The Gemara right at the beginning of Amud Aleph records a fundamental dispute between Rabbi Akiva and the sages regarding the allotted years in a person’s lifetime, fate, and the impact of sin and merit in relation to it:

אֶת מִסְפַּר יָמֶיךָ אֲמַלֵּא״ — תַּנָּאֵי הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: ״אֶת מִסְפַּר יָמֶיךָ אֲמַלֵּא״,

The resolution of the third contradiction from the verse: “I will fulfill the number of your days,” is subject to a dispute between tanna’im, as it is taught in a baraisa: The verse states: “I will fulfill the number of your days”;

אֵלּוּ שְׁנֵי דוֹרוֹת. זָכָה — מַשְׁלִימִין לוֹ, לֹא זָכָה — פּוֹחֲתִין לוֹ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: זָכָה — מוֹסִיפִים לוֹ, לֹא זָכָה — פּוֹחֲתִין לוֹ.

These are the years of the generations, i.e., the allotted lifespan that is preordained for each individual before birth. If he is deserving, God completes his allotted lifespan. If he is not deserving, God reduces his lifespan; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Akiva assumes one cannot outlive one’s preordained allotted lifespan. The Rabbis say: If he is deserving, God adds years to his lifespan. If he is not deserving, God reduces his lifespan. 

Tosafos (“Mosifin”), based on other Talmudic sources that seem to be universally agreed upon, notes that with a great merit even Rabbi Akiva would concede that one’s lifetime can be extended beyond the allotted time.

It is mind-boggling that there can be a dispute about such a fundamental idea, as if we were deciding the fate of a chicken, if it is kosher or not, whereas here the subject matter is profoundly about the lifespan of all humans.  I will say this, to the end user there is no discernable difference between Rabbi Akiva and the Sages, as no one knows how long he or she will live anyway, so you would not know if years are added on or merely restored.  Additionally, for the Sages and Rabbi Akiva, the kashrus of poor chicken might be as profound as the lifespan of all humanity, because it is all Torah.

In any case, how can we comprehend this dispute?  On the surface, it would seem that Rabbi Akiva believes that God ordains how long a person should live, and this is essentially good, no matter how long or short, as this is what is, in His wisdom, what is best for the person. Therefore one can only hope to fulfill one’s allotted years, and not to receive extra.  However, the Sages see one’s lifespan as an open canvas, and we may paint on it in any manner we see fit, so long as our merit allows us to do so.

Tzafnas Pa’aneach (Mishpatim 3) explains the dispute between Rabbi Akiva and the Sages in greater depth, and as with many mystical arguments, in the end both sides are true; expressions of different aspects of truth and existence.  He comments on the scriptural phrase, “The number of your days I will fill.”  It has a linguistic oddity, as while a full day has meaning in a sense that the day can be filled with accomplishment and significance, it is harder to understand it as an idiom to express lengthened years.  It should say, “number of years I will fill.”  Additionally, the meaning of the verse leans in the direction of Rabbi Akiva, as “filling” is different than adding. According to the Sages, the verse should rather state, “And the number of days I shall add”.

The Tzafnas Pa’aneach quotes the famous question of the Ramban (and many others) who ask, how could prayer change a person’s fate?  Would that not make God’s will subject to change and therefore, God forbid, imperfect and lacking in absolute wisdom and clarity?  To this the famous answer is that God does not change, rather the person changes.  If the person, through prayer, mediation and repentance, transforms his or herself, then he or she will experience a different fate.  God’s will responds to whomever the person is in the moment.

Building off of this idea, Tzafnas Pa’aneach says the meaning of the verse is that if a person merits, he can “fill” up his days.  That is, he can arrive at his full potential.  If so, he then can merit not merely a restoration of his lifespan, but possibly a different lifespan, on account of having changed himself entirely.  Thus, Rabbi Akiva and the Sages are not disagreeing,  Rabbi Akiva is referring to a person who has not entirely transformed, thus his merit is merely to fill his allotment.  The Sages are referring to someone who has completely transformed, and thus merit a different lifespan and a different fate. This also can fit well into the Tosafos we quoted at the beginning.

Translations Courtesy of Sefaria, except when, sometimes, I disagree with the translation

Do you like what you see? Please subscribe and also forward any articles you enjoy to your friends, (enemies too, why not?)