Akeidat Yitzchak

Sefaria · Jewish Thought > Rishonim · 1,212 sections

_.5.1.7
Moreover, the description of the creation of man being "in the image of G-d" clearly supports our view that man is the crowning glory of G-d’s handiwork, is of central significance. The statement in Kohelet 3,21 that the "spirit of man returns to the celestial regions" clearly shows that man is composed at least partially of something at least as close to G-d as the earliest disembodied intelligence He had created.
_.5.1.8
Even angels, though in some ways superior to man, inasmuch as G-d employs them to convey messages to man to protect him or execute retribution on G-d’s behalf, are clearly defined as servants of the Lord whose function it is to assure the well being of man. It is similar to the sheep being more important than the shepherd, since the latter owes his existence or vocation to the existence of the former. This line of reasoning has its limitations, as it would reduce the value of the teacher vis a vis the student and that of the prophet vis a vis the nation. Clearly then the subordinate position of the shepherd stems from his allotted task. The same applies to the position of the teacher or prophet. From the point of view of personal characteristics, the shepherd, being a human being, clearly possesses superior faculties to those of the sheep entrusted to his care. Similarly, the teacher possesses faculties superior to those of his students, and the prophet possesses faculties not shared by the other members of his nation. Angels do possess faculties which man is not privy to, and in that respect they are superior to man. On the other hand, all statements denigrating the worth of man refer only to his inferior physical shell, not to his comprehensive potential. We must also never lose sight of the fact that the entire universe was created primarily for the greater glory of G-d, and in this respect the angels, of course, possess tremendous worth, quite independent of their function in connection with man.
_.5.1.9
Bereshit Rabbah 8 tells that the Torah was created two thousand years prior to the universe. This means that until Abraham began to observe Torah laws, only a few people had walked with G-d, hence the real world did not start until then (approx. two thousand years after Adam was created). The years preceding the birth of Abraham are called tohu, empty. (Sanhedrin 97) Similarly, the statement of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish concerning Psalms 139,5 "You have created me first and last" means that I was first in Your planning, but last in execution. As the stage was prepared for man during the creation of the universe, so the history of mankind up until the time the Torah was given at Mount Sinai is the setting of the stage for a world in which Torah can reign supreme.
_.5.1.10
Rabbi Levy is quoted in Leviticus Rabbah 20 as saying "if the heel of man outshines the sun, will not his face outshine it even more?" This means that if the reward man receives as a result (eykev, heel) of using his free will for constructive purposes elevates him to a status exceeding that of the planets (which are performing G-d’s will in an involuntary manner), this is proof that man himself, i.e. "his face," the seat of his faculties, outranks the planets. An artist who fashions two plates, one for himself, the other for an outsider, will surely take greater pains with the plate he intends for himself. Similarly, G-d. Man who is to serve Him, was fashioned with more care than the sun which is merely to serve man and G-d’s other creatures. Planets do not require intelligence to carry out their functions. The duties of man however, are such that he requires intelligence as well as other faculties to carry them out, something the planets are not equipped with.
_.5.1.14
Problems in the text of this chapter: 1) Why does it state in chapter 2,4 "When they were being created" (if one ignores the Midrash on this)? 2) What do the toldot hashamayim, descendants of heaven, mentioned in that verse refer to? If it is a reference to the whole six-day cycle of creation, then the words "on the day G-d made them" is contradictory! If these words are connected with what follows, however, i.e. the state of vegetation prior to rainfall, i.e. that all vegetation is the direct result of rainfall, then the letter vav at the beginning of verse five does not make sense! 3) At any rate, why does the Torah report what went on before there had been any rain? Why was there a need for rain as long as man for whose sake the rain was needed had not yet been created? 4) If it did not rain because there was not yet anyone who needed the rain, i.e. man did not need to till the earth, why bother with the eyd, mist that rose from the ground? This all the more so since rain is the result of vapors that rise from the ground! 5) The customary use of the word terem suggests that something has been omitted, namely whatever went on before "terem.” Examples are Genesis 19,4, "Before they could lie down, the men of Sodom had already arrived," or Genesis 24,15, "Before he had finished talking, Rebeccah arrived." What is the meaning of the word in our verse? 6) The normal syntax would have required a sentence such as "Before there was rainfall no grass could grow on earth." Why does the Torah employ such a cumbersome syntax?
_.5.1.15
(1) The entire story begun here extends until the second report of the creation of man and his placement in gan eden. In this way, man is indeed the consequence of, i.e. the "descendant" of "heaven and earth." The Torah thus justifies the creation of vegetation-- though in suspended animation-- by the eventual appearance of man on the scene. This also explains why the word "earth" is mentioned at the end of the verse before the word "heaven." "Earth" is mentioned first since it was to serve as the center of man's activities, his home base, so to speak. The whole paragraph then is introduced by the statement "These were the results of heaven and earth, which G-d had planned for since the day He first created earth and heaven." Although vegetation did indeed exist, it did not function normally until the "descendants," i.e. man was around to benefit therefrom. For why would G-d cause rain to fall as long as there was as yet no man to toil the earth?" (2) The Torah then makes the point that man is a creature combining all four basic elements in his composition. On the one hand this makes him mortal, since such combinations cannot endure forever, on the other hand he has been endowed with the essence of immortality via his soul. The mist which rose from the earth served to combine fire, water and wind when it settles on the earth. Thus it combines with the fourth basic element, earth. When man was formed, this fusion with earth from which he had been formed had already been achieved. The personal involvement of G-d expressed by "Let Us make man" is what imbued man with the potential of everlasting life. Our sages have interpreted the use of the letter yud twice in the word vayyitzer, He fashioned, as referring to two creations of man, the finite (mortal) and the potentially infinite (immortal). From this point onwards, the Torah deals with the purpose of creation. (3-6) Because of the centrality of man in G-d’s plans, all the means necessary to achieve the end have been listed prior to the main event of creation, that of the making of Adam.
_.5.1.16
The remarks of the Midrash quoted at the outset, do not refer to what is permissible to investigate and what is not. Proof of that is that "hiding" and "examining" are not opposites. Only "hiding" and "revealing" would be opposites. The sages also say that details of what went on in the garden of Eden, such as the nature of the tree of knowledge, will never be revealed. If so, then the element of "hidden" continues to exist beyond the point of the story chosen by the Midrash as the watershed in the story of creation. It is our view then that the meaning of the Midrash is thus. Until we read about the creation of man, the whole story of creation remains a mystery from the point of view of its purpose. Only when we hear about the creation of man, can we begin to unravel the purpose for which G-d had made all the preceding efforts. From this point on, and with the additions provided, the researcher can penetrate into G-d’s motivation right from the onset of the story.
_.6.1.2
HE BLEW IN HIS NOSTRILS A LIVING SOUL.
_.6.1.3
The Talmud Berachot 10 quotes a line from the famous chapter of eyshet chayil, the woman of valor, from Proverbs Chapter 31. It says there, "She opened her mouth with wisdom, and the Torah of loving kindness was on her tongue." Is there then a Torah that is NOT loving kindness? This refers to Solomon's father David, who dwelled in five worlds and recited shirah, hymns of praise. He dwelled in the womb of his mother and said shirah since it is written in Psalms 103,1, "My soul, bless the Lord and all my insides proclaim His holiness!" When he saw the light of the world, the stars etc. he proclaimed a hymn of praise saying, "Blessed be the Lord and all His hosts." When he suckled at his mother's breast, he composed a hymn saying, "May my soul bless the Lord and not forget to thank Him for all His kindness" (Psalms 103,2). He referred to the placing of the teats near the source of binah, understanding- the heart. Rabbi Abahu says this means that a woman's teats are not near the genitals, like those of the animals, and that therefore there is no need to look at the genitals when being nursed. Rabbi Yehudah says that the meaning is that the teats are not near the source of human excrement. When David saw the downfall of the wicked, he said shirah as we read "May all sinners perish from the earth" (Psalms 104,35). When he beheld the day of death, he said shirah as it says, "May my soul bless the Lord, You are very great" (Psalms 104,1).
_.6.1.4
Lack of motivation results ultimately in inertia. When David illegally ordered the Jewish people counted, and Yoav could see no reason for it, he carried carelessly, failing to count the tribes of Levi and Benjamin (Samuel II 24 and Chronicles 121). Even the tribes he did count, were not reliably tabulated. Had the people known that the war by Saul against Amalek did not have plunder as its objective but had been waged purely at the command of G-d, the tragedy of Saul would have been averted (Samuel I chapter 15). If we observe the larger planets move very slowly, this may be because they are not aware of their destination and ultimate objective. Philosophers are agreed that the greater one's intelligence, the better one appreciates the distance between one's own intelligence and that of one's Creator. The less intelligent deem themselves close to G-d, whereas the most intelligent beings realize the tremendous gulf between their own intelligence and that of G-d. This is why when angels praise the Lord, they are said to refer to Him in the third person, i.e. "blessed be the glory of His Majesty," whereas we humans address G-d in the second person, i.e. "blessed are You." The ultimate objective of our knowledge is to know the limit imposed upon our knowledge and understanding. Moses was told (Exodus 33,20) "You cannot see My face." If one presupposes that heavenly bodies are equipped with intelligence, then the large ones—which are presumably equipped with the highest intelligence because of their awareness of the limits of their intellects—lose motivation and revolve slowly. On the other hand, those stars and lesser intellects which are under the illusion that theirs is a great mind keep racing around the universe in order to achieve what they believe to be their purpose.
_.6.1.5
Since only clear awareness of one's purpose results in the motivation of that particular creature to attain its destiny, the purpose of man's creation needs to be clearly demonstrated. Even the best of men such as Job, when in doubt about the purpose of his life, will either negate life when it becomes too frustrating, or live a life of sin and self indulgence. As long as survival of the soul after the death of the body is not certain, the motivation to act in a certain way in this life is quite weak.
_.6.1.6
As believing Jews, we have no problem believing in resurrection of the body and survival of the soul, since the Torah is full of threats of the opposite happening as penalty for transgression of numerous commandments. If the hereafter does not exist, and there is an end to existence when the body dies, none of these warnings would have the slightest value as a deterrent to sin. In fact, if physical death were final, it is hard to understand why G-d bothered to create life, since He would then have decreed in advance that His handiwork would not endure. The Talmud would be quite right in assessing "It is easier for man had he never seen the light of day" (Eyruvin 13). The souls would have been far better off had they remained in the celestial regions, since fusion with a body would condemn them to death and destruction. If one assumes that all souls originate from either one of two pools, i.e. 1) the pool containing the gentile souls, and 2) the pool containing the ones intended for Jews, this would mean that the former never have a chance to find a body that could preserve their purity. If, on the other hand, all souls come from a single pool, then how can pure souls be condemned to inhabit bodies that will drag them to death and disintegration? Similarly, the question of souls forced to inhabit female bodies instead of male bodies etc. Also, even assuming that the Jews get all their souls from the same pool, a major act of discrimination against the gentiles, why are some souls forced into females i.e. the weaker of the species, making it vastly more difficult to achieve the perfection they need to attain to ensure their eventual immortality (why else are women absolved from the performance of some commandments if not for considerations of this nature)?
_.6.1.7
These are but a few of the problems that trouble theologians and philosophers concerning the term neshamah, soul. The subject is swept under the rug for fear that it would produce mass desertions from (organized) religion. Job expressed his intellectual anguish about this in the words "I am at an end, I do not know my soul, I despise my life" (Job 9,21). Silence on the subject only deepens doubts and frustration. Discussion is apt to lead others astray who had never been alert to the fact that a problem existed, due to the shallowness of their thinking. Uttering doubts to oneself only, maybe a means to find solutions without having a negative impact on others. David, who had wanted to know the date of his death, wanted to find out if his task on earth could be completed in the time span allotted to him. He who lives one day at a time, not knowing how much time he has to complete a project, surely must be in constant terror lest all his work be in vain.
_.6.1.10
The author concludes that nefesh, soul at birth—though superior as a life motivating force to all other living creatures, just as the human body is superior to all other living creatures—is something quite primitive. Through the life experience it develops into the kind of force that matures. "Free will" is part of the force that helps this "life force" mature and become the kind of disembodied spirit that survives the flesh at the time the body dies. "Nefesh-Ruach-Neshamah” are the way stations in the progress of this "life motivating force" of man towards the formation of the disembodied immortal personality. "Ruach hakodesh,” holy spirit, is not yet the level at which "nevu-ah," prophetic insights can be achieved. That stage is reached only by the "neshamah" stage in a person's development. If actual nevua-ah is denied such people, it is only because their contemporaries do not deserve to be the beneficiaries of such prophetic insights (Sukkah 21).
_.6.1.15
Our daily prayers reflect the fact that without the maturing process described, the nefesh is hardly special. "The advantage of man over beast is vanity," because "what are we and what does our whole life amount to?" All this is so because the additional nefesh man has in its original form does not yet qualify for life after death. Israel, as a nation, has acquired the automatic right to life after death. "Hail to you Israel, who is like you, a nation saved by the Lord?" (Deut 33,29, see commentary in chapter 44).
_.6.1.18
The five hymns of praise David sang on account of the five worlds he lived in, as described in our opening Midrash, refer to the following. 1) Being a creature born by woman of material that came into existence by a joint undertaking of G-d and Earth (nature), he gives thanks for his superiority to all other living creatures in the creation of which G-d was only marginally involved. 2) Once having seen the light of the world, man who faces the sky, stars etc. is superior to the beasts whose eyes are trained only towards the ground, the earth. Man learns to appreciate the works of G-d through his upright posture. 3) The third world, though metaphorically described as "suckling on his mother's breasts," refers to the study of the Torah. If the Midrash had referred to the actual breast of the mother, then that stage should have been mentioned as phase two in man's development, not as phase three. 4) The fourth world is the experience of seeing the wicked receive their deserts. 5) The fifth world is the day of death; it is the realization that death of the body does not represent the disintegration of one's personality. For all these insights David sang hymns, praises to the Lord. This, then, is what Solomon referred to when he said, "She opened her mouth with wisdom, and the Torah of kindness is on her tongue" (Proverbs 31,26). The verse "The Lord fashioned man, dust from the earth, and blew a soul of life into his nostrils, whereupon man became a living creature" (Genesis 2,7) describes the entire process of how man was created as matter. The "soul" is something which is at first a neutral force, later on a force with certain characteristics.
_.6.1.19
G-d personally shaped the physical part, did not leave it to nature. That is why the Torah says "He fashioned," not as in other cases "Let the earth produce!" (Genesis 1,20 or 1,24). The word vayipach, He blew, refers to the original form, not to a self-supporting entity. Compare Genesis 7,22, "All who had the spirit of life in their nostrils, perished." Man then-- by his own efforts, not by having something blown into him by G-d-- completes the process of becoming a proper human being, converting potential achievements into actual accomplishments. The process is somewhat similar to the artist who makes a wax candle. He shapes the inert wax, inserts a wick (vegetable matter). Then along comes a man to light it and to illuminate the area around him, thus giving the candle its purpose.
_.7.1.2
"He planted a garden in Eden to the East."
_.7.1.3
The Zohar in Parshat Beha-alotcha, quotes Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai, "Woe to the person who says that the Torah is just telling us stories, matters of mundane significance only etc."
_.7.1.5
The stories told in the Torah, while true, do not constitute the entire teaching their text is meant to convey. One needs to be endowed with an understanding heart in order to penetrate via the story to the more profound teachings the Torah conveys by means of it. The Jewish people have been so endowed, as is pointed out by the Midrash above, from which we have quoted only a brief excerpt. We are thus able to unravel the hidden meanings which lie beyond the superficial aspects relayed in the story. The story of the garden of Eden is a case in point. One must not make the mistake of relegating the vehicle, i.e. the story, to insignificance just because it has been the carrier of more profound insights. Just as he who has intimate knowledge of the body does not deny or ignore the clothing the body is wrapped in, so the student of Torah must not ignore the plain meaning of the story. This is so regardless of the fact that the immediate interest in the story has long since been exhausted. Moses warns the people (Deut. 32,46) not to think that the Torah is only a garment for deeper truths. "Take to heart all the words with which I have warned you this day. Enjoin them upon your children that they may observe faithfully all the terms of this teaching...for it is not a vain thing." The essential difference between all other writings and Torah is that the other writings are either to be taken at face value or are only to be judged by the message hidden in the text; the text itself becoming insignificant. Not so Torah. Both the text and what is hinted at are relevant. Although in ancient times, as per statements recorded in the Talmud (Chagigah 11), matters such as the story of creation were taught only on an individual basis from teacher to pupil, our situation has long since deteriorated to the point that many Torah sages, in accordance with the principle "When it is time to act on G-d’s behalf, fracture your Torah" (Psalms 119,26), have seen fit to write at length about these subjects. We therefore feel justified in adding our own comments about this subject.
_.7.1.6
No doubt, as stated by Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai, G-d had planted the garden prior to man's creation (meaning of the word mikedem, "since before") at the hub of the earth, a place where all the positive influences converge and enable the successful growth of all the finest fruit. The concentration of all this excellent fruit would prove to Adam that the whole earth could support such bounty of nature. "Eden” expresses the totality of the earth since ancient times. G-d placed man in the garden, i.e. a miniature of the globe, to make him aware of the nature of the earth, his place and task on it. Since this universe was created for the sake of man, he needed to become aware how he could preserve it. Man's physical parts are really two, as explained in chapter six. (1) G-d created man dust from the earth; (2) He blew a breath of life into his nostrils, completing the process of creating his body. Only then could man become a living creature. Given the matter supplied by G-d, as distinct from the animal kingdom which had been produced by earth, i.e. nature, the life force supplied by mother earth differs materially from the life force supplied by G-d directly. The trees whose function it was to supply man's need for nourishment, were part of the equipment of the garden. All the things necessary for man are mentioned under the heading "pleasant to look at, good to eat," i.e. good as food. G-d made them grow out of the earth since they represented the needs of that part of man that had been fashioned from the dust of the earth. Of the other two trees (tree of life and tree of knowledge), no mention is made as to how they came into existence. They corresponded to man's intellectual and spiritual needs. The tree of life in particular had been designed to assure man's immortality by feeding his intellect so that it could attain independent and enduring existence. Its position in the center of the garden emphasizes that man's entire existence should revolve around what this tree symbolizes. Since matan Torah, the revelation at Mount Sinai, its place has been taken by Torah. Torah is described frequently as our source of life. Next to it was the tree of knowledge, representing practical rather than speculative reason, appealing to expediency, immediate gratification etc. The tree of knowledge was to practical reason what the tree of life was to speculative reason. Its position near the tree of life was to point out that everything it stood for should be placed in the service of the tree of life.
_.7.1.16
There are three levels of knowledge of good and evil. 1) Complete comprehension; 2) Completely erroneous conclusions; 3) A mixture of the previous two. Anyone who falls into category two is like a beast, not knowing left from right. Such people are pere, wild, unbridled, not Adam. Compare Deut. 1,39, "And your children who do not know this day either good or evil." Category One is he who knows correctly he is nolad betzelem, born in G-d’s image, as G-d Himself has testified, "Here man has become like one of Us" (Genesis 3,22). Category Three, i.e. those who have only partial understanding, confused knowledge, are the people who delve into the source of knowledge, making research an end in itself, as did the builders of the tower of Babel. This category comprises most of the human species. The tree of knowledge, though adjacent to the tree of life, was also close to all the other trees. The observer of the scene in the garden of Eden had three choices then. He could ignore the tree completely, and be termed sub-human. Or, he could notice it and all its attractive features, gain valuable insights through smelling it, touching it, and maybe even tasting it, though not eating its fruit. The result would be G-d like appreciation of good and evil. However, the exclusive preoccupation with it called "eating," consuming it while being consumed by its charm, was forbidden and would result in mortality, abandoning oneself to the material, physical. We find in halachah, Jewish law, that whenever "eating" is forbidden, tasting may be permissible, since the principle is that tasting is not something of substance (Berachot 14). The deep involvement in eating from that tree produces as a corollary the result that such a person is no longer receptive to the purely spiritual/ intellectual such as represented by the tree of life. Thus one loses one's anchor in the "higher" world (called by our sages chut shel chessed). What happened to Adam when he abused the tree of knowledge is similar to what happened to King Saul after his failure to kill Agag king of Amalek, when hashgachah peratit, G-d’s Personal Providence, was withdrawn, and His kingdom was no longer considered G-d’s kingdom. When Isaac had said to Esau, "Whenever he (Jacob) will reject the yoke of the Torah, you (Esau) will break the bond" (Genesis 27,40), he also referred to the fact that G-d would then withdraw His hashgachah peratit from the people of Israel. Israel's descent to Egypt, a result of what the brothers had done to Joseph, or the survivors of the generation of spies in the desert, are all examples of the results of failures similar to what had occurred in the garden of Eden. “Mot-Tamut," you will surely die. The tragedy, according to Bereshit Rabbah 16, was that the mortality incurred by Adam was automatically conferred upon his entire offspring, i.e. upon the entire human species. This is the reason the word mot tamut is repeated. All the other trees, the tree of life excepted, contained life's necessities, therefore eating from those trees was permitted.
_.7.1.17
When all the trees are described as "pleasant to look at and good to eat," the two physically oriented life forces are referred to. The chomer and nefesh, raw material and animalistic life-force, are sustained by the intake of the fruit from all these trees. The four rivers emanating from the garden represent four forces at the command of man. 1) the Pishon, the urge to understand the why, wherefore, where, and when of rainfall and similar phenomena. All of these natural phenomena are constant testimony to the glory of their Creator; 2) Gichon, symbolizes the ability to understand the earth, i.e. farming and food production; 3) Chidekel, represents the ability to reason clearly, logically, and thereby arrive at the underlying reasons for things. It is an analytical ability. Prophecy uses this ability to divine higher truths; 4) Perat, the Euphratus, is the force that enables theological reasoning, philosophy. Many people drink from the waters of this river, some become enlightened by it, others intoxicated by it, are led astray spiritually.
_.8.1.2
G-D SAID, "IT IS NOT GOOD FOR MAN TO BE ALONE."
_.8.1.3
We read in Sotah 2, Rabbi Samuel said that whenever Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish opened the tractate of Sotah, he would say that marriages are arranged for a person by heaven, and that each party is assigned a partner that is appropriate for what he or she deserves based on their deeds. It is written (Psalms 125,3), "The scepter of the wicked will never rest on the land allotted to the righteous." Rabbi bar Chanah said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan, "Arranging such marriages is as difficult as splitting the sea of reeds, since it is written "G-d makes the solitary settle in a house. He leads forth the ones chained in their bonds; read instead "like leading forth" (Psalms 68,7). This is however not so, since Rabbi Yehudah has said in the name of Rav that forty days before the development of the fetus, a heavenly voice announces that the daughter of X will become the wife of Y. The Talmud continues that we do not have a contradiction here. The first statement refers to the first zivvug, matching up, whereas the second statement refers to the second zivvug, matching up.
_.8.1.4
It is customary to compare the unknown to the known in order to better understand the unknown. G-d is referred to in scripture as possessing limbs, although He is purely spiritual, in order to make some of His actions more comprehensible. "As a shepherd leads a flock" (Isaiah 40,11), or "Your heavens are the work of Your fingers" (Psalms 8,4). Rabbi Yudan stated, "Great is the power of the prophets who have described the power of the Almighty in human terms, as it is said in Daniel 8,16, "I heard a human voice" (a voice sounding like the voice of man). The right to describe the creation of man as a fusion of dust and spirit, a joining of matter and form, is also based on such considerations. The known is described in order to make it easier to understand the unknown or the less well known.
_.8.1.13
When the voice from the celestial regions announces who will be married to whom in the future, the reference is to the basic compatibility of man and woman based on the endowments they have come been born with. It does not refer to accomplishments of either party since they have been born, prior to their being married. The latter is called "the second mating." Since matching two people on the basis of their respective accomplishments is a monumental task requiring supernatural insights, and there is also the difficulty of ensuring that they meet, it is described as not unlike the miracle of splitting the sea. Were this not so, one would have to assume that all man's endeavors are in vain, his prayers totally ineffective etc., everything in life preordained. The experiences of our ancestors are very illuminating in this context. Our Parshah reflects both kinds of "shiduchim," matches. More about all this in chapter 22.
_.8.1.14
Some problems in the text of our story requiring analysis:
_.8.1.15
1) What is so special about Adam needing a mate? How else could he procreate and maintain the continuity of his species?
_.8.1.16
2) Why was it necessary to create woman from a part of man, not as a separate creation such as Adam had been?
_.8.1.17
3) How does the ability to call the animals by their appropriate names affect the issue?
_.8.1.18
4) Why did the Torah have to tell us that Adam did not find a suitable mate for himself amongst the animals? What could be more obvious?
_.8.1.19
5) Why is the expression vayiven, He built, used when making Eve, instead of the expression vayyitzer, He fashioned, which had been used when Adam was formed?
_.8.1.20
6) When Adam said "this time it is bone of my bone," it sounds as if there had been a previous time when it had not been like that.
_.8.1.21
7) Why was Eve called ishah from ish and not adamah from Adam?
_.8.1.22
8) How can we prove from here that the world was created using Hebrew as the original language of man? How do we know that our holy scriptures are not a translation from some other language?
_.8.1.23
9) Why would man follow his wife, and not prefer the natural, genetic bond with his father, seeing that they are both made of the same material?
_.8.1.24
10) Why is unabashed nudity reported as something praiseworthy rather than the reverse?
_.8.2.3
Some philosophers thought that true love can exist only between opposites. Dry earth requires and longs for water, moisture. Water laden skies, clouds, need to empty themselves on earth. On the other hand, all craftsmen are jealous of one another. Aristotle on the other hand holds that likes are attracted to each other. Starlings keep company with ravens as they are of a kind (Chullin 65). Since G-d is neither similar to man nor totally his opposite, some hold that a love relationship with G-d is impossible. But the prophet Maleachi 1,2 says, "G-d says I have loved you Israel, and I have hated Esau... How can you question this?" (based on the premise that I am neither like you nor your exact opposite. More about this in chapter 90). The fact that two brothers (Jacob and Esau), who by nature should be similar, are treated so differently, proves that character traits rather than genetic affinity, i.e. outwardly similar human beings, determine between whom love occurs. Love has positive and negative aspects. Inasmuch as even trees have been compared to humans, especially fruit-bearing trees, their destruction has been prohibited (Deut. 20,19). Animals which share even more with human beings than trees, seeing that they are living creatures, must not be destroyed needlessly and must not be made to suffer even when their destruction is in order and serves a higher purpose (Baba Metzia 32). Examples are consumption by humans, which is restricted in the case of the mother animal and its young, which are not to be slaughtered on the same day. Mother birds must be dispatched before the newly hatched chicks may be taken. An animal needs to be at least eight days old before it may be slaughtered as a sacrifice to G-d, etc. Such considerations apply in even greater measure when dealing with fellow human beings, regardless of any formal agreements to that effect. Torah legislation, when dealing with the status of gentile slaves, is most specific in detailing the degree of concern that must be shown for the physical well being of such a slave. This mutual love for fellow human beings is observed in increasing measure when these humans are part of the same race or environment. The Torah emphasizes the positive aspects of love by commanding "Love your fellowman like yourself," i.e. when that fellowman is similar to yourself (Leviticus 19, 18). Love is not demanded for those utterly unlike you, such as animals etc. In fact, the feelings which we reserve for things or creatures unlike us is not love, but goodwill, pity etc. (see Psalms 102). We relate to the stones of Zion as something that we "want," not as something that we "love." The latter term would be a complete misnomer for phenomena not on our level. When Isaac asks Esau for "delicious dishes the way I "love" them" (Genesis 27,4), the term "love" does not describe the dishes, but the people whom he loves. He is saying to Esau, "When you do what I like....l will love you." Proof of this is found in the verse (Genesis 25,28) "Isaac loved Esau because he carried venison in his mouth." The term "love" cannot rightfully be applied even to parts of the body. Such parts become "nirtzah," appreciated, and may become the instrument through which their owner becomes "beloved." The term " ratzon," goodwill, appreciation, refers also to the parts of whole things which qualify for "love." For instance, Psalms 19, 15, "May the words of your mouth engender goodwill." The term "love" is reserved for the whole person. "Love the Lord your G-d;" "Love your fellowman like yourself,” i.e. identification with the other party is love. Such an identification is based on a complete appreciation of the other's qualities. This is what G-d describes when He said to Abraham, "Take your son, your only one, the one whom you love." (Genesis 22,2) Love cannot survive when one of the parties undergoes a drastic change either in moral or physical stature. Jonathan volunteered to become David's deputy, to enable his love for David to survive (Samuel I 23,17). For the appreciation of the foregoing, G-d required a covenant from the Jewish people, in order to maintain the love relationship that existed and to warn Israel that unless a mutuality of interests and the deeds arising from that mutuality of interests was maintained, the love relationship would disintegrate. The factors which were mutual, i.e. the common denominator between G-d and Israel, were Torah, Sanctuary (temple), and Priesthood. These factors were needed to ensure that by concentrating on them, both G-d and Israel would maintain their identity of purpose. When people try to upset this love relationship others have with G-d, it is like craftsmen who are jealous in their hearts of fellow craftsmen, seeing that we are all children of one father.
_.8.2.4
(2) Since in the animal kingdom the sole purpose of mating is the progeny, it was sufficient for the males and females of the species to have been created independently of one another. After all, their union had no purpose beyond the physical. Since man was to establish civilization and close co-operation between the males and the females would be necessary, it was deemed right to equip them with the maximum number of common characteristics, so that they would be able to identify with one another. (3) This is the meaning of "It is not good for humans to be separate," i.e. for the male and the female to have separate origins. Adam's helpmate therefore will be made in a way that will enable her to become his full partner in all his tasks. In chapter 2,19, the word " vayitzer" spelled with only one letter yud when the animals are being created, stresses the word "from the earth"; whatever was created from earth was without soul and when presented before man he could immediately understand that their very nature was merely nefesh chayah, living matter, but not spirit, no intellect. It remained for Adam only to distinguish individual differences and name them accordingly. Naturally, he found no mate among these creatures. (4+6) He was put to sleep in order a) to avoid the pain of the operation; b) so that the surprise when he awoke and found a mate would make him rejoice. This is one of the reasons our sages call someone who finds a wife as "having made a find." Adam found what he had missed so far, and had been hoping to find. Taking one of his own sides, created the strong chibbur, bond, that we have discussed as being the basis of mutual love. (5) The term binyan, building, emphasizes that not mere mechanics were involved. Just as the cabinet-maker who constructs a chair and a table of cedar wood, has fashioned cedar wood furniture, so the common denominator of Adam and Eve is the fact that both are humans. Therefore, they retain their original appellation. This means that Eve too is Adam in the sense that she too is human. (7) Adam emphasized that the primary bond with Eve was not sexual in nature, but a kindred spirit. Therefore, when naming her, the sexual aspect ("She is the mother of all living humans") was absent, and the overall human function of ish was emphasized as the predominating bond between them. The other name would have misrepresented the essence of the relationship. The absence of the letter yud in ishah pointedly avoids giving the impression that she is merely what parah, cow, is to par, bull. The former name being from the same root indicates simultaneous creation; isha being from a different root than ish, shows that woman was subsequent to Man, and that man has a certain precedence over her. This confirms that woman is man's helper, not vice versa. The words "taken from man" means "subsequent to him." (8) The fact that Adam employed a term for his wife which corresponds to the sound of the word ish, man, is proof that Hebrew was the language he spoke, since in almost all other languages the terms for "man" and "woman" respectively are entirely different both in spelling and in sound. (9) Because the physical relationship between man and wife is stronger than the mere reproduction of the genes between father and son, man abandons even his father's home to set up a new home with the wife he has chosen.
_.8.2.7
(10) Since Adam and Eve, when newly created, were fully grown, like twenty-year olds, perfect physical specimen, beautiful in all their parts, they had nothing to be ashamed of, nothing to hide. On the other hand, not having tasted from the fruit of the tree of knowledge as yet, awareness that their private parts were even more exposed than those of the animals due to their upright posture, had not yet reached them.
_.9.1.2
"THE SERPENT WAS THE SLYEST OF ALL THE BEASTS"
_.9.1.3
Bamidbar Rabbah 16 states that at the time Israel proclaimed, "We will do and we will hear," G-d brought the angel of death before Him and told him, "The whole world is within your power, except this nation which I have chosen for Myself," since G-d had advised that this nation should live forever, as it says, "And you who have cleaved to G-d are alive this day...” (Deut. 4,4). Also, concerning the Divinely inscribed tablets, the verse states that the writing was the writing of the LORD, "free" on the tablets (Exodus 32,16). "Do not read engraved on the tablets, i.e. charut, but cheyrut, free, i.e. free from the authority of the angel of death, free from subjugation, from suffering. When Israel sinned, due to the advice of the spies, G-d said to them, "You have destroyed all My intentions. I had said you should live indefinitely like Myself, but you have shown a desire for death." This is the meaning of Psalms 82,6, "I have said you are divine, of superior descent, but alas you are like Adam, whom I commanded one commandment in order that he should merit eternal life." This is proven by the statement in the Torah "Here man has become like one of Us." Yet man corrupted his actions and nullified My decision, ate from the tree so that I said to him, "You are dust and to dust you shall return."
_.9.1.4
Aristotle, in his Ethics describes the difference between animalistic life and human life as the difference between life governed wholly by the senses and life governed by a combination of the senses and the intellect. The former, being governed wholly by his senses, may, when hungry, eat something poisonous because its sense of hunger dominates it. Man, when in possession of his intellect, would first examine the food to ensure it is wholesome. When man ignores his intellect, he becomes beast-like, a slave to his instincts. Such surrender to his senses hastens his ultimate destiny, death. When the mating urge overcomes an animal, it will mate with the first available mate, irrespective of compatibility. Humans, when guided by their intellects, would display circumspection when choosing mates as life partners.
_.9.1.5
Some problems in the text of our story: 1) Why does the Torah tell us that the serpent was smarter than "any other beast," when in fact it seems to have outsmarted even the two human beings? 2) What prompted the serpent to commence its dialogue with Eve with the words "did G-d indeed forbid?" 3) The Torah says, "The woman saw that the tree was good to eat;" how can one "see" if something is good to eat? One can only taste it! 4) Why does the Torah say, "They saw that they were naked?" We would have expected something along the lines of "They were ashamed that they were naked," seeing that they had previously been described as being unashamed of their nudity. 5) Since they had made themselves belts to conceal their private parts, what cause was there to feel ashamed? 6) Why was G-d angry at the acquisition of a feeling of shame? Is this not a feeling that everyone should know? 7) Why was each of the three parties involved cursed in a different manner? 8) How is the name Chavah symbolic of woman's major function? 9) Why did G-d not provide man with a leather coat, if that is the proper attire for man? 10) Why is the word or spelled with the letter aleph meaning "light" in Rabbi Meir's version of the Torah, instead of with the letter ayin meaning "skin?"
_.9.1.6
(1+2) The Torah describes the serpent as possessing natural slyness, as if this represented the link between beasts and man in intellectual capacity. The serpent, governed by jealousy, wanted to create a rift between Adam and Eve. The verse commencing with the words "Did G-d really say that you must not eat from any of the trees of the garden etc.?" can be explained in that Eve, as is the custom of women, interrupted the serpent in mid-sentence. Later, the serpent had a chance to finish the sentence by adding "and not to touch it. You will not die." The words "and not to touch it," were added gratuitously in order to prepare the ground for the argument that since touching the tree did not cause death, neither would eating from it. The serpent had hoped to trip Eve into interrupting once more, so that it could prove that touching the tree did not cause death. (3) The argument in favor of eating from the tree ran thus. If the fruit of the tree causes excessive preoccupation with eating, the same applies, at least cumulatively, to all the other good trees whose fruit is permitted. If the fruit of that tree causes excessive urges of a sensual nature due to its visual allure, why are all the other trees that are also visually alluring permitted? There remained only the appeal of the tree to the intellect to be dealt with before objection to eating from it would be disregarded totally. It was argued that intelligence is something positive, constructive. If by eating from the fruit of that tree, additional intelligence would be acquired, how could such an opportunity be passed up?
_.9.1.7
So, "SHE TOOK FROM THE TREE AND ATE." The Torah describes two considerations as having won out. 1) The external appearance of the tree was made the yardstick of what is good and what is evil. 2) The prospect of immediate pleasure outweighed the fear of the eventual harm. "Their eyes were opened and they were naked." This does not describe their embarrassment, which would not have been objectionable, and would have been the result of their having enjoyed the fruit of that tree. The awareness was a form of knowledge that they needed to maintain their image. In order to do this, expensive trimmings for one's exterior are required. They therefore quickly attempted to cover themselves so that they could prove themselves superior to the animals. (9) The Torah therefore does not state that they did this in order to cover their nakedness. This is also why no mention is made of their feeling ashamed when they heard the voice of G-d, only that they hid themselves out of fear, seeing that they had transgressed G-d’s commandment. Adam said "I heard Your voice and was afraid." To this G-d replied "who told you that you are naked?" (6) Had Adam and Eve eaten only from the trees whose fruit had been permitted, the feeling of shame would have necessitated covering only their private parts, would not have induced in them the feeling that they needed fancy clothing to prove their superior status. Only eating from the tree of knowledge could have accounted for that feeling. (7) Adam (man) added to his sin by blaming his wife, suggesting that because she had given him of the fruit, he had been bound to eat it. That is why G-d blamed him doubly now, saying 1) "Because you listened to your wife;" 2) "Because you ate." When our sages explain Psalms 69,32, "And this will please the Lord better than a bullock tossing its horns and showing its hooves," they say that this refers to the offering brought by Adam. The ox Adam offered had its horns protruding beyond his hooves. Split hooves are a sign of "purity" in an animal, and reconciliation with one's Maker is to be achieved by means of the sacrifice of a "pure animal" (or by words as described in Hoseah 14, who describes the bull as equivalent to lips). When such a reconciliation is attended by the claim that others are responsible for one's shortcomings, one distorts the concept of sacrifice. Adam did this by blaming his sin on his wife. Therefore, the Psalmist describes the signs of purity of his sacrificial bullock as having been obscured by its horns. Originally, the bull had only one horn, a sign of superior strength. It is the opinion of Rabbi Yehudah that a horned animal is more likely to gore, to cause damage. Therefore, it would have been most fitting symbolically to serve as the sin offering for Adam. Eve fell into the same trap as Adam by blaming the serpent for her sin. The serpent, being the last party involved in the episode, did not need to be asked by G-d. It was cursed by having its former superior height reduced till it became the lowliest creature, condemned to crawling on the ground. Since the serpent had tricked Eve into eating what held allure for the eye, it would henceforth subsist on a diet of things that looked like earth, i.e. held no allure for the eye. The ongoing enmity between man and the snake, with man seeking to smash the head of the snake, is another part of the curse decreed on the latter. Woman was cursed in matters specific to her function. When she fails to become pregnant right after marriage, both parties worry about her being barren. Her pain will be greater than that of man, since even when she bears children she is not certain of her husband's love. There is the discomfort of pregnancy and the pain of giving birth. Despite all this, man dominates her when it comes to marital relations. Since man was created first, and since the survival of the species depends on him (he is commanded to procreate, not she), she who was created later was clearly created for his benefit, and not vice versa. Woman's sex urge is therefore usually weaker than man's. As the Talmud says (Kidushin 2), "It is the way of a man to try and recover what he has lost (i.e. looking for a wife), it is not the way of the lost object (woman) to go looking for its owner." For this reason, man displays less embarrassment in matters relating to sex. Granted that the urge for physical contact is rooted in the animalistic within us, man nevertheless has the redeeming excuse that he needs to reproduce the species. Woman does not share this redeeming aspect of the sex urge. The comparison is similar to what Solomon has stated in Proverbs 6,31-32 when he compares people who steal because of need with people who steal because of greed. The curse upon man was greater, since as a direct product of G-d’s creative activity (He personally had equipped him with the soul of life), his conduct should have been on a far higher plane than even that of his wife. He was cursed in all "directions" of motion corresponding to the status of being a "living creature" par excellence which had been his prior to his sin. The four aspects of motion can be subsumed as defined by the answers to the questions 1) where to? 2) how? 3) how much? 4) motion itself. Scriptural references for the above are "Go for yourself from your country," i.e. "where to;" (Genesis 12,1). "He will keep going and cry" equals the "how"? (Psalms 126,6). "Continuing to grow in intensity," equals the "how much?" (Exodus 19,19). "Here I am going to die," equals the "motion itself," an example of when the very nature of the motion transforms the essence of the one who is in motion (Genesis 25,32). G-d said, "Because you listened to your wife" 1) "The earth is cursed," will not yield its fruit easily. Man is condemned to eat vegetables he has to grow and plant, since he had been too anxious to eat from the fruit of the tree for which he did not have to toil. 2) Only after having "sweated and toiled" will man be able to feed himself from now on. 3) "Until you die," i.e. until your travels take you from above the ground to your grave below. 4) "To dust you will return," you will dissolve into a multiplicity of particles (reference to how much, quantity). Instead of being a single integrated unit, you will disintegrate. 8) Originally, Adam had called Eve “ishah ", emphasizing her parity with man, i.e. ish. After the episode with the tree of knowledge, he called her chavah, emphasizing the female element within her, and the fact that she was the mother of all subsequent human beings. Between these two names, the two functions of woman are defined. On the one hand, as the eyshet chayil, woman of valor, she possesses all the ingredients that can raise her to the status of prophetess; on the other hand her function is to become a mother. A woman who fails to give birth, just like a man who is sterile, has not forfeited her major function in life, as is proven from Isaiah 56,3-5, "Let not the barren proclaim I am but a dried-out tree." We hold the view that man's major function is the performance of good deeds, something quite independent of procreation. If Jacob had been angry at Rachel for demanding children, else her life would not be worth living (Genesis 30,1-2), it was precisely for this reason. When the Talmud in Nedarim 64 states that of the four categories of people who are considered as dead, one is the group that have no children, the reference is only to their perpetuating their name on this earth. When woman conducts herself true to her purpose as helpmate to man, she also retains the name ishah. When, however, she acts as a hindrance, her function is reduced to that of the female part within her, i.e. she remains only chavah, mother. (9) G-d, in His kindness, covered their entire bodies with clothing, fulfilling a wish Adam had expressed already before that. G-d had waited for this request for clothing just as He had waited for the request of a suitable mate.
_.9.1.8
We find man referred to as Adam, to signify his lofty origin ("in His image"); he is called enosh to signify his dependence and reliance on matter as the raw material he is made of. He is also referred to as nachash, signifying his state when surrendering to the call of the purely animalistic, and when indulging in phantasies. (Genesis 49,17) "Snakes bite the heel of the lofty horse, and fell its rider." The influence of the nachash on ishah stems from the similarity of the raw material both are made of. It can be described like etzem me-atzomay, "a bone from my bones." In turn, ishah as the vehicle of Adam can bring about the latter's downfall. The ability to fantasize, to use one's imagination which is man's, is also the ability to distort and misconstrue the facts and appearances thereof. In one's imagination, the restriction placed on any activity can easily be interpreted as a restriction placed on all activities. It is something arum, tricky, since it is liable to mislead. Sin always has its beginnings in the images created by the power of imagination. It fuels our will to materialize our fantasies. When Haman, who had the run of the greatest Empire in the world, felt that Mordechai's refusal to bow down to him rendered all his accomplishments null and void ("All this is not worth a thing to me" Esther 5,13), we have a classic example of the distorted view of things created by the figments of our imagination. This explains why the prohibition of the tree of knowledge could be equated by Eve with the prohibition of the fruit of all the trees.
_.9.1.9
The Midrash (Bereshit Rabbah 19,4) quoting Rabbi Yehudah ben Symon states that whatever was created more recently assumed a role of dominance over things created earlier, since more recently created beings represented closer proximity to the spiritual, were not totally wrapped up in their material existence. The fact that "heaven" was superior to what had been created on the first day is proof of that. The serpent argued in the same vein. Eve was afraid that unless they (the humans) ate from the tree and thereby acquired higher spiritual insights, they would be superseded at a later stage by beings who were even closer to the original source of spirituality, i.e. G-d, than man. She was afraid that man could then be placed in an inferior position. The serpent, according to those sages, claimed that G-d Himself had "eaten" from the tree of knowledge, and had then become capable of creating the universe. It meant to portray physical satisfactions as an end in itself, instead of merely as a means to an end. This was the great lie that the serpent tried to peddle. Anyone believing this lie to be true, is in fact a kopher be-ikkar, a true heretic (Sanhedrin 38).
_.9.1.10
Another Midrash tells of the serpent suggesting that human intelligence is the ultimate arbiter of what is true and what is false. Eve disagreed at first, saying that they had been warned not to think so, i.e. not to touch that which supposedly stands for knowledge. Touching, as distinct from eating, means that one uses one's intellect without making it the final arbiter of one's actions. When the serpent proved that such use of one's intellect did not have harmful consequences, Eve was tricked into believing that even absorbing, i.e. eating the fruit (i.e. total immersion in the value of perception based only on one's intellect) would pose no danger. This interpretation does not essentially differ from the previous one. "Their eyes were opened." Once they became aware that their nakedness represented a state of imperfection, they tried to reassure themselves unsuccessfully that being human was superior to being animal, and the flimsy covering they made for themselves was symbolic of the fact that the advantage man enjoys over the animal is merely superficial. Both were condemned to die and leave behind on earth all the accomplishments achieved during their lifetime.
_.9.1.11
If repentance has to commence at the place where the sin was committed, only the fig tree could provide the leaves, seeing that it had been instrumental in man's fall (assuming that the fig tree was the tree of knowledge). Man hid, i.e. he considered himself beyond the sphere of Divine attention, just as the animal kingdom of which he now felt a part was outside the domain of G-d’s personal supervision. Only when addressed by G-d directly did man perceive that he had been wrong in his assumptions. This in turn led to complete repentance, recognition of his error. G-d’s rhetorical question "How could you feel naked unless you had eaten from the tree I told you not to eat from or you would become mortal," meant "You came out of earth's lap naked and you will return to earth naked." Adam replied, "True, I ate, but I was obliged to eat since the woman You gave me, gave me to eat." This stamps man as an ingrate, and woman who argued that her having succumbed was due to the serpent's enticement, claimed that her sin was natural, almost preordained. It is man's task to "hit the snake on the head," to neutralize its ability to mislead us and to distort the powers of our imagination. The snake's way is underhanded, it attacks the unprotected rear. It is our task to smash it head-on. Having abused our intelligence, we are condemned to attain our perfection via the route of gaining our sustenance through toil and sweat. The animal kingdom, having remained true to its instincts, does not need to fend for a living and finds its needs readily provided for (see Rabbi Eliezer at the end of tractate Kidushin). "On your belly you will move," i.e. even things suitable for you, you will find only with difficulty. This is the penalty for the serpent which had not been true to its instincts. The enmity between woman and the serpent is the disdain felt by people of sincere convictions (Torah) for those who adhere to all kinds of physical self-indulgence. The ability to crush the power of imaginary enjoyments will be greater than the power of those enjoyments to seduce, though that power will be great. The painfully slow process of pregnancy and giving birth, has its parallel in the equally gradual growth of perception of true values. Constant vigilance against falsehoods portrayed as true values in life renders such growth painful. Woman's mentor will henceforth be her husband, and he will be predominant in her thinking. "To Adam He had said," He called him Adam on account of the qualities he had originally been equipped with. When true to his purpose, the earth will be blessed by his conduct, and will yield its fruit willingly. When untrue, such as during this episode, man's ascendancy over earth as a superior is naught, hence the earth does not feel it needs to respond to man's efforts. The right to use nature for his own ends is based on man's doing so in the service of his Creator. Only then does earth also serve its Creator by serving man. "For you are dust," the intellectual faculties per se must not be viewed as ruach hakodesh, holy spirit. Through their being used constantly to fulfil tasks set for us by G-d, they gradually evolve, gain spiritual content, and ultimately—as in Jacob's dream with the ladder—may be transformed and become truly spiritual intellect. Adam was a pious man, who separated from Eve for 130 years once he had realized that he had brought mortality into the lives of the human species. During this period, he fasted and placed fig leaves on his flesh as a form of atonement. There are three kinds of repentance, corresponding to three types of sin. 1) Fasting is an antidote for errors committed through contamination of one's intellect through certain kinds of food or drink, which induce heretical views. 2) Sexual continence, in this case from his wife, who had seduced him into sinning. 3) The fig branches that tormented his body. When Adam called his wife chavah, he expressed the recognition that she had misled him, an act of repentance on his part. When G-d fashioned the leather coats for man, this was a sign that their repentance had been accepted. In the same way as leather garments are good for protecting the body, the light of Torah protects man's eyes. Both together are the way G-d in His kindness enables us to overcome the mortality which had resulted from eating of the tree of knowledge. Compare Onkelos on Leviticus 18,5 "When you observe the Torah, you will live forever." G-d’s Torah restores life to the condemned. (10) Rabbi Meir's version of the spelling of the word or with an aleph expresses the same thought that Onkelos stated on the verse in Leviticus.
_.10.1.2
"NOW MAN HAS BECOME LIKE ONE OF US"
_.10.1.3
Bamidbar Rabbah 19 comments as follows: We read in Kings 1,4 concerning king Solomon that "he was wiser than any man." The comparison refers to Adam. What did Solomon's superior wisdom consist of? You find that at the time G-d contemplated making man, He consulted with the angels and said to them, "Let Us make man in Our image and in Our form." Thereupon the angels said before G-d, "Who is man that You should give serious thought to him?" (Psalms 8,5). G-d answered them, "The human being I intend to create will have wisdom superior to yours." What did G-d do to prove this? He assembled all the animals in front of the angels, and asked the angels to name them. The angels were unable to do so. When He created man, He asked him, "What are the names of these animals?" Adam called one "ox," the next one "horse" etc. as is written in the Torah, "Adam named all the beasts in the field and the birds of the sky." When G-d asked him, "What is your name?" he replied "Adam, for I have been created from the earth." G-d then asked him, "What is My name?" Adam replied, "My Lord." When G-d asked, "Why?" Adam replied, "Because You are the Lord of all creatures." This is the meaning of the verse in Isaiah 42,8 "I am the Lord, this is My name,” meaning that this is the name that Adam has called Me, the name I adopted among My creatures.
_.10.1.4
Man is not only a creature who combines opposite extremes of creation in a state of fusion, but his powers of perception also are twofold, consisting of cognitive processes by his senses as well as cognitive processes based on his intellect. Yediah, knowledge, is what we perceive by means of our intellect. This is the result of using the upper extremes of our powers of perception. Hakkarah, on the other hand, is perception by means of feeling, sensual perception, the lower end of our range of perceptual tools. The two processes work in different ways from one another, and what is perceived intellectually is not comprehended by the senses nor is what is sensually perceived understood intellectually. Intellectual perception extends to the general, whereas sensual perception extends to the particular. Intellectually, one can perceive the nature of the earth, but not all the innumerable details in it; sensually one can feel all these infinite little details without thereby arriving at any conclusions concerning their overall nature and purpose. Children proceed empirically when learning to distinguish between sensations and between different phenomena. Only much later do they become able to form overall concepts. Intellectual beings devoid of bodies proceed in the opposite manner. Our sages view man as enveloped in darkness, but able to recognize phenomena bathed in light. Angels, on the other hand, are situated within an ocean of light, unable to recognize what is immersed in darkness. The Almighty, of course, possesses the ability to perceive both what is bathed in light and what is surrounded by darkness. In this allegory, intellect is equated with "light." Man's advantage over the angels is, that in addition to intellect, he also possesses senses, enabling him to perceive the particular as well as the general by means of these senses. This is why Adam could distinguish correctly between animals, recognizing their individual characteristics. To return to the parable of light and darkness. If matter is perceived as an impediment to pure light (matter being opaque), then angels being unencumbered by matter due to their being purely spiritual beings have difficulty distinguishing different shades of matter, i.e. darkness. It is not unlike the difficulty experienced by a white man when trying to distinguish the features of, say, the Chinese. The Almighty, having created both light and matter, is thoroughly familiar with His creation. His powers of perception are entirely different from those of either man or angels. Adam had demonstrated his superior conceptual powers by naming both himself, the animals and his Creator. Since the terms "good," i.e. proper, or "gratifying," apply to both general concepts of knowledge as well as to particular objects of one's perception, the same needs to hold true for "bad," i.e. improper and "unpleasant," if we are to give meaning to the term "knowledge." Interestingly, the tree of knowledge is called the tree of knowledge of "good" and "evil," not the tree of knowledge of what is "true" and what is "false." The serpent refers to G-d as being able to distinguish between "good" and "evil." In Samuel II 14,17, we read of angels being defined as knowing "good and evil." Why then do our sages seem to deny that angels possess the power to distinguish between good and evil? Maimonides claims that man was unique in creation because he was the only creature to possess this ability. He claims that angels recognize only objective values such as truth and falsehood, not relative values such as "good" and "evil." If Adam called himself "Adam," this was because since the raw material that he himself was made of was "adamah," earth, i.e. davar murkav, matter composed of several elements. Hence, he was able to correctly identify other creatures composed of similar raw materials. He could also perceive in which way each differed from another. When the Midrash describes man's knowledge as merubah, this does not mean "greater," but "more variegated." A scholar who is an expert farmer at the same time, possesses a wider range of knowledge than his counterpart who is merely a theoretician. However, this advantage is merely quantitative, not qualitative. It does not mean that man's wisdom is superior to that of the angels. Since the terms "good,” “beautiful,” “dignified” etc. are intrinsically intellectual definitions, angels naturally must know them also as well as their opposites, although they need not be capable of possessing these characteristics. Since this is so, there is no good reason not to understand "and you will be like G-d knowing good and evil," as referring to the angels' ability in this regard (Genesis 3,5). In Samuel II 14,17, the wise woman from Tekoah also uses the term "elokim" for angels, just as G-d seems to do in our Parshah. The author rejects all those commentaries which avoid the peshat in the verses under discussion. He devotes many pages to disprove other commentators' opinions about the angels' powers of perception.
_.10.1.5
The difference between angel and man lies in the freedom of will possessed by man and the absence of such freedom of choice in angels. Man is able to rise or fall morally, ethically; angels remain forever on the same plateau. Rashi and Onkelos say what they say in addition to the peshat, the plain meaning of the verse. They do so to forestall the impression that G-d is described as talking to Himself or to any of His non existent partners. We find many instances when Onkelos translates elokim as "angels of G-d," such as Jacob saying "I have seen elokim face to face" (Genesis 32,31). In the case of the serpent using this term, seeing the serpent does not have encounters with angels, the term refers simply to elokim as the Creator and His power. Even the she-ass of Bileam did not see the angel as an angel (Numbers 22). It only saw him as a threatening obstruction. Had this not been so, she would not have said to Bileam, "Do I usually act in this fashion?" She would have said, "The angel of the Lord has prevented me."
_.10.1.6
The author is convinced that the tree of life is not merely to be understood as something allegorical, but that it existed in the flesh. Mankind still keeps trying to find the elixir of life in nature, tries to find waters with miraculous healing properties. G-d said to the angels "as long as man had not eaten from the tree of knowledge, he could have chosen good and evil as freely as a member of the celestial army, i.e. the angels, and thus have enjoyed an infinite lifespan." If man would now eat from the tree of life, he would enjoy an infinite lifespan without deserving it. To prevent this from happening, G-d expelled man from the garden. As a result of this, man would have to work the soil in order to assure himself of the necessities for physical life for whatever lifespan he would enjoy on this earth.
_.10.1.8
Expulsion was necessary to maintain the nature of man. Had man's lifespan become unconditionally infinite through his eating from the tree of life, he would no longer have been a unique creature in the universe. He would have become a sub species of the celestial beings. By having to maintain a balance between the animalistic and the Divine, and by constantly having to face this challenge, he could remain human. Therefore, the gates of Eden had to remain closed to him.
_.11.1.2
"AND ADAM KNEW HIS WIFE.”
_.11.1.3
Bereshit Rabbah 22 quotes Rabbi Eleazar ben Aroch saying, "Three wonderful things occurred on that day. On that day they were created; on the same day they mated; and on the same day they produced offspring." Rabbi Yoshua ben Korcha said, "Two climbed into bed, and seven climbed out of it. Cain and his twin sister, Abel and his two twin sisters."
_.11.1.4
In order for a work of art to be truly successful, the input must be precise; there can be neither shortfall nor surplus. Just as the absence of a vital ingredient constitutes a blemish, so any excess is considered a blemish also. Our sages, when classifying what constitutes a blemish in an animal to be offered as a sacrifice on G-d’s altar, say "anything that is excess (such as an extra toe) is just as disqualifying as anything that is missing (Chullin 58). Naturalists have been extremely careful when defining phenomena in nature. Small tolerances and variants not allowed for in these definitions would cause us to make errors, and mistake one species for another. When defining "life," for instance, the definition is "something that feels, and consumes food and drink. If, for instance, the dimension of "feeling" were to be omitted, we would not be dealing with a form of life, but rather with some form of plant, vegetation. If the dimension of "consuming food" would be missing, we would deal with inert objects such as stones or metal. In order to define"man" correctly, we must remember that the Torah refers to man in different ways. He is called either "Adam,” "man," or "woman." Alternately, we find him referred to as "Adam-woman- serpent." It appears therefore, that unless "man" comprises all these elements, he just would not be "man." It is for us to determine the relationships that exist between the various elements mentioned. As has been demonstrated in chapters eight and nine, the terms "woman," "Eve," are well understood in their respective implications. They refer to the physical aspect of "man," the part which requires nourishment, the part that emotes. All these elements are ever present in man, are always part of our evaluation of him. Also, the term "man" is readily comprehensible inasmuch as it describes a creature equipped with the power of speech, as distinct from all other creatures. Man possesses other distinctly human qualities such as the desire for comfort, wealth, wisdom, honor etc. None of these exist among the beasts. However, the most sublime part of man, the part called "Adam," refers to his intellectual faculties which place him high above being only a "talking animal." This latter quality is one that is not readily seen or heard when we encounter a human being. Some people even deny the existence of such qualities in humans because these qualities are hidden within him. Even wise men seem at at times intent to conceal this aspect of man, such as when they describe man as "a talking living creature." Those philosophers admit only that man possesses practical intelligence, denying that he possesses speculative reason. Aristotle stands out by recognizing that man does possess both of these intellectual powers. Since speculative reason concerns itself mostly with what might be practical and expedient in order for man to achieve comfort, wealth etc., we find the tendency of man to put his highest faculty in the service of his lowest faculty, i.e. his body's requirements. It is this fact which is lamented by Solomon in Kohelet chapter 4. When there is at least some co-operation between human beings, though it may be motivated by far from lofty motivations, Solomon sees some merit in this (see verse 9-12). Even this is not enough if one does not reach the stage of recognizing the true purpose speculative reason has been granted to man, namely to enable him to achieve ascendancy over that which is merely physical. Having established this, we understand the need of the Torah to relate the birth of Cain, Abel, the sacrifice, the murder and all the other details of the accomplishments of Cain's descendants, (though all were doomed) all of which in themselves do not deserve mention. The Torah does not report events that do not serve as a model for conveying lessons to man which are valid throughout history. If the Torah related all these details of early man's activities merely to let us know the dates and age of populated earth, the genealogy of the ten generations would have sufficed. We must follow the view of the saintly Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai who views Torah as containing soul, body, and outer garments. He sees the stories of true occurrences reported in the Torah as parables describing events of spiritual significance. Thus, though he accepts the factual occurrence of the story of Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden, the four rivers etc., he views the significance of the story as going far beyond providing a historic record of the actual events described. Rabbi Eleazar ben Aroch in the opening Midrash also has this theme in mind when he talks about three wondrous events, seeing that they occurred after the conclusion of the report of the story of Creation, after natural law had become operative. This is especially so, since the plain meaning of the text does not suggest the extraordinary nature of the events mentioned by Rabbi Eleazar. The Torah, after all, merely says, "She conceived, became pregnant, and gave birth; she continued to give birth." This sounds like a very normal version of natural events. Rabbi Eleazar's thrust is to tell us that just as everything which had occurred up until now during the period of creation had been extraordinary from the point of view of natural law, so these events did not conform to natural law either. Seeing that the parents had been part of the process of creation, not part of natural law, the potential of these kinds of births had been included in the process leading up to these events. Rabbi Yoshua ben Korcha refers to the same thought, namely that the nature of the offspring of man is itself still part of the creative process. Therefore, the potential for evil etc. is not something that entered man at birth, but at a later date, as a result of a sinful act. When Adam and Eve begat Cain, Eve named him thus to indicate that it was his task to "acquire" (from the root kanah) as much material wealth as he was able to collect. Eve felt that the main difference between man and beast was the G-d given ability to acquire things (et hashem, i.e. a quality man shares with G-d). When Eve bore Abel, he had a superior profession, one that entailed leadership and demonstration of responsibility for others. When the Psalmist compares David's elevation to leadership of men to his experiences as a shepherd (Psalms 78,71), we find that thought documented in scripture. There are many other examples of the profession of shepherd serving as a leadership course preparing those people eventually to assume positions of leadership amongst men. The reason we find Abel's birth described as "additional" is to teach that it was obvious that Cain's profession could not be the sum total of man's purpose on earth. When naming Abel Hevel, Eve unwittingly gave expression to the inherent inadequacy even in Abel's profession. Since the world needs far more people of the type of Cain, i.e. people who make the earth produce, than it needs "leaders," Cain looked down on Abel. Regrettably, at that stage Adam and Eve thought that they had produced in their respective children all that was needed to secure successful perpetuation of their species, i.e. the producer and the preserver. As a result of meeting with success in their respective endeavors, Cain and Abel offered gifts to G-d. Although neither of the two had used his talents in the manner G-d would have preferred, G-d gave preference to the type of profession chosen by Abel. After all, Abel's profession involved primarily the use of his intellect, whereas Cain's profession involved primarily the use of muscle.
_.11.1.5
It was this preference G-d displayed for Abel's profession which upset Cain and made him depressed. He could not stand the thought that his younger brother should be his leader, and should be able to exert a restraining influence on his lifestyle.
_.11.1.6
Oved adamah, a farmer, is a person so preoccupied with his own material (what his body is made of) that it makes him a slave of the earth. Hence, this word defines the nature of the farmer. The Midrash describes that three people had been obsessed with the urge to subdue the earth and possess a great deal of soil. They were Cain, Noach, and Uzziah. The statement is linked to Avot 4,21, that three things hasten man's departure from this earth, i.e. jealousy, greed, and the quest for personal glory. Apparently, Cain and the other two suffered from all three obsessions. G-d addressed Himself to Cain's jealousy when He asked him, "Why are you angry?" He addressed Himself to Cain's greed when He asked him, "Why is your face crestfallen?" He addressed Himself to Cain's quest for glory when He said to Cain, "When you are good you will be rewarded, and you will be successful." G-d meant that if Cain would examine himself, he would have no cause to feel inferior, but could elevate himself to a higher status. On the other hand, failing that, sin would always lie waiting at his doorstep. The combination of Cain's profession with his mental attitude invites moral corruption. It seems, that initially at least, G-d’s words found a ready response within Cain. This is why he spoke to Abel in a friendly manner. However, once they began to disagree about the fields and the vineyards, Cain changed his attitude and reverted to his former outlook. Thus, he simply killed Abel in order to remain Lord and Master of the earth.
_.11.1.7
The Midrash describes the subject matter of the brothers' quarrel as being an attempt to divide the world between them. Cain took the soil, Abel everything mobile. Cain said to Abel that his goods were on his property. Abel replied that Cain's clothes were produced from the wool of his sheep. Cain demanded that Abel get off his ground, whereas Abel demanded that Cain shed his clothing. In this way they both demonstrated that they lacked the basic concepts of co-operation without which civilization is impossible. The ultimate outcome of their attitudes was murder. When G-d addressed Cain, He wanted to know, "Where is your brother Abel," i.e. your guide, your leader? Cain replied, "Am I my brother's keeper?" He meant, "Since I am the producer of wealth and he is merely the preserver, why does he rank above me in Your esteem? Is his name (Hevel, vanity) not already an indication that his existence is not of crucial importance in the scheme of things?" G-d replied that since Hevel's blood is complaining about Cain's earth having absorbed it, about the injustice perpetrated on him, Cain would henceforth become a fugitive on "his" earth. His future experiences would teach him that he had grossly underrated the importance of "Hevel's" functions, since his own activities would be stymied through his brother's absence. The co-operation of the adamah, earth, with the oved adamah, the tiller of the soil who had dedicated himself to the earth, in covering up the misdeed of the latter is remarkable. Carried to its logical conclusion, the thought the Torah conveys is that by destroying Hevel, Cain had in fact destroyed himself.
_.11.1.8
The Midrash which describes Cain's death as due to the death of Hevel, contains the same idea (Bereshit Rabbah 23).
_.11.1.9
Elsewhere (Bereshit Rabbah 22), the Midrash describes Hevel as having had the upper hand in the struggle, with Cain lying on the ground. When Cain said, "How will you explain my death to our father?" Hevel relented, whereupon Cain seized the opportunity to get up and kill him. The sign G-d gave to Cain to warn others who might take the law into their own hands, was to insure that civilization could exist in future. Without regulatory statutes governing the how, when, and by whom of the administering of punishment, everyone who had once committed a misdemeanor, even if he wanted to rehabilitate himself, would forever be forced to pit himself against all of society in sheer self-defense against mob rule.
_.11.1.10
We find seven different interpretations in the Midrash concerning the nature of the "sign" that G-d made for Cain. The seven opinions reflect seven different considerations which may prevent man from sinning. Rabbi Yehudah describes the sign as an illumination of the sun's orbit at an unusual hour. The symbolism in this would be that Cain was taught that there are things in this world beyond tilling the soil. The "light" refers to "enlightenment." Rabbi Nechemyah, seeing that Cain at that time considered being a shepherd as the outer limit of enlightenment, felt that the light Rabbi Yehudah had talked about, would have been too advanced a message for Cain to have understood and to have an effect on him. He says, therefore, that the sign was a form of leprosy, to indicate that if acute suffering is the result of sinful behavior, such an experience would serve as a deterrent to sin in the future. We also find in the Torah that when a response to a sophisticated sign is not forthcoming, something more direct and down to earth is needed (compare Exodus chapter 3, when Moses questions whether the Israelites will accept him as their savior to be). Rabbi Abba says that Cain was given a dog, that just as the blind use the dog as a seeing eye, so Cain was given an external aid. This symbolizes man's dependence on guides which while inherently inferior to him, nonetheless assume leadership qualities for him if he does not live up to his potential. Abba Joseph says that Cain grew a horn on his forehead which would aid him in demolishing harmful philosophies, allegorically speaking. Rav says that this horn performs the function of frightening off would be murderers, i.e. the horn was to ward off physical rather than spiritual dangers. Rabbi Chanan says the horn was to serve notice that the owner was a repentant sinner. In either event, the meaning of the verse according to the last two sages would be that "G-d set Cain up as a sign," i.e. as a model for others to emulate. Rabbi Levi says that Cain's judgment was suspended pending further developments, until with the onset of the deluge this also included the penalty for the original murder. In the following verse we observe a partial rehabilitation of Cain, who founded civilization by building a city for his son Chanoch, thereby continuing the task that his murdered brother had originally set for himself.
_.11.1.12
The Midrash states that the names of the descendants of Cain which the Torah lists, indicate that these people lived a hard life, and found their existence quite exhausting. Only very gradually did they achieve a degree of creature comfort as expressed by the two wives Lemech took for himself.
_.11.1.13
One of these was to indulge him as her lord and master and remain purely decorative, whereas the other's function was to bear his children. The fact that Tzilah also bore him a son, was not planned, but rather a result of an attempt at sterilization which had failed. The accomplishments and inventions of the various people listed, show the gradual progress of civilization. With the birth of Lemech's children, there surfaced what promised to be an easier and more comfortable lifestyle, including music, superior tools, etc. This is the result of man having eaten from the tree of knowledge whose appeal had been to the esthetic, the sensual. This may have been the reason that the sister of Tuval Cain, inventor of weaponry, was Naamah, since the aim of warfare is to assure oneself of spoils and a life of comfort based on conquered loot.
_.11.1.14
The Midrash which tells us that Noach's wife was called Naamah, conveys a profound meaning. Interestingly, the children of both Ada and Tzilah bear names stemming from the same root, i.e. hovalah, transfer, transmission. Their names are in no way connected with their father, whereas Naamah is mentioned only as a "sister," not as someone's "daughter." Their respective characters may well have been modelled after their brother rather than after their father. This was another indication that lifestyles were changing.
_.11.1.15
If one follows the Midrash, Lemech appealed to his wife to have more children, the latter refused, quoting the futility of raising children who are doomed in the forthcoming destruction of the world. They based this among other reasons, on the tradition that the suspended sentence of Cain would be executed after seven generations (compare Lemech's speech). Adam realized that the two children he had sired so far could not be the foundation of mankind, therefore he decided to have more children. His intention was to reproduce himself with his spirituality intact ("in His image, in His likeness," Genesis 5,3). Eve, though no longer called Chavah, was content to have Hevel replaced, even though that in itself would not have constituted progress, since Hevel too had used his intellect only functionally, not for moral self improvement. When Lemech's wives consulted Adam about their fears, the latter told them to do their duty and to trust G-d to do His duty. The women then asked Adam about his own apparent continence, accusing him of being someone who preaches but does not practice what he preaches. This aroused desire in Adam, he rejoined his wife conjugally, and produced Shet and other children.
_.11.1.16
The genealogy starts with Adam, Shet etc, since this is the line that survived the deluge, and since with the advent of Enosh religion was at least being preached again. If, as the Midrash says, Adam began to desire Chavah physically not only when he was in her presence, but even when he was away from her, this poses the question why, despite advancing years, his desire grew stronger rather than weaker. The meaning of the Midrash then may be that after the conversation with Lemech's wives, Adam became more interested in the abstract. In his imagination, spiritual values began to assume more concrete forms, just as his being drawn to his wife no longer depended on her physical presence. That this tendency was present in a reinforced version in Enosh, is documented by the words "then one began to proclaim the name of the Eternal," who of course, was and remains invisible, abstract. This trend became still stronger until in Chanoch we find a person whose withdrawal from the material and physical became absolute. Similarly, Methuselah, his son Lemech and Noach after him, were good people. The fact that Lemech wished for his son Noach to rescue mankind from its enslavement to the soil (Genesis 5,29), "This one shall comfort us from our work and from the suffering of our hands," clearly indicates that he was aware of the inherent problem of making human existence meaningful and therefore joyous. "Then one began to proclaim the name of the Lord." It is quite possible that this action by the few was a reaction to the general corruption of the concept of monotheism, and that it unfortunately had become necessary to proclaim truths which had formerly been so self-evident that nobody had needed to belabor the point. The chapter commencing with the words,"These are the generations of man," concludes with the birth of Shet. He represented the third and last type of human being, one who saw in the development of his spiritual faculties his primary function, and who superseded the totally earth oriented Cain as well as the politically oriented Abel. The latter, after all, had employed his intellect only in the service of transient values. It is true that a lifetime of over nine hundred years is difficult for us to view as something "transient." Since we know that most children take after their mother's brother, the corruption of the descendants of Shet is explained by the fact that they took as their wives offspring from the descendants of Cain, and that even Noach married Naamah. Thus it is easy to account for what happened. Only a small minority of humans forms the spiritual elite, and so, 1556 years after the creation of Adam, we come to the moment of truth, the deluge. The fact that we are told about man taking several wives, is necessary for two reasons. In order to populate the earth, more girls than boys had been born. Already Hevel is supposed to have had two twin sisters. On the other hand, the abundant supply of women led to immodesty, harlotry etc., hastening the corruption of nearly the entire species.
_.11.1.17
"The sons of G-d," describes people who lived an undisturbed long and good life, pampering themselves. The ready availability of women to cater to their needs, reinforced that mode of existence. The length of a lifetime in those days was necessary in order for people to begin to understand nature, based on long term observations of the phenomena, experiments etc. Later generations, having at their disposal the benefit of knowledge gathered by their ancestors, did not need such a lengthy lifespan. Moses in Psalms 90,10 already states that seventy years nowadays is enough for man to achieve the objectives G-d has set man. Since the descendants of Shet are properly called "the sons of the Divine," while the daughters of "Adam" are obviously descendants of Cain, their intermarrying was bound to lead to catastrophic consequences. When G-d reacts by saying (Genesis 6,3), "My spirit will not dwell within man ever," it means that He will not go on forever making excuses for them-- "seeing that they are made of flesh"-- as He had done in suspending sentence on their ancestor Cain. Since the people who now perpetrate all these evils are descended from a superior branch of mankind, their relapses are far less excusable. What could G-d expect from them in the future then? Therefore, G-d gave them a time limit of 120 years. This is the meaning of Psalm 82,6, "I had said that you are G-d like, but you will die like earth bound beings." The timing of the deluge was arranged so that the good people who, though not worth saving, were not as guilty as the others, would have died due to normal circumstances. The fact that the chain of descendants of Shet who are mentioned by name are all recorded as having died, is proof that their death left some void. The descendants of Noach, starting with Shem are not recorded as having died. Possibly, this is to distinguish those ten generations from the ones between Adam and Noach. The reference to the nephilim is (a) to insure that the men described as "sons of G-d" are not confused with beings that have been sired by G-d; (b) to account for the fact that we find some descendants of the generation of the deluge having survived till the era of Moses, such as the giant Og, for instance. These people encountered by Israel in the desert some 700 years later were understandably viewed as "sons of G-d" by dint of their genealogy. "When G-d saw that the evil perpetrated by man on the earth was great, and that all his thought processes were evil all day long, He regretted that He had made man" (Genesis 6,5-6). Philosophers distinguish between evil as merely an act, and evil which had been both planned and executed. The person who commits the former can reform easily, since his thought processes have remained unaffected and can be employed to help control his actions. Not so when the evil is the product of one's thought processes. What counterweight is there then for such a person to achieve rehabilitation? It is this latter evil G-d encountered in man, and which the verse in question comments upon. Although a complete comprehension of the line "G-d regretted" is impossible unless one subscribes to the theory that Torah on occasion employs a human mode of speech when describing anthropomorphous actions by G-d (Kidushin 17), we will try and explain the meaning of vayinachem here and elsewhere when G-d is the subject of that term. Hitnachmut, regrets, is not a change of viewpoint when the premise for that viewpoint has remained constant. Rather, it is a re-consideration of one's plans and attitudes based on a changed set of circumstances. If a person vows to do good to a friend because he has faith in that friend's loyalty, and the friend turns into an enemy, then the cancellation of his vow to do good does not constitute a change of mind, a breaking of one's promise. Rather, it is an admission that one had erred in one's assessment of the facts which one's promise had been based on. A changed attitude then becomes an act of wisdom, a rejection of foolishness. If, on the other hand, the eventual disloyalty of the friend to whom one had vowed assistance, is foreseen, and occurs in accordance with one's expectations, then the act of having to withhold one's assistance becomes an act of regret, reconsideration. This latter regret, i.e. going back on one's promise, is considered a major character defect in human society. Therefore, those guilty of such behavior prefer to explain their actions as being the result of their own stupidity, shortsightedness. A case in point is Bileam (Numbers 22,34). He said to the angel, "I have sinned since I have been unaware." Since one cannot presume lack of foreknowledge on the part of G-d, He chose to describe His resolution as an act of reconsideration rather than as an act resulting from lack of foreknowledge. When the Torah describes G-d as having reconsidered, it tells us that G-d continued to desire that He could carry out what He had originally planned, but what had now become impossible due to the conduct of the other half of the partnership between G-d and Man. In the same way G-d predicts in Deuteronomy 31, the Jewish people's corruption and the steps He would have to take to deal with that problem. In order to ensure the eventual production of the perfect tree, the planting of many trees is necessary, until eventually the perfect one will emerge. Should this not occur, refinement of the relatively best trees will lead to their eventually producing the perfect tree. G-d proceeded along similar lines with mankind. When no perfect specimen showed up after a lengthy period, the time had come to abandon earlier crops and retain only the relatively best and start the process of proliferation afresh with those specimen. This time only the seeds of the best trees which had been produced thus far were used. Although such contingencies had been part of His planning, the need to resort to them was a saddening experience.
_.12.1.2
Midrash Shocher tov on the first Psalm, writes as follows. "The words ‘Hail to the man who did not walk...’ refer to Noach; ‘According to the counsel of the wicked,’ refers to the generation of Enosh; ‘Who did not stand next to the wicked,’ refers to the generation of the deluge; ‘Who did not reside among the scoffers,’ refers to the generation of the tower of Babel; but ‘Whose striving is toward the teaching of the Lord,; refers to the 7 Noachide laws; ‘Who meditates on His law by day and by night,’ refers to those who appreciate the inner cohesion within Torah. He said (Noach), "Why did G-d command to bring seven pairs of the pure species into the ark? So as to offer sacrifices to G-d from among them. ‘He will be like a tree planted in well irrigated land,’ refers to the fact that G-d had set the ark on the waters; ‘Who will produce its fruit at the proper time,’ refers to Shem (Noach's son); ‘Whose leaves will not shrivel,’ refers to Cham; ‘Whose every action will be crowned with success,’ refers to Yephet; ‘Not the sinners,’ refers to the generation of the deluge, as we have learned from a Baraita. ‘The people of the generation of the deluge do not qualify for a share in the hereafter.’ ‘For the Lord knows the way of the righteous,’ refers to Noach and his sons.”
_.12.1.3
Mankind can be divided into two categories. The first category consists of people who have a goal and purpose in life. These people can be subdivided into three groups. Group One is totally spiritually oriented, pursues only Divinely approved goals. This group is miniscule in numbers, due to the fact that man is made up of both physical and spiritual components, each of which exerts pressure on him. Group Two is oriented towards the physical and material only, numerically, alas, a very strong group, preferring the beast in man. Group Three combines both the physical and the spiritual elements in its orientation towards life, desiring the esthetically beautiful, the useful, the expedient which is morally good at the same time. Marriage combines the three objectives striven for by this third group. Gratification of the sex urge is channelled into the effort to reproduce the species, excessive indulgence in physical urges is curbed by the legal confines of the marriage contract. Choice of the esthetically pleasing is part of the process leading to marriage. The latter is what David describes as Torat ha-adam, (Samuel II 7,19), the teaching of mankind. Average man, due to his composition, is liable to act like the members of this third group. Combining the three objectives is not only acceptable, but is desirable in the eyes of G-d. When Solomon says, "He who has found a woman, has found goodness," what he means is that these objectives can be achieved by means of life in wedlock. If Jonathan nonetheless preferred the friendship of a man to the love of a woman, this is because woman always weighs in her mind considerations of expediency, of what is functionally sound. (Samuel II 1) We find that women are described there as needing to mourn Sauls's death because of the beautiful garments they had received during his reign due to his valour in battle. The practical is important to women.
_.12.1.4
However, there is a second group of people, those who lead a life totally lacking in direction and purpose, imposing no restraint on the bestial part of their nature. These people are described by Solomon (Proverbs 2,14) as "enjoying doing evil." Such people can cheer tightfistedness at the same time as they cheer wastefulness, as long as the objective of both is wicked and evil. Yotam in chapter nine of the book of Judges, describes these people when he lambasts the citizens of Shechem in the famous parable of the thornbush being elected as king of the trees. Although this category of people is united by a common denominator, they do not share unity of purpose and are therefore at odds with one another. Their apparent common purpose masks the diversity of their personal lust and depravity. The opposite is true when one observes apparent dissension among pious people, whose dissension does not concern fundamental objectives, but merely the methods to be employed in order to achieve their common objectives. Just as an oriental would honour a king by not appearing in the king's presence with his head uncovered, whereas an occidental would not appear before a king until he had first removed his headgear, the common denominator being that both desire to pay homage to the king, so pious Jews may sometimes disagree on the means of honouring G-d, but their disagreement stems from their desire to honour G-d. What unites them therefore, is far more formidable than what divides them. The opposite is true of wicked people, who are only interested in themselves, and whose union when there is such is merely organizational, not organic. Compare the discussion on “eylu ve-eylu divrey elokim chayim,” both versions are words of the living G-d and are true (Chagigah 3). This is why the Mishna in Avot 5,20 teaches that all disagreements which have as their objective the promotion of matters spiritual, will endure, meaning both parties involved will achieve their purpose. Hillel and Shammai's arguments were all centred on the desire to perform the will of G-d. This is also demonstrated in Joshua Chapter 22 after the tribes residing on the East bank of the Jordan had erected an altar. After it had become clear to the other tribes that their motivation had been pure, not divisive or idolatrous, not only was civil war averted, but good relations were restored.
_.12.1.5
Considering that Adam and his three sons founded a civilization that failed, even Noach and his three sons did not fare much better. In fact, we pointed out that in the absence of the words "he died" in their genealogies, there is a hint that their respective deaths did not leave behind a void that needed to be filled. When the sages debated whether it "is more comfortable for man to have been born, than it would have been if he had never seen the light of the world" (Eyruvin 13), they concluded that from that point of view it would indeed have been preferable not to have been born at all (see chapter 8). The names of Noach's three sons indicate how they should act and which character traits they were supposed to cultivate meticulously. Shem, who replaced Shet, Adam's third son, who had been born in the image of the Lord, was supposed to wear the crown of the good name ("Better a good name than good oil," Kohelet 7,1). It was to be his task to concentrate on the spiritual aspects of life. Cham, the least illustrious, would replace Cain who had been hotblooded, had followed his baser urges inordinately. Yephet, as his name indicates, was to strive after the esthetically acceptable, influenced by the spirit of Shem, thus representing the functional and useful in life, almost like what Hevel had represented in his time. Actually, it was the duty of those three sons to atone for and rectify the errors of their respective forefathers. When Noach became a man dedicated to the soil and became drunk, his son Cham decided to follow his father's example in emphasizing the earthy, material, and in indulging his senses (Genesis 9,19). Just as Adam had failed in his time, so Noach too had failed to uphold the highest standards of which man is capable. Cham invited his brothers to drink and get drunk, but they refused. Putting the blanket over their shoulders was merely a way of using clothing to restrain one's urges; their approaching their father backward is symbolic of the way one approaches a dangerous situation with caution by keeping one's head facing the danger, but keeping one's body facing the other way. In this manner they were able to pinpoint the exact location of their father, without viewing his indecently exposed body. The repetition of the word "backwards" suggests this interpretation. The nature of Noach's curse clearly demonstrates that Noach realized that the material instinct in man is undeniable-- for the multitude-- but must be harnessed so that it does not exercise unbridled power. Therefore, he decreed for Cham a state of servitude to the other two brothers, each of whom represented higher attributes of man. The blessing that G-d would feel at home in the tents of Shem is made dependent on Cham and what he stands for being held in check, in a state of servitude to the former.
_.12.1.6
The opening Midrash then must be viewed in the following sense. The complimentary ashrey, hail, goes to the "Man" i.e. a term used for the species, including all its attributes, much like "Adam" was used as a term describing the human species, describing him who is representative of his species. Noach is praised for not following the wicked ways of the age of Enosh, but for choosing to serve his Maker. Neither did he make common cause with the people of the generation of the deluge. He did not join the excesses of the generation who built the tower of Babel. Rather, he followed the teachings of G-d, i.e. the seven Noachide laws that apply universally. By following these commandments, he reached an understanding of how things interrelate in this world. A practical example of this is that when G-d commanded him to take seven pairs each of the pure species, Noach realized that they must be meant to serve as offerings. “He was like a tree planted on the water divide,” G-d planted the ark on the waters. "Whose fruit will appear at the right time" refers to his son Shem. "Whose leaf will not wither" refers to his son Cham. Shem who had appreciated the way his father's conduct had been rewarded by G-d, was bound to beget at least some outstanding issue. Cham is naught but the leaf, compared to the "fruit" which is Shem. "Successful" refers to Yephet, who combines the traits of spirituality with esthetics and the functional. That G-d never again destroyed the species, was due to the presence of such people as Yephet. "Not so the wicked," i.e. the generation of the deluge who have no share in the world to come." Because G-d knows the way of the righteous" refers to Noach.
_.12.2.3
It is a fundamental rule of our faith that reward or punishment follow as a result of actions performed by man who is free to determine his course of action. Another fundamental rule of our faith is the conviction that man's actions interact with the way nature operates. If one conceives of man as a microcosm and of nature as the macrocosm, the former exercises profound influence on the workings of the latter. Perversion in man, ultimately results in major malfunctions in the cosmic forces controlling the universe. One can conceive of the universe as an orchestra in which each instrument plays its assigned part. Should an instrument fail consistently, the disharmony created will disable the entire orchestra. Perhaps the comment by our sages about David's harp starting to play all by itself (Berachot 3) may be understood simply. When man does his share, the entire orchestra comes alive and worships its Maker. On the one hand, nature is supposed to provide the planet's sustenance; on the other hand, man distributing nature's bounty in a fair and equitable manner complements nature's work and completes the task of performing the will of the Creator. There are numerous verses in scripture supporting this thesis of the interaction of the laws of nature and human behaviour. "If you walk in My statutes etc" (Leviticus 26,1-13) is followed by a list of at capacity. On the other hand, if you do not, nature will react accordingly (verses 14-20 same chapter). The statutes referred to are the laws of nature. G-d used the Torah as the blueprint for creation, hence the interdependence of the observance of Torah laws and the normal functioning of nature. Our sages go so far as to list seven basic sins and the distortions in nature that these sins will eventually bring in their wake (Avot 5,10). These penalties are not viewed as retribution, but as the natural corollary of the manner in which the microcosm functions within the macrocosm. Fortunately, nature is an extremely complex system, therefore aberrations in human behaviour affect only part of the system, not the whole. Were this not so, total destruction of the earth as we know it would have occurred frequently. As it is, the manifestations of malfunctions in nature affect only limited areas and mirror specific human aberrations. Perhaps the statement that the universe was created by ten directives instead of a single one (Avot 5,1) also suggests that G-d had wanted to insulate parts of the universe from other parts, to insure that man's misconduct would not result in destruction of G-d’s entire handiwork at one stroke. The very name of the musical instrument known as aley assor, the ten stringed one, may hint at the ten spheres of creation, which when working together in harmony, represent the universe in its most perfect condition. The ten directives, as our sages explain, represent G-d’s patience with His creatures. That is why G-d waited ten generatioms before He brought on the deluge. Again, we find ten generations between Noach and Abraham. G-d excercised patience during all these generations until Abraham emerged on the scene and began the task of reversing human aberrations.
_.12.2.4
Some problems in the text: 1) Why are the "generations" of Noach mentioned both before and after the deluge? Why is the name Noach repeated at the outset of the Parshah? What is the meaning of "with G-d walked Noach?" 2) Why does the Torah mention the sin of that generation repeatedly? 3) Why does the Torah speak about maintaining a covenant with Noach, when we have never been told about the existence of such a covenant? 4) Why were the people of Noach's time not warned before being punished? If these people were guilty by natural law, why spell out the Noachide laws afterwards? After all, these laws had been known, had always been in effect! Why was water chosen as the instrument of the people's punishment? 5) The repeated mention of Noach's age at the time the deluge started needs explaining. The entire passage seems full of unnecessary repetitions. Also, some of the dates appear to be conflict.
_.12.2.5
(1) Since Noach became a founder of mankind, similar to Adam, he is first introduced as a descendant of his ancestors. Once he has been chosen to be the sole survivor, he is again introduced, this time as the forefather of all subsequent human beings. "He walked with G-d" means that he incorporated all the virtues that indicate that man has been created in the image of G-d. His righteousness was not confined to matters of money etc., but encompassed all parts of his personality. The difference between Abraham and Noach lay in the fact that the circumcision enabled Abraham to become tamim, perfect, and to walk "before" G-d. The names of the sons are repeated since they reflect not only the fact that Noach had sired them, but their respective characters are hinted at in their names. These sons, after all, became the founders of three distinctly different lifestyles and outlooks amongst mankind. (2) The fact is that corruption of mankind translates into corruption of the laws of nature through the influence of man's actions on the universe. The statement in the Torah then underlines this connection of the upheaval in the world with the behaviour of its inhabitants. (3) Noach, who acted properly and maintained his part of universal harmony, deserved to be saved on that account. Water which is held in check constantly through Divine decree, ensuring that it stays within its bounds, is released from such constraints as it is a midah keneged midah, tit for tat, kind of punishment. Man's lack of restraint brings about the release of the waters from all the restraints they had been under. (3) The covenant that G-d "maintains" then is that the waters will not cause damage to him who has acted in harmony with the laws of the universe. "Enter the ark!" G-d has to give detailed instructions to assure Noach that essentially all species would survive, else Noach's own survival would lose most of its meaning, and at the end of the deluge he would be faced with a universe that could no longer regenerate itself. Secondly, he had to make provisions for an extended stay in the ark. (4) Man's punishment can either be viewed as a natural event, not as retribution, since as we have stated, conduct contrary to the harmony inherent in the universe will result in upheavals; or it was retribution. When one fumigates a house, having exhausted other means of ridding oneself of vermin, one's prime purpose is to keep the house in good shape. Here, too, G-d was fumigating His universe, so to speak, in order to get rid of the harmful leeches inhabiting it. Since there was no good reason to save these people, they fell victim to the need to cleanse the earth. Since earth had been created, all sins committed by man were punishable by death; only when the Jewish people accepted Torah at Sinai did they receive laws, the transgression of some of which carried a lighter sentence. Mankind had therefore been doomed, no special warning had been called for. "Noach made the ark." In spite of the tremendous inconvenience incurred, plus the fact that Noach could hardly have had in mind to build an ark large enough to accomodate representatives of all creatures, he carried out all G-d’s instructions without question or hesitation. He entered the ark before the deluge, mipney hamabul, on account of the deluge which was to occur. The forthcoming event was as vivid before his mental eye as if it had already occurred. The repetition of "on that day, Noach entered the ark" in verse 13, indicates merely that though the ark had already served as his residence, he did not know the precise date on which the deluge would start. Now that it had started, he stayed inside, and G-d closed the door from the outside. (5) The dates given emphasize that G-d waited out the one hundred and twenty years that He had given man to repent and reverse his course.
_.13.1.2
"THE DELUGE CONTINUED FOR 40 DAYS."
_.13.1.3
There were ten generations between Adam and Noach, to demonstrate the long-wearing patience of G-d. All those generations had angered G-d, until He brought on the deluge (Avot 5,2).
_.13.1.4
Although it is a scientific fact that major physical phenomena are reversible, G-d’s ability to destroy earth proves that it had not always existed, that He had created it. Otherwise, whence would G-d have taken the power to destroy it? The fact that the reversals of certain phenomena are the product of G-d’s free will and did not happen of their own, needs to be demonstrated. The verse (Jeremiah 31,10) "He who disperses Israel will gather it in," which might indicate the opposite, when viewed superficially, does in fact not prove that such reversals occur automatically. Jeremiah does not refer to the ingathering as being an automatic corollary of a previous dispersal, but as an act of G-d requiring supernatural means. This is demonstrated clearly by the context of the whole chapter in which this verse appears. Shepherds do likewise with their flocks, and so does the Lord. Sometimes He scatters in order to discipline, sometimes He collects people. All this is due to G-d exercising benevolent Personal Providence. This is true also when such happenings occur as part of the shepherd's vocation. When we talk about natural phenomena, the same does not hold true. Gideon, who wanted to see if the wool which is naturally moisture absorbent could also be made moisture repellant at the will of G-d, had his wish fulfilled (Judges Chapter 6). Thereby the power of G-d to reverse the laws of nature which He Himself had formulated had been demonstrated. Similarly, King Hezzekiah (Kings II, chapter 20). When the king saw the shadow of the sun dial reversing itself, he had found proof of the Creator's ability to reverse the seemingly irreversible processes of nature. The story of the deluge also demonstrates that He who has established natural law can also reverse it. Thereby He proves that His existence had preceded the laws of the universe, else He could not have demonstrated mastery over these laws. G-d therefore is able to decree after the deluge that natural law shall not again cease to function normally. Summer, winter, heat, and cold will all alternate at predictable intervals, as stated in Genesis 8,22. Noach and his sons, having witnessed first a universe which functioned beautifully then a universe in the process of destruction and lastly a newly functioning universe, were the witnesses for all future generations of the truth of the claim that G-d had created the universe ex nihilo. According to the Talmud in Rosh Hashanah 11, the technical method that brought about the flood was the relocation of two stars forming the Pleiades. Even if mankind were to serve G-d, but under the mistaken impression that the laws of nature are immutable, such service of G-d would degenerate if man grew to believe that they were only in touch with intermediaries such as the sun and the moon, and that the Lord Himself would forever unconditionally allow these intermediaries to possess independent power which could not be curbed. At this point, the author engages in polemics against all those Jewish philosophers who, in common with their Greek counterparts, attempt to explain away most of the miracles. He singles out Ralbag especially. He defends the Rambam as having been wilfully misunderstood by some who read his commentary. He ascribes the tendencies of some commentators to rob the story of miracles of their fundamental value to two considerations. 1) No one can perform miracles that outclass those performed by Moses. 2) The beneficiaries of such miracles were not worthy of such far-reaching changes in nature to be performed for their sake. The Talmud Shabbat 53 relates that a husband whose wife died while leaving behind a small baby was in a predicament since he could not afford to hire a wet nurse to nurse the baby. A miracle occurred; the father's nipples produced milk on which the baby fed and survived. Rabbi Joseph views this as an extreme compliment to the father for whose sake such a great miracle was performed. Abaye, on the other hand, feels that it points out the unworthiness of the father, since G-d had to resort to supernatural means to supply the infant's needs. Nevertheless, the fact remains that the father's position was such that a miracle was not denied him, in order for him to fulfil his function of raising the infant. We have to view the role of pious men and prophets at various times in our history in a similar light. On the one hand, the generation of Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai and of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi, were praised because there was no need for a rainbow to appear during their respective lives (Ketuvot 76). They were praised for the fact that no miracles were needed in their time. No doubt, had the need arisen, these men would have been able to call on the power of miracle to be used on behalf of their contemporaries. Jacob moved a rock meant to be removable only by a whole group of shepherds. On the other hand, when praying for victory against Amalek, Moses’ss hands were so weak they had to be supported. This does not make Jacob superior to Moses. Certain needs arise at certain times. Only at those times can it be determined whether a miracle is in place to meet those needs. Examples are numerous. Joshua's commanding the sun and moon to be arrested in their orbits, does not denigrate the powers of Moses one iota. Had Moses found himself in the same predicament Joshua had found himself in, he would have been able to perform a similar miracle. Even a Yehu, a king of Israel who had failed to remove the golden calves Jerobam had erected, was enabled to wipe out all the priests of the Baal singlehandedly, something none of those greater than he had been able to do. Elijah and Elisha revived the dead, feats not credited to Moses, yet no one puts down Moses’s abilities on account of that. If you will, the revelation at Mount Sinai, and Moses’ss role in it as well as the participation of the entire nation, so outclass and overshadow any miracles performed by anyone subsequently or prior to that, that Moses’ss honor as the prophet/miracleworker par excellence can never be called into question. At that time, Moses had been instrumental in a chidush ha-olam, a renewal of the universe, so to speak. What happened was such a thorough reversal of all natural laws that the work of later prophets pales into relative insignificance by comparison. If this were not so, the miracles predicted in Yoel chapters three and four, would not be capable of being performed without relegating Moses to an inferior position vis a vis the Messiah or whoever will be G-d’s instrument when the time comes to fulfil those prophecies. In fact, all subsequent miracles are ascribed by G-d to Moses, when G-d promises in Exodus 34,10 that all the miraculous acts which are yet to occur are based on what G-d does for, with, and through Moses. In Moses, as it were, rests the fountainhead of all miracles ever performed by any prophet after him. In all of the Torah, we do not find any events which would constitute fulfilment of G-d’s promise to Moses made at that point. Joshua 11,16 makes it clear that throughout his career as leader of the Jewish people, his role remained that of being Moses’ss disciple. Nothing he did is to be understood as being innovative. It may have been Moses’ss desire to personally carry out these miracles as demonstrations of G-d’s power, which prompted him to request permission from G-d to cross the river Jordan. G-d’s denial of this request was coupled with the assurance that indeed his disciple would perform such miracles, thus fulfilling G-d’s promise to Moses in Exodus 34,10. The instructions to Moses to invest Joshua with part of his own glory and Moses’ss subsequent action cause our sages to comment that whosoever leaves behind him pupils fit to take his place has not in fact died at all (Midrash on Numbers 26,20). Our sages have accepted the principle that the Torah occasionally employs language in the manner people do in their every day speech. Therefore, we find both exaggeration and hyperbole. This fact, however, is not sufficient reason to explain away the very miracles that demonstrate the power of the Creator. There is also no foundation for the assumption of some commentators that miracles involving extra terrestrial matters are of inherently greater significance than miracles involving behavior of phenomena that we are familiar with on earth. In fact, one could argue the reverse with at least equal persuasion. If one can change phenomena that occur on earth despite the fact that their celestial causes have NOT been altered, this is more remarkable than changing patterns of behavior by phenomena whose celestial causes have either been neutralised, interfered with, or have been reversed. If, for instance, someone's arm can stay the wheel of a watermill in spite of the fact that the flow and pressure of the stream that activates it has not diminished, this is more remarkable than halting such a wheel by stopping the flow of water to it. If Daniel told Darius that the angel of G-d shut the lions' mouths, this is more remarkable than if the angel had merely killed the lions. We have discussed such events in chapter fifteen, also in chapter thirty-eight, in connection with the Passover in Egypt. The statement in Deut.34,10 that there never arose another prophet comparable to Moses, does not refer to Moses’sd power as a performer of miracles, but to the fact that no one since ever attained the face to face relationship with G-d that the Torah testifies Moses had achieved. The effortlessness with which Moses performed miracles, as compared to the need of other prophets to engage in prayer beforehand etc., proves how much Moses was on G-d’s "wavelength," so to speak.
_.13.1.5
If one considers, as the Rambam does, for instance, that man is a microcosm compared to the universe, the macrocosm, and that the six days of creation symbolize the six thousand years of human existence on earth followed by one thousand years of transformation pending the advent of the messianic age, one may also see some significance in the seventy years allotted to man on this earth. If the first two thousand years of mankind's history are considered tohu, chaos, a period in which man was subject to juvenile errors, mistakes etc. and that this was why there was a need for a deluge after about sixteen hundred years, then in the life of individuals also, the juvenile years are the underlying cause of sinfulness. G-d’s resolve not to bring another deluge was due to recognition of this factor. Immaturity as a cause of sin is prevalent both in the species and in the individuals. If our sages describe the yetzer hara, evil urge as appearing in seven different guises, they refer to manifestations of the evil urge in seven different forms during seven different decades of man's life. Since with advancing age the evil urge within us weakens, his name changes also. The name ra refers to the way it manifests itself during the first ten years of our lives. At that time, we do not possess within us a force that compensates for the evil urge, something all of us have been born with. A youth's activities are largely dictated by the very immaturity of the victim of this "evil." Moses called the evil urge arel, the uncircumcised one; David referred to ist as tamey, impure. Solomon called it the soneh, the "hater." Isaiah called it michshol, hindrance, obstruction. Ezekiel called it tzefoni, the viper. If one were to subscribe to the theory that life has existed since time immemorial, that the universe existed prior to G-d, we would face the problem of how to account for the sudden depravity of man after millions of years of uninterrupted forward development. According to the theory of Solomon in Kohelet, the concept of kadmut ha-olam, the universe preceding G-d, pyramidical development of the human race is impossible; all there could be would be a never ending repetitious cycle of happenings. Clearly, according to such thinking, the very term "development" would be a misnomer. This is what Solomon means when he keeps talking about "what has been is what will be."
_.13.1.6
The author, when discussing G-d’s answer to Job's enquiry (Job 37-38), states that the peculiarly suspended letter ayin in reference to the resha-im, the wicked, may signify that these people are not absolutely bad, are not beyond redemption. This is what has prevented G-d from producing the kind of destruction on earth that would eradicate them together with their wickedness. When G-d tells Jonah how He feels about the creatures in Nineveh; He explains His relationship to His creatures even when the latter are imperfect or corrupt due to a variety of causes (Jonah 4,11). The repeated reports of mankind's corruption at the end of Parshat Bereshit as well as at the beginning of Parshat Noach (6,5;6,6;6,11; 6,13) indicate the degree of patience G-d displayed before He felt impelled to take drastic action. Viewing the extended periods of time-- one hundred and twenty years twice-- granted man to reverse his ways, any criticism of G-d must be utterly rejected. There simply was no other way left for G-d to prove His kingship except by exercising His prerogative to impose and carry out sentence.
_.13.1.7
The Mishnah quoted at the beginning of our chapter, draws attention to three things then: 1) The world was created by ten imperatives issued by a living G-d. 2) The ten generations of man that angered G-d demonstrate the principle of reward and punishment in this world. 3) Reluctance with which G-d imposed the penalty involving the destruction of His handiwork, and the long patience G-d showed while waiting for man to mature.
_.13.1.8
Some problems in the text:
_.13.1.9
1) Why does the Torah give such painstaking detail regarding the various dates during the deluge? The whole story is in danger of being misinterpreted as the retribution by a vengeful deity!
_.13.1.10
2) Why are the numbers and days reported in such a confused manner that one has to relate different dates to different subject matters in order to escape becoming involved in inconsistencies and discrepancies?
_.13.1.11
3) The apparent contradiction of water rising for one hundred and fifty days after the rain had stopped at the end of forty days and "the fountains of the deep had been closed."
_.13.1.12
4) Why does the story of the raven not parallel the experience with the dove?
_.13.1.13
The author, after having taken issue with other commentators, points out that the line "the waters remained strong for one hundred and fifty days" (Genesis 7,24) is not to be understood as an additional rising of the water levels for one hundred and fifty days after forty days of rainfall. Rather, for a total of one hundred and fifty days the water level remained high enough for the surface of the earth to remain flooded. The highest levels of flood waters were recorded at the end of the first forty days, when the water level was fifteen cubits higher than the tallest mountain top. After that, the waters receded gradually. Since the ark could not come to rest anywhere till after one hundred and fifty days, the waters are still described as govrim, strong, prevalent. Though mountain peaks may have appeared prior to that, the turbulence prevented the ark from settling anywhere. At the end of one hundred and fifty days, on the seventeenth of Nissan, the turbulence subsided. The Arrarat mountain chain is rated as relatively low. After the initial forty days of G-d having completed His act of retribution, He activated a wind to accelerate the drying up process (G-d remembered Noach etc.). By the first day of Tammuz, the tenth month, surrounding mountain tops became visible. Forty days after that, about the tenth of Av, Noach sent out the first bird, a procedure repeated three times at seven day intervals. This brings us to the first day of Ellul. Between then and the first day of Tishrey, the gradual drying of the earth's surface continued. Another fifty-seven days later, the process had reached a stage enabling Noach and his passengers to leave the ark. (4) Because it had breached the sexual etiquette of the creatures in the ark (Sanhedrin 108), the raven was sent out as soon as Noach could be certain that he could survive outside the ark, not in order to determine the extent of the progress of the atmosphere's drying out. Since dogs and Cham could not survive outside the ark at that stage, they were not expelled from the ark, though they too had breached the sexual etiquette imposed on all passengers of the ark. With the dispatch of the dove, Noach's active search for resumption of a normal life on earth begins. The end of the paragraph illustrates G-d’s great Providence, in that not a single creature had failed to survive the long and arduous trip in the ark.
_.14.1.2
"HE SMELLED THE SWEET ODOR OF THE SACRIFICE AND SAID ‘I HAVE PLACED MY RAINBOW IN THE SKY ETC.’"
_.14.1.3
Bereshit Rabbah 35 states that the rainbow in the sky is a sign between G-d and all living creatures. This refers to the quality of justice in the heavens (the hard one) and the quality of justice on earth (the soft one) (Berachot 59). Rabbi Alexandri quoting Rabbi Yehudah ben Levi says that anyone who sees the rainbow needs to prostrate himself, since Ezekiel 1 compares the brilliance of the rainbow to the brilliance of the celestial entourage and we read there that the prophet prostrated himself when he had that vision. The sages in the land of Israel rejected that argument, since it would appear as if such a person were worshipping the rainbow. They agreed however, that the recital of a benediction is in order. The formula is the one we retain until this day, "Who remembers the covenant and keeps His word."
_.14.1.4
Just as it is inconceivable for G-d to create a creature and endow such a being with all the Divine qualities, since the image of Divinity itself would suffer thereby, so it is impossible to imagine that the Almighty in His capacity of absolute perfection would act unfairly or unjustly towards anyone or anything in His universe. Were He to do so, our concepts of what constitutes absolute perfection would be shattered. This thought is expressed by Moses (Deuteronomy 10,17-18), "For the Lord your G-d is the Lord of all lords, Master of masters; the great Power, the mighty and awesome One, who does not show favor or accept bribes. Rather, He does justice with the orphan and the widow, loves the stranger and gives him food and clothing." This teaches that the very essence of being "the Lord of lords" makes it impossible for Him to be reduced to the physical. His very perfection makes it impossible for Him to be unjust. Abraham understood quite correctly when he asked, "It is obviously impossible for the Lord of the universe not to do justice and kill the good together wih the wicked!" (Genesis 18,25). Similar thoughts are expressed in Job chapter 34 and Jeremiah chapter 12. This subject will be discussed in connection with the "induced" obstinacy of Pharaoh. Because man is frequently perplexed by the seeming paradox of the suffering endured by the righteous and the success of the wicked, David proclaims in Psalms 145,17, "The Lord is righteous in all His ways, and full of kindness in all His deeds." Despite the rule of justice-- a general guideline—chessed, kindness is employed in all His actions whenever possible (whenever the recipients benefit thereby). Some serious problems in our Parshah:
_.14.1.5
1) If the kind of offerings brought by Noach results in an apparent change of G-d’s attitude towards man, so much so that a promise never to bring another deluge, i.e. all encompassing collective punishment is elicited, why had such information been withheld from man until that time? 2) If, on the other hand, the punishment had been just and fair, why did G-d decide to change His strategy in the future? If chessed, kindness i.e. a system making allowance for man's weakness was to be employed from now on, why had it not been employed previously?
_.14.1.6
3) What special merit existed from now on which prompted G-d to conclude a covenant to make no more deluge? If Noach's merit had been inadequate to protect his own generation from destruction, how could it be adequate to protect all future generations? Besides, we do not find that mankind holds Noach in high esteem for this accomplishment!
_.14.1.7
4) The fact that, scientifically speaking, the rainbow is a perfectly natural phenomenon surely does not make it something that reminds G-d of a special relationship with mankind.
_.14.1.8
5) When G-d refers to "when I see it... I will remember," this is strange. Surely He does not require these memory joggers in all His perfection.
_.14.1.9
6) If the rainbow does indeed serve as a warning of impending doom, and reminds either party of the covenant that this doom must not be allowed to occur, the frequent appearance of the rainbow surely is psychologically counter productive? Man will not believe that he is in any immediate danger when the rainbow appears too often!

Akeydat Yitzchak by Eliyahu Munk. Via Sefaria (sefaria.org), Sefaria-Export. Version source: http://www.urimpublications.com Licence: CC-BY. Source.