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.