OUTLOOKS & INSIGHTS
Heaven.
What's "In the Beginning"?
by Rabbi Zev Leff
"In the beginning of God's creating the heavens and the earth."
(Genesis 1:1)
Rebbe Yitzhak said: "It was not necessary to begin the Torah
[here], but rather with "This month shall be to you" (Exodus
12:2), the first mitzvah commanded to the Jewish people. (Rashi
to Genesis 1:1)
Rashi begins his classic commentary to Chumash with the
question of Rebbe Yitzhak. Rebbe Yitzhak's question is not
immediately understood. The Torah is not, after all, a
compendium of mitzvos. Even after the giving of the first
mitzvah, many entire parshas are primarily narratives of the
events in Egypt and the desert. If so, why was it so apparent to
Rebbe Yitzhak that the Torah should start with the first mitzvah?
To fully appreciate Rebbe Yitzhak's question requires an
understanding of the purpose of the Torah. Maimonides (Laws of
Kings 12:2) casts much light on this issue. The Torah, he writes,
gives few hints concerning the coming of Moshiach. The details
were not revealed either to the prophets or the Sages. Because
these details were obscured, says Maimonides, they should not
form the focus of one's learning. Maimonides then adds: ''For
these details do not bring one to love or fear of God."
Maimonides, it would seem, is explaining why there is no clear
tradition concerning these details. The purpose of the Torah is to
bring one to the love of God or fear of God.
The word Torah is derived from hora'ah (guidance) and hints at
the Torah's role as a guide to coming closer to the Creator. Only
that which furthers this goal is contained in the Torah.
Everything else is excluded. Matters of only historic or scientific
interest have no place.
Rabbi Yechezkel Abramsky zt"l made a similar point concerning
the penultimate verse of Megillas Esther: "All the great deeds of
Mordechai... are recorded in the history books of the royalty of
Persia and Medea." Why did the Megillah refer us to the history
books of Persia and Medea for further information concerning
Mordechai? Did anyone ever read them? Were they ever
available for our perusal? The intent of this verse, says Rabbi
Abramsky, is to put Megillas Esther into perspective. If you seek
historical information, the Megillah tells us, then read the royal
histories of Persia and Medea. Megillas Esther, however, is not
1
the source of such information, but rather a source of fear of
In this light, we can understand the puzzling differences
between two almost identical portions of the Torah. At the end
of Parshas Bereishis, the Torah records the 10 generations
between Adam and Noah, and at the end of Parshas Noah it
similarly records the 10 generations between Noah and
Abraham. But the two accounts differ. In the first, the Torah
provides us with three basic facts concerning the representative
of each generation: how old he was at the birth of his principal
child, how long he lived after that birth, and his age at death.
But of those mentioned in Parshas Noach, we are not told their
age at death or even that they died at all.
The Mishnah (Pirkei Avos 5:2-3) relates that there were 10
generations between Adam and Noah and also 10 generations
between Noah and Abraham. The parallel source in Avos d'Rav
Nasan asks why this information is necessary and answers: the
first 10 generations teach us how long-suffering and slow to
anger God is; the second 10 teaches us that one person such as
Abraham can reap the entire reward of 10 generations of people
who did not fulfill their purpose in the world.
In order to convey the lesson of God's patience, it was important
to know that the 10 generations between Adam and Noah lived,
had children, and died at a ripe old age. Therefore the first
genealogy contains information concerning the age at death of
the representatives of each generation. But to convey that
Abraham received all the reward of 10 generations, we need
know nothing about the ages at death of the 10 preceding
generations. Since it is irrelevant to the message the Torah
wishes to convey, it is omitted.
The purpose of the Torah also explains why the biblical narrative
does not follow a straight chronological order. Because that
purpose is to inculcate fear of Heaven, not to teach history, the
most effective way to convey the lesson governs the order of the
biblical narrative.
There is an essential difference between Torah and chachmah
(wisdom). Wisdom, the Sages tell us, is found among the
nations; Torah is not. Wisdom need not influence the behavior of
the one who possesses it. There have been great geniuses in the
arts, humanities and sciences, whose personal characters were
nevertheless reprehensible. (Indeed, that seems more the rule
than the exception.) Their lack of integrity did not detract from
their wisdom, and their wisdom added nothing to their
character. When Bertrand Russell, then a professor of ethics at
City College in New York, was accused of leading a singularly
immoral life, he responded that just as he did not need to be
triangle to teach geometry, neither did he have to be a moral
person to teach ethics.
Torah, on the other hand, must influence the behavior and
character of the one who studies it to qualify as Torah. A person
possesses wisdom; Torah possesses the person. Torah is
compared to fire, for like fire it must leave an imprint. Where
study of the Torah does not transform the student, whatever
knowledge he obtains is not Torah but secular wisdom.
The blessing recited upon seeing one who possesses exceptional
secular wisdom is "Blessed are You, Hashem, our God, King of
the universe, Who has given of His knowledge to human
beings." The wisdom is given unconditionally; its recipient
remains flesh and blood.
On the other hand, the blessing recited over an exceptional
Torah scholar is "Blessed are You, Hashem, our God, King of the
universe, Who has apportioned of His knowledge to those who
fear Him." Torah is not given, but apportioned out. It remains
attached to its Divine source, and is therefore reserved only for
those who are God-fearing.
A Torah scholar is the embodiment of Torah by virtue of having
made its lessons part of himself. The creation of such people is
the very purpose of the Torah. For this reason, the Sages cast
scorn on the foolishness of those who rise for a Torah scroll but
not for a Torah scholar, for the latter is a living Torah scroll.
The Written Torah was given in such a way that it could not be
understood without the Oral Torah, to insure that it would not
be confused with book knowledge -- something which can be
read, mastered and memorized. Rather, Torah must be learned
from a teacher who is a living Torah scroll.
My Rosh Hayeshivah, Rabbi Mordechai Gifter zt"l, observed that
our Sages are not called chachamim (wise) but talmidei
chachamim (students of the wise). They do not merely possess
wisdom but are guided by it; they are its students
Now Rebbe Yitzhak's question can be understood. Since the
purpose of every word of the Torah is to guide those to whom it
was given, its very essence is mitzvos. As the Zohar says, the
narratives of the Torah are merely mitzvos disguised in the garb
of narrative.
2
When one writes a book, it is normal to begin by acquainting the
reader with the nature of the material contained within. Since all
of the Torah is mitzvos, it would have been logical to start with
the first clear-cut mitzvah to establish the pattern for all that
would follow, and thereby make clear that even the narratives
are included only for their eternal message of love of God and
fear of God. By starting with the narrative of Creation, there was
a risk that the true function of the Torah as a source of guidance
would be insufficiently understood. That is what provoked Rebbe
Yitzhak's question.
Every time we begin the Torah again, we must constantly keep
in mind that every letter of Torah is an eternal lesson in love of
God and fear of God. If at first glance the lesson is not
perceived, then one must delve deeper. "For it [the Torah] is not
something empty from you" (Deut 32:47). If it appears empty, it
is "from you," -- i.e. from your lack of understanding, and not
the absence of meaning.
THE ANSWER: A PREFACE TO TORAH
If the nations of the world say to you that you are thieves
because you conquered the lands of the seven nations, say to
them, "All the world is the Almighty's. He created it and He gives
it to whomever it is good in His eyes. By His Will He gave it to
you, and by His Will He took it from you and gave it to us (Rashi
to Genesis 1:1).
Rashi answers the question of why the Torah begins with an
account of the Creation by quoting the verse (Psalms 111:6):
"The power of His deeds He related to His nation, to give them
the inheritance of nations." If the nations of the world contest
our claim to the Land of Israel and charge us with stealing it
from the seven Canaanite nations, we will be able to answer that
all of Creation belongs to God. He created it and apportions it
out to whom He pleases. Originally His will was to give the Land
of Israel to the seven nations, and subsequently His will was to
take it from them and give it to us.
Thus it would seem that the entire reason that the Torah begins
with the Creation is to provide us with a claim to the Land of
Israel. This is hard to understand for many reasons. First, it is
far from clear that this response will have any effect on those to
whom it is ostensibly directed. How can we expect the nations of
the world to accept this answer when they do not believe in the
Torah? Were the Israeli ambassador to the United Nations to
quote Rebbe Yitzhak, it is highly improbable that the Arab world
would relinquish its claim to Israel.
When, in fact, the Canaanite nations laid claim to the Land of
Israel in front of Alexander the Great, on the grounds that the
Torah itself calls it "the land of Canaan," Gevia ben P'sisa did not
answer them by citing Genesis. Rather he argued that Canaan is
a slave to his brothers, and all that a slave acquires reverts to
his master (Talmud - Sanhedrin 91a). If the entire account of
Creation was recorded only to be used as a response to a claim
by the nations, why was it not utilized when the claim was in
fact made?
Moreover, the answer does not satisfactorily explain why the
Torah has to begin with Creation and not merely include an
account of Creation.
And there is a deeper question raised by this response. Why did
God ordain that we should conquer Israel from seven nations
who had inhabited it for hundreds of years? Why was it
necessary that we wipe out those nations? Why did the Land of
Israel have to become ours in a manner so open to challenge
that the Torah had to start from Genesis just to provide the
answer?
If we carefully scrutinize Rashi's words, we find that in fact the
Torah does begin with the first mitzvah -- hachodesh hazeh
lachem. Genesis is not the beginning, but rather the preface
(pesichah) to the Torah. "Why did the Torah open (pasach) with
Genesis?" is the question Rashi addresses.
The answer is that this preface is not for the sake of the nations
of the world; it is for us. God told us the power of His deeds. We
must know this fact; we must be convinced that we are not
thieves. The Almighty sought to teach us a lesson so significant
that it is the foundation of the entire Torah. Without this preface
we are not ready to approach the first mitzvah.
Understanding this lesson requires a clear understanding of the
role of the Jewish people. The ultimate purpose of the Jewish
people is to be "a nation of kohanim (priests), a holy nation." As
kohanim we are God's representatives in this world, and that
requires us to be a holy nation. That holiness must permeate
every aspect of life, from the ostensibly mundane-eating,
sleeping, dressing in the morning -- to the most elevated. Each
of the Divinely decreed actions of God's Chosen People must
proclaim His existence.
To achieve this goal, we must be a nation that dwells apart,
insulated from other cultures. This isolation and insulation from
the world is part of our very essence, an inescapable reality.
3
The Midrash tells us that the Jewish people are compared to oil,
and the nations of the world to water. By their very nature they
cannot mix. When we recognize the importance of maintaining
our unique, holy existence in isolation, we experience the
promise: "The Jewish people will dwell in security alone, apart"
(Deut. 33:28). The oil flows calmly on the water, and the two
coexist in peace.
But if we seek to assimilate into the foreign cultures, we will be
forced to read, "How do you dwell apart?" to the lament of
Eichah (the Book of Lamentations). As Rabbi Chaim of Volozhin
so poignantly expressed it: "Either the Jew makes Kiddush, or
the gentile makes Havdalah (separation)." History has shown
that when we sanctify ourselves - Kiddush -- and dwell apart, we
lead a life of holiness in secure isolation. When we attempt to
assimilate and adapt foreign lifestyles -- as in Egypt or Spain or
Germany -- our host nations eventually make havdalah and
remind us that we are different.
The Midrash Sifra comments on the verse, "I separated you from
the nations of the world to be mine" (Leviticus 20:2): "If you are
separated, then you are Mine. If not, you belong to
Nebuchadnezzar and his cohorts." The obvious meaning seems
to be that if we separate ourselves, we will merit Divine
protection; and if not, God will deliver us into the hands of our
enemies. I would like, however, to suggest an alternative
reading in closer conformity to the literal wording of the Sifra.
A non-Jew is required to observe only seven mitzvos. As long as
he observes the minimal ethical code dictated by God for
civilization, he has a share in the World to Come. One might
think that a Jew living the same type of life, although remiss in
the observance of the rest of the mitzvos, would nevertheless be
judged no worse than his non-Jewish neighbor.
Sifra informs us otherwise. The Jew exists for an entirely
different purpose -- to create a Mikdash, a place of sanctity, a
place where the Divine Presence will be felt. This Mikdash finds
potential expression in the person of every Jew. Thus any Jew
who fails to sanctify himself, to lead a life of exceptional
holiness, as defined by the Torah's commandments, is in fact
destroying his personal Mikdash. He has joined the ranks of
Nebuchadnezzar and his cohorts, destroyers of the Mikdash. He
'belongs" to Nebuchadnezzar.
One who observes 613 mitzvos, but does not understand the
underlying, all-encompassing lifestyle they seek to engender,
one who ignores the implications of those mitzvos in creating a
Torah outlook, personality and weltanschaung, one whose goals,
standards and values remain basically secular -- such a person
does not have 613 mitzvos, but rather 613 problems. Mitzvos
cannot be observed in a framework foreign to Torah ideals.
Upon returning from his 20-year sojourn with Lavan, Jacob told
his brother Esav, "I dwelt with Lavan, but I kept all 613 mitzvos
and did not learn from his evil ways." It seems superfluous for
Jacob to add that he did not learn from Lavan's evil ways, after
stating that he kept all 613 mitzvos. Assimilation, we learn from
Jacob's words, means not only rejecting mitzvos, but adopting
values and lifestyles foreign to Torah. Even if one observes all
the mitzvos, if his values remain those of the surrounding
culture, he is merely a "glatt kosher gentile." We must create a
total Torah environment to insulate ourselves and our families
from the influences of the secular society in whose midst we
temporarily find ourselves.
To promote our being a nation that dwells apart, the Almighty
measured every land and found no land more suitable for the
Jewish people than Land of Israel, and no people better suited
to Israel than the Jewish people (Midrash - Vayikra Rabba 13).
Israel is a holy land, the land that God personally supervises at
all times, the land that God calls His own. And the Jewish people
is a nation that God calls a holy nation, the nation that merits
direct Divine Providence, the nation that God calls His own.
Hence, the Land of Israel and the Jewish people complement
each other perfectly.
The Land of Israel provides a setting where we can develop our
potential to be a uniquely sanctified nation. (This, it should be
noted, is the very antithesis of secular Zionism, which envisions
Israel as a setting for us to develop at long last into a nation like
all other nations.) Thus, the answer to Rebbe Yitzhak's question
is not for the nations. It is we who are supposed to see clearly
that the Land of Israel is legitimately ours, given to us by God.
God gave us Israel as He did to teach us the one lesson upon
which all else depends: all our moral and ethical standards have
only one source --the Almighty God. If He tells us to conquer
and kill, that is by definition ethical and moral. And similarly,
where He mandates mercy and peace, then that is ethical. Our
value system has no basis other than the Written and Oral
Torah.
The seven Canaanite nations had forfeited their right to the Land
of Israel by their abominations. God could have destroyed them
by Himself without any action on our part. But He told us to
conquer the land so that we would be forced to recognize His
will as the source of all morality. He is the Creator of all that
4
exists, and only He can dictate proper conduct among the
nations. That is why our conquest constituted neither murder
nor theft.
The Torah, at the very outset, is laying the framework for all
mitzvah observance. It is not incidental that this lesson is taught
through the Land of Israel. Our holy books emphasize that only
in Israel can a Torah society uninfluenced by foreign values and
standards be created -- a society dwelling apart and enhanced
by the special qualities of the land.
Since the Land of Israel is given to us to place all mitzvah
observance in proper perspective, we have a legitimate claim to
it only if we accept God as the arbiter of every aspect of our
lives. If, however, we adopt the standards of the nations, we are
murderers and thieves with no claim to the land. Without that
acceptance, the land is, in fact, useless to us.
M'ORAY HA'AISH
Revelation and Concealment
by Rabbi Ari Kahn
"Bereishit bara"; with these words the Torah embarks on an epic
theological journey. The word Bereishit seems simple to define
and translate: "genesis" - "beginning" - the origin of origins.
Many classical and modern commentaries and translators alike
have opted to translate "Bereishit" with this meaning in mind.
The word Bereishit has the word "rosh" or "head" as its root.
"Be'Reishit" - in the beginning.
Yet, as usual when it comes to Jewish theology, even when
words or ideas enjoy a consensus, there are dissenting voices
whispering in the background. While the more celebrated
Targum Onkoles translates Bereishit as "B'kadmin", which means
beginning, the more obscure Targum Yerushalmi renders the
word as "B'chochma" ? with wisdom. "With wisdom Elokim
created Heaven and Earth." Instead of telling us when the world
was created, this rendering of the text has the Torah describing
how the creation unfolded.(1)
This alternative understanding of the text hinges upon the first
letter of the Torah, the bet of Bereishit. In the more familiar
reading, that adopted by Onkoles, the bet means "in", whereas
the Targum Yerushalmi understands the bet as "with." This
particular usage of the letter "bet", the letter that here serves as
the link from primordial existence to our version of reality, is not
unique. The Rambam writes that on Yom Kippur, the very
essence of the day affords forgiveness, citing a "proof text":
"Ki bayom haze y'chaper aleichem" - "For on that day you shall
be forgiven of all your sins."
Based on the context, the Rambam must understand the word
"bayom" not as "on that day" rather "via that day"; the bet
describes function, not chronology.(2) Likewise in the first verse
of the Torah, Onkoles discerns chronology, while the Yerushalmi
discerns mechanics.
While this translation and explanation may seem strange ?
especially to those of us weaned on the first verse being
rendered "In the Beginning"- there is a certain difficulty to the
normative approach. By stating that in the beginning God
created, we immediately understand that something - namely
God - preceded the beginning. Therefore, upon deeper analysis,
this beginning is not the beginning after all. Perhaps time
begins, space is carved and matter formed, but there is prior
existence.
This is the advantage of the Yerushalmi's translation: With
wisdom God creates. The wisdom is also necessarily connected
to the rosh at the root of Bereishit, but in terms of function and
not chronology. While we may be fascinated by speculation of
what transpired prior to creation, we understand that we have
no sources of information upon which we may base our
exploration. Our egocentric perspective begins with Bereishit;
any inquiry beyond that point will be subjective and will almost
certainly be blasphemous. To venture to the other side of
Bereishit is to enter a realm of waters uncharted, a place and
time unknown, a place with no space and a time with no clock.
Such exploration is explicitly forbidden:
Whosoever speculates upon four things, a pity for him! He is as
though he had not come into the world, [to wit], what is above,
what is beneath, what before, what after. And whosoever takes
no thought for the honor of his maker, it were a mercy if he had
not come into the world.
Rather, we say "With wisdom Elokim created...", at once
reminding ourselves of both the limits of human understanding
and of God's infiniteness. The term 'wisdom' has an additional
association with "reishit" which springs to mind almost
automatically. Psalms describes the beginning of wisdom-
"Reishit chochma":
5
"The beginning of wisdom is the fear of the Lord; a good
understanding have all those who do his commandments; his
praise endures forever." (Psalms 111:10)
Proper fear of God will dissuade the inquiring mind from delving
into unfathomable issues. Human wisdom can only flourish when
it realizes its own boundaries. Rather than contemplating what
preceded creation, we realize that wisdom was the tool God
used to create. If man aspires to approximate Divine wisdom, he
must accept the absolute statement that with wisdom God
created, while human wisdom is in direct correlation to fear of
God and observance of the commandments.
There is a discussion of the limits of inquiry in the Midrash at the
completion of the creation process.
"And God saw every thing that He had made, and, behold, it was
very good." (Genesis 1:31). R. Levi in the name of R. Hama b.
Hanina commenced: "It is the glory of God to conceal a thing,
but the glory of kings is to search out a matter." (Prov. 25:2).
Said R. Levi in the name of R. Hama b. Hanina: From the
beginning of the Book [of Genesis] up to this point, 'It is the
glory of God to conceal a thing'; but from this point onward,
'The glory of kings is to search out a matter': (Midrash Rabbah -
Genesis 9:1)
The Midrash uses a verse in Proverbs (It is the glory of God to
conceal a thing; but the honor of kings is to search out a matter.
The sky for height, and the earth for depth, and the heart of
kings is unsearchable. Proverbs 25:2,3) to illustrate the
demarcation between that which may be revealed and that
which must remain concealed. The entire process of creation is
on the other side of the border: "It is the Glory of God to
conceal".(3) From the moment the Creation is complete, the
moment described by the verse upon which the Midrash
comments, "it is the glory of kings to investigate". The Midrash
explains:
It is the glory of the words of the Torah, which are likened to
kings, as it is said, 'By me kings reign' (ib. 8:15), 'to search out a
matter'; hence, 'And God saw every thing that He had made,
and, behold, it was very good.' (Midrash Rabbah ?Bereishit 9:1)
It is the words of Torah which are like kings, and may be
investigated. But surely this statement creates a tautology, for
are the words of the text up to this verse not words of Torah as
well? Are they not to be likened to kings as well as the verses
that follow? Furthermore, if they must be concealed, what is the
point in writing them?(4)
We may unravel this seemingly circular reasoning by
understanding the difference between God and kings. Of course,
God is also King, but until the culmination of the Creation He has
no subjects, and without subjects, the aspect of kingship exists
only as potential. As subjects of God, it is improper for man to
investigate the nature of God prior to the Kingship. It would be
impertinent for man to be filled with self-importance to the
extent that he believes that God needs him. On the other hand,
prior to the completion of the Creation, in man's absence, God is
certainly God, but arguably not "King".(5)
At the completion of the Creation, on the eve of the seventh day
when Adam sings Kabbalat Shabbat, the "glory of kings" can
begin.(6) It is at the point of the Shabbat that the demarcation
hovers. Prior to this point all must be concealed; from this point
onward we may investigate. The verses that follow the
completion of the Creation state:
"Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host
of them. And on the seventh day God ended His work which He
had made; and He rested on the seventh day from all His work
which He had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and
sanctified it; because on it He had rested from all His work which
God created and made." (2:1-3)
The moment after the completion of Creation is Shabbat,
Completion. Everything before this point seems to lead up to this
The verse that precedes this description is the description of the
sixth day:
"And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was
very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the
sixth day." (1:31)
While the other days are referred to as 'sheni, shlishi, etc.', the
sixth day is called yom hashishi - the sixth day, with an
emphasis on "the". The Talmud explains the term:
Hizkiyahu said: What is meant by, 'Thou didst cause sentence to
be heard from Heaven; The earth feared, and was tranquil'? If it
feared, why was it tranquil, and if it was tranquil, why did it
fear? At first it feared, yet subsequently it was tranquil. And why
did it fear? In accordance with Resh Lakish. For Resh Lakish
said: Why is it written, 'And there was evening and there was
morning, the sixth day'; What is the purpose of the additional
'the'? This teaches that the Holy One, blessed be He, stipulated
with the Works of Creation and said thereto, 'If Israel accepts
the Torah, you shall exist; but if not, I will turn you back into
emptiness and formlessness.' (Shabbath 88a)
6
The sixth day mentioned at the dawn of history is interrelated
with the other famous sixth day, the sixth of Sivan when the
Torah was revealed on the Mount. The entire purpose of
creation was this revelation, the acceptance of the Torah.(7)
There is also a linguistic relationship between the giving of the
Torah and the completion of Creation: After 40 days on Mount
Sinai the Torah refers to the completion of the Divine task:
"And He gave to Moses, when He finished talking with him upon
Mount Sinai, two tablets of Testimony, tablets of stone, written
by the finger of God." (Exodus 31:18)
The same term of completion - Vayechal - is used, though this
time as "cichalato", when He finished. The completion of
Creation is linked to the giving of the Torah, and the giving of
the Torah is linked to Creation.(8) The verses that precede this
section also relate to the same theme; the verses describe the
Shabbat:
"And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying: Speak you also to the
people of Israel, saying, Truly my sabbaths you shall keep; for it
is a sign between me and you throughout your generations; ...
Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of
rest, holy to the Lord; ... Therefore the people of Israel shall
keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their
generations, for an everlasting covenant. It is a sign between
me and the people of Israel forever; for in six days the Lord
made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and
was refreshed." (31:12-17)
The last verse prior to the giving of the Torah describes the
obligation to observe the Sabbath.
From man's perspective the purpose of the creation of the world
is to follow the Torah, to experience the Torah. The primary
manner which man may accomplish living a Torah life is the
adherence of the rules of Shabbat. This is the place where the
inquiry in the honor of kings may begin. The Talmud describes
the experience of the Sages of old in their preparation for the
Sabbath:
R. Hanina robed himself and stood at sunset of Sabbath eve
[and] exclaimed, 'Come and let us go forth to welcome the
queen Sabbath.' R. Jannai donned his robes, on Sabbath eve
and exclaimed, 'Come, O bride, Come, O bride!' (9)(Shabbat
119a)
The experience of Shabbat is the experience of kingship entering
the home.(10) The Rambam in his description of the
preparations which must be taken in anticipation of the arrival of
the Shabbat and its majesty, states that people must clothe
themselves in their finery and await the arrival as a person
would await the arrival of a king. (Laws of Shabbat 30:2)
Shabbat is the beginning of the "honor of kings is to search out
a matter". By virtue of keeping Shabbat a person should be able
to feel the kingship of God in their lives. The person who
searches for spirituality should begin with the Sabbath; inquiry
which transcends the Sabbath is inappropriate. It falls under the
rubric of "it is the glory of God to conceal a thing".
In Bereishit, the failure, and "fall" of man follow this section.
Adam and Eve seem to forget who is in fact King of the
universe. It is interesting, in Sh'mot after the completion of the
Torah, Moshe is told that the people are engaged in a perfidy of
unthinkable proportions. They are busy worshiping a Golden
Calf.
Throughout the generations people have searched for God, and
their investigations have often taken them far and wide. Yet the
Torah points to the exact place where the investigation should
begin: on Friday at sunset. As the Jew watches the sun sink into
the horizon, charged with feelings of awe in expectation of our
impending rendezvous with royalty, he, too, should break out in
song and greet the queen:
"Come and let us go forth to welcome the queen
Sabbath...Come, O bride, Come, O bride!" (Shabbat 119a)
NOTES
1. The Rambam in "The Guide for the Perplexed" follows this
understanding.
2. Rabbi Soloveitchik often made this observation. See "Before
Hashem You Shall be Purified" page 102 note i.
3. Likewise, the Mishna in Chagiga 2:1 limits the esoteric study
of creation to the few and initiated. The Talmud continues: "Nor
the work of creation in the presence of two." Whence [do we
infer] this? - For the Rabbis taught: For ask thou now of the
days past; one may inquire, but two may not inquire. One might
have thought that one may inquire concerning the pre-creation
period, therefore Scripture teaches: Since the day that God
7
created man upon the earth. One might have thought that one
may [also] not inquire concerning the six days of creation,
therefore Scripture teaches: The days past which were before
thee.
4. Rav Hutner in Pachad Yitzchak on Rosh Hashana, chapter
one, concluded that though we may not be able to fathom God
we can emulate God. The act of creation is an incredible act of
altruism, therefore on Rosh Hashana we should offer gifts to
others and thereby manifest our image of God. See the Book of
Nechemya chapter 8.
5. A very similar teaching is also attributed to the Vilna Gaon.
6. The Sfat Emet (Vayikra, Pesach 5654) points out that the first
time in the Torah that God is described as King is in the Shira -
the Song of the Sea. He cites a Midrash (which I did not find)
which states that Adam sang Lechu Neranina on that first Friday
(night?). The singing in this instance is related to the singing at
the sea: as the singing at the sea begins God's kingship, so does
the singing of Adam. In the opinion of the Sfat Emet this is the
"glory of kings" indicated in this Midrash. There is an opinion in
the Midrash that Adam did not sing any song to God. Midrash
Rabbah - Exodus 23:4 "Another explanation of 'Then sang
Moses': It is written, 'She opens her mouth with wisdom; and
the law of kindness is on her tongue' (Mishlei 31:26). From the
day God created the world until the Israelites stood near the
sea, no one save Israel sang unto God. He created Adam, yet he
did not utter Song". See however Midrash Rabbah - Bereishit
22:13, where it seems that Adam sang "A Psalm, a song for the
Sabbath day" (Ps. 92:1).
7. See Rashi's comments on this verse.
8. See Midrash Rabba 4:2 R. Hanina said: The fire came forth
from above and dried up the face of the firmament. When R.
Johanan came to the verse, By His breath [sc. fire] the Heavens
are smoothed-E.V. 'serene' (Job 26:13), he would say, ' R.
Hanina taught me well' R. Judan b. R. Simon said: 'fhe fire came
forth from above and burnished the face of the firmament. R.
Berekiah and R. Jacob b. R. Abina in R. Abba b. Kahana's name
said: The creation story was used [by the prophet] to throw light
upon Revelation, but was itself explained thereby.
9. It is interesting that Rashi interprets the word Vayichulu as
being associated with Kala bride.
10. See Sfat Emet Bishalach 5661.
MAYANOT
The Determinism of Free Will
by Rabbi Noson Weisz
The most important single creation described in Genesis is the
creation of the first human being. Most of the confusion in the
world stems from the fact that we human beings do not fully
comprehend the nature of this creation. This lack of
comprehension has allowed widely divergent opinions to flourish
even among serious students of human behavior.
One school of thought maintains that man is merely a very
complex animal; another that he is primarily a soul.
One school of thought maintains that man is merely a very
complex animal, a product of the evolutionary process, a
creature that managed to climb to the top of the philo-genetic
scale by dint of some type of primeval struggle. The details of
the theory of evolution keep changing constantly as each new
version is discovered to be scientifically faulty, but all the
versions fall under the umbrella of Darwin's original concept of
the "survival of the fittest."
The opposite school maintains that man is primarily a spiritual
being whose bodily component is his less significant part. Man's
mind is a unique phenomenon in the cosmos and could not
possibly have evolved from any lower life form. In this view man
is almost an alien to this planet. Indeed, it has been suggested
by more than one serious thinker that man is actually a space
colonist whose origins are to be found in another galaxy.
GOD'S POINT OF VIEW
It should surely be fascinating to explore what the Creator
Himself had to say about the subject.
A good way to begin the presentation of God's point of view is
with the following passage of Maimonides:
Every human being has control over himself. If he wants to push
himself towards the right path and become a tzaddik (holy man)
8
he is able to do so. If he wants to go down the wrong path and
be a rasha (evil man) he is able to do so. This is what the Torah
writes: Behold man has become like the Unique One among us
knowing good and bad: and now, lest he put forth his hand and
take from the Tree of Life and eat and live forever. (Genesis
3:22)
That is to say: This species man is unique in the universe and
there is no other creature like him in the respect of 1) being able
to determine what is right and what is wrong through the use of
his own thought processes without any outside guidance; and 2)
being able to do as he wishes without anyone being able to stop
him. Seeing that this is so, there is a distinct possibility that he
may choose to eat from the Tree of Life if he is left where he is
in Paradise; therefore God banished him. (Maimonides, Laws of
Repentance, 5,1)
(A careful reading of the text will reveal that the Garden of Eden
contained two special trees. The famous one is the Tree of
Knowledge of Good and Evil, whose forbidden fruit prompted the
commission of the first sin. The other special tree was the Tree
of Life (Genesis 3:22). The fruit of this tree was not originally
forbidden as Adam was created as an immortal anyway. But
after the edict of mortality was imposed on him following his sin,
God naturally did not want him to partake of its fruit and thus
reverse His edict.)
But surely, if God is able to banish man from Paradise then He is
equally able to prevent him from reaching out to eat from the
Tree of Life even if he were allowed to stay. What is the
conceptual difference between putting the Tree of Life out of
man's reach by banishing him from Paradise or leaving him
where he is but preventing him from reaching out to the Tree of
Life by force?
In answer, what Maimonides is telling us is that even God
cannot interfere directly with man's freedom of action. Such
interference would need to assume one of two forms:
1. God could program man's mind so that he is not tempted to
reach for the Tree of Life. This He cannot do, as man must be
capable of deciding on his own what is right and what is wrong.
Or,
2. God could forcibly restrain man from surrendering to his
temptation to partake of the Tree of Life. But God cannot do this
either, this sort of interference would also nullify man's free will.
The conclusion:
Nullifying man's free will amounts to destroying him, because
the ability to determine his own choices is not one of the facets
of man; it is his very essence.
Nullifying man's free will amounts to destroying him.
As God was not prepared to destroy man, He was forced to
transport him to an environment where he could be allowed the
fullest freedom of will and yet still not be able to eat from the
Tree of Life.
Thus, man's free will is his human essence according to the
Torah view. To be human is to be free to make up your own
mind and implement your decisions. A restriction on human
freedom is a negation of humanity itself.
Indeed, the first interaction between man and God described in
the Torah revolves around reward and punishment and the
consequences of making free will choices. The present state of
humanity and the universe it occupies is presented by the Torah
as the end result of man's losing the first battle with the Satan.
It is through our own act of choice that we were driven out of
Paradise and were condemned to a mortal existence. The Torah
emphasizes that man's mortality and his life of struggle and
travail was a matter of his own choosing. It was not the type of
existence imposed by God at creation.
DOES FREE WILL EXIST?
But does man really have free will?
A psychologist would offer the following argument:
In a sense man is free as there is no outside force compelling
him to make most of the choices that he makes. But this
freedom is an illusion. Every human being has a mind that is
infinitely more sophisticated than the most complex
supercomputer ever devised. Each mind is programmed in a
particular way by a mixture of heredity and early environment
that is unique to each individual human being. Heredity and
early environment are both factors that are clearly outside the
area of human choice.
This program contained in man's mind - that was formulated and
inscribed totally without man's choice - always tells man how to
optimize his possibilities whenever he is faced with a choice.
9
When a human being makes a choice, he is merely following this
optimal solution presented by his own personal program. As this
program is imposed on him, he really is compelled.
The psychologist might concede that it is possible to alter man's
program with the aid of proper conditioning.
The psychologist holding the above point of view might even
concede that it is possible to alter man's program with the aid of
proper conditioning. However this requires the will to undergo
such a regimen. If there is such a will to alter one's program, it
is by definition also built into the program itself. Even when he
decides to change, man is not acting out of free will.
Consequently, the psychologist concludes that free will is more
of a sensation than a reality. We all feel that we are choosing
freely as we are doing what we want, but what we want was
programmed into us by the evolutionary process and our own
early environment. The psychologist gets stuck as early as
Chapter 3 of Genesis when he attempts to read through the
Bible.
How can we meet this objection?
BODY VS. SOUL
Here is the way Rabbi Moshe Chaim Luzatto, a well known post
medieval Jewish thinker describes man in his work "Derech
Hashem":
God built man out of a mixture of opposites. On the one hand,
man is an earthy creature driven by his physical desires and
sensations just like any other animal. This aspect of man is
impermeable to spirituality and has a very self-centered
approach to every experience and relationship. The predominant
issue under consideration when making decisions for this aspect
of the human being is always whether this experience or
relationship will afford him pleasure or gratification.
On the other hand, God also gave man a soul. Man's soul is
totally uninterested in physical gratification and has no drive
toward self-interest. Its fondest wish is to become reunited with
its Divine origins and become part of the Infinite. It is this aspect
of man that finds pleasure and beauty in knowledge for its own
sake, and in selfless commitment to relationships with other
human beings and with God.
This dual aspect of man is described clearly in the Torah itself.
And the Lord God formed man out of the dust of the earth, and
He blew into him the soul of life; and man became a living
being. (Genesis 2:7)
Nachmanides, basing himself on Onkelos and other rabbinic
sources explains this verse thus:
God took a creature called Adam, who was created along with
the other higher animals on the sixth day, and who therefore
was already walking around in his present animal form, and He
blew into this humanoid the "soul of life," turning the humanoid
into the present day human being by adding a soul to his earthy
animal part. The soul is software in contrast to the body which is
man's hardware.
Thus each element of man contributes something positive to the
entirety. The sense of individuality is primarily based in the body,
while the ability to make selfless commitments and relationships
on the grounds of pure idealism is rooted in the soul. Luzatto
describes the union between the soul and the body as an eternal
bond; man is defined by this mixture of opposites. He can only
be human as long as he is possessed of both parts.
Remove his soul and man becomes an animal; remove his body
and man ceases to be an individual
Remove his soul and man becomes an animal; remove his body
and man ceases to be an individual.
The separation of soul and body that we are familiar with as
death is temporary in the eternal integrity of the human being; it
is a later development introduced to repair the damage inflicted
by the sin of the first human couple. (Just how death
accomplishes this repair is outside the scope of this discussion.)
Once the damage is repaired man will reassume the body-soul
format for eternity at the time of the resuscitation of the dead.
EXISTENTIAL CONFLICT
But this dual aspect of man, while basically positive, also places
him into a permanent and insoluble state of existential conflict;
the soul and the body each have mutually exclusive interests
and yet are condemned to be parts of a single integrated entity
through this shotgun marriage of opposites arranged by God.
Naturally each tries to sway man in its own direction. Foreseeing
this in advance God gave each the power to transform his
opposite.
10
The body can harness the soul into vastly enriching simple
physical experience and lending it a semi-spiritual aspect. For
example, a cultured individual will go to a high-class restaurant
to satisfy his physical craving for nourishment. He will look for
esthetic beauty in the furnishings and table implements, and a
spiritual ambiance in the atmosphere besides excellence in the
food, and thus vastly elevate the simple animal experience of
eating.
On the other hand, the soul can transform the body and render
it sensitive to spiritual experience thereby lending an aspect of
individuality and joy to an otherwise abstract and impersonal
experience. For example, the Torah requires that an observant
Jew should eat and drink well on the Sabbath and on Holy Days,
although the focus of such days is primarily spiritual, not
physical.
Which aspect of man will gain the ascendancy and transform the
other is the area allocated to man's free will and the object of
man's life in the physical world.
THREE ASPECTS OF SOUL
How does this work in practice?
Man's soul has three aspects to it - called nefesh, neshama, and
ruach - which function as follows:
The nefesh is man's physical life force and is attached to the
blood in his body.
Only be strong not to eat the blood - for the blood it is the soul
(nefesh) - and you shall not eat the soul (nefesh) with the meat.
(Deut. 12:23)
The commission of sins related to one's physical urges, such as
forbidden acts of intercourse, are attributed by the Torah to the
urgings of the nefesh. Thus at the end of Leviticus 18, the
chapter devoted to the definition of illicit sexual acts, the Torah
writes:
For if anyone commits these abominations, their souls (nefoshot)
will be cut off from among their people. (Leviticus 18:29)
Man's neshama refers to the part of man that originated in the
Divine breath blown into his nostrils described in Genesis 2:7
quoted above.
In between these two is man's ruach. It is man's ruach that is
the subject of the tug of war between his nefesh and his
neashama. It is in this part of the human being that the capacity
of choice is located.
If man chooses to respond to the tug of his neshama, his ruach
becomes aligned with the Divine breath of God within him,
pulling his nefesh along and the nefesh itself becomes
transformed into a spiritual entity.
On the other hand, if he chooses to follow the tug of his nefesh,
his ruach becomes aligned with it pulling as much of the
neshama along as it is able, transforming parts of the neshama
into a semi-physical entity in the process.
According to Luzatto, this process is ongoing as long as we are
alive. The fact that we are unable to observe these
transformations taking place as they actually happen in real time
is due to a Divine edict against their becoming manifest.
This decree was issued for two reasons:
1. to preserve the free will process; if we could directly observe
the consequences of our decisions as translated into
transformations of physicality to spirituality, or vice versa, it
would considerably hamper our freedom of choice;
2. to allow a situation where people in various stages of spiritual
development, who no longer resemble each other but still have
to interact, do so.
Nevertheless, apparent or not, each human being effects an
integration of body and soul that is unique to himself, reflecting
the results of the free will choices made during his lifetime. It is
this unique integration that determines the nature and quality of
every person's individual existence through the rest of eternity.
In a very palpable sense each of us is the direct product of his or
her choices.
TUG OF WAR
But just as the results of this tug of war are different for every
person, the actual struggle is different as well.
For example, for a person that was brought up Orthodox,
Sabbath observance is not a subject for inner conflict. For such a
person, to consciously violate the Sabbath laws would be an
anxiety-laden experience. On the other hand, for the non-
Orthodox person who is contemplating the adoption of an
11
observant life, Sabbath observance could be a major stumbling
block. Accepting all the restrictions imposed by the Sabbath laws
is often a major obstacle.
The same holds true for character traits. For the person who
was given a generous nature by his genes and early
conditioning, the prospect of sharing his possessions with others
presents no conflict. For the person who was not programmed
for the trait of generosity, sharing is extremely difficult and
always involves some inner conflict.
In the tug of war between the nefesh and the neshama each
person holds at a different point - the point of choice.
In the tug of war between the nefesh and the neshama each
person is holding at a different point. Rabbi Dessler referred to
this point as his "point of choice." This point of choice is the only
point of conflict. Whatever is too far behind this point towards
the nefesh is no longer tempting. Whatever is too far beyond
this point towards the neshama is not yet attractive enough to
be attainable. We move this point forward or backward
according to the choices we make in true free will situations,
situations of genuine conflict.
This means that the psychologists are partially correct. While it is
true that every thing that happens to us is meant to further our
spiritual growth, most of the events of our lives do not challenge
this point of choice, and for the most part we follow our
programs.
However, every person that manages to move his point of choice
- so that situations that were conflict-ridden in his past are no
longer - has altered the balance in the tug of war between his
nefesh and his neshama in the favor of one side or the other.
The amount that one alters this balance defines who one is and
how one views reward and punishment.
Looking back at our example, if the person who was
contemplating becoming Orthodox goes ahead with it and
Sabbath observance eventually becomes a matter of routine for
him, he is rewarded for his Sabbath observance even after it
becomes a matter of course. Similarly, the person who practices
generosity out of conflict until he turns into a generous person
will be rewarded for all his acts of generosity for the rest of his
life. The loss of free will that results from winning the tug of war
with the nefesh is the reward he has earned through the
exercise of free will.
Needless to say, although all our mitzvot earn us reward, as,
strictly speaking, we are theoretically able to overcome our inner
programs, our greatest spiritual uplift is always in the area that
we have mapped out through our own choices. In terms of our
example, the person who was raised Orthodox will never be able
to find the same spiritual inspiration in Sabbath observance as
the person who turned it into routine by winning his conflict. For
the latter, Sabbath will always provide great spiritual inspiration
no matter how routine its observance becomes. Our areas of
inspiration are always located in the same place as our former
conflicts.
The aim of free will is to lose it!
The object of transformation is to become changed people who
have grown past the tug of war. True victory in the tug of war
with the nefesh turns the entire human being into a neshama.
Such victory is the only way to find true inner peace.
What’s Bothering Rashi?
by Avigdor Bonchek
We begin a new Torah reading cycle this week (immediately
after Simchas Torah) and with it new opportunities to discover
the wonders of God's Torah.
We read about Cain killing his brother Abel, mankind's first
homicide, which was the first fratricide. (This implies that all
murder in history is in actuality fratricide since all men are
brothers.)
Genesis 4:9
"And God said to Cain 'Where is Abel, your brother?' "
RASHI
Where is Abel, your brother? - RASHI: For the purpose of
engaging him in calm conversation, so that he might repent and
say, "I killed him and have sinned to You."
What would you ask on this comment?
Your Question:
12
QUESTIONING RASHI
A Question: Why the need for this comment? Why does Rashi
assume that God "just wanted to make conversation"?
What's bothering him?
Your Answer:
WHAT IS BOTHERING RASHI?
An Answer: Certainly Rashi cannot accept the idea that God
must ask Cain where his brother is. Hashem is Omniscient,
meaning He is all-knowing; nothing is hidden from His
perception. So why the need to ask of Abel's whereabouts - He
surely knew the answer.
This is the reason Rashi offers a different explanation for God's
question ? to engage Cain in conversation, so that maybe he'll
have thoughts to do tesheuva.
The explanation is clear and in and of itself presents no problem.
But when we compare it to another Rashi-comment, we do have
a problem.
See an earlier Rashi (3:9) on the verse:
"And Hashem called to Adam and said to him, 'Where are you?' "
We have the same question here. Certainly God knew Adam was
hiding. Why did He ask? Rashi says the following on that verse:
Where are you? - Rashi: He (God) knew where he was. It was
only to engage him in conversation so that he would not be too
bewildered to respond if He were to punish him suddenly. So
likewise regarding Cain, He said to him "Where is your brother,
Abel?" So, too, in the case of Bilaam (Numbers 22:9) [He said]
"Who are these men with you?" to engage them in conversation.
Rashi cites the case of Bilaam in Numbers 22:9, who was asked
by Balak, the king of Moav, to curse the Jewish People. He sent
a delegation to Bilaam for this purpose. When the men came,
God asks Bilaam: "Who are these men with you?"
Again we have a case where Hashem asks a question, the
answer of which he already knew. Rashi there comments:
Who are these men with you? - Rashi: [God gave him a chance]
to err. He (Bilaam) could assume (because of God's question)
that all is not known to Him.

QUESTIONING RASHI

The question is obvious. Here in Numbers, Rashi says the

purpose of God's question was to mislead Bilaam. Whereas in
our Parsha, Rashi says it was only "to engage him in
conversation." We would also ask: Why was Cain dealt kindly by
God and encouraged to repent, while Bilaam was "lead to err" by
God?

Can you think of an answer?

Your Answer:

UNDERSTANDING RASHI

An Answer: The commentaries on Rashi explain that in all cases

Rashi cites the purpose of God's question was "to engage the
person in conversation" and certainly not to obtain information
that God needed. So both in the cases of Cain and Bilaam, the
purpose of God's question was to start a conversation. But the
purpose of these two conversations was different. In Cain's case
it was to allow him to do teshuva while in Bilaam's case it was to
cause him to err.

Of course we still have the question: Why the opposite purposes

of God's questions, one to lead to teshuva and one to lead to
sin?

A POSSIBLE ANSWER

Cain had in fact sinned, he had already killed his brother, so

there was need to do teshuva. But Bilaam had not yet sinned so
there was no need to do teshuva, yet. But we must ask: Wht did
God want him to err and curse the Jews?

The answer, I think, is that cursing the Jews was in no way

harmful, because God had other plans. God in fact wanted this
curse to take place ? or at least Bilaam's attempt to curse. This
was to show Israel and the world how Hashem protects His
People. God wanted Bilaam to err to have this historical incident
take place. It would be a lesson for all time - a lesson as to how
the plans of Israel's enemies will be stymied by their Protector,
Hashem.

13