UPDATED - Thanks to Shawn
Further to my post Another Brick in the Temple's Fall
I found a very interesting rabbinic commentary on this subject - namely Akavya's qualms with his predecessors.
It states as follows: "The idea of speaking negatively about deceased talmidei chachamim refers
to cases where someone assumes a suspicion that certain rulings of
rabbis were motivated not by the depth of their understanding of the
Torah’s laws or the true traditions they received but by personal
interests, Heaven forbid. Actually, even if the critics were right, we
would still be obligated to follow their rulings, for the Torah was not
given to angels. Once someone is a decisor of Torah and his words were
accepted by the rabbinical courts of the time, the Torah law to not
stray from the words of the Rabbis applies"
source: Ein Ayah: The Danger of Accusing Scholars of Ulterior Motives
What this is saying, is that where someone does uncover that the Rabbis of previous generations were in fact corrupt, as Akavya Ben Mehalelel shows us, then it is not acceptable to change or even admit to the truth. Rather, in the name of maintaining errant traditions, and power, the lie becomes accepted, and falsehood becomes truth.
This is tantamount to a full admission of the fallacy and criminality of the rabbinic oral law. It was shown by the genuine Kohanim that this is a big lie, yet it becomes "accepted as truth".
This also disproves the Kuzari "principle" which is used by Orthodox Rabbis as proof of the Torah and Oral Law. They claim there is unbroken tradition of Oral and written Law, going back each generation. However, if as the rabbis admit, there is a dishonesty principle, where any falsehoods uncovered are quickly covered up, as was done in the excommunication of Akavya ben Mehalalel, then there is no Kuzari principle.
No comments:
Post a Comment