English translation — שבת נחמו

A.

On the double language of the verse¹

"<b>Comfort, comfort </b>My people, says your God" says the Midrash²

: They were smitten doubly and are comforted doubly.

That the matter of the comforting will be double.

One must understand what is the meaning and content of double comfort?

And on the other hand,

is known the difficulty in simple understanding: What is the novelty that "they are comforted doubly",

since the "they were smitten" was "doubly"?

Will one understand this with an introduction of the explanation at the end of tractate Makkot,

that also there we find the double language of consolation — "Akiva you have comforted us, Akiva you have comforted us"³

; and also there it speaks about the matter of the destruction and exile,

and upon this comes the double language "you have comforted us"⁴.

And according to the known that matters of the Written Torah are interpreted and explained in the Oral Torah — so it is regarding this in our case.

2.

At the end of tractate Makkot, the Gemara says: And already Rabban Gamliel, Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah, Rabbi Yehoshua,

and Rabbi Akiva were walking on the road and heard the sound of the tumult of Rome

from Puteoli at a distance of one hundred and twenty mil. They began to cry, and Rabbi Akiva laughed.

They said to him: Why are you laughing?

He said to them: And you, why are you crying?

They said to him: These Cushites

who bow to idols and burn incense to foreign worship sit securely and quietly, and we, the footstool of our God, is burnt with fire, and should we not cry?

He said to them: That is why I laugh: if for those who transgress His will, so; for those who do His will, all the more so.

Another time they were going up to Jerusalem. When they reached Mount Scopus, they tore their garments. When they reached the Temple Mount, they saw a fox that came out of the Holy of Holies. They began to cry, and Rabbi Akiva laughed.

They said to him: Why are you laughing?

He said to them: Why are you crying?

They said to him: The place about which it is written,

"And the stranger who approaches shall be put to death," and now foxes walk in it, and should we not cry?

He said to them: That is why I laugh, for it is written,

"And I will take for Me faithful witnesses, Uriah the priest and Zechariah son of Jeberechiah." And what connection does Uriah have with Zechariah? Uriah was in the First Temple and Zechariah in the Second Temple. Rather, Scripture linked the prophecy of Zechariah with the prophecy of Uriah.

Regarding Uriah it is written,

"Therefore, because of you, Zion shall be plowed as a field,"

Regarding Zechariah it is written,

"Old men and old women shall yet sit in the streets of Jerusalem."

Until the prophecy of Uriah was fulfilled, I was afraid that the prophecy of Zechariah would not be fulfilled.

Now that the prophecy of Uriah has been fulfilled, it is known that the prophecy of Zechariah will be fulfilled.

In this language they said to him: Akiva, you have comforted us; Akiva, you have comforted us.

And behold,

although the aforementioned Gemara is from the part of Aggadah in the Torah, and there is a rule that we do not derive halacha from Aggadah

— that is when the study of Aggadah contradicts halacha; but if there is no contradiction,

we do indeed learn matters of halacha from Aggadah and rely upon it.

And additionally: Even if you say that one does not learn from Aggadah a practical halachic ruling in practice¹⁵

- but a logical reasoning in halachah <b>can </b>one learn.

In addition to the above,

in our case it is not only <b>words of </b>Aggadah,

but a great deed¹⁶,

an actual deed,

as the great Tannaim

(in halachah)

conducted themselves; and the Baraitha enumerates their names including Rabbi Akiva, that "all of them

(the entire Oral Torah)

according to Rabbi Akiva"¹⁷

- it is understood simply that in this there are several logical reasonings that are relevant to halachah.

And in particular, that in the second case it is told not only about weeping and laughter but also about &lt;b&gt;an actual &lt;/b&gt;halachic deed in practice, "Since they arrived at the Temple Mount they tore their garments" — "that we should do thus"&lt;sup&gt;18&lt;/sup&gt;.

According to the above one must understand,

And in the language of the Talmud in many places,

"On what do they differ"; what are the halachic rationales,

Which are the reason and cause that the aforementioned sages disagree with Rabbi Akiva — and from one extreme to the other: from "weeping" to "laughter"?

And although the Gemara concludes "They said to him: Akiva, you have comforted us; Akiva, you have comforted us,"

It is nevertheless understood that their initial assumption that "they began weeping" has a place in the halachic reasoning; and especially that in the first story it is not mentioned that they said "Akiva, you have comforted us,"

And as it is also implied from that which Rabbi Akiva's response in the &lt;b&gt;first &lt;/b&gt;incident did not prevent them from weeping at the second incident — "&lt;b&gt;Again &lt;/b&gt;another time etc."

3.

Also one must understand several precise points in the content and continuation of the aforementioned stories¹⁹

And among them:

a)

What was the question of R. Akiva "For what reason are you crying",

it is after all a simple thing that when one hears the sound of the multitude of Rome etc. which destroyed the Beis HaMikdash,

and especially

(in the second event)

when one sees the Beis HaMikdash in the greatness of its destruction - "a fox came out of the Holy of Holies" - this must evoke mourning and weeping.

b)

Further it is not understandable: that which is told in the second story,

“When they arrived at the Mount of Olives they tore their garments,”

is simply

(as is implied from the unqualified and continuation of the text)

that also Rabbi Akiva did this - i.e.

that is

that also Rabbi Akiva <b>thereby </b>grieved over the destruction of the Holy Temple - so why does he then ask “Why are you crying”?

c)

The verse “And the stranger who approaches shall be put to death” does not speak about the <b>entry </b>of a stranger into the Holy of Holies but about a stranger who performs a service in the Holy Temple*¹⁹,

and since the Tannaim wanted to emphasize the prohibition

(even)

of entry into the Holy of Holies they should have brought the verse²⁰

“And he shall not come at all times into the Sanctuary,”

where it is explicit that even a High Priest may not enter into the <b>Holy of Holies </b>all year round²¹.

d)

What is the kashe of R' Akiva "Until the prophecy of Uriah was fulfilled, I was afraid that the prophecy of Zechariah would not be fulfilled" — how is it possible to have a doubt that a prophecy will, G-d forbid, not be fulfilled; and especially according to the words of our Sages²²

"Every single word that came out of the mouth of the Holy One, blessed be He, <b>for good</b> even conditionally, He did not retract"?

e)

Why does R' Akiva bring specifically the prophecy "Zion shall be plowed as a field" and not any other

(previous)

prophecy of destruction

(and redemption)?

6)

Why does the Gemara specify the names of all these Tannaim²³,

mainly it is relevant to say that R. Akiva had a different opinion and conduct from them - could it not have stood in the manner that we find elsewhere: already were R. Akiva <b>and the Elders</b> etc.²⁴,

and so forth²⁵.

7)

Why did the Sages only at the second event say

(regarding the answer of R. Akiva)

"Akiva, you have comforted us",

and not at the first?

ח)

"In this language they said to him: Akiva you have comforted us, Akiva you have comforted us" - what is the repetition

(all)

the language&lt;sup&gt;26&lt;/sup&gt;,

and the assurance that "&lt;b&gt;in this language &lt;/b&gt;they said to him"?

The Maharsha&lt;sup&gt;27&lt;/sup&gt;

says on this

(difficulty 7 and 8)

: "They doubled the words because of the two incidents that he mentioned."

But also this answer requires explanation: the "two incidents" were indeed with an interval of time and place&lt;sup&gt;28&lt;/sup&gt;

- the first incident was when they were "walking on the road",

approaching Rome,

and the second - "again" when "they were ascending to Jerusalem" - so how are they taken together in one category in the same answer?

4.

Simply, one can explain,

that in both events one sees the common point in the approach of R. Gamliel and R. Elazar ben Azaryah and R. Yehoshua on one side and R. Akiva on the other side: R. Gamliel and R. Elazar ben Azaryah and R. Yehoshua saw in each event the aspect of "not good" that is in it — and R. Akiva also saw in them the

(purpose and)

content of the good — and R. Akiva follows in this his approach as he says elsewhere²⁹

"A person should always be accustomed to say: Whatever the Merciful One does, He does for good,"

and as the Gemara relates there that such was his conduct <b>in practice</b>³⁰.

And according to this one can explain why the Gemara brings both events in one sequence,

although they occurred in different places and times as above: This is not only because both stories happened with the same Tannaim,

but because in both events one finds the same point in the approach of R. Akiva — to see in the present in every thing the benefit and good that emerges from it later.

5.

But according to the above, one must understand:

a)

The necessity of all three — what is the novelty in the view of Rabbi Akiva in both stories and in "to say 'everything that the Merciful One does is for good'."

2)

"A person should always be accustomed to say: Whatever the Merciful One does, He does for good" is a principle about which there is no dispute, and so it is ruled in Shulchan Aruch&lt;sup&gt;31&lt;/sup&gt;

- and consequently it is not plausible that the Tannaim R. Gamliel, R. Elazar ben Azariah, and R. Yehoshua would argue about this&lt;sup&gt;32&lt;/sup&gt;

; and moreover - that even regarding the second event about which they said "Akiva, you have comforted us,"

it is not necessary that they regretted their opinion.

3)

According to the above, R. Akiva in his answer should have stated &lt;b&gt;the point &lt;/b&gt;of his approach,

"Whatever the Merciful One does, He does for good"

(and afterwards

(if it is necessary)

the &lt;b&gt;particular&lt;/b&gt; proof).

6.

One will understand it with the introduction of the explanation of the Gemara in its plain sense.

The reason for the wonder of Rabbi Akiva "For what reason are you crying" is - since they began to cry only then when "they heard the sound of the multitude of Rome etc." and not earlier,

it is proven from this that their crying is not because of the actual knowledge that Rome is powerful,

since they knew about this even before they went out "on the way"

to nullify the decrees upon Jews³⁴,

is because of the strength of the exile].

And likewise in the second story: their &lt;b&gt;weeping&lt;/b&gt; was not over the essence of the destruction - and especially since regarding the destruction it is explicit that

(only)

"they tore their garments" earlier&lt;sup&gt;35&lt;/sup&gt;

- rather the cause of the weeping was "because ..

they saw a fox etc. &lt;b&gt;they began&lt;/b&gt; to weep".

Therefore R. Akiva asked "why are you weeping" - what was &lt;b&gt;now&lt;/b&gt; newly revealed to them,

because of which "&lt;b&gt;they began&lt;/b&gt; to weep"&lt;sup&gt;36&lt;/sup&gt;.

7.

Their answer to R. Akiva "These Cushites etc. sit securely and at ease, and we, the footstool of our God, are burned with fire" means: The very fact that the Roman Empire is in a state of "security and ease" in material worldly matters did not take hold by them until later; &lt;b&gt;on the contrary&lt;/b&gt;: That the Roman Empire is powerful and secure is entirely for the good of Israel,

because "and the Lebanon by a mighty one shall fall"&lt;sup&gt;37&lt;/sup&gt;

; for since "everything depends on the one who shames and the one who is shamed"&lt;sup&gt;38&lt;/sup&gt;

the shame is much smaller when the fall of "Lebanon"

(the Holy Temple)

is specifically through a &lt;b&gt;mighty&lt;/b&gt; kingdom.

(And with this it is sweetened,

that in their answer they did not begin and emphasize,

that the Roman Empire destroyed the Holy Temple and yet it is powerful

("secure and at ease")

- because,

on the contrary,

this is for the good of Israel,

making lighter the feeling of shame etc.,

as above).

Their claim was: That which Rome

finds itself in a state of “<b>security and tranquility</b>” at the time that “we, the footstool of the feet of our <b>God, are burned</b> in fire” is a desecration of God’s name

(in addition to a desecration of the name of Israel).

Furthermore: Since Rome’s entire strength etc. is only in order that it be fulfilled “and the Lebanon by a mighty one shall fall” — now why is Rome still a “mighty one” and “secure and tranquil” even now when the Holy Temple is already

(from before)

a <b>burned</b>?

Regarding this is also in the second event: Seeing a “fox that came out of the Holy of Holies” they saw in it a desecration of God’s name and the name of Israel — that a “place about which it is written <b>and the stranger</b> who approaches shall be put to death”,

that no Jew may even approach there,

until even a High Priest

(the holiest of the holy

of Jews)

may not enter there

(except one time a year,

Yom Kippur and in this

(specifically)

shall a gentile come),

he too is considered like a <b>stranger</b> all the days of the year etc.

— and “now foxes walk in it”?

The point of their claim was: It was indeed decreed that the Beis HaMikdash should be destroyed and Jews should be driven into exile — but why should there be such a chilul Hashem and chilul shem Yisrael?

A)

The kingdom of Rome certainly does not have to remain "secure and at rest" also after the Beis HaMikdash is already destroyed; B)

The prophecy of the destruction "Tzion sadeh teicharesh" could have been fulfilled in the other parts of the Beis HaMikdash and not specifically in the place of the Kodesh HaKodashim,

A place,

Where even regarding the holiest of Jews it was said "VeHazar HaKarov Yumas"&lt;sup&gt;43&lt;/sup&gt;.

Ch.

And to this R' Akiva answered: "U'Mah Le'Overei Retzono Kach Le'osei Retzono Al Achat Kama V'Chamah": True,

That through the fact that Rome is secure and at rest while the House of our G-d is burned with fire is a chilul Hashem and shem Yisrael; but through this, afterward also the reward and goodness will be with greater emphasis,

For "U'Mah Le'Overei Retzono Kach Le'osei Retzono &lt;b&gt;Ach"Kach&lt;/b&gt;",

D.

D.

E.

E.

R' Akiva also in the success of Rome and even also in the chilul Hashem and shem Yisrael saw the good that results from it.

And likewise in the second story: since the prophecy of destruction was fulfilled in the fullest measure,

until a fox came out of the Holy of Holies,

this itself is a proof,

that the prophecy of redemption of Zechariah will be fulfilled in the most elevated manner.

He had no doubt, heaven forbid, that the prophecy would be fulfilled; the doubt was only about the manner of fulfillment — whether in the ultimate elevation or not

In the manner as we find regarding many promises of the Torah.

And likewise regarding "the field will be plowed," the growth can be through this "and you will gather your grain"

furthermore "one hundred measures"

furthermore "wheat like kidneys"

furthermore as it will be only in the future, "and the plowman shall overtake the reaper"

he through this manner of fulfillment of the prophecy of the destruction

(of Uri’)

saw that also the fulfillment of the prophecy of the redemption will be in the most elevated manner.

Based on this it is understood why he brings specifically the prophecy “Zion will be plowed as a field”⁴⁹

: the matter of plowing a field is not to ruin the field,

but on the contrary,

plowing is a necessity so that the field should come to its perfection - and the land will give its produce,

through this afterwards the growth is proper⁵⁰

; and the more one plows the field,

the better is the sowing and afterwards the growth.

And likewise in our matter: the destruction of the Holy Temple is analogous to plowing,

that specifically through

(and from)

it comes the advantage in the growth of the redemption,

and therefore,

when Rabbi Akiva saw that the destruction

(the plowing)

had reached until its ultimate: until the place of the Holy of Holies⁵¹,

it was for him a proof that also the redemption

(growth)

will be in the ultimate elevation⁵².

9.

Based on this, one can explain the differences of opinion in the dispute of R. Akiva with the other Tannaim.

That they are dependent on a general question that is found in several mitzvos:

Whether one must take into account

(and according to this, decide)

<b>in the present</b> a mitzvah and obligation that will come <b>in the future</b>,

<b>for example</b>⁵³

: A sick person whom doctors say that if he will fast on Tzom Gedaliah he will thereby not be able to fast on Yom Kippur — may he

(and must)

fast on Tzom Gedaliah, which is an obligation from Divrei Kabbalah⁵⁴,

even though that through this he will not be able to fulfill in the future the obligation from the Torah — fasting on Yom Kippur; or he may not fast on Tzom Gedaliah so that he should be able to fast on Yom Kippur⁵⁵.

And it is explained that this is also the reasoning in the dispute between R. Akiva and the other Tannaim regarding the desecration of the Name and the name of Israel &lt;b&gt;in the present&lt;/b&gt;,

from which &lt;b&gt;afterwards&lt;/b&gt; will emerge a great elevation for Jews and a greater sanctification of the Name: R. Gamliel and R. Elazar ben Azariah and R. Yehoshua hold,

that since in the present this is a great desecration of the Name, that which will afterwards emerge from it does not tip the scales,

but one reckons with the current situation — since in the present this is the opposite of sanctification of the Name and sanctification of the name of Israel, this is so much evil that it brings to weeping.

R. Akiva holds,

that even in the present the future outcome tips the scales — and therefore R. Akiva holds here that since from this desecration of the Name and desecration of the name of Israel in the present will afterwards emerge an elevation and advantage in the sanctification of the Name and sanctification of the name of Israel,

in the future redemption,

this tipped the scales for him in its present state,

to such an extent that "he rejoices".

Yud.

And it can be said that their dispute depends <b>also</b> on another general question,

which is more relevant⁵⁶

to their content:

Whether one can fulfill a mitzvah in all its details,

but through this there will be lacking in the totality <b>the adornment</b> of the mitzvah,

and on the other hand,

if one will fulfill the mitzvah with adornment, a detail will be lacking

(which is not essential)

in the mitzvah — the question is what is decisive: the fulfillment of the mitzvah in all its details or the adornment in the totality of the mitzvah.

(and not exactly)

is the question of the later authorities&lt;sup&gt;57&lt;/sup&gt;

at a brit milah: if one will fulfill the mitzvah in the morning — according to the principle of "zerizim makdimin lemitzvot" — there will be lacking in "berov am hadrat melech"; on the other hand,

if one will postpone the brit to a later hour in the day,

it will not be in the manner of zerizim makdimin,

but thereby one will fulfill the "berov am hadrat melech"&lt;sup&gt;58&lt;/sup&gt;

— which is decisive.

And so too in several matters — if by postponing the mitzvah to later one will fulfill the mitzvah in a beautified and from the choicest manner&lt;sup&gt;59&lt;/sup&gt;].

And also in this was their dispute⁶⁰,

that Jews will receive reward for being those who do His will etc.,

and at the time of the redemption there will be sanctification of the Name and His greatness is simple,

The question is: The kingdom of Rome who worship idolatry "sit securely and quietly and we the house of etc. burnt",

and "a fox that came out of the Holy of Holies etc. a place about which it is written 'and the stranger who approaches shall be put to death'",

is indeed

(already now)

a matter of <b>desecration</b> of the Name,

a deficiency in the essence of the matter of sanctification of the Name; and corresponding to this is that which by Jews there will be a most elevated reward and the prophecy of Zechariah will be fulfilled in a <b>most wondrous</b> manner,

is a matter of <b>adornment</b> and <b>addition</b>

(in length of days,

health etc. - in their totality)

in sanctification of the Name

(which will come later after the time)⁶¹

According to R' Gamliel and R' Elazar ben Azarya and R' Yehoshua,

since now there is a deficiency in the essence of the sanctification of the Name

(although that anyway after the destruction there is no sanctification of the name of Israel and sanctification of the Name,

this can be not in a manner of desecration),

it does not matter what later will emerge a &lt;b&gt;beautification and addition &lt;/b&gt;in the sanctification of the Name - and consequently "they began to weep".

But the method of R' Akiva is,

that the &lt;b&gt;beautification &lt;/b&gt;in the &lt;b&gt;totality &lt;/b&gt;of the commandment overrides a detail in the commandment - and therefore the later &lt;b&gt;beautification &lt;/b&gt;additional in the totality of the matter of sanctification of the Name overcomes the current deficiency in the essence of the sanctification of the Name - and therefore "he laughs".

11.

This is in general,

In particular there is a necessity and a novelty in the second story relative to the first in all these three details mentioned above: All that the Merciful One does is for good; whether one reckons in the present with what will come out in the future; whether a detail in the mitzvah is decisive regarding beautification in the generality of the mitzvah.

That which R. Akiva says "All that the Merciful One does is for good" is the explanation,

that in the present it is an evil,

but the <b>intent</b> of it is for good; and as one sees this from the example that the Gemara⁶²

brings regarding R. Akiva himself: That which he lodged in the field not in the city,

and he lost his donkey and rooster and the candle was extinguished - from this came out afterwards a good of saving life; i.e.

i.e.

the deed itself is a matter of distress and damage,

this was however <b>for the sake of</b> a good⁶³.

- Based on this it is understood how this corresponds with the law that the Gemara&lt;sup&gt;64&lt;/sup&gt;

says,

that when a not good occurrence happened,

although that later from it will come out a good "such as when a flood came upon his field, even though when the flood passes it is good for him because it watered his field"&lt;sup&gt;65&lt;/sup&gt;,

one must make "Blessed is the true Judge",

because "now at least it is bad"&lt;sup&gt;66&lt;/sup&gt;

And in this "&lt;b&gt;to say &lt;/b&gt;all that does etc." are also R. Gamliel and R. Elazar ben Azariah and R. Yehoshua agreeing with R. Akiva,

as above.

The point in our case is that in the evil itself,

"a fox that came out of the Holy of Holies",

R. Akiva not only saw the later &lt;b&gt;result &lt;/b&gt;good,

rather he saw the very thing as a part&lt;sup&gt;67&lt;/sup&gt;

and beginning&lt;sup&gt;68&lt;/sup&gt;

of good&lt;sup&gt;69&lt;/sup&gt;.

And according to the words of our Rabbis, may their memory be blessed, on the verse&lt;sup&gt;70&lt;/sup&gt;

&lt;b&gt;Consumed &lt;/b&gt;the Lord His wrath - "on the wood and on the stones and He did not pour out His wrath on the children of Israel" and therefore by Asaph it is not "&lt;b&gt;weeping &lt;/b&gt;for Asaph" but "&lt;b&gt;a psalm &lt;/b&gt;for Asaph" - and when and through what did &lt;b&gt;consume &lt;/b&gt; become

(completely)

His wrath,

through foxes went out of the Holy of Holies

(and Jerusalem see etc.&lt;sup&gt;71&lt;/sup&gt;).

In the first story, however, although that also there "play" and also in this there is an activity on "Kol d'avid Rachmana l'tav avid"

One says and one knows only that this is "l'tav",

One knows however not,

It is not recognizable and revealed &lt;b&gt;what &lt;/b&gt;the tav is,

b)

It is an evil that "l'tav &lt;b&gt;avid&lt;/b&gt;",

But also when the entire matter would initially not have been, would also have been tav,

Like the example by R. Akiva,

If he would not have had the donkey and the rooster etc. initially, he would indeed also have been saved,

Unlike in our case "What to those who transgress His will, so to those who do His will, all the more so": a)

He sees "so",

In &lt;b&gt;what &lt;/b&gt;the good in this consists,

b)

It comes to a benefit and advantage from this,

More than without this],

This is, however, not in a manner that the thing itself is a part and beginning of goodness⁷².

12.

And up to here in the other two questions:

According to the explanation that the future result

determines the manner of the action of the mitzvah in the present; so too according to the reasoning that the beautification of the mitzvah as a whole determines regarding the particular mitzvah itself,

then the reason for this is

(<b>in general</b>)

because <b>this</b> <b>determines</b> and <b>overcomes</b>; i.e.

in the action in the present and regarding the particular aspect of the mitzvah this is indeed a deficiency,

but the virtue of the future,

and the beautification of the whole overcomes and determines the deficiency,

so that this is

(in general)

in the first story.

In our case, however, in the second story,

this is according to Rabbi Akiva not merely in the category of determining,

but in the action in the present etc.,

he sees <b>only</b> the virtue of the future,

i.e.

that is

that is

that the beautification of the sanctification of God's name and the name of Israel that will emerge in the future,

Rabbi Akiva sees as if this began in the action in the present — in that which appears to be a deficiency in the sanctification of God's name and the name of Israel⁷³.

13.

And this is the reason why specifically in the second story they said "Akiva, you have comforted us; Akiva, you have comforted us," and not in the first: The novelty in the explanation of the matter that "a fox came out of the Holy of Holies" according to the view of R. Akiva or according to the view of the other Tannaim who began to weep is in two things,

not only this but also this: In their view, they saw in this a matter of the opposite of good, which arouses weeping — the view of R. Akiva is that not only must one look at the matter of good —

(the sanctification of God's name and the name of Israel in ultimate perfection)

that will come out of this,

but moreover,

that the elevation and benefit in the redemption is not like a thing that is achieved through another

(not good)

thing,

but this is one matter — "Zion <b>shall be plowed as a field</b>"; the destruction itself has the quality of the plowing of the field,

whose <b>continuation</b> is sowing and growth.

And this is the double consolation: a)

the quality <b>and splendor of the future</b>,

b)

that the elevation and consolation is here in the present action.

And the necessity for this is,

"For it is written, 'And I will take for Me faithful witnesses, Uriah the priest and Zechariah the son of Jeberechiah, etc.' The verse attributes [it] etc.": The verse itself says,

that these are not two separate things,

but they are one - like the definition of testimony

(According to two witnesses - it becomes one entity of "testimony"74),

The prophecy of Zechariah and the prophecy of Uriah are one testimony75.

However, regarding the first story where Rabbi Akiva "laughed" because of the reason "What [happens] to those who transgress His will, [so too] to those who do His will, all the more so",

this is only according to the opinion of Rabbi Akiva,

but the other Tannaim remained with their opinion.

And especially since in this one must learn and see the virtue and goodness of one thing

("those who do His will")

from a second thing

("those who transgress His will")

- and for this he brought them no proof from a verse as in the second story

(from which one should know, all the more so, regarding the first story).

14.

Based on this one can explain the reason that the Gemara <b>specifies</b> the names of all the Tannaim,

because through this is understood the reason and cause of their difference of opinions: Rabban Gamliel was Nasi — an Israelite

(from the tribe of Yehudah)

; Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah was a Kohen — tenth generation from Ezra⁷⁶,

Rabbi Yehoshua was a Levi

(from the singers)⁷⁷

; Rabbi Akiva was a son of converts⁷⁸

Simply, who can see

(and perceive)

in contrast to this,

in the opposite side,

the nullification of the evil within him even when it is at its peak and the advantage and benefit in the matter of the destruction in a manner of double consolation — specifically the one for whom this was in such a manner by himself

(in the manner that the Gemara⁷⁹

says,

that specifically Ovadiah prophesied about the downfall of Edom,

because "Ovadiah was an Edomite convert, and that is what people say: 'From within it and from within it, the father should go, within it the axe'"),

but a Jewish person — whether a Kohen, a Levi, or an Israelite — cannot see this by himself,

therefore this is a novelty.

And likewise is the difference between their opinions in halacha: what decides,

the present or the future; a detail in a commandment or beautification in the totality of the commandment: specifically Rabbi Akiva,

who in addition to that he was a son of converts,

also he himself began to learn Torah only when he was forty years old⁸⁰

- if he had looked and considered his situation and circumstance in the present,

he would not have attained the level of Rabbi Akiva⁸¹

; specifically because he saw the result and level that could emerge

(and that is what emerged for him)

in the future,

and he saw it clearly and with certainty like the seeing of "stones wore down by water"*⁸¹

- that brought about that he should begin to learn Torah in the manner explained in our Sages, may their memory be blessed⁸².

Seventy-two.

Based on this, one can say that this is also the reasoning in the advantage and level of the consolation in double

(Comfort, comfort My people)

over the entirety of the exile and destruction in the manner of "she received double": the "she received double" consists in that in addition to the essence of the destruction and exile

(and the opposite of sanctification of God's name and the name of Israel in this),

there is also the desecration of God's name and the name of Israel <b>more so</b> - more than through the essence of the destruction and exile

(and as mentioned above,

in the manner of the story at the end of Tractate Makkot mentioned above: these bow down etc. sitting securely and quietly and we etc. a fox that came out of the Holy of Holies),

And correspondingly, the consolation is also twofold: in addition to the consolation that the benefit and goodness of the destruction and exile itself are revealed — as all this was so that the revelations of the future redemption should be revealed,

there is also revealed the advantage and superiority in the <b>addition</b>

(“double portion”)

of destruction and exile

(and this itself in a manner of “double consolation”)⁸³,

not only will it be heard that the greatness of the descent and exile is worthwhile in order to reach the <b>addition and enhancement</b> in the time of redemption,

rather one hears the goodness and advantage in the addition in destruction and exile itself — and about this one says⁸⁴

“<b>I will thank You</b>, O Lord, <b>for You were angry</b> with me.”

Based on this, one can explain the hint of the matter of consolation in our portion,

as our Sages of blessed memory say⁸⁵

(and Rashi brings this down)

regarding the statement⁸⁶

“When you beget children and children’s children and <b>you will have grown old</b> in the land, etc.”,

that “He hinted⁸⁷

to them that they would be exiled from it at the end of eight hundred and fifty years, the numerical value of ‘ונושנתם’ (and you will have grown old), and He anticipated and exiled them at the end of eight hundred and fifty, and anticipated two years to ‘ונושנתם’ so that ‘lest you be utterly destroyed’ should not be fulfilled in them, and this is what is said⁸⁸

‘He was vigilant, etc. <b>Righteousness</b> He did with us <b>that He hastened to bring it</b> two years before its time.’”

i.e.

i.e.

that is,

that is,

not only the advantage and benefit of exile itself,

as he explains that this will bring “And you will seek from there the Lord your God, and you will find, when you seek Him, etc., and you will return to the Lord your God, etc.”⁸⁹,

but also the superiority in the <b>prematureness</b> of the exile,

that the prematureness nullifies the “lest you be utterly destroyed.”

And through our deeds and our service during the time of the exile one will merit to the actual revelation of "Be comforted, be comforted" and furthermore to "I, I am He who comforts you" in the coming of our righteous Mashiach.

Shabbos Parshas Eikev,

Shabbos Parshas Re'eh 5734)