Rabbi Akiva and Theodicy

 

Rabbi Akiva possessed the extraordinary capacity to laugh in the face of disaster, to offer a confident religious response to crushing tragedy, and, somehow, to provide comfort to his wounded countrymen who did not naturally share his hopeful expectancy.1 In what lay the source of R. Akiva’s great powers of faith and sympathy? How was he able to cope (let alone console) under the most trying circumstances?

Consider the four well-known episodes recorded in the Talmud (in order, Berakhot 60b, Sanhedrin 101a, Berakhot 6lb, Makkot 24b):

Akiva was traveling and came upon a city but was unable to find lodging. He said, “Everything G-d does is for the good” and went to sleep in the fields. He had with him a rooster, a donkey, and a candle. A wind came and extinguished his candle, a cat ate his rooster, and a lion devoured his donkey. He said, “Everything G-d does is for the good.” That night an army took captive all the inhabitants of the town. He then said, “Did I not tell you everything G-d does is for the good?”

When R. Eliezer was sick, his students went to visit him. He said, “The sun in ths world is very hot [G-d is angry with me and has afflicted me greatly—Rashi].” The students cried and R. Akiva laughed. . . . R. Akiva asked, “Why do you cry?” They answered, “The Torah is in pain and will we not cry?” R. Akiva said, “It is for this reason that I laugh. Until now, I saw that Rabbi [Eliezer] never had his wine turn to vinegar, never had his flax spoil, and never had his oil putrefy. I thought that, Heaven forbid, he had received his reward in this world. Now that I see that he is suffering, I am happy. . . .” When R. Eliezer was sick, four elders went to visit him. R. Akiva said, “Suffering is dear as it caused King Menashe to repent.”

When R. Akiva was taken to be executed it was tie to recite the Shema. His skin was being flayed with metal combs and he accepted upon himself the yoke of Heaven. His students said, “Rabbi, this far?” R. Akiva replied, “Until now I was anxious as to how I would fulfill the requirement of the pasuk [to love G-d] ‘with your soul’—even if He takes your soul.’ I said, ‘When will I have the opportunity to fulfill this pasuk? Now that the opportunity has arisen, will I not avail myself of it?'”

They were walking near the ruins of the Temple and saw a fox emerge from the place in which had stood the Holy of Holies. The colleagues began to cry and R. Akiva laughed. He asked them, “Why do you cry?” They answered, “Now that foxes walk on the Holy of Holies, will we not cry?” R. Akiva responded, “It is for this reason that I laugh. Just as we have witnessed the prophecy of destruction of Mikha so will we merit to witness the prophecy of redemption of Zekharia.”

Already the sheer variety of R. Akiva’s responses suggests that he did not have a set formula for the problem of suffering and evil.2 He responds differently to different situations, perhaps depending upon the nature and degree of the distress. What is a pertinent response in one setting may be out of place in another.

Taking the episodes in order: Accepting inconvenience and even loss of property with equanimity, as in the first instance, is the legacy of R. Akiva’s teacher Nahum Ish Gam Zu,3 famous for (and named after) his aphorism, “gam zu le-tova“—”this too is for the good.” This doctrine simply refuses to admit of evil and dismisses the perception of it as limited in sight. As it happened, R. Akiva was able in this instance to witness the truth of this, as his very misfortune prevented his detection by the marauding army, but even without that assurance he was prepared to put his faith in the justice of the Almighty’s plan.

But witnessing the affliction of his teacher, R. Akiva does not recite apothegms about the goodness of all that G-d does. He cannot here deny what he sees, and he cannot negate the notion of Divine retribution. Thus, he offers that perhaps human suffering may have some purpose, to extirpate sin or to generate remorse; that though suffering, man can be redeemed.4

When R. Akiva is himself faced with suffering so great such that the heavenly angels cannot bear it, neither of his earlier responses is appropriate. Suffering of this magnitude—good? Just punishment—while the heavens cry? R. Akiva just seizes the opportunity to sanctify God’s name. 5

Finally, R. Akiva and his colleagues are faced with the destruction of the Temple, seat of the Shekhina’s presence in this world. Can R. Akiva sanctify God’s name as a beast scampers about the Holy of Holies? After the Roman general Titus drew blood from the Temple walls and boasted of killing G-d? 6 R. Akiva can but profess his faith in the redemption to come.

If a unified doctrine is not to be found in these vignettes, what unites them is R. Akiva’s impulse to respond; his refusal to suffer without a response; and his ability, finally, to summon some response, be it reasoned optimism, Kiddush Hashem, or simple faith.

What was the source of this great faith opposite devastation? Was it merely an innate character trait or had R. Akiva somehow learned the secrets of sekhar va-onesh? The Gemara provides a kind of answer to this question in its discussion of the difficulties R. Akiva’s colleagues experienced in their own quest to understand Divine Providence.

Hagiga 14b:

Four entered the Pardes [studied the deepest secrets of the Torah] . . . Ben Azzai looked and died; Ben Zoma looked and lost his mid; Aher [Elisha ben Avuya] uprooted the trees; R. Akiva entered complete and emerged complete.

What were they looking for and what did they see?

Rashi7 explains the cause of Ben Azzai’s death as “. . . ki lo yir’ani ha-adam va-hai“—”no one will see Me (G-d) and continue to be a living man” (Exodus 33:20). According to Rashi, Ben Azzai looked at G-d, and suffered the consequence. But the question remains, what does it mean to look at G-d? The sole Talmudic source8 discussing this is a Gemara in Berakhot (7a). Citing R. Yeshoshua ben Korha, the Gemara states that Moshe Rabbenu wanted to understand the secrets of tsaddik ve-ra lo, of Divine justice. When he implored G-d, “Hodi’eni et derakhekha” (Exodus 33:13), he was asking, “How is it that we observe sinners succeed and the righteous suffer?” For R. Yehoshua ben Korha, God’s response, “Lo tukhal lir’ot et Panai, ki lo yir’ani ha-adam va-hai,” meant that “you may legitimately ask about Divine justice. You are correct to be puzzled by what may appear to be an unfair world. But understanding My judgment is tantamount to seeing My face and I will not show you My face. I will not share with you the secrets that unravel this mystery. If you learn the answers to these questions, and thereby see My face, you will cease to exist.” Thus, accordig to Rashi, death was Ben Azzai’s unavoidable fate as he discovered the secrets of tsaddik ve-ra lo.9

Ben Zoma: What did he see that drove him to insanty? Accordig to Rashi he studied the secrets of Creation [MaJaseh Bereshit],10 which, according to the Gemara (Hagiga II b), deal with “what is above and what is below.”11 We turn, again, to R. Yehoshua ben Korha. In a midrash, he recalls Moshe Rabbenu hiding his face from the marvel of the burning bush. G-d, according to R. Yehoshua, disapproved. Had Moshe not averted his gaze from the awesome sight, “G-d would have revealed what was above and below. . . .” Later, when Moshe requested “Har’eni et kevadekha” (Exodus 33:18), G-d replied: “When I wanted you didn’t want to see. Now that you ask I do not want to [show you]” (Shemot Rabba 45:5).

But R. Yehoshua ben Korha does not explain what Ma’aseh Bereshit and “what is above and what is below” refer to. This he does in a separate analysis of the same pesukim (Berakhot 7a):

“Hodi’eni et derakhekha.” Moshe said to G-d, “Why do some righteous prosper and some suffer, some wicked prosper and some suffer?” R. Meir says, “The answer to this question was not granted to Moshe.” R. Yehoshua Ben Korha concurs with R. Meir and states, “G-d said to Moshe, ‘When I wanted to show you [at the burning bush—Rashi], you did not want to see [va-yaster Moshe panav—Rashi], now that you want to see I do not want to show you.'”

Here R. Yehoshua ben Korha identifies “Derakhekha” as the answer to the problem of tsaddik ve-ra lo, which G-d was prepared to reveal—would have revealed—to Moshe had he not turned away. The near identical midrashic and Talmudic statements of R. Yehoshua ben Korha suggest that “what is above and what is below,” or “Ma’aseh Bereshit” is synonymous with the Talmudic mystery of “why some righteous prosper and some suffer.”12

Ben Zoma, then, like Ben Azzai, did not enter the Pardes out of mere curiosity but was searching for answers to tsaddik ve-ra lo. And like Ben Azzai, he could not remain as he was, fully alive, so went mad.13 The third visitor to Pardes, Aher, or Elisha ben Avuya, “uprooted the trees. . . . What did he see that led him to uproot the trees? He saw the angel Metatron in heaven writing the merits of the Jewish people” (Hagiga 15a). The Gemara describes him witnessing the heavenly dispensation of reward and punishment: an angel writing the merits of the Jewish people. Not G-d, notice, but a force apparently distinct from G-d deciding matters of sekhar ve-onesh. Aher concluded that G-d was not responsible for all occurrences in the universe.

Another Gemara (Kiddushin 39b) offers a seemingly unrelated explanation for Elisha’s apostasy:

What made Aher sin? Some say he saw a man ask his son to climb a tree and obtain baby birds after sending away the mother. The son, after obeying his father [thus fulfilling two commandments which promise long life] fell out of the tree and died.

In both instances Aher observed reward and punishment seemingly distributed haphazardly. In heaven’s upper recesses and on a single rooftop on earth, forces (Aher saw as) outside of G-d were given free reign.14 As Maharsha puts it succinctly, “Aher uprooted the trees after he saw the boy fall out of the tree.”15 After seeing his sense of Divine justice confounded, Aher entered the Pardes. He, too, emerged a different man. He was no longer Elisha ben Avuya, but Aher the heretic.

Finally, there is R. Akiva, who entered the Pardes complete and exited complete. What was his journey? The Gemara (Hagiga 14b) sees R. Akiva in the role of guide and advisor to the other three scholars. Apparently he sought the same revelations. Indeed, Rashi says that R. Akiva knew how to enter the Pardes and avoid the pitfalls to which his colleagues fell prey.16 He could see the face of G-d, learn the secrets of theodicy, and emerge complete.17 In fact, the Gemara says that the angels tried to push R. Akiva out of the Pardes to the objection of G-d Himself: “Leave the old man, as he is appropriate to use my honor [kevodi].”18 R. Akiva is somehow worthy of kevod ha-Shekhina.

But what of “lo yir’ani ha-adam va-hai?” R. Akiva is finally a finite human being; how could he defy the limitations that bind mere mortals, even one as great as Moshe? The answer may be found, again, in the words of R. Yehoshua ben Korha. If Moshe, in turning away from the burning bush, in hiding his own face would see G-d do the same, perhaps one who stood unflinching could, with the union of Divine and human will, “see and live.” As Maharsha notes, R. Yehoshua ben Korha understands the phrase “lo yir’ani” to mean “you will not see” rather than “you cannot see.”19 But for turning away, Moshe could have seen God’s face at the burning bush. R. Akiva, who peered unflinching, beheld Penei ha-Shekhina.

No Tanaitic opinion bears more relevance on the life and achievements of R. Akiva than that of R. Yehoshua ben Korha. No one enjoyed a closer relationship with R. Akiva than did R. Yehoshua. Indeed, as Rashi notes, R. Yehoshua was R. Akiva’s son!20 Perhaps R. Yehoshua learned that man is capable of seeing God’s face from R. Akiva’s passage though the Pardes.

The four journeymen lived shortly after the destruction of the Second Temple. They witnessed the devastation of the failed Bar Kokhba revolt and the horrific Hadrianc persecutions. They all struggled to understand the great calamities that befell the Jewish people. All of them entered the Pardes for the same reason: to understand the greatest Divine Mystery of tsaddik ve-ra lo. All knew of the dangers inherent in delving into these matters. G-d had already decreed, “lo yir’ani ha-adam va-hai,”—you may not emerge whole from this quest. Indeed, three of the men were irreparably damaged. Ben Azzai died, Ben Zoma became a lifeless body, and Elisha ben Avuya’s spirit passed away. Al three are nameless to us. Ben Azzai and Ben Zoma are known only by their fathers’ names and Aher (Other) has no name at alL.21 Only R. Akiva emerged unscathed.22

We will never know what R. Akiva learned in the Pardes, whose great secrets are inaccessible to us. Perhaps R. Akiva’s unshakable optimism and his ability to comfort drew from the assurances he received in the Pardes. Or, perhaps his indefatigable personality, his faith, and his sympathy were what enabled him alone to stare into the abyss, see God’s Face, and remain complete.23 Of such a man may it be said, “Akiva you have comforted us, Akiva you have comforted us.”24

Republished with permission of the Rabbinical Council of America

 

NOTES

I am grateful to Rabbi Berel Wein, Dr. Yehuda Eliezri and to my father Dr. Avraham Becker for reviewing this article and for sharing their insightful comments and suggestions.

  1. Makkot 24a, Sanhedrin 101a. Sifei Be-HaJalotekha 9:10 records R. Akiva’s contemporaries remarking “You never cease to surprise us with your optimism.”
  2. Haim Kolitz in Rosh Le-Hakhamim (Tel Aviv, 1980), Chapter 16, addresses R. Akiva’s approach to some of these Gemarot and suggests alternate interpretations.
  3. Hagiga 12a.
  4. Interestingly, Nahum Ish Gamzu himself invokes Divine punishment to explain his own physical ailments; see Ta’anit 21a.
  5. Ephraim E. Urbach in The Sages (Cambridge, 1979), pp. 443-444, claims that R. Akiva’s outlook on suffering changed when he was confronted with religious persecution. Following the Hadrianic decrees R. Akiva abandoned his early approach of ascribing suffering to sin and began to view it exclusively as a spur to the service of G-d. According to Urbach, Berakhot 61b represents R. Akiva’s paradigmatic approach to suffering. See, however, E.P. Sanders, “R. Akiba’s View of Suffering,” JQR 63, pp.332-351, who attempts to find a contextual basis for R. Akiva’s various approaches.
  6. Gittin S6b.
  7. Rashi, s.v. yakar be-enei Hashem, Hagiga 14b.
  8. The Talmud in Yevamot 49b states that looking at G-d refers to seeing Him on His throne but does not elaborate on the attributes of G-d that this vision provides.
  9. Rashi (Exodus 33:13) identifies, on a midrashic level, Moshe’s request of “Hodi’eni et Derakhekha” as relating to Divine reward in accordance with Berakhot 7a. It is to this request that G-d responds “Lo yir’ani ha-adam va-hai.” Rambam, Yesodei ha-Torah 1:10, says that Moshe was asking about the essence of G-d rather than about reward and punishment. This paper follows the aggadic interpretation of the Gemara in Berakhot 7a, its explication by R. Yehoshua Ben Korha, and Rashi’s midrashic acceptance of ths Gemara.
  10. Rashi, s.v. tsofeh hayiti, Hagiga 15a. This appears to be an undisputed opinion and is based on the Tosefta (Hagiga 2:3) that states explicitly, “Ben Zoma said that he was looking at Ma’ase Bereshit.” The Yerushalmi (Hagiga 2:1) has a similar formulation.
  11. Rambam (in the introduction to Moreh Nevukhim) and Tosafot (Hagiga 11b, s.v. yakhol, based on Tosefta Hagiga 2:3) offer explanations at variance with those I propose.
  12. In Exodus (33), Moshe asks two apparently distinct questions of G-d, “Hodi’eni et derakhekha” and “Har’eni et kevodekha.” It is to the second question that G-d responds” Lo tukhat lir’ot et Panai ki lo yir’ani ha-adam va-hai.” A careful reading of the Gemara in Berakhot 7a indicates, however, that R. Yehoshua Ben Korha views the pesukim of Hodi’eni and Har’eni as alternate formulations of the same request. The Gemara begins by stating that Hodi’eni asks to understand Divine justice. It proceeds with R. Meir’s saynig that G-d responded to Moshe’s request with “I show favor {ve-hanoti{ to whom I show favor” (i.e., something only I can understand). But in the Humash these words are God’s answer to Har’eni, not Hodi’eni! R. Meir apparently understands Hodi’eni and Har’eni to represent a continuum of Moshe’s petition to understand Divine justice. It is to both of these, synonymous, questions that G-d responds with “ve-hanoti.” After presenting the opinion of R. Meir, the Gemara cites the supporting position of R. Yehoshua Ben Korha that Moshe was not granted his request. R. Yehoshua explicates “lo tukhal lirJot et Panai” for God’s denial of the Har’eni entreaty when in the Torah it was the reply to Hodi’eni. It is clear that both R. Yehoshua Ben Korha and R. Meir view Hodi’eni and Har’eni in terms of tsaddik ve-ra lo. Hence, R. Yehoshua Ben Korha’s midrashic analysis of Har’eni and talmudic explication of Hodi’eni are alternate formulations of the same position. In contrast to the Gemara, Rambam in Moreh Nevukhim (1:54) clearly differentiates between these two requests of Moshe and understands neither of them as relating specifically to issues of sekhar ve-onesh. Rashi (Exodus 33:18) appears to differentiate between these pesukim as well but recognizes the derash of Berakhot 7a.
  13. The idea that “lo yir’ani ha-adam va-hai” can result in symbolic, rather than physical death, may be found in R. Menahem Kasher’s Torah Shelema (Jerusalem, 1992), Exodus 33, no. 134, where Pirkei de-R. Eliezer 32 is cited regarding the blindness of Isaac. According to this source Isaac became blind at the akeda when he looked at G-d, and as a blind man is symbolically considered dead (see Nedarim 64b), Isaac’s blindness was a fulfillment of Lo Yir’ani.
  14. Yehuda Leibes in Het’o Shel Elisha (Jerusalem, 1990) chapter 3 states that Elisha ben Avuya perceived Divine injustice when witnessing both the boy falling out of the tree and Mettatron writing about the Jewish people. Leibes does not, however, suggest that Elisha’s perception was the impetus for his entering the Pardes or for his apostasy.
  15. 15. Kiddushin
  16. S.v. mai darash, Hagiga 16a.
  17. Rashi (ibid.) offers two explanations as to how R. Akiva survived the Pardes. The fist states that R. Akiva knew what to avoid looking at. The second states that he knew how to avoid being misled (presumably despite looking at all there was to see). This paper is more consistent with the second opinion expressed by Rashi. According to the first approach of Rashi, it appears that R. Akiva entered the Pardes with the same questions as Elisha but it is unclear as to whether he learned the ultimate answers since he avoided looking at the deepest secrets.
  18. “Kevodi” alludes to “Har’eni na et kevodekha.”
  19. Berakhot 7a. See also Torah Shelema, Exodus 33, no. 128, where it is claimed that Rashi (Exodus 33:20) espouses a similar view. Rashi states on “Lo yir’ani” that G-d did not grant Moshe permission to see His face. R. Kasher understands this to imply that when permission is granted it is possible for man to see God’s face.
  20. Bekhorot 58a, s.v. huts.
  21. I am indebted to my father for this observation.
  22. The fact that Moshe did not merit to learn this information and R. Akiva did should not be surprising. Menahot 29b recounts that R. Akiva understood the secrets behind the crowns on the biblical letters while Moshe Rabbeinu did not. This Gemara teaches that while Moshe was unparalleled in his prophetic knowledge, G-d allowed for some Divine secrets to be discovered though man’s cognitive study of the Torah. R. Akiva could therefore surpass even Moshe in some respects through his study of the very Torah that Moshe commanded at Sinai. (See Maharal’s Hiddushei Agadot, Menahot 29b where the distinction between prophetic and non-prophetic knowledge is more fully developed.) A distinction of greater significance for this paper, between R. Akiva’s and Moshe’s knowledge may be found in the ensuing portion of Menahot. After learning of R. Akiva’s great Torah scholarship Moshe asks G-d to show him R. Akiva’s earthly reward. Moshe, upon witnessing R. Akiva’s horrific death, cries out in disbelief, “This is Torah and its reward?” Significantly, Moshe’s phrase is the same as that mouthed by the angels (Berakhot 61b) when they are faced with R. Akiva’s death; “Zo Torah ve-zo sekhara” is found nowhere else in the Babylonian Talmud. Moshe and the angels are silenced, but R. Akiva himself is able to reply meaningfully (see Berakhot 61b).
  23. Sifrei, Beha’alotekha 12:8, quotes the opinion of R. Akiva that in “lo yir’ani ha-adam va-hai,” “adam” refers to man, while “hai” refers to the angels. Neither man nor the angels can see God’s face in this scheme. This would seem to preclude R. Akiva himself, but this would hardly be the first instance of R. Akiva’s exceptionality. Indeed, in Berakhot 61b, R. Akiva offers an approach to suffering that the angels could not express.
  24. See Makkot 24a. Haim Kolitz, in Chapter 9 of Rosh le-Hakhamim, connects R. Akiva’s unfailing belief in redemption with his entrance into the Pardes. Kolitz quotes Kuzari (3:65) to the effect that R. Akiva attained a level bordering on prophecy with his entrance into Pardes. Neither Kuzari nor Kolitz, however, relate to the content of what R. Akiva saw in Pardes.