Parashat Kedoshim

In response to the deaths of his 24,000 talmidim, Rabbi Akiva said of the pasuk v’ahavta l’reiacha kamocha (love your peer as yourself) (Leviticus 19:18) that it is a klal gadol batorah (a big general law). Rabbi Akiva’s students died because they did not treat each other each other with proper honor; therefore, Rabbi Akiva learned to stress the need for one to love his fellow Jew like he would love himself.

But Rabbi Akiva’s words do not seem to teach us anything new. Could one suggest that without Rabbi Akiva we would never have identified this mitzvah as the crux of all mitzvos in the Torah? Certainly not, for years before Rabbi Akiva was even born, a geir (convert) asked Hillel the Elder to teach him the entire Torah on “one foot,” and Hillel cited, “Anything you would unto like done unto you, do not do unto others. The rest of the Torah is [this axiom’s] explanation” (Mesechet Sahbbat 31a). Hillel tells the convert to treat his neighbors with the same care that he would treat himself, and Hillel considers this lesson the axiom upon which the entire Torah is structured. What then does Rabbi Akiva’s “klal gadol” teach that Hillel had not already taught?

Perhaps Rabbi Akiva said the lesson of v’ahavta not only as a response to the deaths of his 24,000 students, but in addition as the answer to an equally troubling dilemma, namely a paradox which arises from the first half of the same pasuk. The pasuk opens, lo sikom v’lo sitor es b’nei amecha, do not take revenge and do not bear a grudge against the people of your nation. Rashi comments that these two commandments address the identical scenario: Reuvein asks for a favor from his neighbor, Shimon, and Shimon refuses to help. The next day, Shimon asks to borrow Reuvein’s axe. What is Reuvien supposed to do? On one hand, if he refuses to lend his axe to Shimon, he would be taking revenge for his neighbor’s selfishness. On the other hand, lending his axe to Shimon would be no different than saying “I’m better than you, for you wouldn’t help me, but I’ll still help you in spite of your selfishness,” a truly begrudging gesture. The Torah seems to force Reuvein to sin simply at the hands of his neighbor’s actions!

Therefore we must accept that neither lo sikom nor lo sitor can depend solely on Shimon’s perception of Reuvein’s actions. Reuvein has every right not to lend the axe to Shimon if he requires it for his own needs, even if this disappoints Shimon. And he may certainly lend it to Shimon, but must have pure intentions in mind, even if Shimon walks away feeling insulted. Instead, it is Reuvein’s decision process which exclusively determines whether his actions constitute a fulfillment or a violation of these commandments. Because Hillel’s rule determines the law from the neighbor’s viewpoint, his axiom has no solution to the axe lending paradox. However, Rabbi Akiva’s modification does.

Rabbi Akiva teaches us that the mitzvah of v’ahavta l’reiacha kamocha cannot be measured solely by a person’s actions. A person must understand that the love he shows to his neighbor may not necessarily show externally in his decision to lend or withhold an axe, but still must be present internally. It was to this lesson that Rabbi Akiva proclaimed “zeh klal gadol batorah,” for this law redefines the guidelines for fulfillment of every other mitzvah in the Torah. We come to recognize that it is never enough to simply perform good deeds, that we must also have the purest of intentions.

After his students’ deaths, Rabbi Akiva gathered five new talmidim (students): Rabbi Meir, Rabbi Yehuda, Rabbi Yose, Rabbi Elazar, and Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai. These five regenerated Torah study back to life, which was threatened with dormancy, and their teachings are recorded throughout the Mishna, Tosefta, and Breisaos. But what happened to the Torah of the 24,000 students? Though they died, surely someone must have remembered a teaching or two of theirs. Yet aside from the five, no other Rabbi quoted in tannaitic sources was a student of Rabbi Akiva’s. How is this so?

Perhaps Rabbi Akiva’s lesson was not only a solution to preventing future deaths between colleagues, but also an active response to the loss of his own talmidim. While the product of his students’ effort may have been Torah, Rabbi Akiva realized that the process by which this Torah came about was tainted by greed and disrespect. One should not learn from the products of greed and disrespect. Rabbi Akiva did not forget his old students’ Torah; instead, he chose to erase it and to start anew with thoughtful, caring talmidim, for the conduits of Oral Torah must be pure in both content and intention. May we learn from and build upon this lesson, to lead honest lives and show proper honor, in fulfillment of Rabbi Akiva’s ever-essential klal gadol.