akiba

Then let him say that the Halakah is in agreement with R. 'Akiba! If he had said that the Halakah is in agreement with R. 'Akiba, I might have thought that [that is so] even in the Land of Israel ; therefore he informs us : Whoever takes a lenient view within the Land, the Halakah is in accord with him outside the Land, but not within.

Then let him say : The Halakah is in agreement with R. 'Akiba outside the Land; for everyone who takes the lenient view within the Land, the Halakah is in accord with him outside the Land ! If he had stated that, I might have said : This applies to the tithe of trees which within the Land is a Rabbinical ordinance ; but with regard to 'Orlah, which within the Land is ordained by the Torah, I must suppose that likewise outside the Land we must apply it ! Therefore he informs us.

When R. 'Akiba is in opposition to R. Eliezer, we act according to his view; but when Bet Shammai are in opposition to Bet Hillel, [the opinion of the former] is not Mishnah.

It once happened that Rabban Gamaliel and the Elders were reclining in an upper chamber in Jericho ; dates were set before them and they ate. Rabban Gamaliel gave permission to R. 'Akiba to say Grace. R. 'Akiba sat up and said one benediction which is an abstract of three. Rabban Gamaliel said to him, "'Akiba, how long wilt thou put thy head between strife!" He replied, "Our master ! Although thou sayest thus and thy colleagues say otherwise, thou hast taught us, our master, that where the individual and the many differ, the Halakah is in accord with the view of the many ! "

It once happened that Rabban Gamaliel and the Elders were reclining in an upper chamber in Jericho ; dates were set before them and they ate. Rabban Gamaliel gave permission to R. 'Akiba to say Grace. R. 'Akiba sat up and said one benediction which is an abstract of three. Rabban Gamaliel said to him, "'Akiba, how long wilt thou put thy head between strife!" He replied, "Our master ! Although thou sayest thus and thy colleagues say otherwise, thou hast taught us, our master, that where the individual and the many differ, the Halakah is in accord with the view of the many ! "

It once happened that Rabban Gamaliel and the Elders were reclining in an upper chamber in Jericho ; dates were set before them and they ate. Rabban Gamaliel gave permission to R. 'Akiba to say Grace. R. 'Akiba sat up and said one benediction which is an abstract of three. Rabban Gamaliel said to him, "'Akiba, how long wilt thou put thy head between strife!" He replied, "Our master ! Although thou sayest thus and thy colleagues say otherwise, thou hast taught us, our master, that where the individual and the many differ, the Halakah is in accord with the view of the many ! "

MISHNAH If one ate grapes, figs or pomegranates, he says after them the three benedictions. These are the words of Rabban Gamaliel ; but the Sages declare : One benediction which is an abstract of three. R. 'Akiba says : Even if one eats [nothing but] boiled vegetables and makes a meal of it, he pronounces thereover the three benedictions. If one drinks water to slake his thirst, he says the benediction "...By Whose word all things exist "; R. Tarphon says : "...Who createst many living beings and their wants."

R. 'Akiba says : Even if one eats boiled vegetables, etc. Is there any boiled vegetable which is to be regarded as nourishment? Rab Ashe said: It refers to cabbage-stalks.

Rab Nahman b. Isaac said : Thou mayest know that "Who art kind and dealest kindly" is not ordained by the Torah, because they omit it in the house of a mourner; according to the teaching : What do they say in the house of a mourner ? "Blessed... Who art kind and dealest kindly." R. 'Akiba said, "Blessed be the true Judge."

According to the numerical size of the assembly do they determine the form of the benediction; as it is said, "Bless ye God in full assemblies, even the Lord, ye that are from the fountain of Israel" (Ps. Ixviii. 27). R. 'Akiba said: What do we find in the Synagogue? Whether many or few, one says "Bless ye the Lord." R. Ishmael says : "Bless ye the Lord Who is to be blessed."

Rab Joseph said : There is no contradiction, the latter being the statement of R. Jose of Galilee, the other of R. 'Akiba. For the Mishnah declares : R. Jose of Galilee says : According to the numerical size of the assembly do they bless; as it is said, "Bless ye God in full assemblies." R. 'Akiba said : What do we find in the Synagogue ?

Rab Joseph said : There is no contradiction, the latter being the statement of R. Jose of Galilee, the other of R. 'Akiba. For the Mishnah declares : R. Jose of Galilee says : According to the numerical size of the assembly do they bless; as it is said, "Bless ye God in full assemblies." R. 'Akiba said : What do we find in the Synagogue ?

What does R. 'Akiba make of the verse quoted by R. Jose of Galilee ? He requires that for the following teaching : R. Meir says : Whence is it derived that even the embryos in their mothers' womb sang the song at the Red Sea? As it is said, "Bless ye God in full assemblies, even the Lord, ye that are from the fountain of Israel" (Ps. Ixviii. 27). And the other? He derives it from the word "fountain".

Raba said : The Halakah is in agreement with R. 'Akiba. Rabina and Rab Hamma b. Buzi visited the house of the Exilarch. [When about to say Grace] Rab Hamma stood up and looked about to see whether there were a hundred people present. Rabina said to him : It is unnecessary ; thus said Raba : The Halakah is in agreement with R. 'Akiba.

Raba said : The Halakah is in agreement with R. 'Akiba. Rabina and Rab Hamma b. Buzi visited the house of the Exilarch. [When about to say Grace] Rab Hamma stood up and looked about to see whether there were a hundred people present. Rabina said to him : It is unnecessary ; thus said Raba : The Halakah is in agreement with R. 'Akiba.

R. Bizna b. Zabda stated that R. 'Akiba said in the name of R. Panda, in the name of R. Nahum, in the name of R. Biryam, in the name of an Elder — and who is he? R. Banaah: There were twenty-four interpreters of dreams in Jerusalem. I once had a dream and went to consult them all ; but the interpretation each gave me differed from that of the others. Nevertheless all their interpretations were realised in me ; to fulfil that which was said "All dreams follow the mouth [of the interpreter]."

In a Baraita it is taught in the name of R. 'Akiba : "Thine, O Lord, is the greatness" — that refers to the division of the Red Sea. "And the power" — that refers to the smiting of the first-born. "And the glory" — that refers to the giving of the Torah, "And the victory" — that refers to Jerusalem. "And the majesty" — that refers to the Temple.

Rab Huna stated that Rab said in the name of R. Meir, (and it has been similarly taught in the name of R. 'Akiba) : A man should always accustom himself to say, "Whatever the All-merciful does, He does for the best."

As when R.'Akiba was journeying by the way, he came to a certain town and asked for hospitality, but it was refused him ; so he exclaimed, "Whatever the All - merciful does is for the best." He went and spent the night in the field, having with him a cock, an ass and a lamp. A gust of wind came and extinguished the lamp, a cat came and ate the cock, and a lion came and devoured the ass ; but he exclaimed, "Whatever the All-merciful does is for the best." That same night a band of robbers came and captured the town. He thereupon said to them, "Did I not tell you that whatever the Holy One, blessed be He, does is

"And thou shalt love the Lord thy God" (Deut. vi. 5). There is a teaching : R. Eliezer says : If it is stated "With all thy soul," why is it stated "With all thy might"? And if it is stated "With all thy might," why is it stated "With all thy soul"? But should there be a man whose body is dearer to him than his money, therefore it is stated "With all thy soul"; and should there be a man whose money is dearer to him than his body, therefore it is stated "With all thy might." R. 'Akiba says: "With all thy soul" [means,] even if He take thy soul.

Our Rabbis have taught : Once the wicked government decreed that Israel should no longer occupy themselves with Torah. There came Pappos b. Judah and found R. 'Akiba attracting great assemblies and studying Torah. He said to him, "'Akiba, art thou not afraid of the wicked government?"

Our Rabbis have taught : Once the wicked government decreed that Israel should no longer occupy themselves with Torah. There came Pappos b. Judah and found R. 'Akiba attracting great assemblies and studying Torah. He said to him, "'Akiba, art thou not afraid of the wicked government?"

It is related that but a few days passed when they arrested R. 'Akiba and bound him in prison, and they arrested Pappos b. Judah and bound him by his side. 'Akiba said to him, "Pappos, who brought thee here?" He replied, "Happy art thou, R. 'Akiba, inasmuch as thou hast been arrested on account of the Torah! But woe to me, Pappos, who has been arrested on trivial grounds!"

It is related that but a few days passed when they arrested R. 'Akiba and bound him in prison, and they arrested Pappos b. Judah and bound him by his side. 'Akiba said to him, "Pappos, who brought thee here?" He replied, "Happy art thou, R. 'Akiba, inasmuch as thou hast been arrested on account of the Torah! But woe to me, Pappos, who has been arrested on trivial grounds!"

It is related that but a few days passed when they arrested R. 'Akiba and bound him in prison, and they arrested Pappos b. Judah and bound him by his side. 'Akiba said to him, "Pappos, who brought thee here?" He replied, "Happy art thou, R. 'Akiba, inasmuch as thou hast been arrested on account of the Torah! But woe to me, Pappos, who has been arrested on trivial grounds!"

When they brought R. 'Akiba out to execution, it was the time for reading the Shema' ; and though they were combing his flesh with iron combs, he kept receiving upon himself the yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven. His disciples said to him, "Our master, thus far!" He answered them, "Throughout my life I have been troubled about this verse, '[And thou shalt love the Lord thy God...] and with all thy soul' which means : Even if He take thy life. For said I, 'When will it be in my power to fulfil it?' But now that the opportunity is mine, shall I not fulfil if?" He prolonged the word ehad until his soul left [the body] with the word ehad [on his lips]. A Bat Kol issued forth and announced, "Happy art thou, R. 'Akiba, that thy soul went out with the word ehad!"

When they brought R. 'Akiba out to execution, it was the time for reading the Shema' ; and though they were combing his flesh with iron combs, he kept receiving upon himself the yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven. His disciples said to him, "Our master, thus far!" He answered them, "Throughout my life I have been troubled about this verse, '[And thou shalt love the Lord thy God...] and with all thy soul' which means : Even if He take thy life. For said I, 'When will it be in my power to fulfil it?' But now that the opportunity is mine, shall I not fulfil if?" He prolonged the word ehad until his soul left [the body] with the word ehad [on his lips]. A Bat Kol issued forth and announced, "Happy art thou, R. 'Akiba, that thy soul went out with the word ehad!"

The ministering angels spake before the Holy One, blessed be He, "Such Torah, and such a reward? 'From men, by Thy hand, O Lord, from men' etc. (Ps. xvii. 14)." He replied to them, "Their portion is in this life" (ibid.). A Bat Kol issued forth and announced, "Happy art thou, R. 'Akiba, for thou art destined for the life of the world to come!"

There is another teaching : He who wishes to exercise his natural functions, if in Judea he must not face East or West, but North or South ; but in Galilee, North and South are prohibited, East or West is permitted. R. Jose, however, permits it [in any direction], because he used to say that the prohibition only applies to one who can see [the Temple]. R. Judah says : It is prohibited while the Temple is standing ; but when the Temple is no longer standing it is permitted. R. 'Akiba prohibits it in all circumstances.

Then R. 'Akiba agrees with the first Tanna! The question of outside the [Holy] Land is between them.

There is a teaching : R. 'Akiba said : Once I went into a privy behind R. Joshua and learnt from him three things. I learnt that we should not evacuate East or West, but North or South. I learnt that we should not expose ourselves standing but sitting. I also learnt that we should not wipe ourselves with the right hand but with the left. Ben 'Azzai said to him, "Wert thou so impudent with thy master?" He replied, "It was a matter of Torah and I wished to learn."

There is a teaching : Ben 'Azzai said : I once went into a privy behind R. 'Akiba and learnt from him three things. I learnt that we should not evacuate East or West, but North or South. I learnt that we should not expose ourselves standing but sitting. I also learnt that we should not wipe ourselves with the right hand but with the left. R. Judah said to him, "Wert thou so impudent with thy master?" He replied, "It was a matter of Torah and I wished to learn."

It is like [the discussion of] the Tannaim. R. Eliezer says : Because he eats with it. R. Joshua says : Because he writes with it. R. 'Akiba said : Because he points to the accents of the Torah with it.

He replied, "Did not 'Akiba b. Joseph act similarly?" They said to him, "Keep R. 'Akiba out of it, because he left not his equal in the land of Israel." He said to them, "I also have not left my equal in the land of Israel." They said to him, "The kids which thou didst leave behind have grown into goats with horns; and they have sent us to thee, saying to us 'Go, tell him in our name; if he obeys, well and good ; but if not, let him be excommunicated.

He replied, "Did not 'Akiba b. Joseph act similarly?" They said to him, "Keep R. 'Akiba out of it, because he left not his equal in the land of Israel." He said to them, "I also have not left my equal in the land of Israel." They said to him, "The kids which thou didst leave behind have grown into goats with horns; and they have sent us to thee, saying to us 'Go, tell him in our name; if he obeys, well and good ; but if not, let him be excommunicated.

‘R. Gamaliel’? — As it has been taught: One who builds his sukkah on the top of a wagon or on the deck of a ship. R. Gamaliel declares it invalid and R. Akiba declares it valid.

And Beth Hillel? They need that [verse] for the statement of R. Shesheth, R. Shesheth said in the name of R. Akiba, How do we know that the wood of the Sukkah is forbidden all the seven [days f the Festival]? From Scripture which states, "The festival of Sukkoth, seven days to the Lord."

valid. It happened with R. Gamaliel and R. Akiba when they were journeying on a ship that R. Akiva got up and built a sukkah on the deck of the ship. The next day the wind blew and tore it away. R. Gamaliel said to him, Akiva, where is your Sukkah?

When I was in the school of Rav in Babylon I used to say that which has been taught, "If Yom Kippur fell on the eve of Shabbat, they did not sound the trumpet, and if it fell at the conclusion of Shabbat they did not recite the Havdalah" is agreed to by all, but when I came up to Palestine I found R. Judah the son of R. Shimon b. Pazzi sitting and teaching that it was in agreement with R. Akiba only?

On festivals five read, on Yom Kippur six etc. Whose view is that of the Mishnah? It is neither R. Ishmael nor R. Akiba, as it has been taught: On festivals five read, on Yom Kippur six, and on Shabbat seven. They may not decrease or increase this number, the words of R. Ishmael. R. Akiva says: On festivals five read, on Yom Kippur seven and on Shabbat six. They may not decrease this number, but they may increase it.

There is a Baraitha, The uncircumcised person and the unclean person are exempt from appearing. This is all right as regards an unclean person, for it is written, "And thither thou shalt come: and thither ye shall bring" (Deut. xii. 5, 6). Every one who belongs to the category of coming belongs to the category of bringing, and every one who does not belong to the category of coming does not belong to the category of bringing. But "the uncircumcised person," whence do we get it? Behold, this comes not from a text but from R. Akiba, who includes an uncircumcised person as unclean. For there is a Baraitha, viz., R. Akiba says, The expression "each man" (Lev. xxii. 4) is to include the uncircumcised person. Our Rabbis have taught, The unclean person is exempt from appearing, for it is written, "And thither thou shalt come: and thither ye shall bring" (Deut. xii. 5, 6). Every one who belongs to the category of coming belongs to the category of bringing, and every one who does not belong to the category of coming does not belong to the category of bringing.

There is a Baraitha, The uncircumcised person and the unclean person are exempt from appearing. This is all right as regards an unclean person, for it is written, "And thither thou shalt come: and thither ye shall bring" (Deut. xii. 5, 6). Every one who belongs to the category of coming belongs to the category of bringing, and every one who does not belong to the category of coming does not belong to the category of bringing. But "the uncircumcised person," whence do we get it? Behold, this comes not from a text but from R. Akiba, who includes an uncircumcised person as unclean. For there is a Baraitha, viz., R. Akiba says, The expression "each man" (Lev. xxii. 4) is to include the uncircumcised person. Our Rabbis have taught, The unclean person is exempt from appearing, for it is written, "And thither thou shalt come: and thither ye shall bring" (Deut. xii. 5, 6). Every one who belongs to the category of coming belongs to the category of bringing, and every one who does not belong to the category of coming does not belong to the category of bringing.

The house of Shammai say, The holocaust involves two pieces of silver etc. Our Rabbis have taught thus, The house of Shammai say, The holocaust involves two pieces of silver, and the Chagigah a meah of silver; for the holocaust is all a burnt-offering to the Most High, which is not the case with the Chagigah; and besides we find that at the Feast of Weeks the Scripture enjoins more burnt-offerings than peace-offerings. But the house of Hillel say, The holocaust involves a meah of silver and the Chagigah two pieces of silver, for the Chagigah is older than the Decalogue, which is not the case with the holocaust; and besides we find in the case of "the princes" (Numb. vii. 15, 17, etc.) that the Scripture enjoins more peace-offerings than burnt-offerings. What then is the reason that the house of Hillel do not agree with the house of Shammai? Inasmuch as thou sayest that a holocaust is better, for it is all a burnt-offering to the Most High, on the contrary a Chagigah is better, for there are in it two feastings; and in that thou sayest, Let us learn from the Feast of Weeks, I reply that we are to judge an individual gift by comparison with an individual gift, and we are not to judge an individual gift by comparison with the gift of a congregation. What then is the reason that the house of Shammai do not agree with the house of Hillel? In that thou sayest that a Chagigah is superior, because it is older than the Decalogue, a holocaust also is older than the Decalogue; and in that thou sayest, Let us learn from "the princes," we are to judge a thing that lasts for ever by comparison with a thing that lasts for ever, and we are not to judge a thing which lasts for ever by comparison with a thing which does not last for ever. And how does the house of Hillel come to teach that the Chagigah is older than the Decalogue, but the holocaust not? Because it is written, "and they sacrificed sacrifices of peace-offerings" (Exod. xxiv. 5). There must have been a holocaust also. Lo, it is written, "and they offered burnt-offerings." The house of Hillel consider that the burnt-offering which Israel offered in the wilderness was the "continual burnt-offering" (Exod. xxix. 42), but the house of Shammai consider that the burnt-offering which Israel offered in the wilderness was a holocaust. Abai said, The house of Shammai and R. El'azar and R. Ishmael all consider that the burnt-offering which Israel offered in the wilderness was a holocaust. And the house of Hillel and R. Akiba and R. Jose the Galilaean all consider that the offering which Israel offered in the wilderness was the "continual burnt-offering." The house of Shammai hold this view according to what we have said. R. Ishmael agrees, for there is a Baraitha, viz., R. Ishmael says, The general directions only were given to Moses on Sinai,

and the details afterwards in the Tabernacle of the Congregation. But R. Akiba said, General directions and details were alike given him on Sinai, and they were repeated in the Tabernacle of the Congregation, and given for the third time in the plains of Moab. And if thou dost imagine that the burnt-offering which Israel offered in the wilderness was the "continual burnt-offering," how should there be anything, which at the first did not need to be flayed and divided, but at the end did need to be flayed and divided? R. El'azar agrees, for there is a Baraitha, viz., In commenting on the passage, "continual burnt-offering, which was ordained in Mount Sinai" (Numb. xxviii. 6), R. El'azar says, Its ordinances were told in Mount Sinai, but it was not itself offered. R. Akiba says, It was offered and never ceased again. But how then am I to explain the passage, "Did ye bring unto me sacrifices and offerings in the wilderness forty years, O house of Israel?" (Amos v. 25) The explanation is that the tribe of Levi, which had not served idols, they offered them.

and the details afterwards in the Tabernacle of the Congregation. But R. Akiba said, General directions and details were alike given him on Sinai, and they were repeated in the Tabernacle of the Congregation, and given for the third time in the plains of Moab. And if thou dost imagine that the burnt-offering which Israel offered in the wilderness was the "continual burnt-offering," how should there be anything, which at the first did not need to be flayed and divided, but at the end did need to be flayed and divided? R. El'azar agrees, for there is a Baraitha, viz., In commenting on the passage, "continual burnt-offering, which was ordained in Mount Sinai" (Numb. xxviii. 6), R. El'azar says, Its ordinances were told in Mount Sinai, but it was not itself offered. R. Akiba says, It was offered and never ceased again. But how then am I to explain the passage, "Did ye bring unto me sacrifices and offerings in the wilderness forty years, O house of Israel?" (Amos v. 25) The explanation is that the tribe of Levi, which had not served idols, they offered them.

The house of Hillel hold the view which we have mentioned. R. Akiba also holds the view which we have mentioned. R. Jose the Galilaean agrees with them, for there is a Baraitha, viz., R. Jose the Galilaean says, Three commands have been put upon Israel when they go up to a feast, viz., the holocaust, and the Chagigah, and the rejoicing. There is in the holocaust what there is not in the other two, and there is in the Chagigah what there is not in the other two, and there is in the rejoicing what there is not in the other two. There is in the holocaust what there is not in the other two, for the holocaust is a whole burnt-offering to the Most High, which is not the case in the other two. There is in the Chagigah what there is not in the other two, for the Chagigah is older than the Decalogue, which is not the case in the other two. There is in the rejoicing what there is not in the other two, for the rejoicing has to do with women as well as men, which is not the case in the other two.

R. Ishmael questioned R. Akiba, when they were walking on the road. He said to him, Thou art one who hast served for twenty-two years Nachum, the man surnamed Gamzu, the man who expounded the meaning of all the particles eth which are in the Law. "Eth ha-shamayim v'eth ha-aretz"—what was his exposition of these? He said to him, If the words had been simply shamayim v'eretz, I should have said, shamayim is the name of the Holy One, blessed be He. But now that the words are eth ha-shamayim v'eth ha-aretz, shamayim means the literal heaven, and eretz the literal earth.

There is a passage which says, "His raiment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like pure wool" (Dan. vii. 9), and yet it is written, "His locks are curling and black as a raven" (Cant. v. 11). There is no difficulty. The one is the case where He is engaged in session, the other where He is engaged in war. For the Mishnah teacher said, No one, look you, is nobler in session than an old man, and no one, look you, is nobler in war than a youth. One passage says, "His throne was fiery flames," but another says, "till thrones were placed, and one that was ancient of days did sit" (Dan. vii. 9). There is no difficulty, One throne is for Him and one for David. As says a Baraitha, viz., One for him and one for David. These are the words of R. Akiba. R. Jose the Galilaean said to him, Akiba, how long dost thou shew irreverence to the Shechinah? Nay, but one is for judgment and one for grace. Was he convinced by him, or was he not? Come and hear. One is for judgment and one for grace. These are the words of R. Akiba. R. El'azar ben Azariah said to him, Akiba, what hast thou to do with Haggadah? Be off. Thy sayings have to do with stripes and bitters. But the real meaning is that one is for a throne and one for a footstool; a throne that He may sit upon it, and a footstool as the resting-place for His feet, as it is said, "The heaven is my throne and the earth is the resting-place of my feet" (Is. lxvi. 1).

There is a passage which says, "His raiment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like pure wool" (Dan. vii. 9), and yet it is written, "His locks are curling and black as a raven" (Cant. v. 11). There is no difficulty. The one is the case where He is engaged in session, the other where He is engaged in war. For the Mishnah teacher said, No one, look you, is nobler in session than an old man, and no one, look you, is nobler in war than a youth. One passage says, "His throne was fiery flames," but another says, "till thrones were placed, and one that was ancient of days did sit" (Dan. vii. 9). There is no difficulty, One throne is for Him and one for David. As says a Baraitha, viz., One for him and one for David. These are the words of R. Akiba. R. Jose the Galilaean said to him, Akiba, how long dost thou shew irreverence to the Shechinah? Nay, but one is for judgment and one for grace. Was he convinced by him, or was he not? Come and hear. One is for judgment and one for grace. These are the words of R. Akiba. R. El'azar ben Azariah said to him, Akiba, what hast thou to do with Haggadah? Be off. Thy sayings have to do with stripes and bitters. But the real meaning is that one is for a throne and one for a footstool; a throne that He may sit upon it, and a footstool as the resting-place for His feet, as it is said, "The heaven is my throne and the earth is the resting-place of my feet" (Is. lxvi. 1).

There is a passage which says, "His raiment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like pure wool" (Dan. vii. 9), and yet it is written, "His locks are curling and black as a raven" (Cant. v. 11). There is no difficulty. The one is the case where He is engaged in session, the other where He is engaged in war. For the Mishnah teacher said, No one, look you, is nobler in session than an old man, and no one, look you, is nobler in war than a youth. One passage says, "His throne was fiery flames," but another says, "till thrones were placed, and one that was ancient of days did sit" (Dan. vii. 9). There is no difficulty, One throne is for Him and one for David. As says a Baraitha, viz., One for him and one for David. These are the words of R. Akiba. R. Jose the Galilaean said to him, Akiba, how long dost thou shew irreverence to the Shechinah? Nay, but one is for judgment and one for grace. Was he convinced by him, or was he not? Come and hear. One is for judgment and one for grace. These are the words of R. Akiba. R. El'azar ben Azariah said to him, Akiba, what hast thou to do with Haggadah? Be off. Thy sayings have to do with stripes and bitters. But the real meaning is that one is for a throne and one for a footstool; a throne that He may sit upon it, and a footstool as the resting-place for His feet, as it is said, "The heaven is my throne and the earth is the resting-place of my feet" (Is. lxvi. 1).

There is a passage which says, "His raiment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like pure wool" (Dan. vii. 9), and yet it is written, "His locks are curling and black as a raven" (Cant. v. 11). There is no difficulty. The one is the case where He is engaged in session, the other where He is engaged in war. For the Mishnah teacher said, No one, look you, is nobler in session than an old man, and no one, look you, is nobler in war than a youth. One passage says, "His throne was fiery flames," but another says, "till thrones were placed, and one that was ancient of days did sit" (Dan. vii. 9). There is no difficulty, One throne is for Him and one for David. As says a Baraitha, viz., One for him and one for David. These are the words of R. Akiba. R. Jose the Galilaean said to him, Akiba, how long dost thou shew irreverence to the Shechinah? Nay, but one is for judgment and one for grace. Was he convinced by him, or was he not? Come and hear. One is for judgment and one for grace. These are the words of R. Akiba. R. El'azar ben Azariah said to him, Akiba, what hast thou to do with Haggadah? Be off. Thy sayings have to do with stripes and bitters. But the real meaning is that one is for a throne and one for a footstool; a throne that He may sit upon it, and a footstool as the resting-place for His feet, as it is said, "The heaven is my throne and the earth is the resting-place of my feet" (Is. lxvi. 1).

Is it so? And yet there is a Baraitha to this effect. R. Jose in the name of R. Jehudah says, These are the three consecutive expositions. R. Joshua explained things before his master R. Jochanan ben Zakkai; R. Akiba explained things before his master R. Joshua; Chănaniah ben Chăkhinai explained before his master R. Akiba. But behold, R. El'azar ben Arakh was not thought worthy of a place with the three. No, for the principle is, He who teaches and before whom others teach is considered worthy, while he who teaches and before whom others do not teach is not considered worthy. But what do you say then to the case of Chănaniah ben Chăkhinai? For others did not teach before him, and yet he was considered worthy. Yes, for he taught at least in the presence of one who taught others.

Is it so? And yet there is a Baraitha to this effect. R. Jose in the name of R. Jehudah says, These are the three consecutive expositions. R. Joshua explained things before his master R. Jochanan ben Zakkai; R. Akiba explained things before his master R. Joshua; Chănaniah ben Chăkhinai explained before his master R. Akiba. But behold, R. El'azar ben Arakh was not thought worthy of a place with the three. No, for the principle is, He who teaches and before whom others teach is considered worthy, while he who teaches and before whom others do not teach is not considered worthy. But what do you say then to the case of Chănaniah ben Chăkhinai? For others did not teach before him, and yet he was considered worthy. Yes, for he taught at least in the presence of one who taught others.

Our Rabbis have taught, Four men went up into Paradise, and they were these, Ben Azzai, and Ben Zoma, Acher, and R. Akiba. R. Akiba said to them, When ye come near to the stones of pure marble, do not say, Water, water! for it is said, "He that speaketh falsehood shall not be established before mine eyes" (Ps. ci. 7). Ben Azzai gazed and died. Concerning him the Scripture says, "Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of his saints" (Ps. cxvi. 15). Ben Zoma gazed and went mad, and concerning him the Scripture says, "Hast thou found honey? Eat so much as is sufficient for thee; lest thou be filled therewith and vomit it" (Prov. xxv. 16). Acher cut the plants. R. Akiba departed in peace.

Our Rabbis have taught, Four men went up into Paradise, and they were these, Ben Azzai, and Ben Zoma, Acher, and R. Akiba. R. Akiba said to them, When ye come near to the stones of pure marble, do not say, Water, water! for it is said, "He that speaketh falsehood shall not be established before mine eyes" (Ps. ci. 7). Ben Azzai gazed and died. Concerning him the Scripture says, "Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of his saints" (Ps. cxvi. 15). Ben Zoma gazed and went mad, and concerning him the Scripture says, "Hast thou found honey? Eat so much as is sufficient for thee; lest thou be filled therewith and vomit it" (Prov. xxv. 16). Acher cut the plants. R. Akiba departed in peace.

Our Rabbis have taught, Four men went up into Paradise, and they were these, Ben Azzai, and Ben Zoma, Acher, and R. Akiba. R. Akiba said to them, When ye come near to the stones of pure marble, do not say, Water, water! for it is said, "He that speaketh falsehood shall not be established before mine eyes" (Ps. ci. 7). Ben Azzai gazed and died. Concerning him the Scripture says, "Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of his saints" (Ps. cxvi. 15). Ben Zoma gazed and went mad, and concerning him the Scripture says, "Hast thou found honey? Eat so much as is sufficient for thee; lest thou be filled therewith and vomit it" (Prov. xxv. 16). Acher cut the plants. R. Akiba departed in peace.

Acher asked this question of R. Meir, after he (Acher) had gone forth into evil courses, and said to him, What is the meaning of the passage, "God hath even made the one side by side with the other?" (Eccles. vii. 14) He said to him, Every thing which the Holy One, blessed be He, created, He created with its counterpart. He created mountains, He created hills. He created seas, He created rivers. He said to him, R. Akiba thy teacher did not say so, but he explained it as meaning that He created righteous, He created sinners. He created the garden of Eden, He created Gehenna. To every individual belong two shares, one in the garden of Eden, and one in Gehenna. If a man is meritorious and righteous, he receives his own portion and also the portion of his neighbour in the garden of Eden. If he has incurred guilt, and is a wicked man, he receives his own portion and also the portion of his neighbour in Gehenna. R. Mesharshia said, What is the Scripture proof? As regards the righteous, it is written, "Therefore in their land they shall possess double;" (Is. lxi. 7) as regards the wicked it is said, "And break them with a double breach" (Jer. xvii. 18).

Acher asked this question of R. Meir, after he had gone forth into evil courses. What is the meaning of the passage, "Gold and glass cannot equal it: neither shall the exchange thereof be vessels of fine gold" (Job xxviii. 17). He said to him, These are the words of the Law, which are difficult to buy as vessels of gold and vessels of pure gold, and are easily lost as vessels of glass. He said to him, R. Akiba thy teacher did not say so, but he explained it as meaning that as vessels of gold and vessels of glass, although they are broken, may be mended, so a disciple of the wise, although he have sinned, may be mended. He said to him, Do thou also turn thyself back. He said to him, I have already heard from behind the curtain, "'Return, O backsliding children' (Jer. iii. 14), except Acher."

R. Akiba went in to Paradise in peace and came down from it in peace. And it is of him that the Scripture says, "Draw me; we will run after thee" (Cant. i. 4). And also the angels of the ministry sought to thrust away R. Akiba. The Holy One, blessed be He, said to them, Leave this elder, for he is worthy to avail himself of my glory.

R. Akiba went in to Paradise in peace and came down from it in peace. And it is of him that the Scripture says, "Draw me; we will run after thee" (Cant. i. 4). And also the angels of the ministry sought to thrust away R. Akiba. The Holy One, blessed be He, said to them, Leave this elder, for he is worthy to avail himself of my glory.

And Resh Lakish said, "And the feast of the harvest" (Exod. xxiii. 16),—what is this Feast on which thou feastest and reapest? Thou must reply, This is the Pentecost. When is it? If I am to say, On the high holiday, how is reaping lawful on a high holiday? But dost thou not think that it means as well on the subsequent days? R. Jochanan said, But regard it thus. The Feast of Ingathering—what is this Feast in which there is an ingathering? Thou must say, This is the Feast of Tabernacles. When is it? If I am to say, On the high holiday, how is work lawful on a high holiday? But if I am to say, On one of the ordinary middle holidays, how is work lawful on one of the ordinary middle holidays? But it means the Feast which comes at the season of ingathering; and so in this case also the Feast which comes at the season of harvest. Consequently both are of opinion that on the ordinary middle holidays the doing of work is forbidden. Whence do we obtain these statements? Because our Rabbis have taught, "The feast of unleavened bread shalt thou keep seven days" (Exod. xxiii. 15). This teaches us that on the middle holidays it is forbidden to do work. These are the words of R. Jeshaiah. R. Jonathan says, The above proof is not necessary. I can prove it by an argument a fortiori. For if on the first and seventh days of the Feast which have not got a holiday before them and after them, the doing of work is prohibited, then on ordinary middle holidays, which have a holiday before them and after them, is it not just that the doing of work should be prohibited? But, it is replied, Let the six days of Creation bear witness against this interpretation, which have a holiday before them and after them, and yet the doing of work is permitted. Nay, it is rejoined, how are the six days of Creation a parallel case? For they have no additional sacrifice as the middle holidays have. Thou mayest say in reply, In the case of an ordinary middle holiday, as it has an additional sacrifice, let the first day of the month bear testimony, for on it there is an additional sacrifice, yet the doing of work is permitted. Nay, it is rejoined, how is the first day of the month a parallel case? For it is not called a holy convocation. Thou mayest say in conclusion, In the case of an ordinary middle holiday which is called a holy convocation, seeing that it is called a holy convocation, it is only just that the doing of work should be prohibited. There is another Baraitha, "Ye shall do no servile work" (Lev. xxiii. 8), that is to say, that on an ordinary middle holiday the doing of work is forbidden. The following are the words of R. Jose the Galilaean. R. Akiba says, It was not necessary, for lo, He says, "These are the set feasts of the Lord, etc." (Lev. xxiii. 4) With reference to what is the Scripture speaking? If to the first day, Behold, it has been already called a sabbath-day; if to the seventh day, Behold, it has been already called a sabbath-day; behold, the Scripture can be speaking only of an ordinary middle holiday, to teach thee that the doing of work is forbidden thereon.

The vessel includes what is within it for hallowed things, but not for heave-offering. Whence have you this utterance? R. Chanin said, Because the Scripture saith, "One golden spoon of ten shekels, full of incense" (Numb. vii. 14 etc.). Holy Writ makes every thing which is in the spoon one. R. Kahăna replies that R. Akiba added to the teaching, which immediately follows, the flour and the incense and the frankincense and the coals; for if the person in course of purification touch the extremity of it, he disqualifies the whole. And lo, this is the teaching of our Rabbis. Whence do we learn this. From the first teaching; for R. Simeon ben Betheyra bore testimony with reference to the ashes of the purification for sin, that, if an unclean person touch the extremity of them, he makes all of them unclean; and there is a teaching to the effect that R. Akiba added this. R. Lakish said in the name of Bar Kaphra,

The vessel includes what is within it for hallowed things, but not for heave-offering. Whence have you this utterance? R. Chanin said, Because the Scripture saith, "One golden spoon of ten shekels, full of incense" (Numb. vii. 14 etc.). Holy Writ makes every thing which is in the spoon one. R. Kahăna replies that R. Akiba added to the teaching, which immediately follows, the flour and the incense and the frankincense and the coals; for if the person in course of purification touch the extremity of it, he disqualifies the whole. And lo, this is the teaching of our Rabbis. Whence do we learn this. From the first teaching; for R. Simeon ben Betheyra bore testimony with reference to the ashes of the purification for sin, that, if an unclean person touch the extremity of them, he makes all of them unclean; and there is a teaching to the effect that R. Akiba added this. R. Lakish said in the name of Bar Kaphra,

The addition was only necessary for the rest of the meat-offering. For the teaching of the Law is, What stands in need of a vessel, the vessel includes it; what does not stand in need of a vessel, the vessel does not include it. But our Rabbis went farther and ordained that although a thing do not necessarily belong to a vessel, the vessel includes it. This will be all right as regards flour, but what is to be said about incense and frankincense? R. Nachman said that Rabbah bar Abuah said, It is as though men heaped things up upon a large piece of leather. According to the Law if it have an inside, it includes them; if it have not an inside, it does not include them. But our Rabbis went farther and ordained that although it have no inside, it includes them. And the view of R. Chanin differs from that of R. Chia bar Abba. For R. Chia bar Abba says that R. Jochanan says, This Mishnah is taught from the testimony of R. Akiba.