Great Rabbis series – Mendell Lewittes

Mendell Lewittes  was a Modern Orthodox rabbi, who shared a very similar worldview to Emanuel Rackman. 

(see: //tanakhemet.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/great-rabbis-series-prof-emanuel-rackman.html.)

Unlike Rackman, Lewittes did not gain great fame or seek controversy. However, his writings on the history and development of Halacha shows a mastery of rabbinic sources, and an intellectual honesty, where he presents views contrary to that of mainstream ideas. This is in contrast to Ultra-orthodox rabbis who present views in the Talmud that support their claims, but conceal (or are ignorant of) those which reject their views. His book,

http://www.amazon.com/Principles-Development-Jewish-Law-Jurisprudence/dp/0819705063/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=undefined&sr=1-4 

which is  recommended as a primer to rabbinic law and history,

provides several references to the dangers of rabbinic law. For example he stresses how the Torah  twice forbids adding to the Law.  He also shows how rabbinic laws are at best contrary to the Torah, and proposes the setting up of a modern Sanhedrin to delete laws which are no longer purposeful, e.g.  the observance of 2 days for holidays outside of Israel.  He is also uncomfortable with the alleged logic of the rabbis, noting that the principle of Gezeira Shava is not a logical method of interpretation.

In this book, he also points out that great rabbis of the past, for example R’ Yaakov Emden, doubted the authenticity of the Zohar.

One very important point he raises, is a response to the allegation against the Talmudic rabbis as being politically and financially motivated.   In order to disprove this claim, he cites none other than Akavya ben Mehalalel, who featured in a previous post http://tanakhemet.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/talmudic-whistleblower-akavya-ben.html

By citing Akavya, he hopes to dispel the claim that Rabbis were politically motivated.  But what he fails to notice is that Akavya is a single case, who suffered excommunication for maintaining the truth  and refusing the bribe of high position and power when it contradicted his sense of ethics.  Lewittes does not address the overwhelming Talmudic establishment that did business in this fashion, with the carrot of high position and the threat of excommunication, to falsify the historical record.  It is also the case that even Akavya advised his son not to follow in his path, because of the dangers of disagreeing with Talmudic mafia.

Lewittes, like Rackman, was concerned with halacha becoming too rigid and irrelevant.  Both of them saw the oral law as being true, but they wanted it to be dynamic  and not written in stone. Sadly,  neither of them had a significant following that was strong enough to change the tide of ultra-orthodox hegemony.