin 36a" Talmud Sanhedrin it says that a younger "Judge" (Rabbi) can question the judgement of an older Judge (in fact, it is required to do so), if the younger Judge thinks that the older Judge may be in error - and this is tactfully done by the younger Judge asking respectful leading questions (b'derech she'elah) to potentially resolve said potential errors and help to lead the senior Judge toward a correct ruling.

This ruling is specifically found in the Babylonian Talmud, Tractate "Sanhedrin 36a" , and it is established that in capital cases (dinei nefashot), the deliberations begin with the most junior Judges to avoid them being influenced by the opinions of the senior, more authoritative Judges.

The Mishna teaches that in cases of capital law, the Judges commence issuing their opinions from the side benches, where the least significant Judges sit. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived?

Rav Aḥa bar Pappa says: The verse states: “Neither shall you answer in a cause [al riv]” (Exodus 23:2), and the Sages interpret: Neither shall you answer after the Master [al rav], i.e., do not dispute the opinion of the greatest among the Judges.

Therefore, were the Judges to commence issuing their opinions from the greatest of them, and he would say that the accused is liable, no Judge would acquit the defendant.

However

However, IF the older Judge is correct, then the younger Judges should concede.

If the younger Judges do not "concede" then the word changes from concede to "conceit".

Sounds a but harsh, I know.

Back to the rabbis.

And whilst the rabbis were well within their purview to question HaShem (God) - via the Bat Kol - when they were advised of a superior dictate, (in my opinion), they should have conceded to the higher authority - which is nothing less than they demand of their own authority.

IMO, their rebuttal to the Bat Kol does not show contrition or wisdom.

And whilst HaShem may have "laughed" at their Chutzpah (חֻצְפָּה) (Eng: temerity), I personally believe that these rabbis showed not only great disrespect to HaShem but also to The Torah, The Talmud and their own authoritative positions as guardians (Shomrim שׁוֹמְרִים) of the Torah.

Simply put

Any half educated group of people can now get together and based on political. religious or ideological undertones, make decisions which may potentially affect countless thousands and if allowed to spread far enough, it could spiritually damage millions or even more souls.

As we have seen in some of the Torah translations by half educated people with a religious agenda.

Without the right translations, you cannot ask the right questions and without the right questions, you cannot get the right answers. For example, "Elohim" Elohim should invoke more questions than most people will feel comfortable with - so will "The Maya Illusion" page.

In fact, it is even worse that you think.

Think of it like driving from Point "A" to Point "B" using a street directory which has been reversed and you end up at Point "Z".