An Incredible Story - Meir'ke and Shloime'le

From a footnote in Rav Melamed's Pninei Halacha, Ha'am ve-Haaretz: 

 לעילוי נשמת חללי מערכות ישראל הי״ד  

לחשיבות ערך מצוות השירות בצבא אביא כאן סיפור ששמעתי מד"ר פיינגולד על הגאון הגדול הרב יצחק זאב גוסטמן זצ"ל, אחרון גאוני וילנא, שהיה בבית דינו של הגאון רבי חיים עוזר גרודזינסקי, עבר את אימי השואה ושכל שם את בנו יחידו. לאחר שנים הקים ישיבה ברחביה שבירושלים. בין המקורבים אל הרב גוסטמן היה פרופ' אומן (חתן פרס נובל) ובנו שלמה אומן הי"ד, שהיה תלמיד ישיבת ההסדר בשעלבים. 

שלמה נהרג במלחמת שלום הגליל. לאחר שנודעה השמועה על נפילתו של שלמה, בא ד"ר פיינגולד לקחת את הרב גוסטמן להלוויה. לאחר תום ההלוויה, הסתובב הרב גוסטמן בין הקברים הטריים של החיילים שנפלו, ונאנח והצטער עליהם, והתקשה לעזוב את בית הקברות. בחזרתם מההלוויה אמר "כולם קדושים". שאל אחד הנוסעים שישב במושב האחורי: "כולם? גם הלא דתיים"? פנה הרב גוסטמן למושב האחורי, ואמר בהדגשה: "כולם! כולם!". 

כשהתקרבו לרחביה, פנה הרב גוסטמן ואמר (ביידיש): "ד"ר פיינגולד, אולי נעלה לפרופ' אומן להגיד דבר". בעת שעלו היה כולו שקוע במחשבות. כשנכנסו לבית, פנה הרב גוסטמן בשקט וברגש עצום, ואמר ביידיש: "ד"ר פיינגולד, אתה לא ידעת שהיה לי בן, מאירקה, הוא היה ילד יפה מאוד, לא מפני שהוא היה הבן שלי אני אומר זאת, באמת הוא היה כזה ילד יפה…" ואז הרב נזכר שהוא מדבר ביידיש, וחזר על דבריו בעברית, כדי שבני המשפחה האבלים יבינו. 

ופנה לאלמנה, להורים, לאחים ולאחיות, ואמר: "הבן שלי מאירקה נלקח מידיי ונזרק על משאית בקינדראקציון. ועמדה לידי אשתו של המשגיח וגם את הילד שלה לקחו. ואז היא פנתה לנאצי ואמרה: תזרוק גם אותי על המשאית. הנאצי ענה לה: חכי גברת, התור שלך יגיע… הקולות שבקעו מהילדים הגוססים והחיים על המשאית, היו כלום לעומת הצעקות של האמהות…" 

והמשיך לספר, כי אחר שבנו נרצח, כדי להשיג מעט מזון להציל עצמם מן הרעב, לקח את נעליו הקטנות של בנו, כדי למוכרם בעת יציאתו מהגטו לעבודות כפייה. בחוץ הצליח להחליפם תמורת גזר וקמח. אבל נתן בכל יום רק נעל אחת, כי לא יכל להבריח בפעם אחת את כל האוכל שהיה מקבל תמורת שתי הנעליים. הוא תיאר איך הכניס את הקמח למכנסיים הקשורים, ואת הגזר הכניס בפרוסות לתוך נעליו. כשחזר לגטו, הלך להביא חלק מהאוכל לאלמנתו של גאון הדור רבי חיים עוזר גרודזינסקי, שהיתה נפוחה מקור ורעב. הרבנית סירבה בתחילה לקבל את האוכל, כי אמרה: "יש לך אשה וילדה, למה תיתן לי את האוכל". כשהשיב לה: "יש לי מספיק", הסכימה לקבל ממנו קצת גזר וקמח. הוסיף הרב גוסטמן: "אני לא טעמתי מהאוכל הזה, מפני שלא יכולתי לקיים בעצמי את הפסוק: "ואכלתם בשר בניכם" (ויקרא כו, כט). 

ואז הזדקף הרב ופשט את ידיו לצדדים ואמר: "עכשיו אגיד לכם מה שקורה בעולם האמת. מאירקה שלי אומר לשלמה: אשריך שלוימלה שזכית. אני לא זכיתי! אני לא זכיתי לזרוק את עצמי מנגד כדי להציל את כלל ישראל. אתה זכית"! קם פרופ' אומן מהארץ וחיבק את הרב גוסטמן ואמר: "ניחמתני, ניחמתני". 

כשהגיעו בניו של ד"ר פיינגולד לקראת גיל גיוס, שאל את הרב גוסטמן, שהיה נערץ על כל גדולי הרבנים, גם מחוגי החרדים: "מה כתוב בתורת משה, הולכים לצבא או לא?". השיב הרב גוסטמן: "בתורה של משה רבנו כתוב: הַאַחֵיכֶם יָבֹאוּ לַמִּלְחָמָה וְאַתֶּם תֵּשְׁבוּ פֹה?!" (כך אמר משה רבנו לבני ראובן וגד). ואז הלך הלוך וחזור בחדר, כשיד ימינו חצי מורמת כמנהיג, וחזר על הפסוק כמה וכמה פעמים, כל פעם בקול חזק יותר.

In everlasting memory of Israel's fallen soldiers, may God avenge their blood

Regarding the high value of the mitzvah of military service, I will bring here a story I heard from Dr. Feingold about the great genius Rabbi Yisrael Zev Gustman, of blessed memory, the last of the geniuses of Vilna, who was part of Rabbi Chaim Ozer Grodzinski's Bet Din, who had passed through the horrors of the Holocaust and who lost his only son there. After some years, he established a yeshiva in Rechavia, Jerusalem. Of those who were close to Rabbi Gustman was Professor Aumann (Nobel laureate) and his son Shlomo, may God avenge his blood, who was a yeshiva student in Sha'alvim.

Shlomo was killed in Lebanon. After receiving word of Shlomo's passing, Dr. Feingold came to take Rabbi Gustman to the funeral. After the funeral, Rav Gustman turned to the fresh graves of fallen soldiers, and sighed and grieved over them, and found it difficult to leave the cemetery. On their return from the funeral, he said "Everyone of them is holy" . Asked a passenger sitting in the back: "Everyone? Even the non-religious?" Rav Gustman turned to the back seat, and said emphatically: "Everyone! Everyone! ".

As they approached Rechavia, Rabbi Gustman turned and said (in Yiddish): "Dr. Feingold, perhaps it would be good for Prof. Aumann for something to be said." When they got out, everyone was preoccupied in thought. When they entered the house, Rabbi Gustman turned and said quietly and with immense feeling, and said in Yiddish: "Dr. Feingold, you did not know I had a son, Meir'ke. He was a very beautiful, not because he was my son I say it, really he was such a beautiful boy ... " Then the rabbi remembered that he was speaking in Yiddish, and repeated in Hebrew for the mourning family to understand.

And he turned to the widow, parents, brothers and sisters, and said, "My son, Meir'ke, was taken from my hands and thrown on a wagon in 'Kinder Aktion.' And the wife of the mashgiach stood beside me and her child was taken. Then she turned to the Nazi and said, 'Throw me on the wagon too.' The Nazi answered: Wait woman, your turn will come ... The sounds of children living and dying on the wagon, were nothing compared to the screams of mothers ... "

And he went on to tell, that after his son was murdered, to get some food to save themselves from starvation, he took off the small shoes of his son, to sell them as he left the ghetto to forced labor. Outside, he would be able to exchange them for carrots and flour. But he gave each day just one shoe, because he could not smuggle at one time all the food he would have received for the two shoes. He described how he would put flour in tied pants, and carrot slices put into his shoes. When he returned to the ghetto, he went to bring some of the food to the widow of a genius Rabbi Chaim Ozer Grodzinski, swollen with cold and hunger. The Rebbetzin initially refused to accept the food, saying, "You have a wife and a child, why give me food." When he replied: "I have enough," she agreed to take him some carrots and flour. Rav Gustman added: "I could not taste this food, because I could not apply to myself the verse:" And ye shall eat flesh of your sons "(Leviticus 26:29).

Then the rabbi stood up and spread his hands and said, "Now I'll tell you what is happening in the Olam HaEmet. My Meir'ke is saying to Shlomo: You should be praised, Shloime'le, for you have merited. I have not merited! I did not get to sacrifice myself to save all of Israel. You've merited!" Professor Aumann rose from the ground and embraced Rabbi Gustman and said, "I am comforted, I am comforted".

When Dr. Feingold's sons reached recruitment age, he asked Rabbi Gustman, who was admired by all the leading rabbis, including the ultra-Orthodox: "What is written in the Torat Moshe, go to the army or not?" Rav Gustman replied: "In the Torat Moshe it is written: Will you stay here while your brothers go to war!?" (Moses told the children of Reuben and Gad). Then he went back and forth in the room, the right hand half raised as a leader, and repeated the verse several times, each time louder.

Gleeful Victory - A Lesson from the Story of Rabbi Akiva's Students

The Talmudic discussion, if it had to be concisely stated, is a series of arguments meant to arrive at truth. Sometimes, the Talmud will state that two opposing opinions are indeed two truths, "these and those are the words of the Living God". More often than not, though, if a stated opinion contradicts what we have established as true, for example an Amora contradicting the statements of the Tannaim, and there is no way to find a solution to the contradiction, or raise the Amora to the level of a Tanna, "taana hu u'palig", the Talmud will simply reject the Amora, "teyuvta".

But it will almost always be after attempts to find a resolution. The teyuvta seems almost always reluctant to be stated. There is a certain amount of respect granted to the people who stated those opinions, that we are not quick to condemn them.

It is unfortunate that this is not applied today in enough quantity. Today, when someone is bested in an argument, so often there is gloating, boasting, sneering. Too often people take sides without showing the kind of basic respect people deserve for having the courage to stand up for what they believe in, whether right or wrong in these convictions.

There are two cases in the Talmud that I recently posted about, that happen to have the same theme: One should not delight in the defeat of others in an argument. It is unbecoming, and it is downright wrong. As is the Talmud's way, the punishment for an intellectual crime like this is stated as divine and extreme.  But though we need not see it as a historical statement, we can view it as a moral statement.

The Talmud Menachot 68b states:

יתיב רבי טרפון וקא קשיא ליה מה בין קודם לעומר לקודם שתי הלחם אמר לפניו יהודה בר נחמיה לא אם אמרת קודם לעומר שכן לא הותר מכללו אצל הדיוט תאמר קודם לשתי הלחם שהותר מכללו אצל הדיוט 

שתק רבי טרפון צהבו פניו של רבי יהודה בן נחמיה אמר לו רבי עקיבא יהודה צהבו פניך שהשבת את זקן תמהני אם תאריך ימים אמר רבי יהודה ברבי אלעאי אותו הפרק פרס הפסח היה כשעליתי לעצרת שאלתי אחריו יהודה בן נחמיה היכן הוא ואמרו לי נפטר והלך לו

R. Tarfon was sitting and asked this question: What [is the reason for the difference in law] between [what is offered] before the ‘Omer and [what is offered] before the Two Loaves? Said Yehudah b. Nechemiah before him, No; If you'll say [that what is offered] before the Omer [is invalid], for the prohibition [of the new corn] does not admit of any exception to the private individual, can you really say so [of what is offered] before the Two Loaves, seeing that the prohibition does admit of an exception to the private individual?  

R. Tarfon remained silent, and at once the face of Yehudah b. Nechemiah brightened with joy. Thereupon R. Akiva said to him, 'Yehudah, your face has brightened with joy because you have refuted a sage; I wonder whether you will live long’ — Said R. Yehudah b. Ila'i, ‘This happened a fortnight before the Passover, and when I came up for the ‘Azereth festival I inquired after Yehudah b. Nechemiah and was told that he had passed away’. 

 In Bava Batra 9a it states:

אמאי קרו ליה עולא משגש ארחתיה דאימיה דבעא מיניה רב אחדבוי בר אמי מרב ששת מנין למצורע בימי ספורו שמטמא אדם אמר לו הואיל ומטמא בגדים מטמא אדם א"ל דילמא טומאה בחבורים שאני דהא הסיט נבילה דמטמא בגדים ואינו מטמא אדם אמר ליה ואלא שרץ דמטמא אדם מנלן לאו משום דמטמא בגדים א"ל שרץ בהדיא כתיב ביה או איש אשר יגע בכל שרץ אלא

שכבת זרע דמטמא אדם מנלן לאו משום דהואיל ומטמא בגדים מטמא אדם א"ל שכבת זרע נמי בהדיא כתיב ביה או איש לרבות את הנוגע אהדר ליה בבדיחותא חלש דעתיה דרב ששת אישתיק רב אחדבוי בר אמי ואתיקר תלמודיה אתיא אימיה וקא בכיא קמיה צווחה צווחה ולא אשגח בה אמרה ליה חזי להני חדיי דמצית מינייהו בעא רחמי עליה ואיתסי

Why was he [R. Shesheth] called 'the suckling who perverted the way of his mother'? The reason is this. R. Ahadboi b. Ammi asked R. Shesheth: Whence do we infer that a leper while he is counting his days [for purification]  renders unclean a man [who touches him]? He replied: Since he renders garments unclean,  he renders a man unclean. But, he said, perhaps this only applies to clothes which he actually wears; for similarly we have the case of the lifting of a carcase which makes the garments unclean but not the man?  — He replied: And whence do we know that a creeping thing makes a man unclean? Is it not from the fact that it makes garments unclean?  — He replied: Of the creeping thing it is distinctly written, Or whosoever toucheth any creeping thing whereby he may be made unclean. 

How then, he [R. Shesheth] said, do we know that [human] semen makes a man unclean? Do we not say that because it makes garments unclean, therefore it makes a man unclean? — He replied: The rule of semen is also distinctly stated, since it is written in connection with it, Or a man [whose seed goeth from him], where [the superfluous phrase 'or a man'] brings under the rule one who touches the seed.  He [R. Ahadboi] made his objections in a mocking manner which deeply wounded R. Shesheth, and soon after R. Ahadhoi b. Abba lost his speech and forgot his learning. His  mother came and wept before him, but in spite of all her cries he paid no attention to her. At length she said: Behold these breasts from which you have sucked. Then at last he prayed for him and he was healed. 

As the Yad Ramah points out,

ש"מ האי מאן דמותיב ליה לרביה תיובתא לאו לותביה בבדיחותא כמאן דמחאיך עליה אלא באימה דהא רב אחדבוי הוה קא מהדר ליה לרב ששת בבדיחותא וחלש דעתיה דרב ששת ואשתתק רב אחדבוי.

 We learn from here that when a person asks a teyuvta to his teacher, he should not ask him mockingly, as one who smiles about it, but rather with reverence...

Perhaps this was the problem described by the Talmud regarding Rabbi Akiva's students, in Yevamot 62b that they did not accord respect to each other, "וכולן מתו בפרק אחד מפני שלא נהגו כבוד זה לזה". Again, we need not view this more than hyperbole, but the sentiment is real. The only question I have is whether the first story shows that Rav Yehudah bar Nechemiah was a colleague of Rabbi Tarfon, or whether he was a student. Meaning, does this bespeak the lack of respect for a teacher, or lack of respect for one's fellow human being? The second story seems to be about hurt feelings of a colleague.

Yad Ramah makes the first story seem that it was a rabbi-talmud respect issue, and that makes sense in that Rabbi Akiva says, "Your face has brightened in that you have refuted a zaken." And we know that respect for one's elders is very important, and that a talmid is like a son in this respect. In fact, Rabbi Tarfon used to swear he would kill his child if something was taught wrong, see Ohalot 16:1, Tosefta Ohalot 15:12 Bava Metzia 85a, Shabbat 17a, Shabbat 116a, Tosefta Shabbat (Lieberman) 13:5, Tosefta Chagiga (Lieberman) 3:33. In Ohalot in particular, Rabbi Akiva responds to him. This could use some research.


But I could see the problem of respect is one of interpersonal issues in both stories.


As many have pointed out, it is of particular tragedy that Rabbi Akiva's students in particular had interpersonal problems with each other. For it is Rabbi Akiva who teaches that "veahavta lereacha kamocha" is the greatest rule in the Torah. It is Rabbi Akiva who manages to find what the "et" in "et hashem elokecha tira" includes, which is the reverence one must have for Torah scholars. So what went wrong?

I listened to a lecture by Rabbi Jonathan Sacks at YU for Semicha students about problems in the rabbinate. It was around this time 2 years ago. He theorizes (I'm paraphrasing what I remember and adding in some) that if, according to some, the plague occurred after the death of Rabbi Akiva, then this indicated that the problem was not simply about not giving respect to each other, but that they broke into sects of Jews who fought over their rabbi's teachings and legacy.

On the one hand, Rabbi Akiva supported the Bar Kochba revolt. He supported war for Jewish independence. He even imputed a divine mission to Bar Kochba as granting him the possible title of Messiah. This was a religiously driven war, for Rabbi Akiva.

But he was also a man of ethics, where respect for each other and the respect of the sages of Israel was paramount. Peace and tolerance were matters that Rabbi Akiva valued highly. In many ways, he saw the value of the entire mosaic of humanity. He saw value in all people, going so far as saying that all humankind is blessed for having been made in the image of God. He was someone who started to learn late in life, and knew all too well the struggle of those who could not be part of the Torah intellectual elite, how much pain it was to have a father-in-law who hated you for your ignorance, and how much love he had for a wife who stood by him regardless of his religious intellectual acumen. It was more about a people bound by knowledge of Torah, more about building religious communities together, than about any political freedom.

He taught love as often as he taught war.

So, Rabbi Akiva was a complicated man. And when every wonderfully complex leader dies, the complexity dies with them. The followers are unable to synthesize the multifaceted nature of their leader, and lines of extremism, of schism, are drawn. Some fight for the warring legacy of their teacher, Rabbi Akiva. Others fight for his universalism and pacifism. And they are completely unable to see eye-to-eye - this is the holy legacy of their rebbe! They cannot ever agree, and they are willing to fight to the death for their "version". As one can imagine, it wasn't too long before their extremist political-religious "legacies" died out. And the world was in shambles for it.

Myself, I would like to bring out another lesson from the lack of respect. Too often we get caught up in the debate, and our drive is to win. To lose a debate is one of the worst feelings in the world. To go ahead, even in Torah, and gloat in your victory, to be gleeful about it, is something that is not the honor of Torah, it is the honor of the self. We could think that, hey, this is machloket shem shamayim! But if we get happier from the fact that we won the debate, than of the fact that we clarified the ideas and realized the truth; if our faces light up when the Rabbi Tarfons of the world are "Shatak" and embarrassed, there is something wrong with that happiness. Although death is not necessarily the punishment for such a thing, it is a poison that can spread if not treated immediately. Rabbi Akiva "wondered" if Rabbi Yehudah bar Nechemia would live out the year. He wondered, if such an attitude toward others existed and could ruin generations of educators and students, if God's justice would prevail and stop the assassination of Jewish intellectual society (such an idea I saw in Orchot Yosher of Rav Chaim Kanievsky).

 Let us realize that if we take personal pleasure in a victorious debate, it was not leshem shamayim at all, but machloket lekvodi. Let's take a lesson from the methodology of the Talmud, and be reluctant to declare our opposition out of the realm of respect. Let us grant them the respect of mournful victory where "winning" is also a loss for us, as friends. And let us build a world of brotherhood, even with those who see things differently, to make the world a better place.

Teaching Styles In The Modern Age

A friend and I were trading Rav Soloveitchik stories, especially about his fiery and intense teaching style that he employed before his wife died. For example, the story goes that there was a column in the room where he taught that students would come early to be able to sit behind, so that they wouldn't get called on. The fear was that if you got called on to read the relevant passage, and you didn't do it right or explain it correctly, the Rav would give you an incredible tongue-lashing. Another story goes that the Rav went down the list of names and called out a random one. The class was large, and the Rav didn't know everyone who attended his shiur. Anyway, the person with that name calls out, "He's not here today." He wanted to get out of being called on. The Rav looks at him, smiles, and says, "Ok, then, you read."

I remarked to my friend that the fear in the classroom could not fly today, and I wondered out loud if hat was a good thing. Having just seen the movie Whiplash the night before, I pondered whether the lack of teachers pushing their students beyond their limits was the cause for the seeming lack of Talmudic masters today.

Interesting, Rabbi Jonathan Sacks recently referred to the movie Whiplash in a conversation. For him, the person who pushes us all to achieve excellence today is really the Jewish mother. Start at 1h5m08s

Rav Moshe Responding to my Grandfather Rabbi Chaim Zev (Herbert W.) Bomzer

Rav Moshe Feinstein answering my grandfather about a mikveh question, as published in Igrot Moshe Yoreh Deah 3:135

איך לעשות מקוה לטבילת נפטרים בע"ה ז' אדר תשל"ב מע"כ ידידי הנכבד הרה"ג מהר"ר חיים זאב באמזער שליט"א יו"ר מהמחלקה של הח"ק בפלעטבוש שעל ידי ועד הרבנים דפלעטבוש. הנה בדבר המנהג לטבול נפטר אחר הטהרה במקוה אם צריך שתהיה מקוה כשרה לטבילת נשים, פשוט לע"ד שאין מקום להנהיג טבילה לנפטרים אחר טהרה יותר מהחיוב לאנשים לנזהרים בטבילת תקנת עזרא שיכולין לטבול אף במקוה שכולו שאוב אף לכתחלה, אבל יש לעשותה שלא תהיה זוחלין דזה שייך להנהיג אף שלא מצינו מקור לזה דהמנהג החיובי הוא בהטלת ט' קבין, אבל הוא מעלה וחשיבות לטבול במקוה אבל סגי במקוה כזו שכשרה לאנשים והוא שתהיה חפירה בקרקע מסויידת בצעמענט היטב שלא יהיו זוחלין, ואז יתנו לשם מי העיר, והשיעור דארבעים סאה צריך גם למקוה זו. והנני ידידו, משה פיינשטיין.

How Many Died in the Plague That Killed Rabbi Akiva's Students?

There are 4 main sources for the number of Rabbi Akiva's students:

1. Yevamot 62b
2. Ketuvot 63a
3. Nedarim 50a
4. Genesis Rabbah 61:50

The regular printed Talmud texts are somewhat contradictory. Each one states, respectively:

1. 12,000 pairs
2. 24,000
3. 24,000 pairs
4. 12,000

Yevamot and Ketuvot accord with each other, and if "pairs" is taken away from Nedarim (as Mesorat HaShas advises), and added to Genesis Rabbah, everything fits. Thus, the common answer for how many students died in the plague is 24,000. It is a hefty amount, which the Talmud states all died in one period of time, from Passover to Shavuot. A massive destruction to Klal Yisrael from a human perspective, and from a Torah perspective.

The number 24 in the 24,000 does not seem to be arbitrary. As the Talmud relates, Rabbi Akiva in his old age began to study Torah, and quickly picked up students. In his first 12 years, he gained 12,000. In his second 12 years, he gained another 12,000. So one thousand every year. That is no small feat, and testifies to Rabbi Akiva's ability to teach. But it seems a bit too large to be real. It would be fascinating to relate this to how the Bible uses the word "eleph", "thousand", and perhaps both are exaggerating terms for large numbers. I tend toward the symbolism of eleph and aleph, which means teaching. The full sense of teaching was done by Rabbi Akiva.

But some relate this to the 24,000 who died in the biggest plague in the Torah, Baal Pe'or, in Pinchas. The numbers match, so the symbolism is there, plus it creates a parallel of first Temple to second Temple, that of idolatry to that of social disruption.

Interestingly, in the manuscripts, there are even more textual variants. I found two that take out the word "eleph". One in Yevamot and one in Nedarim:

1. YEVAMOT 62b Oxford Opp. 248 (367) אמרו שנים עשר זוג תלמידים היו לו לר' עקיב' מגבת ועד אנטיפרס וכלם מתו בפרק אחד מפני שלא נהגו כבוד זה לזה והיה העולם שמם עד שבא ר' עקיב' אצל רבותינו שבדרום ושנאה להם ר' מאיר ור' יהודה ור' יוסי ור' שמעו' ור' אליעז' בן שמוע הן הן העמידו את השעה תנא כולם מתו מפסח ועד עצרת א"ר חייא בר אבין ואיתימא רב אידי בר אבין כלם מתו במיתה גדולה מאי היא אמ' רב נחמן בר יצחק אסכרא
2. NEDARIM 50a Vatican 110 לבסוף אתא בעשרים וארבע זוגי תלמידי'

The problem is that they don't accord, again. The first says 12 pairs, the second says 24 pairs. But again, we can take away the word "zug" from the second source and everything works out to "just" 24 students in all. Or we could say that the first source means there were 12 pairs, and the second means there were "24 people (who were in pairs)."

This seems to make more sense on the credibility scale, but they are opposed by all the other manuscripts I could find, which means that the more logical explanation is simply someone leaving out the word "eleph" by accident.

Rav Reuven Margoliot, in Nefesh Chaya (his commentary to Shulchan Aruch and nosei kelim), addresses the question of why this took place between Passover and Shavuot specifically. He points to the Talmud Menachot 68b:

יתיב רבי טרפון וקא קשיא ליה מה בין קודם לעומר לקודם שתי הלחם אמר לפניו יהודה בר נחמיה לא אם אמרת קודם לעומר שכן לא הותר מכללו אצל הדיוט תאמר קודם לשתי הלחם שהותר מכללו אצל הדיוט 

שתק רבי טרפון צהבו פניו של רבי יהודה בן נחמיה אמר לו רבי עקיבא יהודה צהבו פניך שהשבת את זקן תמהני אם תאריך ימים אמר רבי יהודה ברבי אלעאי אותו הפרק פרס הפסח היה כשעליתי לעצרת שאלתי אחריו יהודה בן נחמיה היכן הוא ואמרו לי נפטר והלך לו

R. Tarfon was sitting and asked this question: What [is the reason for the difference in law] between [what is offered] before the ‘Omer and [what is offered] before the Two Loaves? Said Yehudah b. Nechemiah before him, No; If you'll say [that what is offered] before the Omer [is invalid], for the prohibition [of the new corn] does not admit of any exception to the private individual, can you really say so [of what is offered] before the Two Loaves, seeing that the prohibition does admit of an exception to the private individual? 

R. Tarfon remained silent, and at once the face of Yehudah b. Nechemiah brightened with joy. Thereupon R. Akiva said to him, 'Yehudah, your face has brightened with joy because you have refuted a sage; I wonder whether you will live long’ — Said R. Yehudah b. Ila'i, ‘This happened a fortnight before the Passover, and when I came up for the ‘Azereth festival I inquired after Yehudah b. Nechemiah and was told that he had passed away’. 

So we see the period of Pesach to Shavuot as a time for the death of those who do not have proper respect for Torah scholars is consistent, particularly when it comes to the students of Rabbi Akiva. Rav Reuven then points to the Mishna Eduyot 2:10

אף הוא היה אומר חמשה דברים של שנים עשר חדש. משפט דור המבול, שנים עשר חדש. משפט איוב, שנים עשר חדש .משפט המצריים, שנים עשר חדש .משפט גוג ומגוג לעתיד לבוא, שנים עשר חדש. משפט רשעים בגיהנם, שנים עשר חדש, שנאמר (ישעיה סו) והיה מדי חדש בחדשו. רבי יוחנן בן נורי אומר, מן הפסח ועד העצרת, שנאמר ומדי שבת בשבתו.

[Rabbi Akiva] also used to say that there are five things that [last] twelve months: The judgment of the generation of the flood, twelve months; The judgment of Job, twelve months; The judgment of the Egyptians, twelve months; The judgment of Gog and Magog in the time to come, twelve months; The judgment of the wicked in hell, twelve months, for it is said, "And it will be from [one] month until the [next appearance of the same] month" (Isaiah 66:23). Rabbi Yohanan the son of Nuri says: From Passover to Atzeret, for it is said, "And from one sabbath until the [next] sabbath" (ibid.).

I'm not entirely sure the connection of this mishnah. Perhaps Rabbi Akiva's students were judged between Passover and Shavuot because they were not wicked, so that was a good time for them to be judged very shortly.

Was It God Alone Who Performed the Plague of the Firstborn?

The Haggadah states:

וַיּוֹצִאֵנוּ ה' מִמִּצְרַיִם. לֹא עַל-יְדֵי מַלְאָךְ, וְלֹא עַל-יְדֵי שָׂרָף, וְלֹא עַל-יְדֵי שָׁלִיחַ, אֶלָּא הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא בִּכְבוֹדוֹ וּבְעַצְמוֹ. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: וְעָבַרְתִּי בְאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם בַּלַּיְלָה הַזֶּה, וְהִכֵּיתִי כָּל-בְּכוֹר בְּאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם מֵאָדָם וְעַד בְּהֵמָה, וּבְכָל אֱלֹהֵי מִצְרַיִם אֶעֱשֶׂה שְׁפָטִים. אֲנִי ה'.

"And the Lord took us out of Egypt" - Not though an angel and not through a seraph and not through a messenger, but [directly by] the Holy One, blessed be He, Himself, as it is stated (Exodus 12:12); "And I will pass through the land of Egypt on that night and I will smite every firstborn in the land of Egypt, from men to animals; and with all the gods of Egypt, I will make judgements, I am the Lord."

How can the Haggadah say that Exodus 12:12 means "ani velo malach" for the plague of the firstborns, when God promises to keep the "mashchit" ("destructor") away if they put the blood on their doorposts in 12:23, implying that God is there with the Maschit?

כג  וְעָבַר יְהוָה, לִנְגֹּף אֶת-מִצְרַיִם, וְרָאָה אֶת-הַדָּם עַל-הַמַּשְׁקוֹף, וְעַל שְׁתֵּי הַמְּזוּזֹת; וּפָסַח יְהוָה, עַל-הַפֶּתַח, וְלֹא יִתֵּן הַמַּשְׁחִית, לָבֹא אֶל-בָּתֵּיכֶם לִנְגֹּף.

23 For the LORD will pass through to smite the Egyptians; and when He seeth the blood upon the lintel, and on the two side-posts, the LORD will pass over the door, and will not suffer the destroyer to come in unto your houses to smite you.

Perhaps one answer is that the "destroyer" is really also God. But the question is felt. Rashi himself makes the question even more acute, because he includes both concepts explicitly in his commentary, that God did the plague Himself, but also set loose an external "destroyer".

On 12:12 he states:

will I wreak judgments-I The Lord: I by Myself and not through a messenger. — [from Passover Haggadah]

אעשה שפטים אני ה': אני בעצמי ולא על ידי שליח:

Yet on 12:22 he states: 

and you shall not go out, etc.: This tells [us] that once the destroyer is given permission to destroy, he does not discriminate between righteous and wicked. And night is the time that destroyers are given permission, as it is said: “in which every beast of the forest moves about” (Ps. 104:20). — [from Mechilta]

ואתם לא תצאו וגו': מגיד שמאחר שנתנה רשות למשחית לחבל אינו מבחין בין צדיק לרשע, ולילה רשות למחבלים הוא, שנאמר (תהלים קד כ) בו תרמוש כל חיתו יער:

And on 12:23 states

and He will not permit the destroyer: Heb. וְלֹא יִךְתֵּן, lit., and will not give. [I.e.,] He will not grant him the ability to enter, as in “but God did not permit him (נְתָנוֹ) to harm me” (Gen. 31:7).

ולא יתן המשחית: ולא יתן לו יכולת לבא, כמו (בראשית לא ז) ולא נתנו א-להים להרע עמדי:

Sefaria has some interesting Haggadah commentaries available. Some respond to this inherent question:

The Kimcha Davshuna (Rabbi Johanan Treves, published 1541) suggests that destroyer in 12:23 refers to the destruction God is raining on Egypt, but not to some external being. So it's God alone, not permitting Himself(?) to go into Jewish homes. This doesn't work with Rashi, and it doesn't work very well with the verse.

Maaseh Nissim has an interesting answer. He also points out that there are several references to "malach"s taking us out of Egypt, such as Numbers 20:16:

טז  וַנִּצְעַק אֶל-יְהוָה, וַיִּשְׁמַע קֹלֵנוּ, וַיִּשְׁלַח מַלְאָךְ, וַיֹּצִאֵנוּ מִמִּצְרָיִם; וְהִנֵּה אֲנַחְנוּ בְקָדֵשׁ, עִיר קְצֵה גְבוּלֶךָ.

16 and when we cried unto the LORD, He heard our voice, and sent an angel, and brought us forth out of Egypt; and, behold, we are in Kadesh, a city in the uttermost of thy border.

So he takes the idea from Maimonides that a "malach" can refer to natural occurrences. What it means, then, that God is performing this plague without a "malach" simply means that this is the direct will of God, and not nature.

In my own Haggadah collection, I see that Rav Yaakov Emdin in Metiv Nagen also asks from the verse in Numbers that states explicitly that an angel took the Israelites out of Egypt. He answers within the well-used "law" of angels that they cannot be used for more than one job. Therefore, it was an angel that took us out of Egypt, but it was ot alone in doing so. It was God who (indirectly) took them out of Egypt, and God who (directly) struck the firstborns. For, he says, you shouldn't say that God-forbid God would ever do something so cruel, and you would rather place it on the sitra achra. No! It was God Himself, and that's why 12:12 states again, "I am God." For there was actually mercy here, in that even if the Jewish first-born was in an Egyptian house, he would be saved, which never would have happened if God let the other angels loose. And it was a mercy for the Egyptians, because the angels can't distinguish between the firstborn and the not firstborn, and all Egyptians would have died.

The Avudraham tries to answer first the question of the verse in Numbers that states that, "He (God) sent an angel, and he took us out of Egypt", really means that God sent Moses (which Rashi there states, by the way), and it wasn't the angelMoses that took them out, but rather the next phrase is going back on God, that "He sent an angel, and He took us out..." But he notes this does not help us with the thorny problem of the doorposts protecting the Israelites from the "destructor". To that, he says that "destructor" could mean "the destruction," which we see happen in the Torah every so often. He points to Genesis 18:17's "hamechaseh", but I don't see it.

But outside the Haggadah, we have some of the commentaries on Chumash.

The Baalei HaTosafot (Daat Zekenim on 12:23) answer that "ani velo malach" means "My glory and him, not just him alone" - "וי"ל דהכי פירושו אני בכבודי וגם המלאך, ולא המלאך לבדו כי לא יתכן שיהי' ה' בלא מלאך". 

The Chizkuni on 12:23 says very similarly: ולא יתן המשחית ומה שאמרו רבותינו ועברתי בארץ מצרים. אני ולא מלאך היינו שלא ישלח מלאך במקומו אלא הוא בעצמו בכבודו ירד למצרים ועמו מלאכי משחית להשחיתם.

It seems to me there is some support for this kind of answer from the Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 2:1 (10a), also found in Yerushalmi Horiyot 3:1 (12a):

כד אתא רחמנא למיפרוק ית ישראל לא שלח לא שליח ולא מלאך אלא הוא בעצמו דכתיב ועברתי בארץ מצרים הוא וכל דרגון דידיה.

When the Merciful One came to redeem Israel, He did not send a messenger, nor an angel, but He Himself, as it is written, "And I passed through the land of Egypt" - Him and all His staff of officers with Him. 

The Ramban answers it a bit better, that though God was the one directly involved in the striking of the Egyptian firstborns, there is automatically a destructive angel that pops up when plague goes around (and he points us to II Smauel 24:16). It was to protect the Jewish people from this other source of death that God is referring to in 12:23: המלאך המשחית בעולם בעת הנגף, כעניין ויאמר למלאך המשחית בעם רב עתה הרף ידך (ש"ב כד טז), לא המשחית במצרים, כי הקדוש ברוך הוא הוא המכה:

The Abarbanel's understanding of the "destructor" is that it was not an angel, but some kind of air-borne disease that was protected miraculously through the performance of the required mitzvot such as milah and pesach: 

ואמנם מה הוא המשחית אשר זכר ושיזכור אחר זה ולא יתן המשחית לבוא אל בתיכם לנגוף הנה הוא לדעתי אויר מעופש שורף שחידש הקב"ה על דרך הפלא והיה נכנס בבכורות מדרך הפה והנחירים והולך אל לבם פתאום והוא היה המשחית שאינו מבחין בין צדיק לרשע כי אינו בעל דעת ובחינה. והיה מהנס האלהי שבזכות הפסח והמילה לא נכנס האויר המעופש ההוא בבתיהם של ישראל

... 

אבל מכת בכורות עשאה הקב"ה בעצמו מבלי אמצעי ולפניו ילך דבר והיה בזה סכנה עצומה לחוטאים כי בקום למשפט אלהים לא לפניו חנף יבא וישראל היו מלוכלכים בגלולי מצרים והיה משורת הדין בהלקות את השרים העליונים שכל עובדיהם ימחו מספר חיים. ומפני הסכנה העצומה שהיה בזה לחטאים בנפשותם הגדיל ה' לעשות עם ישר' לצוותם שיעשו מעשה מיוחד וינצלו מתוך ההפכה

This is pretty close to the Maaseh Nissim's answer. Rav Hirsch says similarly on Deuteronomy 11:14:

ונתתי: "אני לא על ידי מלאך ולא על ידי שליח" (ספרי). ירידת הגשם היא תמיד מעשה של השגחת ה' הישירה ואין היא רק תוצאת פעילותם הבו - זמנית של חוקי הטבע שנקבעו אחת ולתמיד. הסיבה הראשונה היא השגחת ה'. על פי האמור במסכת תענית ב ע"א מפתח של גשמים הוא אחד משלושת המפתחות, שהם בידו של הקב"ה ולא נמסרו ביד שליח, "ואלו הן: מפתח של גשמים ומפתח של חיה (יולדת) ומפתח של תחיית המתים". 

There are other midrashim that understand certain promises by God as "Me and no messenger or angel." It could be a statement that though the world runs on nature, sometimes God promises miraculous outside-of-nature occurrences. There seems to be this running theme here.