Boyarin, “Between intertextuality and history: the martyrdom of Rabbi Akiva”.

 The interpretation developed in the Mechilta Shirta uses its sources in a creative

way instead of simply paraphrasing them as support for its statements.

 This text cannot be perceived as a simple reflection or interpretation of historical

events. The sources it employs have been carefully chosen and placed, adding

meaning according to an ideology and reinterpreting the sources themselves.

 The midrash starts with a paraphrase of R. Akiva’s answer to R. Ishmael’s

question (also in Mechilta): “Is it possible for flesh and blood to beautify their

Creator?”

 “This” works as deictic (not anaphora) pointing to a present, visible object –

God, in this case. “My” presuppose the exclusion “not yours”.

 The combination of deixis and time paradox place the theophany in the present

moment.

 The reading of Exodus through The Song of Songs and the selection of

vocabulary suggest an erotic relationship between God and Israel. However, the

introduction of mirroring, opposing vocabulary and Ps. 44:23, disrupts this

association, thus forcing the question: “If You love us so much, how come You

kill us?”

 The wordplay between “maidens” [‘almwt] and “unto death” [‘al mwt] suggests

a latent relation between eros and thanatos.

 The introduction of Psalm 48 through ‘al mwt relating to the Ex. 15 brings

together past, present and future conforming an eschatological narrative. This is

reinforced by the quotation from Zech. 8:20-23. This way, R. Akiva tries to

erase the barriers of time and translate the historical moment in which the

redemption of Israel took place and God was present into the current moment.
 The final link between The Song of Songs and Ps. 44:23 is stablished through

the figure of Akiva himself and the midrash about his execution, from which we

can interpret that dying for God is the only way to “love the Lord with all your

soul”. Through his death – the author infers, Akiva finally “beautifies his

Creator”.

 This positive perception of martyrdom stands in contrast with that of the

Hasmonean period, by which it was considered the ultimate expression of

refusal towards the breaking of one self’s religious integrity. In this midrash, on

the other hand, martyrdom is actively sought as the completion of one’s love for

God.
tPeah 1:1-4

The selected text belongs to the tractate named pe’ah (“corner”) of the order zra’im

(“seeds”) of the tosefta (“addition”). The Tosefta is an oral anthology composed mainly

by halakha in Rabbinic Hebrew, that basically follows the structure the Mishnahh of 6

orders divided into tractates, lacking, however, Avot, Qinim, Middot and Tohorot.

This work was edited towards the end of the Tana’itic period (around mid III CE), and

includes one more generation of sages than the Mishnah, with which content mainly

agrees and also usually expands. In those cases in which these compilations contradict

each other, preference is given to the Mishnah.

The order Zera’im deals mostly with commandments relating to agriculture, with the

exception of the first tractate, brakhot, which details mainly prayers1. Pe’ah, for its part,

discusses the norms referring to the corner of the field left for the poor2 and other norms

relating to charity.

This tractate starts with a classification of those “things” related – directly or indirectly

– to the pe’ah that don’t have a defined measure, including righteous deeds and the

study of Torah. This classification is parallel but not the same to its equivalent in the

Mishnah.

After some remarks about the limits of the previously related matters, the Tosefta

includes a second list detailing those grave transgressions that entail punishment in this

world and the world-to-come: idolatry, incest, murder and speaking badly.

1
This fact has led some specialists to consider it an addition to the original tractate. Hirshman, M., in the
seminar Midrash and Aggadah: Texts on Rabbinic Judaism, 19-30/09/2016.
2
Lev. 19:9-10; 23:22; Dt. 24:19-22.
If we compare this list with that of the beginning of the tractate, we won’t find any

evident relationship between them. However, we can match it in pairs with the “good

deeds” of the equivalent list from the Mishnah:

mPeah 1 tPeah 1
Appearance [in the Temple]. Idolatrous worship.
Honoring father and mother and practice
Incest.
of loving kindness.
Bringing peace. Murder.
Studying Torah. Speaking badly.

By comparing these two lists, we can see a (dim) correspondence between the

categories of every bad and good deed. Out of this correspondence – apparently at least,

are “studying Torah” and “speaking badly”, except for the fact that they represent the

peak of values of their lists.

To understand this, we must continue reading the tractate to tPeah 1:4. In these verses,

the Tosefta exposes the rewards and punishments in this world and the world to come,

relating to each one’s deeds and intentions.

This separation between “action” and “thought” allows us to intuit a third category that

connects the study of Torah with “speaking badly”: the speech. To be sure, there is a

physical relationship between studying Torah and “speaking badly” through the fact that

traditional study of the Scriptures was realized by reading them aloud and constant

repetition.

The power of the speech is attested already in Gen. where the Creation takes place

under the commands of God. Philo reinforces this assumption in his On the Creation by

stating that the world (“only discerned by the intellect”) must be the Word of God.
The relationship between the creative power of the divine word and the recitation of

Torah must be made through various stages: first, we observe how Genesis Rabbah

stablishes the Torah as the tool used by God to create the world. Second, in mAvot 3:1-

2 we observe how the God is present during the recitation of Torah. In this sense, Torah

is, at the same time, a creative force and the connection with God – Creator of the

world.

After this elaboration, is not difficult to understand why the recitation of the Torah

occupies the highest rank among the good deeds – and, additionally, the power of the

speech itself. An apparently logical consequence of these notions is that, inside the

category of “speech”, the “opposite” to studying Torah must have equally powerful

consequences.

Jacobo López Gil