—
— THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA
Akiba ben Joseph
Meg. 7rt). GrStz's statpments ("Shir Im-Sliirim," lir>. ami " IJohcli't." 1). 109, lospcctiii',' Akiba'sattitude toward the canonicity of the Song of tSoiigs aiv miscouteptious, as Weiss (" Dor," ii. 97) Ims to sonu; extent showu. To the sjime motive uuderlviiig liis antagonism to the Apocrvplui, namely, the desire 5,
1>.
to disarm Christians
who drew
their "
—especiiilly Jewisli Cliristians
proofs
"
from the Apoiry plia. must
also lieiittrilmted his wish to emaiM-ipate the.Iewsof the Dispersion from thedominationof the t>eptuagint, the errors and inaeeiiraeies in whieh freiiuenlly distorted the true meaning of Scripture, and were even used as argnmenls against the. lews by the Christ ians. Aquila was a man after Akiba's own heart under
Akiba's guidance he gave the Greek-speaking Jews a rabbinical Bible (Jerome on Isa. viii. 14, Yer. Kid, Akiba probably also provided for a revised i. 59(0. text of thcTargums; certainly, forthe essential base of the so-called Targum Onkelos, which in matters of Halakali reflects Aliiba's opinions completely (F. Rosenthal, "Het Talmud," ii. 280), Akil)a's true genius, however, is shown in his worlv in the domain of the Ihiliikah; both in his systematization of its traditional material and in its further development. The condition of the Ilalakah, tliiit is. of religious pra.xis, and indeed of Judaism Akiba in general, wasa very iirecariousoneat Ihelurniif the lirst Christian century. as Systematizer. The lack of any systematized collection of the accumulated Halakot rendered impossible any presentation of them in form suitable for practical ]inri)Oses. Means for the theoretical study of the Ilalakah were also scant both logic and exege.sis the two props of the Ilalakah being differently conceived by the various ruling tannaim, and differently taught. According to a tradition which has historical confirmation, it was Akiba who systematized and brought into methodic arrangemcul the MisiiNAii.or Ilalakah codex ;tlic Minu.vsii, or the exegesis of the Ilalakah and the IIal.vkot,* the logical ampliticatioii of the Ilalakah (Yer. Shck. v. 4Hr. according to the correct text given by Kabbinowicz, "Dikdnke Soferim," ji. 42; com]iare Git. (iT(/ and Di ner, in "Monatsschrift," xx. 4.53, also Baclicr, in "Rev, fit. Juives," xxxviii, 215,) The feiTtpuaei; rov Ka'/.oviiivov 'Pa.?/3£ 'AKi^d mentioned by Epiplianius (" Adversus HiTieses," xxxiii, 9, and xv., end), as well as the "great jMishnavot of Akiba" in the Jlidr, Cant, U. viii. 2, Eccl. R.'vi. 2, are probably not to lie understood as independent Mishnayot (Arrrpwuffc) existing at that time, but as the teachings and opinions of Akiba contaiiK'd in the
—
—
recognized Mishnayot and Midi-.ishim, But at the same time it is fair to consider the Mislinah of Judah ha-Nasi (called simply "the Mishuah "las derived from the school of Akiba; and the majority of halakic Midrashim now extant are also to be tlms credited. Johanan bar Xappaha (199-2T0) has left the following important note relative to the composition and editing of the Mishnah and other halakic officially
works: "Our Mishnah comes directlv from Rabbi Jleir, the Tosefta from R. Xeheiniah, the Sifra from R, Judah, and the Sifre from R. Simon; but they all took Akiba for a model in their works and followed
him"
(Sanh. 86«).
One recognizes
here the threefold
For ttils meaning: of Hahikah, see especially Tosef.. Zah. 1. 5. riD^n niDD means to And logical foundation for ilie Halakot. + In the second passage Itabhi .Akiiia has been corrupted into Barakiban, as also in Jerome's " Epistola ad Al^fiislam," 1-1. where. Instead of Harachit>a,s, Itab .chibas should Ix* read. The statement in Epiphanius's "Adversus Hieri'ses," xlii. (cd. .MiKne. p, 744 ». that Akiba was iKim shortly before the IJabylonian exile, is based upon the confusion of Akiba with Ezra, who'was considered by Jewish authorities the founder of tradition (Suk. 3iki(. and as whose successor Akiba Is designated (Silre, Deut. 48).
806
division of the halakic material that emanated from Akiba: (1) The coditied Ilalakah (which is Jlishnah); (2) the Tosefta, which in its original form contains a concise logical argument for the .Mishnah, somewhat Mordecai Jafe on the " Shulhau like the " Lebusli •.ruk"; (;i) the halakic Midrasli. The following may be mentioned here as the halakic Miilrasliim originating in Akiba's school: the Mekilta of Ralilii Simon (in manuscript only) on Exodus; Sifiii on Leviticus; Sifre Zut.ta on >i'iinibers (excerpt.s in Yalk, Shimoni, ami a nninuscript in Midni-sh liaGadol, edited for the lirst time by B. Koenigsberger, 1894); and the Sifre to Deuteronomy, the halakic portion of
Of
which belongs to Akiba's scliool. Adminiblcas is the systematizationof the Ilalakah by Akiba, his hcrmeneutics jind halakic exegesis which form the foundation of all TalAkiba's mudic learning surpassi'il it. The Halakah. eni>rmc)us dilTcrcnce between the Ilalakah before and after Akiba may be
—
briefly described as follows: The old Ilalakah was, as its name indicates, the religious practice sanctioned as binding by tnidition to which were added extensions, and, in some cases, limilalious, of the Torali, arrived at by strict logical deduction. The which became o]>iiosition olTci'ed by the .Sidducees especially strenuous in the last century B.C.—originated the halakic Midrasli. whose mission it was to deduce these amplifications of the Law, by tradition and logic, out of the Law itself. It might be thou.irht
—
—
that with the destruction of the Temple which event made an end of Sad<lucceism the halakic
—
Midi'ash would also have disappeared, ,sceing that the Ilalakah could now dispense with the .Midrasli. Tills probably would have been the case had not Akiba created his own Midrash, by means of which he was able " to discover thin.irs that were even unknown to Closes" (Pesik,. Parali, cd, Buber. 39^). .kiba made the accumulated treasure of the oral law which tmtil his time was only a subject of knowledg<', and not a science an inexhaustible mine from which, by the means he jirovided, new treasures might be continually ex Iraeted. If the oliler Ilalakah is to be considered as the product of the internal stniggle between Pharisceism and Sadducceism, the Ilalakah of .kiba must be conceived as the result of an external contest between Judaism on the one hand and Hellenism and Hellenistic Christianity on the other. .Vkibano doubt perceived that the intellectual bond uniling the Jew.s far from being allowed to disapjiear with the destruction of the Jewish state must be made to dniw them closer together than before. He pondered also the nature of that bond. The Bible could never again till the jilace alime; for the Cliristians also regarded it as a divine revelation. Still less could dogma serve the purpose, fordogmas were always repellent to rabbinical .ludaism, whose very essence is development and the susceptibility to develo]nnent. Mention has already been made of the fact that Akiba was the creator of a nibbinieal Bible version elaborated with the aid of his pupil, Aquila. and designed to become the common jiroperty of all Jews; thus Judaizing the Bible, as it were, in oppoBut this was not sufficient to ,sition to the Cliristians, obviate all threatenin,? diuiger. It was to be feared that the .Tews, by their facility in accommodating
—
—
—
—
themselves tosurrouuding circumstances
—
— even then
characteristic might become entangled in the net of Grecian philosophy, and even in that of Gnosticism. The example of his colleagues and friends. Ei.isHA bex ABuyAii, Ben 'Azzai, and Ben ZoM. strengthened him still more in his conviction <if the necessity of providing some counterpoise to the iutellectuaf influence of the non-Jewish world.
a
marked
