Акавья бен Махалалель свидетельствовал в четырех случаях. Они сказали ему: Акавья, откажись от четырех вещей, которые ты сказал, и мы сделаем тебя главным судьей Израиля, после чего он сказал: «Лучше называться глупцом всю мою жизнь и не быть злым за мгновение до смерти». rd, «чтобы они не сказали:« Он отказался из-за «положения». »Он объявил бы нечистым« депонированный волос »[bahereth (вид чумы), имеющий« депонированный »(как бы) волосы в коже плоти и отошли. Как в случае Багерета с седыми волосами. Если bahereth ушел и оставил (то есть, "отложил") белые волосы на своем месте, а затем он (bahereth) вернулся—Акавья бен Мехалалель считает это нечистым. Так как волосы в бахерете стали белыми, хотя тот, что сейчас там, не тот, кто его побелел, тем не менее, он нечист.] И (он объявил нечистым) «зеленую» кровь (нидды). ) И мудрецы правят ими чисто, [написано (Левит 13:10): «… и он (Багерех) побелил волосы»)—только если он побелел, а не сосед. И (Акавья бен Махалалель) объявил нечистым «зеленую» кровь нидды, считая ее цвета яркого крокуса, одного из «нечистых» цветов, которые поблекли (от красного)]. И он позволил бы извлечь выгоду для Cohein из шерсти первородного порочного животного, которое упало (на землю) и которое он положил на окно, после чего он зарезал его. И мудрецы запретили это. [Ибо если вы позволите ему шерсть, которая падает (на землю), пока она жива, они задержат (убьют) первенца, так что его шерсть всегда будет падать, и они (также) придут к сдвигу и работать с ним; и запрещено стричь и работать с негодными освященными животными, написано (Второзаконие 12:11): «… убей и ешь мясо»—ты будешь убивать, а не резать; И Акавья это позволяет. Ибо, поскольку шехита пользуется (пользуется) шерстью, которая прикреплена к ней, впоследствии она также помогает шерсти, которая была оторвана и помещена в окно.] Он сказал бы: [Черновик Сота] не применяется прозелитеске или освобожденной служанке, [написано (в клятве, которая дается Соте [Числа 5:21]): «Пусть Господь даст вам проклятие и клятву среди вашего народа», исключая тех, которые не «среди вашего народа».] И мудрецы говорят: они заставляют их пить. Они сказали ему: «Однажды в Иерусалиме произошел инцидент такого рода с участием освобожденной служанки Каркамит, и Шамая и Авталион отправили ей черновик!», После чего он (Акавья) сказал им: «Они заставили ее выпить лайк!" [то есть они сделали это, потому что были (прозелиты), как она, а не потому, что это был закон. Другое толкование: у них сложилось впечатление, что они дают ей горькую воду для питья, но на самом деле они этого не делают.] И они отлучили его (Акавью) [за то, что он удешевил честь Шемаи и Авталиона]. И он умер в своем отлученном от церкви состоянии, и Бет-Дин побил камнями свой гроб. Р. Иегуда сказал: Б-г запрети, чтобы Акавью отлучили. Ибо (двери) азара (Храмового двора) никого не закрывали в Израиле [в канун Песаха, когда они вошли заколоть свои жертвы Песаха, а именно: «Когда вошел первый контингент, они закрыли двери об азаре и т. д.)) больше в мудрости и страхе греха, чем Акавья бен Махалалель. Кого же они отлучили? Это был Элазар бен Чанох, который осветил [раввинистические таинства] мыть руки. И когда он умер, Бет-Дин послал и положил большой камень на его гроб, [знаменуя их отделение от него], откуда мы узнаем, что если кто-то отлучен от церкви и умер в этом состоянии, его гроб «забит камнями».
Bartenura on Mishnah Eduyot
שער פקודה – the language of “deposit”/thing given in charge (regarding the hair of a leprous spot which remains after the inflammation has partially receded), that the bright white spot on the skin deposited the hair in the flesh of the skin and it went away, such as the case where there was in it a bright white spot and in it was white hair, and the white spot sent away and left the white hair in its place, and afterwards, the bright white spot returned. Akavyah ben Mehalalel makes it ritually impure since the hair turned white in the great white spot even though that great white spot that is there is now is not the same that turned it to white hair, it is ritually impure.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Eduyot
Introduction
This mishnah contains the sad story of Akavia ben Mahalalel who was excommunicated for his disagreements with the other Sages. Although we have seen many disagreements in the Mishnah, some over major issues of law, it has seemed that the disputing Sages lived in peace despite their differences. This point was especially made with regards to the disputes of Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel in chapter four, mishnah eight. However, the border of legitimate dispute seems to have been crossed by Akavia ben Mahalalel. Although it will be difficult for us to understand what exactly it was that Akavia did that so angered the other Sages, this mishnah at least provides ample testimony to the ease in which legitimate dispute can turn into a fierce battle.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Eduyot
וחכמים מטהרין – as it is written (Leviticus 13:10): “[If the priest finds on the skin a white swelling] which has turned some hair white, [with a patch of un-discolored flesh in the swelling],” that it has turned it [white] but not its neighbor that turned it white.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Eduyot
Akavia ben Mahalalel testified concerning four things. They said to him: Akavia, retract these four things which you say, and we will make you the head of the court in Israel. He said to them: it is better for me to be called a fool all my days than that I should become [even] for one hour a wicked man before God; So they shouldn’t say: “he withdrew his opinions for the sake of power.” In the first section of the mishnah we learn the background to the sad story of Akavia ben Mahalalel. The Sages pleaded with him to retract the four things that he stated and in return they would appoint him to the head of the court. Akavia responded in two ways: 1) God would know that his retraction was false, and therefore he could not do so; 2) he cannot change his beliefs merely in order to be appointed to a position of power.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Eduyot
ודם הירוק – Akavyah ben Mehalalel makes it ritually impure as he holds that it is of the color of the bright-colored crocus (see Tractate Niddah, Chapter 2, Mishnah 6), which is one of the ritually impure bloods but that it had smitten with leprosy.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Eduyot
He used to pronounce impure the hair which has been left over [in leprosy], The mishnah now begins to list the four statements that Akavia made and with which the Sages disagreed. The first is with regards to a certain type of hair found in someone afflicted with a leprous like disease. A white hair found on the leprous patch is impure. If the disease disappears and the white hair stays and then the disease returns, Akavia considers the hair to be impure, since it is likely to be the same disease merely returning. The Sages consider the disease to be a new affliction and therefore, since in order for the hair to be impure, the disease must precede the formation of the hair, the hair is pure.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Eduyot
היה מתיר שער בכור בעל מום שנשר – wool that had fallen out from the firstling which was blemished, he would permit it for the benefit of the Kohen (this Mishnah is from Tractate Bekhorot, Chapter 3, Mishnah 4).
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Eduyot
And green ( blood (of vaginal; But the Sages declared them clean. If a woman has a vaginal discharge which is green (yellow), Akavia considers it to be similar to blood which everyone holds is impure and therefore the yellow discharge is also impure. The other Sages disagree and hold that a yellow discharge is not blood and is therefore pure.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Eduyot
וחכמים אוסרים – for if he had permitted wool that falls from a living being, they would come to be compared to a firstling in order that he could remove its wool at every hour, and regarding it, they would come to a stumbling block/snare that he would shear it and work it, and those holy things that are invalid, it is prohibited for shearing and working them, as it is written (Deuteronomy 12:15): “[But whatever you desire,] you may slaughter and eat meat [in any of your settlements, [according to the blessing that the LORD your God has granted you…],” you may slaughter but not shear. But Akavyah permits it, for since slaughtering causes the benefit of the wool that is attached to it to permit it after the slaughtering, one can benefit as well from the detached wool that is placed in the window.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Eduyot
He used to permit the wool of a first-born animal which was blemished and which had fallen out and had been put in a niche, the first-born being slaughtered afterwards; But the sages forbid it. It is forbidden to shear a first born animal, even one that has a flaw and is therefore is not sacrificable. (First born animals that have no flaw are sacrificed and their flesh belongs to the priests. First born animals that have a flaw belong to the priests but are not sacrificed). Since it is forbidden to shear this animal, the Sages decreed that it is forbidden to use any wool that comes from it, even if it falls off on its own. If some wool falls off while it is alive and someone puts it away for safekeeping, but does not use it, and then the animal is slaughtered to be eaten (which is permitted since it has a flaw) Akavia permits this wool to be used. Since the slaughtering permits the wool that is on the dead animal to be used (it is only forbidden to shear the live animal), it also permits the wool that fell off the animal before it died to be used. The Sages hold that this wool is not permitted.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Eduyot
אין משקין – the waters of the suspected adulterous woman.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Eduyot
He used to say: a woman proselyte and a freed slave-woman are not made to drink of the bitter waters. But the Sages say: they are made to drink. They said to him: it happened in the case of Karkemith, a freed slave-woman who was in Jerusalem, that Shemaiah and Avtalion made her drink. He said to them: they made her drink an example (and not the real. According to Numbers 5, a woman who is suspected of adultery is to be tested by drinking the “bitter waters” (5:24). In verse 12 of this chapter, in the introduction, it states, “speak unto the children of Israel”. From here Akavia learned that in order to drink the “bitter waters” the woman must be born an Israelite. According to Akavia, the chapter was taught to Israelites but not to non-Jews. This would exclude a woman who converted or a Canaanite slave who was freed (by being freed a Canaanite slave becomes a Jew). The Sages disagree and state that these women do drink. Although they were not born as Israelites, since they are currently full Jews they have the same ability and liability to drink the “bitter waters” if they are accused of adultery. The Sages support their opinion that the freed slave drinks by mentioning the precedent of Karkemith, a freed slave, who was given the “bitter waters” by Shemaiah and Avtalion, two early Sages. Akavia disagrees and states that they didn’t give her the real bitter waters, but rather a simulated version. The reason that they didn’t give her the real bitter waters is that the in the process of making the bitter waters God’s holy name is written on a scroll and then erased into the water, something which under normal circumstances is forbidden. To avoid unnecessarily erasing God’s name, Akaviah claims that Shemaiah and Avtalion gave the freed slave, Karkemith, some other type of waters.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Eduyot
לא את הגיורת ולא אתת המשוחררת – as it is written (Numbers 5:21): “[Here the priest shall administer the curse of adjuration to the woman, as the priest goes on to say to say to the woman – may the LORD] make you a curse and an imprecation among your people, [as the LORD causes your thigh to sag and your belly to distend],” except for those that are not among their people.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Eduyot
Whereupon they excommunicated him; and he died while he was under excommunication, and the court stoned his coffin. When Akaviah made this statement they put him into excommunication. He died while still in excommunication and to emphasize their point, the Sages stoned his coffin.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Eduyot
דוגמא השקוה – because they were its example, that is to say, converts like her, therefore they administered it (i.e., the bitter water) to her, and not according to the law, Another interpretation: They made her into an example, they made an example and a resemblance and showed her as if we administer the bitter waters to her, but they did [actually] do it.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Eduyot
Rabbi Judah said: God forbid [that one should say] that Akavia was excommunicated; for the courtyard is never locked for any man in Israel who was equal to Avavia ben Mahalalel in wisdom and the fear of sin. But whom did they excommunicate? Eliezer the son of Hanoch who cast doubt against the laws concerning the purifying of the hands. And when he died the court sent and laid a stone on his coffin. Rabbi Judah claims that Akavia was not put into excommunication. Rabbi Judah emphatically states that the courtyard of the Temple, even when full would not contain a person of greater wisdom and fear of sin than Akavia. Such a person could not commit a sin which would cause him to be excommunicated. Rather Eliezer ben Hanoch was the one put into excommunication for questioning the Rabbinic concept of the impurity of the hands. Without entering here into detail, this concept, that hands alone can become impure is a Rabbinic innovation that doesn’t appear in the Torah. By questioning this concept, Eliezer questions the entire substance of Rabbinic authority.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Eduyot
ונדוהו – since he neglected the honor of Shemaiah and Avtalyon (see Tractate Avot, Chapter 1, Mishnayot 10-11 and Tractate Hagigah, Chapter 2, Mishnah 2 for the listing of the “Zugot/pairs”).
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Eduyot
This teaches that whoever is excommunicated and dies while under excommunication, his coffin is stoned. According to Rabbi Judah, when Eliezer ben Hanoch died in excommunication, they put a stone on his ark (this is a form of stoning, see Sanhedrin 6:4). This action serves as a precedent for others who are excommunicated.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Eduyot
שאין עזרה ננעלת – [the courtyard was locked] on the Eve of Passover, when they came in to slaughter their Passover offerings, for we say, that the first division went in the doors of the courtyard were locked, and similarly, with the second division and also the third division. There was not found in all the courtyard someone distinguished in humility and fear of sin like Akavyah ben Mehalalel.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Eduyot
Questions for Further Thought: • Section four: Why do the Sages hold that this wool is forbidden? • Section seven: What does this section teach us about why Rabbis are put into excommunication according to the Mishnah? What is the reason that Eliezer ben Hanoch is put into excommunication? How does this compare to why Akavia may have been excommunicated? • Section eight: What is the symbolic meaning of stoning the excommunicated person’s coffin? • Over all, what might be the message of this mishnah? In other words, what is the attitude of the editor of the mishnah?
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Eduyot
שפקפק – that he cast doubt/neglected
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Eduyot
סוקלים את ארונו – no exactly stone, but they place a stone alone as recognition that his colleagues were aloof from him.
