‫בס"ד‬

ÉTHICS I

The Problem of Judging Good

from Bad
in a Fevered Œconomy

Yes, I said, now I understand: the question which you would have me consider is,
not only how a State, but how a luxurious State is created; and possibly there is
no harm in this, for in such a State we shall be more likely to see how justice and
injustice originate. In my opinion the true and healthy constitution of the State is
the one which I have described. But if you wish also to see a State at fever heat, I
have no objection. For I suspect that many will not be satisfied with the simpler
way of way. They will be for adding sofas, and tables, and other furniture; also
dainties, and perfumes, and incense, and courtesans, and cakes, all these not of
one sort only, but in every variety; we must go beyond the necessaries of which I
was at first speaking, such as houses, and clothes, and shoes: the arts of the
painter and the embroiderer will have to be set in motion, and gold and ivory and
all sorts of materials must be procured.
Plato, Republic, II
 Readings collected by M. Kigel
Lauder Business School
1st Edition  5770 / 2010

I. THE PARENT CANONS OF ETHICS IN EUROPEAN ŒCONOMICS.

Jerusalem and Athens.

Rafaello, School of Athens Michelangelo, Sistene

Chapel

II. EUROPEAN ŒCONOMICS WITHIN THE KABBALISTIC CALENDAR.

Alongside the Gregorian and the Mosaic
Calendars.

“These are the specifications of the Dwelling [ ‫( ”]משכן‬Exodus 38:21).

TANHUMA, Pekudei 6 Similarly, it is written: “These are the names of the children of Israel”
(Exodus 1:1). Come and see how much the Holy One, blessed be He,
cherished the Dwelling, for He left the Upper Regions and dwelled in the Dwelling. Rabbi Shimon
said: the essence of the Indwelling [‫ ]שכינה‬was in the Lower Regions. As it says: “And they heard
the voice of Gd walking in the garden” (Genesis 3:8). Adam arrived, and sinned; the Indwelling
retreated from the earth to the heavens. Cain arose and killed his brother; it retreated from the first
firmamament to the second. The generation of Enosh arose and made aggravations before Him; 1 it
retreated from the second to the third. The generation of the Flood arose and corrupted its way; it
retreated from the third to the fourth. The generation of the Dispersion arose and grew haughty;2 it
1
“And to Seth also to him a son was born, and he named him Enosh; then it became common to call
by the name of the LORD.” (Genesis 4:26) RASHI: “‘then it became common’ Heb. ‫הּוַחל‬, is an expression of ‫חּוִלין‬
profaneness: to name people and idols with the name of the Holy One, blessed be He, to make them idols and
to call them deities. [Genesis Rabbah 23:7]”
2
“Now the entire earth was of one language and uniform words.” (Genesis 11:1). RASHI: “‘and
uniform words: Heb. ‫ְדָבִרים ִאָחִדים‬. They came with one scheme and said, ‘He had no right to select for Himself
the upper regions. Let us ascend to the sky and wage war with Him.’ Another explanation: they spoke against
the Sole One of the world. Another explanation of ‫( ְדָבִרים ִאָחִדים‬other editions read: ‫ְדָבִרים ַחִדים‬, sharp words):

2
retreated from the fourth to the fifth. The Sodomites spoiled themselves; it retreated from the fifth to
the sixth. Amraphel and his cohorts arose; it retreated from the sixth to the seventh. Avraham arose
and performed good deeds; the Indwelling was drawn down from the seventh to the sixth. Yitzhak
drew it down from the sixth to the fifth; Yaakov from the fifth to the fourth; his son Levi from the
fourth to the third; Kehat son of Levi from the third to the second; Amram from the second to the
first. Moshe, on the day that the Dwelling was erected and “the glory of the LORD filled the
Dwelling” (Exodus 40:34), realized the Scriptural verse, “for the upright will dwell upon the land”
(Proverbs 2:21), which means that they will cause the Indwelling to dwell on the earth.

[“Awake, North Wind, and come south! Blow through my garden, so

NUMBERS RABBA 13:2 that its spices may flow. Let my beloved come into his garden, and eat
his precious fruits.” (Song of Songs 4:16)]
Rabbi Yose ben Hama expounds the entire verse: “Awake, North Wind” refers to the
Tabernacle. “Awake, North Wind, and come south!” alludes to the burnt-offerings and peace-
offerings, for the burnt-offerings are slaughtered in the north [of the Tabernacle] and the peace-
offerings in the south. “Blow through my garden”: “garden [ganni]” denotes the Tabernacle. What is
the significance of ganni?—“My bridal chamber [genuni].” As the bridal chamber is decorated with
all kinds of colours, so was the Tabernacle decorated with all kinds of colours: blue, and purple, and
scarlet, and fine linen (Exodus 25:4). “So that its spices may flow” alludes to the incense. And “Let
my beloved come into his garden”? The Torah, said Rabbi Hunia, here teaches you a rule of
etiquette; the bridegroom should not enter the bridal chamber until the bride gives him permission;
hence it is first written, “Let my beloved come into his garden” and afterwards, “I have come into
my garden.” (Song of Songs 5:1)
Rabbi Azariah in the name of Rabbi Yehudah ben Rabbi Shimon illustrated this by means of
a parable. A king was angry with his lady and drove her away and expelled her from his palace.
After a time he sought to recall her. Said she: “Let him give me some new token and then recall me.”
Similarly, in times past Adam dwelt in the Garden of Eden in the camp of the Indwelling. The Holy
One, blessed be He, was angry with him and drove him from His private territory. When Israel went
out of Egypt the Holy One, blessed be He, wished to restore them to His own immediate vicinity and
told them to make for Him a Tabernacle so that He might dwell among them; as you read, “And let
them make Me a sanctuary, that I may dwell among them, etc.” (Exodus 25: 8). Said Israel: “Let the
Holy One, blessed be He, give us some new token that He wishes to restore us to Himself.” What
was the new token? In former times the Holy One, blessed be He, used to receive sacrifices on high,
as it says, “And the LORD smelled the sweet savour” (Genesis 8:21); now, however, He will receive
sacrifices here below. […]
Rabbi Ishmael son of Rabbi Yose said: It does not say in this text: “I have come into the
garden” but “I have come into my garden.” This means, “into My bridal chamber”; namely, into the
place which has been My principal abode from the very beginning, for was not the principal abode of
the Indwelling in the terrestrial regions? For so it is written, “And they heard the voice of the LORD
Gd walking [mithalekh] in the garden, toward the cool of the day (Genesis 3:8). Rabbi Hama ben
Kahana expounded: It is not written in this text, mehalekh, but “mithalekh in the garden”, implying
that He sprang ever upwards. What is the exposition of the text, “And the man and his wife hid
themselves” (ibid.) ? Rabbi Aibu explained: At that instant the stature of Adam was reduced to only
one hundred cubits. [cf. Genesis Rabba 12:6]
When Adam sinned, the Indwelling betook itself to the first firmament. When Cain sinned it
betook itself to the second firmament. When the generation of Enosh sinned, it ascended to the third
firmament. When the generation of the Flood sinned it rose to the fourth firmament. When the
generation of the Dispersion sinned, it moved up into the fifth sky. When the men of Sodom sinned,
it rose into the sixth firmament. And when the Egyptians sinned, it ascended into the seventh
firmament. As a counterpart to these, seven righteous men arose who brought the Indwelling down
from the celestial to the terrestrial regions. They were the following: Abraham brought it down from
the seventh to the sixth, Isaac brought it down from the sixth to the fifth, Jacob brought it down from
They said, “Once every 1,656 years, the sky totters, as it did in the time of the Flood. Come and let us make
supports for it. [Genesis Rabbah 28:6; Tanhuma, Noach 24]”

3
the fifth to the fourth, Levi brought it down from the fourth to the third, Kohath brought it down
from the third to the second, Amram brought it down from the second to the first and Moses brought
it down from the celestial to the terrestrial region. Rabbi Isaac said: It is written, “The righteous shall
inherit the earth, and dwell therein for ever (Psalm 37:29). Where shall the wicked dwell? In the air?
The meaning rather is that the wicked caused the Indwelling to depart from the earth, but the
righteous have caused the Indwelling to dwell on the earth. When did the Indwelling rest on earth?
On the day when the Tabernacle was erected; as it says, “Then the cloud covered the tent of meeting,
and the glory of the LORD filled the tabernacle” (Exodus 40:34).

III. THE PROBLEM IN ITS ROOT: THE FEVER OF CONSUMPTION.

Radical Evil: Sexual Impropriety, Property Violation, Murder.

GENESIS 6
 ‫בראשית ו‬


‫ני‬
ֵ ְ‫רץ לִפ‬ ֶ ‫הא‬ ָ ‫חת‬ ֵ ‫ש‬ ָ ׁ ִ‫ו ַת‬
1 Now the earth was perverse before Gd,
‫רץ‬ֶ ‫הא‬ ָ ‫לא‬ ֵ ‫מ‬ָ ִ‫לקים ו ַת‬ ֹ ֱ‫הָא‬ 1 and the earth became full of robbery.
‫מס‬ ָ ‫ח‬ ָ
‫רץ‬
ֶ ‫הא‬ ָ -‫את‬ ֶ ‫לקים‬ ֹ ֱ‫רא א‬ ְ ַ ‫ו ַי‬
And Gd saw the earth, and behold it had
‫חית‬
ִ ‫ש‬ ְ ִ‫ה‬-‫כי‬ ִ ‫תה‬ ָ ‫ח‬ָ ‫ש‬ְ ִ ‫נה נ‬ ֵ ִ‫ו ְה‬ 1
2
become perverted, for all flesh had
-‫על‬ ַ ‫רכו‬ ְ ‫ד‬
ַ -‫את‬ ֶ ‫שר‬ ָ ָ ‫ב‬-‫כל‬ ָ perverted its way on the earth.
‫רץ‬ֶ ‫הא‬ ָ
-‫כל‬ ָ ‫קץ‬ ֵ ‫ח‬ ַ ‫לקים לְֹנ‬ ֹ ֱ‫מר א‬ ֶ ‫ו ַֹיא‬ And Gd said to Noah, “The end of all flesh
has come before Me, for the earth has
‫לאה‬ ְ ָ‫מ‬-‫כי‬ ִ ‫ני‬ַ ָ‫בא לְפ‬ ָ ‫שר‬ ָ ָ‫ב‬ 1
3
become full of violation because of them,
‫ני‬
ִ ְ ‫הם ו ְהִנ‬ ֶ ‫ני‬ֵ ְ‫מפ‬
ִ ‫מס‬ ָ ‫ח‬
ָ ‫רץ‬ ֶ ‫הא‬ ָ and now I will destroy them from the
‫רץ‬ ֶ ‫הא‬ָ -‫את‬ ֶ ‫תם‬ ָ ‫חי‬
ִ ‫ש‬ ְ ‫מ‬ַ earth.”

“For the earth is filled with violation [hamas], etc.” Rabbi Levi said:
GENESIS RABBA 31:6 Hamas connotes idolatry, sexual licentiousness [incest, adultery etc.],
and murder. Idolatry, as it is written, “For the earth is filled with
violation.” [Cf. Ezekiel 8:17] Incest: “The violence done to me and to my flesh be upon Babylon
(Jeremiah 51:35). Murder: “For the violence against the children of Judah because they have shed
innocent blood (Joel 55:19). In addition, hamas also bears its literal meaning of robbery.

“All flesh had perverted its way on the earth” (v. 12). Rabbi Yochanan
SANHEDRIN 108a
said: This teaches us that they mounted domesticated animals upon
wild animals, wild animals upon domesticated animals, and all of them

4
upon humans, and humans upon all of them. Rabbi Abba bar Kahana said: After the Flood, all the
animals reverted to normal behavior—except for the bird called Tushlami.
“And Gd said to Noah, ‘The end of all flesh has come before Me’.” Rabbi Yochanan said:
Come and see how great is the power of robbery; for the Generation of the Flood transgressed in
every respect [i.e. all seven Noahide commandments], yet the decree of their punishment was not
sealed upon them until they stretched forth their hands in robbery. As it says (v. 13): “for the earth
has become full of violation because of them, and now I will destroy them from the earth.” Likewise
it is written: “Robbery arose as a Staff of Evil [to punish them, sparing] not them, nor their masses,
nor what they amassed. There is no longing [for Gd] among them.” (Ezekiel 7:11) Rabbi Elazar said:
This teaches us that [Robbery] straightened itself up like a staff and stood before the Holy One,
Blessed is He, and said before Him: “Master of the Universe! [Spare] not them, nor their masses, nor
what they amassed. There is no longing [for Gd] among them.”

[Chapter 5] [...] Let us suppose, then, that all

SIGMUND FREUD the organic instincts are conservative, are
Beyond the Pleasure Principle acquired historically and tend towards the
(1920) restoration of an earlier state of things. It
follows that the phenomena of organic
development must be attributed to external
disturbing and diverting influences. The
elementary living entity would from its very
beginning have had no wish to change; if
conditions remained the same, it would do
no more than constantly repeat the same course
of life. In the last resort, what has left its mark on the development of organisms must be the history
of the earth we live in and of its relation to the sun. Every modification which is thus imposed upon
the course of the organism’s life is accepted by the conservative organic instincts and stored up for
further repetition. Those instincts are therefore bound to give a deceptive appearance of being forces
tending towards change and progress, whilst in fact they are merely seeking to reach an ancient goal
by paths alike old and new. Moreover it is possible to specify this final goal of all organic striving. It
would be in contradiction to the conservative nature of the instincts if the goal of life were a state of
things which had never yet been attained. On the contrary, it must be an old state of things, an initial
state from which the living entity has at one time or other departed and to which it is striving to
return by the circuitous paths along which its development leads. If we are to take it as a truth that
knows no exception that everything living dies for internal reasons—becomes inorganic once again
—then we shall be compelled to say that “the aim of all life is death” and, looking backwards, that
“inanimate things existed before living ones.”
The attributes of life were at some time evoked in inanimate matter by the action of a force
of whose nature we can form no conception. It may perhaps have been a process similar in type to
that which later caused the development of consciousness in a particular stratum of living matter.
The tension which then arose in what had hitherto been an inanimate substance endeavoured to
cancel itself out. In this way the first instinct came into being: the instinct to return to the inanimate
state. It was still an easy matter at that time for a living substance to die; the course of its life was
probably only a brief one, whose direction was determined by the chemical structure of the young
life. For a long time, perhaps, living substance was thus being constantly created afresh and easily
dying, till decisive external influences altered in such a way as to oblige the still surviving substance
to diverge ever more widely from its original course of life and to make ever more complicated
detours before reaching its aim of death. These circuitous paths to death, faithfully kept to by the
conservative instincts, would thus present us to-day with the picture of the phenomena of life. If we
firmly maintain the exclusively conservative nature of instincts, we cannot arrive at any other
notions as to the origin and aim of life.

5
 The implications in regard to the great groups of instincts which, as we believe, lie behind
the phenomena of life in organisms must appear no less bewildering. The hypothesis of self-
preservative instincts, such as we attribute to all living beings, stands in marked opposition to the
idea that instinctual life as a whole serves to bring about death. Seen in this light, the theoretical
importance of the instincts of self-preservation, of self-assertion and of mastery greatly diminishes.
They are component instincts whose function it is to assure that the organism shall follow its own
path to death, and to ward off any possible ways of returning to inorganic existence other than those
which are immanent in the organism itself. We have no longer to reckon with the organism’s
puzzling determination (so hard to fit into any context) to maintain its own existence in the face of
every obstacle. What we are left with is the fact that the organism wishes to die only in its own
fashion. Thus these guardians of life, too, were originally the myrmidons of death. Hence arises the
paradoxical situation that the living organism struggles most energetically against events (dangers, in
fact) which might help it to attain its life's aim rapidly—by a kind of short-circuit. Such behaviour is,
however, precisely what characterizes purely instinctual as contrasted with intelligent efforts. […]
[Chapter 6]
[…] We started out from the great opposition between the life and death instincts. Now
object-love itself presents us with a second example of a similar polarity—that between love (or
affection) and hate (or aggressiveness). If only we could succeed in relating these two polarities to
each other and in deriving one from the other! From the very first we recognized the presence of a
sadistic component in the sexual instinct [Cf. Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality, 1905]. As we
know, it can make itself independent and can, in the form of a perversion, dominate an individual’s
entire sexual activity. It also emerges as a predominant component instinct in one of the “pregenital
organizations,” as I have named them. But how can the sadistic instinct, whose aim it is to injure the
object, be derived from Eros, the preserver of life? Is it not plausible to suppose that this sadism is in
fact a death instinct which, under influence of the narassistic libido, has been forced away from the
ego and has consequently only emerged in relation to the object? It now enters the service of the
sexual function. During the oral stage of organization of the libido, the act of obtaining erotic
mastery over an object coincides with that object’s destruction; later, the sadistic instinct separates
off, and finally, at the stage of genital primacy, it takes on, for the purposes of reproduction, the
function of overpowering the sexual object to the extent necessary for carrying out the sexual act. It
might indeed be said that the sadism which has been forced out of the ego has pointed the way for
the libidinal components of the sexual instinct, and that these follow after it to the object. Wherever
the original sadism has undergone no mitigation or intermixture, we find the familiar ambivalence of
love and hate in erotic life.
If such an assumption as this is permissible, then we have met the demand that we should
produce an example of a death instinct—though, it is true, a displaced one. But this way of looking
at things is very far from being easy to grasp and creates a positively mystical impression. It looks
suspiciously as though we were trying to find a-way out of a highly embarrassing situation at any
price. We may recall, however, that there is nothing new in an assumption of this kind. We put one
forward on an earlier occasion, before there was any question of an embarrassing situation. Clinical
observations led us at that time to the view that masochism, the component instinct which is
complementary to sadism, must be regarded as sadism that has been turned round upon the subject’s
own ego. [Cf. Three Essays] But there is no difference in principle between an instinct turning from
an object to the ego and its turning from the ego to an object—which is the new point now under
discussion. Masochism, the turning round of the instinct upon the subject’s own ego, would in that
case be a return to an earlier phase of the instinct’s history, a regression. The account that was
formerly given of masochism requires emendation as being too sweeping in one respect: there might
be such a thing as primary masochism—a possibility which I had contested at that time.
Let us, however, return to the self-preservative sexual instincts. The experiments upon
protista have already shown us that conjugation—that is, the coalescence of two individuals which
separate soon afterwards without any subsequent cell-division occurring—has a strengthening and
rejuvenating effect upon both of them. In later generations they show no signs of degenerating and
seem able to put up a longer resistance to the injurious effects of their own metabolism. This single
observation may, I think, be taken as typical of the effect produced by sexual union as well. But how
is it that the coalescence of two only slightly different cells can bring about this renewal of life? The

6
experiment which replaces the conjugation of protozoa by the application of chemical or even of
mechanical stimuli (cf. Lipschutz, 1914) enables us to give what is no doubt a conclusive reply to
this question. The result is brought about by the influx of fresh amounts of stimulus. This tallies well
with the hypothesis that the life process of the individual leads for internal reasons to an abolition of
chemical tensions, that is to say, to death, whereas union with the living substance of a different
individual increases those tensions, introducing what may be described as fresh vital differences
which must then be “lived off” As regards this dissimilarity there must of course be one or more
optima. The dominating tendency of mental life, and perhaps of nervous life in general, is the effort
to reduce, to keep constant or to remove internal tension due to stimuli (the Nirvana principle, to
borrow a term from Barbara Low [1920])—a tendency which finds expression in the pleasure
principle; and our recognition of that fact is one of our strongest reasons for believing in the
existence of death instincts. […]

IV. THE PROBLEM IN ITS GROUND.

Marketing, or how to Ignite the Fever of Conspicuous
Consumption

‫ב‬ ‫בראשית‬ GENESIS 2



And the LORD Gd planted a garden in

‫דן‬
ֶ ‫ע‬ֵ ְ ‫ב‬-‫גן‬
ַ ‫טע ה׳ אלקים‬ ַ ִ ‫ו ַי‬
Eden from the east, and He placed
‫דם‬
ָ ‫הא‬ָ -‫את‬ ֶ ‫שם‬ ָ ‫שם‬
ֶ ָ ‫דם ו ַי‬ ֶ ‫ק‬ֶ ‫מ‬ ִ 8
there the human whom He had
‫צר‬ ָ ָ ‫שר י‬ֶ ֲ‫א‬ formed.
And the LORD Gd made to sprout from
‫מה‬ ָ ‫ד‬
ָ ֲ‫הָא‬-‫מן‬
ִ ‫מח ה׳ אלקים‬ ַ ְ ‫ו ַי ַצ‬ the ground every tree that is pleasant
‫אה ְוטוב‬ֶ ְ ‫מר‬ַ ְ‫מד ל‬ ָ ‫ח‬ְ ֶ ‫עץ נ‬ ֵ -‫כל‬ ָ to look at and good to eat, and the
9
‫גן‬
ָ ַ‫בתוך ְ ה‬
ְ ‫חִיים‬ ַ ַ‫עץ ה‬ֵ ְ ‫כל ו‬ָ ֲ ‫מא‬ַ ְ‫ל‬ Tree of Life in the midst of the garden,
‫רע‬ָ ָ ‫עת טוב ו‬ ַ ‫ד‬
ַ ַ‫עץ ה‬ ֵ ְ‫ו‬ and the Tree of [Intimate] Knowledge
of good and evil.

Re 3:7 below: “they sewed fig leaves” [...] The two

IBN EZRA trees were in the middle of the Garden of Eden and that they do not
exist in any other place on the face of the earth. The one called the Tree
of Knowledge engenders the desire for sex, whence the man and his wife covered their genitals. The
meaning of “and they sewed” is well-known; it is like “I sewed sackcloth over my skin” (Job 16:15).
And those who look for the sewing needle do so in vain, for they made what they needed from a
delicate tree. When Adam ate from the Tree of Knowledge, he came to know her intimately. This
“knowledge” is a soubriquet for sex. It is thus named precisely on account of the Tree of Knowledge.
So too an adolescent, when he comes to know good and evil, begins to have a desire for sex.

And the Tree of Life in the midst of the garden,

RAMBAN and the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil. The
Tree of Life is a tree the fruit of which gave those who ate it long life.
As for the Tree of the Knowledge of good and evil, the commentators have said that the fruit thereof

7
caused those who ate it to have a desire for sexual intercourse, and therefore Adam and Eve covered
their nakedness after they ate of its fruit. […]
The proper interpretation appears to me to be that man’s original nature was such that he did
whatever was proper for him to do naturally, just as the heavens and all their hosts do, “faithful
workers whose work is truth and who do not change their prescribed course” (Sanhedrin 42a), in
whose deeds there is no love or hatred. Now it was the fruit of this tree that gave rise to will and
desire, that those who ate it should choose a thing or its opposite, for good or for evil. This is why it
was called the “Tree of the Knowledge” of good and evil, for “knowledge” in our language is used to
express will and intention. Thus in the language of the Rabbis (Pesahim 6a): “They have taught this
only with regards to one whose intention [‫ ]דעתו‬is to return [home during Pesach]”and “his intention
is to clear [the produce in the store-room in his house before Pesach].” And in the language of
Scripture, “LORD, what is man that You know him” (Psalms 144:3), meaning that “You should desire
him and are pleased with him.” […] Now at that time sexual intercourse between Adam and his wife
was not a matter of desire; instead, at the time of begetting offspring they came together and
propagated. Therefore all their organs were, in their eyes, like the face and hands, and they were not
ashamed of them. But after he ate of the fruit of the tree of knowledge, he possessed the power of
choice; he could now willingly do evil or good to himself or to others. Taken in itself, this is a
Gdlike attribute. For the human being, however, it is something bad because through it, he has
inclinations and desire. It is possible that Scripture intended to allude to this matter when it said, “Gd
made man upright, but they have sought out many intrigues” (Ecclesiastes 7:29). The “uprightness”
is that man should keep to one right path, and the “seeking out of many intrigues” is man’s search for
deeds that change according to his choice. […]

‫דם‬
ָ ‫הא‬ ָ -‫את‬ ֶ ‫קח ה׳ אלקים‬ ַ ִ ‫ו ַי‬
Now the LORD Gd took the human and He
‫דה‬ ָ ְ‫עב‬
ָ ְ‫דן ל‬ֶ ‫ע‬
ֵ -‫גן‬
ַ ְ ‫חהו ב‬ ֵ ִ ‫ו ַי ַנ‬
placed him in the garden of Eden to
15
‫רה‬ ָ ‫מ‬ְ ‫ש‬ָ ְ‫ול‬. work it and to watch over it.
‫דם‬ָ ‫הא‬ ָ -‫על‬ ַ ‫צו ה׳ אלקים‬ ַ ְ ‫ו ַי‬
And the LORD Gd commanded the
‫כל‬ ֹ ‫גן א‬ ָ ַ‫ה‬-‫עץ‬ֵ ‫כל‬ ֹ ‫מ‬ ִ ‫מר‬ ֹ ‫לא‬ ֵ
16 human, saying, “Of every tree of the
‫כל‬
ֵ ‫תא‬ ֹ .garden you may freely eat.
But of the Tree of Knowledge of good
‫לא‬ ֹ ‫רע‬ָ ָ ‫עת טוב ו‬ ַ ‫ד‬ַ ַ‫עץ ה‬ ֵ ‫מ‬
ֵ ‫ו‬
and evil you shall not eat of it, for on the
ָ ‫ביום אֲכ ָלְך‬ ְ ‫כי‬
ִ ‫מנו‬ֶ ‫מ‬ִ ‫כל‬ַ ‫תא‬ ֹ 17
day that you eat thereof, you will surely
‫תמות‬ָ ‫מנו מות‬ ֶ ‫מ‬ ִ . die.”

And the LORD Gd commanded the human With

R’ SHIMSHON RAFAEL HIRSCH this commandment begins the education of the human being
in his morally lofty, divine vocation. It is the beginning of
human history, and illuminates the path that all the descendents of the species would have to tread. It
is a prohibition, and it is not any so-called rational prohibition, no‫[ מצוה שכלית‬rational
commandment]. If anything, all the other means of knowledge bestowed upon the human being, such
as taste, imagination, and understanding, speak against this prohibition; so that, from the perspective
of his own powers of insight, even after the prohibition has been imparted to him, the human being
can never find any grounds for it other than the absolute Divine Will. It is therefore a ‫[ חוק‬decree] in
optima forma. […]
Each one of us today still stands before the demands of the Divine Moral Law, like the first
human couple before the Tree of Knowledge, and must come to a decision whether to heed the voice
of the physical senses, the imagination of sensory understanding, and the wisdom of instinctive
animal life, or, conscious of that higher calling, to heed the voice of Gd. And still today this voice of
Gd is revealed to none of us in an immediate manner, but comes only by way of communication, just
as Gd had communicated His first prohibition to human beings.

8
  ‫בראשית ג‬ GENESIS 3 

‫חַית‬
ַ ‫כל‬ ֹ ‫מ‬ִ ‫ערום‬ ָ ‫חש הָָיה‬ ָ ָ ‫ו ְהַנ‬ Now the snake was smooth-tongued
‫שה ה׳ אלקים‬ ָ ‫ע‬ ָ ‫שר‬ֶ ֲ‫דה א‬ ֶ ‫ש‬ ָ ׁ ַ‫ה‬ above every beast of the field that the
‫מר‬
ַ ‫א‬-‫כי‬ִ ‫שה אף‬ ָ ׁ ִ‫הָא‬-‫אל‬ ֶ ‫מר‬ ֶ ‫ו ַֹיא‬ 1 LORD Gd had made, and it said to the
‫עץ‬
ֵ ‫כל‬ ֹ ‫מ‬ִ ‫כלו‬ְ ‫תא‬ ֹ ‫לא‬ ֹ ‫אלקים‬ woman, “Did Gd indeed say, ‘You shall
‫גן‬ ָ ַ‫ה‬. not eat of any tree in the garden?’”

Now the snake “He is the Antagonist [ha-satan], he is the Evil

SFORNO Imagination [yetzer hara; cf. Gen. 6:5]” (Baba Batra 16a),3 greatly
destructive if insignificant in appearance. Indeed, a thing is named after
something that resembles it, such as when a king is called a “lion,” as it says, “a lion arises from his
thicket” (Jeremiah 4:7); or when harmful enemies are called “poisonous snakes,” as in, “Look, I will
send poisonous snakes against you which cannot be charmed” (ibid. 8:17). It is in this way, in this
place, that the evil imagination that incites to sin is called a “snake,” namely in its resemblance to a
snake, whose existence is of very little benefit, but whose destructiveness is as great as its
appearance is insignificant. The Sages have already said that Samael rides on his back (Pirkei
Eliezer 13), meaning that the power of desire, which brings one to sin, accomplishes this by means
of the power of the imagination which conveys images of physical pleasures that divert one from the
path of wholeness intended by Gd, may He be blessed. Indeed, the power of desire together with the
conveyed images of pleasures issue commands to the functioning physical powers and transgress
against the intention and will of Gd, blessed be He, so long as the power of intellect does not rise
above them and wipe them out; as the Sages, of blessed memory, said: “The eye and the heart are the
agents of sin” (Talmud Yerushalmi, Brakhot 1:8). This is what He warned against when He said:
“And do not follow after your heart and after your eyes” (Numbers 15:39).

‫חש‬ ָ ָ ‫הַנ‬-‫אל‬ ֶ ‫שה‬ ָ ׁ ִ‫מר הָא‬ ֶ ‫תא‬ ֹ ַ‫ו‬ The woman said to the snake, “We may
2
‫כל‬ֵ ‫גן ֹנא‬ ָ ַ‫ה‬-‫עץ‬ ֵ ‫רי‬ ִ ְ‫מפ‬ ִ . eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden.
-‫ך‬ְ ‫בתו‬ ְ ‫שר‬ ֶ ֲ‫עץ א‬ ֵ ָ‫רי ה‬ ִ ְ‫מפ‬ ִ ‫ו‬ But of the fruit of the tree that is in the
‫לא‬ ֹ ‫מר אלקים‬ ַ ‫גן א‬ ָ ַ‫ה‬ middle of the garden, Gd said: You shall
3
‫געו בו‬ ְ ִ‫לא ת‬ ֹ ְ ‫מנו ו‬ ֶ ‫מ‬ ִ ‫כלו‬ ְ ‫תא‬ ֹ not eat of it, nor shall you touch it, lest
‫מתון‬ ֻ ְ‫ת‬-‫פן‬ ֶ . you die.”
‫שה‬ ָ ׁ ִ‫הָא‬-‫אל‬ ֶ ‫חש‬ ָ ָ ‫מר הַנ‬ ֶ ‫ו ַֹיא‬ And the snake said to the woman, “You
4
‫מתון‬ ֻ ְ‫מות ת‬-‫לא‬ ֹ . will surely not die.
‫ביום‬ְ ‫כי‬ ִ ‫ע אלקים‬ ַ ‫ד‬ ֵ ‫כי ֹי‬ ִ For Gd knows that on the day you eat
‫קחו‬ ְ ְ‫מנו ו ְנ ִפ‬ ֶ ‫מ‬ ִ ‫כם‬ ֶ ְ‫אֲכ ָל‬ thereof, your eyes will be opened, and
5
‫כאלקים‬ ֵ ‫תם‬ ֶ ‫היי‬ ְ ִ ‫כם ו‬ ֶ ‫ני‬ ֵ ‫עי‬ ֵ you will be like Gd, knowing good and
‫רע‬ ָ ָ ‫עי טוב ו‬ ֵ ‫ד‬ ְ ‫ֹי‬. evil.”

3
There, in Baba Batra 16a, Reish Lakish adds: “… he is the Angel of Death.”

9
 ‫עץ‬
ֵ ָ‫כי טוב ה‬ ִ ‫שה‬ ָ ׁ ִ‫רא הָא‬ ֶ ֵ‫ו ַת‬ The woman saw that the tree was good
‫הוא‬-‫כי תַאֲָוה‬ ִ ְ ‫כל ו‬ ָ ֲ ‫מא‬ ַ ְ‫ל‬ for eating and that it was a craving for
‫עץ‬ ֵ ָ‫מד ה‬ ָ ‫ח‬ְ ֶ ‫נים ו ְנ‬ ַ ‫עי‬ ֵ ָ‫ל‬ the eyes, and the tree was desirable for
6
‫ריו‬ ְ ִ ‫מפ‬ ִ ‫קח‬ ַ ִ‫כיל ו ַת‬ ִ ‫ש‬ ְ ַ‫לְה‬ enlightenment; so she took of its fruit,
‫שה‬ ָ ‫אי‬ ִ ְ‫ל‬-‫גם‬ ַ ‫תן‬ ֵ ִ‫כל ו ַת‬ ַ ‫תא‬ ֹ ַ‫ו‬ and she ate, and she gave also to her
‫כל‬ ַ ‫מה ו ַֹיא‬ ָ ‫ע‬ ִ . husband with her, and he ate.
‫הם‬ ֶ ‫ני‬ ֵ ‫ש‬ ְ ‫ני‬ֵ ‫עי‬ ֵ ‫נה‬ ָ ‫ח‬ ְ ‫ק‬ ַ ָ‫ו ַתִפ‬ And the eyes of both of them were
‫הם‬ ֵ ‫מם‬ ִ ֻ ‫עיר‬ ֵ ‫כי‬ ִ ‫דעו‬ ְ ֵ ‫ו ַי‬ opened, and they knew that they were
7
‫עשו‬ֲ ַ ‫נה ו ַי‬ ָ ֵ‫לה תְא‬ ֵ ‫ע‬ ֲ ‫פרו‬ ְ ְ‫ו ַי ִת‬ naked, and they sewed fig leaves and
‫רת‬ ֹ ‫חֹג‬ ֲ ‫הם‬ ֶ ָ‫ל‬. made themselves aprons.

And the woman saw She

RASHI understood the words of the snake and
they appealed to her and she believed
him (Genesis Rabba 19:4).

that the tree was good for

RAMBAN eating She had reasoned that the fruit
of the tree was bitter and fatally
poisonous and that this was why He had warned them against
eating from it. But now she saw that it was good and sweet food.
and that the tree was desirable for enlightenment For through it, one is
enlightened to desire. Craving is ascribed to the eyes and desire to the intellect. The general principle
behind both is that, through the fruit, one would want and covet a thing or its opposite. [...]
Re 2:17: On the day that you eat thereof, you will surely die At the
time you eat of it, you will be condemned to die. Similarly, we find: “On the day you go out, and
walk abroad anywhere, you will surely die” (I Kings 2:42). This does not mean that he [viz. Shimi]
was to die immediately on that day; nor does it refer to his mere knowledge thereof, namely that he
is to know that he will die eventually for all “the living know that they shall die” (Ecclesiastes 9:5).
But it does mean that at any time that he [Shimi] goes forth from Jerusalem, he is liable to death at
the hand of the king, and will be slayed by him at his pleasure. [...]
Now in the opinion of men versed in natural science, man was destined to die from the
beginning of his formation, on account of his being a composite [of the four elements, susceptible to
corruption]. But now He decreed that if he will sin he will die on account of his sin, like those who
are liable to death at the hands of Heaven, for such sins as a non-priest eating the Heave-offering, or
a priest who has drunk wine or who does not wear the requisite garments when performing the
Service in the Sanctuary, and other cases. There the intent is that they will die prematurely on
account of their sin. This is why in stating the punishment, He said, “Until you return to the ground;
for out of it were you taken; for dust you are, and to dust shall you return” (Genesis 3:19) by dint of
your nature. In the beginning, before he sinned, Adam also ate of the fruit of the tree and of the seeds
of the earth; whence there was bound to be depletion in his body, and he was subject to causes of
generation and deterioration.
But in the opinion of our Sages (Shabbat 58b), if Adam had not sinned he would have never
died, since the supernal soul bestows life forever, and Gd’s pleasure in him at the time of his
formation would always cleave to him and he would exist forever, as I have explained in the verse,
“And Gd saw that it was good” (1:10). Know that composition necessarily entails deterioration only
in the opinion of little belief, who hold that creation was a natural necessity. But in the opinion of
believers who say that the world is continually rejuvinated by Gd’s simple desire, its preservation
also continues forever for as long as it is His desire. This is a clear truth. That being so, “on the day
you eat of it you will surely die” means that then you will be condemned to die since you will no
longer exist forever by My desire. Originally, eating was for Adam only a pleasure. And it is
possible that the fruits of the garden of Eden were absorbed by his organs like the manna, sustaining
those who eat them. But when He decreed, “And you shall eat the plant of the field” (3:18) and by

10
the sweat of his brow eat bread from the earth (3:19), this diet became a cause for decomposition
since he was dust, would henceforth eat dust, and to dust would return.

and the tree was desirable for enlightenment

RABBEINU BEHAYE Translation: from the beginning it was entirely a matter of intellect [
‫]שכל‬. Scripture comes to explain that their entire intention and all their
actions and desires with respect to their sensations were strictly for the sake of intellectual
comprehension. As it says: “O Lord, all my desires are for You” (Psalms 48:10), and it was the
intellect that compelled him to eat what the Holy One, blessed be He, denied him; his intention was
to comprehend. Nevertheless, he transgressed against the will of his Creator and His commandments.
For by the same token that the intellect told him that the tree was desirable for enlightenment, it was
for him to comprehend that it was not appropriate for him to transgress the commandment of the
Lord of everything. The point here is that the evil imagination was not yet formed and placed in him.
For, behold, everything here was intellectual, without any evil imagination. The evil imagination
accosted him and caused him to err by means of Eve. Only after eating the fruit was he reformed and
invested with another kind of desire, namely the desire for sex, which caused him to eat the fruit, this
being the form [yetzer] of transgression that entered him, something he did not have from the
beginning. And the problem should not be brought against him that intellects are not vulnerable to
sinning and that they transgress against the covenant only because of the evil imagination, wherefore
what could bring him to transgress if he was entirely intellect without any evil imagination? For this
quality can be found even in intellects. Even if there is no evil inclination within them, they
nevertheless err from the proper path on occasion, as we see in the case of the angels of Sodom.

And the eyes of both of them were opened They

SFORNO turned their attention to every sweet thing for the sake of pleasure, even
though it may be harmful. Paying attention to something and examining
it is called “opening the eyes,” as its says, “Even on such a one you open your eyes” (Job 14:3).

-‫גן‬
ַ ‫מ‬ִ ‫חהו ה׳ אלקים‬ ֵ ְ ‫של‬ ַ ְ ‫ו ַי‬ And the LORD God sent him out of the
‫מה‬ ָ ‫ד‬ָ ֲ‫הָא‬-‫את‬ ֶ ‫בד‬ ֹ ‫ע‬ֲ ַ‫דן ל‬ ֶ ‫ע‬ ֵ 23 Garden of Eden, to work the ground from
‫שם‬ ָׁ ‫מ‬ ִ ‫קח‬ ַ ֻ‫שר ל‬ ֶ ֲ‫א‬. where he had been taken.
‫כן‬
ֵ ‫ש‬ ְ ַ ‫דם ו ַי‬ ָ ‫הא‬ ָ -‫את‬ ֶ ‫רש‬ ֶ ָ ‫ו ַי ְג‬ And He drove the man out, and He
-‫את‬ ֶ ‫דן‬ ֶ ‫ע‬ֵ -‫גן‬ ַ ְ‫דם ל‬ ֶ ‫ק‬ ֶ ‫מ‬ ִ stationed from the east of the Garden of
‫רב‬
ֶ ‫ח‬ ֶ ַ‫הט ה‬ ַ ַ‫את ל‬ ֵ ְ ‫בים ו‬ ִ ֻ ‫הַכ ְר‬ 24 Eden the cherubim and the flame of the
-‫את‬ ֶ ‫מר‬ ֹ ‫ש‬ ְ ִ‫כת ל‬ ֶ ֶ‫מתְהַפ‬ ִ ַ‫ה‬ gyrating sword, to guard the way to the
‫חִיים‬ ַ ַ‫עץ ה‬ ֵ ְ ‫דר ֶך‬ ֶ . Tree of Life.

11
 V. THE PROBLEM AND ITS PLATONIC SOLUTION.
The Problem: Music, Myth, Poetry, Passio.
The Solution: Architecture, Construction of Values, Kultur,
Bildung.

12
 

Gen 12

There was a famine in the land, and

‫רד‬ֶ ֵ ‫רץ ו ַי‬
ֶ ‫בא‬ ָ ‫עב‬ ָ ָ ‫הי ר‬ ִ ְ ‫ו ַי‬
1 Avram went down to Egypt to sojourn
‫שם‬
ָ ‫לגור‬ ָ ‫מה‬ ָ ְ ‫מצ ְר ַי‬
ִ ‫רם‬ ָ ְ ‫אב‬
0 there, for the famine was severe in the
‫רץ‬
ֶ ‫בא‬ ָ ‫עב‬ ָ ָ ‫בד הָר‬ ֵ ָ ‫כ‬-‫כי‬ ִ land.
‫לבוא‬ ָ ‫ריב‬ ִ ‫ק‬ ְ ִ‫שר ה‬ ֶ ֲ‫הי כ ַא‬ ִ ְ ‫ו ַי‬
As he was about to enter Egypt, he
‫רי‬
ַ ‫ש‬ ָ -‫אל‬ ֶ ‫מר‬ ֶ ‫מה ו ַֹיא‬ ָ ְ ‫מצ ְר ָי‬ ִ 1
said to his wife Sarai, “I know what a
‫כי‬ִ ‫תי‬ ִ ‫ע‬
ְ ‫ד‬ַ ָ ‫נא י‬ ָ -‫נה‬ ֵ ִ‫שתו ה‬ ְ ִ‫א‬ 1
beautiful woman you are.”
ְ‫אה את‬ ֶ ְ ‫מר‬ ַ -‫פת‬ ַ ְ ‫שה י‬ ָ ׁ ִ‫א‬
‫רים‬
ִ ְ ‫מצ‬ ִ ַ‫אתָך ְ ה‬ ֹ ‫ראו‬ ְ ‫י‬-‫כי‬ ִ ‫ו ְהָָיה‬ If the Egyptians see you, and think,
1
‫רגו‬ְ ָ‫שתו ֹזאת ו ְה‬ ְ ִ‫מרו א‬ ְ ‫ְוא‬ ‘She is his wife,’ they will kill me and
2
‫חיו‬ַ ְ ‫אתָך ְ י‬ ֹ ְ ‫תי ו‬ ִ ‫א‬ ֹ let you live.
Please say that you are my sister, that
‫ען‬
ַ ‫מ‬
ַ ְ‫תי אתְ ל‬ ִ ‫ח‬ ֹ ֲ‫נא א‬ ָ -‫רי‬ִ ‫מ‬ְ ִ‫א‬
1 it may go well with me because of you,
‫תה‬ָ ְ ‫חי‬
ָ ְ ‫עבור ֵך ְ ו‬ ֲ ַ ‫לי ב‬ ִ -‫טב‬ ַ ‫יי‬
3 and that I may remain alive thanks to
ְ ‫שי ב ִג ְלָלֵך‬ ִ ְ‫נ ַפ‬ you.”

“I know ... Please say that you are my sister” […] It is

RaMBaN possible that Avraham and Sarah had no fear until they came into a royal city
for it was their custom to bring the king a very beautiful woman and to slay her husband
through some charge they would contrive against him. It appears to me correct that such was
their procedure from the time they left Haran. At every place he would say, “She is my sister,”
for so Avraham said, “And it came to pass, when Gd caused me to wander from my father’s
house, etc.” Scripture, however, mentions it only concerning those places where something
happened to them on account of it. Thus Avraham now alerted Sarah as he had charged her
from the beginning.

UNPROBLEMATIC CRITIQUE OF GD.

 ‫בראשית ג‬ Genesis 18 

‫דם‬
ֹ ‫ס‬ְ ‫קת‬ ַ ‫ע‬ ֲ ַ ‫מר ה׳ ז‬ ֶ ‫ו ַֹיא‬ Then the LORD said, “The outcry of
2
‫תם‬
ָ ‫טא‬ָ ‫ח‬ַ ְ ‫בה ו‬ ָ ָ ‫כי ר‬ִ ‫רה‬ ָ ‫מ‬ֹ ‫ע‬ ֲ ַ‫ו‬ Sodom and Gomorrah is so great, and
0
‫אד‬ ֹ ‫מ‬ְ ‫דה‬ ָ ְ ‫כי כ ָב‬ ִ their sin so grave!
‫אה‬ ֶ ְ ‫נא ו ְאֶר‬ָ ‫דה‬ ָ ֲ ‫ אֵר‬2 I will go down to see. If they have
 acted according to the outcry that has
‫לי‬
ַ ֵ‫באה א‬ ָ ַ‫תה ה‬ ָ ‫ק‬ָ ‫ע‬ֲ ַ ‫הַכ ְצ‬
1 reached Me—destruction; if not, I will
‫עה‬
ָ ‫ד‬ ָ ֵ‫לא א‬
ֹ ‫אם‬ ִ ְ ‫לה ו‬ָ ָ ‫עשו כ‬ ָ
know.”
‫לכו‬ְ ֵ ‫שים ו ַי‬ִ ָ ‫שם הָאֲנ‬ ָׁ ‫מ‬ִ ‫פנו‬ ְ ִ ‫ו ַי‬ The men went on from there to
2
‫מד‬ֵ ‫ע‬ֹ ‫דנו‬ ֶ ‫הם עו‬ ָ ָ ‫מה ְואב ְר‬ָ ‫ד‬ֹ ‫ס‬ ְ Sodom, while Avraham remained
2
‫ני ה׳‬ֵ ְ‫לִפ‬ standing before the LORD.

Rabbi Levi said: [Gd said]: “Even if I wished to keep silent,

GENESIS RABBA 49:6 justice for a certain maiden (ribah) does not permit Me to keep
silent.” For it once happened that two damsels went down to
draw water from a well. One said to the other, “Why are you so pale?” “We have no more food
and are ready to die,” replied she. What did she do? She filled her pitcher with flour and they
exchanged their pitchers, each taking the other’s. When the Sodomites discovered this, they
grabbed her and burnt her. The Holy One, blessed be He, said: “Even if I desired to be silent,
justice for that maiden does not permit Me to keep silent.” Hence it does not say, “If they have
acted according to their outcry”; it says “according to her outcry”—the cry of that maiden.

[59a] We learnt elsewhere: If he articulated [the oven] into

BAVA METZIA 59 separate tiles, placing sand between each tile, then Rabbi Eliezer
declared it clean, and the Sages declared it unclean; [59b] this
was the oven of ‘Aknai.4 Why ‘Aknai? — Said Rav Yehudah in Samuel’s name: [It means] that
they encircled it with arguments like a snake, and proved it unclean. It has been taught: On that
day Rabbi Eliezer brought forward every argument in the world, but they did not accept them.
Said he to them: “If the halakhah agrees with me, let this carob-tree prove it!” Thereupon the
carob-tree was torn a hundred cubits out of its place — others affirm, four hundred cubits. “No
proof can be brought from a carob-tree,” they retorted. Again he said to them: “If the halakhah
agrees with me, let the stream of water prove it!” Whereupon the stream of water flowed
backwards — “No proof can be brought from a stream of water,” they rejoined. Again he urged:
“If the halakhah agrees with me, let the walls of the schoolhouse prove it,” whereupon the walls
inclined to fall. But Rabbi Yehoshua rebuked them, saying: “When scholars are engaged in a
halakhic dispute, what right have you to interfere?” Hence they did not fall, in honour of Rabbi
Yehoshua, nor did they resume an upright position, in honour of Rabbi Eliezer; and they are still
standing thus inclined. Again he said to them: “If the halakhah agrees with me, let it be proved
from Heaven!' Whereupon a Heavenly Voice cried out: “Why do you all dispute with Rabbi
Eliezer, seeing that in all matters the halakhah agrees with him!?” But Rabbi Yehoshua arose
and exclaimed: “It is not in heaven.” (Deuteronomy 30:12) What did he mean by this? — Said
Rabbi Jeremiah: That the Torah had already been given at Mount Sinai; we pay no attention to a
Heavenly Voice, because You have long since written in the Torah at Mount Sinai, “After the
majority must one incline.” (Exodus 23:2) Rabbi Nathan met Elijah and asked him: What did

4
This refers to an oven, which, instead of being made in one piece, was made in a series of separate
portions with a layer of sand between each. Rabbi Eliezer maintains that since each portion in itself is not
a utensil, the sand between prevents the whole structure from being regarded as a single utensil, and
therefore it is not liable to uncleanness. The Sages however hold that the outer coating of mortar or
cement unifies the whole, and it is therefore liable to uncleanness. (This is the explanation given by
Maimonides on the Mishnah, Kelayim 5:10. Rashi adopts a different reasoning). ‘Aknai is a proper noun,
probably the name of a master, but it also means “snake.”

14
the Holy One, Blessed be He, do in that hour? — “He laughed,” he replied, “saying, ‘My sons
have defeated Me, My sons have defeated Me!’”

It was said: On that day all objects which Rabbi Eliezer had declared clean were
brought and burnt in fire. Then they took a vote and excommunicated him. Said they, “Who
shall go and inform him?” “I will go,” answered Rabbi Akiva, “lest an unsuitable person go and
inform him, and thus destroy the whole world.” What did Rabbi Akiva do? He donned black
garments and wrapped himself in black, and sat at a distance of four cubits from him. “Akiva,”
said Rabbi Eliezer to him, “why is today different from yesterday?” “Master,” he replied, “it
appears to me that your companions hold aloof from you.” Thereupon he too rent his garments,
put off his shoes, removed his chair and sat on the earth, whilst tears streamed from his
eyes. The world was then smitten: a third of the olive crop, a third of the wheat, and a third of
the barley crop. Some say, the dough in women’s hands swelled up.

MARTIN HEIDEGGER
The Word of Nietzsche ‘God is
Dead’
(1943)

Let us listen, to begin with, to the full text of section no. 125, from the
work The Gay Science. The piece is entitled “The Madman” and runs:

The Madman. Have you not heard of

that madman who lit a lantern in the
bright morning hours, ran to the market
place, and cried incessantly, “I seek
God! I seek God!” As many of those
who do not believe in God were
standing around just then, he provoked
much laughter. Why, did he get lost? said one. Did he lose his way like a
child? said another. Or is he hiding? Is he afraid of us? Has he gone on a
voyage? or emigrated? Thus they yelled and laughed. The madman jumped
into their midst and pierced them with his glances. “Whither is God” he cried. “I shall tell you.
We have killed him—you and I. All of us are his murderers. But how have we done this? How
were we able to drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon?
What did we do when we unchained this earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither
are we moving now? Away from all suns? Are we not plunging continually? Backward,
sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there any up or down left? Are we not straying as through
an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is not
night and more night coming on all the while? Must not lanterns be lit in the morning? Do we
not hear anything yet of the noise of the gravediggers who are burying God? Do we not smell
anything yet of God’s decomposition? Gods too decompose. God is dead. God remains dead.
And we have killed him. How shall we, the murderers of all murderers, comfort ourselves? What
was holiest, and most powerful of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our
knives. Who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What
festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this
deed too great for us? Must not we ourselves become gods simply to seem worthy of it? There

15
 has never been a greater deed; and whoever will be born after us—for the sake of this deed he
will be part of a higher history than all history hitherto.”
Here the madman fell silent and looked again at his listeners; and they too were silent
and stared at him in astonishment. At last he threw his lantern on the ground, and it broke and
went out. “I come too early,” he said then; “my time has not come yet. This tremendous event is
still on its way, still wandering—it has not yet reached the ears of man. Lightning and thunder
require time, the light of the stars requires time, deeds require time even after they are done,
before they can be seen and heard. This deed is still more distant from them than the most distant
stars—and yet they have done it themselves.” It has been related further that on that same day the
madman entered divers churches and there sang his requiem aeternam deo. Led out and called to
account, he is said to have replied each time, “What are these churches now if they are not the
tombs and sepulchers of God?”

Four years later (1886) Nietzsche added to the four books of The Gay Science a fifth, which is
entitled “We Fearless Ones.” Over the first section in that book (Aphorism 343) is inscribed “The
Meaning of Our Cheerfulness.” The piece begins, “The greatest recent event—that ‘God is dead’ that the
belief in the Christian god has become unbelievable—is already beginning to cast its first shadows over
Europe.”
From this sentence it is clear that Nietzsche’s pronouncement concerning the death of God
means the Christian god. But it is no less certain, and it is to be considered in advance, that the terms
“God” and “Christian god” in Nietzsche’s thinking are used to designate the suprasensory world in
general. God is the name for the realm of Ideas and ideals. This realm of the suprasensory has been
considered since Plato, or more strictly speaking, since the late Greek and Christian interpretation of
Platonic philosophy, to be the true and genuinely real world. In contrast to it the sensory world is only the
world down here, the changeable, and therefore the merely apparent, unreal world. The world down here
is the vale of tears in contrast to the mountain of everlasting bliss in the beyond. If, as still happens in
Kant, we name the sensory world the physical in the broader sense, then the suprasensory world is the
metaphysical world.
The pronouncement “God is dead” means: The suprasensory world is without effective power. It bestows
no life. Metaphysics, i.e., for Nietzsche Western philosophy understood as Platonism, is at an end.
Nietzsche understands his own philosophy as the countermovement to metaphysics, and that means for
him a movement in opposition to Platonism. […]
If God as the suprasensory ground and goal of all reality is dead, if the suprasensory world of the
Ideas has suffered the loss of its obligatory and above all its vitalizing and upbuilding power, then nothing
more remains to which man can cling and by which he can orient himself. That is why in the passage just
cited there stands this question: “Are we not straying as through an infinite nothing?” The pronouncement
“God is dead” contains the confirmation that this Nothing is spreading out. “Nothing” means here:
absence of a suprasensory, obligatory world. Nihilism, “the most uncanny of all guests,” is standing at the
door. […]
Nihilism is a historical movement, and not just any view or doctrine advocated by someone or
other. Nihilism moves history after the manner of a fundamental ongoing event that is scarcely
recognized in the destining of the Western peoples. Hence nihilism is also not simply one historical
phenomenon among others—not simply one intellectual current that, along with others, with
Christendom, with humanism, and with the Enlightenment—also comes to the fore within Western
history.
Nihilism, thought in its essence, is, rather, the fundamental movernent of the history of the West.
It shows such great pro-fundity that its unfolding can have nothing but world catastrophes as its
consequence. Nihilism is the world-historical movement of the peoples of the earth who have been drawn
into the power realm of the modern age. Hence it is not only a phenomenon of the present age, nor is it
primarily the product of the nineteenth century, in which to be sure a perspicacious eye for nihilism
awoke and the name also became current. No more is nihilism the exclusive product of particular nations
whose thinkers and writers speak expressly of it. Those who fancy themselves free of nihilism perhaps
push forward its development most fundamentally. It belongs to the uncanniness of this uncanny guest
that it cannot name its own origin.

16
 Nihilism also does not rule primarily where the Christian god is disavowed or where Christianity
is combated; nor does it rule exclusively where common atheism is preached in a secular setting. So long
as we confine ourselves to looking only at this unbelief turned aside from Christianity, and at the forms in
which it appears, our gaze remains fixed merely on the external and paltry facades of nihilism. The
speech of the madman says specifically that the word “God is dead” has nothing in common with the
opinions of those who are merely standing about and talking confusedly, who “do not believe in God.”
For those who are merely believers in that way, nihilism has not yet asserted itself at all as the destining
of their own history.
So long as we understand the word “God is dead” only as a formula of unbelief, we are thinking
it theologically in the manner of apologetics, and we are renouncing all claims to what matters to
Nietzsche, i.e., to the reflection that ponders what has already happened regarding the truth of the
suprasensory world and regarding its relation to man’s essence.
Hence, also, nihilism in Nietzsche’s sense in no way coincides with the situation conceived
merely negatively, that the Christian god of biblical revelation can no longer be believed in, just as
Nietzsche does not consider the Christian life that existed once for a short time before the writing down of
the Gospels and before the missionary propaganda of Paul to belong to Christendom. Christendom for
Nietzsche is the historical, world-political phenomenon of the Church and its claim to power withln the
shaping or Western humanity and its modern culture. Christendom in this sense and the Christianity of
New Testament faith are not the same. Even a non-Christian life can affirm Christendom and use it as a
means of power, just as, conversely, a Christian life does not necessarily require Christendom. Therefore,
a confrontation with Christendom is absolutely not in any way an attack against what is Christian, any
more than a critique of theology is necessarily a critique of faith, whose interpretation theology is said to
be. We move in the flatlands of the conflicts between world views so long as we disregard these essential
distinctions.
In the word “God is dead” the name “God,” thought essentially, stands for the suprasensory
world of those ideals which contain the goal that exists beyond earthly life for that life and that,
accordingly, determines life from above, and also in a certain way, from without. But now when
unalloyed faith in God, as determined through the Church, dwindles away, when in particular the doctrine
of faith, theology, in its role of serving as the normative explanation of that which is as a whole, is
curtailed and thrust aside, then the fundamental structuring, in keeping with which the fixing of goals,
extending into the suprasensory, rules sensory, earthly life, is in no way thereby shattered as well.
Into the position of the vanished authority of God and of the teaching office of the Church steps
the authority of conscience, obtrudes the authority of reason. Against these the social instinct rises up.
The flight from the world into the suprasensory is replaced by historical progress. The otherworldly goal
of everlasting bliss is transformed into the earthly happiness of the greatest number. The careful
maintenance of the cult of religion is relaxed through enthusiasm for the creating of a culture or the
spreading of civilization. Creativity, previously the unique property of the biblical god, becomes the
distinctive mark of human activity. Human creativity finally passes over into business enterprise.
Accordingly, that which must take the place of the suprasensory world will be variations on the
Christian-ecclesiastical and theological interpretation of the world, which took over its schema of the
ordo of the hierarchy of beings from the Jewish-Hellenistic world, and whose fundamental structure was
established and given its ground through Plato at the beginning of Western metaphysics.
The realm for the essence and the coming-to-pass of nihilism is metaphysics itself—provided
always that we do not mean by this name a doctrine, let alone only one particular discipline of
philosophy, but that we think rather on the fundamental structuring of that which is, as a whole, insofar as
that whole is differentiated into a sensory and a suprasensory world and the former is supported and
determined by the latter. Metaphysics is history’s open space wherein it becomes a destining that the
suprasensory world, the Ideas, God, the moral law, the authority of reason, progress, the happiness of the
greatest number, culture, civilization, suffer the loss of their constructive force and become void. We
name this decay in the essence of the supra-sensory its disessentializing [Verwesung]. Unbelief in the
sense of a falling away from the Christian doctrine of faith is, therefore, never the essence and the ground,
but always only a consequence, of nihilism; for it could be that Christendom itself represents one
consequence and bodying-forth of nihilism. […]
In a note from the year 1887 Nietzsche poses the question, “What does nihilism mean?” (Will to
Power, Aph. 2). He answers: “That the highest values are devaluing themselves.”

17
 GENESIS 9
 ‫בראשית ט‬ 

-‫מן‬ִ ‫אים‬ ִ ְ ‫ח הַֹיצ‬ ַ ‫ֹנ‬-‫ני‬

ֵ ְ ‫היו ב‬ְ ִ ‫ו ַי‬ The sons of Noah who came out of the
1
‫חם‬
ָ ְ ‫פת ו‬
ֶ ָ ‫חם ו ָי‬
ָ ְ ‫שם ו‬ ֵ ‫בה‬ ָ ֵ‫הַת‬ 8
ark were Shem, Ham, and Yafet—Ham
‫ען‬
ַ ָ ‫בי כ ְנ‬
ִ ֲ‫הוא א‬ being the father of Canaan.
These three were the sons of Noah, and
‫ח‬
ַ ‫ֹנ‬-‫ני‬
ֵ ְ ‫לה ב‬ֶ ֵ‫שה א‬ ָ ‫ל‬ֹ ‫ש‬ְ 1
from these the whole world branched
‫רץ‬
ֶ ‫הא‬ָ -‫כל‬ ָ ‫צה‬ ָ ְ‫לה נ ָפ‬
ֶ ֵ ‫מא‬ֵ ‫ו‬ 9
out.
‫טע‬
ַ ִ ‫מה ו ַי‬
ָ ‫ד‬
ָ ֲ‫איש הָא‬
ִ ‫ח‬
ַ ‫חל ֹנ‬
ֶ ָ ‫ו ַי‬ 2 Noah, a man of the earth, began by
‫רם‬ֶ ָ‫כ‬ 0 planting a vineyard.
He drank of the wine and became
‫גל‬
ַ ְ‫כר ו ַי ִת‬
ָ ‫ש‬
ְ ִ ‫הַַיין ו ַי‬-‫מן‬ִ ְ‫שת‬ ְ ֵ ‫ו ַי‬ 2
drunk, and he uncovered himself within
‫לה‬ ֹ ֳ‫בתוך ְ אה‬ ְ 1
the tent.

Noah, man of the earth, began [‫חל‬ ֶ ָ ‫ ]י‬He was

GENESIS RABBA 36:3 degraded [nithalel] and debased [hulin]. Why? Because “he
planted a vineyard.” Should he have not planted something of use,
such as a young fig-shoot or a young olive-shoot? Instead “he planted a vineyard.”

‫את‬ ֵ ‫ען‬ ַ ַ ‫בי כ ְנ‬ ִ ֲ‫חם א‬ ָ ‫רא‬ ְ ַ ‫ו ַי‬ Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his
2
‫חיו‬
ָ ֶ‫א‬-‫ני‬ ֵ ‫ש‬ְ ִ‫גד ל‬ ֵ ַ ‫ביו ו ַי‬ ִ ‫ער ְַות א‬ ֶ 2
father’s nakedness and told his two
‫בחוץ‬ ַ brothers outside.
-‫את‬ ֶ ‫פת‬ ֶ ֶ ‫שם ו ָי‬ ֵ ‫קח‬ ַ ִ ‫ו ַי‬ But Shem and Yafet took a cloak, laid it
‫הם‬ֶ ‫ני‬ ֵ ‫ש‬ ְ ‫שימו‬ ִ ָ ‫לה ו ַי‬ ָ ‫מ‬ ְ ‫ש‬ִ ׁ ַ‫ה‬ on both their shoulders and, walking
‫נית‬ִ ַ ‫חר‬ ֹ ֲ‫לכו א‬ ְ ֵ ‫כם ו ַי‬ ֶ ‫ש‬ ְ -‫על‬ ַ 2 backwards, they covered their father’s
‫הם‬ ֶ ‫בי‬ ִ ֲ‫ער ְַות א‬ ֶ ‫את‬ ֵ ‫כסו‬ ַ ְ ‫ו ַי‬ 3 nakedness; their faces were turned the
‫ער ְַות‬ ֶ ְ ‫נית ו‬ ִ ַ ‫חר‬ ֹ ֲ‫הם א‬ ֶ ‫ני‬ֵ ְ ‫ופ‬ other way, so that they did not see
‫ראו‬ ָ ‫לא‬ ֹ ‫הם‬ ֶ ‫בי‬ ִ ֲ‫א‬ their father’s nakedness.
Noah woke up from his wine, and he
‫את‬ֵ ‫דע‬ַ ֵ ‫מֵיינו ו ַי‬
ִ ‫ח‬ַ ‫קץ ֹנ‬
ֶ ‫ו ִַיי‬ 2
realized what his smallest son had done
‫טן‬
ָ ‫ק‬
ָ ַ‫בנו ה‬ ְ ‫שה לו‬ ָ ‫ע‬ָ -‫שר‬ֶ ֲ‫א‬ 4
to him.

“Noah woke up from his wine, and he realized what his youngest
SANHEDRIN 70a son had done to him.” Rav and Shmuel disagreed. One said, he
castrated him. The other said, he sodomized him. The one who
said castrated infers: from the fact that he jeopardized a fourth son, he cursed his fourth son. The
one who said sodomized compares “saw” with “saw”: here it is written, “Ham, father of
Canaan, saw his father’s nakedness” (v. 22), and there (in Genesis 9:22) it is written, “Shechem,
son of Hamor, saw [Dinah] …” Now, granted, the one who says castrated draws his inference

18
this from the cursing of the fourth son. How does the one who says sodomized explain the
distinction of the fourth son such that he was cursed? Both this and that occurred.

Ham’s sin was to look at the nakedness of his father and to treat
RAMBAN re 9:18 him witout respect. Where he should have covered his father’s
nakedness and concealed his shame by not telling even his
brothers, he related the matter to his two brothers in the presence of many people in order to
deride Noah. This is the meaning of the word “outside” (v. 22). Onkelos translates it as “in the
marketplace.” The verse, “And [Noah] knew what he had done to him” (v. 24) means that he
knew that Ham had publicized his disgrace to many, and he was ashamed of the matter.

And he said, “Cursed be Canaan! A

‫בד‬
ֶ ‫ע‬
ֶ ‫ען‬ַ ָ ‫מר ארור כ ְנ‬
ֶ ‫ו ַֹיא‬ 2
5
slave of slaves shall he be to his
‫חיו‬
ָ ֶ‫דים יהְֶיה לְא‬ִ ָ ‫עב‬
ֲ brothers.”
And he said, “Blessed be the LORD, The
‫שם‬
ֵ ‫הי‬
ֵ ‫ל‬
ֹ ֱ‫ברוך ְ ה׳ א‬
ָ ‫מר‬ ֶ ‫ו ַֹיא‬ 2
6
Gd of Shem; Let Canaan be a slave to
‫למו‬ָ ‫בד‬
ֶ ‫ע‬ֶ ‫ען‬ַ ַ ‫הי כ ְנ‬
ִ ‫ִוי‬ them.
‫כן‬
ֹ ‫ש‬ ְ ‫פת ְוי‬ ֶ ֶ ‫הים לְי‬ ִ ‫ל‬ ֹ ֱ‫י ַפְתְ א‬ May Gd enlarge Yafet, and let him dwell
2
‫בד‬
ֶ ‫ע‬ ֶ ‫ען‬ ַ ַ ‫הי כ ְנ‬ ִ ‫שם ִוי‬ ֵ -‫לי‬ ֵ ֳ‫באה‬ ְ 7
in the tents of Shem; and let Canaan be
‫למו‬ ָ a slave to them.”
‫לש‬ֹ ‫ש‬ ְ ‫מבול‬ ַ ַ‫חר ה‬ ַ ‫חא‬ ַ ‫ֹנ‬-‫חי‬ ִ ְ ‫ו ַי‬ 2 Noah lived for 350 years after the
‫נה‬ָ ‫ש‬ ָ ‫שים‬ ִׁ ‫מ‬ִ ‫ח‬ ֲ ַ ‫נה ו‬ ָ ‫ש‬ ָ ‫מאות‬ ֵ 8 Flood.
‫שע‬ ַ ְ‫ח ת‬ ַ ‫ֹנ‬-‫מי‬ ֵ ְ ‫י‬-‫כל‬ ָ ‫היו‬ ְ ִ ‫ו ַי‬
2 All the days of Noah came to 950 years;
‫נה‬ ָ ‫ש‬ ָ ‫שים‬ ִׁ ‫מ‬ ִ ‫ח‬ ֲ ַ ‫נה ו‬ ָ ‫ש‬ ָ ‫מאות‬ ֵ 9 then he died.
‫מת‬ ֹ ָ ‫ו ַי‬
And he said: Blessed be the LORD, the Gd of
GENESIS RABBA 36:8 Shem . . . Gd enlarge Yafet (9:26 f.). This alludes to
Cyrus who ordered the Temple to be rebuilt. Moreover, “And he
shall dwell in the tents of Shem” means: the Shechinah dwells only in the tents of Shem. Bar
Kappara explained it: Let the words of the Torah be uttered in the language of Yafet [i.e. Greek]
in the tents of Shem. (Megilla 9b) Rabbi Yudan said: From this we learn that a translation [of
the Torah is permitted]. Thus it is written, “And they read in the book, in the Law of Gd”
(Nehemiah 7:8): this refers to Scripture; “distinctly” (ibid.): to a translation …

BUSYNESS ÉTHICS I
THE PROBLEM OF DEBT

1. Ethics within European Civilization and the Problem of Judging

what is Good and what is Bad? The Architecture of Ethical
Knowing. Kant: autonomy and the value (Werte) of the human being.
Heidegger re éthics as dwelling rather than value-monging. (Cf also
Utilitarianism. Aristotle?)

19
2. The Parent Canons of Ethics and their Respective Calendars.
School of Athens & Sistene Chapel. (Scientific-Gregorian [the
monumentalnees of “AD”], Sinaitic, Kabbalistic) Timeline. [Nietzsche
Med II. Dilthey?] Shekhina’s autobiography. Sinaitic-Prescriptive Time
as the time of the basic problem of human existence.
3. The Problem at its Root: The Fever of Consumption. Radical
Evil. Destruction of the Proper (Sexual Impropriety, Property
Violations, and Murder). The “radical” problem branching out within
the ground, as murder (Cain), robbery (Flood, Sodom, Amraphel), and
sex (Pharoah, Flood, Sodom). Sex and violence. Freud’s death-drive:
fever, passio. Hegel: the negative as consumption/eating. Bataille?
4. The Problem in its Ground: Marketing, or How to Ignite the
Fever of Consumption. Gen 2-3. The ground of the problem is the
foundation of the problem’s possibility. It is the problem of whom
(which father-god-teacher) to trust in in order to deal with the basic
problems. That is why it confronts us in our innocence, before our
lives are actually problematic. (Concept of Anxiety. Plato on fever of
marketplace. Veblen) Cf Rambam on Eden: the intimacy with good
and evil means being plunged into the business of judgement—
because the knowledge differential between us and Gd with respect
to good and evil (as objects of knowing) is greater than the
knowledge differential with respect to true and false. Hence the need
to depend on Gd’s commands.
5. The Problem in its Flowering, and its Platonic Solution.
i. The Problem: Poetic Glorification and Proliferation of
Fever in Music and Myth. (Genealogy: Schuld) The
“moment” in which the radical problem is first visible in the
Greek timeline: Iliad. But Homer is already a latecomer. On the
one hand, he deplores the sex-violence; the Odyssey is even
written into the Iliad as its eschaton, the peace for which the
war is fought. On the other hand, he enjoys the tragedy of the
hero, i.e. the hero’s capitulation to the radical problems of sex
and violence (in Achilles) and its mythologization (in Zeus).
Homer is already a victim of the powers of Music that
celebrates the gods-fathers in their (amoral) power. In short
the other two folds of the radical problem (blasphemy, idolatry)
have appeared with the advent of heroism-and-poetry.
ii. The Solution: Architechture: Constructing Values,
Philosophical Poetics, Kultur, Bildung, Politics, Religion.
In steps civilization. Aeschylus (Orestia): politics. Plato. The
basic (tragic-philosophic) Greek method of problem-solving: (a)
critique of father-gods; Prometheus Bound. Oedipus. Republic.
(b) Ethics: guilt imposed by the internalized father, Logos,
Kantian autonomy. Parmenides. Phaedo: body and soul.
(Christian internalized father = son).
6. The Problem with the Solution: Nihilism. Bankrupcy. Critique of
this method: Nietzsche contra Plato (Christianity). Heidegger:
“Nietzsche’s Word ‘God is dead’.” Freud: (Platonic) civilization is built
on mud of sex and death. Platonic “soul” = internalized father
(superego). Gen 9: the Tents of Shem.

20
 7. Dissolution of the Problem: Cashing in the Debt. Avraham as
blessing. Alter Rebbe’s post-Freud “Platonism”: father = father.
8. The Unproblematic Ethics of Abraham: Demythologization,
Iconoclasm. Gen 22. Trust. Against Parmenides, and Kierkegaard.
9. Unproblematic Propriety. Avraham and sexuality. In Egypt. Hagar.
Circumcision and fatherhood.
10.Unproblematic Property. Avraham and war-property. Contra
autonomy-autonchthony. Rashi re Gen 1:1 etc. “The earth is the
Lord’s”
11.Unproblematic Critique of Gd. Gen 18. Critique built into Higher
Trust on Father (not in internalized father)

Basic problem complex:

 The 1st order problem is posed by life against the erotic-thantic
drive (Other Side) that wants to revert Creation to chaos by
means of sex and violence (passio, oeconomic fever). This is a
“warrior’s” problem: how to fight Eros-Thanatos.
 The 2nd order problem (Grundproblem) is the Other Side’s (the
death-desire’s) attack (temptation) in the form of distrust of
the immediacy of the life-drive. Thinking is invoked by the
erotic-thatanic drive to compare life and death (“knowledge of
good and evil”); thinking is Zoroastrian.
 Consequently the life-desire comes, not immediately, but as a
commandment.
 The 3rd order problem is the Other Side brings the distrust-
temptation into poetic expression: the problem expresses itself
eloquently, musically as mythology: a tension between sexy,
violent gods and their submission to Order (Fate, Dike). This is
idolatry, Zoroastrianism.
 In order to deal with the problem on this 3rd order it is
necessary to find the means to address musical mythology.
This is what Plato does with philosophy. Plato’s basic
achievement: the construction of guilt (Nietzsche, Freud), at
least guilt’s philosophical foundations (the mind-body split).
 Since the guilt-complex cannot withstand the powers of myth
and music—of distrust itself. Something more than (Platonic)
philosophy is needed. The problem needs to be brought back
to the 2nd order: to the question of trust.
 The way to such a problematics has already begun to be
cleared by deconstruction—of both Platonic philosophy (the
solution) and myth, music (the problem). To go further we need
to deconstruct deconstruction—and get back to Whom we
should trust, back before Parmenides—to Avraham.

21