JUDAICA - Wisdom In Torah

simple, synthetic overview of his life, like that presented above.
Each tradition has a history of its own, often beginning with
some early traditional element related in tannaitic sources,
and sometimes lacking any early literary foundation whatsoever.
For example, in describing R. Eliezer’s early life, it is
natural to begin with the most detailed and colorful versions
of the story – ARN1 6, 31; ARN2 13, 32; PdRE 1; 2. But all these
sources are post-talmudic, and reflect a highly romanticized
version of events. Similarly in the case of the story of the “oven
of Akhnai,” it is tempting to begin with the “complete” version
of events – including a full description of R. Eliezer’s excommunication
– as laid out in Babylonian Talmud BM 59b, and
to set aside the fragments of information found in tannaitic
sources, or the merely “partial” description found in the earlier
Jerusalem Talmud. Yet what do the early sources have to
tell us? Mishnah Kelim 5:10 reports a simple and unexceptional
dispute between R. Eliezer and the Sages, over a certain kind of
oven, called the “oven of Akhnai,” which R. Eliezer considered
pure (i.e., not susceptible to ritual impurity), while the Sages
held that it was impure (i.e., susceptible to ritual impurity). In
Mishnah Eduyyot 7:7, however, this tradition is transmitted in
a somewhat different form: “They testified that an oven [of this
sort] was impure, since R. Eliezer held that it was pure.” From
this source it sounds as if R. Eliezer’s opinion about this oven
had been the subject of a special debate, in which his view was
dismissed as invalid. The Tosefta of Eduyyot (2:1) restates the
more neutral formulation of Mishnah Kelim, but adds at the
end: “and it was called the oven of Akhnai, about which there
were many disputes in Israel.” From this it might seem that
the dispute over the oven of Akhnai did not end with the attempt
of the Sages to suppress R. Eliezer’s position, but rather
resulted in further and more serious disputes and confrontations.
The next stage in the development of this tradition is
found in the Jerusalem Talmud (MK 3:1, 81d). After quoting
Mishnah Kelim, it transmits the following description in the
name of R. Jeremiah – a fourth generation Palestinian amora:
“A great tribulation occurred on that day. Wherever R. Eliezer
looked was stricken. Not only that, but even a single stalk of
wheat was half stricken and remained half healthy, and the
walls of the meeting hall began to weaken. R. Joshua said to
them: ‘If friends are having an altercation what concern is it
of yours?’ Then a heavenly voice declared: ‘The halakhah is
according to R. Eliezer, my son.’ R. Joshua replied: ‘It is not in
heaven.’” R. Jeremiah’s description contains nothing about any
excommunication, and in fact this Palestinian tradition contains
little more than a colorful elaboration of what could be
gleaned from the tannaitic sources themselves. On the other
hand, immediately prior to this discussion of Mishnah Kelim,
the Jerusalem Talmud (MK 81c) brings two anonymous traditions
beginning with the words “They attempted to excommunicate
R. Meir,” and “They attempted to excommunicate R.
Eliezer.” In the first case R. Meir objected, and it would seem
that the excommunication was not put into effect. In the second
case also, after R. Akiva went to inform R. Eliezer that
his “friends” had excommunicated him, R. Eliezer objected, as
eliezer ben isaac
the Jerusalem Talmud relates: “He took him and went outside,
and said ‘Carob, Carob! If the halakhah is as they say, uproot
yourself!’ But it did not uproot itself. ‘If the halakhah is as I
say, uproot yourself!’ and it did uproot itself. ‘If the halakhah
is as they say, return!’ But it did not return. ‘If the halakhah
is as I say, return!’ and it did return.” Here also there is no
sign that the proposed excommunication was put into effect.
But when all of these anonymous and attributed Palestinian
amoraic traditions are brought in Babylonian Talmud BM 59b
they are presented woven together into a single coherent and
continuous narrative, appearing as a single tannaitic baraita
(whose content was summarized in outline above). Does the
Babylonian Talmud preserve here an early tannaitic tradition,
which contains the full and authentic version of historical
events as they occurred, or does the Babylonian Talmud’s
version represent, rather, the final stage – to use Neusner’s
phrase – in the “development of a legend”? Each individual
case obviously needed to be analyzed and evaluated in its own
right. Similar questions need to be raised and similar analyses
provided with respect to the halakhic positions ascribed to R.
Eliezer both in tannaitic and amoraic sources. Because of the
highly technical nature of these discussions, however, we will
pass over them here.
[Stephen G. Wald (2nd ed.)]
Bibliography: B.Z. Bokser, Pharisaic Judaism in Transition
(1935), biography; Schuerer, Gesch, index; Klausner, Bayit Sheni, index;
Bacher, Tann, S.V.; Epstein, Tanna’im, 65–70; Halevy, Dorot, 1,
pt. 5 (1923), 281ff.; H. Oppenheim, in: Beit Talmud, 4 (1885), 311–6,
332–8, 360–6; D. Luria, Kuntres ha-Hakdamot ve-ha-Mavo le-Sefer
Pirkei R. Eliezer ha-Gadol (1884); G. Bader, Jewish Spiritual Heroes,
1 (1940), 212–25; Guttmann, in: Memorial Volume… I. Godziher, 2
(1958), 100–10 (English section); Y.D. Gilat, Mishnato shel R. Eliezer
ben Hyrcanus u-Mekomah be-Toledot ha-Halakhah (1968). Add.
Bibliography: Y.D. Gilat, R. Eliezer ben Hyrcanus, A Scholar
Outcast (1984); J. Neusner, Eliezer b. Hyrcanos: The Traditions and
the Man (1973).
ELIEZER BEN ISAAC (Ashkenazi; 16th century), Czech Hebrew
printer. Eliezer was born in Prague. In partnership with
others he printed Hebrew books in Lublin from 1557 to 1573.
For a short while an epidemic forced him to move to Konska
Wola, near Lublin, and some of the products of his press bear
the name of that small town. Among the works printed by him
in Lublin are some tractates of the Talmud, published with the
approval and recommendation of the *Councils of the Lands.
In 1574 he set out for Constantinople, taking his typographic
equipment, and set up press in partnership with David b. Elijah
Kashti. They printed a volume of geonic responsa (1575)
and began a Maḥzor Romania (festival prayer book according
to the Romaniot rite), in which Kashti, as a member of
the old-established pre-Turkish community, was particularly
interested. The partnership broke up before the maḥzor was
finished. Then Eliezer alone issued Baruch ibn Ya’ish’s commentary
on the Song of Songs under the title Mekor Barukh
(1576). The same year Eliezer went to Safed, where he entered
into partnership with Abraham b. Isaac (Ashkenazi), who
ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6 325