Rabbi Akiva’s Classroom and the Nature of the Oral Law

R. Yehuda said in the name of Rav: When Moshe went up to the heavens, he found the Holy one, blessed be He, sitting and placing crowns on the letters [of the Torah]. 

He said: “Master of the universe, who prevents you” [from giving the Torah without the crowns]? 

He said to him: “There is a person many generations in the future named Akiva ben Yosef who will expound piles of laws from each tittle.”

He said: “Master of the universe, show him to me.” 
He said to him: “Turn around.”

He went and sat in the eight row [of R. Akiva’s classroom] and he did not understand what the lecture was saying. He became depressed. When the lecture arrived at a certain point, the students said: “Rebbe, what is your source for this?” 
He said to them: It is a law transmitted to Moshe at Sinai.” Moshe was placated. (Menahot 29b) 

This fascinating story raises an immediate question. How could Moshe Rabbenu, the greatest of the prophets and the recipient of the Torah, not understand the class taught by Rabbi Akiva? Rashi mentions that Moshe had not yet received the Torah in this story. Thus, Moshe may not comprehend the words of Rabbi Akiva for the simple reason that he had not yet stood at Sinai and received the Torah. According to this reading, if Moshe had attended the lecture after having received the Torah, he surely would have understood every word.

Alternatively, we might suggest that this story indicates something quite significant about the nature of the oral law. Perhaps Moshe did not understand the shiur because the development of halakha from Sinai to the time of the Tanaaim had opened up some ideas that Moshe was not aware of and had not considered. The differences between the two interpretations touch at the heart of the essential question about the oral law.

Two basic approaches exist with regard to the oral law. One approach sees Moshe as having received the answers to all subsequent halakhic questions. The advantage of this approach is that by removing the human element, it insures that the sages have the right answers. The other approach argues that Moshe received much information and a system for working out Jewish law but that it was then the job of the sages to utilize their human intelligence in interpreting the law. This approach might view human involvement in the formation of Torah, though always within the framework divinely given, as a good thing. The human element may bring out important aspects of the religious personality and may help forge a connection between the people and the Torah. Moreover, this approach gives the sages a method for dealing with new halakhic cases such as the question of electricity on Shabbat. 

In classic Jewish fashion, a debate emerges regarding the historical cause of debates. According to the first approach, halakhic debates represent a breakdown in transmission. Had we been more diligent in transmitting the traditions of Moshe, there would have been no arguments. Due to our weakness, debates crept in For thse second position, on the other hand, debates reflect the natural functioning of the system. Different people will analyze halakhic ideas within the framework and come to different conclusions. The many Talmudic debates are not a breakdown of the system but a flowering of the system. 

In his introduction to his commentary on Mishnah, Rambam cites the Gaonim as holding the first position while he endorses the latter position. Rambam mentions one Talmudic source that apparently confirms the position of the Gaonim. 

When the students of Shammai and Hillel increased and they did not serve their masters sufficiently, debates increased in Israel and the Torah became like two Torot. (Sanhedrin 88b) 

This passage suggests that lack of student diligence caused debate, the position of the Gaonim. Ramba offers an alternative reading. Rambam points out that when weak intellects approach a subject; the range of potential wild conclusions immediately increases. Strong intellects may not always agree but the range of possible interpretations remains limited by their intelligence. Thus, the diminishing quality of students did lead to an increase in debates but not because debates per se mean a breakdown of the system.

This reading of Rambam highlights an important part of this latter theory. Valuing a human element in the oral law does not mean that all interpretations are valid and that there is no such thing as an erroneous opinion or an opinion outside of appropriate halakhic methodology. When poor students use weak arguments or erroneous methodology to raise new possibilities, Torah suffers. 

Moshe did not understand R. Akiva because oral law had indeed developed over time. However, God specifically took him to the classroom of R. Akiva, a person with great intelligence, dedication to study and a scholar working within the parameters of the halakhic system. This story teaches the glorious balance between human and divine in the oral law. 

For more on this topic, see Moshe Koppel's Meta - Halakhah and Robert Klapper's review in Tradition 33:4 (1999).