A Sin to Save the World?

With the end of the Torah cycle for 5785 nearing and with the state of the World as it is, I am reminded of the interesting text in Parashat Bereshit (my Bar Mitzvah parashah) concerning humanity's relationship to the Earth and life in, above, and on it, as written in Gen. 1:26-28:

בראשית א׳:כ״ו-כ״ח

(כו) וַיֹּ֣אמֶר אֱלֹקִ֔ים נַֽעֲשֶׂ֥ה אָדָ֛ם בְּצַלְמֵ֖נוּ כִּדְמוּתֵ֑נוּ וְיִרְדּוּ֩ בִדְגַ֨ת הַיָּ֜ם וּבְע֣וֹף הַשָּׁמַ֗יִם וּבַבְּהֵמָה֙ וּבְכׇל־הָאָ֔רֶץ וּבְכׇל־הָרֶ֖מֶשׂ הָֽרֹמֵ֥שׂ עַל־הָאָֽרֶץ׃ (כז) וַיִּבְרָ֨א אֱלֹקִ֤ים ׀ אֶת־הָֽאָדָם֙ בְּצַלְמ֔וֹ בְּצֶ֥לֶם אֱלֹקִ֖ים בָּרָ֣א אֹת֑וֹ זָכָ֥ר וּנְקֵבָ֖ה בָּרָ֥א אֹתָֽם׃ (כח) וַיְבָ֣רֶךְ אֹתָם֮ אֱלֹקִים֒ וַיֹּ֨אמֶר לָהֶ֜ם אֱלֹקִ֗ים פְּר֥וּ וּרְב֛וּ וּמִלְא֥וּ אֶת־הָאָ֖רֶץ וְכִבְשֻׁ֑הָוּרְד֞וּ בִּדְגַ֤ת הַיָּם֙ וּבְע֣וֹף הַשָּׁמַ֔יִם וּבְכׇל־חַיָּ֖ה הָֽרֹמֶ֥שֶׂת עַל־הָאָֽרֶץ׃

Genesis 1:26-28

(26) And God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, after our likeness. They shall rule the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, the cattle, the whole earth, and all the creeping things that creep on earth.” (27) And God created humankind in the divine image, creating it in the image of God— creating them male and female. (28) God blessed them and God said to them, “Be fertile and increase, fill the earth and master it; and rule the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, and all the living things that creep on earth.”

The text indicates that humankind is intended (prior to its creation) to "rule" (וְיִרְדּוּ) the animals of the earth and the earth (הָאָרֶץ) itself. More specifically after its creation, humankind is intended to "master" (וְכִבְשֻׁהָ) the earth and "rule" (וּרְדוּ) over its animals (although וּבַבְּהֵמָה is not listed this time).

What do וְכִבְשֻׁהָ ,וְיִרְדּוּ, and וּרְדוּ mean regarding humankind's "rule" or "mastery" over the animals and earth? Ramban (Nachmanides; 13th Century) interprets וְיִרְדּוּ to mean that humankind "shall rule vigorously over the fish, the fowl, the cattle, and all creeping things — 'the cattle' here includes the beast" and is "to rule over the earth itself, to uproot and to pull down, to dig and to hew out copper and iron. The term r’diyah — [’v’yirdu’ over the fish … and over all the earth] — applies to the rule of the master over his servant" [1]. Rashi (11th Century) interprets וְיִרְדּוּ also to include a behavioral or an ethical component about humankind's worthiness to rule over animals [2]. Similarly concerning וּרְדוּ, Ramban interprets it to mean that humankind is to have "dominion over the fish that are concealed from them, And over the fowl of the heaven which are not on the ground, and also over every wild animal" [3ּ]. Sforno interprets וּרְדוּ to mean "trapping the beasts, training them to bend to man’s will" [4].

Concerning וְכִבְשֻׁהָ, Ramban interprets it to mean that humans shall have "power and dominion over the earth to do as they wish with the cattle, the reptiles, and all that crawl in the dust, and to build, and to pluck up that which is planted [Eccl. 3:2], and from its hills to dig copper, and other similar things. This is included in what He said and over all the earth" [Gen. 1:26] [5]. In contrast, Sforno (16th Century) interprets וְכִבְשֻׁהָ to mean humankind's rule by superior intelligence: This "is not a directive to conquer earth with muscular power, but to subdue it by means of man’s superior intellect. It means that man is to use his intelligence to prevent predators from invading his habitats, demonstrating the fact that man is superior, can outwit the beasts" [6].

The interpretations of these words — including "rule", "mastery", and "dominion" — stand in contrast (Sforno's views aside) to what happens to the first human (הָאָדָם) soon after being created:

בראשית ב׳:ז׳-י״ח

(ז) וַיִּ֩יצֶר֩ יקוק אֱלֹקִ֜ים אֶת־הָֽאָדָ֗ם עָפָר֙ מִן־הָ֣אֲדָמָ֔ה וַיִּפַּ֥ח בְּאַפָּ֖יו נִשְׁמַ֣ת חַיִּ֑ים וַיְהִ֥י הָֽאָדָ֖ם לְנֶ֥פֶשׁ חַיָּֽה׃ (ח) וַיִּטַּ֞ע יקוק אֱלֹקִ֛ים גַּן־בְּעֵ֖דֶן מִקֶּ֑דֶם וַיָּ֣שֶׂם שָׁ֔ם אֶת־הָֽאָדָ֖ם אֲשֶׁ֥ר יָצָֽר׃ (ט) וַיַּצְמַ֞ח יקוק אֱלֹקִים֙ מִן־הָ֣אֲדָמָ֔ה כׇּל־עֵ֛ץ נֶחְמָ֥ד לְמַרְאֶ֖ה וְט֣וֹב לְמַאֲכָ֑ל וְעֵ֤ץ הַֽחַיִּים֙ בְּת֣וֹךְ הַגָּ֔ן וְעֵ֕ץ הַדַּ֖עַת ט֥וֹב וָרָֽע׃ (י) וְנָהָר֙ יֹצֵ֣א מֵעֵ֔דֶן לְהַשְׁק֖וֹת אֶת־הַגָּ֑ן וּמִשָּׁם֙ יִפָּרֵ֔ד וְהָיָ֖ה לְאַרְבָּעָ֥ה רָאשִֽׁים׃ (יא) שֵׁ֥ם הָֽאֶחָ֖ד פִּישׁ֑וֹן ה֣וּא הַסֹּבֵ֗ב אֵ֚ת כׇּל־אֶ֣רֶץ הַֽחֲוִילָ֔ה אֲשֶׁר־שָׁ֖ם הַזָּהָֽב׃ (יב) וּֽזְהַ֛ב הָאָ֥רֶץ הַהִ֖וא ט֑וֹב שָׁ֥ם הַבְּדֹ֖לַח וְאֶ֥בֶן הַשֹּֽׁהַם׃ (יג) וְשֵֽׁם־הַנָּהָ֥ר הַשֵּׁנִ֖י גִּיח֑וֹן ה֣וּא הַסּוֹבֵ֔ב אֵ֖ת כׇּל־אֶ֥רֶץ כּֽוּשׁ׃ (יד) וְשֵׁ֨ם הַנָּהָ֤ר הַשְּׁלִישִׁי֙ חִדֶּ֔קֶל ה֥וּא הַֽהֹלֵ֖ךְ קִדְמַ֣ת אַשּׁ֑וּר וְהַנָּהָ֥ר הָֽרְבִיעִ֖י ה֥וּא פְרָֽת׃ (טו) וַיִּקַּ֛ח יקוק אֱלֹקִ֖ים אֶת־הָֽאָדָ֑ם וַיַּנִּחֵ֣הוּ בְגַן־עֵ֔דֶן לְעׇבְדָ֖הּ וּלְשׇׁמְרָֽהּ׃ (טז) וַיְצַו֙ יקוק אֱלֹקִ֔ים עַל־הָֽאָדָ֖ם לֵאמֹ֑ר מִכֹּ֥ל עֵֽץ־הַגָּ֖ן אָכֹ֥ל תֹּאכֵֽל׃ (יז) וּמֵעֵ֗ץ הַדַּ֙עַת֙ ט֣וֹב וָרָ֔ע לֹ֥א תֹאכַ֖ל מִמֶּ֑נּוּ כִּ֗י בְּי֛וֹם אֲכׇלְךָ֥ מִמֶּ֖נּוּ מ֥וֹת תָּמֽוּת׃ (יח) וַיֹּ֙אמֶר֙ יקוק אֱלֹקִ֔ים לֹא־ט֛וֹב הֱי֥וֹת הָֽאָדָ֖ם לְבַדּ֑וֹ אֶֽעֱשֶׂה־לּ֥וֹ עֵ֖זֶר כְּנֶגְדּֽוֹ׃

Genesis 2:7-18

(7) God יקוק formed the Human from the soil’s humus, blowing into his nostrils the breath of life: the Human became a living being. (8) God יקוק planted a garden in Eden, in the east, and placed there the Human who had been fashioned. (9) And from the ground God יקוק caused to grow every tree that was pleasing to the sight and good for food, with the tree of life in the middle of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and bad. (10) A river issues from Eden to water the garden, and it then divides and becomes four branches. (11) The name of the first is Pishon, the one that winds through the whole land of Havilah, where the gold is. (12) (The gold of that land is good; bdellium is there, and lapis lazuli. ) (13) The name of the second river is Gihon, the one that winds through the whole land of Cush. (14) The name of the third river is Tigris, the one that flows east of Asshur. And the fourth river is the Euphrates. (15) God יקוק settled the Human in the garden of Eden, to till it and tend it. (16) And God יקוק commanded the Human, saying, “Of every tree of the garden you are free to eat; (17) but as for the tree of knowledge of good and bad, you must not eat of it; for as soon as you eat of it, you shall die.” (18) God יקוק said, “It is not good for the Human to be alone; I will make a fitting counterpart for him.”

Soon after being created, the first human is settled in the garden of Eden — not to rule, master, or dominate it — but to till it and to tend it (לְעׇבְדָהּ וּלְשׇׁמְרָהּ). Alone and not (yet) having knowledge of good and bad, the first human tends rather than dominates.

Concerning לְעׇבְדָהּ וּלְשׇׁמְרָהּ, Ramban explains that "He put him [man] there so that he should sow for himself wheat and all kinds of produce, and every herb bearing seed, and rows of spices, reaping and plucking and eating at his will. This also is the meaning of to cultivate it and to keep it — to cultivate the ground of the garden by the rows he [man] would make there, for the part of the garden where the trees were was not to be cultivated" [7].

Rabbeinu Bahya (14th Century) offers that "[t]he plain meaning of this phrase is that seeing that G-d had already assigned to man what he was to eat, i.e. vegetables and fruit, He now placed him in the garden so that he would practice the art of gardening and plant all manner of crops therein" [8].

Rabbi Steinsaltz (contemporary) notes that "[i]n contrast to the other creations scattered throughout the garden, the man was placed there for a particular purpose, namely, to cultivate the ground and to keep it. Just as in the previous chapter man was commanded to rule over the entire world, here man is given responsibility over a part of this otherworldly place. The world was not yet functioning in its fixed manner; perhaps rain never fell in the Garden of Eden, which instead drew all its sustenance from the river flowing through it and required the care of man. Consequently, it was of great importance for the man to cultivate the garden and to protect it from harm" [9].

Rabbi Sacks (contemporary) provides an arguably modern perspective and interpretation: "Man was set in the Garden of Eden 'to work it and take care of it' (Gen. 2:15). The two Hebrew verbs are significant. The first – le’avda – literally means 'to serve it.' Man is not just a master but also a servant of nature. The second – leshamra – means 'to guard it.' This is the verb used in later Torah legislation to describe the responsibilities of a guardian of property that does not belong to him. He must exercise vigilance in his protection and is liable for loss through negligence. This is perhaps the best short definition of man’s responsibility for nature as the Bible conceives it" [10].

Concerning the earth, why the difference between the intention for humankind (וְכִבְשֻׁהָ) and the actualization of humankind (לְעׇבְדָהּ וּלְשׇׁמְרָהּ)? Is tending (rather than domination) by humankind applicable to only the garden of Eden before humankind's knowledge of good and bad, or is tending by humankind supposed to be applicable to all the earth and perhaps by extension to all of its animal life for all (of humankind's) time? Is this difference intentional or does it point to some kind of misunderstanding or misinterpretation of the text?

It is worth noting that in the Torah, וְכִבְשֻׁהָ ("master [the earth]") has a homograph (notwithstanding written vowels), וְכַבְשָׂה ("and ewe [female] lamb"):

במדבר ו׳:י״ד

(יד) וְהִקְרִ֣יב אֶת־קׇרְבָּנ֣וֹ לַיקוק כֶּ֩בֶשׂ֩ בֶּן־שְׁנָת֨וֹ תָמִ֤ים אֶחָד֙ לְעֹלָ֔ה וְכַבְשָׂ֨ה אַחַ֧ת בַּת־שְׁנָתָ֛הּ תְּמִימָ֖ה לְחַטָּ֑את וְאַֽיִל־אֶחָ֥ד תָּמִ֖ים לִשְׁלָמִֽים׃

Numbers 6:14

(14) As an offering to יקוק that person shall present: one male lamb in its first year, without blemish, for a burnt offering; one ewe lamb in its first year, without blemish, for a sin offering; one ram without blemish for an offering of well-being;

The male counterpart of כַבְשָׂה is כֶּבֶשׂ. If כֶּבֶשׂ may be compared to מֶלֶךְ (king, sovereign) for grammatical purposes, then as מֶלֶךְ has an associated infinitive, לִמְלֹךְ (to become king or reign), then too should כֶּבֶשׂ have an associated infinitive. Yet, there is neither such an infinitive nor such a conjugated verb in the Tanakh (see Klein Dictionary). Why is that? How did כֶּבֶשׂ become the name for male lamb? What is the antecedent of כֶּבֶשׂ?

An infinitive associated with כֶּבֶשׂ could be לִכְבֹּשׂ or possibly לְכַבֵּשׂ, and it could mean "to tend", as in how lambs and sheep are tended. כֶּבֶשׂ would then reflect that it is an animal (lamb or sheep) requiring tending or that is tended. This would be similar to כֶּבֶס (detergent, the agent to facilitate effective washing of clothes) and its associated infinitive לְכַבֵּס (to wash clothes).

Although there is no recognized infinitive associated with כֶּבֶשׂ in the Tanakh, there is an infinitive associated with וְכִבְשֻׁהָ (the homograph of וְכַבְשָׂה):

אסתר ז׳:ח׳

(ח) וְהַמֶּ֡לֶךְ שָׁב֩ מִגִּנַּ֨ת הַבִּיתָ֜ן אֶל־בֵּ֣ית ׀ מִשְׁתֵּ֣ה הַיַּ֗יִן וְהָמָן֙ נֹפֵ֗ל עַל־הַמִּטָּה֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר אֶסְתֵּ֣ר עָלֶ֔יהָ וַיֹּ֣אמֶר הַמֶּ֔לֶךְ הֲ֠גַ֠ם לִכְבּ֧וֹשׁ אֶת־הַמַּלְכָּ֛ה עִמִּ֖י בַּבָּ֑יִת הַדָּבָ֗ר יָצָא֙ מִפִּ֣י הַמֶּ֔לֶךְ וּפְנֵ֥י הָמָ֖ן חָפֽוּ׃ {ס}

Esther 7:8

(8) When the king returned from the palace garden to the banquet room, Haman was lying prostrate on the couch on which Esther reclined. “Does he mean,” cried the king, “to ravish the queen in my own palace?” No sooner did these words leave the king’s lips than Haman’s face was covered.

דברי הימים ב כ״ח:י׳

(י) וְ֠עַתָּ֠ה בְּנֵֽי־יְהוּדָ֤ה וִירוּשָׁלַ֙͏ִם֙ אַתֶּ֣ם אֹֽמְרִ֔ים לִכְבֹּ֛שׁ לַעֲבָדִ֥ים וְלִשְׁפָח֖וֹת לָכֶ֑ם הֲלֹ֤א רַק־אַתֶּם֙ עִמָּכֶ֣ם אֲשָׁמ֔וֹת לַיקוק אֱלֹקֵיכֶֽם׃

II Chronicles 28:10

(10) Do you now intend to subjugate the men and women of Judah and Jerusalem to be your slaves? As it is, you have nothing but offenses against the LORD your God.

Occurring just twice in the Tanakh, לִכְבֹּשׁ / לִכְבּוֹשׁ is translated above in very harsh terms, as to ravish/rape and to subjugate, respectively. The hypothetical infinitive לִכְבֹּשׂ (or perhaps לְכַבֵּשׂ) associated with כֶּבֶשׂ would be at the opposite end of the interaction spectrum: to tend (as in a flock of sheep). These two infinitives would differ by only one letter, or less yet, by the location of one dot: שׁ vs. שׂ. It is very fitting that the different locations of the dot on ש would also be at the extremes: right dot denotes harshness and exploitation; left dot denotes tenderness and safeguarding).

Does the fact that we cannot find לִכְבֹּשׂ (or perhaps לְכַבֵּשׂ), or a conjugated form, in the Tanakh mean that such a verb does not actually exist? I have encountered the argument that שׂ (sin) is not a real letter, that it is used (mistakenly?) instead of ס (samekh). This idea is perhaps based on the narrative in Judges of the battle between the Gileadites (led by Jephtach) and Ephraim and its aftermath:

שופטים י״ב:ד׳-ו׳

(ד) וַיִּקְבֹּ֤ץ יִפְתָּח֙ אֶת־כׇּל־אַנְשֵׁ֣י גִלְעָ֔ד וַיִּלָּ֖חֶם אֶת־אֶפְרָ֑יִם וַיַּכּוּ֩ אַנְשֵׁ֨י גִלְעָ֜ד אֶת־אֶפְרַ֗יִם כִּ֤י אָֽמְרוּ֙ פְּלִיטֵ֤י אֶפְרַ֙יִם֙ אַתֶּ֔ם גִּלְעָ֕ד בְּת֥וֹךְ אֶפְרַ֖יִם בְּת֥וֹךְ מְנַשֶּֽׁה׃ (ה) וַיִּלְכֹּ֥ד גִּלְעָ֛ד אֶֽת־מַעְבְּר֥וֹת הַיַּרְדֵּ֖ן לְאֶפְרָ֑יִם וְֽ֠הָיָ֠ה כִּ֣י יֹאמְר֞וּ פְּלִיטֵ֤י אֶפְרַ֙יִם֙ אֶֽעֱבֹ֔רָה וַיֹּ֨אמְרוּ ל֧וֹ אַנְשֵֽׁי־גִלְעָ֛ד הַאֶפְרָתִ֥י אַ֖תָּה וַיֹּ֥אמֶֽר ׀ לֹֽא׃ (ו) וַיֹּ֣אמְרוּ לוֹ֩ אֱמׇר־נָ֨א שִׁבֹּ֜לֶת וַיֹּ֣אמֶר סִבֹּ֗לֶת וְלֹ֤א יָכִין֙ לְדַבֵּ֣ר כֵּ֔ן וַיֹּאחֲז֣וּ אוֹת֔וֹ וַיִּשְׁחָט֖וּהוּ אֶל־מַעְבְּר֣וֹת הַיַּרְדֵּ֑ן וַיִּפֹּ֞ל בָּעֵ֤ת הַהִיא֙ מֵֽאֶפְרַ֔יִם אַרְבָּעִ֥ים וּשְׁנַ֖יִם אָֽלֶף׃

Judges 12:4-6

(4) And Jephthah gathered all the Gileadites and fought Ephraim. The Gileadites defeated Ephraim; for they had said, “You, Gilead, are nothing but fugitives from Ephraim—being in Manasseh is like being in Ephraim.” (5) Gilead held the fords of the Jordan against Ephraim. And when any fugitive from Ephraim said, “Let me cross,” the Gileadites would ask him, “Are you an Ephraimite?”; if he said “No,” (6) they would say to him, “Then say shibboleth”; but he would say “sibboleth,” not being able to pronounce it correctly. Thereupon they would seize him and slay him by the fords of the Jordan. Forty-two thousand from Ephraim fell at that time.

The text uses the word pair, שִׁבֹּלֶת and סִבֹּלֶת, rather than the word pair, שִׁבֹּלֶת and שִׂבֹּלֶת, likely because the latter pair are homographs (vowels aside). Use of the latter pair would have resulted in challenging text (prior to use of the pointed vowel system): ...ויאמרו לו אמר נא שבלת ויאמר שבלת. In that case, how could anyone know which שבלת is "shibboleth" and which שבלת is "sibboleth"?

It was apparently necessary to use ס instead of שׂ to denote the correct sound (s) by way of the text itself to show explicitly the distinction between the sound of שׁ (sh) and the sound of שׂ (s). (I suspect that there were dialectal differences among the Israelite tribes concerning the names of certain things (e.g., שבלת / ear of corn); speech would be a simple filter for identifying "other" people.) The necessity to use ס instead of שׂ in that instance (only?) does not mean that שׂ is not a real letter. It would be interesting to discover an ancient scroll with יסראל instead of לעס[ו]ת ,ישראל instead of לעש[ו]ת including any of its conjugated forms, or סרה instead of שרה, to name a few examples.

Given the above, what if the hypothetical infinitive לִכְבֹּשׂ (or perhaps לְכַבֵּשׂ), or its conjugated form, associated with כֶּבֶשׂ is actually present in the Tanakh, but we have simply been unable to perceive it? The noted difference between the intention for humankind (וְכִבְשֻׁהָ) and the actualization of humankind in the garden of Eden (לְעׇבְדָהּ וּלְשׇׁמְרָהּ), as they might relate more broadly to the earth, might not actually be a difference at all if we consider the possibility that the שׁ in וְכִבְשֻׁהָ is actually שׂ. How would we have known from written scrolls (וכבשה) with certainty before use of the pointed vowel system (e.g., in a codex; see p. 293 of the Leningrad Codex)? This possibility would result in וְכִבְשֻׂהָ (or perhaps וְכִבְּשֻׂהָ; cf. וְכִבְּסוּ in Ex. 19:10), rendering Gen. 1:28 as follows:

(כח)וַיְבָ֣רֶךְ אֹתָם֮ אֱלֹקִים֒ וַיֹּ֨אמֶר לָהֶ֜ם אֱלֹקִ֗ים פְּר֥וּ וּרְב֛וּ וּמִלְא֥וּ אֶת־הָאָ֖רֶץ ְוכִבְשֻׂ֑הָ/וְכִבְּשֻׂהָ וּרְד֞וּ בִּדְגַ֤ת הַיָּם֙ וּבְע֣וֹף הַשָּׁמַ֔יִם וּבְכׇל־חַיָּ֖ה הָֽרֹמֶ֥שֶׂת עַל־הָאָֽרֶץ׃

(28) God blessed them and God said to them, “Be fertile and increase, fill the earth and tend it; and rule the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, and all the living things that creep on earth.”

Perhaps the reason that we have not perceived וכבשה as וְכִבְשֻׂהָ (or perhaps וְכִבְּשֻׂהָ) is that having "knowledge of good and bad" (however one wishes to interpret it) has put humanity in the frame of mind to exploit the earth for our own immediate (and perhaps individual) benefit rather than to tend the earth for its and our mutual longer-term benefit. Perhaps back then (if not also now), we could not imagine that וכבשה could mean anything other than domination/exploitation (וְכִבְשֻׁהָ) of the earth and everything above, on, or in it for minerals and other resources.

בראשית ב׳:י״א-י״ב

(יא) שֵׁ֥ם הָֽאֶחָ֖ד פִּישׁ֑וֹן ה֣וּא הַסֹּבֵ֗ב אֵ֚ת כׇּל־אֶ֣רֶץ הַֽחֲוִילָ֔ה אֲשֶׁר־שָׁ֖ם הַזָּהָֽב׃ (יב)וּֽזְהַ֛ב הָאָ֥רֶץ הַהִ֖וא ט֑וֹב שָׁ֥ם הַבְּדֹ֖לַח וְאֶ֥בֶן הַשֹּֽׁהַם׃

Genesis 2:11-12

(11) The name of the first is Pishon, the one that winds through the whole land of Havilah, where the gold is. (12) (The gold of that land is good; bdellium is there, and lapis lazuli.)

בראשית כ״ד:ל״ד-ל״ה

(לד) וַיֹּאמַ֑ר עֶ֥בֶד אַבְרָהָ֖ם אָנֹֽכִי׃ (לה) וַיקוק בֵּרַ֧ךְ אֶת־אֲדֹנִ֛י מְאֹ֖ד וַיִּגְדָּ֑ל וַיִּתֶּן־ל֞וֹ צֹ֤אן וּבָקָר֙ וְכֶ֣סֶף וְזָהָ֔ב וַעֲבָדִם֙ וּשְׁפָחֹ֔ת וּגְמַלִּ֖ים וַחֲמֹרִֽים׃

Genesis 24:34-35

(34) “I am Abraham’s servant,” he began. (35) “יהוה has greatly blessed my master, who has become rich—giving him sheep and cattle, silver and gold, male and female slaves, camels and asses.

יהושע ו׳:כ״ד

(כד) וְהָעִ֛יר שָׂרְפ֥וּ בָאֵ֖שׁ וְכׇל־אֲשֶׁר־בָּ֑הּ רַ֣ק ׀הַכֶּ֣סֶף וְהַזָּהָ֗ב וּכְלֵ֤י הַנְּחֹ֙שֶׁת֙ וְהַבַּרְזֶ֔ל נָתְנ֖וּ אוֹצַ֥ר בֵּית־יקוק׃

Joshua 6:24

(24) They burned down the city and everything in it. But the silver and gold and the objects of copper and iron were deposited in the treasury of the House of GOD.

That was normal behavior at that time (if not now also), but perhaps it made us blind to the intended spelling and meaning of וכבשה, which has persisted to this day: As Rabbi Sacks suggests, humanity should be tending and preserving the earth and its life (i.e., nature), rather than exploiting them in an irresponsible manner.

In this light, a שׂ might just save the world, and perhaps us along with it.

לשׁנה טובה!

References

[1]
https://www.sefaria.org/Genesis.1.26?lang=bi&aliyot=0&p2=Ramban_on_Genesis.1.26.2&lang2=bi&w2=all&lang3=en

[2]
https://www.sefaria.org/Genesis.1.26?lang=bi&with=Rashi&lang2=en

[3]
https://www.sefaria.org/Genesis.1.28?lang=bi&with=Ramban&lang2=en

[4]
https://www.sefaria.org/Genesis.1.28?lang=bi&with=Sforno&lang2=en

[5]
https://www.sefaria.org/Genesis.1.26?lang=bi&aliyot=0&p2=Ramban_on_Genesis.1.28.3&lang2=bi&w2=all&lang3=en

[6]
https://www.sefaria.org/Genesis.1.28?lang=bi&with=Sforno&lang2=en

[7]
https://www.sefaria.org/Genesis.2.15?lang=bi&with=Ramban%20on%20Genesis|Quoting&lang2=en

[8]
https://www.sefaria.org/Genesis.2.15?lang=bi&with=Rabbeinu%20Bahya&lang2=en

[9]
https://www.sefaria.org/Genesis.2.15?lang=bi&with=Steinsaltz&lang2=en

[10]
https://www.sefaria.org/Genesis.2.15?lang=bi&with=Essays%20in%20Ethics;%20A%20Weekly%20Reading%20of%20the%20Jewish%20Bible|Quoting&lang2=en

Leningrad Codex at https://archive.org/details/Leningrad_Codex/Leningrad.pdf