The First Ramban

One of the most well-known comments of Rashi is the first one that he makes on Chumash in the name of R' Yitzchak, regarding why HaShem saw fit to begin the Torah with Sefer Bereishis, rather than immediately jumping to the section that discusses the mitzvos that were given to Israel as a nation, which begins with the mitzvah of kiddush ha-chodesh. He answers by citing the passuk from Yeshaya of "Ko'ach ma'asav higid l'amo la-seis lahem nachlas goyim" - "He told the power of His actions to His nation in order to give them the inheritance of nations." In order that the Jews could respond to the complaints of the nations that they had stolen the land from the Canaanites, it was essential that they would have a grasp of the history of the world, so that they would understand that, as the Creator of the world, HaShem had the right to give the different portions of land to whomever he saw fit, and to replace one nation with another over time.

The Ramban asks what seems to be a fundamental question. How could R' Yitzchak countenance the idea that the episode of ma'aseh bereishis could be left out of the Torah? The knowledge that HaShem created the world is one of the principal foundations of Judaism that everything else rests upon. If one lacks this singular point, he possesses nothing.

He answers that the entire first sedra is so filled with deep secrets and allusions that its simple reading is nigh useless in understanding anything about the creation of the world. Rather, everything that we know about the creation of the world is founded in our Oral Tradition. Being that the common people cannot properly understand the method of the creation of the world even with P' Bereishis in place, R' Yitzchak could validly ask why we need it, to which he responded that the illustrated path of history is the primary purpose of the sedra (and the book), not the specific mechanism through which this history unfolded.

Bereishis-No'ach Interface

The end of last week's parsha and the beginning of this week's parsha seem very similar. One way to examine them is to determine the reason for the break, both in parsha and in sedra, at specifically that point (I have created a separate blog, Parshiyos, with the goal of examining questions of this type as we travel through the year). For this post, though, I would like to take a look at the two sections together, as one unit.

The narrative of the evilness of the world leading up to the flood at the interface of P' Bereishis and P' No'ach seems to be divided into three distinct parallel sections, each consisting of three subsections:

I. A. 6:1-2 - Man begins to multiply upon the face of the earth, and the b'nei HaElohim take wives from whichever of the beautiful b'nos HaAdam they want.
B. 6:3 - God declares that He shall not contend with man forever, being that he is mere flesh, but rather man's days shall be limited to 120 years.
C. 6:4 - The Nephilim result from these unions.

II. A. 6:5-6 - God sees that man's evil is great upon the earth and that all of the thoughts of his heart are evil. He regrets that he made man and is saddened (or, as Onkelos reads it, He decides to "break their strength").
B. 6:7 - God declares that He will blot out man and all beasts and birds on the earth.
C. 6:8-10 - No'ach is righteous (and presumably will not be subject to this decree).

III. A. 6:11-12 - The world is full of corruption and violence
B. 6:13 - God tells No'ach that He will destroy all flesh along with (lit., es) the earth.
C. 6:14-16 - God gives No'ach instructions of how to build the ark and what to do with the animals.

The three "action" sections each describe a different form of evil. In the first, it has to do with the b'nei Ha-elohim marrying the b'nos HaAdam. The sin here could either be the powerful b'nei Ha-elohim abusing their power to take the b'nos HaAdam against their will, the righteous b'nei HaElokim allowing themselves to be negatively influenced by the wicked b'nos HaAdam, or something different, but the verses use a relatively objective tone in describing this phenomenon. In the second, it has to do with man's "great evil" upon the earth and his evil heart. In the third, the sins are specified to be (sexual) corruption and violence that even pervaded the very land, which appears to be a type of sinful climax.

The three reaction sections are also different. In the first, God declares that He will limit man's days to 120 years. In the second, He declares that He will blot out man, beasts, and birds. In the third, he declares that he will even destroy the earth (if we take es to mean "with", as per Rashi). From section to section, the subject of the punishment is broadened (man - man and animals - man and earth), and the magnitude of the punishment also seems to be increasing (limiting of years - blotting out - destruction, although the last seems to be a bit equivocal).

Finally, the three concluding sections have different results. In the first, the Nephilim are singled out as being mighty men that are mei-olam and "men of name". In the second, No'ach is singled out as being righteous and finding favor in God's eyes. In the third, No'ach is singled out to build an ark to survive the coming punishment.

Perhaps the following is a way to understand the parsha that utilizes the noted parallelism. Originally, the sins of the people were relatively minor, so God only set a limit upon the days of man. The midrash explains that this is a period of 120 years' probation before which God will punish the people. Colloquially, this passuk is the source of the blessing "May you live until 120 years", which I had always understood to be a mistranslation of the verse, but it does seem to fit the simple reading of the passuk. This being the case, perhaps this is not merely a preparation for punishment, but rather is a punishment in itself, in that man's days would become shortened. This would seem to be somewhat remniscent of the opinion of the Rambam in Moreh HaNevuchim, who holds that only the people mentioned in the lineage from Adam to No'ach lived exceptionally long lives, while the rest lived normal lives. Perhaps long life could be part of the gevurah, mei-olamkeit and sheim of the Nephilim, who were exceptions to this decree for reasons unclear. It's true that if we connect the pesukim in this way some of the Nephilim would even be tzaddikim, which would be strange, but not impossible. However one understands the Nephilim, one would also have to deal with the mention of the Nephilim by the meraglim and by the conquest of the land.

The way the verses are usually read, they all occur at the same time, so that the 120 years began at the same time that No'ach began to build the ark. However, perhaps it's possible to read the verses differently. The first set of verses could have happened much earlier in the chronology (since, even according to the normal way of reading things, 5:32 is out of order), perhaps even as early as the time of Sheis (bearing in mind that the b'nei Kayin were also part of this sinful world). In the second section, which occurred during No'ach's life, God planned to punish the world, but perhaps held back because of No'ach's finding favor in God's eyes, perhaps due to his potential to turn the world around. Finally, in the third parsha, which took place at some point later in Noach's 600-year antediluvian lifetime, God realized that No'ach does not represent untapped potential to save the world, and thus decided to start the world again from scratch, using No'ach as a second Adam.

There are several significant holes in this presentation, but I think that it addresses certain patterns within the pesukim.

Bereishis 3 - Quick hits

Some quick hits:

1) 2:19-20: Did the Adam only name animals, or did he even name plant life and inanimate objects? What is the significance of this difference?

2) 2:23: The Adam calls the woman that was brought to him an Ishah, "since this was taken from Ish". But when was the Adam called Ish? Ish and Ishah do not carry with them the definite article, implying that both are general terms (supported by the use of Ish in 2:24) while, to this point, "HaAdam" always does. When the Ishah is referred to in the next chapter, she, too, is referred to with the definite article.

3) 3:7: How would making chagoros, belts, solve the issue of ervah? Were these wide belts that were more like underwear so that they could cover the areas of ervah? Or perhaps the issue was one of their hearts being able to "see" their ervah, as is a halachic issue with saying brachos or davening (although this seems to be somewhat unlikely).

4) 3:10: Adam's nakedness did not make him embarrassed, but rather fearful. The word used, though, is not pachad, but rather the holier yir'a. Perhaps the Adam is arguing that the reason that he hid from God is because his actions raised him to a higher level of consciousness that increases his potential to fear HaShem (Is the word yir'a ever used by malachim?)?

5) 3:12: How is the fact that his wife gave to Adam to eat from the tree a good excuse? Why didn't he argue with her? The answer seems to touch on certain issues of gender dynamics, which may have changed with the introduction of the factor of "v'el isheich t'shukaseich", in 3:16, to balance the opposing force expressed by "ha-kol holeich achar ha-isha".

6) 3:13: The Ishah answers the question about why she ate, but does not take resposibility for giving to the Adam. This, too, may be connected to gender dynamics.

7) 3:17-19: Adam is not blamed simply for disobeying God's command and eating from the tree, but rather for the fact that he listened to his wife.

8) 3:17: For the first time, here, Adam is referred to with an indefinite article (or, more precisely, no definite article). It reverts back in 3:20, but happens again in 3:21, where Adam and his wife are given kosnos 'or. In 4:25, starting from the birth of Sheis, Adam is used as a proper name, with no article at all, and this persists through the geneaological pesukim at the beginning of chapter 5. In chapter 6, though, referring to the sins of mankind, each of the first 7 pesukim contains the word HaAdam with the definite article exactly one time (verse 7 also has it with a mem prefix). Perhaps this is drawing a comparison between Adam HaRishon and these men - who, in turn, are contrasted with No'ach, the subject of the short and simple passuk at the end of the parsha?

9) 3:20: What is the significance of Chava being called "eim kol chai", mother of all living beings, only after the sin (it is even someone ironic, in that it was at this time that death was decreed upon the world)? If she was so named even before the sin, why is she consistently referred to as "the Ishah" throughout the section?
Radak sides with those who suggests that Chava was given both the general name of Ishah and the specific name of Chava at the same time, when she was created. However, he suggests that it is possuble to understand the chronology of the passuk in the literal sense also, explaining that the Adam called her "eim kol chai" once he was granted a sexual ta'avah and realized her capability of producing living beings. (Ibn Ezra notes that she was called Chava and not Chaya so that she would not have the same name as an animal.)

Bereishis 2: Chanoch

5:18-24 discusses the life of Chanoch, one of the most mysterious personages of the Torah, as unlike his ancestors and descendents mentioned in the surrounding verses, who are all born, have children, and die, death is not mentioned by Chanoch, but rather the verse states "...and he was no more, for God took him" (some, including Targum Yonasan ben Uziel, attribute to Chanoch an extraordinary fate of being taken to heaven alive and becoming the angel Metatron - R' Chaim haQoton has a very interesting post on this issue - but Rashi and Ibn Ezra say that the strange terminology is just a reference to his dying a normal death before his time). His section is also distinct in that the Torah testifies (twice) that he "walked with God". This being the case, it is interesting that Rashi judges Chanoch negatively, explaining that God took him before his time because of his predisposition to return to his wicked ways.

The term that the passuk uses to refer to Chanoch's righteousness, es haElokim, with God, is also used by No'ach (6:9). In this verse, Rashi also quotes a negative source, contrasting the terminology used by No'ach and by Avraham ("asher his'halachti l'fanav", whom I walked before), to say that, while Avraham had was great enough to stand before God on his own with no special support, No'ach required God's special assistance; he had to walk with God, supported by Him. Perhaps once No'ach's mission had been accomplished during the flood, this special help was withdrawn, and thus No'ach stumbled into grave humiliation. Here, too, Chanoch may only have been righteous because of God's special help, bestowed for reasons unclear, and when these reasons no longer applied, rather than leaving Chanoch to fend for himself, God took him while he was still on his high level (perhaps the same was not done for No'ach because he still had a role to play in rebuilding the destroyed world, or because he lacked certain special merits possessed by Chanoch.

Alternatively, we are not told about Chanoch's righteousness until 65 years into his life, after the birth of Metushelach, who is known in divrei Chazal to have been a tzaddik, to the extent that the flood was delayed 7 days because of his mourning period. This being the case, perhaps Chanoch only began to "walk with God" once he had a role model, his righteous son, to lead him in this direction - the first instance of kiruv, so to speak. However, despite the fact that Metushelach lived a very long life, perhaps the time still arrived that, due to whatever reason, Metushelach no longer was able to have such a positive influence on his father, and thus God decided that it was better to take Chanoch young rather than leave him to backslide in the absence of his righteous son's influence.

Bereishis 1: Let there be... curses?

Rashi on 1:14 says that the reason why the word m'oros, lights, in the section about the 4th day of Creation is written without a vav is in order to allude to the word me'eira, curse, since the 4th day of the week is a day upon which young children are especially susceptible to the disease of askera, often translated as croup, as is brought down in Sofrim 17:5 and Yer. Ta'anis 21:2. Why is this special characteristic of the 4th day of the week given such importance that it alone of all of the phenomena of the days of the week is singled out in this central chapter of the Torah?