The Menorah plays a central role in the opening verses of this week’s parsha and the Akivan/Ishmaelian divide plays a central role in understanding the popular midrashic literature touched upon by Rashi and the other primary commentators.
“…beha’aloscha es haneiros el mul p’nei haMenorah…” — “when you light the lamps towards the face of the Menorah…” (Numbers 8:2)
What does the verse mean when it says to light the lamps towards the Menorah? Rashi explains that the peripheral wicks were pointed towards the center wick while Maimonides claims that the actual oil cups themselves were tilted towards the middle stem — and they are joined by the Or HaChaim, Kli Yakar and Ba’al HaTurim in explaining that the point of this configuration of the flames of the Menorah was to show that the light was for the metaphorical purpose of signifying God’s presence — to provide an elegance and a seriousness, not unlike the formality of a candlelight dinner with a special someone — rather than to provide light for God in his house. Had God needed the light, it would have been much more beneficial to spread the light as much as possible, not focus it into the center. Remember the Village Crown? Had the candles on the table been for light, they could have just turned the lights on. It was like there was a perpetual blackout — when I was dating my wife, there was this old guy at the next table who nearly lit his menu on fire while trying to read it by the fire that no doubt was meant to signify the presence of God.
Despite seeming obvious — of course God doesn’t need the light — this is not the view of the more commonly promulgated Akivan perspective. For R’ Akiva, the Mishkan and its vessels and its service were not for us but for God. He needed the Jews to accept the Torah and He needed the temple worship. While R’ Ishmael, whose methods of interpretation deeply influenced the Sifri from which Rashi quotes, firmly maintained the light, as well as everything else, was for us — whether physically, psychologically or in some other capacity.
Two verses later, though, Rashi is already looking at things in a much more…er…Akivan light.
“v’zeh ma’aseh haMenorah miksha zahav…miksha he kamar’eh asher her’ah Hashem es Moshe kein asah es haMenorah” — “This was how the Menorah was made: beaten from gold…it was beaten out according to the vision that God showed Moses – so he made the Menorah.” (Numbers 8:4)
While the recognition of figures of speech plays a large role in the interpretative mannerisms of R’ Ishmael, R’ Akiva prefers to learn from the redundancy of the verse that God showed Moses the heavenly Menorah of the heavenly Mishkan multiple times and from the ambiguity of the subject at the end of the verse that it was God and not Betzalel was the one who ultimately had to make the Menorah for it was too hard (a play on the words miksha [hammered] and kasheh [difficult]) for Moses to figure out even after the audiovisual tutorial.
Th Ishmaelian school of thought takes a much more relaxed approach to this verse, explaining that Moses simply followed God’s instructions and that the notion of there having been images and visions is reading way too far into the text — it would be akin to one saying to his friend, “Ah…I see what you’re saying.”
This focused dispute is very much in line with the general pattern of the Akivan/Ishmaelian divide, with the latter understanding things without the need for inordinate fanfare and the former piling the mystifying upon the miraculous.
Forgive my ignorance of Akivan literature, but in what sense was the temple service for G-d? Why does G-d need a starship, er, I mean mishkan?
The Akivan/Ishmaelian divide lies on the distinction between viewing the world through a transcendent lens and through an immanent lens. The former, subscribed to by R’ Akiva, sees things as existing (or, perhaps better, originating) in the higher realms, while the latter, subscribed to by R’ Ishmael, sees things as very confined and limited — we are to experience the universe and Torah in a manner consistent with and defined by our human experiences.
And while the views of R’ Ishmael have largely been eclipsed by those of R’ Akiva over the centuries, there are areas of particular importance that are nonetheless taught in an Ishmaelian manner, if you will — and one of these areas is the relationship of man and God.
Based on Job 35:6-7, we emphatically state that God cannot be affected by us. If we sin, we have not harmed him and if we are righteous, he gains nothing. We need God, but he does not need us.
But R’ Akiva veered from this, maintaining that there is a certain divine need fulfilled by our presence, by our actions and by our service to Him. And through these lenses, R’ Akiva and R’ Ishmael explain the commandments and the Torah — one carrying forward the notion that God not only expects but necessitates and benefits from our adherence in some way, while R’ Ishmael says otherwise.
In short, because this little piece of Akivan philosophy is most often replaced by a little Ishmaelian patch, if you will, you arrive at this point wondering what R’ Akiva is saying and how it seems to fit in with our current concept of God. As an Ishmaelian, though, you’d wonder how most things R’ Akiva says fits in with your view of Judaism. Then again, he would wonder how an Ishmaelian view fits in with his understanding of Judaism.
You can check this out for some further reference.
Have a great Shabbos!
Thank you for providing the link. That was an interesting article which helps explain the distinction you often speak about in your divrei Torah, but I don’t see any reference to the idea that G-d “needs” something from us. I was hoping you could elaborate on that or provide a source. Have a great Shabbos too.
Here are some sources for this position; if I find more, I can send them to you by email if you post once more and include your email in the log-in for your post.
R’ Shimon bar Yochai, lead disciple of R’ Akiva taught: “atem eidai n’um Hashem” — “You are my witnesses, declared God.” (Isaiah 43:10) When you are my witnesses, I am God, but if you are not my witnesses, then, as it were, I am not God. (Sifre V’Zos Habracha 346)
Furthermore: “im bechukosai teileh” — “If you follow my laws” (Leviticus 26:3) R’ Akiva learned this as exemplifying God’s yearning for Israel’s compliance, im (if) being understood as nothing but a plea. (Bavli AZ 5a, four lines up from the bottom) This then serves as a springboard for many Akivan interpretations of a similar sort, such as God keeping the matriarchs barren because he yearns for the prayers of the righteous. (Bavli Yevamos 64a, second to last skinny line)
In this line of reasoning, if God has desires, he must have satisfaction — one generates the next.
The conclusion of this derivation lies somewhere near a statement made by R’ Eleazar Ha-Kappar: “My Torah is in your possesion and the end of days is in mine; therefore, we need each other. You need me to bring about the end of days and I need you to fulfill the Torah. (Pesikta Rabbati 31:5 [144b])
And in discussing the various verses dealing with God walking with our biblical ancestors (with Noach [Genesis 6:9] and the patriarchs [Genesis 48:15]), it is noted that God walked with Noach but behind the patriarchs (see quoted verses). A talmudic dispute erupts between Reish Lakish and his rebbe, colleague and brother-in-law, R’ Yochanan. The latter maintained that we need God like sheep need a shepherd, but the former, explaining that it’s obvious that sheep need a shepherd and wondering what the additional teaching is from the verse about the patriarchs, sees us walking before God not as sheep before the shepherd but as the prince’s entourage preceding him to glorify him. To summarize, R’ Yochanan maintained that we need God’s glory, while Reish Lakish maintained that God needs our glory. (Genesis Rabbah 30:10)
And in conclusion, Deteronomy Rabbah (8:5) speaks of Moses applying to Israel to keep God’s Torah as though it is analogous to a precious gem from a ruler that we must guard properly. Moses states, although it is clear that he is speaking for God when he says this, that if we preserve the Torah, we do not just a favor for ourselves but also for Him.
R’ Ishmael and his disciples were very against these types of interpretations considered not in line with the divine honor of an omnipotent being, which led them to present a more muted description of how we relate to God and what his relationship with Israel amounts to.
ok, fair enough, but one can always interpret these statements as something other than what human needs are in that we are harmed if those needs aren’t provided.
Let’s say I enter into a business partnership with a poor person purely for his benefit (isn’t that one of the preferred forms of charity?). I draw up a contract delineating the responsibilities. I need him to do certain things whereas he needs me to do other things. Does that mean I will be harmed if he breaches the contract? No, I have millions of dollars in the bank and he gets $1000 a month. Do I benefit from this partnership at all? Let’s say not (forget the spiritual benefit, or whatever). Yet, I can still use the language of need or require or whatever where what I really mean is that the contract requires these things and I choose to draw up this contract and be bound by it.
I have been taught that it is forbidden to speculated about why G-d wants to do what he does or why He wants us to do things, but surely not because He could be harmed if we don’t do them.
You make a good point…
But words can always be twisted — even Obama saying the “economy is doing fine” is being turned into “the economy is not doing fine.” Because the current administration doesn’t say that Obama said something really dumb — rather, they say that he’s “clarifying his previous statement.” How is that clarifying the previous statement? In the end, you’ll have to rely on who they are and what their credibility is.
You’ll always need to know the personalities and their intentions and the inflections of their statements will rest largely on the conclusions of who they were and what their outlook is/was. Someone thoroughly familiar with the Akivan/Ishmaelian divide is much better prepared to evaluate the various positions than someone who’s not, and I hope to one day be one of those people.
I’m a Lubavitcher with what I hope is not more that a relatively small chip on my shoulder. You and I have clearly fallen on opposite sides of the “Yaakov Avinu Lo Meis” interpretation of the Rebbe. I find it interesting, perhaps slightly ironic, that it is he who you cite as a reference to explain the differences between Rabi Akiva and Rabi Yishmael. I’m curious about your opinion on the final four paragraphs of the essay to which you linked.
Also, are there points within the Rebbe’s analysis with which you disagree? Are there additional points about the differences between the two tanaaim that you think should be addressed?
While we come from vastly different point of view on the Torah spectrum, I always find your analyses well thought out and insightful.