Eduyos 5:6-7
Eduyos 5:6
Akavya ben Mehalalel testified regarding four things. The Sages said that if he would retract his opinion on these four things, they would make him head of the court (which was the second-highest position in the Sanhedrin). Akavya replied that he would rather be called a fool for the rest of his life (for passing on this offer) rather than be considered evil for one hour in God’s sight, so that people should not think that he retracted in order to acquire the position (which would be a chillul Hashem). The matters regarding which he testified were: he declared the leftover hair of a metzora and the greenish blood of a niddah to be ritually unclean but the Sages declared them to be ritually clean; he permitted the hair of a blemished first-born animal that had fallen out and been placed in a window and the animal was subsequently slaughtered but the Sages prohibit it; he used to say that that women converts and freed Canaanite servant women were not made to undergo the sotah process (for suspected adultery) but the Sages say that they were. They Sages cited the case of Karkemis, a freed Canaanite servant woman in Jerusalem whom Shemaiah and Avtalyon made undergo the sotah process. Akavya replied that they only had her undergo the process in order to make an example of her (to show that those born Jewish are the same as everyone else). The Sages excommunicated Akavya (for suggesting that Shemaiah and Avtalyon acted counter to the law); he died in his state of excommunication and the court stoned his coffin. Rabbi Yehuda expressed shock that anyone could think that Akavya was excommunicated because the Temple courtyard never locked on anyone as wise and pious as Akavya ben Mehalalel. It was Eliezer ben Chanoch who was excommunicated, for mocking the Sages’ teaching regarding hand-washing. When he died, the court had a rock placed on his coffin. From this we learn that whenever someone dies in a state of excommunication, his coffin is “stoned” (in this manner).
Eduyos 5:7
When Akavya ben Mehalalel was dying, he told his son to retract regarding the aforementioned four matters. His son asked why Akavya did not himself retract, and he answered, “I heard these laws from the majority, and the Sages heard their version of these laws from the majority, so I had to stand by what I learned and they had to stand by what they learned. You, however, heard these laws from an individual and the Sages’ position from the majority. In such a case, it is appropriate to abandon the position of the individual and accept the position of the majority.” Akavya’s son asked his father to recommend him to Akavya’s colleagues but Akavya refused. When the son asked if this was because of some defect in him, Akavya replied that it was because it’s the son’s deeds that would cause Akavya’s colleagues to accept or reject him.