Parashat Bereisheet

 

Home

Essays

Glossary

 

 

 

Essays and Articles:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Go to Hebrew site

 

 

 

 

 

 "

   

"This is the Book of the Chronicles
of [Spiritual] Man"

 

 Translated from Hebrew by S. NAthan

l'ilui nishmat Esther bat mordechai

 

  

Judaism ascribes no value to the history of events, other than that history that describes the chronicles of human spiritual development.  Human spiritual history is the one theme, the one significant perspective that runs like a crimson thread throughout the Torah , describing the route traveled by man from the Creator, to the universe, and back to God. 

 

If "in the beginning" man descended as a heavenly, pure being who drew his sustenance exclusively from the Godly source, who had no need to relate to the world in order to receive from it but rather only and solely in order to give to it, nevertheless he very quickly discovered the earthly source, and coveted it: “And the children of God saw the daughters of man, etc.”  It was rather too late when he discovered the high price he must pay for showing such interest in earthly involvement – an involvement so extreme as to place his very existence in doubt: “No longer will My spirit dwell within the human being, etc.”

 

Annexing the earthly property to himself – broad territories of connectedness and activity that broadened increasingly to the point that he himself became a property of the earth -- man became a prisoner of earthliness.  As this process accelerated, the need was born to increase human ability to apply Godly quality to the new landscape, in order to sanctify it.  To meet this need, a parallel and equally ever-increasing need developed: The need to be constantly adding more religious laws, more halachot.  Thus appendices to the books of laws were added, and are continually being added, in the present and in the future.  The source of Godly abundance was pushed aside in favor of the halachic source, and with this, a change took place in the very character of the service of God.

 

From a passively obedient creature, man became an initiator, a bearer of responsibility – for his own opinions, for his own halachic decisions, and for his own actions.  

 

As we pointed out in the previous week's reading, Moses, the faithful shepherd, saw a need to buttress the human source, to immunize it against future processes, to prepare for the upheaval to come. 

 

We have referred in the past to three stages of human development: “And God created the human in His image, in the image of God He created him, etc.”  (1:27)  Yet later, (2:4) “these are the chronicles of the heaven and the earth…and God formed the human, dust from the earth,” and yet further on (5) “this is the book of the chronicles of the human, etc.”It would appear that in this week's reading of Genesis, a process of qualitative, spiritual development is taking place rather than a process of historical events. 

 

Here then is the solution to the problem, and the answer to the question posed by those of little faith, who have accused the spiritual leaders of Orthodox Jewry of having failed to read the map of the impending Holocaust.  What Jabotinsky saw, they failed to see.  He was the one who made the rounds of the vast Jewish settlements in Eastern Europe and attempted to persuade millions of Jews to escape.  Yet because of his lack of spiritual authority, the masses did not heed his warnings.  If the spiritual leaders had only joined their voices to his call, their combined call would have been effective – and then the Holocaust would have been prevented; thus Holocaust survivors have bitterly claimed.

 

The eternal answer to this tragic question must be brought out into the open.  It is an answer that is not comfortable to hear, and it is unlikely to be accepted, because it derives from a premise that points exclusively toward a Torah perspective and has no counterpart in natural logic.

 

It is similar to the comparison between Hanuka and Purim: On Hanuka the Jews faced a spiritual danger whereas on Purim they faced an existential, material danger.  The nation of Israel tends to view the threat of shmad – literally destruction, but the word refers to the abandonment of Judaism – as far graver than any bodily threat.  Therefore Hanuka is given much greater weight than Purim. 

 

According to the criteria of this weight, we can compare the communist threat to the Nazi threat: The Torah leaders feared communism far more than the threat of physical shmad by the evil Nazis, may their name be erased.

 

Only isolated individuals would have been able to reach the land of Israel, and they would have been devoured there by a population hostile to Judaism.  This could have been prevented only through a mass aliya of Torah Jews in great numbers; this alone could have halted the spiritual shmad that was raging rampant in the land of Israel.  But the gates of Israel had been locked against the Orthodox Jews.  The gates were locked also in the United States, and in every new place.  The only tragic option that remained open to them was to die al kidush Hashem, in order to sanctify God's name.  No other options were available to them.  We see then that the elements that determine history are spiritual rather than material.

 

Some examples from this week's reading of Genesis illustrate these points: “For if you will improve it…” God says to Cain.  This incomprehensible verse seems to be saying that you must rule it.  The Creator is giving you the control button found in the labyrinth of the yetser, the urge to evil.  God reveals to Cain that control over the yetser is given into his hands: If you wish to express your creative ability through existential reality, you must first strengthen your capacity to exert control.

 

A History of Sin

 

Many ask, what was Cain's sin, that prevented his offering from being accepted?  He was the first human in creation to have ever taken the initiative of bringing an offering of thanks to his Creator.  Abel only learned it from Cain. 

 

If we follow Maimonides in his Guide to the Preplexed, it seems that Cain’s sin lay in choosing – as his ultimate destiny – to work the land.  “Mother Earth!” the pagans all cry longingly, who have created an idolatry out of the earth, to the point of sacrilegiously rejecting their heavenly source, and viewing the earth as the source of their existence.  It is truly so: The earth does indeed have the power to enslave and to limit the human being.

 

After all, the lion's share of the bloodshed and war that has raged throughout human history has been based on conquering the land of the adversary.  Apparently Mother Earth enjoys quenching her ever-increasing thirst with her children's blood.  The first person to exchange his Godly source for the earthly source was Cain, and therefore he was punished by being disconnected and detached from the earth.   The earth was punished for Adam’s sin for the same reason.  “Cursed is the earth because of you, etc.”  Maimonides focuses on the sin specifically, weighing it on par with the sin of Nadab and Abihu, who offered "alien fire.  Cain turned the earth into a medium for his avodat Hashem, for his worship of God, despite the fact that, as mentioned, Adam had been meant to draw sanctity only from the higher source, and not from the earthly source.  Therefore, in the offering that Cain brought from the earth, there lay more harm than good.  This is our understanding of Maimonides' opinion, and it is compatible with his view of Cain’s sacrifice as having been deficient. 

 

Abel chose the destiny of shepherd.  This destiny enables movement and flexibility without that riveting enslavement to Mother Earth.  His offering of a living creature contained a direct expression that related to the true source, to the One Who gives life to all the living.

 

Woman: Another example of this principle is the development and the changes that take place in man's connection with woman.  At the first stage, the human is created as male and female, in one undivided unit.  The sages of the Talmud describe the original Adam as one dual-faced unit.  They are not necessarily referring to Siamese twins - two bodies that are separate in their structure but joined at a specific point.  Rather the seem to be describing a single human unit that appears male from one angle, and female from another angle – a single unit that is equally capable of begetting and of giving birth.  This consituted a closed and independent circle that embodied both possibilities, both giving and receiving, by way of a total blurring of identities between giver and receiver.   There was none of the gap, opposition, contradiction, or tension that normally forms between giver and receiver when they occupy two separate positions.

 

After they were separated, into the gap that formed, all manner of creepy creatures entered, crawling things that live off the fetid mold that grows in negative human relations, which are the sole and single source of all negative charater traits, and indeed, of the ruin of the universe. 

 

Here it would be appropriate to ask why the One Who formed man wished to separate those two firmly fastened entities, if the predictable result was going to be the ruin of man.  “Each thing opposite the other did God make.”  From the separation, a source of good was created in the world as well, and chief among all good things was the principle of reciprocity, without which man could never have attained his destiny as servant of God at the level of partner and ally to the Creator of the universe.  A second positive element that resulted was the ability to love, which is an entirely new human creation, yesh mei’ayin.  Love is the queen of creativity.  It is the ability to overcome separateness and hostility and all negative character traits whose source is in man.  It transcends all these, and rises too transcend to the dimension of height, and from there gazes down upon the survival mechanism, viewing it from the same perspective from which the Creator of the universe looks down upon the universe - though not Mother Earth.  A third element: The ability to learn the Godly ideal and to apply it in the practical realm, through the connection with the woman, as a preparation and prerequisite for shaping a balance between freedom and belonging, in which freedom exists within belonging, as expressed in Abraham.

 

“And He made belts for them.”  Does human nakedness testify to an asset or to a shortcoming?  There can be no denying that the original nakedness was a natural feature of the most perfect handiwork produced by the Creator.  Yet later, the Creator of the universe Himself, in all His glory, added “skin coats and dressed them.”  This was the first human clothing. 

 

We must not forget that prior to the clothing that the Creator appended to them they had made belts for themselves out of fig leaves.  What separates the belts they sewed for themselves from the leather coats made for them by the Creator?

 

A belt gives framework.  It defines, and it also prevents change, freezing the personality into a fixed position, of a permanent, unchanging (if limited) character.  A "skin coat" is intended to protect the body from dangers, temptations, and all other threats of extinction - all the forms of protection that man requires in order to protect his existence.  Clothing protects but limits.  It determines the specific features, and prevents their change or continued development.  Clothing is also a symbol, an address, a sign testifying to the nature of the owner of the clothing, to his sincerity or to his unjustified conceit.  All depends on the kind and the form of the clothing.  Clothing signifies belonging, on the one hand, yet it also proclaims its wearer's freedom and personal taste.

 

“Skin coats,” according to the Talmudic sages, were a natural clothing utterly suited to the owner of the clothing.  God determines and grants a suitable definition for every individual, by giving him appropriate clothing.  “God clothes the naked.”  The belt, however, a man chooses for himself.  A belt guards and offers additional strength, within the framework of hishtadlut, the effort one is commanded to invest, in order to strengthen and control oneself.  Besides meaning belted, hagur means armed, for when a man girds his sword, he hangs it upon his belt.

 

Can clothing be changed?  Is it possible to return to the state of Adam and Eve before the sin, and to strip off one’s clothing?  Apparently not for any extended period of time.  The attempt to strip off one’s clothing can result in removing the garment together with the skin of one’s flesh, and perhaps even with the loss of one's image entirely.  Consider Michelangelo who collapsed, exhausted and unconscious, at the feet of the sculptural creation over which he had toiled for weeks on end, never once bathing or even changing his clothing.  When they removed his socks, they had so adhered to his feet that his skin came off as well.

 

Clothing or the lack thereof has added social/political volume to these mad days we live in.  Fascists strut about in uniform while liberals expose themselves.  The root of evil is embedded in the disconnection between freedom and belonging.  Nationalists espouse only belonging, and liberals espouse only freedom.  Similar is the varied yet complex connection between earth and heaven, yet this is what grants man the opportunity to participate creatively in the control and government of creation.

 

The description of the evolution of worship - as it moves from the Godly source to the human source - is the continuous theme, the crimson thread running from the beginning of the Torah to the end,  from Noah to Abraham, who strode forth on his own powers, discovering the Torah on his own, and on to Moses who brought the Torah down to Israel.  Yet such evolution  contains also the danger of rupture:  It is possible to distance oneself from the Godly source, and become overly involved with the earthly source.  Alternatively, one can grow egocentrically evasive, isolating oneself within one’s own personality, making the occasional self-sacrifice, through addiction to a Godly goal, while actually severing oneself from any human, earthly focus.

 

Such were Nadab and Abihu whose focus upon the earthly source caused their over-involvement with it.  Such were Moses and Aaron, who struck the rock instead of speaking to it and commanding it.  Such was Cain, who served the earth at the expense of serving God.  Such is the generalized split, which can move in two different directions even within the worship of God.   There is the way of hoshiya na, “Pray, save us,” versus the way of hatsliha na, “pray, grant us success.”  Such are the two major requests, the two main pillars of worship.  One emphasizes the verse “God, be of help to me,” while the other emphasizes the prayer that expresses yearning for dvaikut, for the connection with God: “Nearness to God, I find good.”  With the first type of request, the worshipper intends to make use of every means at his disposal.  He is requesting that his Creator help him actualize the potential (that he possesses) to express his service of God.  With the second, the servant desires the shelter in the shade of the wings of the shechina, God's Presence, to the point of self-effacement.  This effacement distances the servant from a focus upon his own powers.  It is needless to point out that this approach includes no need for the investment of one's efforts in the details, because there are no details here from the realm of media and means.  It is all dedication/addiction and devaikut, attachment to the goal.

 


Home

Essays

Glossary