TIMELINE<\/p>\n
All dates are CE. The dates relating to Akiva are approximate and reflect an effort to reconstruct the timing of these events from the available sources.
\n50 Akiva\u2019s birth
\n66 Great Revolt begins
\n70 Destruction of Second Temple in Jerusalem, death and exile of thousands of Judeans, consolidation of complete Roman rule over Judea
\n70 Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai establishes the Sanhedrin, the Rabbinic court, in Yavneh, the new center of Jewish learning
\n73 Fall of Masada and the end of the Great Revolt
\nmid-70s Akiva marries
\n78 Akiva begins his studies, attending academies at Lod, Yavneh, and elsewhere
\n80 Rabban Gamliel II heads the Sanhedrin
\n93 Akiva ordained by Rabbi Joshua and founds his own academy at B\u2019nai Brak
\n93 Akiva is appointed by Rabban Gamliel II as judge, member of a delegation to Rome, and manager of programs to help the needy. Akiva begins to gather and organize oral traditions, creating the early form of the Mishnah and collections of Midrash
\n115\u2013117 Kitos War
\n117 Hadrian (Publius Aelius Hadrian, 76 CE\u2013138 CE) becomes emperor of Rome
\n129 Hadrian\u2019s last visit to Judea
\n130 Hadrian rebuilds Jerusalem as the Roman city Aelia Capitolina
\n131 Akiva proclaims Bar Kokhva the Messiah, defies Roman decrees
\n132 Bar Kokhva Rebellion begins
\n132 Akiva\u2019s imprisonment and death
\n135 Defeat of Bar Kokhva and the end of the rebellion<\/p>\n
Akiva<\/p>\n
One<\/p>\n
AKIVA\u2019S EARLY LIFE<\/p>\n
Akiva ben Yosef may be the most well-known and beloved of the early Rabbinic Sages, the Tannaim, but his life is largely a mystery and will probably always remain so. As the Talmud scholar Louis Ginzberg famously wrote, \u201cA full history of Akiva, based upon authentic sources, will probably never be written, although he, to a degree beyond any other, deserves to be called the father of Rabbinical Judaism.\u201d Akiva ben Yosef was \u201cthe man who marked out a path for Rabbinical Judaism for almost two thousand years.\u201d His contribution to Rabbinic Judaism was so great that tradition designated him as one of the two \u201cFathers of the world,\u201d the other being his contemporary rival, Rabbi Ishmael. In an early midrash Akiva was termed one of three without whom \u201cthe Torah would have been forgotten in his time.\u201d The others were Shaphan, the scribe who brought the newly discovered book of Deuteronomy to King Josiah in the sixth century BCE (2 Kings 22:14), and Ezra, the scribe who returned from the Babylonian exile and held a public ceremony affirming the divinity and authority of the Torah in the fifth century BCE (Nehemiah 8\u20139).
\nWhen the Talmud wanted to prove the importance of Rabbi Judah the Prince, who was said to have been the greatest sage since Moses himself, it stated that he had been born on the very day that Akiva died, thus indicating that Akiva could be replaced only by one as great as that. Yet of Akiva\u2019s early life, we know virtually nothing. The sources, even those that are clearly legendary, tell nothing of him until he was a mature man. We do not even know when he was born.<\/p>\n
The generally accepted assumption is that he died at an advanced age during the Bar Kokhva Rebellion and the Hadrianic persecution, somewhere around the year 132 CE, although, as we shall see in chapter 8, the sources concerning that are far from clear. Avot de-Rabbi Natan B (ARN-B, in chapter 12), considered by many to be an early tannaitic work, posits that Akiva lived 120 years, in which case he would have been born around 12 CE and begun his studies in 52 CE. This is impossible, since that is prior to the destruction of the Temple and to the founding of the schools in Yavneh and Lod (Lydda) where Akiva studied. Obviously, then, 120 years is a schematic figure, taken from the biblical life of Moses, and is, in biblical symbolic terms, the life span of worthy individuals. If we assume that Akiva lived a long life, he would have been eighty or so when he died; therefore his birth would have been somewhere around the year 50 CE (the second half of the first century CE), some twenty years before the destruction of the Second Temple and the beginning of the Roman exile.
\nAkiva was born and lived most of his life near Lod in the lowlands of Judea, far from the metropolis of Jerusalem and the seat of religious studies. The name Akiva, which was not uncommon at the time, is a variation of Akavya. The Hebrew root is the same as in the name Yaakov (Jacob), meaning the heel, the curved part of the foot, or possibly \u201cto follow after.\u201d In most Hebrew sources it is spelled in the Aramaic fashion with an alef at the end, but in the Jerusalem Talmud the form is the Hebrew one, ending with a heh.
\nAside from the fact that his father\u2019s name was Yosef, the sources tell us nothing about the members of his family or their background. Nothing is known of his mother or any siblings. It would have been unusual for a family to have only one child, unless the mother died prematurely or could not have any other children. Of course the argument from silence is hardly conclusive, since Rabbinic sources make no attempt at writing complete biographies of the Sages and show little interest in telling such stories unless they contribute to some important ethical or legal teaching. Either Akiva grew up in a normal family, surrounded by mother and father and brothers and sisters, none of whom was considered important enough to be mentioned, or else he was an only child, possibly without a mother to tend to him through his adolescent years. All of that can only be left to our imagination.
\nConcerning the socioeconomic status of his family, again the sources are silent. There are, however, a few clues that lead to the conclusion that they were neither well educated nor wealthy. He had no scholars in his family background, a fact he himself admitted. In the Jerusalem Talmud, one of the earliest works that contains his sayings, Akiva remarks that when Rabban Gamliel II was forced to step down as head of the academy in Yavneh, he, Akiva, was not appointed in Gamliel\u2019s place because others, who were not greater than he in learning, had greater ancestors. \u201cHappy is the man whose ancestors earn him merit,\u201d he said. \u201cHappy is the man who has a peg upon which he can raise himself!\u201d
\nIn an offhand remark found in the Babylonian Talmud that has the ring of truth to it, Akiva recalls that in his youth he was an am ha-aretz (an ignorant peasant), something there was no reason for him to say were it not a fact. \u201cWhen I was an am ha-aretz, if I encountered a scholar, I would have bitten him like an ass!\u201d Although in the original meaning of the term an am ha-aretz was simply a country person, it had come to mean illiterate and therefore ignorant.
\nAgain, all the sources, early and late, insist that he began to learn to read at the age of forty. Forty may be an exaggeration, as was 120, but the meaning is clear: he was a mature individual, even married with a child, yet probably unlettered, when he began his studies. Looking back at his early years, remembering what he had done in his youth, Akiva once remarked to his students, \u201cI give thanks to You, O Lord my God, that You have set my portion among those who sit in the house of study and not among those who loiter at street corners in the marketplace!\u201d That is what he had been\u2014and what he might still have been had not something occurred that changed his life.
\nAs for his financial standing, again the same early sources in Avot de-Rabbi Natan note Akiva\u2019s lack of resources when he began to study. \u201cIn the future judgment, Rabbi Akiva will put all the poor in a guilty light. For if they are asked, \u2018Why did you not study Torah?\u2019 and they will say, \u2018Because we were poor,\u2019 they shall be told, \u2018Indeed, was not Rabbi Akiva even poorer and in wretched circumstances!\u2019 \u201d Akiva was forced to depend first on his own labors and then on his wife\u2019s help during that period of time. Had his family been better off, it would be expected that they would have helped him, but at no time is there any mention of them in that regard. All of these things together indicate that Akiva\u2019s background, if not one of profound poverty, was at the very least of a family without status and without learning. The chances of a person from such a background becoming one of the foremost Sages of Israel, famous, influential, and beloved, would seem to have been nil, and yet, as is well-known, that is what happened.
\nThe section of Judea where Akiva was born and in which he grew up and lived much of his life was in the lowlands, not far from the coast of the Mediterranean Sea near the city of Lod. Unlike the hill country that led from there up to Jerusalem, it was fertile agricultural land and was populated and owned by prosperous farmers. If, as seems likely, Yosef was not one of them, this family might have belonged to the landless poor, to those who worked either as day laborers or as tenant farmers. According to a third-century source (Tractate Semahot, 9, usually appended to the Babylonian Talmud), when Akiva\u2019s father died, others bared their shoulders as a sign of mourning, but Akiva did not. Since the law was that one does not perform that act of mourning if the parents \u201cwere not worthy,\u201d this may be another indication of the low status of his family.
\nTenant farmers lived a life of uncertainty and penury. Much of what they produced had to be given to their landlord. If that were the case for Akiva\u2019s family, then Yosef would have had little time for his son and would have had little to teach him except for the skills needed to eke out a living as a landless peasant. Illiterate himself, it would never have occurred to him to bother to attain schooling for his child, nor was such schooling easily available at that time for country folk without independent means.
\nAkiva\u2019s childhood and early adulthood, when he was an ignorant peasant, an am ha-aretz, took place, then, in the final years of the Second Temple, which was destroyed in the year 70 CE. In that prewar period, living in the lowlands, far from the metropolis of Jerusalem and the center of religious and political intrigue, he would have been ignorant of the major currents of Jewish thought and practice that flourished at that time. All that we know for certain in that regard is that he hated the Pharisaic Sages with a passion.<\/p>\n
THE PHARISEES AND OTHER SECOND TEMPLE SECTS<\/p>\n
The Second Temple period was a time when the books of the Torah were consolidated and became the accepted constitution of the Jewish people. But the interpretation of the Torah became a matter of conflict, and different sects emerged, each contending that its interpretation was the correct one. The three major sects, as described by the Jewish historian Josephus, were the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the Essenes, although other groups, such as the Dead Sea Sect, also existed. In general the divisions reflected socioeconomic differences as well as religious distinctions. The Sadducees constituted the wealthy classes, including the priesthood, and taught a conservative approach to religion, stressing the literal interpretation of the Torah and rejecting any ideas or laws that were not found in the written text. The Pharisees, although a small sect themselves, were favored by the plebian masses. They represented the urban population and taught a progressive approach to Judaism, interpreting the Torah in such a way as to allow for new ideas and new developments and including oral traditions as well as written ones. There were significant divisions within the Pharisaic ranks: the more liberal School of Hillel and the more rigid School of Shammai. Even here there were socioeconomic divisions: the Shammaites included people of greater wealth such as landowners in the fertile lowlands, while the Hillelites were generally the poorer classes, townsfolk or farmers of the hilly countryside.
\nMost Jews seemed to favor the Pharisees, even though they did not actually belong to that sect or follow all their strict observances. \u201cThey observed the Sabbath and holidays, heard the scriptural lessons in synagogue on Sabbath, abstained from forbidden foods \u2026 circumcised their sons on the eighth day, and adhered to the \u2018ethical norms\u2019 of folk piety.\u201d However, the Pharisees themselves described another group whom they called amei ha-aretz, literally \u201cpeople of the land\u201d or country people, but in essence meaning ignorant and boorish. This was not a sect or organized group, but a term that described those individuals who were not careful in their observance and therefore not to be trusted, and it was generally applied to small landowners and tenant farmers. One definition of an am ha-artez was \u201cwhoever has sons and does not rear them to study Torah.\u201d As amei ha-aretz, Akiva\u2019s family would not have been particularly scrupulous about matters of ritual purity or of tithes. It is doubtful if they would have identified with any of the religious movements that flourished at that time.
\nDuring the time of the Great Revolt (66\u201373 CE), Roman armies swept through the lowlands where Akiva lived, but there were no great battles or devastation such as occurred in Jerusalem or in the Galilee, where the fighting was fierce. If any of this made an impression upon the young Akiva, it is never recorded that he ever spoke of it or alluded to it in his teachings. His negative attitude to the Romans, however, especially in his later years, may have been influenced by what he saw and experienced at that time.
\nPrior to the Great Revolt, extremist freedom fighters had roamed freely through the villages of Judea, where Akiva lived, operating there unhindered. What impression had they made on the young man? There is nothing to indicate that he took part in the uprising in any way, but he could hardly have been ignorant of what was going on around him. Unlike some of the Pharisaic leaders of that time, such as Yohanan ben Zakkai, who counseled acquiescence to the Romans, fifty years later during the years of the Hadrianic decrees and the Bar Kokhva Rebellion, Akiva never did any such thing. If the opinions of his pupil Shimon bar Yohai are anything like his teacher\u2019s, Akiva had nothing but disdain for the Romans and welcomed the possibility of their overthrow. For Akiva, Rome was Edom, the enemy of Israel, as Esau had been the enemy of Jacob. He was one of those who felt that \u201cthe voice of Jacob\u201d was the cry of oppressed Jews against \u201cthe hands of Esau\u201d\u2014the Romans who killed so many Jews at the time of the revolt.<\/p>\n
To an unlearned youth, any Pharisaic Sages who appeared in his area would have been perceived as arrogant men who despised people like himself and made extravagant demands for strictness of observance and payment of all sorts of tithes the poor could hardly afford. His attitude might have been similar to that expressed in Christian scripture as the way Galilean peasants thought of the Pharisees a few generations earlier. Of course the Christian scripture cannot be taken as unprejudiced, since its intent is to show that the teachings of Jesus were superior and more loving than those of the Pharisees. Nevertheless even within Rabbinic writings there are descriptions of some within the Pharisaic group who were haughty and overbearing. \u201cThe plague of Pharisees brings destruction upon the world,\u201d says the Mishnah. And an early teaching cites seven types of Pharisees and describes their faults, while also quoting King Jannai as saying, \u201cFear not the Pharisees and the non-Pharisees but the hypocrites who are the Pharisees because their deeds are the deeds of Zimri but they expect a reward like Phineas.\u201d An unlettered youth would hardly have made a distinction between a true Pharisee and the hypocritical imitators.
\nAkiva experienced the Great Revolt against the Romans, ending in the destruction of the Second Temple, the razing of Jerusalem, the deaths of thousands upon thousands of Judeans, the exile and slavery of thousands more, and the armies of Rome. Only after that, in the postwar period, did he begin to study and change his way of life.<\/p>\n
FROM TEMPLE WORSHIP TO TORAH STUDY<\/p>\n
When the Great Revolt was over, much of Judea recovered swiftly. Landowners there had capitulated and were permitted to retain their land and continue farming. Nevertheless everything in Jewish life changed radically, beginning with the way in which Jews governed themselves. All power was now in the hands of the Romans, who retained Caesarea as their capital. Jerusalem ceased to exist as far as Jews were concerned. The Sanhedrin that had sat there no longer functioned. With the disappearance of the Temple and the cessation of the cult, the power of the priesthood also vanished. The Sadducean group no longer existed. The Essenes and other sects had also vanished. The Sages\u2014the leaders of Pharisaic Judaism\u2014remained the only influential source of religious teaching. Under the leadership of Yohanan ben Zakkai they assumed whatever political power they could, and the seat of power transferred from devastated Jerusalem to the center of learning and jurisprudence that Ben Zakkai had established in Yavneh, south of Jaffa, not far from where Akiva lived.
\nFor all intents and purposes, Yavneh became the new Jerusalem, the center of the Rabbinic court and the source of Jewish learning. Ben Zakkai went so far as to name his court the Sanhedrin. There was increased activity and more public learning now in that area than before. Perhaps that began to make a difference to Akiva\u2019s attitude. Otherwise how are we to understand the metamorphosis that changed this youth, who hated men of learning, into one who desired to enter into the circle of the learned? The Pharisees\u2019 attitude toward people like Akiva and his father was characterized by the distinguished historian Salo Baron as ambivalent, \u201cat once cherished as ardent followers and despised as ritually unreliable illiterates.\u201d No wonder Akiva would have torn apart any Sage from that group. But the Pharisees no longer existed as a sect. Instead there were learned men, Sages, now known as Rabbis, who sought to spread the knowledge of the Torah and of Jewish practice among the masses, creating a Judaism that could outlive the loss of the central sanctuary, the Temple, the sacrificial worship, and the Priesthood, a Judaism that could exist even without independence and self-government. These Sages became the predominant religious leaders of Judea and played an ever more important role in the life of the nation. Torah study became the center of religious life, and teachers roamed the land eager to impart such knowledge. The disputes that had led to divisions and the creation of sects that did not recognize one another\u2019s legitimacy had disappeared. Now there were differences of opinion and discussions and disputes, but the overwhelming desire was for inclusiveness and for respect for differences. This new emphasis on the study of Torah together with the increased importance of prayer transformed Judaism and enabled it to survive the crises of the destruction of the Temple.
\nPerhaps Akiva encountered these Sages, heard their public lessons, which took place in the open where anyone could listen, and began to feel the need for something more in his life. Without learning, without skills, without resources, what kind of a life could he look forward to? Scratching out a poor living as his father had done, perhaps finding a wife, if he could even afford one. For a young man of intelligence\u2014and his subsequent history surely proves that he was extraordinarily gifted\u2014such a life must have been unbearably frustrating.
\nBoth fact and fiction are replete with tales of young people with brilliant, unrecognized potential who were discovered by a teacher or some other person who was able to discern the hidden talent and help the otherwise unknown youth to realize himself and achieve greatness. The Akiva of legend has been provided with such a person in the unlikely character not of a teacher or professional, but of a young woman with whom Akiva falls in love\u2014his future wife. But is this fact or fiction?<\/p>\n
Two<\/p>\n
BECOMING A SAGE<\/p>\n
The period of time following the defeat of the Great Revolt in 73 CE, the time when Akiva\u2019s life changed drastically, was an age of uncertainty. The Jews of the Roman colony of Judea had experienced a tragedy of enormous proportions, and Judaism itself and its very future stood at the crossroads. Could it survive the second destruction of the Jerusalem Temple, its cultic center? The changes that would have to be made were revolutionary, and the circumstances were difficult. The old order and the old commonplaces, the various \u201cphilosophies\u201d of Judaism, no longer held. The Romans taunted the Jews over their defeat and interpreted it as the defeat of the God of Israel as well. Even more difficult to deal with was the accusation by the Jewish-Christian messianic sect, which claimed to be the continuation of ancient Israel, that the Jews\u2014the deniers\u2014had been defeated because of their refusal to acknowledge the new messiah.<\/p>\n
THE SAGES<\/p>\n
After the loss of political independence, the study of Torah became the basic source of Jewish identity. Even an am ha-aretz like Akiva would have been exposed to it and would have heard public lessons, arousing his curiosity. With an intelligence such as his, his interest could not help but be piqued by the preaching of these popular teachers, whose only aim was to arouse interest in the Torah and encourage observance of its ways of lovingkindness. Unlike the Pharisaic teachers he had scorned and even hated as a child, this was a different type of sage, and as Akiva matured he would have been able to gradually overcome his prejudices and to imagine a different life for himself. It cannot have been easy for a man of his age to begin to study and to apply himself to difficult biblical texts. Somehow he found the courage to embark on a journey that would lead him far from whatever work he had and make him, like Moses, the shepherd not of sheep but of a much more significant flock.
\nThe Sages, who were the heirs of the Pharisees in many ways but not identical with them, attempted to fill the void left by the loss of the Temple and the cult with religious reforms\u2014new interpretations of ancient laws, new readings of the old texts, and new forms of religious observance. It was also a time of renewal and of the beginnings of Rabbinic Judaism, which became the dominant force within Judaism. The loss of the Temple led to a reinvigorated approach to teaching and studying Torah in the newly founded academies that sprang up throughout the country. The center of Judaism shifted from the Temple to the house of study, for it was important that literacy and the study of Torah become the heritage of every Jew.
\nThe Rabbinic Sages, with no power except that of their own teaching, were able to kindle a spark of hope that attracted the masses and kept them loyal to Judaism, despite the defeat that had overtaken them. One of their tasks was to prevent the tragedy from overwhelming the people. Thus they opposed too much mourning and tried to keep it to a minimum. They also attempted to teach that the loss of the Temple did not interfere with the relationship between God and Israel and did not prevent them from attaining forgiveness from sin. In effect they strove to attain normalization of life and continuity of religious practice, turning people toward a more personal relationship to God and tradition through immersion in study. Let it be clear, however, that these Sages did not control the community nor dictate its actions and practices. There were those who followed them dutifully and those who did not. They were a relatively small and elite group with great influence, which would later determine the future of Judaism, but they never enjoyed the total allegiance of the entire Jewish population.
\nIt was Yohanan ben Zakkai himself, now established at Yavneh, who had said to his pupil Rabbi Joshua, later to become one of Akiva\u2019s teachers, that one need not be grieved over the destruction of the Temple where atonement had been made for Israel, since \u201cwe have another atonement as effective as it, and what is it? Acts of lovingkindness, as it is said, \u2018For I desire lovingkindness and not sacrifice\u2019 (Hosea 6:6).\u201d Teachings such as this could open the heart and mind of one such as Akiva and encourage him to desire to enter the world of the Sages.<\/p>\n
AKIVA\u2019S TURNING POINT<\/p>\n
After the Great Revolt the coastal region where Akiva lived became an important center of Jewish learning. The leading Sages were there, either in the official court founded by Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai in Yavneh or in the numerous academies of study that individual Sages founded for the benefit of the general public. In Akiva\u2019s own town of Lod there was a major academy headed by the great Sage Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrkanus and his contemporary Rabbi Joshua. Scholars also taught in public places there, for the general populace.
\nWhat would cause a poor young man lacking in learning to seek to study with the Sages? If the sources reveal very little about Akiva\u2019s early life, they provide a plethora of stories in answer to that question, stories with many variations and contradictions. These can be found in tannaitic works and the Jerusalem Talmud created in the Land of Israel, edited sometime between the third and fifth centuries, and in the sixth-century Babylonian Talmud, in which the most well-known and most romantic stories of Akiva can be found. The earlier tales relating traditions from the Land of Israel are much simpler and much more convincing.
\nWe cannot be certain of Akiva\u2019s exact age when he decided that he wanted to study Torah. The oldest reference is also the shortest. Sifre Deuteronomy, a tannaitic work edited around 300 CE, states simply that he began to learn at age 40, a third of his lifetime, which here is said to have been 120 years. There is no explanation whatsoever of this fact. To understand this source it is important to realize that it is actually part of a commentary on Deuteronomy 34:7, \u201cMoses was a hundred and twenty years old when he died.\u201d The commentary states, \u201cHe [Moses] was one of four who died at the age of one hundred and twenty, and these were Moses, Hillel the elder, Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai, and Rabbi Akiva.\u201d The midrash then divides the lives of each into three equal sections of forty years each. Of Ben Zakkai it says, \u201cRabban Yohanan ben Zakkai was a merchant for forty years, served the Sages for forty years, and led Israel for forty years.\u201d Concerning Akiva the text states, \u201cRabbi Akiva began to study Torah when he was forty years old, served the Sages for forty years, and led Israel for forty years.\u201d
\nObviously the whole matter of the length of their lives and of the three time periods is merely schematic and offers us no factual information. Since, according to the text, Moses lived to 120, ascribing that length of life to others is a way of saying that they were comparable to that great leader and of immense importance to Judaism. It is a reasonable assumption, therefore, that the second period of Akiva\u2019s life, when he began to study and \u201cserved the Sages\u201d (in other words, was still a student and not an ordained rabbi), began when he was a mature person, probably sometime in his twenties. Note that this account tells us nothing of what he did before then, in the first third of his life.
\nOne manuscript of the Sifre has a different reading, which fills in this lacuna: \u201cRabbi Akiva studied Torah forty years, served the Sages for forty years, and led Israel for forty years.\u201d At least one scholar has contended that this is the more accurate reading and that Akiva did not come to Torah late, but had always studied it. If that is so, all the sources that say he was ignorant before forty would be later additions and false. \u201cStudied Torah forty years,\u201d however, is a strange phrase. No one begins to study from birth, therefore the authenticity of this reading remains suspect, especially since it stands in contradiction to all other sources. One possibility is that it implies that his period of study when he was a student and not yet a Sage ended at age forty. A somewhat later version of the Sifre midrash found in the fifth-century Genesis Rabbah, fills in the text differently: \u201cRabbi Akiva was an ignoramus forty years, learned Torah forty years, and served Israel forty years.\u201d The impression left by all of these statements is simply that he began his studies as a mature man and not as a child.
\nNone of these sources deals with the question of what caused Akiva to desire to become a Sage. That would have been beyond the scope of any midrash based on Moses\u2019s life span. Assuming that he had not learned Torah before then, the question remains, what caused this change? Was it a sudden call, a flash of inspiration, or a gradual realization that something was missing in his life? Was it caused by some external event? For Moses there was the burning bush. For Paul there was the road to Damascus. Nothing quite so dramatic is recorded in any of the Akiva sources, early or late. In the earliest texts all we have is a drip of water or a piece of rope.
\nThe question \u201cWhat were the beginnings of Rabbi Akiva?\u201d occupied the thoughts of many over the generations. The oldest story that specifically addresses this question is found in two versions of an early tannaitic source, Avot de-Rabbi Natan (ARN):<\/p>\n
What were the beginnings of Rabbi Akiva? It is said that he was forty years old and had not yet studied a thing. One time he stood by the mouth of a well. \u201cWho hollowed out this stone?\u201d he wondered. He was told: \u201cIt is the water which falls upon it every day, continually.\u201d \u2026
\nThereupon Rabbi Akiva drew the inference with regard to himself: If what is soft wears down the hard, all the more shall the words of Torah, which are as hard as iron, hollow out my heart, which is flesh and blood! Forthwith he turned to the study of Torah.<\/p>\n
A variant of the story is found in Avot de-Rabbi Natan B (ARN-B), based on a manuscript found in the Cairo Geniza and published for the first time by Solomon Schechter in 1887. He considered it an earlier version than ARN-A:<\/p>\n
Rabbi Akiva wanted to learn Torah. He went and sat near a well in Lod. He saw the hollowed out stone on the well and said, \u201cWho hallowed out this stone?\u201d They said to him, \u201cIt is the rope.\u201d He said to them, \u201cCan it do that?\u201d They said to him, \u201cYes because it continuously wears against it.\u201d \u2026 He said, \u201cIs my heart harder than stone? I will go and learn one portion of the Torah.\u201d<\/p>\n
It is worth comparing the two versions. According to ARN-A, Akiva had never learned anything and was truly illiterate. ARN-B simply says that he wished to learn Torah and implies in the continuation of the text that he already knew how to read. A speaks of the power of water, B uses a rope. Both have the image of a well, and both, in a section not translated above, quote an appropriate verse from the book of Job: \u201cWater wears away stone\u201d (Job 14:19).
\nThe texts continue, relating how he then began to learn together with his son. ARN-A states:<\/p>\n
He went together with his son and they appeared before an elementary teacher. Said Rabbi Akiva to him: \u201cMaster, teach me Torah.\u201d
\nRabbi Akiva took hold of one end of the tablet and his son the other end of the tablet. The teacher wrote down alef bet for him and he learned it; alef tav, and he learned it; the book of Leviticus, and he learned it. He went on studying until he learned the whole Torah.<\/p>\n
ARN-B implies that Akiva could already read:<\/p>\n
He went to the school and started reading the tablet together with his son. He learned Scripture, the Aramaic translation, Midrash Halakhot [laws connected to biblical texts], stories and parables\u2014he learned everything!<\/p>\n
Both of these sources demonstrate a familiarity with the Sifre text, accepting that Akiva was forty when he began to study and dividing his life into three time periods. ARN-A also states later on, \u201cHe was forty years old when he went to study Torah. At the end of thirteen years he taught Torah to the masses.\u201d ARN-B, echoing Sifre more exactly, says, \u201cWhen he was forty years old he went to the school. When he was forty years old he learned everything, and forty years he taught Israel.\u201d
\nWhat is of greatest importance here is the fact that the teller ascribes the decision to learn and study not to any specific person\u2019s influence on Akiva, but to something within himself, some realization and inner drive to change his life. Furthermore, according to this story, Akiva was already a married man with at least one child, who was old enough to begin to learn to read or simply to learn together with his father.
\nUndoubtedly these charming tales are a literary invention rather than an exact record of what actually happened. In ARN-A, Akiva\u2019s reasoning is that of a Sage, based upon the principle of inference from major to minor, something that at this stage of his life he would hardly have been familiar with. In other words, it was accepted that Akiva had not studied Torah and had no thoughts of becoming a Sage until he was a mature man. The answer to what motivated him was basically that he came to it from his own inner urgings, by some realization that he possessed the ability to learn Torah, if only he had the will to persist.
\nBased on this early source, it seems likely that Akiva, whose innate intelligence cannot be doubted, was dissatisfied with his life as a simple laborer. He was also unhappy with his ignorance and, according to one version, with his inability to do such a simple thing as read. Perhaps, as has been suggested, he had been exposed to the popular public talks given at that time by the Sages, the descendants of the very group that he had despised, talks intended to attract common folk exactly like himself.
\nThe picture of this young\u2014or not quite so young\u2014poor working man sitting down with his son and being instructed in the elements of reading, learning by rote the letters of the alphabet and then piecing them together to read the basic texts of Judaism, first Leviticus and then the rest of the Five Books of Moses, is both touching and unusual. It would be the equivalent today of an adult joining his child in his first grade class. Even if he already knew the Alef Bet, he still had to learn to read and understand biblical texts before going on to the unwritten and very complex Rabbinic traditions. This would have been an extremely difficult task.<\/p>\n
THE BEGINNING OF HIS ADVANCED STUDIES<\/p>\n
At this early stage of his learning Akiva remained at home and had to continue to work in order to support his family. According to the early sources, however, at some point\u2014perhaps when he was learning the biblical texts\u2014he reduced his working time to a minimum. Akiva, then, did not immediately leave his home but continued life as before, with the added burden of intense study. He could not work regularly as before or he would have had no time to study: \u201cHe could not work a full day.\u201d Instead he would gather straw (or in some versions wood), sell some of it, and use the rest to make a fire by which he could read and study. His neighbors complained about the smoke and urged him to sell them the straw and buy oil instead, which would be less annoying, but he would not because he also used the straw for heat and to make a bed.
\nHis first studies in a higher academy would not have required him to leave home at all. His first teachers were Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua. The great sage Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrkanus had established an academy in Lod, and it was there, where Akiva lived, that Akiva began his true introduction into Rabbinic studies. Since Rabbi Eliezer left Yavneh together with Yohanan ben Zakkai only in the year 80, we have a good idea of when it was that Akiva\u2019s studies in an academy might have begun. It is unlikely that Eliezer would have left Yavneh while Ben Zakkai was still its head. Akiva\u2019s studies lasted thirteen years\u2014\u201cat the end of thirteen years he taught Torah to multitudes.\u201d
\nRabbi Eliezer was a close follower of Yohanan ben Zakkai. He studied with him in Jerusalem before the fall of that city and, together with Rabbi Joshua, smuggled him out of Jerusalem in a coffin so that Ben Zakkai could begin the work of re-establishing the center of religious life elsewhere\u2014in Yavneh. By the time Akiva began his studies, Eliezer had already established an academy in Lod with Rabbi Joshua, although Rabbi Joshua is also recorded as having a school at Pekiin. The official court remained in Yavneh, where Ben Zakkai had established it, but other centers of study were scattered around the country. It was possible fo r a great sage such as Rabbi Eliezer to participate in the meetings of the Great Beit Din in Yavneh (now under Rabban Gamliel II) and still be the head of his own academy elsewhere,
\nAfter he had become proficient in the written Torah, Akiva began the study of Rabbinic traditions, the so-called oral Torah. ARN-A reports:<\/p>\n
Then he went and appeared before Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua. \u201cMy masters,\u201d he said to them, \u201creveal the sense of Mishnah to me.\u201d When they told him one halakhah [law] he went off to be by himself. \u201cThis alef,\u201d he wondered, \u201cwhy was it written? That bet, why was it written? This thing, why was it said?\u201d He came back and asked them\u2014and reduced them to silence.<\/p>\n
In the Jerusalem Talmud, however, it is said quite clearly that after thirteen years Rabbi Eliezer still did not know Akiva and that only then did Akiva speak to him and voice his opinions. If that is the case, his initial inquiries concerning the Mishnah would have been only to Rabbi Joshua.
\nMishnah as it is known today did not exist yet, rather the word referred to systematic collections of legal rulings arranged by subject rather than according to biblical verses, oral legal traditions handed down through the generations and formulated anew through the teachings of the Sages. The reference to letters here must be to biblical texts. From the very beginning Akiva was concerned with the connection between biblical texts and Rabbinic traditions. Akiva took a great interest in the teachings that eventually became the Mishnah. As a matter of fact, the Mishnah as we know it is ascribed to the work of Akiva as interpreted by his students.
\nThe story of Akiva\u2019s studies told in ARN-A concludes by detailing the wealth that Akiva eventually accumulated:<\/p>\n
Before he departed from the world he owned tables of silver and gold, and mounted his couch on ladders of gold. His wife used to go about in golden sandals and in a \u201cCity of Gold.\u201d \u201cMaster,\u201d his disciples said to him, \u201cyou have put us to shame by what you have done for her.\u201d He replied, \u201cMany were the trials she endured for my sake, that I might study Torah.\u201d<\/p>\n
ARN-B contains a similar statement of his wealth and of the \u201cCity of Gold\u201d that Akiva gave his wife, a golden tiara in the form of the walls of the city (which at that time no longer existed), also known as a Jerusalem of Gold. In this version it is his children rather than his disciples who complain, \u201cPeople are making fun of us!\u201d He replies, \u201cI will not listen to you\u2014she suffered with me over study of Torah.\u201d His ownership of tables and ladders of gold and silver certainly sounds like a fable, but his wife\u2019s suffering and worthiness of a reward has the ring of reality.
\nThese sources stand in complete contradiction to later legends about Akiva found in Babylonian sources.<\/p>\n
LATER LEGENDARY SOURCES<\/p>\n
The stories told in later Babylonian sources in answer to the question of Akiva\u2019s motivation tell a much different and more complicated story. As scholars have noted and discussed at length, these later legends tell us less about Akiva\u2019s life than they do about the lives and beliefs of those who related them, nor do these sources always agree with one another. All of them tell of the circumstances of Akiva\u2019s marriage and of the role of his wife in changing his life or in permitting him to study. As we have seen, in the sources originating in the Land of Israel nothing was written concerning the circumstances of his marriage nor does his wife play any part in his decision to begin to study. They did claim, however, that she helped finance his ability to study by selling her hair and that she suffered in order to permit him to study.
\nThe Babylonian Talmud, which was edited hundreds of years later, sometime in the sixth century, recounts Akiva\u2019s beginnings in two different versions. In both, his wife is not identified by name but is known only as \u201cthe daughter of Kalba Savua\u201d (or Ben Kalba Savua), a man of legendary wealth whose charitable deeds at the time of the Great Revolt are recorded elsewhere.
\nThe more detailed version in the Babylonian Talmud, Ketubot, thought to be the older of the two stories, notes that when Akiva worked as a shepherd for Kalba Savua,<\/p>\n
his daughter saw how modest and noble he was. She said to him, \u201cIf I would be betrothed to you, would you go and study at a beit midrash?\u201d \u201cYes,\u201d he replied. She was then secretly betrothed to him and she sent him away. When Kalba Savua learned of this, he drove her from his house and forbade her to have any benefits from his property. [Akiva] departed and spent twelve years at the academy. When he returned home, he was accompanied by twelve thousand pairs of students.<\/p>\n
At that time he overheard his wife say that she wished he would study for another twelve years, and so he left and only returned twelve years later, this time bringing with him twenty-four thousand pairs of students. Akiva acknowledged publicly to his disciples that it was his wife who was responsible for all that he had accomplished, saying, \u201cMine and yours are hers,\u201d in other words, all our accomplishments and merits are due to her. Kalba Savua came to the great scholar, not knowing he was his daughter\u2019s secret husband, and asked that his vow not to support her be annulled, which Akiva did. He then gave Akiva \u201chalf his wealth.\u201d
\nA variation of this story in another tractate of the Babylonian Talmud, Nedarim, tells it somewhat differently:<\/p>\n
The daughter of Kalba Savua betrothed herself to Rabbi Akiva. When her father heard of it he vowed that she should not benefit from his property. In winter, she married him. They slept on straw, which he had to pick out of his hair. \u201cIf I could afford it,\u201d he said to her, \u201cI would give you a Jerusalem of Gold!\u201d Elijah appeared at their door disguised as a human being and cried, \u201cGive me some straw. My wife is pregnant and has nothing to lie on.\u201d Akiva said to his wife, \u201cYou see, there is someone who does not even have straw!\u201d She told him, \u201cGo and become a scholar,\u201d so he did, studying twelve years under Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua.<\/p>\n
The rest of the story repeats the idea that he went back again and returned only twelve years later with his twenty-four thousand pairs of students and praised his wife before them, after which he annulled Kalba Savua\u2019s vow and received wealth from him.
\nThe main difference between this version and that in Ketubot is that here she became betrothed to him with no conditions, and only after she and Akiva had married and lived in poverty, with nothing but straw for a bed, did she council him, \u201cGo and become a scholar.\u201d The Nedarim version also adds the miraculous appearance of Elijah and includes both the motif of the Jerusalem of Gold and the mention of straw beds.
\nObviously both of these talmudic stories disagree with the earlier stories in ARN, in which Akiva began to learn only after he had a son, ascribing no role to Akiva\u2019s wife in causing him to study. In ARN the only mention of his wife is the general comment that she endured much so that he could study. There is no reference to her supposed father and his wealth, and nothing of Akiva\u2019s twenty-four year absence from home. On the contrary, according to that early story, as we have seen, he remained at home, earning a living by gathering each day a bundle of straw, half of which he would sell and half of which he would use for heat and light.
\nIn attempting to determine the reliability of these later accounts, there are certain factual difficulties that must be noted, in addition to the folklore addition of the appearance of Elijah. One is that these sources all state that Akiva\u2019s wife was the daughter of Kalba Savua, whose legendary wealth and status were well-known. He was one of three wealthy men who were said to have supplied food to Jerusalem during the three years it was under siege at the time of the rebellion. Among the many reasons to be suspicious of this story is the fact that Kalba Savua was a Jerusalemite, while Akiva lived in the lowlands. It is also doubtful if Kalba Savua would even have been alive at this point. But most important is the fact that Akiva\u2019s father-in-law is clearly identified in an earlier source as a man named Joshua. This is mentioned casually in a reference in the Mishnah, edited about 200 CE, which seems completely reliable. The Mishnah also identifies this same Joshua as the father of a rabbi, Yohanan ben Joshua, mentioned that once and nowhere else. Since the Mishnah was edited several centuries before the Babylonian Talmud and originated in the Land of Israel, there is good reason to prefer its testimony.
\nIt goes without saying that the figure of twenty-four thousand pairs of students is an impossibility. Another problem is the fact that Akiva is pictured in the Talmud as being away from home and totally cut off from contact with his wife for so many years, when in reality the main beit midrash in which he studied was in his very own home town of Lod. All of these problems make the reliability of the talmudic accounts questionable. The accounts in ARN may not be completely accurate either, but their very simplicity and general plausibility speak in their favor. The message that they attempt to convey is clear: it is possible to learn Torah and to become a sage even when one has little or no background and is neither wealthy nor from the aristocracy.
\nThe Babylonian account is more concerned with Akiva\u2019s years away from home than with his problems with learning. These stories of his prolonged absence are found only in Babylonian sources. It has been suggested that they were invented and told in order to give weight and credence to the custom popular in Babylon at the time (but not in Judea) of students living away from home for years in order to study.
\nThe Babylonian versions also give great attention to Akiva\u2019s wife and the role she played in his becoming a sage, while the stories in ARN give her only slight mention. Dov Noy, the well-known expert of Jewish folklore, believed that ARN was edited after the Talmud and was based on it. He explained the absence of Akiva\u2019s wife in ARN as part of a deliberate attempt to downplay the role of women. However, if that were so, one would have expected those stories to have removed mention of her role completely, and not leave the very strong statement by Akiva that she suffered so that he could study Torah. It seems more probable that the creators of the talmudic legend were aware of that statement and simply expanded on it, enhancing the story by telling exactly what it was that she had done to warrant such a compliment\u2014that she had insisted that he study; she had been willing to have him stay away for long periods in order to study and attain greatness.
\nIn any case, what remains credible of the beautiful, romantic legend of Akiva and his wife is that they lived in poverty, that she sacrificed to enable him to become a great scholar, and that he showed his love and appreciation of her, giving her public credit and presenting her with a precious diadem.
\nThe sources then have provided us with three answers to the question, what were the beginnings of Rabbi Akiva?<\/p>\n
1. The version in the Land of Israel (ARN-A and ARN-B), based on the simple statement in Sifre Deuteronomy and Genesis Rabbah, that as a married man and a father he came to the decision to study on his own, staying at home and earning a living with difficulty.
\n2. One story in the Babylonian Talmud (Ketubot) tells that the decision to study was a condition his future wife made in agreeing to marry him.
\n3. Another story in the Babylonian Talmud (Nedarim) has it that some time after his marriage, when they were living in poverty, his wife encouraged him to leave and study, which he did.<\/p>\n
The version originating in Israel represents the earlier tradition and is the one closest in time and place to Akiva\u2019s life. It is also the simpler and more convincing, while the Babylonian versions contain factual errors and miraculous elements and exaggerations. Therefore, the versions of ARN are more likely to reflect reality and are to be preferred.
\nBoth traditions, that of the Land of Israel and that of Babylonia, have the following in common:<\/p>\n
\u2022 Akiva came to learning as a mature person.
\n\u2022 He was poor and had to struggle.
\n\u2022 The mention of straw beds.
\n\u2022 He was helped by his wife.
\n\u2022 He presented her with a gold ornament.
\n\u2022 He was successful and became a great teacher and leader.<\/p>\n
AKIVA\u2019S WIFE<\/p>\n
In none of the talmudic stories is Akiva\u2019s wife mentioned by name. She is known simply as ishto (his wife) or as the daughter of Kalba Savua. In the Jerusalem Talmud and other sources from the Land of Israel she is equally anonymous. How is it, then, that she is so commonly referred to as Rachel? That name is mentioned only once. It appears in the printed texts of ARN-A. In relating that the poor have no excuse for not learning since Akiva too was poor, it is said that the poor will protest that he could do so \u201cbecause his wife Rachel provided for them.\u201d Even there the name is found in printed texts but not in manuscripts, as Schechter notes in his textual comments to that passage. It is not found at all in ARN-B or in any other early Rabbinic texts. If her name was known, why does it not appear in all the sources rather than simply calling her \u201chis wife\u201d? It has also been shown that the name Rachel was not used during the entire period of the Second Temple and the Mishnah.
\nThe generally accepted conclusion is that the name of Akiva\u2019s wife was not known or recorded and that only much later did someone add the name Rachel in one place. Perhaps the name was added to personalize the story and make it more touching. Why Rachel? Rachel is the name of the most beloved wife of the patriarch Jacob, and the stories of the fabled love of Akiva and his wife are reminiscent of those of Jacob and Rachel. It should also be noted that Akiva\u2019s name is a version of the name Jacob\u2014Ya\u2019akov. It has been suggested that the Aramaic phrase rakhela batar rakhela azla, \u201cthe ewe follows the ewe\u201d\u2014which is quoted in a statement about the fact that Akiva\u2019s daughter followed the example of her mother in allowing her husband to be away for a long period in order to study\u2014may have been understood as a hint that Akiva\u2019s wife\u2019s name was Rahel (ewe), which was then later incorporated into the stories.
\nExactly what role Akiva\u2019s wife played in his career is unclear, but all the sources place such an emphasis on his gratitude to her that it is impossible to deny her an important place. According to one story in the Jerusalem Talmud, his wife sold her braids to provide them with money while he was studying. The Jerusalem of Gold diadem that he gave her became legendary. It was even the source of jealousy of other Rabbinic wives. It had become so well-known that whenever a \u201cJerusalem of Gold\u201d was mentioned and needed to be identified, it was sufficient to recall that it was the gift that Akiva had given his wife. Since many of these instances are simply incidental, it is considered an old and reliable tradition. But it is strange that we hear nothing more of his wife after that incident. Tales are told of her daughter and of the death of their sons, but his wife\u2019s demise is never mentioned. Even stranger is the fact that there is mention of Akiva taking another wife at the end of his life, the wife of Tineus Rufus, of all people, who is said to have converted! It is no wonder that this incident did not become part of the popular story of Akiva\u2019s life.<\/p>\n
AKIVA\u2019S STUDENT YEARS<\/p>\n
The beit midrash of Rabbi Eliezer that Akiva attended at Lod was set up as a circle, resembling an amphitheater. In the center was a stone upon which Rabbi Eliezer would sit. After his death, his colleague Rabbi Joshua kissed the stone and said, \u201cThis stone is like Mount Sinai and he who sat upon it was like the Ark of the Covenant.\u201d
\nStudies were often informal. A good picture of the way in which students and teachers interacted can be found in the description of a session held by Rabbi Tarfon. He sat outdoors in the shade on a Sabbath afternoon. His students brought him a pitcher of cold water, and he said to them, \u201cIf one is thirsty and drinks water, what blessing does he recite?\u201d \u201cLet our master teach us,\u201d they said to him. He then told them the correct blessing, \u201c\u2026 who creates creatures and their needs.\u201d They again asked him to teach them, and Rabbi Tarfon began to weave together biblical verses with the lesson that even when God is angry with the righteous, God has pity on them. How much more so when God is favorable to them! This somehow leads to a discussion of the merits of Judah, which led to his descendants being kings. Many answers are given as to exactly what these merits were, the final one being that when Israel stood at the sea and was threatened by Pharaoh\u2019s army, it was the tribe of Judah that plunged into the water. \u201cJudah thus sanctified God\u2019s name at the sea.\u201d The lesson ends with water, tying it to the water that Rabbi Tarfon\u2019s students brought him and his question about the blessing recited over water.
\nAccording to an account in the midrash Song of Songs Rabbah, Akiva was recognized by his fellow classmates as an extraordinary student. One time when he was late in arriving and was outside, a question was raised asking if a certain teaching was the accepted law. The other students said, \u201cThe law is outside.\u201d Another question was asked and they said, \u201cTorah is outside.\u201d Yet another question was asked and they said, \u201cAkiva is outside.\u201d They made room for him, and he came and sat at the feet of Rabbi Eliezer.
\nAkiva\u2019s work as a student was described as being similar to a stonecutter who chipped away at tiny pebbles from a stone mountain. He was asked, \u201cWhat are you doing?\u201d and he replied, \u201cI am uprooting the mountain and casting it into the Jordan.\u201d Others told him that it was impossible, but he continued until he was able to break away a big rock, loosen it, uproot it, and cast it into the river saying, \u201cThis was where you belong.\u201d \u201cThus did Rabbi Akiva with the teachings he derived from Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua.\u201d His fellow student, Tarfon, later his colleague, then said to him, \u201cThings concealed from men you have brought to light.\u201d
\nThe relationship between Tarfon and Akiva was one of both rivalry and admiration. They often disagreed, usually with Akiva winning the argument. It must be remembered that these Rabbinic works were transmitted and edited by the disciples of Akiva, and we do not know how close they are to an actual record of the discussion and how much is a literary construct. There are, for example, two differing versions of a discussion concerning whether or not only priests who had no physical disfigurements were permitted to blow the trumpets that are described in chapter 10 in the book of Numbers. Akiva took the position that just as only perfect priests could offer sacrifices, so only perfect priests could blow the trumpets over the sacrifices. Tarfon angrily protested that he had been at the Temple and had seen a priest\u2014his mother\u2019s brother\u2014blowing the trumpet and he was a cripple! Akiva calmly replied that perhaps this was at an occasion not connected to sacrifices, and indeed Tarfon agreed that was the case. \u201cTarfon saw it and forgot, and Akiva explained it from his own understanding and gave the correct law. Happy are you, Abraham our father, from whose loins Akiva has sprung! One who separates himself from you separates from life itself!\u201d In both versions the conclusion is the same, but the format and the circumstances are different, probably because the editing was done by a different person.
\n\u201cThirteen years Rabbi Akiva studied. He went before Rabbi Eliezer and he did not know him.\u201d In his first discussion with Rabbi Eliezer, at the conclusion of thirteen years, described in the Jerusalem Talmud, Akiva disagreed with him and was able to prove that his (Akiva\u2019s) understanding of the law was correct. The discussion concerned a matter that was purely academic, since the Temple had been destroyed and sacrifices were no longer offered. The debate was over what could or could not be done to prepare for the slaughter of the Passover offering when Passover was on the Sabbath. Rabbi Eliezer took the position that in addition to the slaughtering itself, other more trivial matters were permitted as well. Rabbi Joshua took the opposite position but was unable to refute the arguments of Eliezer. What had been a controversy between two senior ordained Sages now changed its nature when Akiva spoke up and invoked the general rule that one was not permitted to do things on Shabbat that could be done before Shabbat and he was able to argue and prove his point using logical thinking.
\nThis discussion, the first of many between Akiva and Eliezer, took place at the beit midrash in Lod and marked the moment when Akiva the novice became recognized as a true Sage, if not yet ordained as such. Even Rabbi Eliezer, who had not acknowledged him previously, had no choice but to recognize him now, although he did so reluctantly, at one point even saying, \u201cAkiva! You would override a verse from the Torah!\u201d In this discussion, Akiva did not use any new methodology; he used the inferences from minor to major that Eliezer himself had brought, but created examples that refuted his teacher\u2019s decision. It was a bold step on Akiva\u2019s part, since it was not considered usual or appropriate for a mere student to enter into a dispute with his teacher. Nevertheless, as other citations show, Akiva greatly valued Eliezer, considered him his teacher, and when Eliezer died, declared that \u201cI have coins, but no money changer to sort them out!\u201d meaning now there was no one who could answer Akiva\u2019s questions.
\nAkiva\u2019s true master, however, was Rabbi Joshua. It was he who granted Akiva rabbinic ordination. Ordination, the passing of authority from one master to his disciple, granted the new Sage the right to sit on court panels and to ordain others. The title that went with ordination, rabbi (master), had emerged some time in the first century CE. In the era of Hillel and Shammai, just before and after the first century CE, the title was not known. In the generation prior to the destruction in 70 CE it was already in use. At the time of Akiba\u2019s ordination it was granted individually by one Sage to his student. Thus \u201cRabban Yohanan ben Zakkai appointed [ordained] Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua, and Rabbi Joshua [appointed] Rabbi Akiva, and Rabbi Akiva [appointed] Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon.\u201d
\nStudents served their masters in the literal sense: helping them with all their physical needs and even preparing Shabbat meals for them. Akiva stated that he had done so for both Eliezer and Joshua. He was, however, much more intimate with Joshua, even following him into private places to see how he conducted himself so that he would know how to act. That too was considered Torah. Joshua also instructed him in mystical matters, since he was known to have indulged in mystical speculation concerning the heavenly chariot and Akiva is said to have expounded on that before Joshua as well.
\nIn the Jerusalem Talmud Akiva relates a story of \u201chow I began attending the scholars.\u201d Seeing an unattended corpse on the way, he carried it four miles to a cemetery and buried it. He then related this to Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Eliezer, who informed him that in doing so it was as if he was shedding blood, since he should have buried it immediately. Realizing that his ignorance condemned him even though he had good intentions, he vowed, \u201cFrom that time I have never stopped attending to scholars.\u201d Some have understood this as another story of how he first came to study, but the incident would seem to have happened when he was already studying with these Sages, not before he began to learn at all. It may reflect the time when he decided that he must attend them constantly, giving up any other occupation, and not assume that he was capable yet of making decisions on his own. Perhaps it was at that point that he absented himself more from his home in order to study rigorously with a variety of teachers.
\nAkiva\u2019s method of Torah commentary, which will be discussed in chapter 3, was influenced by that of the Sage Nahum of Gimzo. Nahum of Gimzo, with whom Akiva studied for some time, taught that there was nothing extraneous in the Torah. He even interpreted the word et, which has no translation and is simply a grammatical device to indicate a direct object, and learned laws and interpretations from it. Nahum\u2019s most famous statement, from which his name is derived, was, \u201cThis too is for the best\u201d (gam zo l\u2019tovah), whatever happens is for the best, a saying that Akiva adopted for himself as well. Akiva later became a master of deriving from or connecting oral laws to words, letters, and even decorations in the Torah. As one legend has it, when explaining to Moses why there are decorations (crowns), on certain letters in the Torah, God said, \u201cAfter many generations there will arise a man, Akiva ben Yosef by name, who will expound upon each decoration heaps and heaps of laws.\u201d
\nAkiva also spent considerable time at Yavneh as a student. Rabban Gamliel II had become head of the Yavneh academy some time after Yohanan ben Zakkai, who, for reasons that are not clear, left there and moved to Bror Hayil. When Gamliel took over he became not only the head of the academy but also the highest political authority of the Jewish population, recognized as such by the Romans. At that time both Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua returned to Yavneh as members of the Sanhedrin that Rabban Gamliel established, even though they continued to conduct their own academies elsewhere as well. Their pupil Akiva, who soon became their colleague, also went to study there under Rabban Gamliel, the greatest authority of the age.
\nIn the Sifre, Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri, who served as a proctor under Rabban Gamliel, testified that when he was a student \u201cRabbi Akiva was rebuked through me more than five times before Rabban Gamliel in Yavneh, when I would complain about him and Rabban Gamliel would rebuke him, yet I am certain that he [Akiva] loved me more each time.\u201d It would be fascinating to know what Akiva did to warrant rebuke, but unfortunately there is no record.
\nWhen Akiva was ordained by Rabbi Joshua, after however many years it may have been, he quickly became a recognized authority and attracted many disciples. He also established his own school at B\u2019nai Brak, not very far from Lod. Perhaps that was when he came back to his home, trailed by his disciples, in order to pay tribute to his wife, acknowledge her role in his accomplishments, and present her with a visible symbol of her status, a Jerusalem of Gold tiara. From then on Akiva became Rabbi Akiva, a leading scholar who played a key role not only in formulating Rabbinic law and lore, but in the running of the community as well.<\/p>\n
Three<\/p>\n
THE NEW SAGE AND PUBLIC FIGURE<\/p>\n
Once Akiva completed his studies and received his ordination from Rabbi Joshua, he embarked upon his career not only as a rabbi and a participant in academic discourse, but also as a public figure. The academy at Yavneh had now assumed the role of the new Sanhedrin, the quasi-official authority of Jewish life, in more than name. It was headed by the nasi (the leader or \u201cprince\u201d of the nation), Rabban Gamliel II, and Gamliel chose Akiva to serve in important capacities.
\nRabban Yohanan ben Zakkai, Gamliel\u2019s predecessor, had been concerned only with internal Jewish matters, attempting to reestablish Jewish life and a center of learning after the destruction of the Second Temple in Jerusalem in 70 CE. Gamliel II, a descendant of the house of Hillel, had a wider political vision: he saw himself and the Yavneh synod as a semi-autonomous Jewish government. He went to the Roman authorities in Syria to petition them to appoint him as its leader. The Roman government acknowledged his status, at least tacitly, and Gamliel was treated by Jews in the Diaspora as the official representative of Jewry and the Jewish tradition. He conducted himself as the head of a semi-autonomous ruling body and as such appointed ordained rabbis to be his representatives, to organize the community, to care for its needs, and to travel both within the Land of Israel and in the Diaspora on official missions. Akiva was one of those appointed. Sometimes these missions were intended to raise funds to support the institutions of Jewry in the land, other times they might have been political missions concerned with relations with the Roman Empire.
\nAkiva was no longer a mere student. Although the sources do not give us enough information to be able to construct a complete story of his life at that time, we catch glimpses of him at various tasks and in different situations. Akiva had three public roles assigned to him by Rabban Gamliel: judge, member of a delegation to Rome, and manager of programs to help the needy.
\nHe would hardly have achieved such status were it not for the fact that his name and reputation had already spread among the Sages, even among those elders who had not known him personally as a student. Akiva, for example, was a member of a delegation of Sages who came to question the ancient and eminent Rabbi Dosa concerning a controversial ruling he was purported to have made. According to the Jerusalem Talmud, Rabbi Dosa greeted Akiva and called him \u201ca mighty man of the Torah\u201d Another version of the meeting found in the later Babylonian Talmud is typically more expansive and laudatory. It enlarges upon the earlier account and quotes Dosa as saying, \u201cYou are Akiva ben Yosef\u2014your name goes before you from one end of the world to another. Sit, my son, sit, and may your like multiply in Israel.\u201d Even the modest and more likely phrase \u201ca mighty man of Torah\u201d would indicate that Akiva had achieved a reputation as an important scholar. This would explain why Akiva was appointed by Rabban Gamliel to the position of a judge in the Rabbinic court. He served in that capacity throughout his life.
\nThe most famous story concerning Akiva\u2019s role as a judge appears in Avot de-Rabbi Natan (ARN). It concerns the time when a man uncovered a woman\u2019s head in the marketplace, thus shaming her in public. She brought the case before Akiva, who decreed that the man should pay her 400 zuz. The culprit asked for an opportunity to prove his case and proceeded to place a broken jug of oil at her doorstep. She came out, found the oil, and in public uncovered her head and put the oil on her hair. On this basis he asked Akiva to reverse the ruling, but Akiva refused to do so because although one is permitted to abase or abuse oneself in public, \u201cyou who abused her are not\u2014go pay her the 400 zuz.\u201d Stories such as this portray Akiva as one who champions the cause of those who might otherwise be abused by people of greater status.<\/p>\n
TRAVELS TO ROME<\/p>\n
In addition to appointing Akiva a judge, Rabban Gamliel also included him in the small and exclusive group of Sages who traveled with him on his visits to Rome. Akiva was by far the youngest and most recently ordained of the group; in all the sources his name always appears last in the list of participants. Accounts of these trips appear in such early sources as the tannaitic midrashim Sifre Deuteronomy and Sifra and in the somewhat later Jerusalem Talmud. As usual, one cannot rely on all the details of these stories, since they have undergone literary embellishment, but one can assume that they are based on actual journeys that Akiva made as part of Gamliel\u2019s entourage and contain some reliable information.
\nThese trips were a continuation of an earlier one that Gamliel had undertaken to Rome together with Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrkanus and Rabbi Joshua, a trip in which they made some initial contact with the Jewish community there. Contacts with Rome itself surely could come through the indigenous Jewish community. This earlier trip had taken place before Akiva\u2019s ordination, probably toward the beginning of Gamliel\u2019s assumption of power.
\nRabbi Eliezer did not take part in the later trips to Rome, perhaps because of his advanced age or illness and the arduous nature of these sea voyages, but his pupil Akiva became a part of the delegation. The participants in these journeys were Rabban Gamliel himself; Rabbi Joshua, Akiva\u2019s teacher; Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah, the aristocratic priest who was a descendent of Ezra; and Rabbi Akiva, listed last, as was only appropriate for a younger and newer colleague.
\nSuch sea voyages were obviously difficult and dangerous and would not have been undertaken by the leadership of the community, including its titular head, had there not been some pressing reason. Unfortunately those who composed and compiled Rabbinic literature had little interest in history or in recording \u201cinsignificant\u201d events, which to us seem of great interest and importance. Therefore the purpose of these journeys can only be the subject of speculation. Were they intended to influence the Roman authorities, to mitigate certain decrees or ease burdens of taxation?
\nSome scholars and historians have posited that these journeys were undertaken to plead with the Roman government not to pass harsh decrees against the Jews. Others contend that they were made to spread the authority of Gamliel II and the new Sanhedrin over the Jewish community in the Diaspora or to cement relations between them. All that seems logical, but the sources remain silent on these issues. Since there are no texts that state those matters specifically, none of that can be proved. The sources are more interested in recording the observances and practices of the Sages in regard to the commandments of the Torah and in their interaction with pagans than in informing us of political affairs. Unfortunately we have no Jewish chronicler of the times like Josephus to record the events of these crucial years. That these journeys reflect on Akiva\u2019s prominence and importance, however, is unquestionable.
\nIt is logical to assume that while in Rome Akiva and the others gave sermons and lessons to the Jewish community. One such legendary tale is related in Exodus Rabbah, a late midrash from the Land of Israel, no earlier than the ninth or tenth century, although often based on earlier sources. The usual four\u2014Gamliel, Joshua, Eleazar, and Akiva\u2014preached before a crowd in Rome on the theme that God is unlike humans. Whatever God requires others to do, God does as well, whereas human rulers make laws and then do not obey them. A sectarian\u2014a min\u2014proclaimed that their words were false since God does not observe the Sabbath but rather does all manner of work such as causing wind and rain. They defended their position saying that the world is the Lord\u2019s and therefore God can move things within God\u2019s own property.
\nThe Babylonian Talmud relates that once when they were in Rome these Sages were challenged by idolaters who wanted to know why the Jewish God\u2014if such a one really existed\u2014did not rid the world of all the idols. Their answer was that to do that would mean destroying the world, since the sun, the moon, and many other essential things were objects of idol worship. \u201cShould God destroy His world because of fools?\u201d The same source records that a similar question was once asked of Akiva by an Israelite who wanted to know why it was that at times a cripple emerges cured from an idolatrous shrine. Akiva answered with a parable that made the point that afflictions have a set time when they are to be cured, and that time will be honored even if it happens to coincide with idolatrous worship.
\nIt is certainly possible that such encounters took place between Jews and idol worshipers and that Jews themselves had questions concerning idolatrous practices. In yet another story related in an eighth-century source Akiva met with a Roman official who wanted to hear wisdom from a Jewish master. It is indeed likely that in their trips to Rome they took the opportunity to preach and teach, and they may well have met with non-Jews who were curious about their doctrines and with some who were antagonistic to it. Polemics between Jews and non-Jews were part and parcel of those times. Much less likely is the story told in ARN that during one of Akiva\u2019s trips to Rome he was slandered and was put in a room with two beautiful women, who attempted unsuccessfully to seduce him. The story is part of a long discussion of sexual temptation that begins with a midrash concerning Joseph and Potiphar\u2019s wife in which she threatens to place him in prison if he doesn\u2019t surrender to her wiles, but he nevertheless resists. Similar stories about various Sages are then related, beginning with Rabbi Zadok, continuing with Rabbi Akiva\u2014also in prison\u2014and concluding with Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrkanus. Such tales, intended to demonstrate the righteousness of these men and their ability to resist temptation, are examples of the moralistic stories frequently told about the Sages, and they are highly suspect.
\nThe early tannaitic source Sifre Deuteronomy relates a beautifully crafted literary account of the four Sages\u2019 first trip to Rome. Arriving in Italy, they journeyed by foot toward the great metropolis of Rome, the place where they would be undertaking their task, the exact nature of which is not revealed. Three of them burst into tears when, while still at a great distance, they could clearly hear the sounds and tumult emanating from that great city. Akiva, however, began to laugh. Astonished, the others asked why he should laugh when they were weeping over the fact that while wicked Rome flourished, the Jerusalem Temple was desolate and lay in ruins. Akiva explained that that was exactly why he was laughing, for \u201cif this is what God has given to those who anger Him, how much more will He give to those who fulfill His will!\u201d They were pleased with this thought. \u201cAkiva, you have comforted us.\u201d
\nThe motifs that appear in this early story are often repeated in tales of Akiva\u2019s life. He frequently took a position opposite that of his companions, a strange position that astounded them. When he explained his actions, they accepted his reasoning and that brought them comfort. At an early time, then, Akiva was already perceived as having had an independent streak, finding hope and comfort in his beliefs and bringing comfort to others. Presumably these were traits that he demonstrated in his actions and in his teachings, and they became templates for the stories told about him in the century following his death.
\nSeveral anecdotal stories are related concerning religious observances while on the seas in journeys to or from Rome. The purpose of all these tales is to relate information about proper observance of rituals under such circumstances. There is no reason to doubt that they represent authentic traditions concerning the practices of the various Sages. For example, the early tannaitic midrash Sifra relates the story of a journey undertaken by the four Sages on the festival of Sukkot. Only Rabban Gamliel had a lulav, the wand made of three types of plants that is carried and used on that holiday. Since the law required that each person have his own lulav on the first day of the holiday, Gamliel gave his as a gift to Joshua, who then gave it as a gift to Eleazar ben Azariah, who in turn gave it as a gift to Akiva. The Jerusalem Talmud relates that Akiva built a sukkah at the front of the boat in order to fulfill all the commandments of the holiday. Unfortunately the wind blew it away, upon which Eleazar ben Azariah said (sarcastically), \u201cAkiva, where is your sukkah?\u201d
\nAnother story is told in the later Babylonian Talmud concerning this same group, listed in the same order, on a voyage returning from Brindisi, Italy, to the Holy Land, the purpose of which is never stated. What is related here is that Akiva and Joshua were stricter in their observance of Sabbath regulations on the high seas than were Rabban Gamliel and Eleazar ben Azariah. Akiva and Joshua refused to move more than four cubits, imposing a stricture upon themselves that was beyond the requirements of the law. Akiva may have come from an unlearned and unobservant background, but his ritual observances now and until the end of his life were exacting and punctilious.<\/p>\n
CARING FOR THE NEEDY<\/p>\n
Akiva traveled extensively throughout the entire area, as far as Babylonia on fund-raising missions, to support Gamliel\u2019s poverty programs. He became a well-known figure in the Jewish world including the Diaspora. We know he traveled widely because he is quoted as explaining what words were used for various objects in places he had visited in Arabia, Gallia, and Africa. On these journeys he was also a teacher, a decider of Jewish Law, and a teller of legends and of midrashic interpretations.
\nThe Jerusalem Talmud relates that Akiva traveled to Antiochus, north of Damascus, together with his revered teachers Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua, but without Rabban Gamliel, on behalf of a \u201cfund for the Wise,\u201d in other words, raising money for the support of the Sages. In one instance they approached one generous contributor, Abba Yehudah, who was no longer as wealthy as he had been but was embarrassed to send them away empty-handed. He sold a field that remained to him and gave them the proceeds.
\nAkiva was often described as busying himself \u201cwith the needs of the community,\u201d even when it might make it difficult for him to observe proper times of prayer. In the Tosefta, a very early and reliable tannaitic source, Rabbi Yehudah related that he was once traveling with Akiva and Eleazar ben Azariah, and when it was time to recite the morning Sh\u2019ma, he thought they were not going to say it because they were \u201cbusy with the needs of the community\u201d and the correct time for the recitation was passing. They did recite it, however, even though it was somewhat later than the designated time. Anecdotes of this sort were preserved as witnesses to proper observances of mitzvot and as such have a high measure of reliability. The picture they paint of Akiva is of one who was indeed \u201cbusy with the needs of the community\u201d on many levels, in addition to his role as a judge and as the head of an academy of learning that produced many outstanding Rabbinic leaders.
\nAs dedicated as he was to study of Torah, Akiva was far from being an ivory-tower scholar. Rather he combined the worlds of an activist and an intellectual. In his forty or so years as a scholar, starting in the last decade of the first century CE, he accomplished an unbelievable amount in many fields.
\nAkiva, who was charged by Gamliel with care for the needs of the poor, showed great concern for them. If the stories of the poverty of his youth are true, this would explain his feelings and his desire to help the needy. He is quoted as saying that even the poor in Israel were to be considered \u201cfree men who had lost their wealth, for they are the children of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.\u201d This attitude is reflected in his legal decisions as well.
\nThe Torah, which has many commandments that benefit the poor and needy, ruled that farmers have to leave certain portions of their crops for the poor. Akiva\u2019s interpretations of these laws as recorded in the Mishnah, the earliest and most reliable tannaitic source (edited c. 200 CE), favored the poor rather than the landowner. In the case of a field sown with different crops, only Akiva ruled that there must be a peah, \u201cthe corners of the field\u201d that the Torah allocates to the poor, for each crop\u2019s patch, not just in the corners of the field as a whole, as others had stated. How large must a field be before one is required to leave the corners for the poor? Several important Sages, including Akiva\u2019s mentors Eliezer and Joshua, gave their various opinions. The smallest was \u201clarge enough for a sickle to cut two handfuls.\u201d That sounds small enough, but Akiva, the youngest of all those commenting, insisted that \u201ceven the tiniest field\u201d is liable to peah and all other required matters. Olelet, a defective grape cluster, also belongs to the poor. When the question was raised concerning a vineyard where all of the clusters are defective, Akiva\u2019s teacher, Rabbi Eliezer, ruled that in such a case they all belong to the owner. Akiva argued with him, taking the opposite position. In the discussion they each interpreted verses of the Torah to defend their position, with Akiva having the last word, which proved that all of them belonged to the poor.
\nThe Jerusalem Talmud adds that Akiva and only Akiva (according to Rabbi Yose) ruled that another law regulating what was to be left for the poor, the law of \u201cforgotten things,\u201d applied to olive trees as well. This would accord well with Akiva\u2019s other rulings on similar matters. On the other hand, regarding the tithe that must be given to the poor in the third and sixth year of each seven-year cycle, Akiva required only half the amounts that the Mishnah specifies as a minimum. Rabbi Judah the Prince, the compiler of the Mishnah, agreed with Akiva. Nevertheless the evidence indicates that in the majority of instances Akiva went out of his way to rule in ways that would be most helpful to the needy.
\nAs one who was charged with providing for the poor, Akiva also would have had to deal with those who tried to take advantage of poverty programs, benefiting without being truly in need. This is reflected in his admonition recorded in ARN that it is forbidden to take even a small amount from charity if you do not need it and that if one pretends to be blind or otherwise afflicted in order to solicit funds, in the end \u201che will be speaking the truth.\u201d Akiva here invoked the concept of middah k\u2019neged middah (the punishment fits the crime). One who pretends to have an affliction in order to gain charitable funds will be punished by having that affliction actually occur.<\/p>\n
AKIVA\u2019S ACADEMY<\/p>\n
Sometime after his ordination, Akiva founded his own school at B\u2019nai Brak, but as was the case with other Sages and their schools, he was not tied to the institution and was often to be found elsewhere, involved with \u201cthe needs of the community.\u201d
\nSages started academies of learning throughout the Land of Israel, from Yavneh and Lod in the center to communities in the northern Galilee. Ishmael taught in Kfar Aziz, Joshua ben Hananiah in Pekin, Joseph ben Halafta in Sepphoris, and Hananiah ben Teradion in Sikhnin. Based on descriptions of unbelievably huge numbers of students enrolled in numerous academies, one can easily get the impression that Torah learning and the rulings of the Sages dominated the Jewish land. Archaeological evidence shows otherwise: the large numbers of disciples ascribed to Akiva and others can be nothing but a gross exaggeration, and many synagogues did not adhere to Rabbinic rules in such matters as artistic representation.
\nThe true picture is that the masses of Jews more likely followed the Judaism of the Sages to greater or lesser degrees, each according to his or her inclination. It is true that following the Great Revolt there were no other major Jewish sects to compete with the new order that emanated from the Sanhedrin in Yavneh under the nasi, unless one considers the Christians to still be a Jewish sect, which may indeed have been the case. But that does not mean that the Sages dominated and had control of all Jewish life. Nor should we believe that all male Jews attended these academies. The \u201cstudents of the wise\u201d were still the minority, the learned elite. Nevertheless in this post-Temple period, the latter part of the first century CE and the following few centuries, there seems to have been a significant movement in Judea of dedicated students, going from one master to another, some spending their lives devoted to the learning and the spread of Torah according to Rabbinic interpretation, others listening to lessons evenings or on days of no work whenever they could. Just as synagogues gained in importance following the destruction of the Temple, so too Torah study and academies of learning increased to fill that void. It is reminiscent of the Middle Ages in Christian Europe when monasteries dotted the countryside and large numbers of monks and priests dedicated their lives to the practice and teaching of Christianity.
\nIt was in this milieu that Akiva flourished, playing a major role in Jewish affairs both domestic and foreign, teaching and preaching and contributing in a major way to the growth of Rabbinic Judaism and to the formulation of its basic works of Jewish Law and lore.
\nThe number of Akiva\u2019s pupils was impressive, even if not nearly as large as sources state, which is anywhere from twelve thousand to forty-eight thousand. The number of Akiva\u2019s students took on strange legendary proportions and served the purpose of emphasizing the importance of the master. One early midrash, for example, tells that Akiva raised up two sets of disciples. The first consisted of twelve thousand pairs, but they all died because they were too competitive with one another. He then taught a second group of only seven\u2014Meir, Yehudah, Shimon, Eliezer ben Shamu, Yohanan HaSandlar, and Eliezer ben Yaakov.
\nAlso mentioned as students of Akiva are Eleazar ben Matya, Hananiah ben Hakhinai, Shimon ben Azzai, and Shimon the Yemenite. The most famous were Shimon bar Yohai and Meir, who had also studied with Ishmael at one point but had then returned to Akiva and remained his disciple. Early midrashim tell that Hananiah did not keep in touch with his family. Finally his wife sent him a message that it was time to come home and attend to finding a husband for his daughter, but he did not leave until Akiva, becoming aware of this, gave a general order that anyone with a daughter of eligible age should leave and attend to her needs.
\nAkiva had a reputation for never wanting to cease learning or teaching. Accordingly his school was always in session except for the eve of Passover and of Yom Kippur. If the tale found in the Haggadah is correct, Akiva himself remained in B\u2019nai Brak on Passover as well. He conducted a famous seder there, together with Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Eleazar that lasted all night and only concluded when the students reminded them that it was already time for the morning recitation of the Sh\u2019ma.
\nIn his discussions with his students Akiva covered not only matters of law but also biblical interpretation and questions of morality and ethical behavior. One example was a discussion on the question \u201cWhy did Judah merit having the kingship come from his descendants?\u201d Akiva gave several answers, one of which was, \u201cBecause he admitted his guilt in the matter of Tamar.\u201d Akiva was not unique in this, since the sources record that other Sages had similar discussions with their pupils, even, as was discussed in chapter 2, on that same question. They often used the Socratic method of teaching, which emphasizes teacher-student dialogue: the Sage would ask a question, and then a discussion would begin on the answer given by the pupils or by the Sage.
\nAkiva maintained a close relationship with many of his students. There is an anecdote in the Babylonian Talmud that tells of Akiva visiting a student who was ill, when no one else had gone to see him. Akiva saw to it that his needs were tended to. When the student recovered and ascribed his recovery to Akiva\u2019s visit, Akiva taught, \u201cOne who does not visit the sick is like a shedder of blood!\u201d This may be simply an instance of ascribing a teaching to a venerated teacher, but it is indicative of Akiva\u2019s personality. But at times he could also be brusque with a student. An early tannaitic midrash, Sifra, relates that one of his disciples once made a rather foolish deduction by misunderstanding two verses. Akiva\u2019s remark to him was, \u201cYou have dived into deep water and brought up a shard in your hand,\u201d after which he showed him his error. Such a tale has the ring of truth.<\/p>\n
AKIVA\u2019S PERSONAL LIFE<\/p>\n
Akiva\u2019s teaching and many other obligations left him little time at home, and we know little about his role as a husband. It is unfortunate that not much is written about Akiva\u2019s relationship with his wife after he became a major figure among the Sages, and only slightly more about his family. There is some information about a daughter, who remains nameless, and three sons, Joshua, a rabbi, Shimon, and, Yose, who was also a rabbi. Akiva\u2019s daughter is mentioned as supporting her husband in his studies, just as her mother had done and as did the wife of his son Joshua.
\nJoshua, probably named after his mother\u2019s father, had an intense discussion with his father concerning a Rabbinic teaching and even argued with him about the answers he had given. When, while still a poor student, Joshua married, it was with the condition that his wife would support him so that he could learn Torah. If the stories about Akiva\u2019s youth are to be believed, his son was simply following in his father\u2019s footsteps. Another story about Akiva\u2019s son, less realistic, found in a late source, recounts that the night he married he stayed up the entire night \u201creading in the Torah and studying haggadot.\u201d He asked his new wife to fetch a lamp, and she did so. And then he asked her to remain standing and hold the lamp all night, and she did so. When Akiva asked his son the next morning if she was a worthy wife, he replied that she was.
\nThere is also an early tannaitic tradition that at some point, perhaps when Joshua was leaving home to study elsewhere, Akiva charged his son with seven things. The list, it must be admitted, is not profound: Don\u2019t study in a place where you will be interrupted. Don\u2019t live in a town that is poorly governed because its leaders are scholars. Don\u2019t enter your home or anyone\u2019s home suddenly. Arise early and have a good meal. Do not go barefoot. Be on good terms with a person whom fortune favors. Make your Sabbath like a weekday rather than depend on others. This last is the most well-known and probably the reason the list was preserved at all. Although the proper observance of the Sabbath requires one to have three good meals, rather than the two that was customary on other days, Akiva sanctioned not fulfilling that if it would mean soliciting charity from others to do so. Only one who has known want himself would think of this. The list is reminiscent of Shakespeare\u2019s famous speech that Polonius makes to his son Laertes in Hamlet, the words of a doting father to his son before he goes away from home.
\nTragically, Akiva\u2019s son Shimon died at a young age. Akiva, quite famous by then, was teaching at his academy at the time and was so determined never to take time away from Torah that he did not cancel his classes when he heard that the boy was gravely ill. Only when he received news of his death did he stop teaching and tell the students that now the mitzvah of care for the dead took precedence over the mitzvah of study of Torah. Overwhelmed by the vast numbers who came to the funeral, when it was over he sat on a bench and addressed them:<\/p>\n
Brethren of the house of Israel, hear me. Not because I am a scholar have you come, for there are other scholars here greater than I, and not because I am wealthy, for there are others wealthier than I. Men of the south know Rabbi Akiva, but how should Galileans know him? Men know Rabbi Akiva, but how should women and children know him? Yet I know that your reward will be great for you have troubled yourselves and come here in honor of the Torah and in order to perform a mitzvah.\u2026 Go home in peace.<\/p>\n
According to one report in the Jerusalem Talmud, Akiva\u2019s family was not poor. They were said to have furniture of gold and other luxuries. If that is to be believed, his own lifestyle would have been a contradiction to his well-known teaching that \u201cpoverty becomes Israel as a red strap on the head of a white horse.\u201d Tradition ascribes his wealth as deriving from his father-in-law, which is unlikely, and also from other similarly doubtful sources. The Babylonian Talmud, hard-pressed to understand the claim that Akiva was wealthy, listed several explanations, including money received from Kalba Savua, a gift from a wealthy admirer, or his finding logs full of gold coins washed up from a shipwreck. Very likely this whole matter is nothing more than an exaggeration intended to show the reward that a pious person like Akiva can expect for all his hardships and loyalty to Torah. The story of the gold tiara, the Jerusalem of Gold, that he gave to his wife, which is probably true, may have been the inspiration for this further elaboration of an abundance of gold in his family.
\nThe story mentioned above that his son Joshua, a scholar in his own right, married on condition that his wife support him so that he could learn seems to contradict the account of Akiva\u2019s wealth. If Akiva was so wealthy, would he not have supported his son in his study of Torah? It has also been suggested that the story of Akiva\u2019s early poverty was merely an imitation of the story of his son\u2019s. Just as early stories of his great poverty were an exaggeration, so too were tales of his great wealth.
\nExactly how he made a living is unclear. Sages were not supposed to take a salary for teaching, and many are said to have had a craft or profession as well, dividing their time between work and teaching. This does not seem to be the case with Akiva; on the contrary, we read that as a Sage he never spent time in worldly occupations. That needy Sages were supported by the nasi and by contributions from wealthy individuals and communities seems certain, and perhaps that was the case with Akiva. He had official duties to perform for the nasi, for which he must have been paid. Once he had attained the status of rabbi and revered Sage, poverty was not a problem for him and his wife, but that does not mean that they were suddenly to be counted among the wealthy. We may never know for certain to what extent his wealth has been exaggerated by the sources, but it does seem extremely unlikely that his house was furnished in gold and that his wife was adorned in the fashion of the wealthy Roman matrons of the time.<\/p>\n
DEBATE AND DISPUTE IN ESTABLISHING JEWISH LAW<\/p>\n
This period was a crucial time for setting Jewish Law, which was still in a state of flux. The Sages saw themselves as the only proper body for making such determinations. The laws as set down in the Torah were often unclear, lacking detailed directions, and they sometimes contradicted one another. Decisions had to be made, verses had to be interpreted, and ways of fulfilling the laws had to be decided. This was true even of laws that were no longer in effect because of the absence of the Temple. No detail was too small to be discussed, no law, be it ritual or civil law, could be ignored.
\nIn addition to his other public roles, Akiva played a major role in this development of Jewish Law that was taking place in the discussions among the Sages at the academy in Yavneh. Once he received his ordination, Akiva did not hesitate to make decisions concerning legal matters and to argue with his teachers and his elders concerning the proper interpretation of biblical statutes and other traditions. When he was a student, Akiva had boldly debated with his teacher Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrkanus, and he continued to disagree with him once he himself became a rabbi. Sifre Deuteronomy records a series of matters in which Akiva disagreed with Eliezer. In one of them Akiva permitted eating the paschal lamb for a longer period of time than did Eliezer. Another dispute concerned the body of someone who had been slain and is found between two cities (Deut. 21:1). The Torah requires that it be determined which city was closer to the murdered person so that the elders of that city could perform a ritual of atonement for the bloodguilt incurred by the slaying, declaring that they had not shed the blood nor did they see it happen. The question in Sifre was, what if the head was found in a different place from the body? From which part do they measure? Eliezer and Akiva disagreed as to which part was the more important. Eliezer ruled that the head should be placed next to the body and the distances measured from there. Akiva said to move the body to where the head was found.
\nSifre Deuteronomy also records that they disagreed regarding laws pertaining to a captive woman whom a soldier wishes to marry. The verse says literally \u201cand do her nails\u201d (Deut. 21:12). Akiva and Eliezer disagreed on the meaning of that phrase. Eliezer said, \u201cCut them,\u201d reasoning that since regarding her hair it says to cut it off, here too that would be the case. Akiva said, \u201cGrow them,\u201d because the idea is to disfigure them as her hair was disfigured. It would seem that Akiva was bent on making her so unattractive that the man would decide to reject her. Perhaps this was his way of stressing that lust should not be mistaken for love. They disagreed on other matters as well, such as the meaning of the captive woman mourning for \u201cher mother and father.\u201d Eliezer maintained that it means exactly what it says, while Akiva insisted that it means mourning for \u201cher idols,\u201d which she worships as her creators. In this instance Akiva strayed far from the simple meaning of a text, something that often occurred in his biblical interpretations.
\nIt is interesting to note that one of Akiva\u2019s most famous disciples, Shimon bar Yohai, differed with him on some biblical interpretations. \u201cRabbi Akiva had one explanation for the verse \u2018Could enough flocks and herds be slaughtered to suffice them? Or could all the fish of the sea be gathered for them to suffice them?\u2019 (Num. 11:22), and I have two different ones. I prefer my interpretation to that of my teacher.\u201d Akiva interpreted this as meaning, \u201cCould anyone possibly gather that much meat and fish that would suffice for them?\u201d while Bar Yohai took it to mean that they actually had sufficient flocks and fish with them but that would make no difference because this was just an excuse to stop following after God. Bar Yohai indeed followed his teacher\u2019s example in freely contradicting him.
\nAkiva was often very bold in his arguments, even with Rabban Gamliel himself, regardless of Gamliel\u2019s position as nasi and the fact that Akiva owed his status and positions to him. An incident is related in the Tosefta concerning a time when Rabban Gamliel and other Sages, including Akiva, had dined together in Jericho. Which blessing should be said after their food was a matter of controversy in which Gamliel took one position and the other Sages took a different one. Gamliel\u2019s opinion was rejected by the majority. After the meal Akiva, without being asked, \u201cjumped\u201d in and pronounced a blessing other than the one that Gamliel had sanctioned. Gamliel said to him, \u201cAkiva, why do you involve yourself in this controversy?\u201d But Akiva replied, \u201cHave you yourself not taught us that the law follows the majority?\u201d In a similar way Akiva confronted Gamliel when they were together in Rome concerning what was permitted or not on a festival day. Gamliel forbade the reassembling of parts of a lamp that came apart on the eve of a festival, while the majority permitted it. These lamps were made of parts that could be assembled together and could also be taken apart. Gamliel held that putting it together constituted an act of building, which was forbidden on the festival. The majority disagreed with this designation. When this happened, Akiva, in the presence of Rabban Gamliel, put it together. When rebuked by Gamliel, Akiva again replied, \u201cHave you yourself not taught us that the law follows the majority?\u201d
\nAt another time Akiva acted on his own in regard to a question of taking tithes from food found in a town inhabited by Samaritans. Gamliel had ruled that their produce was to be considered as possibly having been tithed, whereas Akiva acted as if Samaritans were not recognized as Jews at all. Gamliel accused him of acting against the rulings of his peers and asked, \u201cWho gave you permission?\u201d Akiva replied, \u201cI did not decide the law\u2014I only took the tithe from my own vegetables.\u201d Akiva contended that he was not making a ruling on the issue itself, but only deciding that since there was no definite knowledge that tithes had been taken from the produce he had acquired, he preferred to take a tithe and be certain.
\nOf course Gamliel could give as well as he got. The Tosefta relates that when he heard Akiva teach that the words \u201cTear down their altars.\u2026 Do not do so to the LORD your God\u201d (Deut. 12:3\u20134) means that \u201cif one chips out one stone from the Hall of the Temple, from its altar, or from its courtyards, one violates a negative commandment,\u201d he responded tartly, \u201cCould you possibly imagine that Israelites would tear down their own altars? Heaven forbid! Rather the verse means: do not do as the heathen do, for your evil deeds would then cause the Temple of your fathers to be destroyed.\u201d
\nWhile it seems from all of these accounts that Akiva and Gamliel had a tense relationship, Akiva was no rebel against authority. According to a tannaitic teaching quoted in the Babylonian Talmud, Akiva disagreed with a ruling of Rabban Gamliel regarding baking on Passover, but he was respectful when inquiring of Gamliel on the issue, addressing him using the accepted formula, \u201cLet our master teach us.\u201d Nevertheless he disagreed.
\nHis respect for authority was demonstrated in the famous incident in which Rabbi Joshua, Akiva\u2019s mentor, disagreed with Rabban Gamliel concerning when the new month began. This would affect which day was actually Yom Kippur, the most sacred day of the year. To demonstrate his authority, Gamliel decreed that Joshua appear before him on the day that, according to Joshua\u2019s calculations, was Yom Kippur, carrying his walking stick and a sack of coins. The Mishnah states that Akiva went to him and, seeing Joshua in great distress, counseled him to obey, even though for Joshua that day was Yom Kippur. Akiva\u2019s advice was that \u201cwhatever Rabban Gamliel decides is decided.\u201d His reasoning had nothing to do with Gamliel specifically, but with the authority of the position he held as head of the court. Akiva pointed out that the Torah says, \u201cThese are the holy days to the LORD, the sacred occasions, which you shall celebrate each in its appointed time\u201d (Lev. 23:4), meaning that whatever time has been appointed by the court, that is the holy day. Joshua took his advice.
\nLater when Gamliel\u2019s haughty authority and continued mistreatment of Joshua became unbearable, the Sages, with Akiva\u2019s support, removed Gamliel from office. When Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah was then appointed nasi, Akiva was disappointed that he had not received that position and grieved, murmuring, \u201cIt\u2019s not that he is greater than I am in Torah, but that he is greater in family ties.\u201d Eleazar was a direct descendant of Ezra the Scribe; Akiva had no pedigree. The deposition did not last long, however. Gamliel humbled himself, went to Joshua to beg forgiveness for mistreating and humiliating him, and was returned to his position. When Eleazar had to be informed that his brief period in office was now over, it was Akiva who undertook that delicate task, diplomatically explaining that Eleazar was now the head of the Rabbinic court that decided individual cases, but not the head of the Sanhedrin, the academy that debated and decided issues of Jewish Law. The incident is recorded first in the older Jerusalem Talmud and elaborated in the Babylonian.
\nA similar instance, related first in that same source, the Jerusalem Talmud, concerns the time when the great Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrkanus was excommunicated. Eliezer, one of Ben Zakkai\u2019s greatest pupils, was a teacher of Akiva when he was the head of the academy in Lod, where Akiva first studied. As discussed above in the list of disputes between them, he and Akiva had a long and sometimes tempestuous history. Eliezer\u2019s illustrious career suffered a catastrophe in the famous case of the oven of Aknai. All the Sages declared it unclean, in other words impure, while Rabbi Eliezer declared it ritually pure. When all his arguments failed to persuade the others, he tried to prove that he was right by invoking the supernatural. He called upon a carob tree to be torn up, a stream of water to flow backward, walls to incline but not fall, and finally he invoked a voice from heaven to uphold his position\u2014and behold a voice was heard proclaiming that the law was as Eliezer said! The others still refused to accept his ruling, protesting that \u201cit [the Torah] is not in heaven!\u201d Decisions on the meaning of rules derived from the Torah are in the hands of the Sages and decided by majority, not by miracles. Since Eliezer would not abide by the rule that one must follow the majority, a rule that Akiva had invoked in his arguments with Eliezer, the Sages took the extraordinary step of voting to excommunicate him.
\nThis seems an extreme reaction to his actions. It has therefore been suggested that behind this move was the fact that Eliezer was suspected of\u2014and indeed had even been arrested by the Romans\u2014for having been involved in Christian beliefs. At that time, it was Akiva who spoke with him and showed him what he had done wrong: \u201cPerhaps you were arrested because some heretical teaching was transmitted to you and you approved of it?\u201d Eliezer then remembered that a Christian, Jacob of Kefar-Sekniah, had met him and engaged him in conversation about the meaning of the verse \u201cYou shall not bring the fee of a whore or the pay of a dog into the house of the LORD your God\u201d (Deut. 23:19). Jacob explained that Jesus had said, \u201cThey came from a place of filth and should go to a place of filth,\u201d and that had pleased Eliezer.
\nThe question now was, who would inform Eliezer of this drastic decision that would isolate him from all others and remove his authority as a Sage? It was Akiva who volunteered, \u201clest someone unsuitable do it and thus destroy the world.\u201d Akiva put on black garments and went to Eliezer but sat far apart. When Eliezer asked what was happening, Akiva said, \u201cMy master, my master, your colleagues have excommunicated you,\u201d whereupon Eliezer tore his garments and wept. For all the disputes between them, Akiva was still the most appropriate and compassionate person to convey the terrible news.
\nAkiva\u2019s sympathetic attitude toward his disgraced teacher is apparent in the visit that Akiva and others made when Rabbi Eliezer was on his deathbed, as recorded in ARN. Although the anecdote is undoubtedly embellished, the basic story is believable. Because of Eliezer\u2019s excommunication, they sat far away from him. He spoke bitterly about the fact that his students had not visited him, and he predicted their deaths\u2014with Akiva\u2019s to be the most bitter of all. Eliezer remarked that he had hundreds\u2014perhaps thousands\u2014of laws and traditions that no one had asked him about except Akiva. He then engaged in a discussion with them of things that were pure or impure, and he died uttering the word \u201cpure.\u201d When that happened, Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah proclaimed immediately that the ban was lifted, that he had died in a state of purity and would receive a proper funeral and burial. His pupil Akiva mourned him publicly, tearing his clothing, with blood running down his face, weeping, \u201cWoe unto me, my master, woe unto me, my teacher\u2014for your sake! The whole generation is fatherless!\u201d Akiva gave the eulogy, beginning with the quote from 2 Kings 1:12, \u201cMy father, my father, the chariot of Israel and the horsemen thereof!\u201d Akiva went on, \u201cI have many coins but no money changer to sort them out.\u201d The most reliable conveyer of traditions had passed from this world.<\/p>\n
OVERTURNING TRADITIONS<\/p>\n
Akiva, who was bold enough to challenge his elders and his teachers, was also bold enough to contradict and even overturn laws that had been set by his own teachers if he disagreed with them. He did so even without resort to biblical verses. The early tannaitic midrash Sifra records that there was a law forbidding a woman from adorning herself during her time of impurity \u201cuntil Rabbi Akiva came and taught that this would cause her husband to hate her and divorce her.\u201d Therefore he permitted her to make herself attractive and changed the law. More than once the phrase \u201cAt first they used to say \u2026\u201d followed by \u201cuntil Rabbi Akiva came and taught \u2026\u201d occurs. For all his reverence for the laws that had been taught and passed down from generation to generation, when they were not anchored in anything but human reason, he found it possible to disagree and teach something new and sometimes even radical. The Tosefta records that Akiva changed another ancient law and made it more liberal: In former times they said that one should not sit on a bench belonging to gentiles on Shabbat, until Rabbi Akiva came and taught that one may sit on a bench belonging to gentiles on Shabbat. The situation concerned benches used for selling merchandise. Sitting on it might be thought to imply that the person was doing business on Shabbat. Akiva evidently did not think that this was sufficient reason for forbidding the practice and changed the accepted law.<\/p>\n
AKIVA\u2019S PRESTIGE<\/p>\n
Akiva\u2019s fame and authority spread throughout the land. According to the Tosefta, when there was a matter of Jewish Law regarding agriculture to be decided in Meron, far in the north, not his usual territory, \u201cthey came and asked Rabbi Akiva\u201d to decide. There may not have been local Sages there capable of deciding halakhic matters, or they may have respected him more than other, less-revered Sages. Wherever Akiva traveled his opinion was sought on matters of Jewish Law. He is also said to have been in Zifron in the Galilee, although it is not clear if he was there on some visit or if he settled there over a longer period of time.
\nWhat was the secret of Akiva\u2019s rise to positions of power and prestige among the Sages and his enormous popularity among the masses? Obviously much of that had to do with that indefinable quality known as personal charisma, but there were factors connected to his personality and intellect that could be pointed to as well, characteristics that stand out in the early stories told about him.
\nOne factor often cited that could account for his high standing among the people was his modesty. Another was his care and personal concern for others\u2014people skills that made him the perfect person to send on sensitive missions. It was not accidental that he was chosen to inform Eliezer of his banishment and to tell Eleazar that he had lost his position as head of the academy. Another factor was his concern for those in need and his identification with the poor. For most of his career Akiva personified hope and gave comfort and encouragement. He always saw the positive side of things and brought comfort to those who listened to him. His message was one of the goodness of God and the expectation of better things to come.
\nAt a time that was traumatic in the lives of Jews, he saw all humans as being created in God\u2019s image and the Israelites as God\u2019s special children. He had an extraordinary gift for creating stories and parables that would attract mass audiences, bringing ancient stories to life, delighting listeners, and using interesting and unconventional methods to stir interest in his lessons and sermons. Once, for example, \u201che noticed when he was sermonizing that his audience was dozing off. He sought to arouse their interest, saying, \u2018How is it that Esther ruled over 127 provinces? It was because Esther was the daughter of Sarah, who lived 127 years\u2014it was Sarah\u2019s merit that caused this.\u2019 \u201d His reputation as a mesmerizing preacher was so widespread that it was considered worth noting that once on a trip to Ginzak in far-off Persia he preached on the subject of the generation of the flood \u201cand did not make them cry\u201d\u2014until he found some story concerning the raven that made them weep.
\nHis standing among the Sages was assured because he was an intellectual giant, able to construct logical arguments to bolster his positions. He was considered to be the first Sage to be a master of all learning. It was said of him that he was like a stone cutter who hacked away at an entire mountain, vowing to uproot it all, and succeeded, putting everything in its proper place. Therefore Rabbi Tarfon said of him, \u201cThings concealed from others you bring to light.\u201d<\/p>\n
Four<\/p>\n
THE MYSTICAL INTERPRETER OF TORAH<\/p>\n
The Torah, the Five Books of Moses, has stood at the center of Jewish life ever since the Judeans return from their Babylonian exile in the fifth century BCE. Under the supervision of Ezra the Scribe, the various written traditions that had existed until that time were given their final form and integrated into one document. At a great ceremony held in Jerusalem at the Water Gate in 444 BCE, this document was accepted as the official law of Judaism. This ceremony was the equivalent of the ancient assembly at Sinai described in Exodus 19\u201320, when all the Israelites accepted God\u2019s covenant with the words \u201cAll that the LORD has spoken we will do!\u201d (Exod. 19:8). And so this ceremony was a renewal of the covenant between God and Israel and an acceptance of the Torah as God\u2019s word. All of the people took an oath \u201cto follow the Torah of God, given through Moses the servant of God, and to observe carefully all the commandments of the LORD our God, His rules and laws\u201d (Neh. 10:30). The Torah was held in reverence. It was considered both the teaching of Moses and the instruction of the Lord. At the same time, the work of interpreting this book, of reconciling its various traditions, of applying its laws to the current conditions of life, became the task of scribes and teachers.
\nThe various sects within Second Temple Judaism had their own ways of interpreting the Torah and their own authorities. They often disagreed with one another as to what it meant and how its laws were to be applied. Then, after the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE, these sects ceased to exist as organized groups, and the interpretation of Torah was left to the Sages, who developed their own ways of approaching the Torah and understanding it. Although no longer representing the Pharisaic party, which ceased to exist as a separate group, these Sages, who were now known as \u201crabbis\u201d (masters and teachers of the Torah), basically followed the Pharisees\u2019 way of interpretation, ascribing oral traditions not recorded in the written Torah as also having their origins in the Sinai revelation. Thus \u201cTorah\u201d meant not only the written words in the Pentateuch, but also the teachings of the Sages from the time of Ezra up to the present. Those were traditions that groups such as the Sadducees had not accepted as sacred and that the Jewish-Christians also did not recognize. That is the meaning of the first section of Tractate Avot in the Mishnah, \u201cMoses received Torah [instruction] from Sinai and delivered it to Joshua \u2026\u201d\u2014Moses received oral instruction, which he in turn passed on to Joshua, who passed it to others, until the time of the Mishnah. Although many parts of the oral tradition were Rabbinic additions to the laws of the Torah and were subject to change, some unwritten laws were considered to be halakhah l\u2019Moshe mi-Sinai, \u201cLaws given to Moses from Sinai\u201d\u2014that is, directly by God at the time of the Sinai revelation\u2014and therefore carrying the same degree of sanctity. Some authorities went so far as to say that \u201cwhatever a distinguished disciple will rule in the presence of his teacher in the future was already communicated to Moses at Sinai\u201d in order to stress the divine nature of all oral teachings, even the newest.
\nThe discussions that took place within the various academies after the Second Temple fell were often concerned with the very question of what were the appropriate ways of interpreting the sacred text. Furthermore, as important as the Torah had been before, its importance now increased greatly, since there was no longer the Temple to unite the people and to represent the Presence of the Almighty. Adherence to the teaching of Moses (Torat Moshe) became the uniting factor for Judaism. It was more important than ever to emphasize the significance of the Torah and of developing appropriate ways of interpreting it and preserving the oral traditions that had developed over the centuries.
\nThe rise of Christianity was another factor necessitating the increased emphasis on the sacredness of the Torah. Pauline Christianity gained in influence, teaching that the Torah was \u201cthe Old Covenant,\u201d now superseded by \u201cthe New Covenant,\u201d that the Torah\u2019s laws were no longer binding and, in fact, were an impediment to true salvation. For Judaism to survive, it was imperative for the Sages to emphasize the sacredness of the Torah and its eternal validity. This led to bitter rivalry between traditional Jews and Jews who accepted Jesus as the Messiah. The Sages ruled that the Christian books, the Gospels, were not to be saved from fire on Shabbat even if this meant that the name of God written in them would be destroyed. Akiva\u2019s compatriot Rabbi Tarfon went so far as to say that he would actually burn them together with God\u2019s name at any time that they should come into his possession and that he would enter a pagan temple to save his life, but not a place of Christian worship, \u201cbecause while pagans are ignorant of the true God and deny Him, these people know the true God and yet deny Him!\u201d Rabbi Ishmael, Akiva\u2019s contemporary and rival, said that one should cut out the names of God and burn the rest, but Akiva said, \u201cHe should burn the entire thing, since it was not written in holiness.\u201d Such was the volatile environment into which Akiva, the newly ordained Sage, was plunged. He attempted to meet the challenge by developing an approach to the written Torah that elevated it above and beyond all other books and that would also elevate the oral traditions to a place of equal importance.
\nAkiva\u2019s exaltation of the Torah found its ultimate poetic expression in his praise of it that can be found in an ancient tannaitic midrash; here Akiva compares words of Torah first to water and then to wine:<\/p>\n
Words of Torah are like water\u2014just as water endures forever, so words of Torah live forever.\u2026
\nJust as water cleanses the unclean, so words of Torah cleanse the unclean.\u2026
\nJust as water restores the soul, so words of Torah restore the soul.\u2026
\nJust as water is forever free for everyone, so words of Torah are forever free for everyone.\u2026
\nJust as water is priceless, so words of Torah are priceless.\u2026
\nJust as wine makes the heart rejoice, so the words of Torah make the heart rejoice.\u2026
\nJust as wine is better the longer it ages, so the words of Torah improve the longer they are within a person.\u2026
\nJust as wine keeps better in an earthen vessel than in silver or gold, so the words of Torah keep better in one who considers himself the lowliest of vessels.<\/p>\n
AKIVA THE MYSTIC VERSUS ISHMAEL THE RATIONALIST<\/p>\n
Akiva was not the only one who applied himself to the task of preserving and teaching the Torah and its interpretations. One other outstanding Sage who had a similar concern, although a different response, was Rabbi Ishmael ben Elisha. These two men were later deemed to have been \u201cthe fathers of the world,\u201d an expression that means that they were the teachers upon whose words the world of Torah was built.
\nThey could hardly have been more different in background, in temperament, and in their approach to Torah interpretation. Akiva was of humble background, while Ishmael was of prestigious priestly descent. Ishmael was a disciple of Nehunia ben Hakana, who \u201cexpounded the whole Torah on the principle of generalization and specification,\u201d while Akiva had learned at the feet of Nahum of Gimzo, who \u201cexpounded the whole Torah on the principle of amplification and limitation\u201d; he interpreted every et in the Torah, even though others thought that that word had no intrinsic meaning. Ishmael refused to accept that methodology.
\nBut the differences between them go further than this. As the highly regarded theologian Abraham Joshua Heschel explains in his masterful work Heavenly Torah, Ishmael\u2019s approach was rational, seeking the plain meaning of a text that used human language, whereas Akiva stressed the wondrous, the esoteric, the mystical meaning of a text that was wholly and totally divine.
\nBoth men were revered, and both methods were considered legitimate by the Sages. Both had a circle of devoted disciples, who created their own set of biblical interpretations, midrashim, to the four books of the Torah that contain laws: Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. The tolerance and mutual respect between them, for all of their sharp exchanges and criticisms, can be seen in how both circles quote the other in the Midrash. Nevertheless Ishmael often chided Akiva for what he considered his incorrect reading of the text, one that in Ishmael\u2019s opinion opened possibilities of dangerous interpretations. Their relationship was one of cautious friendship, but also one of rivalry and an agreement to disagree.
\nIshmael\u2019s way of interpreting the text was a continuation and an expansion of the seven rules of textual interpretation that had been developed a hundred years before by the great sage Hillel. Hillel taught that the verses of the Torah could be expounded according to (1) drawing an inference from minor to major, (2) analogy, (3) deriving a principle from one verse, (4) deriving a principle from two verses, (5) inference from general to particular, (6) inference from particular to general, (7) deduction from context. Ishmael added others to these that were of a similar nature or more explicit, creating 13 rules for interpreting the Torah. Perhaps the most important were rules 12 and 13: (12) an obscure text can be clarified by its context or by another verse; (13) when two verses contradict one another, a third can be used to reconcile them. All of Ishmael\u2019s rules use logic to solve the problem of understanding a difficult text that often contained contradictions.
\nModern biblical scholarship explains that contradictions between verses stem from the fact that at least four different texts were redacted (edited) together to form the Torah, and these different texts sometimes contained different laws. But this view was certainly not acceptable or even contemplated in Rabbinic times, and since the Sages\u2019 task was to determine how the laws of the Torah were to be observed, contradictions had to be resolved and painful decisions made. Following rules of interpretation was the way to do so, and most of the Sages turned to Ishmael\u2019s rules, which were similar to grammatical rules used to interpret texts in the ancient Hellenistic world. In that sense the Rabbinic commentators treated the Torah text in the same way that other important texts would have been treated at that time, using logic and inference to derive laws and to resolve contradictions.
\nAkiva did not reject these rules; he often used them when determining the law. For example, using Ishmael\u2019s thirteenth principle, concerning the reason for the deaths of Aaron\u2019s two sons, Akiva points out that two verses (Lev. 16:1 and 10:1) give different reasons for their death and then brings a third verse that decides the matter (Num. 26:61). But for Akiva these rules of logic were useful but insufficient, because he was convinced that the Torah text was not equivalent to any other text and therefore had to be interpreted in a different way. Akiva believed that the Torah was unique in that it was, in the most literal sense, the revealed word of God in which every word, every letter, every mark, was there in order to convey a divine message, which could be understood by proper methodology, methodology that was within the power of the Sages to use. Ishmael, on the other hand, constantly reiterated that \u201cthe Torah speaks in human language.\u201d
\nIt should be stressed that the relationship between Akiva and Ishmael was not the same as the legendary rivalry between Hillel and Shammai a hundred years earlier. Ishmael\u2019s criticisms of Akiva were of his interpretive methodology, not of his general approach to Jewish Law or practice. Ishmael himself is depicted as a concerned and caring individual, not harsh or strict in his rulings, as Shammai was reputed to be. Nor was Akiva always lenient, as Hillel was said to be.
\nWe see Ishmael\u2019s character clearly in a story related in the Mishnah about a man who took a vow not to marry his niece. She was taken to Rabbi Ishmael\u2019s house, where she was \u201cmade beautiful.\u201d Ishmael then asked the uncle if this was the woman about whom he had taken the vow. He said, \u201cNo,\u201d whereupon Ishmael released him from his vow and they were married. Ishmael then wept and said, \u201cThe daughters of Israel are beautiful, but poverty has made them ugly.\u201d Evidently the young woman was in need of a groom (unmarried women then were not able to easily support themselves) but was not considered a good catch. Her uncle, who could marry her according to Jewish Law, was not attracted to her and bound himself by a vow so that he would not be forced into the marriage. Ishmael took pity on the girl and brought in those who could make her look attractive. When the uncle said that she was not the same person he had vowed not to marry (because she was now attractive), Ishmael could release him from the vow, and the marriage took place. The Mishnah concludes by saying that when Ishmael died the women wept for him, and he was eulogized with the words, based on 2 Samuel 1:24, \u201cO daughters of Israel, weep for Rabbi Ishmael!\u201d
\nSince the School of Akiva was largely responsible for the redaction of the Mishnah and since the Talmud too reflects Akiva\u2019s views, we know less about Ishmael than about Akiva. In a sense we have a case here of the victor writing history and determining the tone of the story, thus it is all the more remarkable that this lovely tale about Ishmael was preserved there and that in general Ishmael is treated with respect.<\/p>\n
ENTERING THE PARDES<\/p>\n
If Ishmael represents the use of logic as the way to understand the text and arrive at the law, Akiva represents the use of more esoteric and mystical methods based on his concept of the nature of the Torah. This is understandable when we remember that Akiva was a student of mysticism. He entered into mystical studies and practice in a serious way, as evidenced in the famous story in the Tosefta, repeated in both the Jerusalem Talmud and the Babylonian Talmud, of \u201cfour who entered paradise [the pardes].\u201d
\nAccording to this account, four Sages \u201centered paradise [the pardes],\u201d in other words, they immersed themselves in the mystical traditions based on the story of the Creation from Genesis and the heavenly chariot as described in the biblical book Ezekiel: \u201cFour entered paradise\u2014Ben Azzai, Ben Zoma, aher [Elisha ben Abuya], and Rabbi Akiva. One [Ben Azzai] looked and died. One [Ben Zoma] looked and was stricken. One [Elisha] looked and cut the shoots. One [Akiva] ascended in peace and descended in peace.\u201d
\nBen Azzai\u2019s death was ascribed to his mystical practices. Ben Zoma lost his mind. Elisha ben Abuya became an apostate. Only Akiva emerged unscathed, which he explained as being \u201cnot because I am greater than my colleagues, but because \u2018your deeds will bring you close and your deeds will push you away.\u2019 \u201d
\nIt is unclear if this story is intended to mean that all four engaged in this mystical exercise together at the same time or if each of them individually attempted to enter the pardes. Akiva was the most senior of the group, both in age and in knowledge, and the one with the most important standing in the community. The account in the Babylonian Talmud adds that Akiva instructed them what not to say when they arrived at \u201cthe stones of pure marble.\u201d According to this, even if they did not attempt it together, Akiva was their guide in this mystical journey. The journey was considered a dangerous one, since doing or saying the wrong thing would indicate that one was not worthy and could therefore be punished or even killed.
\nThe chapter in the Tosefta containing this story begins with the laws concerning restrictions on mystical practices and speculation. The story is told as a cautionary tale, demonstrating the potential dangers involved in immersing oneself in Jewish mysticism. Rabbinic tradition considered the study of these mystical beliefs to be dangerous\u2014literally\u2014and attempted to restrict it to those of a certain age or of greater knowledge and ability who would be able to deal with it, such as Akiva.
\nOn the other hand, these sources did not deny the truth and veracity of such mystical practices, and it is known that they were not uncommon, therefore the need for limitations and caution. The greatest figures of first-century Judaism are found engaging in mystical practices and expounding mystical doctrine. The same chapter in the Tosefta describing the journey into paradise clearly mentions that Rabbi Eleazar ben Arakh expounded on the heavenly chariot before Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai, who praised him extravagantly for \u201cknowing how to understand and expound upon the glory of his Father in heaven.\u201d When this story is told in another source, miraculous events are said to have occurred as Rabbi Eleazar expounded on the mysteries of the heavenly chariot: \u201cFire descended from heaven and encompassed them and angels danced before them, as is done before the groom at the huppah. One angel emerged from the fire and proclaimed, \u2018Indeed the chariot is exactly as you have explained it, Eleazar ben Arakh,\u2019 after which all the trees of the forest opened their mouths in song!\u201d Furthermore Rabbi Joshua illuminates these matters before Ben Zakkai, Akiva before Joshua, and Hananiah ben Hakhinai before Akiva.
\nThere is a difference, however, between expounding upon the heavenly chariot and \u201centering paradise.\u201d The latter involves performing mystical exercises that enable one to actually experience the heavenly sphere, reaching the seventh heaven, seeing and hearing matters that are not of this world, indeed to literally enter into the heavenly enclosure\u2014the pardes. The purpose is to be in the presence of the Holy One.
\nThe terminology \u201cascended\u201d and \u201cdescended\u201d makes it vividly clear that we are talking about an experience of ascending into the heavenly sphere, into paradise. The verse that is used in the Tosefta to explain Akiva\u2019s experience, \u201cthe king has brought me to his chambers\u201d (Song 1:4)\u2014understanding \u201cthe king,\u201d as the Lord\u2014makes this even clearer. Akiva was granted the opportunity of entering God\u2019s very presence.
\nSuch mystical exercises are not a one-time thing but rather the culmination of intensive study and training. Doing this required practice and preparation. According to later mystical tracts, this entailed twelve days of ascetic practices, and something similar was undoubtedly required at Akiva\u2019s time as well. These four must have undertaken this over a prolonged period of time, working together. Why these four are mentioned together and no others is a mystery in itself that remains unexplained. They are a strange grouping. Ben Azzai and Ben Zoma, students of Joshua ben Hananiah, were never ordained, although their teachings were honored. They were younger colleagues of Akiva. Ben Azzai, known as a pious and saintly man, was even reputed to have been the husband of Akiva\u2019s daughter, although according to many early sources Ben Azzai was a confirmed bachelor who never married. When Ben Azzai expounded on these mystical doctrines, the midrash states, \u201cfire would burn around him.\u201d When this happened, others went and informed Akiva, who came and asked him, \u201c \u2018Are you dealing with the most inner parts of the chariot?\u2019 He replied, \u2018No, I am connecting the words of Torah to the Prophets and the words of the Prophets to the Writings, and the words of the Torah rejoice as they did at the time they were given at Sinai, for was not their giving at Sinai accompanied by fire?\u2019 \u201d
\nOf Ben Zoma it is said that Rabbi Joshua once met him and asked him from whence he was coming. Ben Zoma replied, \u201cI have been gazing at the work of Creation and saw that there is only a droplet of space between the upper and the lower waters,\u201d upon which Joshua remarked to his students, \u201cBen Zoma is already outside.\u201d
\nElisha was a contemporary of Akiva, but a Sage of much less importance, even though much revered by Rabbi Meir, Akiva\u2019s disciple, who considered Elisha one of his teachers. Elisha is also recorded as having seen the angel Metatron in heaven, recording the merits of Israel in a book. Specific reasons for his apostasy are mentioned elsewhere, such as his having seen instances of those observing a commandment being killed and those breaking it not suffering any punishment.
\nAlthough Elisha abandoned Judaism, some of his teachings were still recorded in Pirke Avot and Avot de-Rabbi Natan.
\nThe mystic journey is described in later Hekhalot literature, where it is reiterated that this is extremely dangerous and can easily lead to death or madness. In these later works the legendary figure of Akiva plays an important role. He is \u201cthe very prototype of the Merkabah visionary,\u201d the person who studies the mysteries of Ezekiel\u2019s vision and attempts to experience such a vision himself. He is described as one who hears the great hymns being sung \u201cat the very throne of glory before which his soul was standing.\u201d Such mysticism, as Gershom Scholem has shown, was neither foreign to nor opposed by normative Rabbinic Judaism of the time. Obviously not everyone practiced it, but those who did were not shunned. It was, however, dangerous and therefore caution was advised. The extent of its influence on the real Akiva cannot be known, but the many references he makes to God\u2019s appearance, to the heavens and the angelic beings, indicate that it was of major importance to him and that the account of his mystical journey is credible.
\nAkiva\u2019s delving into the most esoteric arts of mysticism at that time accords well with his concept of the Torah and its origins, as well as his general attitude toward midrashic interpretation. It is quite possible that his mystical practices and inclination stand at the core of his entire attitude toward the Torah and his methods of scriptural interpretation.
\nLater mystical literature ascribes these practices to both Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Ishmael, but the early Rabbinic literature, while describing Akiva\u2019s mystic journey, makes no such mention of Ishmael. Everything recorded about Ishmael in early Rabbinic writing would indicate that he was a man of cool logic. Akiva, on the other hand, was a man of vivid and fervent emotion and enthusiasm. It was common practice to ascribe mystic teachings to earlier authorities in order to boost their credibility.<\/p>\n
AKIVA AND HEAVENLY TORAH<\/p>\n
Underlying Akiva\u2019s method of interpreting the Torah text was his concept of the nature of the Torah itself, and in this too there was also a major difference between himself and Rabbi Ishmael. It was Akiva who expanded the idea that the Torah was from heaven to mean that the entire Torah, word for word and letter for letter, existed in heaven before it was given on earth at Sinai. Whereas the phrase \u201cTorah from heaven\u201d may originally have meant that the Ten Commandments were spoken from heaven by God, to Akiva it meant that Moses literally ascended into heaven and brought the Torah down with him. As Heschel wrote, \u201cThis was the basis for expanding the concept of \u2018Torah from heaven\u2019 to embrace the entire Five Books of the Torah.\u201d In a late midrash Akiva explains why Moses says, \u201cGive ear, O heavens \u2026 let the earth hear\u201d (Deut. 32:1), placing heaven before earth. It was because he was actually in heaven when being given the Torah, far from earth. This concept was not universally accepted and does not appear in the works of the early rabbis prior to Akiva.
\nA teaching of the Sages quoted in the Talmud states that the words \u201cBecause he has spurned the word of the LORD\u201d (Num. 15:31) refer to one who says that the Torah is not from heaven, \u201ceven if he says that it is from heaven except for one verse uttered by Moses, not by God \u2026 or except a single point or deduction.\u201d This is a reflection of Akiva\u2019s doctrine, which had become the norm. The School of Ishmael, however, interprets this verse to refer to one who spurns the words spoken to Moses at Sinai in the Ten Commandments. In a tannaitic midrash Akiva\u2019s disciples objected strongly when it was suggested that the verses following \u201cSo Moses \u2026 died there\u201d (Deut. 34:5) were therefore not written by Moses but \u201cfrom here on Joshua wrote the rest.\u201d Said Rabbi Meir, \u201cIs it possible that Moses gave the Torah while it was lacking even one letter? Rather, this teaches that Moses would write whatever the Holy One told him.\u201d
\nAkiva, the mystic, had no difficulty imagining that Moses could have ascended to heaven to receive the Torah. Had not Akiva attempted to reach the seventh heaven\u2014and perhaps felt that he had done so\u2014when engaging in the mysticism of the heavenly chariot, \u201centering paradise\u201d? Akiva states clearly that the Torah Israel was given was the preexisting instrument with which the world was created. It was not like any other written work; it existed before the world existed. Nor did God dictate it to Moses. Rather Moses received it complete and entire while he was literally in heaven. In the words of Heschel:<\/p>\n
One who locates the Torah in heaven must believe that it has an existence distinct and apart, transcendent; and the Torah we discourse over on earth is the same Torah that they discourse over in heaven. This point of view sees the Torah as infinite at its core. Its content\u2014that is, that which is visible within the narrow confines of surface meaning\u2014is like a mere drop in the sea. Rabbi Akiva believed that every detail and every stylistic form has a deep significance and a hidden intent.<\/p>\n
With this is mind, it is not difficult to understand Akiva\u2019s stance when there was a discussion at a gathering of the Sages in the upper chambers of the house of Nithza in Lod on the question \u201cWhich is more important, study or practice?\u201d Akiva\u2019s answer was \u201cstudy.\u201d His compatriot Tarfon said \u201cpractice.\u201d The vote was a compromise, \u201cStudy is more important because it leads to practice.\u201d
\nAkiva\u2019s mystical inclination can also be seen clearly in his explanations of the events at Sinai. As recorded in the Mekhilta de-Rabbi Yishmael, a tannaitic midrash from the School of Rabbi Ishmael, whereas Ishmael explains the difficult verse \u201cAll the people saw the thunder\u201d (Exod. 20:15) as meaning simply, \u201cThey saw what could be seen and heard what could be heard,\u201d thus removing the mystery, Akiva says, \u201cThey saw and heard that which can be seen!\u201d Ishmael teaches that although Exodus 20:19 states, \u201cI spoke to you from the very heavens,\u201d this is contradicted by other verses such as Exodus 19:20, \u201cThe LORD came down upon Mount Sinai,\u201d and concludes that actually it was only God\u2019s voice that was heard from heaven. Thus when Moses went up to God, it was not to heaven but to the top of Sinai. Akiva solves the problem of the contradiction between the verses by teaching that God \u201clowered the upper heavens of heaven down to the top of the mountain, and so God actually did speak to them from the heavens.\u201d The passage in the midrash concludes by quoting Rabbi Judah the Prince, who lived long after both of them and rejected mysticism, reasoning that this verse cannot be taken literally. Yet that is exactly what Akiva did.<\/p>\n
AKIVA\u2019S METHODOLOGY<\/p>\n
What was Akiva\u2019s methodology in interpreting the Torah that was so influential\u2014and why did Ishmael and others often oppose it? In a famous legend related by Rav, the third-century Babylonian amora (one of the rabbis who lived in the period following the completion of the Mishnah in 200 CE), Moses asks God why He is affixing crowns\u2014ornamentations\u2014to letters in the Torah. God replies that in the future Akiva ben Yosef will interpret each detail and be able to derive great heaps of laws from them. Every letter, every crown, every word could be used to teach something. Torah language is not the same as human language.
\nBecause Akiva believed that the Torah was a divine work, he thought that each mark in it, each word, each letter had divine meaning. Nothing in it was devoid of importance. One could learn manifold ideas and laws from things that in an ordinary human book would be mere phraseology. Akiva used this method in his interpretations of all scriptural texts, both in the realm of law (halakhah) and in the realm of narratives, poetry, and prophecy (aggadah).
\nFollowing his teacher Nahum of Gimzo, Akiva used the rules of extension, which meant that such words as \u201calso,\u201d \u201conly,\u201d and et (a Hebrew word that has no semantic meaning but is merely a grammatical indicator) could be used to include or exclude matters not found in the text. Thus the word et requires an addition to whatever appears in the verse.
\nFor example Deuteronomy 10:20, \u201cYou must revere the LORD your God,\u201d has the word et in it before the phrase \u201cthe LORD your God.\u201d Therefore, according to Akiva, this word is there to add something else. It teaches that in addition to revering the Lord, you also must also revere the Sages. Another version has Akiva teaching that it means you must revere not only God but also God\u2019s Torah. Thus the word et requires an addition to whatever appears in the verse. It could be used to expand and teach other meanings. This was not acceptable to Ishmael and earned Akiva criticism from many others as well. Interpreting the first verse of the Torah, for example, in which the words \u201cheaven\u201d and \u201cearth\u201d are preceded by the word et, Ishmael explained this as a grammatical indicator showing that the heaven and the earth are direct objects and not the subject. Otherwise one might have thought that the verse meant \u201cIn the beginning the gods\u2014heaven and earth\u2014created,\u201d thus implying, as paganism taught, that heaven and earth are divinities. Akiva, on the other hand, said that et is intended to add \u201cthe sun and the moon, stars and planets\u201d and \u201ctrees, grasses, and the Garden of Eden.\u201d Akiva also taught that \u201cwhenever the word \u2018saying\u2019 is found it requires an interpretation.\u201d Akiva, who had learned this method from his teacher Nahum of Gimzo, then passed it on to his own students.
\nRabbinic literature is filled with examples of Akiva\u2019s interpretations of scriptural texts, legal and non-legal, that demonstrate his extreme methodology. Finding meaning in every detail, using words and letters as means of attaching his ideas and concepts to the text, he exercised an unprecedented freedom of interpretation, opening up the sacred text to almost unlimited horizons. Even if Akiva\u2019s interpretations are not always inherent in the text, they are of value and of interest in and of themselves. These flights of fancy were often met with scorn by Ishmael, the rationalist, and by others as well who disagreed either with the method or with the interpretation itself.
\nHere are a few examples of Akiva\u2019s work\u2014and of the comments of his opponents\u2014first in the realm of halakhah and then in aggadah. Because the root meaning \u201cto be cut off\u201d appears twice in Numbers 15:31 concerning one who \u201cspurned the word of the LORD,\u201d Akiva taught that he will be cut off \u201cfrom this world and from the world to come.\u201d Ishmael responded that \u201cbeing cut off\u201d appears in the previous verse as well and asked Akiva, \u201cDoes this indicate that he will be cut off from three worlds?! Rather \u2026 the Torah is speaking in human language.\u201d Similarly when \u201cdefiled\u201d is written three times regarding a woman suspected of adultery (Num. 5:13\u201314), Akiva took it to mean that she is defiled for three things: her husband, her paramour, and eating the priestly portion. Ishmael responded that the verses simply teach that unless there is doubt, we never make her undergo the ordeal described in Numbers 5:16\u201331. Ishmael, who favored literal and simple interpretations of Scripture, had little patience with Akiva\u2019s more esoteric explanations.
\nIn the famous dispute between Akiva and Ishmael concerning the proper punishment for the daughter of a priest who commits adultery, Ishmael, who took the more lenient position, remarked, \u201cShall we impose the stricter punishment of death by fire because you interpret the superfluous vav [in Lev. 21:9]?\u201d But Ishmael\u2019s argument was really not about interpreting that seemingly superfluous vav, because Ishmael also interpreted that letter, albeit differently. His protest was against Akiva ordering death by fire, the most terrible punishment, when that superfluous letter does not unequivocally demand it.
\nSometimes, then, objections to Akiva\u2019s interpretations were not about his methodology, but about his logic, that he played fast and loose without justification. Thus when he interpreted the words \u201cAnd every sin offering\u201d (Lev. 6:23) as meaning that the verse applied to every type of sacrifice, not only sin offerings, Rabbi Yose HaG\u2019lili objected, \u201cEven if you keep on repeating that all day, it still only refers to sin offerings.\u201d Yose then interpreted the phrase to mean that the law applies even if there is only one sin offering. In this case there is no objection to the idea that a superfluous word can be used to convey a specific meaning; HaG\u2019lili objected to the particular meaning that Akiva chose to give to it.
\nEleazar ben Azariah objected to Akiva\u2019s interpretation that the repetition of the word \u201coil\u201d in Leviticus 7:12 reduced the amount of oil required to half a log. Rather, he believed that the quantity of oil could not be determined by interpreting a verse of Scripture because it was an ancient law that had been passed on orally and carried complete authority\u2014\u201cTorah of Moses from Sinai.\u201d Were Akiva to repeat his position on this matter all day long, Eleazar still would not accept his reading of the text. Akiva attempted to attach oral laws to biblical verses, whereas others like Eleazar believed that traditional laws had authority independent of the Torah texts.
\nYet one must be careful not to come to the conclusion that Akiva used only esoteric ways of interpreting the Torah. There are many instances where the difference between him and others\u2014including Rabbi Ishmael\u2014is not in the methodology but simply in the application. A case in point is found in the Mekhilta de-Rabbi Yishmael. Three Sages were walking together\u2014Akiva, Ishmael, and Eleazar ben Azariah. They were discussing the question of the permissibility of saving a life on Shabbat. Each of them used the same methodology, namely the inference from minor to major: if in a certain matter that is minor it is permissible to desecrate the Sabbath, then certainly to save a life\u2014which is of greater import\u2014it would be permissible! There were times when Akiva and Ishmael may even have agreed on the specific law but proved it in different ways, Akiva by the repetition of a word and Ishmael by logical inference of the same phrase being found in two contexts.
\nTarfon, Akiva\u2019s older contemporary, also objected to some of Akiva\u2019s legal teachings, preferring to learn the law from precedents he had seen rather than from Akiva\u2019s methods of interpretation. In the end, however, he had to admit that Akiva was correct: \u201cTarfon saw and forgot, Akiva interprets from his own logic and finds the correct law. Anyone who separates himself from you [Akiva] separates himself from his very life!\u201d
\nSimilar objections were made to Akiva\u2019s interpretations of aggadah, non-legal texts. Sometimes the objection was to Akiva\u2019s mystical ideas that caused him to read meaning into words that were not necessary. A sharp and personal rebuke is found in an exchange concerning the interpretation of verses from Psalm 104, which refer to \u201csprings\u201d and \u201cthe inhabitants of the sky.\u201d Akiva interpreted this to mean pools where lepers immerse themselves while ministering angels\u2014\u201cinhabitants of the sky\u201d\u2014hover above them when they are healed. Ishmael said that it obviously means birds and interpreting it as angels is a distortion of the text. He advised Akiva, \u201cYou should give up these kinds of interpretations and instead study \u201cSigns of Leprosy\u201d and \u201cTents.\u201d Similarly, when Akiva interpreted \u201cthe bread of the mighty\u201d (Ps. 78:25) as \u201cbread that the angels eat,\u201d Ishmael retorted, \u201cAkiva, you are mistaken; do the angels eat bread?\u201d
\nRabbi Yose also protested against some of Akiva\u2019s interpretations, this time of Daniel 7:9 concerning thrones where \u201cthe ancient one sat.\u201d Akiva said that there was one throne for God and another for David or that one was the throne of justice, the other of charity. Here too Eleazar ben Azariah is said to have told Akiva to stop interpreting aggadic texts and stick to such matters as the laws of leprosy and tents.
\nTwo similar rebukes are recorded in the name of Yehudah ben Betera, but in neither case was it Akiva\u2019s method that was attacked, but his lack of restraint. Akiva identified Zelophehad (Num. 26:33) as the anonymous man who violated the Sabbath (Num. 15:32) and stated that Aaron became leprous when Miriam did, although the verse does not say that (Num. 12:10). In both cases Ben Betera said, \u201cAkiva! In either case you will have to give an account! If you are right, you have revealed him while the Torah wanted to shield him. If you are wrong, you have slandered a righteous person!\u201d
\nIshmael preferred to let words mean what they literally appear to mean. On rare occasions Ishmael interpreted text figuratively. In three such instances we find in the Midrash that Ishmael expanded phrases to give them a broader meaning because he did not see that the plain text made rational sense. According to Ishmael, \u201cwalks upon his staff\u201d (Exod. 21:19) means \u201cin a state of health.\u201d \u201cIf the sun has risen on him\u201d (Exod. 22:2) means the thief left him in peace. \u201cThey shall spread out the cloth\u201d (Deut. 22:17), regarding showing bloodstains to prove virginity, means \u201cThey must make the matter as clear as cloth.\u201d
\nAkiva often gave words mystical and esoteric meanings not apparent in the text. This was the result of Akiva\u2019s general view that the Torah is divine, originating word for word and letter for letter from God\u2019s dictation, with a divine vocabulary, whereas for Ishmael the language of the Torah is human language, language that can be understood the way we understand any language. This does not mean that Akiva never understood words in their plain sense. He often did. A clear example is Deuteronomy 20:8, which exempts a man from army duty if he is \u201cafraid and disheartened.\u201d Rabbi Yose HaG\u2019lili interpreted this as \u201che has a deformity,\u201d thus turning a psychological problem into a physical disability. Akiva, on the other hand said, \u201cIt means just what it says.\u201d
\nAlthough Ishmael\u2019s teachings and his disagreements with Akiva were preserved even in the works produced by Akiva\u2019s students, and vice versa, since it was Akiva\u2019s disciples who formulated the major works of halakhic Judaism, it was Akiva\u2019s view that was most influential in the determination of how to view the Torah and how to interpret it.<\/p>\n
MEETING THE CHALLENGES OF THE AGE<\/p>\n
In light of the enormous challenges that post-Temple Judaism faced, Akiva took it upon himself to prove that the Torah was the word of God, a divine book unlike any other written work, in no way the creation of human beings. In the absence of a Temple, of Jewish independence and Jewish government, living in the midst of the great and powerful Roman Empire and its civilization, and with a rising Christianity that reinterpreted the Torah as the basis for a new revelation and little else, the centrality of the Torah was the key to the survival of Judaism. In Akiva\u2019s view, nothing could more clearly differentiate Judaism from Christianity than that. Nothing could better serve to convince Jews of the importance and sacredness of the Torah, something worth one\u2019s very life.
\nOf course all the Sages held the Torah to be a book of divine revelation, but Akiva\u2019s radical view stood at one end of the spectrum, and Ishmael\u2019s more rational and logical view anchored the other. It could be said that whereas Ishmael appealed to the mind, Akiva appealed to the heart. It is fortunate for Judaism that emerging Rabbinic Judaism did not find it necessary to choose between the two. Thus even though the inclination toward Akiva\u2019s methods was clearly felt, the opposite ideas were not eliminated and continued to appear in ongoing deliberations and eventually in the written corpus of Rabbinic writings.
\nNevertheless, Akiva\u2019s approach answered a need of that time more convincingly than Ishmael\u2019s. In contrast to Ishmael\u2019s rational interpretations of Torah, it was Akiva\u2019s more mystical approach that basically prevailed over time in the popular mind as being the authentic Jewish approach. The problems that this raises today for modern biblical scholarship, as well as for modern readers in general with more questioning minds, are obvious. Because of this it was important for Heschel, for example, to point out that regardless of the popular impression, many subsequent premodern Rabbinic interpreters did not accept Akiva\u2019s doctrine and that Akiva\u2019s theory had the unfortunate effect of closing the door on any attempt to bridge the gap between traditional theology and more modern approaches.
\nTherefore it is worth pondering if Akiva\u2019s views concerning the nature of the Torah are still valid today in view of the different concepts of the origin of the biblical text and of the nature of the Divine. It is certainly true that with but few exceptions in the Orthodox world, Akiva\u2019s concept of the nature of the Torah is not accepted in modern biblical studies among either Jewish or non-Jewish scholars. Greatly respected modern Jewish biblical scholars such as Moshe Greenberg, Yohanan Muffs, Jacob Milgrom, Shalom Paul, and Jeffrey Tigay, as well as scholars of Jewish thought such as Heschel himself and Louis Jacobs, all accept the fact that the Torah is a composite work based on documents from various religious circles within ancient Israel and subject to critical study. At the same time these commentators have found ways to reconcile this with a non-fundamentalist view of the Torah as a book of divine revelation. None of them, therefore, would accept Akiva\u2019s mystical view or his method of interpreting every word, every letter, and every crown. Ishmael\u2019s oft repeated statement that the Torah speaks in human language, on the other hand, would be acceptable and resonate deeply. This does not take away from the value or ingenuity of Akiva\u2019s interpretations and those of others who followed his methodology in the development of both Jewish Law and Jewish lore, but it does relegate them to the realm of creative midrashic exegesis rather than the simple meaning of the text.
\nOn the positive side, Akiva\u2019s method allowed for a non-fundamentalist approach to the text, something that has differentiated Jewish understanding of the Torah from that of fundamentalist Christians and made it possible to appreciate the underlying truths of the Torah without having to slavishly defend the literal reading of texts that contradict scientific or historical knowledge. Similarly his actions opened the possibility of reinterpreting biblical laws in ways that made them appropriate for new situations and new understandings of moral demands. Although modern critical and historical understanding of Scripture undermines Akiva\u2019s assumptions that his interpretations are indeed implied in the text, it is still possible to appreciate his ideas and the insights that he provided. It is necessary to consider not only Akiva\u2019s specific methodology and the theological concept that stands behind it, but also the emotional content and passionate fervor that characterized his approach to the biblical text. Combining Akiva\u2019s fervor with Ishmael\u2019s cool logic might be an appropriate approach for modern Jewish exegesis. Finding ways to relate current concerns and new ideas to the ancient text, which is what Akiva did, adds to the richness of biblical interpretation and serves to keep the ancient text ever new and capable of renewal.<\/p>\n
Five<\/p>\n
THE ORGANIZER OF TORAH<\/p>\n
Akiva functioned on many levels. He was a public figure involved with the workings of the semi-autonomous administration under Rabban Gamliel II, traveling overseas and within the Land of Israel, dealing with the needy. He was also a preacher and teacher to the masses and a dispenser of justice. He was a master teacher in his own academy, inspiring others and creating a new generation of Sages. At the Yavneh academy, the Sanhedrin, he argued for his interpretation of the Torah and his ideas concerning Jewish Law and practice. But in addition he quietly took upon himself a nonpublic task of enormous importance: the preservation and organization of the unwritten traditions of Judaism.
\nWhen some seventy years after Akiva\u2019s death, Rabbi Judah the Prince, the most powerful and important leader of Judaism in the post-Temple period, assessed the importance of Akiva\u2019s work, he did not mention Akiva\u2019s belief that the Torah was given to Israel directly from God in heaven, his method of Torah interpretation, his mystical thought, or any of his teachings or public work. Rather it was Akiva\u2019s prodigious effort on his own initiative to collect, preserve, and organize all of the traditions of Judaism from the time of the giving of the Torah to his own day that he singled out:<\/p>\n
He [Rabbi Judah the Prince] called Rabbi Akiva a well-stocked storehouse. To what may he be likened? To a laborer who took his basket and went forth. When he found wheat, he put some in the basket; when he found barley, he put that in; spelt, he put that in; lentils, he put them in. Upon returning home he sorted out the wheat by itself, the barley by itself, the beans by themselves, the lentils by themselves. This is how Rabbi Akiva acted, and he arranged the whole Torah in rings.<\/p>\n
Rabbi Judah the Prince was in a special position to be able to appreciate Akiva\u2019s work, since he was the one who took all the material that Akiva eventually produced, as further developed by his disciple Rabbi Meir, and created from it the authoritative Mishnah that brought the tannaitic period to a close. Rabbi Judah saw this as Akiva\u2019s main work and his major contribution to Rabbinic Judaism. The Babylonian Talmud says that Rabbi Judah was born on the very day that Akiva died. This was a way of stressing the connection between the two, as if to say that Judah took up Akiva\u2019s mantle, and in a sense he did, since he brought Akiva\u2019s work, the Mishnah, to fruition. All further discussions were based on it, but no further major changes or additions were made. It is in that sense that Akiva was the main systematizer of the Mishnah.
\nAkiva took it upon himself to amass a collection of all the ancient unwritten traditions, to sort them into appropriate categories, and to organize them in a way that would make it possible to remember and study them. One reason that this was so important was to ensure that Torah\u2014in the larger sense of all religious teachings\u2014would not be forgotten. As the tannaitic midrash Sifre Deuteronomy put it, \u201cHad not Akiva stood up in his time, would not Torah have been forgotten from among Israel?\u201d This was said of no other early Sage.
\nObviously there was concern that as this material accumulated\u2014some of which was hundreds of years old, going back to the time of Ezra, and some, according to tradition, going back to Moses himself\u2014it could so easily be lost. This was especially troublesome because in order to differentiate this material from the sacred Scripture, it was forbidden to reduce this material to writing in any official way. \u201cWords that are written you may not say by heart. Words transmitted orally you are not permitted to recite from writing.\u2026 \u2018These\u2019 [words in the Torah] you may write, but you may not write halakhot [laws].\u201d
\nThere was a collection of canonical works that were considered sacred, but nothing was to be added to them. In the late Second Temple period, texts continued to be written outside of the Pharisaic community. Groups such as the Dead Sea Sect created an entire new set of sacred writings, and now after the destruction of the Temple, the new Christian sect was creating its own set of sacred writings, which they came to call \u201cthe New Covenant\u201d (Brit ha-Hadashah). The Sages continued the way of the Pharisees, accumulating the teachings of their leaders, which some called \u201coral Torah,\u201d in memory but not in writing. Their problem was finding a way to preserve these traditions, laws, and interpretations in some form that could be more easily retained in memory and passed on to future generations.
\nThe usual way to do this was to remember those laws and ideas that were connected to biblical texts. This method was known as Midrash\u2014searching or expounding upon the sacred texts. The problem with this was twofold. First, the laws of the written Torah are not organized in any systematic way, so connecting them to these texts does not make it easy to organize them. Furthermore the laws found in one book of the Torah will often contradict those in another. Another complication is that many laws and practices had accumulated that were not really connected to any specific text at all. Preserving them was a very arduous matter. Some Sages made collections of these laws for themselves for purposes of teaching, but nothing that was substantial or comprehensive. And of course as the years went by and each generation added its own material to what it received, it became very cumbersome and difficult to preserve these traditions without writing them down.
\nAnother of Akiva\u2019s reasons for this monumental undertaking may have been because of his concern about the spread of Christian doctrines (see chapter 4). His older contemporary Paul, a Jew who accepted Jesus as the Messiah and a divine being, wished to take ownership of the Torah from Judaism, affirming its sacredness as the \u201cOld Covenant\u201d while proclaiming its supersession by \u201cthe New Covenant.\u201d Akiva refuted this claim, professing that the Torah was neither old nor was it superseded by new scripture, and certainly not the preface to the new Christian books. Rather it was the basis and part and parcel of all the unwritten laws and interpretations. As the Talmud later put it, \u201cWhatever a disciple will teach before his master has already been revealed to Moses at Sinai.\u201d To Akiva those extra-biblical developments were the result of interpretations of the Torah that were inherent in the text itself and had equal sanctity. From a functional point of view, the formats of midrashim (laws connected to biblical texts) and mishnayot (laws not related to Scripture) were to Judaism what the \u201cNew Covenant\u201d was to Christianity. The difference was that they did not abolish the authority of Torah; if anything, they strengthened it.
\nBy preserving these traditions and laws and anchoring them in the text of the Torah, it was possible to further distinguish Judaism and Christianity and to claim that an important and intrinsic part of the original covenant was totally unknown to Christianity. Torah was more than the Five Books of Moses, and only Judaism had all of this material. The Sages contended that there was more oral material than written Torah and that God\u2019s covenant was made with Israel \u201conly for the sake of that which was given orally,\u201d thus excluding Christians, who did not possess that oral material.
\nRabbinic Judaism developed at the same time that early Christianity was changing from a Jewish sect into a separate religion, claiming to be the true Israel. The development of both Midrash and the Mishnah provided a clear differentiation between the two faiths, emphasizing both the sacredness of the Torah and the existence of extra-biblical Jewish teachings.
\nFor the same reason, Akiva was also concerned to see to it that translations of the Bible reflected the interpretations of the Sages, thus further \u201crabbinizing\u201d or \u201cJudaizing\u201d the text. His disciple Aquila, a convert to Judaism, translated the Bible into Greek in a way that corrected many of the passages in the Septuagint (the ancient Greek translation that was in general use at the time), passages that might have led to Christian conclusions or that represented alternative readings to the masoretic (authoritative Hebrew) text. For Christians the Septuagint had become the standard text, even when it differed from the Hebrew text. Aquila\u2019s new Greek translation of the entire Bible instead reflected Akiva\u2019s interpretations. The Aramaic translation of the Torah, usually known as Targum Onkelos, was also done in a way that accepted Akiva\u2019s teachings and those of his followers.<\/p>\n
COLLECTING THE TRADITIONS<\/p>\n
According to the Jerusalem Talmud, \u201cIt is Rabbi Akiva who systemized the Midrash, Laws [Mishnah], and aggadot [non-legal material]. There are those who say that this was done by the men of the Great Assembly. What Rabbi Akiva did was to institute general and specific rules.\u201d It is true that Akiva formulated general rules and then applied them to specific cases. We see this in the Mishnah, for example, concerning doing work on the Sabbath in order to be able to perform specific mitzvot that needed to be done on that day. Akiva formulated a general rule: \u201cAnything that it is possible to do before the Sabbath does not push aside the Sabbath, but anything that cannot be done before the Sabbath and must be done to perform the mitzvah does push aside the Sabbath.\u201d His main work, however, was systematizing all the non-written material into brief, logical codes.
\nThe Tosefta describes how Akiva enlisted the help of others in collecting the traditions: \u201cWhen Rabbi Akiva would systematize laws for his students, he would say, \u2018If anyone has heard some reasonable argument against his fellow student, let him come forth and tell it.\u2019 \u201d If there was some variant teaching, he wanted to hear it and judge it; he was eager to gather whatever traditions others had heard and use them in editing his collection of laws. In response to Akiva\u2019s request we hear of several students\u2014including at least one who was a follower of Rabbi Ishmael\u2014quoting laws of the Schools of Hillel and Shammai. As Rabbi Judah the Prince said, Akiva collected all the material he could and arranged it \u201cin rings,\u201d in appropriate formats.
\nInitially Akiva accumulated the material and preserved it in two collections\u2014Midrash and Mishnah. According to Rabbi Yohanan, a third-century amora from the Land of Israel, both formats were used by Akiva, \u201cOur Mishnah comes directly from Rabbi Meir, the Tosefta from Rabbi Nehemiah, the Sifra from Rabbi Judah, and the Sifre from Rabbi Shimon, and they all are according to the view of Rabbi Akiva.\u201d The Sifra and the Sifre are collections of Midrash. Akiva felt that both forms, Midrash and Mishnah, were important. Mishnah collected the laws according to topic regardless of biblical texts. Midrash, from the root meaning \u201cto search out, to inquire,\u201d consisted of a careful explanation of the biblical texts following the order of the Torah itself and was probably the older of the two forms. Attaching everything to the biblical text provided a convenient if problematic framework. Midrashic works were eventually compiled for each of the four Torah books that contain laws: Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. Following the order of the Torah, these works preserve interpretations both of legal sections and aggadah (narratives), thereby connecting laws and interpretations to biblical verses.
\nAkiva was not the only Sage concerned with organizing this post-biblical material. Rabbi Ishmael, his contemporary, friend, and frequent rival, also undertook this task, but unlike Akiva, he confined himself to compiling just Midrash. Two sets of midrashic works connected to those four books of the Torah were eventually compiled, one of the School of Rabbi Ishmael and one of the School of Rabbi Akiva. Both Akiva and Ishmael created midrashic collections, the final compilations of which took place well over a hundred years after the deaths of both Sages. Although there are differences of terminology between the two schools, they quote and borrow from one another. The collections of Ishmael, which are more extensive, emphasize his own rules of exposition, while Akiva\u2019s reflect his more extreme methods of interpretation (see chapter 4). Both are worthy contributions to Jewish interpretation and understanding of Scripture.<\/p>\n
ORGANIZING THE MISHNAH<\/p>\n
The change in emphasis from laws connected to biblical passages to those that carry their own justification and explanation came about in the post-Temple period when there was a need to edit the laws in a way that could more easily be transmitted and preserved. Akiva and his followers championed that method, and the Mishnah that Rabbi Judah the Prince eventually redacted was based on their work. As important as compiling Midrash was, Akiva\u2019s work in creating the form and content of the Mishnah was even more crucial. In the end, it was Mishnah that became the official foundation for Jewish Law, for only some of the collections of Midrash were preserved, and they did not carry the same weight in legal decisions as did the Mishnah. Once Rabbi Judah the Prince officially promulgated the Mishnah, it became the authoritative collection of Jewish Law upon which all further discussions were based.
\nAkiva had developed a system of interpretation of the Torah that was more comprehensive than any before, since it offered greater opportunities for deriving or attaching laws to the biblical text, yet paradoxically Akiva\u2019s greatest contribution to the development of Jewish Law was in the realm of the Mishnah, the great codex of Jewish law that, for the first time, attempted to separate received law from connections to and dependence on the biblical text, instead organizing it according to categories of law without the need for references to biblical sources.
\nIshmael, on the other hand, is not credited with the creation of the Mishnah and, on the contrary, seems to have been opposed to this form of transmission of law. As talmudic scholar David Weiss Halivni writes, \u201cRabbi Ishmael may have insisted on adhering to the older mode of learning, that of Midrash, and frowned upon the innovative mode of Mishnah.\u201d The Mishnah is mentioned only in sources deriving from the School of Akiva, never from those of Ishmael. It was Akiva who championed this form and who first created a complete version. Presumably it was Akiva who selected the six major categories, or orders (sedarim, sing. seder), in the Mishnah: Agriculture, Holy Days, Women, Damages (Civil Law), Holy Things, Purities. These, in turn, were subdivided into individual tractates dealing with specific matters.
\nThe Mishnah organized the law into logical categories, not according to the chronology of biblical texts, and is confined almost exclusively to legal matters. Although aggadic matters (non-legal, such as stories and aphorisms) appear in the Mishnah from time to time, there is only one section exclusively devoted to non-legal matters, the section known as Avot, Fathers (also known as Pirke Avot, Ethics of the Fathers). It may have once served as a preface and introduction to the entire work.
\nAlthough the Mishnah, at least in the version we have today, consists largely of laws without reference to their origin in the Torah, it is not correct to assume that law and Bible text were always separated. In Mishnah Sotah 5:1, for example, Akiva rules that the water of the Sotah (woman suspected of adultery) tests not only the woman but also her lover and, if guilty, makes her forbidden to her husband and her lover. He then states that the biblical proof of this is in the repetition of the words \u201center\u201d in Numbers 5:22 and 5:27 and \u201cdefiled herself\u201d in 5:27 and 5:29. In the very first chapter of the entire Mishnah, the verse from Deuteronomy 6:7, \u201cwhen you stay at home and when you are away, when you lie down and when you get up,\u201d is quoted by both the School of Hillel and the School of Shammai to prove their differing ideas concerning when and how one is to recite the Sh\u2019ma. And there are many other such examples.
\nThe real difference between Mishnah and Midrash is not the absence of biblical texts, but that in the Mishnah they are not required and the order of the laws is determined by topic, not biblical chronology.
\nTo collect all the legal material, sift and sort it, and then organize it properly was Akiva\u2019s task. But Rabbi Akiva did not create the Mishnah by himself out of thin air. Brief collections of such laws had existed long before Akiva and were passed on orally from generation to generation. Certainly since the time of Hillel and Shammai, first century BCE, and probably even before, the Sages taught them to their students, who memorized them. The earliest Sages are recorded in chapter 1 of Avot: the men of the Great Assembly, Shimon the Just, Antigonus of Soko, Yose ben Yoezer, Yose ben Yohanan, Joshua ben Perahyah, Nittai the Arbeli, Judah ben Tabbai, Shimon ben Shetah, Shemiah, and Avtalyon\u2014and finally the great legendary Hillel and Shammai, who each founded an entire school of scholars whose purpose was to develop and establish Jewish Law.
\nAlthough students sometimes made informal notes, the material had to be formulated verbally exactly as it was told to them and then learned by heart. This required that it be repeated over and over. Written notes by Sages and students recording their own teachers\u2019 words were not official and were unreliable; they were never used in public teaching. Individuals gifted with excellent memories were given material and served as the reciters in the academy. They were chosen not for their intellect but for the ability to memorize and transmit traditions without making corrections or changes. They were known as Tannaim (sing. tanna), \u201creciters.\u201d \u201cThe tanna recites and he understands not what he says.\u201d \u201cTannaim\u201d was the name later used to describe all the early Sages until the time of Rabbi Judah the Prince, who prepared an official, authorized version of the Mishnah around 200 CE. Even then his work was not committed to writing but preserved only by oral transmission.
\nAkiva was intent on creating a complete collection of all of them. Different pupils had different traditions, and there was no one complete set of teachings accepted by all. These formulae were in need of revision, reorganization, and order, and Akiva took all the material and edited it, correcting it and giving it structure. He collected all the traditions that he could and then placed them in logical sequence that could be memorized and repeated as the basis for discussion or brought up for reference whenever needed. It is remarkable that he could do this at a time when putting these permanently in writing was not permitted. Of course he was able to consult the informal notes that his pupils and others had collected, and perhaps he even made notes himself, although that is by no means certain. The official text existed only in the head of the tanna, whose task it was to present the material on call. When he completed a section, Akiva taught it to a tanna, who then taught it to another tanna, and so on.
\nAkiva\u2019s pupils continued his work after his death, and eventually it fell to Rabbi Judah the Prince to take the various versions that had been created by his time and make one final version of all the laws, which was officially recited and accepted by all. Material he did not include was remembered and preserved as outside teachings, much of which was collected in the Tosefta (addition), which was organized in sections parallel to those of the Mishnah.
\nRabbi Judah\u2019s Mishnah was based on Akiva\u2019s work as transmitted by his pupil Rabbi Meir, but it was not identical to Akiva\u2019s, since Judah made the final decisions about what was included and what was not. Unfortunately there is no way to know exactly what Akiva\u2019s Mishnah did or did not contain. That information existed only in the minds and memory of those who knew it and who have long since perished. In view of Akiva\u2019s interest in anchoring traditional laws to biblical texts, perhaps his Mishnah contained more biblical verses than are there now. The eventual completion, editing, and publication of the Mishnah by Rabbi Judah the Prince, some seventy years after Akiva\u2019s death, was the culmination of a process that Akiva had undertaken. With that, the period of the Mishnah and its teachers came to an end.
\nThat mishnaic method\u2014establishing laws that need not have explanations or justification\u2014did not continue after the compilation of the Mishnah itself. On the contrary, the discussions in the academies following the completion of the Mishnah were an attempt to reconnect the Mishnah with the biblical sources of the law and explain them. They became a new collection known as the Gemara, and the Mishnah and Gemara together became the Talmud.
\nIn the words of David Weiss Halivni, \u201cEsteem does not correlate with adherence. Rabbinic literature esteems R. Akiba and his school far more than it does R. Ishmael and his school, yet the mode of learning it finally adopted is closer to the school of R. Ishmael than it is to the school of R. Akiba.\u201d It may be true that the method advocated by Rabbi Ishmael, law anchored in the Bible and taught together with the scriptural text, prevailed in talmudic discussion, but it was the Mishnah, based on the work of the School of Akiva, that provided the foundation and the framework for these further discussions. It is impossible to even imagine the later stage of Rabbinic Judaism without the Mishnah. All further attempts at Jewish codification were based one way or another on the framework that it provided.
\nBoth Akiva and Ishmael developed an extensive literature of Torah interpretation that has remained important and influential to this day, yet in the end, it was Akiva\u2019s approach and method that became the dominant teaching. According to the Mishnah, \u201cwhen Akiva died the glory of the Torah died,\u201d a saying that is then expanded in the Talmud to read that when he died \u201cthe arms of the Torah ceased and the fountains of wisdom were stopped up.\u201d<\/p>\n
CONNECTING ORAL TRADITIONS TO BIBLICAL VERSES<\/p>\n
Even though the Mishnah, Akiva\u2019s supreme creation, does not connect most of its laws with biblical verses, the attempt to find a connection between oral laws and verses in the Torah text was another major part of Akiva\u2019s work and became one of his most important contributions to the foundation of Rabbinic Judaism. As Rabbi Joshua said when hearing Akiva prove that a law that previously had been simply a traditional teaching was anchored in a biblical verse, \u201cWho will remove the dust from your eyes, Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai \u2026 your pupil, Rabbi Akiva, has found a text in the Torah proving it!\u201d
\nAccording to the Sifra, the tannaitic midrash to Leviticus, Akiva denied that there are two Torahs, a written Torah and an oral Torah, as many Sages, including Rabban Gamliel himself, had taught. \u201cAgnitus, the [Roman] general, asked Rabban Gamliel, \u2018How many Torahs were given to Israel?\u2019 to which Rabban Gamliel replied, \u2018Two, one oral and one written.\u2019 \u201d When the word torot (the plural of Torah) in the verse \u201cThese are the laws, rules, and torot that the LORD instructed\u201d (Lev. 26:46) was interpreted as meaning \u201cTwo Torahs were given to Israel, one written and one oral,\u201d Akiva demurred: \u201cDid Israel have two Torahs? Did not Israel have many Torahs?\u201d He then pointed to the many times Scripture uses the phrase \u201cand this is the Torah of \u2026\u201d (Torah meaning \u201cinstruction\u201d). Akiva then interpreted the end of the verse, \u201cthat the LORD gave between Himself and the Israelite people through Moses on Mount Sinai,\u201d by explaining, \u201cMoses became the messenger between Israel and their Father in heaven. This teaches that the Torah, its laws, its fine points, and its explanations were given at Sinai by Moses.\u201d
\nAccording to Akiva, all the laws, written or unwritten, were part of the same divine revelation. All \u201cTorah\u201d is one corpus. Akiva objected to the concept of a separate oral Torah because it implies that what is written and what is conveyed orally are two different things. He feared that oral traditions without a biblical basis would be dismissed as unauthentic, lacking a divine origin. He believed that while the Torah contains many different \u201cinstructions,\u201d torot, the written Torah and the oral traditions, \u201cits fine points and explanations,\u201d were all given at the same time and are all part of God\u2019s covenant with Israel. They cannot be separated, and one part is not less holy than the other.
\nAs Louis Finkelstein, the great scholar of Rabbinic Judaism and biographer of Akiva, wrote, \u201cRabbi Akiva had taught that virtually the whole of the Oral Tradition could be derived by proper exegesis of the Written Pentateuch. Hence there was no need for a separate Oral Tradition.\u201d And as taught in Avot: Moses received Torah from God at Sinai and then passed it on to the elders. This passage deliberately does not say \u201cthe Torah,\u201d but \u201cTorah,\u201d in order to include both the written Torah and all other unwritten teachings. Both are equally divine in origin.
\nWhereas Rabbi Ishmael taught that \u201cgeneralities were spoken at Sinai, details at the Tent of Meeting,\u201d Akiva insisted that both \u201cwere spoken at Sinai, repeated at the Tent of Meeting and again in the steppes of Moab.\u201d While Akiva sought to find a source for the laws that were followed but not found in the written Torah, the Jerusalem Talmud says that Ishmael was quite ready to admit that there are times when the Torah says one thing, but the received unwritten law says another. He was not concerned about finding any justification for these laws in the written text. \u201cIn three matters the halakhah [received law] circumvents the Torah, and in one instance it circumvents midrash [Rabbinic rules of interpretation].\u201d He then describes them; one example here will suffice: regarding a divorce Deuteronomy 24:1 states, \u201cand he writes her a book [sefer] of divorcement,\u201d while the law says, \u201cany type of detached document.\u201d
\nAkiva felt it was his task to prove that all the Torah was one and that whatever was not written in the Torah was implicit in it. Thus anyone who claimed to accept the Torah and who did not acknowledge the divinity of the so-called oral traditions was rejecting the true teaching of God. This was also an important way for Akiva to differentiate Judaism from Christianity: he held that a religion that did not contain these oral traditions was not an authentic representative of the divine revelation.<\/p>\n
JUSTIFYING ORAL TRADITIONS<\/p>\n
A collection of Akiva\u2019s teachings in which he justifies ancient oral traditions by making a connection to a biblical text is found in the Mishnah. This occurred on a day that became so notorious that it is referred to simply as \u201cthat day.\u201d It was the day when Rabban Gamliel II was removed from his position as head of the academy and Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah was appointed in his place. Gamliel\u2019s rule had been autocratic and at times cruel. His deposition encouraged many of the Sages to proclaim ideas important to them in the new, more open atmosphere that now prevailed. On that day Rabbi Akiva conveyed three different rulings on widely different subjects. In all of them he followed the same methodology, connecting an oral teaching with a written text. A fourth ruling, also following Akiva\u2019s methodology, is recorded in the name of Joshua ben Hyrkanus.
\nA recent study of these widely dissimilar teachings has convincingly shown that they are grouped together because they all illustrate not only Akiva\u2019s powers of interpretation but also his basic concern: finding a scriptural basis for an oral law that was unquestioned but not proved to originate in Bible text. It is in fact unusual that the Mishnah, which is based on the separation of law from Scripture, should contain these discussions at all. Perhaps this demonstrates that Akiva saw no contradiction in his concern to create a code of received law according to topics, the Mishnah, and his desire to prove that all these laws were rooted in the written Torah.
\nIn each of these teachings Akiva asserted his method of basing all traditions, both legal (halakhah) and non-legal (aggadah) on biblical texts. Two of each kind are found in this collection in the Mishnah.
\nThe first two deal with matters of law. Akiva used the grammatical form of a verb in Leviticus 11:33 to prove that one impure vessel makes another vessel impure. Although this had long been accepted as the law, it was based only on oral tradition, and there was fear that it would not be followed. Since the verse does not say tamei, \u201cis unclean,\u201d but yitma, Akiva read it as yitame, \u201cmakes unclean.\u201d In this way he provided a scriptural basis for the law. Since the words in the Torah have no vowels, it was not unusual for the Sages to change the usual reading in order to derive their desired meaning from it.
\nAkiva next dealt with the problem that arose because two verses, Numbers 35:4 and 35:5, give different figures concerning the geographic limits of cities of refuge. He stated that they do not contradict one another but that each one refers to a different matter, one to open space for cattle, the other to the Sabbath limit. The Sabbath limit, the distance one was allowed to walk on the Sabbath, was two thousand cubits. This was accepted as the law, although never stated specifically in the Torah. Here Akiva grounded it in a particular verse in the Torah. Not every Sage was interested in finding such connections. We see this clearly in what follows, for a later Sage, Rabbi Eliezer ben Yose HaG\u2019lili, simply stated that the two thousand cubits in the verse refers to the inclusion of fields and vineyards. He was not concerned to find a verse that would specify the Sabbath law as was Rabbi Akiva.
\nThe last two matters were aggadic, non-legal. Exodus 15:1 contains the word \u201csaying,\u201d which seems superfluous: \u201cThen Moses and the Israelites sang this song to the LORD. They said, saying.\u2026\u201d Akiva applied his general rule that whenever the word \u201csaying\u201d is found, it must be interpreted as teaching something specific; therefore this word teaches that when Moses sang his Song at the Sea, the Israelites repeated each verse after him, \u201cas when reciting the Hallel.\u201d However Rabbi Nehemiah then said, \u201cThey recited it as we recite the Sh\u2019ma, not as we recite the Hallel.\u201d The contrast between Akiva and Nehemiah is not merely on how the Song at the Sea had been recited, but on the very use of the extra word in the verse to teach us something. Nehemiah did not refer to the verse at all and made no attempt to learn from it, whereas for Akiva each word was important and could teach us important matters.
\nThe fourth mishnah concerns the question of Job\u2019s motivation for serving God. Rabbi Joshua ben Hyrkanus asserted, on the basis of Job 13:15, \u201cThough he slay me, yet will I trust in Him,\u201d and Job 27:5, \u201cUntil I die I will maintain my integrity,\u201d that it was not fear but love that motivated Job. Upon hearing this, Joshua again said, \u201cWho will remove the dust from your eyes, Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai, for all your days you expounded that Job served God only from fear, as it is said, \u2018a blameless and upright man who fears God and shuns evil\u2019 (Job 1:8), and now Joshua, the pupil of your pupil [Akiva] has proved that he acted from love!\u201d Joshua\u2019s words to the long-deceased Ben Zakkai would be strange if Ben Zakkai had been pleased with the fact that Job served only from fear. It is understandable, however, if we assume that Ben Zakkai stated what he did simply because the verse in Job says that specifically and there is none that mentions his love of God. Ben Hyrkanus, however, following in the footsteps of Akiva, who connected love of God with the willingness to die for God, proved love of God from verses that state that Job remained faithful to God \u201cthough he slay me\u201d and \u201cuntil I die.\u201d Like Akiva, he found a way to connect his idea with the text of the Bible.
\nIt is, of course, impossible to know if this compilation of teachings is an accurate reflection of what happened \u201con that day\u201d or if it is a literary construct intended to demonstrate Akiva\u2019s methodology and its acceptance as the correct way to interpret laws and narratives, which is the implication of Joshua\u2019s laudatory comments. Certainly the fourth mishnah is different enough to make one assume that it was placed here mainly because it included the saying concerning Ben Zakkai that was so similar to that in the first mishnah. These examples of Akiva\u2019s methods and the praise and approval given by his teacher Rabbi Joshua are further expressions of the high regard the other Sages had for Akiva\u2019s powers of midrashic interpretation and his ability to connect traditional law with biblical verses.
\nAkiva indeed preserved Torah\u2014traditional teachings\u2014when they were in danger of being forgotten in two ways: attaching oral traditions to the written text and creating the Mishnah, a comprehensive and logical arrangement of Jewish Law.<\/p>\n
Six<\/p>\n
AKIVA AND THE SONG OF SONGS<\/p>\n
The theme of love\u2014both loving God and loving humankind\u2014plays a central role in Akiva\u2019s teaching. It is for this reason that the biblical book Song of Songs had a particular place of importance in his thinking. No other book, with the exception of the Torah itself, was as precious and holy to him.
\nAkiva\u2019s expression of his deep love of Song of Songs is found in the Mishnah as a part of a larger discussion concerning which scrolls are to be considered sacred and which are not. It is recorded that \u201con that day,\u201d the day when Rabbi Eliezer ben Azariah replaced Rabban Gamliel as head of the academy (see chapter 5), one of the matters discussed and voted on was whether or not certain well-known books were to be considered part of kitvei hakodesh, Holy Scripture. Prior to that time, the end of the first century CE, only the contents of the first two sections of the Hebrew Bible, the Torah and the Prophets, had been formulated.
\nThe Mishnah states that two books were discussed, officially voted on, and accepted: Ecclesiastes (Kohelet) and Song of Songs. Until then, these books had been considered controversial. Ecclesiastes contains ideas about God and piety that appear to be in conflict with normative biblical views and frequently contains inherent contradictions as well, while Song of Songs can easily be read as an erotic poem, and indeed was. The dispute concerning Ecclesiastes had already divided the Schools of Hillel and Shammai. Hillel considered it sacred and Shammai rejected it. During that same period of time Ecclesiastes was found in the library of Scripture of Qumran, indicating that for some Jewish groups it was considered canonical. For the Sages, it was still a matter of debate. The dispute about Ecclesiastes, according to Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya, was that while Song of Songs was written b\u2019ruah hakodesh, \u201cunder the Holy Spirit\u201d\u2014that is, with divine inspiration\u2014Ecclesiastes was written b\u2019hokhmato shel Shlomo, solely through the wisdom of Solomon. Human wisdom was not sufficient. Divine inspiration was required.
\nIn the discussion in the Mishnah, Rabbi Yose rejected Ecclesiastes outright, but when he dared to suggest that there was a controversy concerning Song of Songs, Rabbi Akiva objected vehemently: \u201cHeaven forbid! No one in Israel ever suggested that Song of Songs was not canonical. For the entire world is not as precious as the day upon which the Song of Songs was given to Israel, for all of the writings are holy and Song of Songs is the Holy of Holies! If there was a controversy, it was only concerning Ecclesiastes.\u201d
\nOne could not imagine a more extreme view than that concerning the nature of Song of Songs. Akiva\u2019s view that no one ever objected to Song of Sings was his own. The Mishnah itself indicates that there was a difference of opinion concerning both books but that \u201cthey debated and decided\u201d that both were sacred Scripture, thus putting an end to the controversy forever. With that decision the biblical canon was complete. It is quite likely that one of the reasons for the official vote concerning the canonization of Scripture was the need to strengthen Judaism against claims made by Christians and others concerning the holiness of their books. In order to make an official statement about what was in and what was out of the Bible, such decisions were necessary.
\nAnd so by the end of the first century CE the Hebrew canon was complete and Song of Songs was a part of it\u2014not only a part, but according to Akiva \u201cthe Holy of Holies.\u201d His reason was simple: Song of Songs was the ultimate expression of love between God and Israel, an expression that was found nowhere else in such explicit form.
\nThe truth is that long before then the Song of Songs had already been interpreted by some Sages as an allegory depicting the relationship of God and Israel. Avot de-Rabbi Natan (ARN) fancifully dated this interpretation back to biblical times, claiming that three books, Proverbs, Song of Songs, and Ecclesiastes, had been suppressed because they were thought to be mere human parables \u201cuntil the men of Hezekiah [the pious eighth-century-BCE king of Judah] came and interpreted them.\u201d This was based on an interpretation of Proverbs 25:1, \u201cThese too are proverbs of Solomon, which the men of King Hezekiah of Judah copied,\u201d as meaning not \u201ccopied\u201d but \u201cinterpreted.\u201d In actual fact, we know that Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai himself, soon after the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE, had interpreted verses of Song of Songs as referring to the people of Israel and not merely to some man and woman in love. In a midrash ascribed to the School of Rabbi Ishmael, many of the Song of Songs verses are interpreted as describing either the giving of the Torah at Sinai or the crossing of the Sea at the time of the Exodus. However it is also true that in non-scholarly circles many ordinary people looked upon that book as a collection of love songs. According to the Tosefta, a supplement to the Mishnah, Akiva himself lashed out at those who sang verses from Song of Songs at banquets and treated it as nothing more than a simple song: \u201cThey will have no portion in the world to come.\u201d
\nAkiva\u2019s statement that it was the Holy of Holies served to confirm the transformation of the Song of Songs in Jewish tradition from a profane work into a divine love song in the strongest possible terms. More than this, Akiva believed that the Song of Songs not merely described the Sinai theophany but also \u201cwas given\u201d on the same day that the Torah was given at Sinai, so that the status of its holiness was no less than that of the Torah itself. His use of the term \u201cwas given\u201d is significant, in that elsewhere that expression is used in Jewish tradition only about the Torah itself. All other books of Scripture were considered simply written by human beings under divine inspiration.
\nThe Babylonian Talmud ascribes books to various people: Samuel wrote Judges and Ruth, David wrote the Psalms, Jeremiah wrote Kings and Lamentations. Some books are said to have been edited by others: Hezekiah and his group \u201cwrote\u201d Isaiah, Proverbs, Song of Songs, and Ecclesiastes; and the Men of the Great Assembly, the proverbial group assembled by Ezra, \u201cwrote\u201d (meaning edited) Ezekiel, the Minor Prophets, Daniel, and Esther. A later midrash, Song of Songs Rabbah, edited in the Land of Israel sometime between the fifth and eighth centuries, specifies that Song of Songs, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes were written by Solomon. Akiva would have disputed that, since he considered Song of Songs to be divinely given at the same time as the Torah. And so Akiva contended that like the Torah, which was written not by Moses but by God and came directly from heaven, so the Song of Songs was uttered by God Himself at Sinai. For Akiva, who steeped himself in mystical practices and speculation (see chapter 4), Song of Songs too was a mystical work, on a level with the study of the heavenly chariot and the secret speculation about Creation.
\nAlthough other Sages were also convinced of the uniqueness of this biblical book, they did not think of it quite as Akiva did. As mentioned above, in the midrash Song of Songs Rabbah there are many Sages who make it clear that in their view the book was written by King Solomon. The Midrash takes the position that \u201cwherever it states \u2018King Solomon\u2019 it means King Solomon, and wherever it states simply \u2018King\u2019 it means the Holy One Blessed be He,\u201d or that \u201c \u2018King Solomon\u2019 refers to the King to whom shalom [peace] belongs [i.e., God]. \u2018King\u2019 refers to the community of Israel.\u201d
\nAkiva\u2019s \u201cfixation on Song of Songs,\u201d as Judah Goldin, the great scholar of Rabbinic Midrash, put it, was particularly strong. He did not create the interpretation of Song of Songs as the story of the relationship of God and Israel, but he carried it to new heights of importance. Akiva, the man who stressed that one of the most important teachings of Judaism was that one must love God with all of one\u2019s mind, heart, and very life (see chapter 7) was naturally drawn to the one book in Scripture that devoted itself to the depiction of the human relationship of love between man and woman and could be used to describe the relationship of Israel and God in those same terms.<\/p>\n
LOVE OF GOD AND HUMAN LOVE<\/p>\n
As historian and scholar Gerson Cohen pointed out so eloquently, terms describing the relationship of God and Israel that relate to human love, marriage, fidelity and infidelity, adultery, and divorce are already found in the Torah itself and, later, in the Prophets. The demand in the Ten Commandments for absolute fidelity to God and God alone is at the root of this concept, and \u201cthose who love Me\u201d are mentioned there specifically (Exod. 20:6). Exodus 34:14\u201315 uses terminology of lusting and jealousy as descriptive of the relationship of God and Israel. Love of God is a major theme of the book of Deuteronomy, especially in the verses that became part of the doxology recited twice daily, \u201cAnd you shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might\u201d (Deut. 6:5). Hosea and Jeremiah extended these metaphors significantly; as Heschel wrote, Hosea \u201ccame to spell out the astonishing fact of God\u2019s love for man. God is not only the Lord who demands justice; He is also a God who is in love with His people.\u201d Yet there was no single book devoted entirely to such love. The Song of Songs answered that need and fulfilled that purpose.
\nSince the love of God was the inspiration behind much of Akiva\u2019s thinking and actions, it was only natural that the Song of Songs, the supreme song of love, should have meant so much to him. The two motivating factors that lead humankind to serve God\u2014love and fear (the latter sometimes interpreted as reverence or awe)\u2014have always been at the core of Israelite religion. It may be argued that both are needed. As Sifre Deuteronomy remarks in a section that is ascribed to the School of Ishmael, \u201cOnly in regard to God do we find love combined with fear and fear combined with love.\u201d But that very same section makes it clear that although there may be times when fear is needed in order to move one to obey God\u2019s demands, love is a far stronger motivation: \u201cHe who performs out of love receives a doubled and redoubled reward.\u201d
\nAll the Sages quoted there in Sifre Deuteronomy agree that the phrase in Deuteronomy about the love for God \u201cwith all your soul\u201d means \u201cwith your very life\u201d\u2014or \u201cuntil the last drop of life is wrung out of you.\u201d In the Talmud, Rabbi Akiva interprets \u201cyour soul\u201d as \u201ceven if He takes your soul.\u201d His disciple Rabbi Meir similarly taught that \u201cwith all your soul\u201d refers to Isaac, \u201cwho bound himself on the altar.\u201d Rabbi Akiva explained that the term for \u201cwith all your might\u201d (b\u2019khol me\u2019odekha) is related to the word middah, \u201cmeasure\u201d: one must love God \u201cwith whatever measure God metes out to you, whether for good or punishment.\u201d This is a frequent theme in Akiva\u2019s teachings, and he described how many biblical heroes, most notably Job, accepted both the good and the bad from God, blessing God no matter what.
\nThe various stories of Akiva\u2019s final moments all describe him as referring to these verses from Deuteronomy: \u201cI always wondered if when the time came, I would be able to fulfill the verse \u2018with all your soul.\u2019 \u201d The concept of love of God requiring one to be willing to die for the sake of God may not have originated with Akiva, but it was he who stressed it. Late in his life, at a time when Jews were being persecuted by the Romans for observing religious commandments, Akiva interpreted a passage in the Song of Songs to mean that Jews must be willing to die for the love of God. He took the verse \u201cTherefore do maidens [alamot] love you\u201d (Song 1:3) and read the word alamot as ad mavet, \u201cunto death\u201d: \u201cTherefore they love you unto death\u201d\u2014being willing to die for God. When Rabbi Nathan came to Babylonia from Israel at the time of the Hadrianic persecutions, he interpreted \u201cThose who love Me and keep My commandments\u201d (Exod. 20:6) as \u201cThese are the Israelites who dwell in the Land of Israel and give up their lives for the commandments.\u201d
\nIt may seem strange that Akiva, the well-known comforter and optimist, should have put such stress on sacrifice and suffering, but acceptance of whatever God chooses to mete out to you implies that suffering too comes from God, and whatever the reason, as with Job, it must be accepted with love. That is the dark side of love, in contrast to the Song of Songs, which expresses the great joy that the love of God can bring.
\nCommentators like Judah Goldin have suggested that the love of God is built on the experience of human love. He wrote, \u201cThe notion of loving God could not have arisen if there had not been an experience of human love, and the experience of human love (in other words, a very strong emotional force) can point the way to an understanding of a preoccupation with a love which no longer has in mind what we call sexual love: and it is still love!\u201d It is therefore not accidental that of all the Sages, it was Akiva whose marriage was described as one built on romantic love. Although, as we have read in chapter 2, the story of his marriage has been greatly expanded by legend, the fact remains that there is no other Sage about whom such a romantic love story has been told. Whatever the exact facts may be, and they are hard to come by, the sources depict his relationship with his wife quite the opposite of an arranged marriage. His feeling for her must have been one of great love and gratitude, as shown by the way he publicly acknowledged his debt to her and by the gift of a precious diadem, a Jerusalem of Gold, and is more likely to be based on fact than fantasy
\nAkiva\u2019s concept of marital love was clear: \u201cA man and a woman [ish, ishah], when they are worthy, the Presence of God dwells between them. If not, fire consumes them\u201d\u2014playing on the fact that in those two words, ish contains a yud and ishah a heh, which together form the name of God, while without those two letters all that remains in both words is eish (fire).<\/p>\n
DECISIONS ON WOMEN\u2019S ISSUES<\/p>\n
It is Goldin who has suggested that Akiva\u2019s experience of human love influenced his legal decisions concerning women and marriage. According to Akiva, \u201cOne who marries a woman who is unfit for him transgresses five negative commandments: You shall not take vengeance (Lev. 19:18), nor bear a grudge (Lev. 19:18), You shall not hate your kinsman in your heart (Lev. 19:17), Love your fellow as yourself (Lev. 19:18), Let your brother live with you (Lev. 25:36). If he hates her, he desires her death and neglects the commandment to be fruitful and multiply.\u201d Note that Akiva ignores the masculine here, reinterpreting them as gender neutral in order to stress the seriousness of taking an unloved wife. He will hate her, want to mistreat her, ignore the command to love her, and even wish that she would no longer be alive.
\nAccording to both Sifre Deuteronomy and the Mishnah, Akiva ruled that one may divorce his wife \u201ceven if he finds another woman more comely than she is.\u201d He bases this on the fact that the verses concerning divorce begin with \u201cif she does not find favor in his eyes\u201d (Deut. 24:1). On this matter Akiva\u2019s view is even more lenient than that of the School of Hillel regarding divorce. Goldin\u2019s explanation for the ease with which Akiva would permit a man to divorce his wife is that \u201cin a marriage, \u2026 the relationship must be based on love.\u201d This also explains Akiva\u2019s bold stand overruling the ancient accepted law that a woman may do nothing to make herself attractive when she is having her period and forbidden then to have relations with her husband. Said Akiva, \u201cIf so, you make her repulsive to her husband, with the result that he will divorce her!\u201d
\nIf Goldin is correct, this could also explain the difference between Ishmael and Akiva regarding the law of Sotah, the bitter waters a woman must drink if her husband suspects her of adultery when there is no actual proof. Whereas Ishmael said that the Torah only grants the husband permission to demand this, Akiva said that it requires him to do so. If marriage must be based on love, any suspicion in the mind of the husband will only corrupt and ultimately ruin that marriage. Therefore the suspicion must be tested and, if unfounded, be uprooted. The fact that this ordeal, like the ease of divorce, may be unfair and devastating to the wife seems not to be a consideration. It should not be forgotten that at that time, for all the care and consideration that was given by the Sages to the rights of women in marriage, marriage and divorce were still matters that were male centered and where the initiative in both came from the man.
\nTalmud scholar Judith Hauptman has pointed out that in matters concerning a woman\u2019s impurity, Akiva consciously took a lenient position. An incident is related in the Mishnah in which a woman came to him because she had seen a spot of blood and assumed that she was therefore prohibited to the husband. Akiva suggested to her the possibility that it was not menstrual blood but came from a bruise that, although healed, had opened up again. When she agreed that that might be so, he declared her clean. His students seemed astounded at this ruling, and he said to them, \u201cWhy is this matter difficult for you to understand? The Sages did not say these things to be stringent but to be lenient, as it says, \u2018And a woman from whom blood flows forth\u2019 (Lev. 15:19)\u2014this means a flow of blood and not a bloodstain.\u2019 \u201d
\nAkiva deliberately found a word in the verse that sustained his ruling and could exclude many occurrences of blood from the definition of what is prohibited. What was his purpose in doing so? Was it to keep the days of a woman\u2019s impurity to the minimum possible? If so, was that to broaden the times of sexual activity, which would make the marriage strong? Was it for the benefit of the woman, or was it for the increased pleasure of the man?
\nAkiva had a similar ruling regarding immersion for male emissions known as zavim. These rules were based on verses in Leviticus 15 that make a distinction between semen that was discharged and pus or other discharges from the male organ. The rules for discharges that were signs of infection or illness were much stricter than those for semen, requiring a seven-day period of cleanliness, immersion, and a sacrifice. In Akiva\u2019s time these rules were no longer practiced because of the absence of the Temple. Akiva\u2019s ruling was that if the discharge came following any eating or drinking, it was not to be considered impure, making it unlikely that any emission would ever be considered polluting. His pupils protested that the result would be that there would be no more instances of the category of zavim (emissions). His reply was, \u201cYou are not responsible for declaring males to be unclean.\u201d
\nAkiva\u2019s motivation was unclear and is never stated, but what he did relieved men of what could have been many difficult periods of ritual impurity. Since the text of the Torah does not specify how the distinction is to be made or what causes it, Akiva allowed himself the leniency of assuming that if there was anything at all that could have caused a natural emission, that should be the assumption.
\nIn the case where a woman and a man who is a kohen (priest) are engaged and a year has passed and they have not yet married, the groom is required to care for her needs. She may eat from his food. The Mishnah states that Rabbi Tarfon, Akiva\u2019s companion, ruled that he may give her food entirely from the terumah, food that is set aside for priests, while Akiva said, \u201cHalf from terumah and half from non-sacred food.\u201d The reason was that during her period, she could not eat from terumah and would therefore have nothing. In this case Akiva clearly seemed more concerned with the woman\u2019s welfare than was Tarfon.
\nAnother mishnah describes a case brought before Akiva of a man who had made a vow that required him to divorce his wife and give her the money from her ketubah (wedding contract). The amount was four hundred dinar. The man complained that he had inherited only eight hundred dinar from his father, of which four hundred went to his brother. If he had to give four hundred to his wife, he would be left with nothing! Would not two hundred suffice? \u201cYou must give her the entire amount of her ketubah even if you have to sell your hair!\u201d was Akiva\u2019s reply. This last remark was particularly pointed because it was usually women who when impoverished sold their hair, as Akiva\u2019s wife was reported to have done.
\nOn the other hand, Akiva\u2019s view that love must be the basis of the relationship between men and women did not mean that he was always concerned with giving women greater rights or status within Judaism. There were many instances when, on the contrary, Ishmael took a more positive position toward women than did Akiva. For example, concerning the burning of the Red Heifer, the Torah reads, \u201cA man who is clean shall gather up the ashes of the cow\u201d (Num. 19:9). Since it says \u201cwho is clean,\u201d Ishmael ruled that anyone who is clean\u2014\u201cincluding women\u201d\u2014may do so. Akiva ruled that since it specifies \u201ca man,\u201d women are excluded. In midrashim attributed to the School of Akiva the tendency is to exclude women, while in those of the School of Ishmael they are frequently included.
\nIn some of these instances the biblical text is itself quite explicit in its exclusion, but in others there could be room for interpretation. Akiva\u2019s son, Rabbi Yose ben Akiva, for example, said that the verse \u201cAnd you shall teach them to your children\u201d (Deut. 11:19), in which \u201cyour children\u201d is in the masculine, means \u201cYour sons, not your daughters,\u201d which would then exclude women from being educated. Did this reflect his father\u2019s view? Concerning the wearing of fringes, in Sifre Numbers \u201cSpeak to the sons of [b\u2019nai] Israel \u2026 and they shall make for themselves fringes\u201d (Num. 15:38) is interpreted as meaning that women are included\u2014understanding b\u2019nai to mean \u201cchildren\u201d rather than specifically \u201csons.\u201d Akiva\u2019s staunch disciple, Shimon bar Yohai, however, said, \u201cWomen are exempt from fringes because it is a time-bound commandment.\u201d Regarding the question of the testimony of witnesses needed to permit a woman to be married, Akiva\u2019s opinion was that the testimony of a woman, a male or a female slave, or relatives was not acceptable. It was of Ishmael, not of Akiva, that it was said that when he (Ishmael) died the women wept for him and he was eulogized with the words, based on 2 Samuel 1:24, \u201cO daughters of Israel, weep for Rabbi Ishmael!\u201d (See also the discussion in chapter 4.)
\nLove was at the very core of Akiva\u2019s religious values: the love of human beings for God, God\u2019s love of humanity, and the love of men and women for each other. Akiva may not have learned that from the Song of Songs, but it was that belief that resulted in his exaltation of this book above all other books. It is largely a result of Akiva\u2019s teachings and of his emphasis that the Song of Songs describes the relationship between Israel and God that Rabbinic Judaism places an overwhelmingly strong emphasis on love in its description of our relationship with God, on God\u2019s love for Israel and for all humanity, exalting God\u2019s mercy over God\u2019s justice. And at the center of all his teachings is that we must love one another. It was after all Akiva who taught that the verse \u201cLove your fellow as yourself\u201d (Lev. 19:18) is \u201ca fundamental principle of the Torah.\u201d<\/p>\n
Seven<\/p>\n
ASPECTS OF AKIVA\u2019S THEOLOGY<\/p>\n
The Sages of Israel did not write systematic theology, and Akiva was no exception. But that does not mean that they had no personal beliefs about God, humanity, and the world. As Max Kadushin, eminent scholar of Rabbinic thinking, showed, they based themselves on value concepts that underlie their sayings, stories, interpretations, and legal opinions rather than on systematic theology. The verbal expressions of their beliefs and concepts are articulated in their sayings, pronouncements, and midrashic parables and interpretations scattered throughout the various collections of Rabbinic writings. They give us at least a glimpse into the matters that concerned them, even if they do not enable us to construct a complete theology. Of course their reliability is also dependent on the problematic nature of Rabbinic sources that we have mentioned previously.
\nSome important aspects of Akiva\u2019s theological concepts, such as his ideas concerning the divine origin of the Torah and of biblical book Song of Songs, have already been discussed and can be found in previous chapters of this book. These were truly revolutionary concepts for their time, placing the Torah on a new level of holiness and allowing for greater flexibility of interpretation, adaptation, and change in religious practice than ever before. Song of Songs was also elevated in its sacredness when Akiva interpreted its depiction of human love into a metaphor of the relation of God and Israel. We shall now address other aspects in greater detail.<\/p>\n
AKIVA\u2019S CREED IN AVOT<\/p>\n
The one tractate of the Mishnah in which theological maxims of the Sages are collected is Avot (also known as Pirke Avot, Ethics of the Fathers). This collection of brief but sometimes veiled sayings is supplemented by Avot de-Rabbi Natan (ARN), which comments on some of these phrases and adds others from the same tannaitic period. Akiva is quoted in Avot extensively in a series of connected sayings that express his core beliefs. As noted earlier, there is always the caveat that we can never be completely certain that the attributions to Akiva are accurate, especially since some of the same or similar adages are found in ARN and other works in the names of other Sages. Nevertheless in view of the fact that the Mishnah was carefully constructed and published by Rabbi Judah the Prince from the collection of Rabbinic teachings collated by Akiva and passed on by his students, it is not unreasonable to assume that the attributions there are accurate.
\nThe central saying of Akiva in Avot is characterized by its threefold structure, a form common in this work. The first part concerns the great love shown to humans by God: \u201cBeloved is man, for he was created in the Image; greater still was the love in that it was made known to him that he was created in the Image of God, as it is written, \u2018For in His image did God make man\u2019 (Gen. 9:6).\u201d
\nThe second part proclaims that \u201cbeloved is Israel\u201d and describes the great love shown by God to Israel in that \u201cthey are called God\u2019s children\u201d and that this was made known to them in the verse \u201cYou are children of the LORD your God\u201d (Deut. 14:1).
\nThe third part teaches that this love for Israel was also demonstrated by the fact that \u201cthey [Israel] were given the precious instrument with which the world was created,\u201d the Torah, and that this was made known to them in the verse \u201cFor I have given you good instruction, My Torah\u2014do not forsake it!\u201d (Prov. 4:2).
\nIn presenting his sayings in such a manner, Akiva made very clear his basic beliefs concerning the relationship of God to all humanity and to the people Israel in particular, as well as his concept of the unparalleled value of the Torah, all of which is based on love. In these three doctrinaire statements Akiva, who had stressed the importance of love in many different ways, including his interpretation of Song of Songs as the love song of God and Israel (see chapter 6), affirmed God\u2019s love of all humankind, the sacredness of human life, and the special relationship that God has to Israel. He again stressed the unique importance of the Torah, which is not simply a scroll, but the preexisting instrument with which the entire world was created. These themes are to be found throughout Akiva\u2019s teachings and legal decisions.<\/p>\n
THE CENTRALITY OF LOVE<\/p>\n
Love played a major role in Akiva\u2019s thought. He stressed not only the love of God and God\u2019s love of human beings and of Israel, as in this statement in Avot, but also the love of one human being for another. It was Akiva who crowned the verse \u201cLove your fellow as yourself; I am the LORD\u201d (Lev. 19:18) as \u201ca fundamental principle of the Torah.\u201d His younger colleague Ben Azzai demurred and suggested that Genesis 5:1, \u201cThis is the record of Adam\u2019s line.\u2014When God created man, He made him in the likeness of God,\u201d was an even greater fundamental principle.
\nWhat was the basis of their disagreement? It is often claimed that by stressing that humans are made in the divine image, Ben Azzai was including everyone, whereas \u201cyour fellow\u201d could be interpreted as meaning only Israelites. It has also been pointed out that \u201cas yourself\u201d could mean that if you do not respect or love yourself, you would not have to love anyone else. As Ben Azzai said, \u201cThat one should not say, \u2018Since I have been disgraced, let others be disgraced.\u2019 \u201d But there may be more to it than that. After all, Akiva himself had taught that humans are precious because they were created in God\u2019s likeness, as discussed above, yet here he deliberately chose to give more importance to the verse from Leviticus, designating it a \u201cfundamental principle.\u201d Perhaps he preferred this verse over Genesis 5:1 because it emphasizes love by specifically using that word. It does not merely teach the importance of all human beings but tells us how we should act toward one another. And so it is a much more powerful teaching and has proved to be so through the ages.
\nIt is doubtful if either Akiva or those who taught his words thought of \u201cfellow\u201d here as referring to anything other than all human beings. After all, Akiva was following in the footsteps of Hillel the Elder, who generations before had taught that all of the Torah could be summarized in the words \u201cWhat is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow,\u201d an Aramaic interpretation of the verse \u201cLove your fellow.\u201d For Akiva too that verse was a summation of the entire Torah. Hillel had further emphasized the importance of love in his statement also in Avot calling for the Sages to follow the way of Aaron, which was \u201cLove peace and pursue it, love all humans and bring them to the Torah,\u201d again stressing the importance of love. The teachings of Hillel seem to have had a major impact on Akiva.
\nParadoxically, according to Akiva the major underlying principle of the Torah, a book written in heaven by God in language that is different from human language, is our relationship not to God but with humans: \u201cLove your fellow as yourself\u201d (Lev. 19:18).<\/p>\n
LOVE OF HUMANITY<\/p>\n
The Hebrew text of the first part of Akiva\u2019s saying in Avot uses the word haviv to denote \u201cbeloved\u201d or \u201cprecious,\u201d a cognate of the more common ahuv. It is found in the Bible, for example in Deuteronomy 33:3, where God is called hovev amim (Lover of the people), and is commonly used in Rabbinic writings to indicate being held in great closeness and high esteem. As a prooftext, Akiva cited, \u201cFor in His image did God make man\u201d (Gen. 9:6), the same verse Akiva used to teach that shedding human blood is a diminution of the divine image. Furthermore, as the scholar of comparative religions David Flusser put it, \u201cIt appears Rabbi Akiva understands Genesis 9:6 as though it means \u2018Shedding the blood of man is akin to shedding the blood of God, for in His own image God made humankind.\u2019 \u201d On this matter Akiva made no distinction between Jews and others.
\nBecause humans are all created in the image of the Divine, the taking of any human life is, in Akiva\u2019s view, a most serious matter, to the extent that if he had his way, no one would ever have been condemned to death by the Sanhedrin. As careful as judges may be, there is always the chance of an error or of false witnesses, in which case a human life\u2014so sacred\u2014would have been taken and the image of God diminished. While other Sages spoke negatively of a Sanhedrin that rules to execute one person in seven years or even in seventy years, Akiva and his fellow Sage Tarfon said, \u201cHad we been in the Sanhedrin, no one would ever have been executed.\u201d By their careful examination of the witnesses and their strict applications of the various laws, they would have made it impossible to convict anyone of a capital offense. Considering the frequency in which the death penalty is invoked in the Torah and in Rabbinic law, this was a bold statement and demonstrated the intensity of Akiva\u2019s (and Tarfon\u2019s) belief in the sanctity of human life. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel II opposed Akiva\u2019s view, asserting that it would only encourage murderers. To this day the arguments concerning capital punishment have been framed in these terms.
\nThis teaching was proclaimed at a time when no Jewish court such as the Sanhedrin actually had the power to impose a death penalty, not only because of Roman rule but also because the Sages themselves ruled, \u201cThe death penalty may be imposed by the Great Court which is in Jerusalem, but not by the court at Yavneh.\u201d This did not prevent the Sages, both Akiva\u2019s generation and the later Amoraim, from discussing the death penalty in great detail in the Mishnah and the Talmud. It may have been theoretical at the time, but should independence return, as they all hoped, it would become actuality. They took the matter seriously, and therefore we should look upon their rulings and teachings in a serious manner. Akiva was not just voicing some pious wish. His abhorrence of the death penalty was emphasized by his ruling that if and when the Sanhedrin executed someone, all its members would be required to fast the entire day.
\nFalse witnesses who could lead to an execution were obviously an abomination. Akiva believed that the seemingly superfluous words \u201cthree witnesses\u201d in the phrase \u201ctwo witnesses or three witnesses\u201d (Deut. 17:6), delineating how many witnesses were needed in order to execute someone, indicated that even though the third false witness\u2019s testimony was irrelevant, since two would be sufficient to convict, the third one would be punished as severely as the first two. Human beings were beloved of God, created in God\u2019s image. The taking of a life was the most serious matter possible and was to be avoided at all costs. It was Akiva who stated that in a situation in which two people are wandering in the desert and one had enough water to enable him to survive, the owner should drink it and live. Another Sage, Ben Patura, advised that they should share it even though they would both die. Although Akiva based his ruling on an interpretation of the verse \u201cLet your brother live with you\u201d (Lev. 25:36)\u2014\u201cwith you\u201d implying that \u201cyour life comes first\u201d\u2014perhaps here too Akiva was influenced by the fact that he saw human life as sacred, so that sacrificing two lives when one could be saved was wrong.
\nAkiva\u2019s favorable attitude toward all human beings is further reflected in the saying attributed to him in the Tosefta that if one finds favor in the sight of human beings, one finds favor in the sight of God, but if one does not find favor in the sight of humans, then God is not delighted with that person either. This idea is repeated in Akiva\u2019s interpretation of the requirement to observe all the commandments, \u201cfor you will be doing what is good and right in the sight of the LORD your God\u201d (Deut. 12:28). Akiva, as usual, found a different meaning for each word: \u201cthat which is good\u201d in the sight of heaven \u201cand right\u201d in the sight of human beings. Ishmael said that both words refer to the sight of heaven, which is a more literal understanding of the verse. For Akiva, however, the good opinion of humankind\u2019s judgment was important as well, not to be disdained, and he quoted Proverbs 3:4 to prove it, \u201cAnd you will find favor and approbation in the eyes of God and man.\u201d<\/p>\n
THE LEGAL STATUS OF THE NON-JEW<\/p>\n
Although Akiva stressed the special relationship of God and Israel, he also insisted on proper treatment of non-Jews. He taught that \u201cthe robbery of a heathen is forbidden\u201d and gave as prooftext Leviticus 25:47\u201355, which states that if an Israelite in dire straits sold himself to a non-Jew as an indentured servant, he must be redeemed with money and cannot simply up and leave his service, since that would cheat the non-Jew out of his money. \u201cHe shall have the right of redemption even after he has given himself over. One of his kinsmen shall redeem him.\u2026 He shall compute with his purchaser the total from the year he gave himself over until the jubilee year.\u2026 He shall pay back for his redemption in proportion to his purchase price.\u201d This indicates clearly that the non-Jewish purchaser must be appropriately compensated
\nAkiva went even further and taught that stealing from a non-Jew or defrauding him was worse than stealing from a Jew because it also desecrated the Name of God\u2014hillul ha-Shem, causing non-Jews to have a negative opinion concerning Israel\u2019s God and Israel\u2019s Torah. Rabbi Ishmael advised that when judging a case between a Jew and a non-Jew, if one can justify the Jew by Jewish Law, one should do so, and on the contrary, if one can justify the Jew by using the laws of the heathens, one should do that, but if neither one can justify the Jew, one should use subterfuges to do so. Akiva ruled that it is forbidden to use such subterfuges, since they cause desecration of God. According to Akiva, defrauding a non-Jew was forbidden by Jewish Law.
\nAkiva\u2019s insistence on treating the non-Jew fairly, however, did not extend to tolerance of paganism. Akiva had no illusions about such practices, the common religion of non-Jews at that time, which he scorned. In a discussion of Deuteronomy 12:31, \u201cfor they perform for their gods every abhorrent act,\u201d Akiva added, \u201cI myself saw a heathen who tied up his father and left him before his dog, whereupon the animal devoured him,\u201d a gross exaggeration of known practices in the Roman world. Just as Akiva was dedicated to the exclusive existence and worship of the One God, so too was he concerned to see the eradication of the worship of idols. Paganism was still the dominant religion of the Roman Empire. Thus in his interpretation of the laws requiring the destruction of trees, pillars, and images found in Deuteronomy 12:1\u20133, Akiva\u2019s position was that \u201cYou shall surely destroy\u201d (12:2), with the Hebrew root \u201cdestroy\u201d repeated, means both to cut these down and to uproot them. The additional phrase \u201cobliterating their name from that site\u201d (12:3) means \u201cyou must change their name as well.\u201d Similarly Akiva explained that the abhorrent act Sarah saw Ishmael doing when, as the verse states, he was \u201cplaying\u201d (Gen. 21:9) and which resulted in Ishmael being sent away, was that he was worshiping idols.
\nAkiva was not willing to admit that pagan religious leaders could perform wonders of any sort. There is a description in Deuteronomy 13:2\u20133 of the situation in which signs and wonders predicted by a \u201cprophet among you\u201d who tells you to worship another god actually come true. Yose HaG\u2019lili taught that this refers to a pagan prophet, indicating that \u201cScripture permits heathens to have power over the sun and moon, stars and planets.\u201d Akiva protested. It cannot refer to pagans, but to prophets of Israel. \u201cHeaven forbid \u2026 Scripture speaks here only of true prophets who lapsed and became false prophets.\u201d Akiva also counseled Jews not to live among non-Jews \u201cso that you will not come to worship idols.\u201d Paganism had its attractions, and it was best to avoid temptation.<\/p>\n
GOD\u2019S LOVE OF ISRAEL<\/p>\n
As discussed in chapter 6, Akiva interpreted the lovers in the biblical book Song of Songs as God and the people of Israel. But in the second part of his teaching in Avot he saw the relationship of God to Israel as that of a parent to a child. Here he used another symbol: God as the loving parent, Israel as the beloved child. Akiva has been credited with coining the phrase Avinu Malkeinu (our Father, our Sovereign) when praying for rain. As a parent feels a unique closeness to a child, so God\u2019s relationship to Israel is also unique. While Akiva held high the value of all human life, he was nevertheless Israel centered, seeing a special place in God\u2019s plan for the people Israel, God\u2019s beloved firstborn child. For that reason, Akiva believed that although they were now suffering under foreign rule, there was a great future in store for Israel and that the glory of Jerusalem and the Temple would be restored.
\nAkiva had faith in the imminent restoration of the Temple and saw in the desolate ruins of the Temple a reason to believe that it would be rebuilt in his own day. When others saw in the Temple ruins a reason for mourning, he saw them as a sign of imminent rebuilding. In the dispute with Rabbi Tarfon concerning the correct liturgy for the Passover seder, it was Akiva who insisted that the blessing before the meal itself include a lengthy prayer for the restoration of the Temple in his own time: \u201cSo too, Lord our God, bring us to other festivals and seasons in peace, rejoicing in the restoration of Your city and joyful in Your service.\u201d It is not a hope or dream for the future. We will rejoice, be redeemed, and bring thanks in the restored Temple.
\nAkiva trusted that Israel, God\u2019s beloved son, now suffering under foreign rule, deprived of self-government and independence, had a great future in store and that the glory of Jerusalem and the Temple would be restored. Akiva was probably referring to this when he said, \u201cEven as the day is now overcast and now bright again, so shall darkness be made bright.\u201d No wonder then that when a leader came along who seemed capable of restoring national glory, Akiva was willing to consider him to be the Messiah, a most unfortunate lapse of judgment. His hope proved to be a dream for the far-off future and not for the immediate present.
\nAkiva considered the Land of Israel as God\u2019s special land and gift to God\u2019s treasured people. Concerning the Land he taught, \u201cDo not quit the Holy Land, lest you worship idols \u2026 he who leaves the Land of Israel and goes to another land is accounted by Scripture as if he worshiped idols.\u201d Akiva considered being buried anywhere in the Holy Land \u201cis as though he is buried under the altar.\u201d When his disciple Shimon bar Yohai said that God found no nation worthy of the Torah other than Israel and no land worthy of Israel other than the Land of Israel, he was no doubt following the teachings of his mentor.<\/p>\n
HUMAN LIFE AND GOD\u2019S JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
Akiva\u2019s threefold creed in Avot is followed by his general concept of human life, free will, and God\u2019s judgment. \u201cEverything is seen [tzafui] and permission is given. The world is judged favorably, and all is according to the preponderance of deeds.\u201d
\nThe word tzafui is frequently translated as \u201cforeseen\u201d or \u201canticipated,\u201d in which case this saying would be concerned with the question of God\u2019s knowledge of the future, implying that everything we do is determined in advance. However that need not be the case, since tzafui can simply mean \u201cseen\u201d or \u201cviewed.\u201d If so, Akiva was indicating that all of our deeds are seen by God, that God is aware of all we do. Nevertheless God does not interfere but gives us permission to act however we will, thus affirming the doctrine of free will. And so then we are responsible for our deeds and should be judged accordingly.
\nHowever, when judging the world, God, being merciful, does so favorably and not strictly. Even if there are more sins than virtues, God looks to the good. The last phrase, \u201call is according to the preponderance of deeds,\u201d would seem to contradict the idea of being judged favorably and would appear to mean that whichever is preponderant, virtue or sin, determines the judgment. Mahzor Vitri, a medieval text, has a different reading: \u201call is not according to the preponderance of deeds\u201d; in other words, even if there are more sins than good actions, God uses mercy and does not destroy the world. This would accord well with another of Akiva\u2019s teachings, \u201cIn this world if there are 999 angels that testify to a person\u2019s guilt and only one who declares him innocent, the Holy One will rule according to his merit!\u201d Here again we see Akiva\u2019s tendency to bring comfort and to encourage people rather than to castigate them and emphasize their failings\u2014\u201cThe world is judged favorably.\u201d
\nWhen it came to human courts, however, Akiva was insistent that judgments be given according to what the law requires, and in opposition to Tarfon, who favored the weak in certain cases, Akiva maintained that in a lawsuit the court should award the monetary settlement not to the person most in need but to the one who by law should have it. His general principle was \u201cthere is no place for mercy when determining the law.\u201d Charity is one thing, justice another.
\nConcerning God\u2019s judgment of human beings, Akiva believed in the efficacy of atonement and was opposed to ideas, such as those taught by Christianity, that man was sinful by nature and could not be cleansed except through the sacrificial death of Jesus. In the following teaching Akiva played upon the Hebrew root k-v-h, which can mean either tikvah (hope) or mikveh (a ritual bath): \u201cHappy are you, O Israel! Before whom are you purified and who purifies you? Your Father in heaven, as it is said, \u2018I will sprinkle clean water upon you and you shall be clean\u2019 (Ezek. 36:25), and it says, \u2018The LORD is Israel\u2019s mikveih\u2019 (Jer. 17:13). Just as the mikveh [ritual bath] cleanses the impure, so the Holy One cleanses Israel.\u201d Jeremiah may have meant \u201chope,\u201d but Akiva reads it as \u201ca ritual bath.\u201d The Holy One\u2014and no one else\u2014is the bath that cleanses us of sin. There is no doubt that Akiva chose these two verses because they specify that it is God\u2014our Father\u2014and God alone who purifies and cleanses sin. His message is twofold: forgiveness is possible, and it is attained through the Lord alone. There is no other way and no need for any other.
\nIn Avot Akiva continued the theme of God\u2019s judgment with a parable introduced with the following saying: \u201cEverything is given on loan against a pledge, and a net is spread out over all living.\u201d The idea of a net is also found in the famous parable of the fox and the fish ascribed to Akiva. There the net represents danger to the fish that may be caught in it, a usage found in Habakkuk 1:15, \u201cHe has fished them all up with a line, pulled them up in his trawl, and gathered them in his net.\u201d Its use here is unclear, but it may indicate that all will in the end be required to account for whatever they have done.
\nThe parable follows:<\/p>\n
The store is open and the storekeeper gives everything on credit.
\nThe ledger is open and the hand records.
\nEveryone who wishes to borrow may do so.
\nThe collectors make the rounds daily and collect from the individual, with or without one\u2019s consent, and they have accurate accountings.
\nThe verdict is just, and all is ready for the feast.<\/p>\n
The parable itself is easy to understand. The idea of an open book in which everything is written is a familiar image reminiscent of the High Holy Days, when the books of life and death are open in which all our deeds are written and we are judged accordingly. Here it becomes the store\u2019s account ledger that represents human life. Nothing in this world really belongs to us, though we have permission to use it. Everything is merely on loan, and we are called to account for whatever we use and whatever we do. The accounting, the verdict, is just. If earlier Akiva indicated that God judges the world favorably, here, in the life of the individual, he stresses that justice is always done. This does not exclude the possibility of mercy, but it does preclude an individual from charging that his\/her fate was unjust and undeserved. As Akiva taught elsewhere, fools and the wicked say, \u201cThere is no justice and no judge,\u201d but in truth there is justice and there is a Judge. As we shall see later, Akiva believed in the doctrine of tziduk ha-din (the justification of God\u2019s judgment), that whatever happens, God\u2019s justice cannot be questioned. The feast may represent the reward that awaits the righteous in the world to come. Placing it at the end of the parable enabled Akiva to once again emphasize hope rather than punishment.
\nGod\u2019s love and mercy as well as God\u2019s concern that we act lovingly toward others can also be seen in Akiva\u2019s interpretation of the phrase nakeh lo y\u2019nakeh (literally \u201cHe will remit, He will not remit\u201d) in Exodus 34:7, one of the attributes of God. In Hebrew parlance the meaning of this double phrase is simply \u201cHe will not completely remit [one of sin].\u201d Akiva, however, took each part as a separate phrase and said, \u201cHe will remit\u201d sins between humans and God, but \u201cHe will not remit\u201d sins between one human being and another. God can forgive sins against God, but not sins against other human beings. This interpretation eventually found its way into the liturgy. Whenever Exodus 34:6\u20137 is quoted as the \u201cthirteen attributes of God,\u201d stressing God\u2019s love and mercy, verse 7 is always cut off after the word nakeh so that the verse is made to mean \u201cHe will remit sins,\u201d the exact opposite of the true intention.
\nThese major statements of Akiva indicate that he believed in a world in which all human life is of supreme value and in which Israel has been selected to be especially close to God, something that is seen in the fact that the Torah, God\u2019s supreme and unique creation, has been given into Israel\u2019s charge. Human beings have free will and are accountable for all that they do. They are judged in accordance with their deeds, but the world is judged in a favorable way because God is a God of mercy who has special love and affection for human beings created in God\u2019s image. In ARN-A Akiva stated, \u201cWhich is the greater measure, the measure of reward or the measure of punishment? Surely the measure of reward!\u201d There is no doubt, however, that punishment awaits those who transgress. And there is even punishment for one \u201cwho attaches himself to transgressors [in other words, becomes part of such a group, spending time with them], although he does not do as they do,\u201d but there is also reward for one \u201cwho attaches himself to those who carry out the commandments, although he does not do as they do.\u201d<\/p>\n
THE NATURE OF JUDAISM<\/p>\n
Since he never openly referred to it, it is impossible to know if Akiva was aware that there were Christians who asserted that Judaism is a harsh religion and its God a God of wrath, in contrast with Christianity, which is presented as a religion of love. In Akiva\u2019s own time, the second century, some, such as Marcion, an influential leader of an important movement in Christianity, carried this to an extreme, even positing two gods, the Jewish God of wrath and the Christian God of love and mercy. Although this teaching was declared heretical, the contrast that it fostered remained in general Christian thinking and became a part of the stereotypical way in which much of the Western world thinks of Judaism even to this day. It is the Jew\u2014represented by Shylock\u2014who demands his pound of flesh. It is the \u201cOld Testament\u201d God who is the God of fire and brimstone. It was all too easy to forget that when Jesus, in the Christian Bible, teaches the importance of loving one\u2019s fellow human being, he is only quoting Leviticus 19:18 and not presenting some new doctrine. Was Akiva knowingly attempting to show that this Christian view was false? His teachings certainly can be seen as a refutation of that claim, or at least as an affirmation that Judaism is not a harsh religion and the Jewish God is not a cruel judge. Whatever the case, it is certainly true that Akiva went further than any of the Sages of his time in stressing God\u2019s love and mercy.
\nAt the same time this was not a love that forgave evil or looked the other way. There were times when Akiva could seem harsh and unforgiving. There is a lengthy discussion in the Mishnah concerning who will have a place in the world to come and who will be excluded. Rabbi Akiva excluded the ten lost tribes and the generation of the wilderness, those who rebelled against God and wandered with Moses for forty years. Rabbi Eliezer disagreed with him and asserted that they will have a place. The dispute is based on verses in the Bible that according to Akiva\u2019s interpretation indicate clearly that he is correct. Concerning the generation of the wilderness, for example, Numbers 14:35 states, \u201cIn this very wilderness they shall be consumed and there they shall die.\u201d Akiva interpreted this as \u201c \u2018they shall be consumed\u2019 in this world and \u2018they shall die\u2019 in the world to come.\u201d As usual he found a specific meaning in each phrase. Rabbi Eliezer, however, cited a verse in Psalms that indicates that they will return: \u201cBring in My devotees, who made a covenant with Me over sacrifice!\u201d (50:5). The question is, why was Akiva, the comforter, so harsh in these instances? Rabbi Yohanan seemed astonished by it and remarked, \u201cRabbi Akiva abandoned his love!\u201d Akiva was known for his love for Israel and for his belief in the efficacy of atonement, and so one would have expected him to use his powers of interpretation in their favor and not against the generation of the wilderness.
\nThere were, it seems, limits to his love, at least when it came to those who in the past had committed terrible sins and had not shown signs of atonement. More typical of Akiva was his disagreement with Rabban Gamliel\u2019s teaching that the children of the wicked of Israel who died before maturity would have no portion in the world to come. Akiva, citing Psalm 116:6, \u201cThe LORD protects the simple,\u201d insisted that this refers to the young, to children, and furthermore brought as proof Daniel 4:20, \u201cHew down the tree and destroy it, but leave the stump with its roots in the ground.\u201d<\/p>\n
THE MEANING OF SUFFERING<\/p>\n
Suffering and chastisement played an especially important role in Akiva\u2019s worldview and in his teachings. The subject is dealt with in the famous midrash in Sifre Deuteronomy interpreting the Sh\u2019ma where the discussion states that we must love God \u201ceven if He takes your soul.\u201d To Akiva this meant that one must willingly accept whatever measure God metes out, be it \u201cof good or of punishment.\u201d He supported this with examples from the Bible, including statements made by Job. Akiva, for example, totally reversed the simple meaning of Job\u2019s statement to his wife, \u201cYou speak as one of the impious women speaks\u201d (Job 2:10), which is usually read as a rebuke to her suggestion that Job should blaspheme God and die. Akiva, however, took it as meaning that Job says that she should do what the impious women did\u2014referring to the women of the generation of the Flood: instead of complaining, they readily accepted the punishment God brought upon them! We too, says Job (according to Akiva), should accept without complaint whatever happens to us, for bad as well as for good. Akiva continued with general comments on chastisement and suffering. His advice was that \u201cone should rejoice more in chastisement than in prosperity.\u201d Akiva\u2019s conclusion therefore was that suffering\u2014chastisement\u2014is preferable to prosperity because it brings about the forgiveness of sin.
\nThis point is illustrated by the story of the visit that the Sages, including Rabbi Akiva, made to Rabbi Eliezer when he was ill. All of the others attempted to comfort Eliezer by pointing out his greatness and lauding his importance. He was not comforted. Akiva, as usual, did the unexpected by saying, \u201cMaster, precious are chastisements.\u201d Eliezer perked up and wanted to hear more. Akiva then demonstrated that suffering was the only thing that caused the notorious King Menasseh to repent and return to God, resulting in his subsequent return from exile (2 Chronicles 33). \u201cHence, precious are chastisements.\u201d
\nAccording to Akiva, the suffering of the righteous in this world is justified, since no person is free of sin. Furthermore chastisements pave the way for unalloyed rejoicing and reward in the next world. The suffering that the righteous undergo in this world is God\u2019s way of punishing them for whatever few sins they had committed so that they will have only joy in the world to come. The pleasure that the wicked have in this world is exactly the opposite\u2014it is all the reward that is coming to them, while punishment alone awaits them in the world to come.
\nIn another recounting of a visit to the suffering Rabbi Eliezer, while the others wept to see him suffering, Akiva laughed, causing them to wonder at him\u2014a literary motif that occurs in so many stories about Akiva. Why did he laugh? Because having previously seen that all was well and prosperous with Eliezer, he was afraid that Eliezer had received all his rewards in this world and that none would be left for him in the world to come. He realized that that was not the case since Eliezer was now suffering the pain of illness, a clear sign that great rewards awaited him in the world to come. When Eliezer asked Akiva if he (Eliezer) had neglected anything he should have done, Akiva quoted Ecclesiastes 7:20 that there is no righteous man who does not sin.
\nAkiva\u2019s formulation \u201cPrecious are chastisements\u201d was adopted by many of his pupils, who elaborated on the theme. Shimon bar Yohai, for example, stated that three wonderful gifts were given to Israel\u2014Torah, the Land of Israel, and the world to come\u2014and all of them were achieved only through chastisements.
\nWhereas Rabbi Ishmael believed that God punished the wicked in this world for each sin but was less exacting with the righteous, Akiva believed God was equally strict with all. Yet for all that, to Akiva, God was rahamana, \u201cthe Merciful One.\u201d It is because of this outlook that Akiva ruled that even when reciting the Blessing after Meals in a house of mourning, one must include the fourth blessing, \u201c[God] is good and does good for us.\u201d The Sages, on the other hand, said that in a house of mourning one should substitute for that the words \u201cBlessed is the true Judge,\u201d something recited when receiving bad news. Akiva certainly believed that God was the true Judge, but he wished to stress the goodness and mercy of God even at such an unhappy time. One must bless God for the bad as for the good.
\nWhen two Sages, Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Ishmael (not the famous Rabbi Ishmael who was often Akiva\u2019s opponent) were executed in circumstances that are not explained, Akiva said to his students, \u201cBe prepared for suffering, for were anything good to be coming for this generation, Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Ishmael would have been the first to receive it.\u201d These two men were taken from us, he continued, because God knew that this generation would have to endure great suffering. He quoted several verses, among them Isaiah 57:1, \u201cThe righteous man perishes, and no one considers; pious men are taken away, and no one gives thought that because of evil, the righteous was taken away. [Yet he shall come to peace (57:2).]\u201d Akiva seemed to be saying that they died early to prevent their having to endure the greater suffering that was yet to come. Thus death in this case was a kindness granted to the pious.
\nThere is a well-known story in which Akiva was traveling and could not find a place to lodge, and he had no choice but to sleep outside. During the night his rooster and his donkey were eaten by animals, and the flame on his oil lamp was extinguished. Each time he said, \u201cThe All Merciful does what is best,\u201d and indeed it proved to be so because during the night some bandits came and carried away all the inhabitants of the lodging where he would have stayed. Had they heard the noise of his animals or seen a light from his lamp, they would have attacked Akiva as well. Again he repeated, \u201cDid I not say, \u2018The All Merciful does what is best?!\u2019 \u201d It may have been good for him, but what about the inhabitants of the town? What would they have said? Akiva ignored that question. Indeed this tale, found only in the Babylonian Talmud and not in any tannaitic sources, has all the markings of a moralistic folktale, related for the purpose of illustrating the saying \u201cThe All Merciful does what is best.\u201d It may not have originated with Akiva but perhaps was only told about him much later in order to illustrate that saying, which was integral to his thinking. In truth, Akiva\u2019s view was not quite that simplistic. It is not that he thought nothing bad ever happened. He acknowledged that bad things do happen, that misfortune occurs, but he insisted that even when they do, God\u2019s name must be blessed.
\nAs a strict monotheist, Akiva could not believe that suffering, evil, or \u201cthe bad\u201d came from a source other than God, but neither could he accept that it was unjustified. Therefore, as he said, one must be like Job and accept the bad together with the good. This is more sophisticated than the simple phrase \u201cThe All Merciful does what is best,\u201d the Aramaic version of \u201cThis too is for the best,\u201d would imply.
\nIn general, Akiva\u2019s view of suffering was that it was part of God\u2019s plan and was justified. Since all humankind sins, the suffering of the righteous is a just punishment for whatever wrongs they have done, perhaps even less than they deserve. In the words of Akiva\u2019s pupil Rabbi Meir, \u201cFor the sufferings I [God] brought upon you are not at all commensurate with the things you have done.\u201d
\nNot for a moment does Akiva question God\u2019s righteousness. Therefore one must bless God when suffering just as one blesses God for good things. As Akiva said, \u201c \u2018Do not do with Me\u2019 (Exod. 20:20) means, \u2018Do not treat Me as the pagans treat their gods. When good comes to them they honor their gods, but when bad things happen they curse them.\u2026 But you are different. When I bring good things upon you, you give thanks, and when I bring suffering, you give thanks.\u2019 Furthermore one should rejoice even more in adversity than in prosperity \u2026 because it is suffering that brings forgiveness.\u201d
\nAt the same time, Akiva\u2019s belief that love of God requires one to love God even when that means giving up one\u2019s life\u2014as with the patriarch Isaac\u2014seems to imply that death itself is not necessarily a punishment for sin. After all, everyone must die. The death of the righteous through martyrdom, however, is another matter. To die for God would be the ultimate test of loving God. At the moment of supreme sacrifice and the ultimate suffering, one is not to question God\u2019s justice but, through all the suffering, to continue to proclaim the words of the Sh\u2019ma, the proclamation of unquestioning love for the Creator. As the sources constantly stress, Akiva attempted to fulfill this at the moment of his own death.
\nIt would be tempting to think that this belief concerning dying for God came to Akiva late in his life when Jews were suffering because of their loyalty to God and to observance of the Torah, but there is no indication that the basic interpretation of the Sh\u2019ma on which this rests is a late formulation. It may be, however, that this thought began simply as the idea that when one is dying, as everyone must, one should continue to love God, but later was expanded to include the idea that one must also be willing to give up life, to be martyred, for the sake of God, kiddush ha-Shem (the sanctification of God\u2019s Name). Believing this was particularly important during the later period of Akiva\u2019s time, when it was important to strengthen and give comfort to the Jewish people, who saw the terrible things that were happening and knew what the consequences of their own actions might be. The killing of the righteous was unjustly committed by the Romans, but it was nevertheless the ultimate test of the depth of one\u2019s love of God.<\/p>\n
THE CONCEPT OF GOD<\/p>\n
Just as Akiva, like other early Sages, had no systematic theology, so there is no clear definition of God to be found in sayings attributed to him. Since he was by nature a mystic, one may assume that Akiva\u2019s concept of God was a mystic one, closer to kabbalistic theories than to philosophical musings. His God was very personal, suffering and loving, merciful and just, expressing emotions. We do not know if Akiva accepted the idea of God having a body, a notion that was certainly prevalent in ancient Israel and in mystical circles. He often stressed the idea that humans were created in \u201cthe image of God,\u201d which may have suggested that God did have a physical form similar to that of humans. Akiva believed that God certainly had physical manifestations and that one could experience being in God\u2019s presence if one knew the proper mystical ways, but it is unclear if this meant actually seeing God, something that various midrashim ascribe to figures in the Bible. According to Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus, Akiva\u2019s teacher, at the crossing of the Sea God was seen by all the people from the highest to the lowest. However in the Sifra Akiva denied that this could be done. He interpreted Exodus 33:20, \u201cMan may not see Me and live\u201d\u2014taking the Hebrew vahai (and live) to mean hayot hakodesh (the celestial animals that carry the throne of God)\u2014as \u201cEven the celestial animals cannot see God.\u201d There is no indication that by this interpretation Akiva meant to teach that God is without physical properties.
\nTo Akiva, God was not an abstract principle or idea, but a real, active being filled with love of and concern for human beings.<\/p>\n
THE SUFFERING AND REDEMPTION OF GOD<\/p>\n
The Torah and the prophetic books all depict God as having humanlike emotions: love, hate, jealousy, anger, sorrow, and regret. Akiva made no attempt to explain or reinterpret that. When asked about the origin of earthquakes, for example, he replied plainly that when God sees the heathens prospering and flourishing, \u201cGod becomes angry and begins to roar,\u201d causing the earth to tremble. On the other hand, neither in the Bible nor in Akiva\u2019s thought is God a human being, even a human being writ large. The Lord is not subject to physical needs, to birth or death. But neither is God the philosopher\u2019s diety or the unmoved mover.
\nAkiva took the daring step of extending his discussion of suffering, referred to above, to include God as well. God \u201cas it were\u201d (kivyakhol, Akiva\u2019s word) also experiences suffering and even exile and redemption, a bold and daring concept that originated with Rabbi Akiva and was passed on through his disciples. Akiva often used the word kivyakhol when describing God in terms that might be seen as detracting from God\u2019s omnipotence or otherwise inappropriate, as in this case. He was aware that his ideas were radical and that only because they appear in the biblical text was he justified in uttering them. It must be pointed out, however, that they are only present in that text according to Akiva\u2019s interpretation and certainly not in the simple meaning. In prophetic writings God suffers, as Heschel frequently pointed out. Akiva went one step further and described God as enslaved, exiled, and redeemed together with Israel. Indeed, according to Akiva, God is so involved with humans that God joins in their suffering.
\nWe find this is a dispute recorded in the tannaitic midrash Mekhilta de-Rabbi Yishmael in a discussion between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Akiva regarding the meaning of certain difficult words in 2 Samuel 7:23, \u201cYour people, whom You redeemed for Yourself from Egypt, a nation and its God.\u201d Eliezer understood \u201cits God\u201d to be a reference to an idol that the Israelites had with them when they left Egypt. He referred to \u201cthe idol of Micah\u201d mentioned in Judges 17. Akiva, on the other hand, insisted that the phrase refers not to an idol but to the true God, the God of Israel: \u201cWere it not written in Scripture it would be impossible to utter it. As it were, Israel said to God, \u2018You have redeemed Yourself!\u2019 \u201d The same dispute is found in the Jerusalem Talmud, where Akiva is even more vehement that the word \u201cGod\u201d in that verse does not refer to an idol, as Rabbi Eliezer contended, but to the true God. \u201cHeaven forbid,\u201d Akiva said, \u201cthat you would make the Divine profane!\u201d The same interpretation of the phrase \u201cits God\u201d is quoted in a later midrash in the name of Akiva\u2019s disciple Rabbi Meir: \u201cThe redemption [from Egypt] was both Mine and yours! As it were, I [God] was redeemed together with you, as it is said, \u2018whom You redeemed for Yourself from Egypt, a nation and its God.\u2019 This month [of Nisan] was then set aside for Me and for you.\u201d Akiva, citing the same verse, carried this idea almost to the point of absurdity: \u201cWas God concerned with [redeeming] us? God was concerned with Himself! God was redeeming Himself\u2014not us.\u201d In his statement Akiva was asking, what kind of a God is it who requires redemption? Is it not a God who is intertwined with humanity, who in a sense depends on human beings\u2014not as pagan gods do for food, drink, and magic sustenance\u2014but in order to accomplish that which God wants to accomplish in this world?
\nHaving established that God was in exile in Egypt together with the people of Israel, Akiva then expanded on it: \u201cSo too you find that wherever Israel went into exile, as it were, God\u2019s Presence was exiled with them. They were exiled to Egypt, God\u2019s Presence was exiled with them.\u201d Akiva then brought verses to show that this was the case also in Babylonia, Elam, and Edom (Rome) and concluded, \u201cAnd when they will return in the future, as it were, God\u2019s Presence returns with them.\u201d Returning to his favorite scroll, Akiva then interpreted Song of Song 4:8, \u201cWith me from Lebanon, my bride,\u201d as God\u2019s statement to Israel in exile: \u201cYou and I, as it were, were exiled from Lebanon [Lebanon being understood as a reference to the Temple]\u2014you and I will go up to Lebanon.\u201d When Israel was deprived of the Temple, God was also exiled from it and will return to it only when Israel does.
\nThis daring concept appears in another midrash that teaches that \u201cwhenever Israel is enslaved, God\u2019s Presence, as it were, is enslaved with them.\u201d According to this midrash, while Israel was enslaved, God\u2019s image was seen in the heavens accompanied by the tools of slavery. When the Israelites attained their freedom, God appeared without those implements because God now was free. This is derived from the verse that first states, \u201cAnd they saw the God of Israel and under His feet there was the likeness of bricks,\u201d and then uses the phrase \u201clike the very sky for purity\u201d (Exod. 24:10). The midrash interprets this as describing two different times. When the Israelites were slaves, God was seen with bricks; when the Israelites were free, under God\u2019s feet was only the pure sky. Although this midrash is not specifically ascribed to Akiva, the context and the wording echo his particular ideas concerning God\u2019s slavery and redemption.
\nThe biblical basis for this idea of a suffering God is Isaiah 63:9, \u201cIn all their troubles, He was troubled.\u201d In Heschel\u2019s phrase, \u201cIsrael\u2019s suffering is God\u2019s grief.\u201d Christianity took this dramatically further by asserting that God assumed human form in order to suffer and even die, the purpose of which was to bring about the redemption of humankind for the sin of Adam. None of this is present in Akiva\u2019s teachings. Akiva too depicted a suffering God, but never a God who dies. Akiva\u2019s teaching, which was adopted by his students and later by many Jewish theologians as well, went as far as Judaism could go: that God\u2014always with the caveat \u201cas it were\u201d\u2014joined in the suffering of individuals and of Israel, was enslaved with them, exiled with them, and eventually found redemption along with them. In this way Akiva created a very powerful symbol of a suffering God, a God who is neither on the side of those who cause human suffering nor indifferent to it, but a God who identifies totally with those who suffer. Perhaps this was Akiva\u2019s rebuttal to Christian teaching. Yes\u2014God suffered\u2014but God never became human, never died and came back to life. God suffered with Israel. Akiva\u2019s disciple Rabbi Meir, however, went even further, saying that \u201cGod travailed and suffered for you.\u201d
\nThe \u201cexile\u201d of Israel in Akiva\u2019s time, an oppressed people living in its own land but under occupation by the hostile and despised Roman authority, with so many Jews living in the Roman exile, meant that God too was in need of redemption. Akiva was convinced that this exile would come to a speedy end, that God too would return to \u201cLebanon\u201d\u2014the rebuilt Temple in Jerusalem\u2014and dwell there once again. But sadly, that was not to be. Instead a martyr\u2019s death awaited him, and more suffering and an even greater defeat awaited the Jews of Judea.<\/p>\n
THEODICY<\/p>\n
Akiva never seemed to have questioned God\u2019s actions or God\u2019s silence. He never dealt directly with the problem of theodicy. He never complained to God, as did the prophets and the Psalmist. Akiva insisted that no matter what happens, God is to be blessed. The book of Job presents two different Jobs: the patient Job who accepts whatever happens and refuses to curse or question God, and the Job who argues with God, insisting on his innocence, maintaining that he does not deserve what is happening to him. Akiva identified only with the patient Job. He had no questions. Even when he was facing imminent death, he uttered not a word of complaint. This could easily be interpreted as simple unquestioning faith. Perhaps it is that, but it could also be understood as Akiva\u2019s method of differentiating his monotheism from paganism.
\nPagans see their gods as capable of evil and complain about them. \u201cWhen good comes to them they honor their gods, but when bad things happen they curse them.\u201d In Judaism there is no divine power in the world other than the Lord\u2014the God of Israel. It was inconceivable to Akiva that this God would cause evil. That suffering, the bad, exists is obvious, but Akiva never questioned it. He assumed that it is always justified and must be accepted. The God of Israel is all goodness and mercy, and therefore whatever happens must not be questioned. Perhaps one can say of Akiva what was said of Job the patient: \u201cFor all that, Job did not sin nor did he cast reproach on God\u201d (Job 1:22).
\nThis was not the only response to humankind\u2019s pain and suffering by the Rabbinic Sages, but it was Akiva\u2019s way. And even today Akiva\u2019s way is implicit in the traditional Jewish practice of quoting Job when a death has occurred, \u201cThe LORD has given, and the LORD has taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD\u201d (Job 1:21). It is also implicit in the prayer said at the time of burial known as tziduk ha-din, the justification of God\u2019s verdict, in which the assertion is made that God is perfect in all God does and who can question God\u2019s actions?<\/p>\n
LITURGY<\/p>\n
In the post-Temple era, when Akiva was one of the most important teachers and authorities, Jewish liturgy was still in its infancy. The basic outline of the daily prayer, the Amidah, was in place, although the exact text was not fixed. That was done under the auspices of Rabban Gamliel II in Yavneh around the year 90 CE, and there is no specific indication that Akiva was involved. It may have taken place before he was ordained. The daily recitation of biblical passages known as the Sh\u2019ma had been created when the Temple still existed, but some details of its recitation were still in dispute. The Hallel, an ancient Temple prayer consisting of a series of psalms of praise referring to Israel\u2019s salvation from Egyptian slavery, was now recited on important holy days. Nevertheless differences in specific ways of its recitation existed.
\nMany practices were not yet codified, and differences of opinion were rife. When to shake the lulav, how it was made up, exactly what do to at the Passover meal, how many people read the Torah on different occasions, among other things, were still in flux. It is difficult to know exactly how much influence Akiva had on liturgical practices, since so many sections of the Mishnah are not cited with a specific Sage\u2019s name. Since, as has been noted, the core of the Mishnah was the work of Rabbi Meir following Akiva, statements therein with no authority\u2019s name attached may have been Akiva\u2019s ideas or practices he championed. For example, in the Mishnah there is a discussion of the meaning of the words \u201cwith all your might\u201d in the recitation of the Sh\u2019ma. The interpretation that Rabbi Akiva gave to that phrase in Sifre Deuteronomy\u2014that it means with whatever measure God gives you, good and bad\u2014is cited anonymously. Were it not for the text in the Sifre we would never know that that section of the Mishnah was the teaching of Akiva. There must be many other such instances where we are not aware of his influence.
\nLater authorities frequently assumed that certain anonymous laws were originally Akiva\u2019s opinions. For example, the days on which the Megillah, the book of Esther, may be read in different places depending on when Purim falls in the week, is understood by the Babylonian Talmud to be the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, an opinion, incidentally, that was not accepted in Babylonia.
\nAkiva\u2019s views were not always adopted and are sometimes ignored in the Mishnah, even though the Mishnah was compiled by his followers. There is a misconception that because the School of Akiva\u2014that is, his disciples\u2014was responsible for the creation of the Mishnah, his views always prevailed. That is not the case. Akiva ruled that the Havdalah prayer (the separation between the holy and the profane) added to the Amidah at the conclusion of the Sabbath or festival should be a separate blessing, but his view was not accepted and instead it was inserted into another paragraph. Another small but striking example is how many people are called up to the Torah on different days: Rabbi Ishmael ruled that there should be five on holidays, six on Yom Kippur, and seven on Shabbat. Rabbi Akiva agreed on five for holidays but ruled that there should be seven on Yom Kippur and six on Shabbat. Ishmael did not permit adding to the number; Akiva did. The argument is recorded in the early tannaitic work the Tosefta. In the Mishnah itself, there is no mention of a disagreement, but Ishmael\u2019s figures are the ones given, not Akiva\u2019s, and they have been adopted in Jewish practice. No reason is offered for their differing opinions, though some have been suggested, such as how long one would be expected to stay in the synagogue on those days. Was Akiva being considerate of the congregation and the length of time they would have to spend at the service each week? Or was this a theological statement on his part, that in the ladder of holiness Yom Kippur is higher than Shabbat and that the number of readers should reflect this fact? What was actually done in synagogues? Evidently each could choose, and we would assume that by the time of the editing of the Mishnah, Ishmael\u2019s practice had been adopted by most.
\nAkiva\u2019s consideration for the comfort of the congregation is also mentioned elsewhere. It is said that when he prayed with a congregation, he did so quickly and briefly, so as not to delay all the others, but when he prayed by himself, he would begin in one place and end somewhere else, because of his repeated bowing and prostrating.
\nSimilarly in the matter of the composition of the four species required for Sukkot, the Torah does not specify how many of each there are to be: \u201cOn the first day you shall take the product of the hadar tree, branches of palm trees, boughs of leafy trees, and willows of the brook\u201d (Lev. 23:40). \u201cThe product of the hadar tree,\u201d which was defined as the etrog, a kind of citrus fruit, seems to imply one fruit, and on that Akiva and Ishmael agreed. They also agreed on one palm branch. However Ishmael ruled that three myrtle branches were needed and two willow branches. Others agreed with him, and that view has prevailed. Akiva, however, said, \u201cJust as there is one etrog and one lulav [palm], so one myrtle and one willow.\u201d The Mishnah gives no explanation for their divergent views, although the Talmud indicates that Ishmael based his opinion on a simple reading of the biblical text. Why did Akiva think one of each would suffice? Did he simply feel\u2014as he seemed to say\u2014that since only one is specified for two of the four species, all should be the same? It is unclear. Certainly Ishmael\u2019s ruling seems closer to the simple meaning of the text. In any case, in this instance again Akiva was overruled.
\nRegarding the times when the lulav is to be waved during the recitation of the Hallel prayer, Akiva remarked that he watched his teachers, Gamliel and Joshua, and they waved it only at Psalm 118:25, \u201cO LORD deliver us! O LORD let us prosper!\u201d and not at the other times that either the Schools of Hillel and Shammai required. Akiva\u2019s way has not become the accepted custom. Instead we follow that of the School of Hillel.
\nThere were also times when Akiva\u2019s own pupils disagreed with him, as he himself had sometimes disagreed with his teachers. Shimon bar Yohai, for example, said that there were four scriptural expositions of Akiva\u2019s with which he disagreed, one concerning the meaning of the phrase \u201cthe fast of the tenth month\u201d in Zechariah 8:19. Akiva said it referred to the tenth of Tevet, when the king of Babylon laid siege to Jerusalem, according to Ezekiel 24:1\u20132. Shimon contended that it referred to the fifth of that month, when \u201ca fugitive came to me from Jerusalem and reported, \u2018The city has fallen\u2019 \u201d (Ezek. 33:21). In this case Akiva\u2019s view prevailed.
\nConcerning the recitation of the daily Amidah, while Rabban Gamliel ruled that each individual should recite an entire Amidah three times daily, Rabbi Joshua felt that a shortened version was sufficient. Akiva took a practical stance: if one knew the prayer well, one should recite it fully; if not, a short version would do.
\nThe basic Rosh Hashanah liturgy had been formulated by then, in particular the inclusion of three special sections in the Amidah: \u201cGod\u2019s Sovereignty,\u201d \u201cRemembrance,\u201d and Shofarot. However there was a difference of opinion between Yohanan ben Nuri and Akiva concerning the sounding of the shofar. Both agreed that it should be sounded at three different times, but Ben Nuri did not connect the first sounding with the recitation of the Malkhuyot (God\u2019s Sovereignty) section, while Akiva did, reasoning, \u201cIf we do not sound the shofar then, why say that section at all?\u201d In the Galilee they followed Ben Nuri; in Judea they followed Akiva. Later Akiva\u2019s practice was universally adopted.
\nThe most important liturgical feature of Yom Kippur is the Vidui, the individual\u2019s confession of sins. At this early time the various forms of confession that are now an integral part of the service, the brief confession Ashamnu and the long alphabetical list Al Het, had not yet been formulated or finalized. The question was asked in the Tosefta, \u201cHow does one confess?\u201d Yehudah ben Betera answered, \u201cOne must specify all of one\u2019s sins,\u201d but Akiva disagreed and said that there was no need to go into details. A general confession that one had sinned was sufficient. Akiva explained his position by citing Psalm 32:1, \u201cHappy is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered over.\u201d Akiva tended to lay greater stress on God\u2019s forgiveness than on the weight of human sin. Thus the passage in the Jerusalem Talmud concludes with Akiva\u2019s reminder that God is the mikveh\u2014the ritual pool of cleansing for Israel. Later developments in liturgy did not follow his teaching and established lengthy and detailed lists of sins to be recited.
\nAkiva was concerned for the welfare of minor children on the fast day of Yom Kippur. They are permitted to eat until they reach a year or two before maturity, when they are obligated to observe the commandments (usually twelve for girls and thirteen for boys). To make certain that they would be fed, Akiva would send those in attendance out of the beit midrash on Yom Kippur specifically to feed the children. He is also said to have introduced games on Passover night to keep children awake and alert.
\nAs mentioned earlier, in the Babylonian Talmud Akiva is credited with originating the formula \u201cOur Father, Our Sovereign,\u201d Avinu Malkeinu, which plays an important part in the liturgy of the High Holy Days and fast days. The story is told that at a time of drought, when a fast was being held to petition God for rain, the great Rabbi Eliezer prayed with no result, but when Akiva prayed and said, \u201cOur Father, our Sovereign, we have no Sovereign but You. Have mercy upon us, our Father, our Sovereign, for Your own sake,\u201d the rains came. Another earlier version in the Jerusalem Talmud simply says that Akiva\u2019s prayer was answered, without specifying what he said, and has Akiva explaining modestly that it was not because he was better than Eliezer. Rather it could be compared to a sovereign who had two daughters, one who was nervy (hatzufa) and one who was worthy. The sovereign always admitted the nervy one quickly so she that she should also leave quickly, but required the worthy one to continue to ask permission because he enjoyed hearing her.
\nPerhaps the most significant liturgical decision made by Rabbi Akiva concerned the concluding blessing of the Passover seder recited before the meal. According to the Mishnah, Akiva\u2019s contemporary, Rabbi Tarfon, suggested saying simply, \u201cBlessed are You, O Lord our God, Ruler of the universe, who redeemed us and redeemed our ancestors from Egypt.\u201d Akiva insisted on a much longer version:<\/p>\n
Blessed are You, O Lord our God, Ruler of the universe, who redeemed us and redeemed our ancestors from Egypt and brought us to this evening when we eat matzah and maror [bitter herbs].
\nSo too, Lord our God, bring us to other festivals and seasons in peace, rejoicing in the restoration of Your city and joyful in Your service. Then we shall partake of the sacrifices and the paschal lamb whose blood will be sprinkled on the walls of Your altar for Your acceptance, and we shall give thanks unto You, singing a new song of redemption and salvation.
\nBlessed are You, O Lord, who redeemed Israel.\u201d<\/p>\n
This lengthy and detailed recital reflects Akiva\u2019s fervent hope and belief that the restoration of the Temple would take place in his own lifetime. For him the Passover seder was a splendid opportunity for everyone to reiterate that belief. Tarfon was content with mentioning a redemption that had taken place a thousand years before, with the feeling that we too\u2014those alive now\u2014were part of that redemption. Akiva insisted on emphasizing what would happen in the future, hopefully the near future\u2014namely another redemption bringing freedom and renewal. Akiva was not the only one to harbor such a belief, but he was a major force in bringing that idea to the fore. In this case it was Akiva\u2019s version that became the accepted practice.<\/p>\n
Akiva may never have written systematic theology or attempted to answer all the questions that could be asked about God, but he did have a consistent view of the value and meaning of human life and God\u2019s connection to humankind and a concept of the One God who is loving, merciful, immanent, concerned, and approachable.<\/p>\n
Eight<\/p>\n
AKIVA\u2014RESISTANCE, IMPRISONMENT, AND DEATH<\/p>\n
Hadrian (Publius Aelius Hadrian, 76 CE\u2013138 CE) is one of the most reviled figures in Jewish history. His name has been joined with Amalek, Nebuchadnezzar, Haman, Antiochus, and Titus as a despicable enemy of Jews and Judaism in ancient times. Yet when he came to power as Roman emperor in 117 CE, the inhabitants of Judea might have been forgiven for thinking him a friend, in the company of Cyrus of Persia, who restored the Jews to their land after the Babylonian exile. In 118 CE Hadrian had put to death the hated governor of Judea, Quietus, who had savagely fought against the Jews in Mesopotamia during the uprising in 115 CE and under whose rule the Jews had suffered persecution. Hadrian was an enlightened Hellenist, an expert in Greek literature and art, as well as a renowned architect who had designed the largest temple in all of Rome, dedicated to Venus and the goddess Roma. But if Jews thought that this cultivated man would be more favorable to their cause than the warlike emperors who had preceded him, they were sadly mistaken.
\nThere is no reason, however, to think that Hadrian particularly hated the Jews, but neither was there a reason for him to be particularly favorable to them, in view of the many rebellions that the Jews had fomented against Rome. There was the Great Revolt in 66\u201373 CE, and the period prior to Hadrian\u2019s rule had not been peaceful either. Ever since the quelling of the revolt there had been unrest and armed uprisings against Rome in the Jewish Diaspora and in Judea as well. The most serious had been during the time of Trajan in 115\u2013117 CE, when the Moorish general Lucius Quietus was sent to Mesopotamia and then to Judea to quell the uprisings, in what became known in Jewish tradition as the \u201cKitos War.\u201d He had remained as procurator until he was removed and executed by Hadrian. The land had known little quiet, but Akiva, always the optimist, had high hopes for the future, even contemplating the restoration of the Temple, something that pious Jews had prayed for three times daily since the time of its destruction nearly fifty years before. When Hadrian went through Judea for the last time on his way to Egypt in 129 CE everything seemed peaceful and calm.<\/p>\n
REBUILDING THE TEMPLE<\/p>\n
The Romans had no plans to permit the rebuilding of the Jerusalem Temple. This was unusual, since everywhere else local populations were permitted to rebuild shrines that had been destroyed in warfare. The Romans may have felt that a rebuilt Temple, representing a ritual and a belief so foreign to other religions of the time, would become a center for rebellion. For reasons of internal Roman politics, the destruction of the Temple was glorified long after the event. As British scholar Martin Goodman, an expert in both Roman and Jewish history, has written, \u201cThe explanation lay in the need of the emperor to manipulate his public image in order to ensure support for his regime.\u201d
\nIt is not entirely clear why, but it was not long after his ascension before word spread that Hadrian was considering the possibility of rebuilding the Temple on its ancient site in destroyed Jerusalem, not as a place of idolatry, but as a center of Jewish worship. It is likely that Hadrian, the architect and builder, was simply interested in rebuilding Jerusalem for his own glory. It was less likely that he ever intended to rebuild the Jewish Temple, but in Jewish eyes such a thing was not impossible. Had not Cyrus the Persian permitted the Jews to return from their exile in Babylon and rebuild the destroyed Temple some seventy years after its destruction, fulfilling the prophecies of Jeremiah? No wonder the later prophet of the Babylonian exile, generally known as Second Isaiah, had hailed Cyrus as the redeemer of Israel (Isa. 44:28). This hope was expressed in the Sibylline Oracles, Jewish pseudonymous writings of uncertain origins, where Hadrian is called \u201ca most excellent man and he will consider everything.\u201d
\nIn the fifty years following the fall of Jerusalem the lamentation for the destruction of the Temple had never stopped, nor was the hope for its rebuilding ever put aside. The extreme mourning that some had taken upon themselves, refraining from all merriment, abstaining from meat and wine, had been discouraged by Sages such as the moderate Joshua ben Hananiah, but the people continued to remember and to mourn in less extravagant ways by leaving a patch unfinished in the house, leaving out a course in a banquet, or wearing one less piece of jewelry. The Sages did everything they could to keep alive the memory of the Temple and the hope for its rebuilding.
\nAkiva, now in his seventies and at the height of his fame, had long been one of those who led the mourning for Jerusalem. A young man when it was destroyed, Akiva may or may not have ever actually seen the Temple in its glory, but it remained constantly in his thoughts. He taught that the ninth of Av, the day of the destruction, must be strictly observed as a fast day and that no one, even the most humble laborer, should work on that day. \u201cHe who works on the ninth of Av will never see a sign of blessing.\u201d he declared. \u201cHe who does not mourn the Temple will not live to see it rebuilt!\u201d As has been noted earlier, when the words to be recited at the Passover seder were being formulated, it was Akiva who insisted that the benediction recited before eating the meal, the benediction of \u201cRedemption,\u201d not only should refer to the Exodus from Egypt, but must also include a prayer for the redemption and restoration yet to come. Perhaps that time had arrived.
\nSometime prior to Hadrian\u2019s coming to power, Akiva, together with Rabban Gamliel II, Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah, and Rabbi Joshua, visited the desolate ruins of the Temple. Approaching them above from Mount Scopus, they could look down upon the ruins, and when they saw them they tore their garments as a sign of mourning. They then descended to the Temple Mount itself and, as they approached the Western Wall, the crumbling remnant of the Holy of Holies that was still standing, they saw a fox leaving the sacred site, and they began to weep. Akiva, however, did not weep; rather he laughed. When his startled companions asked him to explain his bizarre behavior, he said that what they had witnessed was nothing less than the fulfillment of the prophesy in the book of Jeremiah, \u201cZion shall be plowed as a field, and Jerusalem shall become heaps of ruins, and the Temple Mount a shrine in the woods\u201d (26:18). But, Akiva reminded them, there was also another prophecy, that of Zechariah, \u201cThere shall yet be old men and women in the squares of Jerusalem\u201d (8:4). \u201cBefore the first prophecy came true, I was afraid that the second would not be realized. Now that the first has come true, I am certain that the second will come to pass.\u201d \u201cAkiva, you have comforted us,\u201d said his companions, \u201cAkiva, you have comforted us.\u201d These words of Akiva would have resonated loudly at this time.
\nFor Akiva the sacredness of the Temple was of extreme importance. He taught that one must always show respect to the site of the Temple, no matter where one happened to be. According to the Tosefta, he also strived to learn everything he could about how the rites of the Temple had been performed, since this would be important when the Temple was restored. For example, he transmitted and preserved the knowledge of which psalm had been recited each day in the Temple and may have been responsible for transferring that practice to the daily synagogue service.
\nIf the rumors of Hadrian\u2019s intentions to rebuild the Temple were true, comfort would indeed soon be forthcoming. Unfortunately, the years went by and Jerusalem remained desolate, and any hope that Hadrian would permit its rebuilding disappeared. A midrash records that after announcing the plan to rebuild the Temple, the Romans, under pressure from the Samaritans, decided to move the site of the Temple or somehow change the building plans so that they would be different from that required by Jewish Law, which of course the Jews would oppose. In any case, according to that midrash, the Jews did oppose that plan and were on the verge of violence to prevent the new Temple from being built when the venerable Sage Joshua ben Hananiah stepped up and quashed the hotheads. Joshua, a teacher of Akiva, was a disciple of Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai and had lived through the Great Revolt that had failed so miserably. He had helped smuggle Ben Zakkai out of Jerusalem in a coffin and had undoubtedly adopted Ben Zakkai\u2019s teachings of moderation and his warnings about rising up against the Romans. The midrash depicts Joshua as continuing the tradition, cautioning against making the same mistake twice. \u201cIt is enough that we were able to enter into discussion with this nation in peace and emerge in peace!\u201d There is no historical record attesting to this gathering with Joshua, and it is most unlikely that it ever took place.
\nEven if this gathering took place as described, it was only a temporary respite. In the long run, the temptation to bring about the end of Roman rule was too great, and some of the Sages, including Rabbi Akiva, seem to have adopted a militant stance, favoring the rebellion. Although there is no evidence that the Bar Kokhva Rebellion was instigated or led by the Sages, they certainly did nothing to prevent it. When the critical moment came, there was no one with the status of Ben Zakkai or even of Joshua ben Hananiah to stop the flames.<\/p>\n
AELIA CAPITOLINA<\/p>\n
As the hope of rebuilding the Temple evaporated, bitterness increased and agitation for action against Rome grew. It was a time of unrest and constant tension. The Romans, not known for any aversion to cruelty nor great respect for human life, executed prominent Sages as well as ordinary citizens when they violated Roman decrees or were suspected of treason against the state. A Rabbi Shimon and a certain Rabbi Ishmael (not to be identified with the great Rabbi Ishmael ben Elisha, Akiva\u2019s opponent) were seized by the Romans and sentenced to death. The exact nature of their crime is not known, but they were to be executed like common criminals. When Akiva heard the bitter news, he went into mourning, donning sackcloth and ashes. \u201cO Israel,\u201d he said, \u201cif good had been destined for this generation, the first to receive it would have been these two. But now that it has been revealed to God that dire punishment is destined, they have been taken from the world!\u201d Even Akiva, the perpetual optimist, began to feel that there was not much hope for the future. This feeling of despair is reflected in his remark \u201cOne who fasts so that the Shekhinah [Divine Spirit] will rest upon him should have his desire fulfilled, but\u2014alas\u2014our sins have driven [the Shekhinah] away from us, as it is written, \u2018But your iniquities have been a barrier between you and your God\u2019 (Isa. 59:2).\u201d
\nBy now the situation was growing so bad and feelings were so intense that some despaired of the future of the people. Rabbi Ishmael ben Elisha, often Akiva\u2019s opponent in theological discussions, once said, \u201cFrom the day that a government has come to power that issues cruel decrees against us and forbids us the observance of the Torah and mitzvot and does not allow us the week of the son [circumcision], by rights we should vow not to marry and have children and the seed of Abraham our father would come to an end by itself. But let Israelites go their way and err in ignorance.\u201d
\nWhatever his original idea concerning Jerusalem may have been, Hadrian, an ardent Hellenist, decided to turn the ancient site into a Greco-Roman city and build a pagan temple there. It is most likely what he had in mind all along. There is no reason to think that his feelings toward Judaism were any different from those of the rulers who preceded him. Ever since the destruction in 70 CE Judaism had been vilified. Jews throughout the world had been required to pay an annual tax of two drachmas each year to the rebuilding of the temple of Jupiter in Rome. This tax was in place of the annual contribution Jews had made previously to the Temple in Jerusalem. Only one emperor, Nerva, in 97 had briefly abolished it. By 98, when Nerva died and Trajan became the ruler, the tax was reinstated. Rome looked down on Jews and Judaism, and Jews throughout the empire hated Rome.
\nThe year was 130 CE. Hadrian had visited all the provinces of Rome, instituting major changes in governance. In 129 he came to Asia Minor and, on his way to Egypt, stopped in Judea, even issuing a coin commemorating his visit. Cassius Dio, the Roman historian, wrote that Hadrian planned to rebuild Jerusalem, but it would not be a glorious center of Jewish life; it was to be a pagan city\u2014Aelia Capitolina (\u201cAelia\u201d after Aelius Hadrian, \u201cCapitolina\u201d after the god Jupiter Capitolinus)\u2014a center of idolatrous worship, capped by a magnificent temple and dedicated to Zeus-Jupiter. In accord with his love of Hellenism, he would build a Roman colony in the Hellenistic style where Jerusalem had been, and it would be populated exclusively by non-Jews.
\nScholars are divided over whether Hadrian planned to build his pagan temple on the very site of the Temple or not. Some have said that he deliberately did not want to do so. The most recent archaeological evidence, however, points in the opposite direction. Shlomit Wexler-Bedolah, who has been involved in excavations near the Western Wall Plaza, stated, \u201cIf there were Second Temple buildings still standing after the destruction, the Romans destroyed everything that remained.\u201d The construction of this city, given a new name of Aelia Capitolina, which in itself indicated that Jerusalem was to be eradicated forever, began several years before the outbreak of the revolt.
\nIf the pagan temple was indeed to be erected on the site of the Second Temple, that would certainly have been cause enough to justify a full-fledged war against Rome. Not that much was needed to arouse such feelings. The very fact that since the end of the Great Revolt Rome had stood in the way of any Jewish independence, of any formal Jewish government, of any revival of a Jewish monarchy, and of any resumption of the all-important Temple rites would certainly have been sufficient. Jews were not the only ones to chafe under Roman rule and to desire independence. There had been other revolts in Britain and Gaul and a spectacular one by the Germanic Batavian tribe in 69\u201370, which had initial success but then was defeated, as was the Jewish revolt at that same time. Of course none had succeeded.
\nIt has been suggested that one of the causes of the Bar Kokhva Rebellion was that the Roman law against castration and bodily disfigurement, which included a ban on circumcision, was applied by Hadrian to Jews in Judea. Although this enactment was not originally intended specifically as an impediment to Judaism, it may indeed have become that. As a midrash put it, a Jew being executed when asked, \u201cWhy are you going to be crucified?\u201d would answer, \u201cBecause I circumcised my son.\u201d On the other hand, it is not at all certain that this law was actually applied before the revolt. The Israeli historian Aharon Oppenheimer, for example, believes that it was enforced only after the revolt, in which case the true immediate cause of the revolt was the building of Aelia Capitolina.
\nJust as the ban against circumcision may not have been originally directed against Judaism, so too the decision to build this city may have simply been an extension of normal Roman practice, another attempt \u201cto strengthen the Hellenistic foundations of Hadrian\u2019s empire.\u201d Goodman argues persuasively, however, that Hadrian\u2019s idea was that doing this would put an end to Jewish hopes once and for all of rebuilding the Temple and that this would prevent any further Jewish uprisings. In actuality it had the exact opposite effect, bringing on, as Dio said, \u201ca war of no slight importance.\u201d
\nHistorians have argued over whether the city was built before the Bar Kokhva Rebellion or as a punishment after it was over. However recent evidence based on coins that have been found on the site indicates that Dio was correct and construction was under way before the revolt. This act was seen by Jews as a declaration of war on Judaism, an attempt to delegitimize Judaism, which had once been considered a legitimate religion by Roman law, and to change the character of the country by making Judaism\u2019s once greatest city into a pagan shrine. The fact that the Bar Kokhva coins contained the phrase \u201cFor the freedom of Jerusalem\u201d indicates that this was indeed their goal. As far as can be discerned, however, no specific attempt was made to recapture the site of Jerusalem or to rebuild the Temple. If there was such, it failed. There is no evidence that the rebels ever reached that place. Hadrian was building Aelia Capitolina. Bar Kokhva and the Jews countered with the hope for the freedom of Israel and the liberation of Jerusalem.<\/p>\n
BAR KOKHVA<\/p>\n
Akiva was now an old man, not nearing 120 as legend has it but somewhere in his eighties. He had already been bereft of one, possibly two sons. Since we hear nothing of his beloved wife, we must assume that she was no more. Yet his mind was clear, his thoughts and his speech totally lucid. He had his disciples who watched over him, especially one, Rabbi Joshua HaGarsi, who attended to his every need. Rabban Gamliel II had already passed away. No one officially replaced him, and by now Akiva was in everything but title the intellectual, if not the political, leader of the Jewish people. His knowledge was sought, his opinions were cherished, his methods of study and instruction had formed the basis of Jewish learning. His disciples would go on to cast all Jewish learning into the forms and molds he had determined. No other Sage could compare with the status he had achieved in his own lifetime. Yet he was on the edge of despair.
\nPerhaps it is true that it is always darkest just before the dawn, even if the dawn proves to be an illusion. For Akiva, at least, light suddenly seemed to emerge from the least expected place. Military actions, armed revolt, were hardly his forte, yet if these would lead to a renewal of Jewish life, a revival of learning and observance, a freeing of Jews and Judaism from the shackles of Roman tyranny, Akiva would embrace them. For Akiva, Rome had always been the enemy predicted in the Torah itself under the name of Edom or Esau. It was Rome he had in mind when he interpreted the verse \u201cThe voice is the voice of Jacob, yet the hands are the hands of Esau\u201d (Gen. 27:22) to mean \u201cThe voice of Jacob cried out because of what the hands of Esau had done to him.\u201d Akiva may well have been the first to identify Rome with Esau. Indeed, the official Roman color, deep red, lent itself easily to the interpretation that Edom\u2014also meaning \u201cred\u201d\u2014referred to Rome. Not for him the doctrines of Yohanan ben Zakkai during the Great Revolt advocating capitulation to the greater force of the Roman Empire. On the contrary, Akiva was ready and anxious to find a leader who could transform the situation. Shimon bar Kosiva, who was later known as Bar Kokhva, appeared on the scene.
\nLittle is known about the history of the man himself. Who was he? Where did he come from? Where did he receive his knowledge of military tactics? What did he look like? This Shimon appeared suddenly out of nowhere, organizing the scattered forces of rebellion into a true guerilla army prepared to take on the legions of Rome. Rabbinic sources are few, generally quite late, and inclined to legendary accounts. Furthermore they are influenced by the fact that the rebellion failed. Had it succeeded, this man would undoubtedly have been praised and seen as another Judah the Maccabee, which is what he probably aspired to be. Other knowledge we have of him, again quite sparse, comes mainly from the second-to third-century Roman historian Cassius Dio and the later Christian source Eusebius.
\nThe only actual accounts extant dating from that time are the famous Bar Kokhva letters found in the Judean desert in the 1950s and later published by Yigal Yadin. Unfortunately the letters are mostly from the last period of the war, though some are dated the first or second year \u201cof the redemption of Israel.\u201d They are signed by \u201cShimon bar KSVA, nasi [leader] of Israel at Ein Gedi.\u201d They deal with practical matters, supplies, and orders to commanders of how to deal with those who were not ready to fight or who were threats to the army. They contain orders to confiscate lands and supplies and speak of the need for reinforcements. They paint a picture of someone in control of a government, not only of an army. The causes of the rebellion are not mentioned, nor do they tell us anything of Bar Kokhva\u2019s background or personal history. We learn that there were non-Jews who fought with him and that there were Jews who did not want to participate. In one famous letter, probably sent in 134, the last year in which the army would have observed Sukkot before the suppression of the rebellion, he ordered the four plant species needed in the lulav for the observance of the holiday to be brought to the entire army. The letters reflect a well-organized group, not some rabble. His letters show him to have been an adherent of the religious practices of the Sages and to have a firm hand on everything being done. He managed to forge a kind of Jewish government resisting the domination of Rome. The impression is of a strong and sturdy leader with a commanding presence, a man of the people, not noble and aristocratic but with practical knowledge and a burning desire to lead the people of Judea to victory and freedom, a man to whom the religious traditions of Judaism were important. He took total control of all the forces of rebellion. One scholar has commented, however, that in these letters \u201che sounds rather like a pious thug, keeping his sacred observances and threatening his men.\u201d
\nHow different this was from the situation sixty years earlier, when there was disorganization among the leaders of the Great Revolt, fanatics fought one another, and unity was never achieved. Now one man emerged who somehow attained the allegiance of all those who wanted to fight Rome. The rebellion was well organized and lasted for three and a half years, causing heavy Roman casualties. In hindsight we know that he led the people to disaster, and anyone with knowledge of the reality of the world situation should have known that there could be no other outcome. The Roman Empire led by Hadrian was not about to permit this tiny and insignificant province to outwit and outfight it and would pour as many resources as necessary into defeating this upstart rebellion, as it had in every previous rebellion. But hindsight is always clearer than foresight, and reality could not compete with the memory of ancient victories and a strong belief in ancient prophecies. From the point of view of those beginning the struggle, imbued with a sense of the justice of their cause, nourished by a belief in the power of the God of Israel and the memory of the miracle of the Maccabean rebellion a few hundred years before, Bar Kokhva seemed to hold the promise of a way out of the darkness in which they were living.
\nTo Akiva such an individual would have represented the hope of redemption that he had long cherished, and he made his feelings known to all. There were others who felt differently, but none with the authority that Akiva had earned. There was no Ben Zakkai to say to the rebels, \u201cWhat you are doing will lead only to further death and despair. Right is on our side, but might is on theirs.\u201d If Akiva gave his blessing, we can assume that his followers would have felt the same way, but there is no evidence that the Sages as a whole were enthusiastic supporters of this new revolt. Indeed, even Akiva\u2019s role was not as great as some have pictured it in the past, both in scholarly works and in fiction.
\nAll that is recorded is that Akiva proclaimed Shimon bar Kosiva (Bar Kokhva) the Messiah. The Jerusalem Talmud contains a report by Akiva\u2019s disciple Shimon bar Yohai that Akiva announced that the verses \u201cA star [kokhav] rises from Jacob, a scepter comes forth from Israel.\u2026 Edom becomes a possession, yea, Seir a possession of its enemies; but Israel is triumphant. A victor issues from Jacob to wipe out what is left of Ir\u201d (Num. 24:17\u201319) applied to Bar Kosiva. \u201cA star [kokhav] rises from Jacob\u2014Kosiva rises from Jacob,\u201d said Akiva. \u201cKosiva\u201d became \u201cKokhva\u201d\u2014the \u201cstar\u201d who would wipe out Edom\/Rome. He would destroy \u201cIr,\u201d the Hebrew word for \u201ccity,\u201d in Latin urbs, the very city of Rome. Since the four consonants of his name were k-s-v-a, all it required to change it to \u201cstar\u201d was to substitute one letter and make it k-kh-v-a. With this statement Shimon received not only a new name, Bar Kokhva\u2014a nom de guerre that was also a title\u2014but more importantly, the public acknowledgment by the most important Rabbinic authority of the age that he was indeed worthy to lead the rebellion, that he was the long-awaited Messiah. The Talmud then adds, \u201cWhen Rabbi Akiva saw Bar Kokhva he would say, \u2018This is the Messianic King.\u2019 \u201d That is all we know about Akiva\u2019s relationship to Bar Kokhva. The rest is pure speculation.
\nThere was at least one loud voice of dissent to Akiva\u2019s messianic proclamation. Rabbi Yohanan ben Torta said, rather crassly but correctly, \u201cAkiva! Grass will grow in your cheeks and the son of David will still not have arrived!\u201d But who was this Yohanan, a relatively unknown Sage, in comparison to Rabbi Akiva, of whom it was commonly said that one who was separated from Akiva was separated from life itself? Such a protest must have been met with derision by all who heard it.
\nAkiva\u2019s statement is found in only one other Rabbinic source, the much later midrash Lamentations Rabbah, where it follows a different interpretation of the same verse given generations later by Rabbi Judah the Prince: \u201cDo not read kokhav [a star] but kozev [a deceiver]\u201d\u2014another play on the name \u201cKosiva,\u201d reflecting the attitude of rejection following the failure of the revolt.
\nNo early tannaitic source mentions Akiva\u2019s proclamation of Shimon as the messianic king, but there is good reason to believe that he did so. Considering the terrible consequences of the rebellion and the later Rabbinic denunciation of Bar Kokhva as a false messiah, there would be little reason to ascribe this to Akiva had he not actually done so. But neither is there any evidence that Akiva did more than that, nor that Akiva meant anything more than that this fellow Bar Kosiva could defeat the Romans and bring about Jewish independence.
\nAlthough there had always been ideas that depicted the Messiah in mystical and supernatural terms, there were also others that thought of the Messiah very simply as the redeemer, the human being who would lead the people in overcoming the evil empire that enslaved them. Akiva had a very earthly understanding of the Messiah, predicting that the Messianic Age would last for only forty years. This Shimon, rough though he might be, also radiated power. Some have suggested that he was more like one of the bandit leaders Josephus described during the time of the Great Revolt, certainly not messianic in the supernatural sense. Indeed, he himself never seemed to have had such pretensions. Shimon could not have been unhappy to have Akiva\u2019s seal of approval, but he very wisely avoided taking the title of Messiah. On his coins and in his letters he styled himself simply nasi\u2014leader of Israel, a civil title rather than a religious one. Furthermore it is very telling that in these letters he never used the messianic title of Bar Kokhva, but always his real name, Shimon bar KSVA. Once he had achieved some victories, it seemed indeed possible that he would triumph. For Akiva that had been enough.
\nThere is not a shred of evidence that Akiva joined Bar Kokhva\u2019s troops or advised him in any way. The many attempts that have been made to picture Akiva as actively participating in the rebellion, serving as Bar Kokhva\u2019s advisor or sending his disciples into battle with him are without any factual basis. Beyond that proclamation, important as it was, Akiva\u2019s role in the revolt itself seems to have been negligible. He may have supported it but did not run it. He was, after all, a teacher of Torah and not a general or a politician. There is no evidence that the reported deaths of his many students occurred because they were killed in the fighting. Illness, a plague, is much more likely, to say nothing of the fact that their deaths must have taken place long before the rebellion. The later charges by the Romans against Akiva had nothing to do with the revolt; they concerned his disregard for Roman-decreed prohibitions against gathering multitudes and teaching them Torah. Only one other Sage is said to have been directly connected to Bar Kokhva, Rabbi Eleazar of Modi\u2019in, and that account is legendary.
\nIn short, we know almost nothing about the role that either Akiva or the Sages in general played in the revolt. Some may have seen it as a positive thing, as Akiva evidently did, but it was certainly not originated or driven by the Sages in any organized way. The major contribution that Akiva and the other Sages made to bringing on the revolt may well have been their encouragement concerning the rebuilding of the Temple and their mourning for Jerusalem.
\nEven later, when it was clear to all that the Messiah had not come and that the revolt had been a disaster, no one blamed Akiva for his enthusiastic endorsement of the man who then came to be called by all \u201cBar Koziva, the son of falsehood.\u201d Eventually the defamation of Bar Kokhva was such that the Babylonian Talmud even claimed, in what is clearly a fabrication, that after two and a half years of the revolt he had said to the Rabbis, \u201cI am the Messiah.\u201d They tested him and found that he was not. \u201cThey then slew him.\u201d
\nWhat was it that prompted Akiva to make such a bold determination? One thing is certain, he did not underestimate the power of Rome. As we have seen, he had been there and seen its magnificence. His travels on behalf of the Jews of Judea had taken him to Rome years before as part of a delegation led by Rabban Gamliel, together with Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah. It should not be forgotten that at that time, according to the story recorded in the Sifre, when the noise of that great city was heard by them while they were still 120 miles away and others began to weep, Akiva burst out laughing. When they asked him why, he turned the question around and asked why they wept. They answered, \u201cThese pagans bow down to idols and yet live in security, peace, and serenity while the Temple of our God is in ruins!\u201d \u201cThat is why I laughed,\u201d said Akiva. \u201cIf God has given all this to those who have angered Him, how much more will He give those who fulfill His will.\u201d
\nMany years had passed and the situation had only worsened, but he still believed that. It was not Rome\u2019s might that Akiva underestimated. Rather, he trusted that the time had come for God to return Israel to its rightful place, as the Almighty had done in the days of Nehemiah. Perhaps the very increase in suffering was a sign that things were about to change, that the Messiah would come when things got as bad as they could be. Rabban Gamliel himself had taught that there would be terrible suffering in the Messianic Age. There is a statement in the Talmud that Akiva had interpreted the verses \u201cFor thus said the LORD of Hosts: In just a little while longer I will shake the heavens and the earth, the sea and the dry land; I will shake all the nations\u201d (Haggai 2:6\u20137) incorrectly, most likely seeing this as an immanent prediction of the Messianic Age. He had attempted to calculate the time of the coming of the Messiah and he had been mistaken.<\/p>\n
THE BAR KOKHVA REBELLION<\/p>\n
In the summer of 132 CE, after Hadrian had left the Land of Israel, the revolt broke out in all its fury. It has been suggested that Hadrian\u2019s visit may have been a contributing factor to the rebellion, since it imposed a great financial burden upon the country. This, together with all the other social, economic, national, and religious difficulties, may have accelerated the breaking out of this rebellion, the main cause of which was the building of Aelia Capitolina. No one knew how long it would last\u2014it was three and a half years before it was put down\u2014but it had great success at first. Shimon\u2019s coins proclaimed \u201cthe Freedom of Jerusalem,\u201d although that was never attained or even attempted. They also showed a picture of the fa\u00e7ade of the Temple. In the coins he also proclaimed \u201cthe Freedom of Israel,\u201d calling himself the \u201cnasi of Israel,\u201d emphasizing Israel as the name of the nation, a name the Romans had never used.
\nAt the same time, as the fighting went on the Roman authorities, led at first by the governor of the province, Tineius Rufus, enforced more and more restrictions on the observance of Judaism. Among them were forbidding public assemblies and the public teaching of Torah, the eventual cause of Akiva\u2019s imprisonment. Other decrees were promulgated during the fighting forbidding some observances of Judaism either as punishment or because these practices were thought to promote rebellion. One of the earliest was against the public proclamation of the Sh\u2019ma, \u201cHear, O Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord alone!\u201d (Deut. 6:4). For generations Jews had recited those words daily, sometimes in a public ceremony with a leader who recited it as a proclamation of total dedication to the God of Israel. Allegiance to the Lord was exclusive and excluded any human being, even if he proclaimed himself a deity, as did Roman emperors. Even when Jews recited the Sh\u2019ma individually, they said it aloud, literally \u201chearing\u201d what Moses had first proclaimed to Israel more than a thousand years before. In addition there was the ancient practice called pores al Sh\u2019ma (proclaiming the Sh\u2019ma) in which at a public gathering a leader would proclaim the first line, \u201cHear, O Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord alone,\u201d and the people would respond, \u201cBlessed is the name of His glorious Majesty for even and ever.\u201d This was a public demonstration of exclusive allegiance to the God of Israel and by implication a denial of the authority or divinity of any Roman leader. For the Romans, who had not yet outlawed prayer or study, this vow of allegiance was equivalent to denial of the authority of the Caesar and indeed of the state itself.
\nFor Akiva, the Sh\u2019ma was a central pillar of his faith and his life. As the Sages had taught, the first line, \u201cHear, O Israel,\u201d was \u201cthe acceptance of the yoke of heaven,\u201d the very essence of what it meant to be a Jew. The next words, \u201cYou shall love the Lord your God,\u201d formed a command that must have spoken deeply to Akiva, for as we have seen, love was the basis of everything that was precious to him. How it must have frustrated him when he once sat with his companions in his house of study and had to recite the Sh\u2019ma silently rather than proclaiming it aloud publicly because of the presence there of a Roman spy.
\nThe love that this biblical passage commanded was all-encompassing, all-consuming: love God \u201cwith all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might\u201d (Deut. 6:5). According to the Mishnah, \u201cwith all your soul\u201d means \u201ceven if He takes your soul\u201d (in other words, at the time of death). This is also found in the tannaitic midrash Sifre Deuteronomy, which adds in the name of Shimon ben Azzai, \u201cLove Him until the last drop of life is wrung out of you.\u201d Akiva had taught that since \u201cwith all your soul\u201d means \u201ceven if He takes your soul,\u201d that would include all of your possessions. If one is willing to give up one\u2019s life for the love of God, obviously it is logical that one would be willing to give up one\u2019s possessions. Therefore the last part of the verse, \u201cwith all your might,\u201d cannot mean \u201cwith all your possessions,\u201d as was commonly taught, but something else. Akiva, playing on the similarity between the Hebrew for \u201cmight\u201d (me\u2019od) and the word middah, meaning \u201cmeasure,\u201d taught that it means that one is to love God regardless of \u201cwhatever measure He metes out to you, whether of good or of punishment.\u201d He was soon to feel the full meaning of that himself, and his ability to fulfill such a terrible demand would be tested. In the meantime, he went out of his way to find a way to recite the Sh\u2019ma without bringing down the wrath of the authorities by saying it silently.
\nIt is quite possible that many of these Roman decrees restricting various religious observances were enacted as a reaction to the revolt, rather than before it, serving as both a punishment and a means of preventing further incitement. Since Judaism, then as today, values life, it faced a dilemma as to whether one was permitted to follow these restrictions and violate the commandments, or was required to fulfill the commandments even though this would risk death. And so it was decided by the Sages in a secret meeting that except for prohibitions against idolatry, incest, and murder, all the other commandments could be violated. Certainly no one was commanded to teach Torah at the cost of sacrificing one\u2019s very existence. Surely the aged Akiva would be forgiven for confining himself to his residence and studying quietly or with a few chosen disciples in secret.<\/p>\n
AKIVA DEFIES ROME<\/p>\n
More than one friend or colleague urged Akiva to obey the rules of the Roman authorities and live on safely. Eventually this would pass. Either the revolt would succeed and they would be truly free, or it would fail and with defeat would come peace and eventually a return to normalcy, whatever that was to be. For Akiva, however, there was never a moment\u2019s hesitation, never a choice. Torah was his whole life. Torah was divine, the word of God. It had to be taught, and taught openly to the masses. In his eyes Torah study was even more important than observance, and so he ignored all warnings and continued to teach Torah in public.
\nIt is recorded that Pappus ben Yehudah, Akiva\u2019s ill-tempered contemporary and often Akiva\u2019s opponent in biblical interpretation, warned him explicitly of the danger involved in defying the decrees of the Romans, expounding the Torah and collecting an assembly. \u201cAre you not afraid of the government?\u201d he asked. Akiva, who was an excellent teller of tales and Aesop-like parables, answered in the now famous parable of the fox and the fish:<\/p>\n
Walking by the river, the fox saw the fish scurrying from place to place. \u201cWhy are you fleeing?\u201d asked the fox. \u201cBecause of the nets that men are casting to catch us,\u201d answered the fish.
\n\u201cCome up to dry land, then, and live with us!\u201d urged the fox.
\n\u201cDon\u2019t you understand?\u201d said the fish, \u201cIf we are not safe in the water, which is the place where we naturally can live, how could we survive on the land, which is not our natural place!\u201d<\/p>\n
Depriving Israel of Torah was equivalent to depriving it of life itself, the very air it breathed, the oxygen in the water of the fish. If the rebellion was not successful, Israel would somehow survive, but if Torah was eliminated, Israel had no future. Pappus, like the fox, shook his head in disbelief at Akiva\u2019s stubborn insistence on defying the brutal Roman authorities and went on his way. And Akiva continued to teach. Pappus was not the only Sage who warned against defying the Roman authorities. Hananiah ben Teradion warned Yose ben Kisma, \u201cDo you not know that heaven itself has ordained that this nation will rule? It has destroyed the Temple, slain pious ones, and caused the best to perish, yet it is still firmly established! And you continue to teach Torah and gather assemblies.\u201d The reply: \u201cHeaven will have mercy.\u201d Sadly, Yose died of illness, and Hananiah, who continued to teach, was caught and burned with a Torah scroll wrapped around him.
\nAkiva\u2019s parable was more than a simple declaration of the importance of Torah study and teaching. It represented a turning point in his life\u2014and one that led to the end of his life. As much as Akiva was dedicated to Torah, so too he was dedicated to the value of life itself and to an optimistic attitude toward whatever happens. The commandments were given to enable us to live through them, not die because of them. As noted above, Akiva himself had earlier acquiesced to reciting the Sh\u2019ma quietly when the Romans had forbidden reciting it aloud. He did not run headlong toward martyrdom and death. But soon the situation would drastically change. Forced to choose between the value of life and what he considered necessary for the continued existence of Judaism and the Jewish people, Akiva chose risking his own life to continue Torah teaching and ensure the continuation of Judaism. That was Akiva\u2019s message in the parable of the fox and the fish.
\nWe can imagine Akiva coming to a small town and being greeted enthusiastically by a war-weary crowd assembled in the gate to listen to the greatest Sage of the time and a wonderful teller of tales and parables\u2014a man who could not only hold his own in the most complicated discussions on the minutiae of Jewish Law, but could also cast a spell over any group of ordinary men and women. At such a time he might have taught his famous tale based on the verse \u201cThis is my God and I shall glorify Him\u201d (Exod. 15:2). Akiva began with a question: \u201cHow can I, mere flesh and blood, glorify God, the Maker of heaven and earth?! I can do that by speaking of the praises of He-who-spoke and the world came into being, before all the nations of the world!\u201d Akiva then wove a dialogue between Israel and the nations, a dialogue that immediately addressed the situation Jews were experiencing day by day: persecution and possible martyrdom. It was a dialogue interpreting a section from the Song of Songs and giving it an entirely new meaning:<\/p>\n
The nations of the world ask Israel, \u201c \u2018How is your Beloved better than any other that you adjure us so?\u2019 (Song 5:9)\u2014that you die for His sake, that you are slain for His sake! As it says in Psalms, \u2018For your sake we are killed all day\u2019 (Ps. 44:23).\u201d
\n\u201cBehold\u2014you are lovely, you are mighty\u2014come and merge with us,\u201d say the nations.
\nBut Israel answers the nations of the world, \u201cDo you have any idea what He is like? We shall tell you just a bit of His glory\u2014\u2018My Beloved is clear-skinned and ruddy\u2019 (Song 5:10).\u201d
\nAs soon as the nations of the world hear this description of He-who-spoke and the world came into being\u2014partial as it is\u2014they say to Israel, \u201cWe shall come with you!\u201d as the verse says, \u201cWhere has your Beloved gone, O fairest of women? Where has your Beloved turned? Let us seek Him with you!\u201d (Song 6:1).
\nBut Israel says to them, \u201cYou have no portion in Him for \u2018I am my Beloved\u2019s and my Beloved is mine!\u2019 (Song 6:3).\u201d<\/p>\n
A crowd listening to such a midrash would understand his message and appreciate its artistry. So, teaches Akiva at this critical time, the nations have tried to convince us to abandon our God rather than face martyrdom, but even if they were to appreciate that our God is indeed worthy, they would not understand how demanding and how exclusive this relationship is, just like that between man and wife. For them the God of Israel is only one more deity to add to an already crowded pantheon. For us there is no other way. We must love God ad mavet (even until death), defying if need be the Roman decrees and never frittering away our heritage by joining with others and demoting the God of Israel to just another deity, lovely as He may be! It is a justification of defiance and of martyrdom for the sake of the survival of Judaism.
\nAkiva continued his teachings in these public gatherings, making no attempt to hide what he was doing. How long this went on we do not know. It seems likely that long before the rebellion was finally and brutally crushed in 135 CE Akiva was already imprisoned and had met his death, most likely toward the very beginning.
\nThe report of his capture is tersely given in the same source that records his retort to Pappus ben Yehudah: \u201cSoon afterward Rabbi Akiva was captured and thrown into prison.\u201d Ironically Pappus ben Yehudah was also arrested, and the two were in prison together. When Akiva asked him why he was there, Pappus lamented that his imprisonment was for some unimportant offense, while at least Akiva had been captured for a good cause: teaching Torah. There is no indication that Akiva\u2019s imprisonment was in any way related to actual participation in or involvement in the Bar Kokhva Rebellion.<\/p>\n
AKIVA\u2019S IMPRISONMENT<\/p>\n
It is not known exactly when Akiva was imprisoned. If the Rabbinic sources are correct that it occurred under the rule of Tineius Rufus, it would have been before 133 CE, since Rufus was replaced by Iulius Severus in that year.
\nAs he sat in the Roman prison, accused of the terrible crime of assembling multitudes while teaching Torah, Akiva surely was prepared for the inevitable end. He had known his teaching could not last forever and that the Romans would not spare him or pity him. He had little hope and he readied himself for the worst. His love of God required no less of him. How often he had taught that loving God \u201cwith all your soul\u201d meant being ready to give your soul for the sake of God. \u201cDo not act toward God the way others act toward their gods,\u201d he had preached. \u201cWhen good comes to them they honor their gods, but when calamity comes they curse their gods. If God brings us good we must thank Him, but if He brings suffering, we must also thank Him.\u201d
\nAs has been noted earlier in this book, in Akiva\u2019s eyes suffering was not without a purpose. Sitting in the darkness of his prison cell perhaps he recalled the time years before when his teacher Rabbi Eliezer was ill and he, together with others, had gone to visit and comfort him. No matter what the others said, no matter what words of praise they lavished upon him, Eliezer was not comforted. What brought him solace were Akiva\u2019s words, \u201cPrecious are chastisements. They alone can bring about repentance and forgiveness.\u201d
\nAs for death, Rabbi Eliezer, as he lay dying, had also predicted unnatural death for many Sages and told Akiva that his would be the worst of all. Surely those ominous words had haunted Akiva all those years, and now it was only a matter of time until he would learn exactly what they meant.
\nTime was all that was left to him now. And although he may have thought that his end was imminent, that was not to be the case. For reasons unknown he was not tried and sentenced immediately but languished in jail, although we cannot be certain how long his imprisonment lasted. It is unlikely that it would have been more than a matter of months. At first he was allowed visitors. Many stories are told of that time, although we cannot be certain that all the details are true. It has been said that his faithful disciple Joshua HaGarsi was allowed to bring him food and water daily. Others were permitted to come and spend time with him. One of his most faithful disciples, Shimon bar Yohai, is reported to have come and asked to study with him. Akiva refused to teach him Torah, because he did not want to endanger Shimon and bring calamity upon him as well. Eventually Shimon persuaded, perhaps even forced, him to teach him, and so he did.
\nAs time went by, conditions worsened. Visits were no longer permitted. Once when HaGarsi was bringing him provisions, the guard stopped him and questioned the amount of water that he had with him. The guard suggested that he might be using the water to attempt to weaken a wall so Akiva could escape, and he made him pour out half of it. Akiva was upset because he also needed the water for ritual purposes\u2014to wash his hands\u2014and when he used it for that, there would be nothing left for drinking. But punctilious as he was on matters of ritual, that is what he did, and so he went thirsty that day.
\nThe troubled times were such that the usual practice of discussing and deciding questions of Jewish Law in houses of learning no longer existed and Akiva, imprisoned as he was, served as the final authority on many matters. Although he had never been the head of the academy as had Rabban Gamliel II or Rabbi Eliezer, for all intents and purposes at this time of crises and emergency he now functioned in that capacity. Others turned to him for decisions on weighty matters that required decisive answers. His opinions were so highly valued and so vital on matters concerning marriage and divorce that at least once it was necessary to hire two men at great expense to find a way to get to him in prison in order to obtain his ruling on a particularly complicated case. Another time Yohanan HaSandlar is said to have pretended to be a peddler who walked by Akiva\u2019s cell and asked another marriage question by embedding it in his peddler\u2019s call.
\nOne of the important matters usually handled by the official Rabbinic court was the intercalation of years. Because the Jewish year is shorter than the solar year, an additional month must be added from time to time prior to Passover, so that the seasons and the holidays will remain in the proper relationship. Akiva took the unusual step of proclaiming three such years in a row from his prison cell, and this was accepted unquestioningly.
\nA new chapter in this saga began when Akiva was transferred to the prison in Caesarea, the capital of the Roman province, the seat of the governor, Tineius Rufus, who according to a late source took personal control of the case. Considering Akiva\u2019s status, that seems quite possible. The ride to Caesarea was to be Akiva\u2019s last taste of freedom and the world outside of prison walls. Seeing the buildings of this Roman city must have reminded him of Rome itself. Situated on the shore of the Mediterranean Sea, it was the site of a magnificent harbor, where ships anchored and departed for voyages to Rome, Alexandria, and other distant cities. Although erected by a Jewish ruler, Herod the great builder, it was now a visible symbol of the might of the occupying power and, with its monumental statues and pagan shrines, a refutation of the authority of the God of Israel in the Land of Israel.<\/p>\n
MEETINGS WITH TINEIUS RUFUS<\/p>\n
Rabbinic literature contains several accounts of meetings and discussions between Tineius Rufus and Akiva. The earliest of these is found in the fifth-century work Genesis Rabbah. Others appear in later midrashic works such as the Tanhuma and in the Babylonian Talmud. None are found in any early tannaitic source. On this ground and others scholars today doubt the historicity of these stories. They are seen, rather, as typifying discussions between Jews and non-Jews on matters of Jewish belief. Who would better be presented as conducting such disputes than the highest representatives of each side: the Roman governor and the most popular Sage of the time? Since in the Jerusalem Talmud\u2019s account of Akiva\u2019s trial Akiva and Rufus are said to carry on a dialogue, these discussions even had historical precedent.
\nOn the other hand some scholars, most prominent among them Saul Lieberman, assert that the stories have a historical basis. As Lieberman put it, Tineius Rufus, commonly referred to as \u201cthe wicked,\u201d loved to argue with Akiva and met with him often in prison \u201cin order to find out what was causing unrest in Judaea.\u201d If Lieberman is correct, these conversations would have taken place as part of ongoing interrogations of Akiva during the period of his imprisonment, although this is not mentioned in any of the sources. All would agree that some details of their relationship are clearly legendary, such as the story that Tineius Rufus\u2019s wife became enamored enough of Akiva to convert and actually marry him!
\nIn the encounter described in the earliest of these sources and repeated elsewhere, Rufus, \u201cthe wicked,\u201d wanting to show his cleverness, began with a question that sounded more like a riddle, \u201cWhat is one day from another?\u201d Akiva, unfazed, retorted immediately, \u201cWhat is one man from another?\u201d \u201cWhat did I say to you and what did you say to me?\u201d Rufus asked. \u201cYou questioned me about our Sabbath\u2014why that day should be singled out from other days. I countered by asking why Rufus should be more powerful than any other man,\u201d Akiva replied. \u201cI am governor here because my emperor honored me.\u201d \u201cSo did God wish to honor the Sabbath.\u201d \u201cCan you prove that to me?\u201d Tineius Rufus asked. \u201cThere is a river called the Sambatyon, which moves great rocks every day but ceases on the Sabbath.\u201d \u201cYou call that proof? Where is it? Who has seen it?\u201d \u201cThose who conjure up the dead will prove it. Your father\u2019s grave will prove it\u2014no smoke arises from it on the Sabbath.\u201d
\nThere is nothing in this account that sounds particularly profound and nothing that reflects any attempt to get meaningful information from Akiva. Using popular superstitions to prove something was a familiar device and appears in the well-known story of Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai explaining the purifying power of the ashes of the Red Heifer (Numbers 19) to a heathen by comparing it to their own way of exorcizing an evil spirit. To his pupils he said that this is not the real reason; it is simply a law decreed by God.
\nAnother incident found in the Babylonian Talmud, recounted by Rabbi Meir, Akiva\u2019s student, is more profound; it posed a social and theological question:<\/p>\n
\u201cIf your God so loves the poor,\u201d Tineius Rufus asked, \u201cwhy does He not take care of them Himself?\u201d
\nAkiva answered, \u201cThis gives us an opportunity to carry out His work. Thus too we are saved from Gehinnom.\u201d
\n\u201cBut if God makes them poor do you not offend Him by giving them food? If a king was angry with his servant and put him in jail and ordered a diet of only bread and water, would he not be angry with a guard who then gave them a meal? And you are called \u2018servants,\u2019 as it is written, \u2018For it is to Me that the Israelites are servants\u2019 (Lev. 25:55).\u201d
\nAkiva answered, \u201cBut what if the prisoner were the king\u2019s son who had angered him briefly, would he not send him a gift? And are we not called \u2018sons\u2019 of God, as it is written, \u2018You are the sons of the LORD your God\u2019 (Deut. 14:1)?\u201d
\nRufus then stated that Israelites are called \u201csons\u201d when they carry out God\u2019s wishes and \u201cservants\u201d when they do not. \u201cNow you are not carrying out His wishes.\u201d
\nAkiva then quoted Isaiah to him, \u201cIs it not to share your bread with the hungry and to take the wretched poor into your home?\u201d (58:7).<\/p>\n
It seems most unlikely that Tineius Rufus would be quoting Scripture in a discussion with Akiva. Certainly this would be an unusual topic to be brought up when Akiva was a political prisoner. However, considering Akiva\u2019s extensive work with the poor, the ideas concerning helping them as part of God\u2019s command would reflect his feelings.
\nAnother conversation concerned circumcision:<\/p>\n
Tineius Rufus asked, \u201cWhich is more pleasing, the work of God or the work of man?\u201d
\nAkiva understood what was behind the question\u2014circumcision, which was forbidden by Rome. \u201cThe work of man is more pleasing,\u201d he answered.
\n\u201cHow can you say that? Can you compare the very heavens and earth to anything mere man can do?\u201d
\n\u201cOf course not\u2014but let us not speak of celestial things that are beyond us and we cannot control but of what is done here on earth.\u201d
\nTineius Rufus: \u201cWhy do you Jews mar the human form\u2014the creation of God\u2014by circumcision\u2014destroying the perfection of the male form?\u201d
\n\u201cI knew that is what you were hinting at,\u201d said Akiva, \u201cand therefore I said that the work of man is more pleasing than that of the Holy One. Think of sheaves of wheat and then consider loaves of bread. Is not the bread a more pleasing creation, more useful to human beings, and is it not the creation of human hands?\u201d
\nRufus responded that if God wanted men to be formed like that, why did he not create the child already circumcised at birth? That would surely not be beyond His powers!
\nAkiva answered with a question: \u201cWhy does the child emerge attached to the mother by a cord that a human has to cut? God always leaves something for man to do. Nothing is perfect. All of God\u2019s commands are intended to perfect and purify us.\u201d<\/p>\n
This discussion, focusing on a commandment that was in dispute between Rome and Judaism, would have been in place in a discussion between any Sage and any Roman.
\nOne account has Rufus asking Akiva about the Jewish attitudes toward Rome:<\/p>\n
\u201cWhy does your God hate us?\u201d and he quoted Malachi 1:3, \u201cI hated Esau.\u201d
\n\u201cI will answer you tomorrow.\u201d
\nOn the morrow he asked Akiva, \u201cWhat did you dream last night?\u201d
\nAkiva responded that he saw two dogs in his dream, one was called Rufus and one was called Rufina.
\nTineius Rufus was of course angry. \u201cYou called your dogs by my name and that of my wife?! You should be condemned to death!\u201d
\nAkiva responded that there is really no difference between Tineius Rufus and the animals; they all eat, drink, procreate, and die\u2014\u201cyet you were angry that I called them by your name. Should not God, Creator of heaven and earth, Giver of life and death, be angry when you call a piece of wood by the name \u2018God\u2019? Therefore He hates you \u2026 \u2018I hated Esau.\u2019 \u201d<\/p>\n
Again we have the literary convention of the Roman quoting Scripture in his argument with the Jew and the Jew giving the correct answer that justifies either Jewish belief or practice. It is a most dramatic scene, but it is doubtful that such a conversation could have ever taken place. Would Akiva, a prisoner, have asserted to his jailer and judge that he, Rufus, and all of Rome were hated by the Almighty?
\nAll of these incidents deal with matters that non-Jews might question: the importance of the Sabbath to Jews, a day of no work that made no sense to Romans; why an all-powerful God allowed such things as poverty in the world; the oft-derided Jewish practice of circumcision, which to the Greco-Roman civilization always seemed both barbaric and unaesthetic; and finally the Jew\u2019s hatred of Rome, identified as Edom and derided by Scripture. Such questions might well have come up in disputes between Jews and Romans in one way or another, but it seems questionable if such meetings actually took place between Tineius Rufus and Akiva. If they ever had meetings, they would more likely have been difficult interrogations about Akiva\u2019s actions rather than theological debates.<\/p>\n
THE DEATH OF AKIVA<\/p>\n
Just as there are multiple versions of Akiva\u2019s marriage and entry into learning, so too there are differing versions of his death. The story is related in two collections. The oldest is found in the Jerusalem Talmud, where it appears twice in virtually the same words. The other version is found in the much later Babylonian Talmud. The one in the Jerusalem Talmud is the simpler of the two and the more believable:<\/p>\n
Rabbi Akiva was being judged before the wicked Tineius Rufus. The time for the recitation of the Sh\u2019ma arrived. He began to recite it and smiled. He [Tineius Rufus] said to him, \u201cOld man, old man: either you are deaf or you make light of suffering.\u201d He [Akiva] said, \u201cMay the soul of that man expire! Neither am I deaf, nor do I make light of suffering, but all of my life I have read the verse \u201cAnd you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your possessions.\u201d I loved Him with all my heart and I loved Him with all my wealth, but until now, I was not tested to see if I could love Him with all my soul. But now the opportunity of loving Him with all my soul has come to me. It is now the time of the recital of the Sh\u2019ma and I am not deterred from it; and therefore I recite the Sh\u2019ma and I smile.\u201d [He was not able to complete it before his soul departed.]<\/p>\n
According to this simple yet profoundly moving, account, Akiva was not executed by the Romans but died while under interrogation. We are not told what Akiva was being accused of at this trial. Perhaps it would not be too much to assume that Tineius Rufus might have said something like this: \u201cYou stand accused of violating the decrees of the emperor Hadrian. You have been seen assembling crowds together for forbidden public gatherings in which you were disseminating teachings from the Scripture of the Hebrews\u2014forbidden under Roman law. How do you plead? Are you prepared to acknowledge your guilt? Public gatherings are used to foment more violence against Rome and yet you continued to arrange them\u2014did you not?\u201d
\nIt was early in the morning, the time for recitation of the Sh\u2019ma. Akiva knew well that this recitation, proclaiming complete allegiance to the Lord God, was viewed by the Romans as an act of Lex Majestatis, the denial of Hadrian\u2019s legitimacy as a ruler as well as of his divinity, an act that would not be tolerated. By reciting it in this public forum, the court to which he had been brought, he would be fulfilling his understanding of the command to love God even when dying\u2014his interpretation of \u201cwith all your soul\u201d\u2014because he would be endangering his life. Therefore he defied Rome and, in the presence of the very court that was judging him, as the dawn broke, began reciting it with joy.
\nAccording to this account, Akiva even had the strength to explain his deed to his judge and interrogator. Whether or not he actually had the opportunity or ability to say that out loud, that was certainly what would have been in his mind and his heart at that moment. Although the story does not specifically say that he was being tortured, the question \u201cDo you make light of suffering?\u201d certainly implies some sort of physical duress, either taking place or being threatened. Perhaps the Romans would have tortured him to stop his recitation, but it is clear that they did not execute him. Had he been executed, the Talmud would undoubtedly have stated that fact. It is more likely, then, that the heart of this elderly man, exhausted after the ordeal of imprisonment and interrogation or because of some torture, simply gave out even before he could complete the recitation.
\nLater legendary accounts (see below) say that Akiva expired reciting the word ehad (one). If it did not happen that way, it is understandable that the tale would have it so, since \u201cone\u201d expresses so much that Akiva lived for\u2014one God, one people, one Torah. As Louis Ginzberg put it, \u201cPure monotheism was for Akiva the essence of Judaism; he loved, worked, and died for it.\u201d
\nWas Akiva seeking martyrdom? One story states that once when he was being judged by Rufus in the presence of Joshua HaGarsi, a cloud covered them, and HaGarsi said, \u201cIt would seem that my master\u2019s prayers are not being accepted.\u201d Was he praying to be saved from death? That seems to have been the case, an indication that the conveyor of the story thought that he did not actively seek to be a martyr. As Lieberman wrote, \u201cThe Jews took their martyrdom calmly and as a matter of course. They tried to avoid it \u2026 but when they were discovered \u2026 they submitted to martyrdom quietly.\u201d By having Akiva state that he was reciting the Sh\u2019ma \u201cwith joy,\u201d the talmudic account affirms that Akiva saw this as a positive action, as the ultimate fulfillment of the Torah\u2019s command of loving God even when in danger. This gives meaning to his death, a death he may not have sought, but which affirmed his devotion to God and to the Torah. Knowing Akiva\u2019s positive attitude toward the value of suffering and affliction, it is but a small step to see a martyr\u2019s suffering and death as the ultimate expression of love. Thus Heschel wrote, \u201cIt is likely that Rabbi Akiva sensed that it was impossible to achieve perfect love of God except through suffering, for a person cannot truly taste of the love of God until he is prepared to mock death itself for the glory of God\u2019s name.\u201d
\nHow reliable is this account? Do we really know the details of what happened? There is no Roman record of Akiva\u2019s trial. The Romans would have been unlikely to relate the story other than to let it be known that Akiva was dead. Perhaps his faithful attendant Joshua HaGarsi managed to be there, although according to a tradition related in a late midrash, he had left Akiva and gone home to observe a holiday and was told of Akiva\u2019s death by the prophet Elijah when he was far away. Nor does this account state that any of his disciples were present. Although there is no proof of its historicity, this simple tale is as close as we will ever come to knowing the circumstances of Akiva\u2019s death, and it tells us how those nearest in time and place to Akiva understood his death and its religious significance. Anything added in later accounts is most unlikely to have any historical basis but must be seen as an attempt to enlarge and magnify the original story.<\/p>\n
LEGENDARY MARTYRDOM<\/p>\n
The story of Akiva\u2019s death as originally related was a simple one. Over time it was told and retold and in the retelling has been embellished many times over. Storytellers and dramatists from the time of Homer through Shakespeare, Schiller, and so many others have enhanced the stories of great heroes and villains for their own purposes. So, too, with Rabbi Akiva\u2019s death. The most complete, dramatic, and compelling story of his martyrdom, written in fine literary style, is found in the Babylonian Talmud:<\/p>\n
When Rabbi Akiva was being led to execution, it was the time for the recitation of the Sh\u2019ma. They [the Romans] were combing his flesh with combs of iron while he was accepting upon himself the kingship of heaven. His disciples said to him, \u201cOur master\u2014even at this point?\u201d He said to them, \u201cAll my life I was troubled by this verse\u2014\u2018with all your soul\u2019\u2014[meaning] even if someone takes your soul! I said, \u2018When will this come to me and I will fulfill it?\u2019 And now that it has come to me, shall I not fulfill it?!\u201d He prolonged the word \u201cone\u201d until his soul departed while uttering the word \u201cone.\u201d<\/p>\n
Although this is presented in the Talmud as a baraita (an early teaching of the Tannaim), this tale does not appear anywhere else in tannaitic literature, and it has been demonstrated that baraitot do not always represent an authentic tannaitic tradition. It is a much later literary creation, expanding greatly upon what was known previously, creating the perfect story for Jewish martyrology, and a story that has had a tremendous influence on Jewish life ever since. It glorifies martyrdom, emphasizing that Akiva sought this opportunity. It states that Akiva had always interpreted the words \u201cwith all your soul\u201d as \u201cif someone takes your soul,\u201d yet we do not find that Akiva ever interpreted the verse in exactly that way. The interpretations\u2014not even specifically in his name\u2014were always, \u201ceven if He [God] takes your soul,\u201d which would mean simply at the time of one\u2019s death. But this account has expanded it to mean not just continuing to love God even when dying peacefully, but loving Him and accepting God\u2019s sovereignty even when others\u2014Romans, killers\u2014are murdering you.
\nHere, for the first time, a specific connection was made between the first verse of the Sh\u2019ma, \u201cHear, O Israel, the LORD is our God, the LORD is one\u201d (Deut. 6:4), and martyrdom\u2014\u201chis soul departed while uttering the word \u2018one.\u2019 \u201d That which was only implied in the early telling in the Jerusalem Talmud is now made explicit. In order for that to happen, the most important aspect of true martyrdom, which was missing from the story in early sources\u2014execution by the persecuting power\u2014has been added.
\nAccording to this version, Akiva had already been specifically condemned to death by the Romans and was being taken out to be executed publicly in a place where his disciples could witness his death. Iron combs were being used to torture and kill him. It was the time of reciting the Sh\u2019ma, and he recited it. It is because of this story that, following Akiva\u2019s example, the recitation of the Sh\u2019ma became the way in which Jews throughout the centuries have met their death. Akiva\u2019s disciples appear in this retelling as witnesses to his death, who could pass the story on as an act of kiddush ha-Shem (sanctification of God\u2019s name). The concept of a martyr\u2019s death as the fulfillment of love of God is a powerful combination of love and death.
\nAll of this makes the Akiva of these legends the very perfect martyr, the model for all Jewish martyrs, lending meaning and courage to all those who were called on to sacrifice and die because of their devotion to Torah and to their Judaism from that time until today. The popular saying was \u201cIf one sees Rabbi Akiva in his dreams, let him fear calamity.\u201d
\nLater Akiva\u2019s death was combined with other tales of martyrdom, in the liturgical poem \u201cThe Ten Martyrs,\u201d the story of Jews who died for the sanctification of God\u2019s name. The midrash to Psalm 9:13\u2014\u201cWhen He makes inquisition for blood, He remembers them, He does not forget the cry of the afflicted\u201d\u2014mentions specifically that God \u201cdemands requital for the blood of Rabbi Akiva\u201d and does not forget \u201cthe blood of any one of Israel slain in times of persecution.\u201d It then lists \u201cthe ten executed by Rome,\u201d which became the basis of \u201cThe Ten Martyrs.\u201d The first are Shimon and Ishmael, the last is Rabbi Akiva. The Holy One inscribes the name of each martyr on His purple robe, and when God judges the nations, He shows them the names there and decrees the doom of the nations.
\nThe story of Akiva the martyr was also important for Judaism\u2019s struggle against the spread of Christianity. Early Christianity put much emphasis on martyrdom, a subject that had originated in Maccabean times but was not greatly emphasized in Judaism before the time of the Bar Kokhva Rebellion. Here now was an opportunity to demonstrate that Jews were no less willing to die for their faith than were the early Christians. In a sense Akiva became the answer to Jesus\u2019s status as well. Midrashim concerning the sacrifice of Isaac had already implied that there was no need for Jesus to die in order to attain atonement because Isaac, depicted as a willing sacrifice, carrying wood as one carries a cross, had already done that. But the legend of Akiva created a Jewish leader, one born in the same century as Jesus, who also suffered death at the hands of the Roman oppressors and who accepted his fate as the ultimate test of true love of God.
\nOther legendary aspects of Akiva\u2019s life story also added to his stature and importance as a role model for scholars and for devout Jews in general. Stressing his poverty, which may not have been as extreme as depicted, giving him a father-in-law whose objections to his marriage had to be overcome, exaggerating the number of his followers and the years of his separation from his wife were all means of building his image. This is not to say that his image was created out of nothing. He did come from an undistinguished background. He did start his education at an advanced age. He was an extraordinarily intelligent man, with boundless energy. He was a brilliant orator and a wonderful interpreter of Torah. He was obviously charismatic, a great spinner of tales, and devoted to helping others, tireless in his work for the good of others and ingenious in developing and preserving Jewish traditions. What legend later added was just icing on the cake, which made his life story seem even more intriguing, but ultimately can be taken with a grain of salt. Even without it, he was surely worthy of the accolades that tradition has granted him as a second law-giver and one of the \u201cfathers of the world.\u201d
\nIt is reported that when the news of Akiva\u2019s death reached his disciples and his colleagues, they put on sackcloth and ashes. Some saw this as an ominous sign for the future and for the fortunes of the rebellion. \u201cIn a short time from now,\u201d said Yehudah ben Betera and Hananiah ben Teradion, who himself was to suffer terrible martyrdom, \u201cno place in the Land of Israel will be found where bodies of the slain have not been cast.\u201d
\nEven Akiva\u2019s corpse became the subject of legend. Most likely the guards lifted the lifeless body of the elderly Sage and carried it out of the building to be thrown like refuse on some rubbish heap. Such was the fate of all who dared defy the power of Rome. It seems almost certain that he did not receive a proper burial; the Romans would never have allowed it. Nevertheless legend has it that when Elijah informed Joshua HaGarsi, who had gone home to celebrate a holiday, that Akiva had died, they came together to the prison and entered easily because there was no guard. There they found Akiva\u2019s body on his bed, carried it out of Caesarea, and found a place with a bier, a bench, a table, and a lamp. \u201cHappy are you, Akiva, for whom a good resting place has been found at the moment of your death!\u201d In light of what probably happened to his body in reality, there is a bitter irony in this statement.
\nAnd there is another, less sanguine legend that says something quite disturbingly different. It recounts that God showed Moses Akiva\u2019s academy and when Moses, impressed by Akiva\u2019s greatness, asked what Akiva\u2019s reward was, God showed him market stalls in which Akiva\u2019s flesh was being weighed out for sale. When Moses questioned the justice of this, God replied, \u201cBe silent for such is My decree.\u201d<\/p>\n
THE AFTERMATH<\/p>\n
The destruction that attended the end of the Bar Kohkva Rebellion was more terrible than anything that Akiva could have imagined. As Tractate Semahot put it, \u201cNot long after Roman armies attacked and put the entire world into chaos. In twelve months the councils of Judea came to an end.\u201d Akiva\u2019s death spared him the knowledge of the complete failure of the revolt and the fall of the last stronghold of Bar Kokhva, Beitar, seven miles southwest of Jerusalem, in 135 CE. Because the Tenth and Sixth Roman Legions had not been able to quell the rebellion, legions from Syria, Egypt, Arabia, Britain, and the Danube were brought in. Such an array of forces against a rebel band from a godforsaken province was unheard of. No wonder that the traditional phrase \u201cI and my legions are well\u201d had to be eliminated from Hadrian\u2019s proclamation of victory to the Senate. There were no celebrations in Rome, no coins issued, no triumphal parades or monumental arches built there. Later one monumental arch dedicated to Hadrian was built by the Senate far from Rome in Tel Shalem, a sure sign of the great relief that the danger was over. For the first and only time, the Romans changed the name of the province\u2014as if they wanted it to no longer exist. Judea became Syria Palestine, a name that has continued in some variations to this day.
\nThe suffering of the Jews was equally unprecedented. The number of the dead at Beitar was enormous, Bar Kokhva among them. Legends may have exaggerated the numbers, as the sources were wont to do, just as they exaggerated the size of Bar Kokhva\u2019s forces and his personal strength. Cassius Dio speaks of 985 villages that were destroyed and 580,000 men killed in the fighting. \u201cThus nearly the whole of Judaea was made desolate.\u201d Draconian anti-Jewish laws were enforced, and many Sages followed Akiva into death and martyrdom. Large numbers of Jews were captured and sold as slaves. Entire cities and villages were destroyed. Jerusalem did not exist as such, only Aelia Capitolina. No Jew was allowed to live there.
\nA fragment found in the Bar Kokhva letters echoes the feelings that must have prevailed at the end. He writes:<\/p>\n
\u2026 till the end \u2026
\n\u2026 they have no hope \u2026
\n\u2026 my brothers in the south \u2026
\n\u2026 of these were lost by the sword \u2026
\n\u2026 these my brothers \u2026<\/p>\n
The failure of the uprising put an end to dreams of restoration of Jewish independence and freedom from Rome for centuries to come. It also meant that the possibility that Judaism would replace paganism as the religion of the Roman Empire and the Western world faded from reality. Christianity would do that and would therefore have dominion over Jews in Europe for nearly two millennia, with the tragic consequences that are known all too well. In Jewish tradition Bar Kokhva was no longer Bar Kokhva, \u201cthe son of a star\u201d but Bar Koziva, \u201cthe son of falsehood,\u201d and Judaism adopted the stance that Jews were sworn never to try to \u201cforce the end,\u201d to bring about the Messiah and the return to Zion. In modern times the consequences of this acquiescence have proved fatal.
\nAnd yet for all the suffering, death, and exile that accompanied the end of the Bar Kokhva Rebellion, Jewish life and the spread of Torah did not cease. The center of Jewish life moved to the Galilee, which had suffered much less than Judea. Within seventy years of Akiva\u2019s death, under the Severan dynasty that now ruled Rome, relations with the empire improved. Rabbi Judah the Prince (Nasi) was reported to be on good terms with Rome and with its rulers and was able to complete the Mishnah at his Great Court in Bet Shearim in northern Israel. There is something ironic in the fact that instead of calling himself Rabban Judah, Rabbi Judah adopted the title \u201cNasi,\u201d the same title that Bar Kokhva had used for himself, and Rabbi Judah became in many ways the official ruler of the Jews in their own land.
\nAkiva\u2019s work did not stop with his death. By the end of the century the efforts of his loyal disciples Rabbi Meir, Rabbi Nehemiah, Rabbi Yehudah, and Rabbi Shimon led to the creation of the major works of early Rabbinic Judaism, based on Akiva\u2019s teachings: the Mishnah and the Tosefta. Within a hundred years after that, the great midrashic works of Akiva and of Ishmael, the midrashim on Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, known as Mekhilta, Sifra, and Sifre, were published. Imagine Judaism without those tomes. They formed the foundation for the continuation of Jewish life in the harsh conditions that then prevailed, the life-giving water that sustained the Jewish people.<\/p>\n
EPILOGUE<\/p>\n
The Man and His Legacy<\/p>\n
Akiva\u2019s portrait of the ideal Sage is found in teachings ascribed to him in ancient sources: \u201cAn am ha-aretz [ignorant person] cannot be pious, the timid cannot learn, and the short-tempered cannot teach.\u201d \u201cThe ignorant cannot be sin-fearing and those who engage overmuch in business will not attain wisdom.\u201d Since these same words are ascribed to Hillel in the Mishnah, it is impossible to know if they originated with Akiva or not. If Hillel said them, Akiva might well have quoted him, for they described his own ideals and his own personality.<\/p>\n
A COMPLEX MAN<\/p>\n
Akiva was a man of many contradictions. In a relatively short time he made the leap from lack of knowledge to total mastery of Torah and tradition. On the one hand he was a person of sharp intellect, capable of incisive and complicated legal arguments, often besting his elders with his impeccable logic. On the other hand, he was enthusiastic about using methods of biblical interpretation that defied rational thinking. He practiced mystical exercises to experience transcendent realms but followed logical methodology in organizing legal texts. He derived or linked laws to biblical texts by methods that others found totally unacceptable. He was a master of Midrash and created many collections of biblical interpretations, both legal and literary, but he also favored the mishnaic method of preserving laws according to logical categories, and he provided the basis for the classic Mishnah. He was innovative in his interpretations and ready to change laws that he considered inappropriate, but he was devoted to the preservation of the teachings of the past.
\nAlthough sometimes lenient in his rulings, he was strict and fastidious in observance of ritual laws. He always saw the good in whatever happened but believed suffering to be redemptive. He was incisive enough to see what had to be done to preserve the totality of tradition and to use multiple methods of doing so, becoming an expert on law and aggadah as well as in the forms of Midrash and Mishnah. He proclaimed the coming of the Messiah and believed in the imminent restoration of the Temple in defiance of the obvious reality of the situation. He believed that love was the basis of relationship between God and humans and between human beings, even though he extolled the value of suffering. He had boundless energy and was able to teach, study, travel, and engage in community affairs.<\/p>\n
THE UNIQUENESS OF THE TORAH<\/p>\n
In view of the many challenges to Jewish life that Akiva encountered in the difficult age in which he lived (not the least of which was the challenge of the teachings of Jewish-Christians), he espoused a theory of the divine origins of the Torah that raised that work far above any human creation. His belief that the Torah was written by God in heaven prior to Creation and that every word, every letter, every sign had meaning and must be interpreted, stood in opposition to that of Ishmael, who contended that the Torah, while divine, used the language of human beings and was the result of prophetic inspiration.
\nMuch of Akiva\u2019s way of thinking and acting was based on mystical concepts. Certainly his idea of Torah from heaven\u2014the Torah as a divine document, preexisting in heaven, created and given by God alone\u2014was anchored in mystical thinking. We know that he indulged in active mysticism, \u201centering paradise.\u201d Did he practice mystical methods throughout his lifetime? We cannot be certain, but his frequent references to angels, to an imminent and even a suffering God, certainly played a major part in his thinking and lend credence to that possibility. Yet \u201che escaped unharmed,\u201d remaining a sane individual, very much a part of this world. He was a practical mystic, a mystical intellectual\u2014a unique combination.
\nAkiva\u2019s concept of Torah, the most extreme of all, totally divorcing the Torah from human input, was a major influence on Rabbinic Judaism. It raised the Torah to a level of holiness that was unprecedented. At a time when the Torah\u2019s validity was being challenged, this was an important step. Furthermore, Akiva stressed the importance of the study of Torah, even above observance of the commandments, as the basis of Jewish life, something that has remained a critical part of Jewish life.<\/p>\n
THE CENTRALITY OF LOVE<\/p>\n
Akiva was moved and motivated by love. He experienced meaningful human love, with his wife, even if the legends concerning his marriage are exaggerated. No wonder that he found in the biblical Song of Songs the supreme description of the relationship of Israel to God and extended that love to the willingness to die for love of the Lord.
\nAkiva compared the Song of Songs to the Torah itself in its divine origins and in its holiness. This may have influenced the decision of the Sages to accept that scroll as a part of sacred Scripture and certainly determined the way in which it was understood in traditional circles. His interpretation of Song of Songs was an expression of his emphasis on love, rather than fear, as the appropriate relationship to God, and this love was reciprocal, as is the human love depicted in Song of Songs.
\nAkiva was instrumental in placing love at the center of Judaism\u2019s teachings, making it the primary principle of the Torah and the basic motivation of observance of the commandments. He taught that God loves humanity and could and will forgive those who practice repentance and that God suffers together with His people and requires redemption even as they do.
\nVery much a man of the people, Akiva promoted a Judaism that was accessible to all, one that is based more on love than on fear, on joy rather than on solemnity, on closeness to a living God. His interpretation of Judaism is based on love of God, on God\u2019s love of Israel, and on God\u2019s love of all humanity. Following in the footsteps of Hillel, who had flourished a century before, Akiva preached and practiced a Judaism that sought adherence not through fear of God\u2019s wrath and punishment, but through love and mercy.<\/p>\n
THE COMFORTER<\/p>\n
Akiva was passionate about everything, emotional and extreme in his concerns. The frequent refrain \u201cAkiva you have comforted us\u201d emphasized his desire to lift Israel out of despair, to counter the trauma of the disaster of the destruction and defeat of the year 70 CE. In that way he followed in the footsteps of the prophet known as Second Isaiah, whose watchword was \u201cBe comforted, be comforted My people\u201d (Isa. 40:1).
\nAkiva had the passion of the prophets but not their need to castigate Israel for its faults or question the ways of God. Whatever faults there may have been, whatever the shortcomings of Jews after their defeat in the Great Revolt and during the traumatic postwar period leading up to the Bar Kokhva Rebellion, Akiva did not see it as his task to address sins but rather to bring hope, to emphasize goodness.
\nAn unrepentant optimist, he was able to offer comfort to his fellows and to the entire people by his vision of a redeemed nation, a rebuilt Temple, and a better world (which did not come to be in his lifetime nor for generations to come). This may account for his acceptance of the messianic status of Bar Kokhva. After all, salvation was what he anticipated and predicted all along.
\nAs Heschel has pointed out, Akiva did not question God or God\u2019s justice. Regardless of the suffering that Jews had undergone and were still experiencing, Akiva saw God as the Merciful One, as the suffering God, not as a God who punishes. At no time did he question God\u2019s actions. When people suffered, he assumed that it was for a reason and even that it was beneficial. The early stories and even the later legends of his own imprisonment and eventual death never depicted him as wondering why this was happening to him. He never asked why he was being martyred nor accused God of abandoning him.<\/p>\n
PRESERVING AND CODIFYING TRADITION<\/p>\n
Akiva flourished in the critical period when Rabbinic Judaism was in formation following the destruction of the Second Temple and the Roman victory in 70 CE. With the loss of the Temple, the synagogue and the beit midrash (house of study) became the centers of Jewish life and worship. Prayer developed significantly, replacing yet symbolically representing the sacrificial order. Study of the Torah of Moses (the text that had been accepted as sacred and definitive) became as important as worship, and schools, academies of study, flourished. Religious leadership moved from the priesthood to the Sages, whose official title became \u201cRabbi.\u201d
\nBecause of his central role in furthering this Judaism, Akiva was considered one of the \u201cfathers of the world.\u201d He did not create the forms of Mishnah or Midrash\u2014they were already in existence in a less complex manner\u2014but he made significant contributions to their further development and to Rabbinic Judaism\u2019s ability to flourish and shape the Jewish world.
\nHis most significant contribution was the codification of all the unwritten traditions of both aggadah and halakhah that had developed over the centuries and were in danger of being lost. He found the way to preserve them, together with the current decisions being made by his colleagues regarding Jewish Law and practice, both attaching them to scriptural texts and arranging them in logical collections. This led to the corpus of Rabbinic texts we have today and that form the very basis of Rabbinic Judaism.
\nAkiva collected the traditions, sifted them, arranged them logically, and thus created the basic unwritten text that eventually became the Mishnah of Rabbi Judah the Prince (c. 200 CE). This Mishnah became the basis for elaborate discussions that resulted in the Jerusalem Talmud and the Babylonian Talmud, the medieval codes and the vast literature of responsa that continues to this day. None of that could have come into being without the Mishnah.
\nAkiva\u2019s influence on Jewish Law was so great that the Babylonian Talmud even ruled that although the law followed the majority when there was a case in which an individual was lenient and the majority was strict, if the lenient opinion was in accord with the teachings of Akiva, that was followed rather than the opinion of the majority. In view of the fact that Akiva was responsible for the basic makeup of the Mishnah and that he was accepted as a major authority, many of the laws appearing there represent his opinion. The law as codified did not always follow his opinion, but certainly many of the laws cited without a name were those he initiated or supported.
\nThe works that became the foundation of Jewish Law, legend, and study for all time were largely his doing. Akiva contributed to the corpus of tannaitic midrashim based on the books of the Torah. Akiva\u2019s approach to midrashic material was based on two things: his desire to connect as much oral material to biblical texts as possible to ensure their continuance and his belief that every word, letter, and mark in the Torah had meaning. This opened many more opportunities for creative interpretations.<\/p>\n
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION IN LAW AND TRADITION<\/p>\n
Although Akiva was concerned to preserve ancient traditions and rulings, there are times when he boldly overruled what had been previously taught to bring about a change he deemed necessary. He was often willing, even eager, to change long-held practices in order to innovate and to give far-reaching rulings that had profound effects, easing certain ritual requirements. Thus many practices are described as existing \u201cuntil Rabbi Akiva came\u201d and changed them. Akiva\u2019s reinterpretation of Jewish Law in light of current developments and needs remains an important principle for those who see Judaism as changing and evolving with the times.<\/p>\n
THE MAVERICK<\/p>\n
What seems to characterize many of the various stories, sayings, and rulings of Akiva that are recounted in this volume is that Akiva emerged so often as someone who was unusual, who did the unexpected. He was a source of surprise to his colleagues and to his students, both in his reactions and in his legal rulings. Akiva frequently surprised and astonished others with his actions and his words. Many stories describe him doing or saying something unexpected. He laughed when others cried. He gave a ruling that made his students wonder what he was doing. He seemed impulsive, \u201cjumping in\u201d to controversies, performing some act that seemed to defy good manners or proper conduct. \u201cWhy do you put your head in between great ones?\u201d he was asked.
\nAkiva could not easily be fit into an accepted mold. The one word that best sums up this aspect of him is \u201cmaverick.\u201d He delighted in saying things that caused astonishment. He spoke of God\u2019s appearance as a slave and of God\u2019s exile and redemption. He did not hesitate to ascribe a controversial meaning to a verse, saying, \u201cWere it not written in Scripture it would be impossible to utter it\u2014as it were\u2014Israel said to God, \u2018You have redeemed Yourself!\u2019 \u201d Both when experiencing the greatness of the city of Rome and when seeing the ruins of the Temple in Jerusalem he laughed when everyone else wept, and he interpreted these calamities as positive signs of redemption and glory for Israel. When he visited the suffering Rabbi Eliezer, he rejoiced because that was a sign of the reward awaiting him, and when others praised Eliezer to comfort him, Akiva comforted him by telling him how much suffering was to be welcomed! \u201cPrecious are chastisements. They alone can bring about repentance and forgiveness.\u201d He taught, \u201cOne should rejoice more in chastisement than in prosperity.\u201d Even the last act of his life, when he was about to die, continued this motif. \u201cThe time of the recital of the Sh\u2019ma has now come, and I am not deterred from it; and therefore I recite the Sh\u2019ma and I smile.\u201d To smile when suffering and about to die\u2014that is the ultimate irony.<\/p>\n
SUFFERING AND MARTYRDOM<\/p>\n
Akiva placed great importance on human suffering, which in his theology brought with it benefits such as forgiveness and eternal reward. The stories of his death, which was viewed as the epitome of martyrdom, influenced Jewish thought and ritual, seeing martyrdom as the ultimate test of one\u2019s loyalty to Judaism and to one\u2019s love of God. As the third-century amora Shimon ben Lakish said, \u201c \u2018This is the book of the generations of Adam\u2019 (Gen. 5:1). This teaches that the Holy One showed Primal Adam each generation and its expositors, each generation and its Sages, each generation and its leaders. When He came to the generation of Rabbi Akiva, He rejoiced in his Torah and grieved in his death, saying, \u2018How precious are Your dear ones, O God\u2019 (Ps. 139:17).\u201d
\nAkiva also contributed the concept that God so identified with Israel and with humanity that God suffered with them, was in some way enslaved with them, and required redemption, which would only come with their redemption. His concept of God emphasized God\u2019s nearness to humanity, God\u2019s presence in the world, and God\u2019s concern for people.<\/p>\n
SCHOLAR AND ACTIVIST<\/p>\n
Akiva functioned on many different levels throughout his career. On the highest intellectual level, he participated in discussions of the Yavneh Sanhedrin and in decisions of the Rabbinic courts. He worked to systematize learning and to preserve the tradition through Mishnah and Midrash. He headed his own academy and raised numerous disciples who followed his words and his methods. He also worked outside of the academy for the good of the community, traveling to Rome on political missions and elsewhere to raise funds and care for the needy. He cared for the poor and devoted much effort to raising money and helping them, interpreting many laws in such a way as to favor them. But he was strict in court, adhering to the conviction that justice must always be done with no favoritism, even to those in need. He was scornful of those who would take charity when they did not need it or pretend to be disabled in order to beg alms.
\nHardly the elitist, he took his teaching outside of the classroom and taught the general public as well as aspiring sages, preaching and spreading Torah. Although a controversial figure to many of his peers, he was admired for his intellect and his erudition. His disciples followed him and respected his dedication and brilliance as a teacher. The general public appreciated his devotion to them and admired his skill as a preacher and a teller of parables. He remained always a man of the people, not an aristocrat, never forgetting his humble origins.
\nIt may be said that in some ways Akiva resembled the classic eighteenth-century Hasidic rebbe whose followers (Hasidim), like Akiva\u2019s students, were constantly amazed by what he said and did. There too one finds the tendency to say the opposite of what is expected, to surprise and astonish people with an unusual interpretation or statement, to overrule things that have been taken for granted, and to relax certain strictures. The staid and the usual are put aside in favor of the unexpected and the surprising. Unlike the Hasidic rebbe, however, Akiva was first and foremost a scholar, an expert in Jewish Law, and one who put the study of Torah and careful observance of all mitzvot at the top of his priorities. Nor did Akiva attempt to set himself up as a leader who had to be followed, was above all others, or had special divine powers or the ability to heal or perform miracles or wondrous deeds.
\nAkiva disdained paganism and often warned Jews not to do things that might lead them into idolatry. He denied the teachings of Christianity that spoke of God in human form, regarded the Torah as \u201cold law,\u201d and promoted the emergence of a \u201cnew law,\u201d as well as its attitude concerning salvation. He devoted himself to the promotion of belief in the One God, the Merciful One, the Just One, and in the sacredness of the Torah, the study of which was his primary concern. He saw Rome as the enemy of the Jewish people and believed with certainty in its eventual overthrow. Although Akiva supported Bar Kokhva as the leader of the rebellion, he did not involve himself in the conduct of the war.<\/p>\n
THE ROLE OF LEGEND<\/p>\n
Akiva has assumed a major role in Jewish tradition. Possibly the legends that grew up about him contributed to that. Without the stories of his marriage to Rachel and the legends about his death, would he have assumed as central a role in the popular mind as he has? No one can know. But aside from the obviously legendary material, all the very admirable (and colorful) character traits and the many important accomplishments attributed to him in the early literature had already made him a popular figure and folk hero, and the teachings and opinions given in his name had a major influence during his life and later on all the generations after him. It was on this basis that legends expanded on these themes grew and flourished. Therefore Akiva outshone Ishmael in both popular imagination and influence on Jewish tradition.
\nIn conclusion, Akiva ben Yosef was undoubtedly one of the most influential Rabbinic figures of the tannaitic period, a Sage who made contributions of lasting importance to Judaism. Akiva was not the originator of Rabbinic Judaism, nor was he the only teacher of importance. Ishmael must be given great credit for his contribution to the creation of important tannaitic midrashim and to the Rabbinic discourse. He too was one of \u201cthe fathers of the world,\u201d the one who gave legitimacy to a more logical and rational approach to biblical interpretation. Those who led the new Sanhedrin, Yohanan ben Zakkai, Rabban Gamliel II, and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, played an enormous role in creating forms that molded Jewish life and in the organization of a new Jewish polity, as did Rabbi Judah the Prince. Nevertheless, one cannot exaggerate the impact of Akiva on the formation of Rabbinic Judaism.
\nThat one man could have accomplished so much is astonishing, and even more so if the tradition is correct that Akiva attained Jewish knowledge and practice only as an adult, an adult who previously could neither read nor write. No wonder that a midrash quotes Moses, when given the opportunity to listen to Akiva\u2019s lesson in his house of learning, as saying to God, \u201cYou have such a man, yet you give the Torah through me?!\u201d<\/p>\n
Akiva: Life, Legend, Legacy
\nThe Jewish Publication Society<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
TIMELINE All dates are CE. The dates relating to Akiva are approximate and reflect an effort to reconstruct the timing of these events from the available sources. 50 Akiva\u2019s birth 66 Great Revolt begins 70 Destruction of Second Temple in Jerusalem, death and exile of thousands of Judeans, consolidation of complete Roman rule over Judea … <\/p>\n