B”H
Memo
Re:
Tikkun Leil Torah held 5/27 11:30-1:30
Date: May 31, 2001
I
believe that Moshe Rabeinu’s response toward the
Romans would have been different than Rabbi
Akiva’s in one small but significant invisible,
hard to see, manner. Moshe Rabeinu would have fretted
over the people’s loss of mindset for Hashem,
not Torah per se.Rabbi Akiva in my respectful opinion
primarily fretted over loss of Torah and his
interpretations thereto. This is best shown by his
role in the Bar-Kokhba
Rebellion. Thus, to my mind, Rabbi Akiva would not be upset
regarding the passivity toward the return of
Jerusalem as long as Torah study could continue (or
even be enhanced) whereas Moshe Rabeinu could better
live with the threat against the study of Torah
(having due faith in Hashem to protect same) but
could not stand silent to the defamation to
G-d’s name by Israel standing silent to its
leadership’s expressed intent and willingness to
return Jerusalem, Hashem’s promised gift to the
Jewish people.
Hashem
doesn’t endorse Rabbinical efforts or subliminal
decisions which propagate minutiae to equal
prominence as per what Hashem thought suitable to
relay and to what Moshe Rabeinu needed to comprehend.
This proffer goes full circle to raise the question I
wanted to raise with you: whether Rabbi Akiva would
be sitting with all the other Orthodox Rabbis of this
time to perpetuate some high leveled discussions and
insight why it is acceptable to sit on their hands
when Barak pleaded with Arafat to take back Jerusalem
(and more was promised). Moshe Rabeinu’s action
would be to defend G-d’s gift and Name. Rabbi
Akiva’s, a man whose decisions lead to the
murder of half the Jewish population of Judea. would
have been otherwise for the reasons expressed.
To
be clear, giving back Hashem’s gift is a
rejection and defamation of Hashem. Rejecting Torah
is an inferior and subservient rejection and thus
ipso facto the return of Jerusalem with the silence
of the Orthodox (those manifestly committed to Torah)
would have been and still would be a rejection of
Hashem warranting the collapse of the mountain, and
result in the destruction of the Jewish people per
your expression of the Maharal’s expressed
dynamic. The very dynamic that Arafat is the one
person who precluded the rejection speaks how unhappy
Hashem must be at knowing how near the Jews were to
sealing their fate – the very fact that we were
so close doesn’t promise a better future either.
Hashem’s
posture toward Rabbi Akiva can best be gleaned by the
failure in the rebellion, the deaths of half the
people of Judea, and the manner of Rabbi Akiva’s
death. Moreover, it is clear that the Jews were in a
far worse condition with Rabbi Akiva after his
erroneous and reckless proclamation to his disciples
that Bar-Kokhba was nothing other than the Moshiach.
Furthermore, during this period, while complaining of
the actions of the Romans, it was the Jews themselves
defaming Hashem by the worship of Baal on the steps
of the Temple Mount. Rabbi Akiva and his crew did
nothing to little to address this and associated
issues the predicate of G-d’s anger as they
would not arguendo do the same concerning the intent
today, the silent acquiescence of the leadership and
people of Israel, to return Jerusalem and other parts
and parcels of Hashem’s promised gift to the
Jewish people. Hashem would have dealt with the
Romans as He would today deal with the Arabs. Rabbi
Akiva’s position toward the Romans was
hypocritical in failing to address the serious
problems existant with the Jewish people and their
relationship to G-d. Similarly, today, we point to
the Arabs as the problem, when the resolution of the
Jewish fate lies with the Jews themselves and their
failure to raise a finger to stop the Jewish
leadership from their obsessive intent to give back
Hashem’s gift and thus similarly defame Hashem
as done during Akiva’s time. While Rabbi Akiva
himself pronounced the manner he accepted his
torturous death as the testimonial of his unwavering
love for Hashem, G-d I think was expressing that He
saw it differently than what Rabbi Akiva was
professing for history. G-d gave us Torah and He
stands ready to protect our ability to continue with
Torah; we however were charged with the
responsibility to protect G-d’s name. G-d
without doubt knew the mindset that separates the
Moshe Rabeinus from the Rabbi Akivas of yesterday
today and tomorrow.
End Memorandum