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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?