Please support our sponsors.
to download a pdf printable version of this d'var Torah click here
Exile and Presence
According to the tradition there is a gap of 14 years between the end of last week's Torah reading, when Ya'akov leaves his parents' home, and the beginning of this one, when he goes to Charan. The Rabbis tell us that he spent that time studying in the Yeshiva of Shem and Ever. Ya'akov had grown up in the house of Yitzchak, and had spent the first 63 years of his life immersed in study, as the verse states, "Ya'akov was a wholesome man, abiding in tents" (Genesis 25; 27). Yet he realised that his was not adequate preparation before going to face Lavan, the arch enemy of the Jewish people (As the verse says, "An Aramean [Lavan] tried to destroy my father" Deuteronomy 26; 5). In fact his study in this Yeshiva was so intense that he didn't sleep a proper night's sleep for the entire time that he was there.
So it seems strange that despite all this preparation Ya'akov makes a deal with G-d after he has the dream of the ladder and the angels. "Then Ya'akov took a vow saying, 'If G-d will be with me, will guard me on this way? and I return in peace to my father's house, then G-d (A-donai) will be a G-d (Elokim) to me.'" (Genesis 28; 20-21). What would the alternative have been? Can we deduce that had things not worked out so well Ya'akov would not have accepted G-d, despite all those years of study and preparation?
We have a tradition that all of the events that happened to the patriarchs were a foreshadowing of events that would happen later in Jewish history. This is especially true of Ya'akov, who became Israel, embodying the entire nation and all future generations. The Rabbis tell us that the four tribulations that befell Ya'akov symbolised the four exiles that the Jewish nation has experienced. Ya'akov's encounter with Lavan represents the Babylonian exile, his dealings with Esav shows the Persian exile, the trial with Dina is the Greek exile, and his final suffering with the loss of Yosef represents the present Roman exile. Ya'akov somehow sensed the importance of the events that were about to take place, and therefore his final 'pact' with G-d before leaving the borders of the Land of Israel define the entire future of Jewish history, and the nation's relationship with G-d.
There are many different names for G-d that are used in the Torah. Each of them highlights a different way in which G-d interacts with, or is perceived in the world. The name A-donai always represents G-d's attribute of mercy, whereas the name Elokim is used where G-d's attribute of strict justice is shown. This is also the name for G-d as perceived through nature, the numerical value of the name Elokim is the same as that of Hateva, nature. This is because nature works on the principles of the survival of the fittest, and has no room for mercy. In a sense nature is the ultimate judge, because it shows no favouritism at all.
We know that the exiles are characterised by the hiding of the Divine Presence, as the verse states, "On that day I [G-d] will surely have concealed My face" (ibid. 31; 18). This means that it will be a period without the direct connection to G-d which is strengthened by open miracles and prophecy. This is a time when it will appear as if the world is running through the 'random' laws of nature, and G-d's Presence will not be felt as clearly. However, we have assurances from the earlier prophets, that though there may be very difficult times for the Jewish nation, G-d will never forsake them, or abandon them. He will always ultimately provide for them, and direct world history to the events that will return us to a state of open recognition of His involvement in the world.
Ya'akov makes his preparations for exile, for the time of G-d's apparent concealment by immersing himself totally in the world of Torah for 14 years. Only with this preparation is he able to withstand the trials and tribulations of exile. Even with all his preparations he is still unable to detect G-d's Presence, "Surely G-d is present in this place, and I did not know" (Genesis 28; 16). However he knows that G-d will never forsake him completely. Perhaps we could better translate the 'bargain' that Ya'akov makes with G-d not as a conditional agreement, but as a statement of fact. "G-d will be with me, and guard me, even though A-donai (the attribute of mercy, and direct involvement with history) will be Elokim (the hidden nature of G-d through miracles) to me."
to download a pdf printable version of this d'var Torah click here
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
Vayetze summary
Vayetze
Ya'akov (Jacob) departs from Be'er Sheva, fleeing from his brother, to seek a wife in Charan. He stops to sleep on the way and dreams of a ladder stretching from the earth to the heavens, with angels descending and ascending. G-d stands at the top of the ladder and blesses Ya'akov that He will guard and protect him while he is with Lavan. Ya'akov awakens and names the place Beth-El. He sets up an altar as a witness to the promises that G-d made to him.
Ya'akov continues to Charan and finds the local shepherds at a well. They are unable to water their flocks, because the rock covering the mouth of the well is too heavy for them to lift individually. Rachel comes with her sheep. When Ya'akov sees her he single-handedly rolls the rock off the well. Rachel runs to tell her father Lavan, who comes to greet Ya'akov. Lavan brings Ya'akov into his house, and hires him as a shepherd. Ya'akov agrees to work for seven years in order to marry Rachel. After the seven years, Lavan tricks Ya'akov by substituting Leah, Rachel's older sister, in her place. When Ya'akov realises that he has been tricked, he agrees to work for another seven years for Rachel. Lavan also gives Bilhah and Zilpah to Ya'akov as handmaids.
Leah gives birth to Reuven, Shimon, Levi and Yehudah. Rachel sees that she is barren, and gives Bilhah to Ya'akov in her stead. Bilhah gives birth to Dan and Naftali. Leah gives Zilpah to Ya'akov, and she has Gad and Asher. Reuven finds some mandrakes (a fertility drug) which he brings to his mother. Rachel buys them from her sister in exchange for her spending the night with Ya'akov. Leah has two more sons, Yissachar and Zevulun, and a daughter, Dina. Finally Rachel gives birth to Yosef.
After the birth of Yosef, Ya'akov asks Lavan for permission to return to his home. Lavan convinces him to stay and earn himself a flock of sheep. Lavan separates all the sheep with any white on them. Ya'akov is to have all the mottled and speckled sheep that are born. Ya'akov uses trees with the bark peeled off to encourage the sheep to have coloured lambs. Miraculously all of the sheep are born speckled from then on, and Ya'akov becomes wealthy.
Ya'akov sees Lavan's sons becoming jealous of his wealth, and decides to return to Padan Aram. Lavan hears that he has left and pursues him. G-d appears to Lavan, and tells him not to attempt to harm Ya'akov. Lavan bids his daughters and grandchildren farewell, and accuses Ya'akov of having stolen his teraphim (idols). Ya'akov does not realise that Rachel has taken them, and declares that whoever has taken them shall die. Lavan does not find his teraphim, and returns empty handed. He and Ya'akov set up a monument of their pact of non-beligerence. After Lavan leaves, Ya'akov encounters a camp of angels and calls the place Machanaim.
Ya'akov (Jacob) departs from Be'er Sheva, fleeing from his brother, to seek a wife in Charan. He stops to sleep on the way and dreams of a ladder stretching from the earth to the heavens, with angels descending and ascending. G-d stands at the top of the ladder and blesses Ya'akov that He will guard and protect him while he is with Lavan. Ya'akov awakens and names the place Beth-El. He sets up an altar as a witness to the promises that G-d made to him.
Ya'akov continues to Charan and finds the local shepherds at a well. They are unable to water their flocks, because the rock covering the mouth of the well is too heavy for them to lift individually. Rachel comes with her sheep. When Ya'akov sees her he single-handedly rolls the rock off the well. Rachel runs to tell her father Lavan, who comes to greet Ya'akov. Lavan brings Ya'akov into his house, and hires him as a shepherd. Ya'akov agrees to work for seven years in order to marry Rachel. After the seven years, Lavan tricks Ya'akov by substituting Leah, Rachel's older sister, in her place. When Ya'akov realises that he has been tricked, he agrees to work for another seven years for Rachel. Lavan also gives Bilhah and Zilpah to Ya'akov as handmaids.
Leah gives birth to Reuven, Shimon, Levi and Yehudah. Rachel sees that she is barren, and gives Bilhah to Ya'akov in her stead. Bilhah gives birth to Dan and Naftali. Leah gives Zilpah to Ya'akov, and she has Gad and Asher. Reuven finds some mandrakes (a fertility drug) which he brings to his mother. Rachel buys them from her sister in exchange for her spending the night with Ya'akov. Leah has two more sons, Yissachar and Zevulun, and a daughter, Dina. Finally Rachel gives birth to Yosef.
After the birth of Yosef, Ya'akov asks Lavan for permission to return to his home. Lavan convinces him to stay and earn himself a flock of sheep. Lavan separates all the sheep with any white on them. Ya'akov is to have all the mottled and speckled sheep that are born. Ya'akov uses trees with the bark peeled off to encourage the sheep to have coloured lambs. Miraculously all of the sheep are born speckled from then on, and Ya'akov becomes wealthy.
Ya'akov sees Lavan's sons becoming jealous of his wealth, and decides to return to Padan Aram. Lavan hears that he has left and pursues him. G-d appears to Lavan, and tells him not to attempt to harm Ya'akov. Lavan bids his daughters and grandchildren farewell, and accuses Ya'akov of having stolen his teraphim (idols). Ya'akov does not realise that Rachel has taken them, and declares that whoever has taken them shall die. Lavan does not find his teraphim, and returns empty handed. He and Ya'akov set up a monument of their pact of non-beligerence. After Lavan leaves, Ya'akov encounters a camp of angels and calls the place Machanaim.
Thursday, November 16, 2006
Chaye Sarah
For the pdf link click here
Chaye Sarah
Emunah and Bitachon
From the very beginning humans were expected to expend effort to attain their goals. When G-d created Adam and Eve and placed them in the Garden of Eden, He commanded them to "work it and to guard it" (Genesis 2; 15). Even though everything was provided for them, they were expected to earn their keep. After they were evicted from paradise one of the curses was that only through the sweat of their brow will they eat food.
In our Torah reading it is surprising to find that Yitzchak seems to make no effort to find himself a wife, but relies on his father to appoint someone as matchmaker for him. Furthermore, when Eliezer, Avraham's servant, arrives in Padan Aram he also makes no effort to find the suitable match, but tells G-d to show him the object of his quest. Compared with the actions of Ya'akov, when he arrives in Padan Aram to find a wife a generation later, Eliezer appears to expend no energy to find Yitzchak's prospective bride. When Ya'akov arrived (ibid. 29), and ascertains that he has reached the correct destination, he begins asking questions about Lavan and his family, to try and find the most suitable marriage partner. When he sees Rachel he realises immediately that she is to be his wife. Eliezer on the other hand simply tethers his camels, and tells G-d to do the rest.
Though we are supposed to have faith and trust in G-d, total reliance on Him is an abdication of responsibility. Eliezer seems to fail to act in a responsible manner. In fact the Midrash (Bereishis Rabba 60) criticizes Eliezer for his request in asking G-d to find the proper wife for Yitzchak.
Eliezer is described by the Torah as Damesek (Genesis 15; 2), which the Talmud (Yoma 28b) understands as a contraction of the phrase Doleh u'Mashkeh, 'drawing water and giving to drink'. This describes his relationship with Avraham, that Eliezer is able to take the Torah which Avraham teaches, and disseminate it to the masses. However, the one thing that Eliezer is unable to do is initiate creative thought, or transmit his own teachings. He seems to be totally incapable of acting on his own. Halachically we say that a non-Jewish slave does not own anything; anything he has belongs to his master. Eliezer, the most famous non-Jewish slave of the Bible, seems to have taken that to the extreme that even his thoughts are not his own. In fact the Midrash (Bereishit Rabba 59; 8) tells us that he even looked like Avraham - he had completely lost any independent identity.
This is why Avraham sent Eliezer to find a wife for Yitzchak. Avraham was faced with a dilemma. Yitzchak was not permitted to marry a local woman, for only a wife who would be prepared to leave her family and customs, and come to Israel (as Avraham and Sarah had done) would be a suitable Matriarch for the new nation. Additionally, all of the Matriarchs (as the Patriarchs) had to be descendents of Terach. Conversely, Yitzchak, as the bound sacrifice on the altar, was not permitted to leave Israel, lest he remain in Padan Aram with his new wife. However, he had to have a wife to ensure the promised continuation of the fledgling Jewish nation. It is true that we are normally expected to do everything that we can to help ourselves, and may not rely solely on G-d. However, when faced with the impossible we have no option but to place our trust solely in G-d.
Having reached the point of impossibility, any action that a person takes can only be counterproductive. Before setting out on his journey, Eliezer checks whether there is any 'backup' plan for finding Yitzchak a wife. "Perhaps this woman shall not wish to follow me to this land...? Avraham answered him ? G-d will send His angel before you, and you will take a wife for my son from there". (Genesis 24; 5-7). Upon realising that there was no option but to rely on G-d, Eliezer does precisely that. Perhaps this is the reason that Avraham did not embark on this journey himself, but sent his trusted servant. Maybe he was concerned lest his personal emotional involvement prevent him from seeing the hand of G-d as clearly.
Yitzchak himself was the epitome of total trust and faith in G-d. Though Avraham was faced with a true test of his faith when G-d told him to offer his son on Mount Moriah, Yitzchak had already reached a level of faith. His only concern was that perhaps he would involuntarily flinch as the knife was placed on his throat, and invalidate the offering. In a sense he remained bound on the altar for the rest of his life, so totally dependent upon G-d that he had no need to be personally involved in planning his own future.
The Talmud (Brachot 35b) records an argument between Rabbi Yishmael, who says that the verse "This Torah shall not depart from you mouth day or night" (Joshua 1; 8) only applies when one is not involved in earning a livelihood. Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai maintains that if a person acts in accordance with G-d's wishes, their work will be done for them by others. Abaye concludes "Many people acted in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, and they succeeded. There were those who followed Rabbi Shimon's opinion, and they did not succeed."
We see from this that this total dependence and reliance on G-d is a high level to aspire to, which is not attained by most. Furthermore, it seems that a person who relies on G-d when they should be proactive is doomed to failure. However we must also realise that all of our successes come from G-d, despite our actions and intentions. And when it becomes impossible to act we must have total faith that G-d will take care of us.
We see this idea clearly in the last Mishna in Sotah, which describes the difficult times that will precede the coming of the Messiah. The Mishna ends ‘On whom can we rely? Only on our Father in Heaven’.
Shabbat Shalom
For the pdf link click here
Chaye Sarah
Emunah and Bitachon
From the very beginning humans were expected to expend effort to attain their goals. When G-d created Adam and Eve and placed them in the Garden of Eden, He commanded them to "work it and to guard it" (Genesis 2; 15). Even though everything was provided for them, they were expected to earn their keep. After they were evicted from paradise one of the curses was that only through the sweat of their brow will they eat food.
In our Torah reading it is surprising to find that Yitzchak seems to make no effort to find himself a wife, but relies on his father to appoint someone as matchmaker for him. Furthermore, when Eliezer, Avraham's servant, arrives in Padan Aram he also makes no effort to find the suitable match, but tells G-d to show him the object of his quest. Compared with the actions of Ya'akov, when he arrives in Padan Aram to find a wife a generation later, Eliezer appears to expend no energy to find Yitzchak's prospective bride. When Ya'akov arrived (ibid. 29), and ascertains that he has reached the correct destination, he begins asking questions about Lavan and his family, to try and find the most suitable marriage partner. When he sees Rachel he realises immediately that she is to be his wife. Eliezer on the other hand simply tethers his camels, and tells G-d to do the rest.
Though we are supposed to have faith and trust in G-d, total reliance on Him is an abdication of responsibility. Eliezer seems to fail to act in a responsible manner. In fact the Midrash (Bereishis Rabba 60) criticizes Eliezer for his request in asking G-d to find the proper wife for Yitzchak.
Eliezer is described by the Torah as Damesek (Genesis 15; 2), which the Talmud (Yoma 28b) understands as a contraction of the phrase Doleh u'Mashkeh, 'drawing water and giving to drink'. This describes his relationship with Avraham, that Eliezer is able to take the Torah which Avraham teaches, and disseminate it to the masses. However, the one thing that Eliezer is unable to do is initiate creative thought, or transmit his own teachings. He seems to be totally incapable of acting on his own. Halachically we say that a non-Jewish slave does not own anything; anything he has belongs to his master. Eliezer, the most famous non-Jewish slave of the Bible, seems to have taken that to the extreme that even his thoughts are not his own. In fact the Midrash (Bereishit Rabba 59; 8) tells us that he even looked like Avraham - he had completely lost any independent identity.
This is why Avraham sent Eliezer to find a wife for Yitzchak. Avraham was faced with a dilemma. Yitzchak was not permitted to marry a local woman, for only a wife who would be prepared to leave her family and customs, and come to Israel (as Avraham and Sarah had done) would be a suitable Matriarch for the new nation. Additionally, all of the Matriarchs (as the Patriarchs) had to be descendents of Terach. Conversely, Yitzchak, as the bound sacrifice on the altar, was not permitted to leave Israel, lest he remain in Padan Aram with his new wife. However, he had to have a wife to ensure the promised continuation of the fledgling Jewish nation. It is true that we are normally expected to do everything that we can to help ourselves, and may not rely solely on G-d. However, when faced with the impossible we have no option but to place our trust solely in G-d.
Having reached the point of impossibility, any action that a person takes can only be counterproductive. Before setting out on his journey, Eliezer checks whether there is any 'backup' plan for finding Yitzchak a wife. "Perhaps this woman shall not wish to follow me to this land...? Avraham answered him ? G-d will send His angel before you, and you will take a wife for my son from there". (Genesis 24; 5-7). Upon realising that there was no option but to rely on G-d, Eliezer does precisely that. Perhaps this is the reason that Avraham did not embark on this journey himself, but sent his trusted servant. Maybe he was concerned lest his personal emotional involvement prevent him from seeing the hand of G-d as clearly.
Yitzchak himself was the epitome of total trust and faith in G-d. Though Avraham was faced with a true test of his faith when G-d told him to offer his son on Mount Moriah, Yitzchak had already reached a level of faith. His only concern was that perhaps he would involuntarily flinch as the knife was placed on his throat, and invalidate the offering. In a sense he remained bound on the altar for the rest of his life, so totally dependent upon G-d that he had no need to be personally involved in planning his own future.
The Talmud (Brachot 35b) records an argument between Rabbi Yishmael, who says that the verse "This Torah shall not depart from you mouth day or night" (Joshua 1; 8) only applies when one is not involved in earning a livelihood. Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai maintains that if a person acts in accordance with G-d's wishes, their work will be done for them by others. Abaye concludes "Many people acted in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, and they succeeded. There were those who followed Rabbi Shimon's opinion, and they did not succeed."
We see from this that this total dependence and reliance on G-d is a high level to aspire to, which is not attained by most. Furthermore, it seems that a person who relies on G-d when they should be proactive is doomed to failure. However we must also realise that all of our successes come from G-d, despite our actions and intentions. And when it becomes impossible to act we must have total faith that G-d will take care of us.
We see this idea clearly in the last Mishna in Sotah, which describes the difficult times that will precede the coming of the Messiah. The Mishna ends ‘On whom can we rely? Only on our Father in Heaven’.
Shabbat Shalom
For the pdf link click here
Saturday, November 04, 2006
Vayera
Click here to download this file as pdf
When G-d tells Avraham that He is about to destroy Sodom and Gemorrah, Avraham pleads and bargains with G-d to save those cities and their inhabitants. During the negotiations, Avraham shows his humility by describing himself as “mere earth and ashes” (Genesis 18; 27). Rabbi Yonasan Eibschitz points out that with the double phrase of ‘earth and ashes’ Avraham is seeking extra merit for the people of Sodom. ‘Earth’ stresses the fact that people are only mortal, and their origin is in the earth. With such a background it is only natural that people are drawn to sin, since the base element of their physical body draws the soul away from G-d.
However, Avraham himself shows the futility of this claim. If he was able to surmount such humble origins, and elevate himself to the service of G-d, what excuse do the people of Sodom have? Elsewhere in the Tanach we find a similar claim. The Tzorfati woman asks Eliyahu to leave her home, saying: “Have you come to me to show up my sins, to kill my son?” (I ings 17; 18). Though she was one of the few righteous people of the generation, compared to Eliyahu she felt inadequate, and any shortcomings that she had were highlighted by his near perfection. Though Avraham was arguing on behalf of the Sodomites, his personal commitment showed up their faults. Therefore he added ‘ash’, as a reminder of the fact that he had survived being thrown into a furnace by Nimrod, in Ur Kasdim. Though he survived miraculously, he could have been burnt to ash. Since he personally experienced the miracle of surviving the furnace, he had a greater debt of gratitude to G-d. Therefore he describes himself as ash to plead on behalf of Sodom, that because they had not experienced this Divine salvation, G-d could not reasonably expect such a high level of behaviour from them.
There is another dimension to Avraham describing himself as ‘earth’. G-d changed his name to Avraham, meaning ‘father of many nations’ because Avraham felt an affinity with people of every nation and origin. He was able to see the intrinsic holiness within each person, and bring out that goodness, leading to spiritual growth. Therefore he is like the earth, which spreads across national boundaries indiscriminately. Earth is also the environment in which seeds grow, turning the smallest ‘spark’ of life into trees and flowers.
This ‘mineral’ description of Avraham is a sharp contrast to that of Lot’s wife. After fleeing from Sodom, she looked back to see the destruction, and was turned into a pillar of salt (19; 26). The pillar, which is firmly rooted to a geographical location is the opposite of the earth which covers almost all of the globe. Also, salt is singled out in Midrashic literature as the most infertile substance. For example, when the Romans destroyed Jerusalem, they ploughed it with salt to try and prevent it’s resettlement.
Avraham’s name shows his ability to reach out to everybody. Lot’s wife, according to Midrashic literature (e.g. Ramban to19; 17) was named Irit, which means ‘city dweller’. She was firmly attached to her locale to the point where she was unable to leave, even though it cost her her life. Avraham’s humility made him the international man, Lot’s wife epitomised the Sodom mentality of ‘what’s mine is mine’ (Ethics of the Fathers 5; 10), which prevented any connection or feeling of fraternity with any visitors or strangers.
Yet these three minerals, earth, ash and salt all come together on the altar in the Temple. The main altar is known as the Mizbeach HaAdama (earthen altar), and their were always ashes on it. In addition, the Torah commands that each sacrifice must be accompanied by a small amount of salt (Leviticus II: 13). This symbolises the triple nature of the Temple and the Jewish people, as both concerned with the welfare of the world, and personifying humility, while at the same time clinging to the laws, traditions and customs that have been practised through the millennia.
When G-d tells Avraham that He is about to destroy Sodom and Gemorrah, Avraham pleads and bargains with G-d to save those cities and their inhabitants. During the negotiations, Avraham shows his humility by describing himself as “mere earth and ashes” (Genesis 18; 27). Rabbi Yonasan Eibschitz points out that with the double phrase of ‘earth and ashes’ Avraham is seeking extra merit for the people of Sodom. ‘Earth’ stresses the fact that people are only mortal, and their origin is in the earth. With such a background it is only natural that people are drawn to sin, since the base element of their physical body draws the soul away from G-d.
However, Avraham himself shows the futility of this claim. If he was able to surmount such humble origins, and elevate himself to the service of G-d, what excuse do the people of Sodom have? Elsewhere in the Tanach we find a similar claim. The Tzorfati woman asks Eliyahu to leave her home, saying: “Have you come to me to show up my sins, to kill my son?” (I ings 17; 18). Though she was one of the few righteous people of the generation, compared to Eliyahu she felt inadequate, and any shortcomings that she had were highlighted by his near perfection. Though Avraham was arguing on behalf of the Sodomites, his personal commitment showed up their faults. Therefore he added ‘ash’, as a reminder of the fact that he had survived being thrown into a furnace by Nimrod, in Ur Kasdim. Though he survived miraculously, he could have been burnt to ash. Since he personally experienced the miracle of surviving the furnace, he had a greater debt of gratitude to G-d. Therefore he describes himself as ash to plead on behalf of Sodom, that because they had not experienced this Divine salvation, G-d could not reasonably expect such a high level of behaviour from them.
There is another dimension to Avraham describing himself as ‘earth’. G-d changed his name to Avraham, meaning ‘father of many nations’ because Avraham felt an affinity with people of every nation and origin. He was able to see the intrinsic holiness within each person, and bring out that goodness, leading to spiritual growth. Therefore he is like the earth, which spreads across national boundaries indiscriminately. Earth is also the environment in which seeds grow, turning the smallest ‘spark’ of life into trees and flowers.
This ‘mineral’ description of Avraham is a sharp contrast to that of Lot’s wife. After fleeing from Sodom, she looked back to see the destruction, and was turned into a pillar of salt (19; 26). The pillar, which is firmly rooted to a geographical location is the opposite of the earth which covers almost all of the globe. Also, salt is singled out in Midrashic literature as the most infertile substance. For example, when the Romans destroyed Jerusalem, they ploughed it with salt to try and prevent it’s resettlement.
Avraham’s name shows his ability to reach out to everybody. Lot’s wife, according to Midrashic literature (e.g. Ramban to19; 17) was named Irit, which means ‘city dweller’. She was firmly attached to her locale to the point where she was unable to leave, even though it cost her her life. Avraham’s humility made him the international man, Lot’s wife epitomised the Sodom mentality of ‘what’s mine is mine’ (Ethics of the Fathers 5; 10), which prevented any connection or feeling of fraternity with any visitors or strangers.
Yet these three minerals, earth, ash and salt all come together on the altar in the Temple. The main altar is known as the Mizbeach HaAdama (earthen altar), and their were always ashes on it. In addition, the Torah commands that each sacrifice must be accompanied by a small amount of salt (Leviticus II: 13). This symbolises the triple nature of the Temple and the Jewish people, as both concerned with the welfare of the world, and personifying humility, while at the same time clinging to the laws, traditions and customs that have been practised through the millennia.
Sunday, October 29, 2006
Lech Lecha
Click here to download in pdf format
“G-d said to Avram, ‘Go for yourself from your land, from your relatives, and from your father’s house to the land that I will show you’ ... Avram took his wife Sarai and Lot, his brother’s son, and all their wealth that they had amassed, and the souls they made in Haran; and they left to go to the land of Canaan, and they came to the land of Canaan.” (Genesis 12; 1-5). This was one of Avraham’s ten tests (Ethics of the Fathers 5). Because he hearkened to G-d, and left his home, relatives and family he showed his faith and trust in G-d. Yet this passage is remarkably similar to that immediately preceding. “Terach took his son Avram, and Lot the son of Haran, his grandson, and his daughter-in-law Sarai, the wife of Avram his son, and they departed with them from Ur Kasdim to go to the land of Canaan; they arrived at Haran and they settled there.” The Torah is not merely telling us the travelogue of Terach and his family, but seems to be implying a parallel between Avram and his father. Both set out for Canaan with their families. However, Avram arrived at his destination, whereas Terach gave up en route, and settled in Haran. Surely G-d is as concerned with intent as with deed, therefore we should expect Terach to be praised for beginning the process which Avram was to complete.
Yet even from G-d’s instruction to Avram we see that this is not the case. “Go ... from your father’s house...”. G-d explains to Avram that he is not to continue in his father’s path, but to make a new beginning, abandoning his past. Similarly, as we read in the Haggada of Pesach, when Joshua gives his farewell address to the nation, he contrasts Avraham’s actions with those of Terach. “Your forefathers - Terach, the father of Avraham and the father of Nachor - always dwelt beyond the [Euphrates] river and they served other gods.” (Joshua 24; 2). Avraham, the founding father of the nation and the first to embrace monotheism, is contrasted with his father Terach who remained an idolater. Thus, rather than considering Terach meritorious for setting out for the Land of Israel, he became the epitome of an idol worshipper for his failure to reach that goal. In fact, it seems that Terach’s main failing was his inability to cross the river.
Avraham is described (Genesis 14; 13) as ‘Ivri’ (‘Hebrew’ lit. ‘from the other side’) because he came from the other side of the river. It seems that crossing the Euphrates river and entering into Israel is the crucial distinction between Avraham and Terach, between monotheistic service of G-d and the idolatrous worship of alien gods. The Midrash highlights the difference in even starker terms: “I shall give to you and your descendants after you the land where you dwell, all the land of Canaan ... and I will be for them as G-d” (17; 8). Rabbi Yudan said; if they enter the Land of Israel they accept G-d’s divinity, and if not they do not accept it.” How can such a simple journey make such a difference? Furthermore, Avraham was commanded by G-d to enter Israel, perhaps if Terach had received such an invitation he could have become the founder of our faith in place of Avraham.
The Midrash (Bereishis Rabbi 41) gives another explanation of the word Ivri. “Rabbi Yehuda says that all the world was on one side, and Avraham was on the other.” Avraham was the original iconoclast, he smashed the idols of the entire generation, and was not afraid to show the world that he was different, even if it meant putting his life at risk. He was prepared to live by his beliefs. Therefore G-d instructed him to cross the river, and enter into the Land of Canaan, the geographical distinction symbolising Avraham’s spiritual separation from the rest of the world.
On the other hand, when Terach reached Haran, he gave up the quest for spiritual growth. The Torah tells us that after arriving in Haran, Terach died at the age of 205 years old (11; 32). However, when we calculate his age upon arrival, we find that he didn’t die until long after Avraham had gone to Israel, and become famous as Avraham the Ivri. The Torah tells us now that he died to write him out of the story. He failed to reach Israel, and cross the river, even though he recognised the importance of Israel and the symbolic meaning in going to the other side. Therefore he no longer has a part to play in the history and spiritual development of the Jewish nation. Furthermore, because he knew what he should have done, but decided to opt for the comfortable life in Haran, rather than dedicate himself to the goal of making G-d known in the world, he was not only considered a failure, but was classed as wicked. Rashi’s commentary to that verse states, “The verse calls him dead, for the wicked even during their lifetime are called ‘dead’, and the righteous even after their death are called ‘living’.”
To live one’s life in darkness, without an awareness or quest for anything higher is a pity. But to recognise the truth, and having done so to ignore it, is a disaster. To know one’s potential, yet to give up because it is too hard, is one of the greatest tragedies in the world.
Avraham followed G-d wherever He told him to go, and for this is hailed as the father of the nation. Terach quit when the going got tough, and opted for the easy life. We contrast these two approaches of Avraham and Terach in the Haggada to show what would have happened had we not left Egypt. Instead of receiving the Torah on Mount Sinai and coming into the Land of Israel, we would have become content with a life of slavery, preferring the security of bondage to the responsibilities and challenges of freedom.
The challenge of Lech Lecha, the first of Avraham’s trials, is equally challenging to all of us. We must recognise the truth, and having done so act upon it to fulfil our potential.
Click here to download in pdf format
“G-d said to Avram, ‘Go for yourself from your land, from your relatives, and from your father’s house to the land that I will show you’ ... Avram took his wife Sarai and Lot, his brother’s son, and all their wealth that they had amassed, and the souls they made in Haran; and they left to go to the land of Canaan, and they came to the land of Canaan.” (Genesis 12; 1-5). This was one of Avraham’s ten tests (Ethics of the Fathers 5). Because he hearkened to G-d, and left his home, relatives and family he showed his faith and trust in G-d. Yet this passage is remarkably similar to that immediately preceding. “Terach took his son Avram, and Lot the son of Haran, his grandson, and his daughter-in-law Sarai, the wife of Avram his son, and they departed with them from Ur Kasdim to go to the land of Canaan; they arrived at Haran and they settled there.” The Torah is not merely telling us the travelogue of Terach and his family, but seems to be implying a parallel between Avram and his father. Both set out for Canaan with their families. However, Avram arrived at his destination, whereas Terach gave up en route, and settled in Haran. Surely G-d is as concerned with intent as with deed, therefore we should expect Terach to be praised for beginning the process which Avram was to complete.
Yet even from G-d’s instruction to Avram we see that this is not the case. “Go ... from your father’s house...”. G-d explains to Avram that he is not to continue in his father’s path, but to make a new beginning, abandoning his past. Similarly, as we read in the Haggada of Pesach, when Joshua gives his farewell address to the nation, he contrasts Avraham’s actions with those of Terach. “Your forefathers - Terach, the father of Avraham and the father of Nachor - always dwelt beyond the [Euphrates] river and they served other gods.” (Joshua 24; 2). Avraham, the founding father of the nation and the first to embrace monotheism, is contrasted with his father Terach who remained an idolater. Thus, rather than considering Terach meritorious for setting out for the Land of Israel, he became the epitome of an idol worshipper for his failure to reach that goal. In fact, it seems that Terach’s main failing was his inability to cross the river.
Avraham is described (Genesis 14; 13) as ‘Ivri’ (‘Hebrew’ lit. ‘from the other side’) because he came from the other side of the river. It seems that crossing the Euphrates river and entering into Israel is the crucial distinction between Avraham and Terach, between monotheistic service of G-d and the idolatrous worship of alien gods. The Midrash highlights the difference in even starker terms: “I shall give to you and your descendants after you the land where you dwell, all the land of Canaan ... and I will be for them as G-d” (17; 8). Rabbi Yudan said; if they enter the Land of Israel they accept G-d’s divinity, and if not they do not accept it.” How can such a simple journey make such a difference? Furthermore, Avraham was commanded by G-d to enter Israel, perhaps if Terach had received such an invitation he could have become the founder of our faith in place of Avraham.
The Midrash (Bereishis Rabbi 41) gives another explanation of the word Ivri. “Rabbi Yehuda says that all the world was on one side, and Avraham was on the other.” Avraham was the original iconoclast, he smashed the idols of the entire generation, and was not afraid to show the world that he was different, even if it meant putting his life at risk. He was prepared to live by his beliefs. Therefore G-d instructed him to cross the river, and enter into the Land of Canaan, the geographical distinction symbolising Avraham’s spiritual separation from the rest of the world.
On the other hand, when Terach reached Haran, he gave up the quest for spiritual growth. The Torah tells us that after arriving in Haran, Terach died at the age of 205 years old (11; 32). However, when we calculate his age upon arrival, we find that he didn’t die until long after Avraham had gone to Israel, and become famous as Avraham the Ivri. The Torah tells us now that he died to write him out of the story. He failed to reach Israel, and cross the river, even though he recognised the importance of Israel and the symbolic meaning in going to the other side. Therefore he no longer has a part to play in the history and spiritual development of the Jewish nation. Furthermore, because he knew what he should have done, but decided to opt for the comfortable life in Haran, rather than dedicate himself to the goal of making G-d known in the world, he was not only considered a failure, but was classed as wicked. Rashi’s commentary to that verse states, “The verse calls him dead, for the wicked even during their lifetime are called ‘dead’, and the righteous even after their death are called ‘living’.”
To live one’s life in darkness, without an awareness or quest for anything higher is a pity. But to recognise the truth, and having done so to ignore it, is a disaster. To know one’s potential, yet to give up because it is too hard, is one of the greatest tragedies in the world.
Avraham followed G-d wherever He told him to go, and for this is hailed as the father of the nation. Terach quit when the going got tough, and opted for the easy life. We contrast these two approaches of Avraham and Terach in the Haggada to show what would have happened had we not left Egypt. Instead of receiving the Torah on Mount Sinai and coming into the Land of Israel, we would have become content with a life of slavery, preferring the security of bondage to the responsibilities and challenges of freedom.
The challenge of Lech Lecha, the first of Avraham’s trials, is equally challenging to all of us. We must recognise the truth, and having done so act upon it to fulfil our potential.
Click here to download in pdf format
Monday, October 23, 2006
Noach
Man of the Earth
for printable pdf file click here
“Noach, the man of the earth...” (Genesis 9; 20). Ramban explains that the description “man of ...” denotes a complete dedication to that thing, and a separation from anything else. As soon as he left the Ark Noach immediately set about sowing and planting the desolate world that he found. He devoted himself entirely to the earth. Similarly, Moshe was described as “man of G-d” (Deuteronomy 33; 1), signifying his complete devotion and total dedication to G-d.
In the very beginning of our portion Noach is also described as a man, but a ‘righteous man’ (6; 9). According to the Ramban’s definition this means that he dedicated himself to righteousness, and separated himself from anything else. Noach transforms from the epitome of righteousness, to a farmer, concerned not with righteousness, but with the earth. In the same verse that Noach is described as being a ‘man of the earth’ the Torah also shows us his descent from his level of sanctity. “vayachel Noach”, “Noach debased himself” (9; 20).
One could mistakenly assume that it was Noach’s concern with the earth that caused him to lose his righteousness. We assume that someone designated by G-d as ‘righteous’ must spend their time removed from worldly pursuits, engaging with the spiritual. Yet from his birth Noach had been recognised as someone able to work the earth, and transform it like nobody before him. He had a special relationship with the earth. Since the time of Cain nobody had been able to till the ground, yet during Noach’s lifetime the curse of the ground disappeared. Noach is also credited with the invention of the plough allowing people once again to work the ground (Midrash Tanchuma Bereishis 11). In fact Noach was named for his relationship with the earth, “And he called his name Noach saying, ‘This one will bring us rest from our work and from the toil of our hands, from the ground which G-d has cursed’.” Lamech, Noach’s father, recognised his potential to work and develop the ground, and remove its curse.
His relationship with the ground was actually the source of Noach’s righteousness, and in that merit he was chosen to survive the flood. Rather than being removed from the physical world, Noach dedicated himself to working the soil. However, his sole intention in so doing was to bring himself closer to G-d. Therefore after the flood, Noach simply continued with that work which he knew best, tilling the soil, and sowing and planting. He even found support for his actions in G-d’s commands to him. Since (according to Midrashim) G-d had told Noach to take saplings and seeds with him into the Ark, he concluded that he should plant them when he left the Ark a year later.
Rashi explains that Noach’s sin was not in planting, but in what he chose to plant first. Of all the species which he had with him in the Ark, he began by planting grapevines, with the disastrous results mentioned in the continuation of the story. This shows the importance of beginnings. Noach lost his exalted status only because he made the wrong beginning when he emerged from the Ark. Yet Judaism sees nothing intrinsically wrong with wine and grapes - at every Jewish ceremony we mark the transition from holy to mundane or from mundane to holy, with a blessing over wine. Thus we begin Shabbat with Kiddush on wine, and end it with Havdalah on wine. We use wine at a wedding to signify the higher spiritual level of a couple than two individuals, and we use wine at a circumcision to show the higher sanctity of a child who has entered the covenant with G-d. But before Noach became drunk the Torah already saw that he was no longer ‘a righteous man’, but ‘a man of the earth’.
Noach refused to leave the Ark without a Divine command to do so (8; 15-17). “Every living being that is with you … take them out.” In the Torah the Hebrew word ‘take them out’ (hotzei) is read as ‘order them out’ (ha’ytzei), meaning that if the animals refused to leave the Ark voluntarily, Noach and his family should forcibly remove them. Perhaps this reluctance to leave the Ark was also felt by Noach. Therefore G-d subtly told him that there was not an option to remain in the Ark. Why would Noach not want to leave the Ark? Surely a whole year separated from his beloved earth would have been enough for him?
“G-d said to Noach; ‘The end of all flesh has come before Me … and behold I am about to destroy them with the earth (es ha’aretz)’” (6; 13). Rashi explains that not only the people and animals, but even the upper three tefachim of earth were destroyed during the flood. Three tefachim is the depth of a plough, and we can only surmise that the corruption of humanity had even penetrated the earth as they were working it. When Noach emerged from the Ark he realised that because of his invention of the plough, he had indirectly caused the earth to be even more desolate than it should have been. Had he not invented the plough, people would have been unable to work the ground, and it would have been spared destruction. His beloved earth was now ruined because of him.
Perhaps this is why Noach was reluctant to leave the Ark, and why he began the new world by planting vines and becoming drunk. His greatest achievements, the plough and removing the curse from the ground seemed to him to have caused only destruction. Despite receiving Divine sanction for his invention, in his depression he failed to realise their value. He reasoned that it would be better for the world if he were drunk, and unable to contribute any more destructive inventions to the world. This depression caused him to temporarily lose sight of G-d, and become only ‘a man of the earth’.
for printable pdf file click here
for printable pdf file click here
“Noach, the man of the earth...” (Genesis 9; 20). Ramban explains that the description “man of ...” denotes a complete dedication to that thing, and a separation from anything else. As soon as he left the Ark Noach immediately set about sowing and planting the desolate world that he found. He devoted himself entirely to the earth. Similarly, Moshe was described as “man of G-d” (Deuteronomy 33; 1), signifying his complete devotion and total dedication to G-d.
In the very beginning of our portion Noach is also described as a man, but a ‘righteous man’ (6; 9). According to the Ramban’s definition this means that he dedicated himself to righteousness, and separated himself from anything else. Noach transforms from the epitome of righteousness, to a farmer, concerned not with righteousness, but with the earth. In the same verse that Noach is described as being a ‘man of the earth’ the Torah also shows us his descent from his level of sanctity. “vayachel Noach”, “Noach debased himself” (9; 20).
One could mistakenly assume that it was Noach’s concern with the earth that caused him to lose his righteousness. We assume that someone designated by G-d as ‘righteous’ must spend their time removed from worldly pursuits, engaging with the spiritual. Yet from his birth Noach had been recognised as someone able to work the earth, and transform it like nobody before him. He had a special relationship with the earth. Since the time of Cain nobody had been able to till the ground, yet during Noach’s lifetime the curse of the ground disappeared. Noach is also credited with the invention of the plough allowing people once again to work the ground (Midrash Tanchuma Bereishis 11). In fact Noach was named for his relationship with the earth, “And he called his name Noach saying, ‘This one will bring us rest from our work and from the toil of our hands, from the ground which G-d has cursed’.” Lamech, Noach’s father, recognised his potential to work and develop the ground, and remove its curse.
His relationship with the ground was actually the source of Noach’s righteousness, and in that merit he was chosen to survive the flood. Rather than being removed from the physical world, Noach dedicated himself to working the soil. However, his sole intention in so doing was to bring himself closer to G-d. Therefore after the flood, Noach simply continued with that work which he knew best, tilling the soil, and sowing and planting. He even found support for his actions in G-d’s commands to him. Since (according to Midrashim) G-d had told Noach to take saplings and seeds with him into the Ark, he concluded that he should plant them when he left the Ark a year later.
Rashi explains that Noach’s sin was not in planting, but in what he chose to plant first. Of all the species which he had with him in the Ark, he began by planting grapevines, with the disastrous results mentioned in the continuation of the story. This shows the importance of beginnings. Noach lost his exalted status only because he made the wrong beginning when he emerged from the Ark. Yet Judaism sees nothing intrinsically wrong with wine and grapes - at every Jewish ceremony we mark the transition from holy to mundane or from mundane to holy, with a blessing over wine. Thus we begin Shabbat with Kiddush on wine, and end it with Havdalah on wine. We use wine at a wedding to signify the higher spiritual level of a couple than two individuals, and we use wine at a circumcision to show the higher sanctity of a child who has entered the covenant with G-d. But before Noach became drunk the Torah already saw that he was no longer ‘a righteous man’, but ‘a man of the earth’.
Noach refused to leave the Ark without a Divine command to do so (8; 15-17). “Every living being that is with you … take them out.” In the Torah the Hebrew word ‘take them out’ (hotzei) is read as ‘order them out’ (ha’ytzei), meaning that if the animals refused to leave the Ark voluntarily, Noach and his family should forcibly remove them. Perhaps this reluctance to leave the Ark was also felt by Noach. Therefore G-d subtly told him that there was not an option to remain in the Ark. Why would Noach not want to leave the Ark? Surely a whole year separated from his beloved earth would have been enough for him?
“G-d said to Noach; ‘The end of all flesh has come before Me … and behold I am about to destroy them with the earth (es ha’aretz)’” (6; 13). Rashi explains that not only the people and animals, but even the upper three tefachim of earth were destroyed during the flood. Three tefachim is the depth of a plough, and we can only surmise that the corruption of humanity had even penetrated the earth as they were working it. When Noach emerged from the Ark he realised that because of his invention of the plough, he had indirectly caused the earth to be even more desolate than it should have been. Had he not invented the plough, people would have been unable to work the ground, and it would have been spared destruction. His beloved earth was now ruined because of him.
Perhaps this is why Noach was reluctant to leave the Ark, and why he began the new world by planting vines and becoming drunk. His greatest achievements, the plough and removing the curse from the ground seemed to him to have caused only destruction. Despite receiving Divine sanction for his invention, in his depression he failed to realise their value. He reasoned that it would be better for the world if he were drunk, and unable to contribute any more destructive inventions to the world. This depression caused him to temporarily lose sight of G-d, and become only ‘a man of the earth’.
for printable pdf file click here
Sunday, October 22, 2006
bereishit
Human Beings or Individuals?
for printable pdf file click here
“By ten Divine utterances was the world created. But what does the Torah mean to tell us by this? Could not the world have been created by one single utterance? It teaches us that G-d will exact severe punishment from the wicked who destroy a world which was created by ten Divine utterances, and that He will richly reward the righteous who preserve this world which was created by ten Divine utterances.” (Ethics of the Fathers 5; 1). The S’fas Emes explains that with each utterance of creation G-d created more laws of nature, and thus made it more difficult to perceive Him directly within the creation. Had the world been created with only one utterance, G-d’s Presence would be directly perceived, which would leave no opportunity for free choice, and hence no reason for reward for the righteous or punishment for the wicked. This is why the Hebrew word for world, olam, is related to the word for hidden, he’elem. The creation of the world was an act of G-d hiding Himself, and each further act of creation made G-d less revealed in the world.
At the end of our Torah portion there is a list of the ten generations from Adam to Noach. Anyone studying the portion would usually skim read this part, as it is repetitive, and doesn’t contain anything interesting except construct a timeline of Jewish history. There is a similar section at the end of next week’s portion, Noach, which again simply lists the generations from Noach to Avraham. It seems that even the Mishna considers these sections unimportant parts of the Torah, as it states, “From Adam to Noach there were ten generations, to show the extent of G-d’s patience...” (Avot 5; 2).
However, if we examine the two lists of names, we find an important difference between them. In this week’s list we are told the age of each person when they had their first son, the remaining number of years of their life, and then the total number of years they lived, “and he died”. In contrast the list at the end of Noach appears to be more sensible, and only gives each person’s age when they had their first son, and their total number of years. Why does our portion bother to give us the total number of years, when this total can be calculated by simply adding together the number of years before and after the first son was born?
There is a question that I am often asked, ‘How could people live so long in those days?’ Certainly we are puzzled by the average antediluvian life expectancy which seems to be in the high 800s. There are several answers given (e.g. Ramban to Genesis 5; 1), however the strangest answer is given by the Rambam in Moreh Nevuchim (2; 47). He states “As for the precise statements made by the texts of the Torah regarding the length of life of certain individuals, I say that only that individual who is mentioned lived so long a life, whereas the other men lived lives that had the natural and usual duration....” Why should G-d miraculously cause a single individual in each generation to live ten times longer than his contemporaries?
At the end of our portion G-d despairs of humanity and states, “I will blot out man whom I created from the face of the ground - from man to animal, to creeping things, and to birds of the sky, for I have reconsidered making them” (6; 7). Rashi (ibid.) explains why the animals were wiped out “Everything was created for mankind, and since mankind was being wiped out, there was no need for the animals”. Before the flood animals were just an adjunct to humanity, and had no significance or merit on their own. Yet by the end of the flood we find, “G-d remembered Noach and all the beasts and all the animals that were with him in the ark...” (8; 1). G-d ‘recreated’ the world both for Noach and the animals. From this point on animals seem to have an intrinsic value which they lacked in the original creation.
Rav Matis Weinberg (Frameworks Genesis) explains that there was a fundamental change between the purpose of mankind before the flood and after. Originally each person was the totality of creation. The Midrash (Kohelet Rabba 7; 13) explains “When G-d created Adam he took him and showed him all the trees of the garden, and said to him, “Look at how nice they are. And everything that I created, I created for you. Take care not to sin, so that you do not destroy the world”. Usually this is understood as the earliest environmental protection statement. However, we can also view it in light of what happened at the time of the flood. Everything was only created for the use of mankind, therefore when people sin the whole world is destroyed.
It is not only the animals who are secondary to people before the flood, but even the human population of the world is only the backdrop for the actions of those ten people mentioned in the list of generations. This is perhaps the key to understanding the Rambam’s comment that everyone else lived lives of normal duration. Those ten generations were the entire focus of creation, and they had to justify their existence through their actions, otherwise the world could not continue to exist. Therefore the Torah lists the total number of years that they lived, but stresses that ‘they died’, - none of them were able to justify their existence through their actions.
After the flood however, human beings were no longer the sole purpose of creation, but one more creature amongst many. Certainly people are endowed with intellect, and free-choice which separates them from the animals, but ultimately they are still only one species among many. This is why G-d remembered not only Noach, but the animals that were with him. Similarly in the end of the book of Jonah we read “G-d said, ... ‘shall I not take pity on Nineveh the great city, in which there are more than 120,000 people who do not know their right hand from their left, and many animals as well?” (4; 11).
Richard Dawkin wrote a book called ‘The Selfish Gene’ in which he shows that the goal of life and evolution is solely to ensure the continuation of the genes of each species. Each species is striving for eternal life through the continuation of their genetic structure, and each individual is only another step in the chain of life. We find a less extreme version of this statement in the genealogies from Noach to Avraham, that the total life of each individual is not as important as the fact that they had children to continue the human race. Before the flood everything was dependent upon each individual, afterwards people become valuable through population numbers even if as individuals they fail to live up to their full potential. We see this difference most clearly in the different reactions that Noach and Avraham have when they are told of imminent mass destruction. Noach recognises the futility of praying to save people who have failed to justify their individual existence, but Avraham immediately begins bargaining for the people of Sodom according to the number of righteous people.
The postdiluvian view of humanity does not mean that individuals cannot justify their existence through their actions, or diminish the importance of each individual, but it means that even if someone fails to fulfil their potential their merit can come from the future generations. Conversely each of us can bring merit through our actions to all our progenitors.
for printable pdf file click here
for printable pdf file click here
“By ten Divine utterances was the world created. But what does the Torah mean to tell us by this? Could not the world have been created by one single utterance? It teaches us that G-d will exact severe punishment from the wicked who destroy a world which was created by ten Divine utterances, and that He will richly reward the righteous who preserve this world which was created by ten Divine utterances.” (Ethics of the Fathers 5; 1). The S’fas Emes explains that with each utterance of creation G-d created more laws of nature, and thus made it more difficult to perceive Him directly within the creation. Had the world been created with only one utterance, G-d’s Presence would be directly perceived, which would leave no opportunity for free choice, and hence no reason for reward for the righteous or punishment for the wicked. This is why the Hebrew word for world, olam, is related to the word for hidden, he’elem. The creation of the world was an act of G-d hiding Himself, and each further act of creation made G-d less revealed in the world.
At the end of our Torah portion there is a list of the ten generations from Adam to Noach. Anyone studying the portion would usually skim read this part, as it is repetitive, and doesn’t contain anything interesting except construct a timeline of Jewish history. There is a similar section at the end of next week’s portion, Noach, which again simply lists the generations from Noach to Avraham. It seems that even the Mishna considers these sections unimportant parts of the Torah, as it states, “From Adam to Noach there were ten generations, to show the extent of G-d’s patience...” (Avot 5; 2).
However, if we examine the two lists of names, we find an important difference between them. In this week’s list we are told the age of each person when they had their first son, the remaining number of years of their life, and then the total number of years they lived, “and he died”. In contrast the list at the end of Noach appears to be more sensible, and only gives each person’s age when they had their first son, and their total number of years. Why does our portion bother to give us the total number of years, when this total can be calculated by simply adding together the number of years before and after the first son was born?
There is a question that I am often asked, ‘How could people live so long in those days?’ Certainly we are puzzled by the average antediluvian life expectancy which seems to be in the high 800s. There are several answers given (e.g. Ramban to Genesis 5; 1), however the strangest answer is given by the Rambam in Moreh Nevuchim (2; 47). He states “As for the precise statements made by the texts of the Torah regarding the length of life of certain individuals, I say that only that individual who is mentioned lived so long a life, whereas the other men lived lives that had the natural and usual duration....” Why should G-d miraculously cause a single individual in each generation to live ten times longer than his contemporaries?
At the end of our portion G-d despairs of humanity and states, “I will blot out man whom I created from the face of the ground - from man to animal, to creeping things, and to birds of the sky, for I have reconsidered making them” (6; 7). Rashi (ibid.) explains why the animals were wiped out “Everything was created for mankind, and since mankind was being wiped out, there was no need for the animals”. Before the flood animals were just an adjunct to humanity, and had no significance or merit on their own. Yet by the end of the flood we find, “G-d remembered Noach and all the beasts and all the animals that were with him in the ark...” (8; 1). G-d ‘recreated’ the world both for Noach and the animals. From this point on animals seem to have an intrinsic value which they lacked in the original creation.
Rav Matis Weinberg (Frameworks Genesis) explains that there was a fundamental change between the purpose of mankind before the flood and after. Originally each person was the totality of creation. The Midrash (Kohelet Rabba 7; 13) explains “When G-d created Adam he took him and showed him all the trees of the garden, and said to him, “Look at how nice they are. And everything that I created, I created for you. Take care not to sin, so that you do not destroy the world”. Usually this is understood as the earliest environmental protection statement. However, we can also view it in light of what happened at the time of the flood. Everything was only created for the use of mankind, therefore when people sin the whole world is destroyed.
It is not only the animals who are secondary to people before the flood, but even the human population of the world is only the backdrop for the actions of those ten people mentioned in the list of generations. This is perhaps the key to understanding the Rambam’s comment that everyone else lived lives of normal duration. Those ten generations were the entire focus of creation, and they had to justify their existence through their actions, otherwise the world could not continue to exist. Therefore the Torah lists the total number of years that they lived, but stresses that ‘they died’, - none of them were able to justify their existence through their actions.
After the flood however, human beings were no longer the sole purpose of creation, but one more creature amongst many. Certainly people are endowed with intellect, and free-choice which separates them from the animals, but ultimately they are still only one species among many. This is why G-d remembered not only Noach, but the animals that were with him. Similarly in the end of the book of Jonah we read “G-d said, ... ‘shall I not take pity on Nineveh the great city, in which there are more than 120,000 people who do not know their right hand from their left, and many animals as well?” (4; 11).
Richard Dawkin wrote a book called ‘The Selfish Gene’ in which he shows that the goal of life and evolution is solely to ensure the continuation of the genes of each species. Each species is striving for eternal life through the continuation of their genetic structure, and each individual is only another step in the chain of life. We find a less extreme version of this statement in the genealogies from Noach to Avraham, that the total life of each individual is not as important as the fact that they had children to continue the human race. Before the flood everything was dependent upon each individual, afterwards people become valuable through population numbers even if as individuals they fail to live up to their full potential. We see this difference most clearly in the different reactions that Noach and Avraham have when they are told of imminent mass destruction. Noach recognises the futility of praying to save people who have failed to justify their individual existence, but Avraham immediately begins bargaining for the people of Sodom according to the number of righteous people.
The postdiluvian view of humanity does not mean that individuals cannot justify their existence through their actions, or diminish the importance of each individual, but it means that even if someone fails to fulfil their potential their merit can come from the future generations. Conversely each of us can bring merit through our actions to all our progenitors.
for printable pdf file click here
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
