Bereshit

Genesis 1:1. -6:8

In this Torah portion, God creates the world. After Adam and Eve eat the forbidden fruit, they are banished from the Garden of Eden. Later Cain kills Abel. God then considers destroying all of Creation.

But the word “sin” is nowhere to be found in the biblical account. And while it’s clear God is displeased with this act of defiance, cursing Eve with the pain of bearing children and condemning Adam to labor for his sustenance, it’s possible to read this story not as a morality tale about the perils of disobedience, but as the beginning of humanity’s path to fulfilling its destiny.

But the first thing we learn about God in Parashat Bereshit is not that God is holy, but that God is a creator. And it is creativity — the capacity to think and act in free and novel ways, to act counter to the natural order, to rebel — that constitutes the shared ground between man and God.

This is why God responds to Adam and Eve’s rebellion by saying the act had made man “like one of us,” which happens to be the exact promise the snake had made to Eve in tempting her to eat from the tree in the first place, assuring her that “you will be like divine beings knowing good and bad.

* God creates the world and everything in it in six days and rests on the seventh. (1:1-2:3)

* Adam and Eve are placed in the Garden of Eden, where they eat the forbidden fruit and are subsequently exiled. (2:15-3:24)

* Adam and Eve have two sons, Cain and Abel. Cain kills his brother, Abel. (4:1-24)

* Adam and Eve have another child named Seth. The Torah lists the ten generations from Adam to Noah. (4:25-5:32)

* God regrets having created human beings and decides to destroy everything on earth, but Noah finds favor with God. (6:5-6:8)

God kicks them out of the Garden of Eden — not as punishment, but as a blessing: If they think they will never die then how will they truly live? If you have eternity then there is no urgency for anything; with unlimited tomorrows, everything can wait.

The German existentialist Martin Heidegger, in his masterwork Being and Time, taught this: he said that in order to truly live authentically we have to confront death head-on. In other words, knowing that I am going to die is what allows me to truly live. Heidegger wrote:

"If I take death into my life, acknowledge it, and face it squarely, I will free myself from the anxiety of death and the pettiness of life — and only then will I be free to become myself." (Heidegger)

Every item ends c the refrain “God saw that it was good.”

story ends with refrain

“and behold it was very good”

Only the creation of man does not evoke the phrase “And God saw that it was good.”

Man’s good is in his own hands. Only he has free choice.

“Torah, we must read it as Torah – as law, instruction, teaching, guidance. Torah is an answer to the question: how shall we live? That is why he raises the question as to why it does not begin with the first mitzva given to Israel.

Torah is not a book of history, even though it includes history. It is not a book of science, even though the first chapter of Genesis – as the nineteenth-century sociologist Max Weber points out – is the necessary prelude to science: it represents the first time people saw the universe as the product of a single creative will, and therefore as intelligible rather than capricious and mysterious.1

Rather, it is, first and last, a book about how to live. Everything it contains – not only mitzvot but also narratives, including the narrative of creation itself – is there solely for the sake of ethical and spiritual instruction. For Jewish ethics is not confined to law. It includes virtues of character, general principles and role models. It is conveyed not only by commandments but also by stories, telling us how particular individuals responded to specific situations.”

“Mirandola’s Oration was a break with the two dominant traditions of the Middle Ages: the Christian doctrine that human beings are irretrievably corrupt, tainted by original sin, and the Platonic idea that humanity is bounded by fixed forms.

It is also a strikingly Jewish account – almost identical with the one given by Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik in Halakhic Man: “The most fundamental principle of all is that man must create himself. It is this idea that Judaism introduced into the world.”

“As the rabbis put it: “Why was man created last? In order to say, if he is worthy, all creation was made for you; but if he is unworthy, he is told, even a gnat preceded you.”4”

“The Torah is a sustained exploration of human freedom, the greatest gift God gave man, as well as the most fateful, for freedom can be used or abused. It can lead to the highest heights or the lowest depths: to love or hate, compassion or cruelty, graciousness or violence. The entire drama of Torah flows from this point of departure. Judaism remains God’s supreme call to humankind to freedom and creativity on the one hand, and on the other, to responsibility and restraint – becoming God’s partner in the work of creation.

“Just as God makes the natural world by words (“And God said…and there was”) so we make the human world by words, which is why Judaism takes words so seriously: “Life and death are in the power of the tongue,” says the book of Proverbs (18:2). Already at the opening of the Torah, at the very beginning of creation, is foreshadowed the Jewish doctrine of revelation: that God reveals Himself to humanity not in the sun, the stars, the wind or the storm but in and through words – sacred words that make us co-partners with God in the work of redemption.”

“There is a lovely rabbinic phrase: mahashva tova HaKadosh barukh Hu meztarfah lem’aaseh.5 This is usually translated as “God considers a good intention as if it were the deed.” I translate it differently: “When a human being has a good intention, God joins in helping it become a deed,” meaning – He gives us the strength, if not now, then eventually, to turn it into achievement.”

“The story of Cain and Abel is the most profound commentary I know on the connection between religion and violence. Violence is the attempt to impose one’s will by force. There are only two ways of living with the guilt this involves: either, like Nietzsche, by denying God, or, like Cain, by telling oneself that one is doing the will of God. Both end in tragedy. The only alternative – the Torah’s alternative – is to see human life as sacred. This remains humanity’s last and only hope.”

“The reason God rejected Cain’s offering becomes clear in the words stated immediately after: “Cain became very angry and depressed” (Genesis 4:5). Imagine the following: you offer someone a gift. Politely, they refuse it. How do you respond? There are two possibilities. You can ask yourself, “What did I do wrong?” or you can be angry with the intended recipient. If you respond in the first way, you were genuinely trying to please the other person. If the second, it becomes retrospectively clear that your concern was not with the other but with yourself. You were trying to assert your own dominance by putting the other in your debt: the so-called “gift relationship.”4 Even among primates, the alpha male exercises power by distributing food, giving gifts. When the refusal of a gift leads to anger, it shows that the initial act was not altruism but a form of egoism: I give, therefore I rule”

Excerpt From

Covenant & Conversation: Genesis

Jonathan Sacks

“Being important to someone, being needed by someone—that is fulfillment or salvation.

In this simple but profound statement Kaplan articulates a fundamental attitude toward religion that is reflected in nearly all of his writings throughout his life—namely that for religion to matter, it must be personally meaningful. Thus, in this passage he equates personal “fulfillment” with the traditional religious idea of “salvation.”

Kaplan, though, defined “salvation” as being important to and needed by another human being.

Judaism has traditionally understood salvation not in terms of the individual alone but as a reflection of the individual’s relationship to the larger community.

Excerpt From

A Year with Mordecai Kaplan

Steven Carr Reuben

“The three English words “In the beginning” stand for one Hebrew word, Bereishit, which is made up of two parts: Be-, which means “in” or “when” or “as”, and reishit. which means “head of” or “beginning of” or “start of”. So the King James Version’s “In the beginning” was a fair translation.

But things have changed since 1611.

So today scholars believe that a closer English translation of the Torah’s first sentence would be:

When God began creating heaven and earth—the earth being shapeless and empty, with darkness above the deep, with God’s spirit soaring over the water—God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light.”

“Plural Names for God

In the ancient world, many languages used plural-sounding names like Elohim to speak of a single god. In Mesopotamia both the word il (singular) and the word ilm (plural) could mean “god”. In letters written by an ancient Egyptian, we hear the Pharaoh called “my gods, the sun god”—plural and singular in one sentence! And in the early days of Hebrew settlement in the Holy Land, Canaanites already spoke of their god as elohim. So the Hebrew habit of calling the One God by the plural word Elohim was not unusual in its time.”

“Throughout the first story of creation God is called Elohim, a name that comes from El, a word that meant “god” in many languages of the ancient Near East. In Hebrew the name , Elohim, looks and sounds like a plural word. The singular for Elohim is Eloha, and the Bible sometimes (but not often) uses Eloha as a name for the One God.

Yet we can tell from the first sentence that Elohim is a name and not a word meaning “many gods”. The verb used with Elohim is singular—the Bible says “Elohim creates” (singular) and not “Elohim create” (which would be plural), and it says “Elohim speaks” and not “Elohim speak.” So it is clear that Elohim is a name that ancient Hebrew speakers used for “the One God”. It was also a name for God in other languages. For example, the Canaanites used it.

Excerpt From

The Torah: Portion-by-Portion

Seymour Rossel

1

“Bible scholar Tikva Frymer-Kensky explains that according to these stories, “humanity did not develop any aspect of human culture.”1 Another scholar adds that “in the ancient Mesopotamian view every aspect of human society was decreed by the gods. . . . Everything in the universe, material or immaterial, human or divine, was laid down by decree.”2”

“Where the origins of culture are concerned, there is an enormous chasm between Genesis and many ancient myths. “In ancient Near East myths,” Frymer-Kensky writes, “the gods provide humanity with all the essentials of human civilization. By contrast, in the Bible, early humans develop their own culture. The human being, a creature created by God, is the initiator and creator of its own culture.”

“Genesis pulls the cord at both ends. On the one hand, the Torah makes a tremendous amount of space for human initiative and achievement. On the other hand, it implies that we should pay careful attention to where this story of ostensible progress ends up.”

“What has happened over the course of these seven generations, then, is that technology has progressed, but so too has the human propensity toward violence.”

“The Jewish view is neither that human beings are inherently good nor that we are inherently bad. The Jewish view is that human beings are inherently complicated, pulled in many directions at once, capable of breathtaking kindness as well as horrific cruelty and staggering indifference.”

2

“So what does the Torah mean when it tells us that we are created in God’s image?

Among Bible scholars one of the most common interpretations is that being created in the image of God means being given the special role of “representing . . . God’s rule in the world.”8 The Torah’s view is that people are God’s “vice-regents” and “earthly delegates,”9 appointed by God to rule over the world. One traditional Jewish commentator, R. Saadia Gaon (882–942), anticipated this understanding of Genesis, arguing that being created in the image of God means being assigned to rule over creation (Saadia Gaon, commentary to Gen. 1:26).”

“Theologian Norman Wirzba captures this point beautifully: “Despite the desire that many have for greater species equality, the fact of the matter is that we are, because of our spiritual endowment or potential and our technological prowess, masters of this earth. The issue is not how we will shed ourselves of our unique potential and responsibility, but how we will transform it for good.”22 We have both enormous responsibility and awesome power. “It is up to us to determine if we will make of ourselves a blessing or a curse”

Excerpt From

The Heart of Torah, Volume 1

Shai Held

Bereshit contains the first question in the Torah directed to God by a human being. After Cain’s offering receives no attention from God, Cain and Abel are out in the field and Cain kills his brother. “The Lord said to Cain, ‘Where is your brother Abel?’ And he said, ‘I do not know. Am I my brother’s keeper [ha-shomer achi anochi]?” (Genesis 4:9).

This is the first question directed to God in the entire Torah, and yet it remains unanswered. Punishment is meted out to Cain, but in no place surrounding this story is there an answer. In fact, in no place in the Torah is God seen as giving a direct answer to this question.”

Excerpt From

The Modern Men's Torah Commentary

Rabbi Jeffrey K. Salkin

“Given the far-reaching and scathing nature of these traditional interpretations, it is imperative for us as Jewish feminists to reexamine these stories found in Gen. 2 and 3. Let us look first at the creation of woman. Just how was woman created? Was she created from Adam’s actual rib? There is another way to understand the verses of Gen. 2:20–24. We read there that Adam did not have a partner, so God cast a deep sleep on Adam, and while he slept, God removed one of his ribs (tzelah), thus forming woman. But in Gen. 1:27—in the first story of creation—we read, “And God created Adam in God’s image: male and female God created them.” This discrepancy has caused commentators to ponder: were man and woman created simultaneously, as related in chapter 1, or was woman an afterthought, as suggested by chapter 2?”

“The talmudic rabbis were also bothered by an overly literal interpretation of the verses in chapter 2. Carefully reading verses 20 and 21, they suggest that the word tzelah, most commonly translated as “rib,” derives from the Hebrew word meaning “side.” Thus, they declare that Eve was not created from Adam’s rib. Rather, Adam was a bisexual, double-faced being—neither male nor female. During the deep sleep that fell upon this first human, its male and female sides were separated, creating man and woman as we know them today.3 Thus, man and woman came into being not one after another, but simultaneously; in fact, joined together as one. This first story (chapter 1) relates the creation of this androgynous being, while the second story (chapter 2) relates the creation of gendered beings—man and woman.”

“Many of us may harbor images in our heads of Eve running to find Adam to share with him this delicious fruit. Actually, the Torah explicitly tells us that Adam was there next to her during this entire scene. The text clearly states that “she gave some to her husband with her” (Gen. 3:6). Adam is not off in some distant corner of the garden. He is present for this entire interchange between the snake and Eve and not once does he speak up! He does not intervene when Eve reaches out to eat the fruit, nor does he refuse to partake of it when she offers it to him. Then why don’t the traditional commentators implicate Adam to the same extent as Eve in this violation of the Divine commandment? ”

“Moreover, nowhere in chapter 3 does Eve uses any means of seduction to tempt Adam into eating. There are no pleas, no tantrums, none of the feminine wiles that the verbs “seduce” and “tempt” suggest.

Excerpt From

The Women's Torah Commentary

Rabbi Elyse Goldstein

IN THE BEGINNING. Our wise men1The Hebrew grammarians. See Ibn Janah, Sefer ha-Rikmah, 6:2. taught that the letter bet (of bereshit, in the beginning) is superfluous.2The letter bet placed before the word reshit has no translatable meaning. According to Weiser it is there for emphasis. Our verse should thus be rendered: First God created heaven and earth. They compare it to the bet in the word ba-rishonah (at the first) (Genesis 13:4). We know the bet in ba-rishonah to be superfluous for we find they shall set forth first (rishonah) (Numbers 2:9).3According to this opinion rishonah and ba-rishonah mean the same. Hence the bet of ba-rishonah is superfluous. However, if this were so the bet (of bereshit) would be vocalized with a long kamatz.4As is the bet of ba-rishonah. The fact that the bet of bereshit is vocalized with a sheva proves that both cases are not exactly the same. Other scholars maintain that the word bereshit is always in the construct and its meaning in our verse is: “In the beginning of the evening, or of the night, or of the darkness.”5The word or phrase that bereshit is connected to is missing and must be supplied by the reader. According to Cherez, I.E. is trying to explain why the superfluous bet of bereshit is vocalized with a sheva while that of ba-rishonah is vocalized with a kamatz. The reason is that bereshit is in the construct and therefore is vocalized with a sheva. However, they have overlooked And he chose a first part (reshit) for himself (Deuteronomy 33:21).6Where the word reshit is in the absolute. Others say that the bet of bereshit is a preposition.7The Hebrew texts printed in our editions are most probably incorrect. We have followed Vat. Ebr. 38, which has kli ta’am rather than bli ta’am. For alternate interpretations see Filwarg, Weiser and Cherez. They explain that Scripture intends to preclude the thought that heaven and earth were preexisting. Hence it states, In the beginning.8The bet is there for emphasis. The meaning of the verse is: In the beginning, i.e., before anything was created, God created heaven and earth. I believe that bereshit is in the construct, as in In the beginning of (bereshit) the reign of Jehoiakim (Jeremiah 26:1).9I.E. agrees that bereshit is in the construct. He disagrees with the earlier quoted opinion only in maintaining that it is not always in the construct. Don’t ask, how can a word in the construct be connected to a verb in the perfect.10A noun is usually in the construct when connected to another noun, hence I.E.’s comment. This presents no problem, for we find that very case in the verse When the Lord spoke at first with Hosea (Hosea 1:2),11Techillat (at first) is in the construct with dibber (spoke). and in the verse the city where David encamped (Isaiah 29:1).12Kiryat (the city) is in the construct with chanah (encamped). The meaning of bereshit will be explained in our comments on the next verse.13That is, the explanation of what bereshit in the construct is to be connected to.

Open

Add to Sheet

1

CREATED. Most Biblical commentators explain that the word bara (created) indicates creation ex nihilo. But if the Lord make (yivra) a new thing (beri’ah) (Num. 16:30) is similar. However, they have overlooked And God created (va-yivra) the great sea monsters14God obviously did not create the sea monsters ex nihilo, for the verse concludes, and every living creature that creepeth, wherewith the waters swarmed, which shows that the sea monsters were created out of the water. Also, it is absurd to assume that on the fifth day of creation God would create sea monsters ex nihilo. (Gen. 1:21) and the three times the word created is used in one verse, viz., And God created (va-yivra) man in His own image, in the image of God created (bara) He him; male and female created (bara) He them (Gen. 1:27). They also failed to consider I form the light, and create darkness (Is. 45:7) wherein darkness, which is the opposite of light, an existing entity, is described by the prophet as being created.15Darkness is the absence of light. Thus Isaiah uses the term created in the opposite sense of creation ex nihilo. In Isaiah it means the creation of nothing out of something (Krinsky). Hence bara does not necessarily imply creation ex nihilo. The following is the precise explanation of the word bara. Bara has two meanings, one of which has been noted above.16That is, to create or make. The second17That is, to eat. is found in the verse neither did he eat (bara) bread with them (II Samuel 12:17). However, in the latter case, an alef has been substituted for a heh.18Most of our manuscripts of the Bible have barah with a heh. However, Ibn Ezra’s manuscript must have had bara with an alef. See also Jacob ben Haim’s edition of the Hebrew Bible, 1524, which has the same reading as Ibn Ezra. There is some difficulty in understanding this comment as the printed text is corrupt. We have followed Vat. Ebr. 38 as suggested by Weiser. For a different rendering see Filwarg. The reason is that bara (in I Sam. 12:17) is similar to le-havrot (to urge to eat) in And all the people came to cause David to eat (le-havrot) bread (II Sam. 3:35). The verb le-havrot appears in the hifil (and its root ends with heh), for if it ended with an alef, Scripture would have read le-havri, as in to make yourselves fat (le-havri’achem) with the chiefest of all the offerings of Israel (I Sam. 2:29). We also find bara conjugated in the pi’el, as in and cut down (u-vereta) for thyself (trees) (Joshua 17:15). This is not like the similar word beru in choose (beru) you a man for you (I Sam. 17:8) but rather like bare (hack, dispatch) in and dispatch them (u-vare) with their swords19Ibn Janah, The Book of Roots, root bet, resh, alef, explains bara in Josh. 17:15 to mean chose, as in I Sam. 17:8. Ibn Ezra disagrees. The point of I.E’s comment is that bara spelled bet, resh, alef primarily means to cut. It is encountered with this meaning in both the kal and pi’el. Bara also means to eat. However, in the latter case its root is bet, resh, heh, although it is found spelled bet, resh, alef in I Sam. 17:8. In the latter instance, however, we treat it as if there were an interchange between the heh and alef. (Ezekiel 23:47). The meaning of bara is to cut or to set a boundary. The intelligent person will understand what I am alluding to.20I. Husik, A History of Medieval Jewish Philosophy, p. 190, notes, “The Hebrew word bara, ordinarily translated “created,” which implies to most people the idea of creatio ex nihilo, Ibn Ezra renders, in accordance with its etymology, to limit, to define, by drawing or incising a line or boundary. Having said this, Ibn Ezra, in his wonted mysterious manner, stops short, refusing to say more, and preferring to mystify the reader by adding the tantalizing phrase, ‘The intelligent will understand.’ He means apparently to indicate that an eternal matter was endowed with form.” Nahman Krochmal, More Nevuche Ha-zeman (quoted by Krinsky), suggests that Ibn Ezra’s belief is similar to that of the Kabbalists; i.e., the world was created out of an emanation from God. See also C. Sirot, Philosophy in the Middle Ages (Hebrew), p. 112. Ibn Ezra was a neo-Platonist. According to neo-Platonism the world came about by emanation from God. Ibn Ezra is apparently saying that at the creation spoken of in the first chapter of Genesis, God gave final form to what had previously emanated from Him.

Open

Add to Sheet

1

GOD. Elohim (God) is a plural. We know this because we come across the singular form Elo’ah.21Ps. 114:7. Elo’ah being the singular of Elohim. Elohim is employed stylistically. Every language has honorific terminology. In the non-Hebrew tongues when an inferior addresses a superior he employs the plural. In Arabic it is customary for a dignitary such as a king to speak in the plural. In Hebrew, too, it is considered a sign of dignity to employ the plural when speaking of a superior. Such is the case with the words adonim (lords) and be’alim (owners). Thus Scripture says, a cruel lord (adonim) (Is. 19:4),22Adonim is a plural, yet its meaning in this verse is singular (lord). The singular of adonim is adon. and and the owner thereof (be’alav) shall accept it (Exodus 22:10).23Be’alav literally means, its owners. The terms alav (upon him), elav (to him), and adav (unto him) are similar.24All of these words have plural endings, yet are used to indicate singulars. It is for this reason that Scipture reads bara Elohim and not bare’u Elohim.25Since Elohim is to be understood as singular, the verb following it (bara) is in the singular. If Elohim were plural, the verb following it would also be plural (bare’u). We know from the study of logic that speech is called safah26Safah is the Hebrew word for lip. The point is that more than the lips are involved in speech, but speech is so called because it is seen to come from the lips. because it is seen to come from the lips. Similarly man’s highest soul is called heart (lev) even though the soul itself is incorporeal while the heart is corporeal. It is referred to in this manner because the heart is its first resting place. Similarly God is called Elohim because His actions are executed via angels who do His will and who are referred to as Elohim.27Man’s soul is often referred to in Scripture as lev because the soul acts via the heart. Similarly God is called Elohim because He acts via the angels. Husik, p. 191, points out that according to I.E., “God cannot come in contact with the material and changeable (hence)…it follows that (the terrestrial world)…was not made directly by him, but by angels; hence the word Elohim is used in the first chapter of Genesis, which means primarily the angels, and secondarily God as acting through the angels.” I will explain part of the secret of God’s name when I comment on for My name is in him (Ex. 23:21). Pay no heed to the opinion of Rabbi Saadiah Gaon who holds that man is superior to the angels. I have already explained to you in The Book of Foundation that all of his proofs are wrong. We know that the prophets are the most exalted human beings. Nevertheless, the prophet Joshua fell upon his face and prostrated himself before God’s angel and said to him, What saith my lord unto his servant (Josh. 5:14).28Joshua’s bowing before God’s angels proves that angels are superior to prophets. The same is true of the prophets Zechariah and Daniel.29Both address the angels as superiors. See Zechariah 1:9 and Dan. 10:17. Why should I elaborate when this point is so elementary?The meaning of Lord of Hosts (Elohe ha-tzeva’ot) is the same as God of gods (Elohe ha-Elohim) (Deut. 10:17).30We thus see that Elohim means the same as tzeva’ot (hosts or angels). The definition of elohim (lord) is angels.31Reading malakh (angel) rather than melekh (king) (Weiser). People engaged in the dispensation of God’s justice are also called elohim.32According to Rabbinic interpretation Elohim at times signifies a judge. See Mekhilta on Ex. 21:6. Elohim is an adjective, not a proper noun.33Hence it can be declined and be in the construct. A proper noun cannot. I.E. seems to limit the term noun to proper nouns. Apparently common nouns were treated like adjectives. It is not found conjugated in the perfect or imperfect.34Hebrew adjectives have verbal forms. However, Elohim is never found in the verbal form. Nevertheless, Ibn Ezra insists that it is an adjective. One should not assume that angels are composed of fire and air because Scripture states, Who makest winds Thy messengers, The flaming fire Thy ministers (Psalms 104:4).35Which implies that God makes his angels out of wind. This is not the literal meaning of this verse. David (in Psalm 104) speaks first of creation. He starts with light and says, Who coverest Thyself with light as with a garment (Ps. 104:2). He then goes on to say, Who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain, heaven referring to the firmament upon which is water, fire, snow and wind. David next says that the wind serves as God’s agent; i.e., it goes wherever God sends it. He speaks in a similar vein of fire as one of God’s ministers.36Psalm 104. It is not to be taken as implying that the angels are made out of fire. It rather means that fire is God’s agent. Cf. Ibn Ezra on Ps. 104:4. David then says, Who didst establish the earth upon its foundations (Ps. 104:5), which refers to dry land. Similarly it is written, Stormy wind, fulfilling His word (Ps. 148:8).37

WBT Friday - Rabbi Nanus

Sforno Bereshit

בצלם אלוהים, when the word אלוהים appears as a description, i.e. in the nature of an adjective, it refers to creatures who are spiritual in their essence, not just that they possess spiritual potential. Such beings are devoid of such physical matter, are totally disembodied. This is what makes them basically infinite. This is the reason why such an adjective, attribute, is applied to G’d as well as to His angels.