Exile and Return... from the Beginning
(א) בְּרֵאשִׁ֖ית בָּרָ֣א אֱלֹקִ֑ים אֵ֥ת הַשָּׁמַ֖יִם וְאֵ֥ת הָאָֽרֶץ׃
(1) When God began to create heaven and earth—

בראשית. אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק לֹֹֹֹֹא הָיָה צָרִיךְ לְהַתְחִיל אֶת הַתּוֹרָה אֶלָּא מֵהַחֹדֶשׁ הַזֶּה לָכֶם, שֶׁהִיא מִצְוָה רִאשׁוֹנָה שֶׁנִּצְטַוּוּ בָּהּ יִשׂרָאֵל, וּמַה טַּעַם פָּתַח בִּבְרֵאשִׁית? מִשׁוּם כֹּחַ מַעֲשָׂיו הִגִּיד לְעַמּוֹ לָתֵת לָהֶם נַחֲלַת גּוֹיִם (תהילים קי"א), שֶׁאִם יֹאמְרוּ אֻמּוֹת הָעוֹלָם לְיִשְׁרָאֵל לִסְטִים אַתֶּם, שֶׁכְּבַשְׁתֶּם אַרְצוֹת שִׁבְעָה גוֹיִם, הֵם אוֹמְרִים לָהֶם כָּל הָאָרֶץ שֶׁל הַקָּבָּ"ה הִיא, הוּא בְרָאָהּ וּנְתָנָהּ לַאֲשֶׁר יָשַׁר בְּעֵינָיו, בִּרְצוֹנוֹ נְתָנָהּ לָהֶם, וּבִרְצוֹנוֹ נְטָלָהּ מֵהֶם וּנְתָנָהּ לָנוּ:

בראשית IN THE BEGINNING — Rabbi Isaac said: The Torah which is the Law book of Israel should have commenced with the verse (Exodus 12:2) “This month shall be unto you the first of the months” which is the first commandment given to Israel. What is the reason, then, that it commences with the account of the Creation? Because of the thought expressed in the text (Psalms 111:6) “He declared to His people the strength of His works (i.e. He gave an account of the work of Creation), in order that He might give them the heritage of the nations.” For should the peoples of the world say to Israel, “You are robbers, because you took by force the lands of the seven nations of Canaan”, Israel may reply to them, “All the earth belongs to the Holy One, blessed be He; He created it and gave it to whom He pleased. When He willed He gave it to them, and when He willed He took it from them and gave it to us” (Yalkut Shimoni on Torah 187).

החודש הזה לכם אמר ר' יצחק לא היה צריך להתחיל התורה אלא מהחודש הזה לכם ולמה התחיל מבראשית משום כח מעשיו הגיד לעמו לתת להם נחלת גוים,

Rabbi Isaac said: The Torah which is the Law book of Israel should have commenced with the verse (Exodus 12:2) “This month shall be unto you the first of the months” which is the first commandment given to Israel. What is the reason, then, that it commences with the account of the Creation? Because of the thought expressed in the text (Psalms 111:6) “He declared to His people the strength of His works (i.e. He gave an account of the work of Creation), in order that He might give them the heritage of the nations.”

"His impressive commentary of the Bible starts with a question asked by a Rabbi Yitzhak: why does the Bible begin with the description of the genesis of the world rather than with the first law, which concerns the calendar? .... for some exegetes, this Rabbi Yitzhak is none other than the author’s father.

Wiesel, Elie (2009-08-06). Rashi (Jewish Encounters) (p. 11). Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

(כב) וַיִּ֩בֶן֩ ה' אֱלֹקִ֧ים ׀ אֶֽת־הַצֵּלָ֛ע אֲשֶׁר־לָקַ֥ח מִן־הָֽאָדָ֖ם לְאִשָּׁ֑ה וַיְבִאֶ֖הָ אֶל־הָֽאָדָֽם׃ (כג) וַיֹּ֘אמֶר֮ הָֽאָדָם֒ זֹ֣את הַפַּ֗עַם עֶ֚צֶם מֵֽעֲצָמַ֔י וּבָשָׂ֖ר מִבְּשָׂרִ֑י לְזֹאת֙ יִקָּרֵ֣א אִשָּׁ֔ה כִּ֥י מֵאִ֖ישׁ לֻֽקְחָה־זֹּֽאת׃ (כד) עַל־כֵּן֙ יַֽעֲזׇב־אִ֔ישׁ אֶת־אָבִ֖יו וְאֶת־אִמּ֑וֹ וְדָבַ֣ק בְּאִשְׁתּ֔וֹ וְהָי֖וּ לְבָשָׂ֥ר אֶחָֽד׃

(22) And the LORD God fashioned the rib that He had taken from the man into a woman; and He brought her to the man. (23) Then the man said,
“This one at last
Is bone of my bones
And flesh of my flesh.
This one shall be called Woman,
For from man was she taken.”
(24) Hence a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, so that they become one flesh.

(טז) אֶֽל־הָאִשָּׁ֣ה אָמַ֗ר הַרְבָּ֤ה אַרְבֶּה֙ עִצְּבוֹנֵ֣ךְ וְהֵֽרֹנֵ֔ךְ בְּעֶ֖צֶב תֵּֽלְדִ֣י בָנִ֑ים וְאֶל־אִישֵׁךְ֙ תְּשׁ֣וּקָתֵ֔ךְ וְה֖וּא יִמְשׇׁל־בָּֽךְ׃ {ס} (יז) וּלְאָדָ֣ם אָמַ֗ר כִּֽי־שָׁמַ֘עְתָּ֮ לְק֣וֹל אִשְׁתֶּ֒ךָ֒ וַתֹּ֙אכַל֙ מִן־הָעֵ֔ץ אֲשֶׁ֤ר צִוִּיתִ֙יךָ֙ לֵאמֹ֔ר לֹ֥א תֹאכַ֖ל מִמֶּ֑נּוּ אֲרוּרָ֤ה הָֽאֲדָמָה֙ בַּֽעֲבוּרֶ֔ךָ בְּעִצָּבוֹן֙ תֹּֽאכְלֶ֔נָּה כֹּ֖ל יְמֵ֥י חַיֶּֽיךָ׃ (יח) וְק֥וֹץ וְדַרְדַּ֖ר תַּצְמִ֣יחַֽ לָ֑ךְ וְאָכַלְתָּ֖ אֶת־עֵ֥שֶׂב הַשָּׂדֶֽה׃ (יט) בְּזֵעַ֤ת אַפֶּ֙יךָ֙ תֹּ֣אכַל לֶ֔חֶם עַ֤ד שֽׁוּבְךָ֙ אֶל־הָ֣אֲדָמָ֔ה כִּ֥י מִמֶּ֖נָּה לֻקָּ֑חְתָּ כִּֽי־עָפָ֣ר אַ֔תָּה וְאֶל־עָפָ֖ר תָּשֽׁוּב׃ (כ) וַיִּקְרָ֧א הָֽאָדָ֛ם שֵׁ֥ם אִשְׁתּ֖וֹ חַוָּ֑ה כִּ֛י הִ֥וא הָֽיְתָ֖ה אֵ֥ם כׇּל־חָֽי׃

(16) And to the woman He said,
“I will make most severe
Your pangs in childbearing;
In pain shall you bear children.
Yet your urge shall be for your husband,
And he shall rule over you.”
(17) To Adam He said, “Because you did as your wife said and ate of the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You shall not eat of it,’
Cursed be the ground because of you;
By toil shall you eat of it

All the days of your life:
(18) Thorns and thistles shall it sprout for you.
But your food shall be the grasses of the field;
(19) By the sweat of your brow
Shall you get bread to eat
,
Until you return to the ground—
For from it you were taken.
For dust you are,
And to dust you shall return.”
(20) The man named his wife Eve, because she was the mother of all the living.

(כג) וַֽיְשַׁלְּחֵ֛הוּ ה' אֱלֹקִ֖ים מִגַּן־עֵ֑דֶן לַֽעֲבֹד֙ אֶת־הָ֣אֲדָמָ֔ה אֲשֶׁ֥ר לֻקַּ֖ח מִשָּֽׁם׃ (כד) וַיְגָ֖רֶשׁ אֶת־הָֽאָדָ֑ם וַיַּשְׁכֵּן֩ מִקֶּ֨דֶם לְגַן־עֵ֜דֶן אֶת־הַכְּרֻבִ֗ים וְאֵ֨ת לַ֤הַט הַחֶ֙רֶב֙ הַמִּתְהַפֶּ֔כֶת לִשְׁמֹ֕ר אֶת־דֶּ֖רֶךְ עֵ֥ץ הַֽחַיִּֽים׃ {ס}

(23) So the LORD God banished him from the garden of Eden, to till the soil from which he was taken. (24) He drove the man out, and stationed east of the garden of Eden the cherubim and the fiery ever-turning sword, to guard the way to the tree of life.

(יא) וְעַתָּ֖ה אָר֣וּר אָ֑תָּה מִן־הָֽאֲדָמָה֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר פָּצְתָ֣ה אֶת־פִּ֔יהָ לָקַ֛חַת אֶת־דְּמֵ֥י אָחִ֖יךָ מִיָּדֶֽךָ׃ (יב) כִּ֤י תַֽעֲבֹד֙ אֶת־הָ֣אֲדָמָ֔ה לֹֽא־תֹסֵ֥ף תֵּת־כֹּחָ֖הּ לָ֑ךְ נָ֥ע וָנָ֖ד תִּֽהְיֶ֥ה בָאָֽרֶץ׃ (יג) וַיֹּ֥אמֶר קַ֖יִן אֶל־ה' גָּד֥וֹל עֲוֺנִ֖י מִנְּשֹֽׂא׃ (יד) הֵן֩ גֵּרַ֨שְׁתָּ אֹתִ֜י הַיּ֗וֹם מֵעַל֙ פְּנֵ֣י הָֽאֲדָמָ֔ה וּמִפָּנֶ֖יךָ אֶסָּתֵ֑ר וְהָיִ֜יתִי נָ֤ע וָנָד֙ בָּאָ֔רֶץ וְהָיָ֥ה כׇל־מֹצְאִ֖י יַֽהַרְגֵֽנִי׃ (טו) וַיֹּ֧אמֶר ל֣וֹ ה' לָכֵן֙ כׇּל־הֹרֵ֣ג קַ֔יִן שִׁבְעָתַ֖יִם יֻקָּ֑ם וַיָּ֨שֶׂם ה' לְקַ֙יִן֙ א֔וֹת לְבִלְתִּ֥י הַכּוֹת־אֹת֖וֹ כׇּל־מֹצְאֽוֹ׃ (טז) וַיֵּ֥צֵא קַ֖יִן מִלִּפְנֵ֣י ה' וַיֵּ֥שֶׁב בְּאֶֽרֶץ־נ֖וֹד קִדְמַת־עֵֽדֶן׃

(11) Therefore, you shall be more cursed than the ground, which opened its mouth to receive your brother’s blood from your hand. (12) If you till the soil, it shall no longer yield its strength to you. You shall become a ceaseless wanderer on earth.” (13) Cain said to the LORD, “My punishment is too great to bear! (14) Since You have banished me this day from the soil, and I must avoid Your presence and become a restless wanderer on earth—anyone who meets me may kill me!” (15) The LORD said to him, “I promise, if anyone kills Cain, sevenfold vengeance shall be taken on him.” And the LORD put a mark on Cain, lest anyone who met him should kill him. (16) Cain left the presence of the LORD and settled in the land of Nod, east of Eden.

The Myth of the Birth of the Hero, Otto Rank 1914

The hero is the child of very distinguished parents, and usually the son of a king. His origin is preceded by difficulties, such as sexual abstinence, prolonged infertility, or secret intercourse of the parents due to external prohibition or obstacles. During or before the pregnancy, a prophecy, in the form of a dream or oracle, warns against his birth, usually threatening harm to the father. Therefore the newborn child, usually at the instigation of the father or his representative, is doomed to be killed or exposed. As a rule, he is surrendered to the water, in a box. He is then saved by animals, or by lowly people (herders), and suckled by a female animal or a lowly woman. After he has grown up, he finds his distinguished parents in a variety of ways. He takes revenge on his father, on the one hand, and is acknowledged, on the other, achieving greatness and fame.

"One other difference between The Trauma of Birth and The Myth of the Birth of the Hero is the link now drawn between the hero and the artist. Rank now proposes the substitution of the term "artist" for hero to identify the cultural hero the one who in religion, art, or philosophy creates "sublime wish compensations" for the lingering frustration of life outside the womb" From Intro

The Trauma of Birth, by Otto Rank 1924

To the same type of deliverance myths belongs also the biblical Legend of Paradise where, as a direct reversal of the real occurrence, the woman is cut out of the man, that is, the man is born “ like a hero, ” because there it is he who falls into the death - like sleep. ....the ensuing expulsion from Paradise , which has become for all of us the symbol of the unattainable blessed primal condition, represents once again a repetition of painful parturition , the separation from the mother by the father to which men and women are subjected in the same way . The curse following on the original sin of birth , “ In pain shalt thou bring forth thy children , ” clearly divulges the motive lying at the bottom of the entire myth formation , which is, namely , to make of no effect the primal trauma whose unavoidable continuous repetition is expressed in the fruit simile . The command not to eat of the fruit of the tree of Paradise shows the same unwillingness , in the sense of the birth trauma , to separate the ripe fruit from the maternal stem as , in the myth of the birth of the hero , the original hostility of the father to the hero’s coming into the world at all . Also the death punishment decreed for the breaking of this command clearly shows that the woman’s offence consists in the breaking off of the fruit , namely , giving birth , and here again in the meaning of the tendency to return death proves to be a wish - reaction to the birth trauma .

In the legends of Paradise and the Golden Age we have before us a description of this primal condition , with emphasis laid on the pleasurable side of it , whilst the great systems of religion , dualistic from the beginning in the meaning of the compulsion - neurotic ambivalence , represent the ethical reaction - formations against the breaking out of this fearful yearning to go back , and the attempts to sublimate it.

the Ego , in its retreat from the confines of anxiety , is constantly urged forwards to seek for Paradise in the world formed in the image of the mother , instead of seeking it in the past , and , in so far as this fails , to look for it in the sublime compensations of religion , art , and philosophy . In reality this enormous task of adaptation , in so far as it is a matter of the creation of genuine values , is successfully accomplished by only one type of human being , which the history of mind has handed down to us as the hero , but which we would like to designate as ” artist ” in the broadest sense of the word , in so far as it is a question of a creation of ideal values , of phantastic superstructure , created from the remains of primal libido unsatisfied in real creation .

This process is what biologically speaking we call “ life . ” If in the course of life the “ normal ” individual , detached by the birth trauma , amidst the difficulties of the child’s development and by the avoidance of neurotic relapses , succeeds in adjusting himself to the outer world as ” the best of all worlds , ” namely , as a mother substitute....

Times of great external distress , which remind the Unconscious too strongly of the individual’s first affliction in life , namely , the birth trauma , lead automatically to increased regressive attempts which must again be given up , not only because they never can achieve the real aim , but just because they have approached too near to it and have come up against the primal anxiety , which keeps watch in front of Paradise , like the Cherubim who hold the flashing sword before its gates . So the primal tendency to re - establish the first and most pleasurable experience is opposed not only by the primal repression , acting as a protection against the repetition of the most painful experience associated with it , but simultaneously also by the striving against the source of pleasure itself , of which one does not wish to be reminded because it must remain unattainable .

the civilized human being and still more the “ artist ” can reproduce this objectively in manifold , strictly determined forms , fixed by the primal trauma , whilst the neurotic is compelled again and again to produce it in a similar way only on his own body . The neurotic is thrown back again and again to the real birth trauma , whilst the normal and supernormal throw it , so to say , forwards and project it outwards , and are thus enabled to objectify it .

בשניות זו רואים את מקור אסוננו ועניינו היותר גדול וגם את מקור אשרנו וכוחנו.

שתי הנטיות האלו הטביעו את חותמן על כל דברי-הימים מראשיתם ועד סופם. על כל צורות החיים של האומה, על כל מחשבותיה ועל ראשי מפעליה מדעת ושלא מדעת. ולא רק בימי הגלות. אם נחקור בתקופות הקדמוניות, ואולי גם בתקופה שלפני ההסטוריה, גם כן נמצא שתי הנטיות. מצד אחד השאיפה לצאת מן המרכז – ומהצד השני הרצון להכנס ולהדבק במרכז. אין כאומה הישראלית שואפת להבליע את עצמה בגופות אחרים – וביחד עם זה להשאר בריה בפני עצמה, בריה שאינה בטלה אף באלף. עם הבונה גיטו לעצמו במקומות פזורו, עם המסתגל לצורות חיים של אחרים – ונהרג על ערקתא דמסנאי, עם המסתגל לצורות החיים של כל העולם כלו ונשאר בכל זאת "עם לבדד ישכון ובגוים לא יתחשב". הדברים ידועים, וכבר דשו בהם רבים.. מבקשים להם ביאורים שונים, אבל בעצם העובדא אין איש כופר.

יש חזיון מיוחד במינו בישראל, שאין דוגמתו בתולדות העמים, חזיון של תחיה כפולה, ויש אומרים משולשת. אתם יודעים את הספור שיש בו תערובת של אגדה על דבר שיבת העברים ממצרים לא"י ואח"כ שיבה "היסטורית" – העליה מבבל. תשובה לארץ אחרי גלות העם ממנה אין לה דוגמה בשום אומה. עליה משתוממים, אבל אין להכחישה. יש אומרים שכבר היתה חזרה משולשת, הרבה מהחוקרים רואים בכניסת אברהם לא"י את החזרה הראשונה, כלומר, שבטים מבני עבר הקדמונים כבר כבשו להם את א"י פעם אחת ובימי אברהם חזרו. כמובן אז לא היו עדיין אומה.

האמנם מקרה הוא זה? אלו לא נמצאו באומה שני יסודות הפוכים, השולטים בה במדה שוה, לא יכול היה להשנות החזיון של כנוס ופזור כמה פעמים בזו אחר זו. ואי-אפשר לבאר חזיונות כאלה בהכרח ובתנאים אוביקטיביים בלבד. "כשאין עם רוצה לגלות אינו גולה". יש עמים שאינם רוצים לגלות והם כלים ואובדים בארצם; ויש עמים גולים ואובדים בגלותם. אבל אם עם יוצא וחוזר ושוב יוצא – הרי זה גלויו של כח פנימי. יציאה – הוה אומר: הגיעה שעתה של תכונת ההתפשטות; חזרה –היינו:: הגיעה שעתה של התגלות תכונת ההתכנסות.

אנו, בשובנו עתה בשלישית או ברביעית לארצנו, אחרי נדודים של אלפי שנים ואחרי חליפין והערכות אין קץ, אחרי השתחררות האדם מכבלי החפץ הדומם ואלהותו ובימי תגברת השאיפה להשתחרר אף משלטון הקנין, אחרי שהשפעתו על כל העולם כלו, ולאחרי שספגנו לתוכנו את הכל – למרות שובנו אל הקנינים המוחשים ולהתגברות הנטיה של ההתכנסות והדבקות בנכסים הלאומיים, – עתידים אנו עוד ליצור תרבות גדולה ועשירה שבעתים מזו או מאלו שיצרנו או שקלטנו.

ומי יודע – אולי כעבור עוד מאות שנים שוב נרהיב עז בנפשנו ליציאה חדשה, שתובילנו להתפשטות רוחנו על העולם ולשאיפה מתמידה אל הנצח? – –

"על ה"שניות בישראל"

חיים נחמן ביאליק


(הרצאה ב"בית הועד" בברלין, אדר תרפ"ב)

Jewish Dualism, Chaim Bialik

In this dualism, we can discern the source of our misfortunes and greatest afflictions but it is the source of our strength and happiness as well.

These two tendencies have left their stamp on our whole history from beginning to end, on all the nation's modes of life and thought, and, wittingly or unwittingly, on its chief actions. And this was true not only during exile.

If we investigate ancient Jewish times and perhaps even its earliest history we shall discover these two tendencies-on the one hand the desire to expand from the center and, on the other, to contract toward it and cleave to it. No nation strives to be swallowed up in other groups as much as the Jews and, at the same time, to remain an entity-an entity whose least particle is still recognizably Jewish: a nation which builds a ghetto for itself in its place of dispersion and adjusts its life to an alien environment and, in a time of national emergency, permits itself to be killed over a minuscule change in its religion; a group which adapts itself to the ways of life of a whole world but nevertheless remains "a people dwelling apart, not reckoned among the nations." These things are well known.

There is a vision sui generis among the Jews unmatched in the history of other peoples, a vision of a double-some even say triple-revival. You know the story with an admixture of legend about the return of the Hebrews to Eretz Israel from Egypt, and afterwards the "historical" return from Babylon. The coming back of a people to its country after having been exiled has no parallel. One may wonder at such a phenomenon but not deny it. As stated above, some say that the return was threefold. Many scholars see the first return

in the coming of Abraham to Eretz Israel; that is, ancient tribes of Eber had already conquered the land once, and they came back in the days of Abraham. At that time, of course, there was as yet no Hebrew nation.

Was all this mere chance? Hardly. If the Hebrews had not possessed two equal antithetical foundations, there would have been no repetition of the vision of ingathering and scattering several times one after the other. It is impossible to get at such phenomena by objective explanations alone. "When a people does not wish to be exiled, it does not suffer exile." There are peoples which choose not to be expelled, and they come to an end in their land; and there are nations which are exiled and lost in the land of their dispersion. But when a people leaves and reenters, leaves and re-enters-this reveals its inner strength.

Leaving means that the hour of expansion has come, while return shows the trait of contraction.

After wandering for thousands of years and after endless changes and reevaluations ... after influencing the whole world and being influenced by it, we are now, for the third or fourth time, once again returning to our land. And here we are destined to fashion a culture sevenfold greater and richer than any we have heretofore created or absorbed.

And who knows? Perhaps after hundreds of years we will be emboldened to make another exodus which will lead to the spreading of our spirit over the world and an assiduous striving toward glory.

1922

Jewish Dualism, Chaim Bialik here