The Oven of Akhnai

First, here's the story:

• on Wikipedia
• come and hear (*unreliable; see Sefaria and below)
• Analysis and Bet Kol narrative
• context (see below)

(from https://graceintorah.net/2021/01/26/tu-bshevat-the-lesson-of-akhnais-oven/)

The placement of this argument is key to the context of the story. It is sandwiched between sections of where the rabbis made rulings about PROPER SPEECH. Words and how one uses them indicates the state of one’s heart. One is meant to consider that he/she is from the earth, an earthenware vessel.[4] What does an “oven” have to do with this? It is a symbol in this story. Ovens bake BREAD – and bread is a metaphor for The Word and one’s words. What are we cooking up or eating from the ovens of others? “Those who love it WILL EAT its fruit.”

Bava Metzia 59a and 59b (quoted from Sepharia.org)

Apropos the topic of verbal mistreatment, we learned in a mishna there (Kelim 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. (59a)

That’s the opening argument. R. Eliezer thinks that the oven shouldn’t be considered a complete “vessel,” thus the commandment in Leviticus 11 doesn’t apply. Whereas, the majority of the rabbis see it differently. They think that since it functions as a complete oven, it is also a complete vessel, and subject to ritual impurity.

The Christian claim is that the rabbis in the story have misquoted the Torah (and therefore their argument is invalid).

• https://torah.org/torah-portion/rabbiwein-5778-shlach/
• https://torah.org/torah-portion/lifeline-5758-mishpatim/
• https://www.chabad.org/multimedia/video_cdo/aid/1731277/jewish/Majority-Rule.htm
• https://www.yaelshahar.com/tanur-akhnai-tale-two-methods/#_ftn1

Status: Debunked. From the above list of articles we see that this claim represents a misunderstanding of what the verse means and what it refers to.

(Since) Moses himself warns the people not to add on to the rules of the Torah; he says, “Don't add on to the thing I am commanding you and don't take away from it.” Deu 4:2

(Therefore) Nachmanides (1194 – c. 1270) asks this question question: How do the rabbis make fences to the Torah? The Torah makes a list of prohibited incestuous relations; the rabbis add a few. The Torah prohibits work on Shabbat; the rabbis say, “If it has no use on Shabbat, don't even handle it!” The same with the kosher laws and many other prohibitions. And as time goes on, more fences are added.

So Nachmanides points out that these fences are very good and necessary, “…as long as we all know that this is a fence, and not directly from G‑d in His Torah.”

They're not directly from the Torah, but they are Torah nevertheless—because the Torah itself commands us to build fences around its prohibitions when they are necessary. It says, “Keep the Children of Israel away from impurity!” Lev 15:31 It says, “Guard My guardings!” Lev 18 Which means, that if the spiritual leadership sees that their generation has greater temptation than earlier generations—or simply cannot be as careful as before—it's time to add some warnings to hold them further at bay.

People are doing business on Shabbat? Declare money off-bounds for the entire day. Women are being sexually harassed? Forbid any man to be alone with a woman to whom he is not directly related.

Prohibitions without fences are like books without covers—pretty soon, the best parts of the story have gone missing. Or like fine crystal statues in a public thoroughfare without cordon or guard. Or a garden of flowers in the town square without a fence. Nevertheless, Nachmanides makes an important distinction: We all need to know what is a fence and what is a garden.

Eve didn't make that distinction. She answered the snake that, “G‑d says not to eat from it and not to touch it, lest we die.” Gen 3:3 So when the snake pushed her against the tree and she didn't die, her whole argument fell apart. All the snake had to tell her now was that the “real reason” she was not to eat from the tree was because G‑d didn't want her to know things as He did—and Chava was in the clutches of his scaly hands.

As the Midrash puts it, the fence fell and the garden was crushed.