In the story of Cain and Able, the first children of Adam and Eve, the brothers both offer sacrifices to to G-D. Cain, a man of the land, offers G-D his leftover grains, whereas Able, a Shepard, offers G-D his most choice animal. It is interesting to note that Cain offers G-D his leftover food, but Able, unable to eat meat since it was still forbidden to man at the time, offers G-D the animal that he makes clothes from. Able does not assume that G-D requires food, but rather a symbolic sacrifice, whereas Cain assumes that G-D wants his leftover food. G-D, in turn, accepts Able's sacrifice, but not Cain's. G-D's favoritism to Able's sacrifice causes Cain to lash out and kill Able.
There are a couple questions to ask about this story: why was it that G-D accepted Able's sacrifice and not Cains and was Cain really at fault for killing his brother? The reason G-D accepted Able's sacrifice and not Cain's is because Able understood the true essence of G-D and what the point of a sacrifice is all about. A sacrifice is supposed to be something that brings one close to G-D and by sacrificing the best animal he had, Able was showing G-D that he cares about G-D more than himself. However, Cain thought a sacrifice is supposed to be like tribute that one would give to a foreign king that controls you. Cain was not interested in becoming close to G-D, but rather paying Him off and that is why he gave G-D his leftover food. This is why G-D accepted Able's sacrifice and not Cain's, because Able understood what G-D is, whereas Cain did not.
This brings us to the next question, was Cain at fault for killing Able? Think about it, Cain did not know that death was possible, no one had ever died in the world before and therefore did not realize what he was doing would kill him. This might also be why Cain was not killed himself, but rather just condemned to wander the world as a nomad. The truth is that Cain knew that to strike his brother was wicked and therefore he was exiled, but he did not realize the severity of his actions. Cain knew that striking a fellow human being was wicked since the idea of morals did exist because of Adam and Eve eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, but Cain did not know about death. Cain acted wickedly and was punished for this, but since he did not know about death could not be punished by death.
Showing posts with label Breishis. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Breishis. Show all posts
Monday, October 19, 2009
Creation According to Ralbag
I will start this topic off with a quote from the Ralbag in his famous book "The Wars of the Lord." He says, "It is necessary that we explain the terms that the Torah uses in its discussion of creation before we explain the account of creation itself, for the understanding of the terms necessarily precedes the understanding of the full sentences."
I think this is often how people think that science contradicts the Bible. I mean, is it possible since G-D can do anything that science is entirely wrong? Yeah, I think it is possible, but why would G-D do that? Why wouldn't He just follow the laws of nature to create everything? What was the point of creating nature if He wasn't going to follow it as much as possible? This is the Ralbag's idea, that whenever possible we try to describe the events in the Bible as natural occurrences.
1)The Ralbag says that the term "earth" (eretz in hebrew) is equivocal. Meaning that it does not have just one simple meaning of the planet Earth. (I believe this is how the Rambam understands it as well)
2) The phrases of Tohu Ubohu (Unformed and void) means something much deeper than astonishingly empty. The Ralbag says that Tohu means the final form. He brings a description why, but for our purposes that is unimportant. What is important is what does "final form" mean. The way it seems to be described is similar to the form of a chair that a craftsman is making, before he even starts making it. Meaning, it is the thought before any act of creation. Just like a man who wants to make something first has to figure out what it is going to look like, that is what Tohu means, the form that a thought provides for an actual physical creation.
Bohu is the first physical matter of any creation. The Ralbag uses this description because the Universe was full of eternally existent matter. It was full of chaos and disorder before creation began and this is why the Ralbag explains Tohu and Bohu this way, because G-D eternally exists, providing the Tohu (The thought of how creation should be) and Bohu eternally exists (The physical matter). This is the Ralbag's idea and if you want to understand it further just ask me to explain more deeply. He holds of the idea that creation was the creation of something from something.
3)Also, the terms of "light" and "dark" are equivocal. The Ralbag brings several quotes throughout the Bible to prove this point.
4) The Term Ruach is also equivocal. He brings many pasukim to prove this point.
5) The term Rakia refers to anything that is beaten or flattened out, but sill retains its form. In our instance it looks like Rakia refers to the heavenly body.
6) The Ralbag also says that anything that does not remain in one state is referred to as water.
7) The Ralbag says, "The generation of the Universe by G-D occurred in no time. This is why our Rabbis maintain that the heavens and the earth were created simultaneously... It is therefore evident that the description of the creation as being completed in six days is not to be construed as implying that the first day precedes the second, for example, by one [whole] day [ie twenty four hour period]. Rather, they said, this is in order to show the priority amongst various created things...Now, the elements are prior to that which is generated from them according to material priority, and the compounds of the elements are also related to each other by this kind of priority. For example, the plant is prior to the animal.
8) An amazing idea here in the Ralbag is that G-D actually created the luminaries (the sun and moon) on the first day, but their relationship to the Earth was not solidified until the fourth day. Also, according to the Ralbag, "whatever can be generated naturally according to the natur given to it by G-D is such that its creation is not attributed directly to G-D in the marvelous account of creation; for He produces such things through nature. Hence, the generation of plants and animal through putrefaction and from species other than their own[ie hybrids] is not attributable to G-D."
The truth is that the Ralbag does an amazing job describing how creation came about and how everything he says is what the text says. However, I can not quote him word for word here, otherwise that would be a copyright violation. I suggest getting the english version of the Ralbags Wars of the Lord translated by Seymor Feldman. It is an eye opening book and will answer many doubts you have about Judaism vis-a-vis science. He helps explain the text and just the fundamental belief in Judaims. Also, his commentary on the Torah is quite enlightening.
Any questions that people ask through evolution, I think, can be answered by the Ralbag's interpretation, at least indirectly. So if anyone tells you that science contradicts the Bible, just go ahead and look it up in the Ralbag and most questions will be answered.
I think this is often how people think that science contradicts the Bible. I mean, is it possible since G-D can do anything that science is entirely wrong? Yeah, I think it is possible, but why would G-D do that? Why wouldn't He just follow the laws of nature to create everything? What was the point of creating nature if He wasn't going to follow it as much as possible? This is the Ralbag's idea, that whenever possible we try to describe the events in the Bible as natural occurrences.
1)The Ralbag says that the term "earth" (eretz in hebrew) is equivocal. Meaning that it does not have just one simple meaning of the planet Earth. (I believe this is how the Rambam understands it as well)
2) The phrases of Tohu Ubohu (Unformed and void) means something much deeper than astonishingly empty. The Ralbag says that Tohu means the final form. He brings a description why, but for our purposes that is unimportant. What is important is what does "final form" mean. The way it seems to be described is similar to the form of a chair that a craftsman is making, before he even starts making it. Meaning, it is the thought before any act of creation. Just like a man who wants to make something first has to figure out what it is going to look like, that is what Tohu means, the form that a thought provides for an actual physical creation.
Bohu is the first physical matter of any creation. The Ralbag uses this description because the Universe was full of eternally existent matter. It was full of chaos and disorder before creation began and this is why the Ralbag explains Tohu and Bohu this way, because G-D eternally exists, providing the Tohu (The thought of how creation should be) and Bohu eternally exists (The physical matter). This is the Ralbag's idea and if you want to understand it further just ask me to explain more deeply. He holds of the idea that creation was the creation of something from something.
3)Also, the terms of "light" and "dark" are equivocal. The Ralbag brings several quotes throughout the Bible to prove this point.
4) The Term Ruach is also equivocal. He brings many pasukim to prove this point.
5) The term Rakia refers to anything that is beaten or flattened out, but sill retains its form. In our instance it looks like Rakia refers to the heavenly body.
6) The Ralbag also says that anything that does not remain in one state is referred to as water.
7) The Ralbag says, "The generation of the Universe by G-D occurred in no time. This is why our Rabbis maintain that the heavens and the earth were created simultaneously... It is therefore evident that the description of the creation as being completed in six days is not to be construed as implying that the first day precedes the second, for example, by one [whole] day [ie twenty four hour period]. Rather, they said, this is in order to show the priority amongst various created things...Now, the elements are prior to that which is generated from them according to material priority, and the compounds of the elements are also related to each other by this kind of priority. For example, the plant is prior to the animal.
8) An amazing idea here in the Ralbag is that G-D actually created the luminaries (the sun and moon) on the first day, but their relationship to the Earth was not solidified until the fourth day. Also, according to the Ralbag, "whatever can be generated naturally according to the natur given to it by G-D is such that its creation is not attributed directly to G-D in the marvelous account of creation; for He produces such things through nature. Hence, the generation of plants and animal through putrefaction and from species other than their own[ie hybrids] is not attributable to G-D."
The truth is that the Ralbag does an amazing job describing how creation came about and how everything he says is what the text says. However, I can not quote him word for word here, otherwise that would be a copyright violation. I suggest getting the english version of the Ralbags Wars of the Lord translated by Seymor Feldman. It is an eye opening book and will answer many doubts you have about Judaism vis-a-vis science. He helps explain the text and just the fundamental belief in Judaims. Also, his commentary on the Torah is quite enlightening.
Any questions that people ask through evolution, I think, can be answered by the Ralbag's interpretation, at least indirectly. So if anyone tells you that science contradicts the Bible, just go ahead and look it up in the Ralbag and most questions will be answered.
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Adam and Eve- What can we learn
Who were Adam and Eve? They were the first human beings to have the breath of G-D blown into them. However, does that mean that they were created as humans originally or is it possible that evolution occurred and once monkey like creatures evolved into man, then G-D blew life into that creature? Either way man exists, but his origin still remains vague and unclear. The bible describes the creation of the world, but it is so cryptic that it is really impossible to understand its true meaning. Even stranger, there are opinions in Judaism, such as the Rambam, that hold that Adam and Eve are allegorical.
The question to ask here is does it really matter what we think Adam was or is the importance the lessons we can learn from his story. Actually, this is a question one can ask throughout all of history, does it matter what Abraham Lincoln looked like or does it just matter what he did? Was Julius Cesar a tyrant or a great leader? These are all questions that are, in essence, irrelevant since we can never know the truth for certain, but we can definitely learn lessons from his life.
Now that we understand that the Adam story is allegorical and what should be learned is the lesson so what is the lesson? The Rambam in his famous book The Guide for the Perplexed says, "In the history of the first sin of man, Adam, Eve, and the serpent represent the intellect, the body, and the imagination. In order to complete the imagery, Samael or Satan, mentioned in the Midrash in connection with this account, is added as representing man's appetitive faculties. Imagination, the source of error, is directly aided by the appetitive faculty, and the two are intimately connected with the body, so which man generally gives paramount attention, and for the sake of which he indulges in sins; in the end, however, they subdue the intellect and weaken its power. Instead of obtaining pure and real knowledge, man forms false conceptions; in consequence, the body is subject to suffering, whilst the imagination, instead of being guided by the intellect and attaining a higher development becomes debased and depraved." The Rambam is trying to teach us that giving into our desires causes our intellect to suffer. By giving into our animalistic desires we take away from our ability to achieve a higher intellect and more knowledge.
The question to ask here is does it really matter what we think Adam was or is the importance the lessons we can learn from his story. Actually, this is a question one can ask throughout all of history, does it matter what Abraham Lincoln looked like or does it just matter what he did? Was Julius Cesar a tyrant or a great leader? These are all questions that are, in essence, irrelevant since we can never know the truth for certain, but we can definitely learn lessons from his life.
Now that we understand that the Adam story is allegorical and what should be learned is the lesson so what is the lesson? The Rambam in his famous book The Guide for the Perplexed says, "In the history of the first sin of man, Adam, Eve, and the serpent represent the intellect, the body, and the imagination. In order to complete the imagery, Samael or Satan, mentioned in the Midrash in connection with this account, is added as representing man's appetitive faculties. Imagination, the source of error, is directly aided by the appetitive faculty, and the two are intimately connected with the body, so which man generally gives paramount attention, and for the sake of which he indulges in sins; in the end, however, they subdue the intellect and weaken its power. Instead of obtaining pure and real knowledge, man forms false conceptions; in consequence, the body is subject to suffering, whilst the imagination, instead of being guided by the intellect and attaining a higher development becomes debased and depraved." The Rambam is trying to teach us that giving into our desires causes our intellect to suffer. By giving into our animalistic desires we take away from our ability to achieve a higher intellect and more knowledge.
Friday, October 16, 2009
Why Start the Torah With Bereishis?
In the Ramban's Toras Hashem Temima he discusses the difference between Reishis and Techila, both words mean in the beginning, however, their implications are completely different. Without referencing the Ramban, I am going to hit on the same idea.
The question here is why did the Torah start with Bireishis instead of techila? If we are talking about the beginning of a project it seems like techila is a more appropriate word. The word techila denotes the beginning of an action, whereas Reishis refers more to the importance of something. This is why the head is referred to as the Rosh, because it is the most important part of the body, but techila only refers to a sequence of events.
This can teach us something about the idea of Breishis bara elokim. Does it mean that the first thing G-D created was the heavens and earth? Maybe. However, if this was the only thing G-D was tring to convey then why not say Bihatchala? The reason is that G-D is teaching us that the most important parts of creation are the heavens and earth, not necessarily that they were created first.
But now we can ask, "Who cares?" Who cares that the heavens and earth are the most important creations. What is that going to teach me? This is the question that I really want to answer.
The fact that G-D tells us that the HEAVENS and EARTH are the most important creations tells us a tremendous idea. One needs to realize that this world and the next world are both important. It did not say the heavens were created bireishis, nor did it say that the earth was created bireishis, rather the Torah tells us both were created bireishis. G-D is telling us that they are both important.
With this in mind, one can understand why G-D started the Torah with bireishis. Before one can appreciate anything in the Torah they have to understand that Heaven and Earth are of equal importance. If one thinks that heaven is more important, they can not properly understand the Torah. If one thinks earth is more important, they have missed the boat. Only if a person can find the proper balance can they truly appreciate the Torah.
This is a nice idea, but how can we put this in to practice? The way I see it is that one must see the commandments of Bein Adam lamakom (between man and G-D) as of equal importance as the bein adam lichavairo (between man and man) and vice versa. To think one is more important than the other is to miss the whole point of the Torah. The Torah teaches of the relationship between man and G-D, but it also teaches of the relationships between men. Throughout the Torah is a mixture of relationships and they are examples of how to act and how not to act, on top of the relationships between man and G-D that teach one how to act and not to act in that arena.
The question here is why did the Torah start with Bireishis instead of techila? If we are talking about the beginning of a project it seems like techila is a more appropriate word. The word techila denotes the beginning of an action, whereas Reishis refers more to the importance of something. This is why the head is referred to as the Rosh, because it is the most important part of the body, but techila only refers to a sequence of events.
This can teach us something about the idea of Breishis bara elokim. Does it mean that the first thing G-D created was the heavens and earth? Maybe. However, if this was the only thing G-D was tring to convey then why not say Bihatchala? The reason is that G-D is teaching us that the most important parts of creation are the heavens and earth, not necessarily that they were created first.
But now we can ask, "Who cares?" Who cares that the heavens and earth are the most important creations. What is that going to teach me? This is the question that I really want to answer.
The fact that G-D tells us that the HEAVENS and EARTH are the most important creations tells us a tremendous idea. One needs to realize that this world and the next world are both important. It did not say the heavens were created bireishis, nor did it say that the earth was created bireishis, rather the Torah tells us both were created bireishis. G-D is telling us that they are both important.
With this in mind, one can understand why G-D started the Torah with bireishis. Before one can appreciate anything in the Torah they have to understand that Heaven and Earth are of equal importance. If one thinks that heaven is more important, they can not properly understand the Torah. If one thinks earth is more important, they have missed the boat. Only if a person can find the proper balance can they truly appreciate the Torah.
This is a nice idea, but how can we put this in to practice? The way I see it is that one must see the commandments of Bein Adam lamakom (between man and G-D) as of equal importance as the bein adam lichavairo (between man and man) and vice versa. To think one is more important than the other is to miss the whole point of the Torah. The Torah teaches of the relationship between man and G-D, but it also teaches of the relationships between men. Throughout the Torah is a mixture of relationships and they are examples of how to act and how not to act, on top of the relationships between man and G-D that teach one how to act and not to act in that arena.
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Parshas Breishis- Let Us Make Man In Our Image
In this week's Torah portion we have a very interesting occurrence. Yes, the creation of the world is amazing, but I am referring to G-D saying (Bereishis 1:26), "let us create man in Our image." And then the verse says(ibid 27), "G-D made man in His image, man and woman He created them." Now, I am not an English teacher, but something is very wrong with those two sentences being after each other. Someone might say that Hebrew is different and maybe I am reading it incorrectly. I got this translation from artscroll so it must be right! But in the Hebrew version it doesn't make sense either. It switches between the plural and the singular, so what is going on?
G-D says, Let us create man in Our image, in Our likeness. This seems odd since we also have "Shema Ysiroel Hashem elokainu, Hashem Echad." (Hear oh Israel, Hashem Our G-d, Hashem is One, one G-D and not many gods) Since I am not a philosopher I will not try to squeeze out a different meaning of Echad or try to explain this contradiction away, rather I want to focus on an essential idea in Judaism that explains why G-D confuses us by seemingly referring to Himself in the plural.
Most people have heard of the idea that G-D created the world with the attribute of strict judgement, but decided to combine creation with the attribute of mercy as well. This is what many Midrashim and commentators say is true, for if it was not true, the world would be destroyed. With this in mind and the very next verse referring to creating Adam as male and female, we can draw a logical conclusion as to why G-D refers to Himself in the plural of "Our image, Our likeness."
In the 27th verse it says that "Elokim (the attribute of strict justice) created man, in His image Elokim created him, male and female He created them." Interesting that the verse is formed in this way, that man is created in the image of Elokim, but when the verse refers to male and female it just says that they were created, without specifying Elokim's image. So, based on this and the idea that G-D created the world with the yud kay vav kay attribute of mercy (Hashem) and the Elokim attribute of strict justice, this leads me to believe that when G-D says that He wanted to create man in "Our image and Our likeness" that refers to creating man with both the attribute of strict justice and the attribute of mercy. That when G-D created man, He created man through the attribute of strict justice and the female through the attribute of mercy "Our likeness and Our image." I believe this since by man it says Elokim, but by woman it mentions nothing (which would refer to yud kay vav kay).
This brings me to an idea that I want to discuss. When referring to Kibud av viaim, honoring ones mother and father, the Torah says that one should honor ones father and mother. However, when the Torah refers to fearing ones parents it says one should fear their mother and father. Why would the Torah switch the order? The Torah is pointing out that most people do not fear their mothers because they exemplify the attribute of mercy therefore the Torah emphasizes that one must fear her as well as give her kavod. The Torah is also pointing out that the father is someone who exemplifies the attribute of justice and that is why the Torah emphasizes that one must give him kavod as well as fear.
In the end of the day the verses here allude to the fact that G-D made women through the attribute of mercy and men through the attribute of justice and this is why man can only be in the image of G-D when male and female are combined in marriage making them into a single entity. Through marriage man and woman can become one and really exist in the image of G-D.
G-D says, Let us create man in Our image, in Our likeness. This seems odd since we also have "Shema Ysiroel Hashem elokainu, Hashem Echad." (Hear oh Israel, Hashem Our G-d, Hashem is One, one G-D and not many gods) Since I am not a philosopher I will not try to squeeze out a different meaning of Echad or try to explain this contradiction away, rather I want to focus on an essential idea in Judaism that explains why G-D confuses us by seemingly referring to Himself in the plural.
Most people have heard of the idea that G-D created the world with the attribute of strict judgement, but decided to combine creation with the attribute of mercy as well. This is what many Midrashim and commentators say is true, for if it was not true, the world would be destroyed. With this in mind and the very next verse referring to creating Adam as male and female, we can draw a logical conclusion as to why G-D refers to Himself in the plural of "Our image, Our likeness."
In the 27th verse it says that "Elokim (the attribute of strict justice) created man, in His image Elokim created him, male and female He created them." Interesting that the verse is formed in this way, that man is created in the image of Elokim, but when the verse refers to male and female it just says that they were created, without specifying Elokim's image. So, based on this and the idea that G-D created the world with the yud kay vav kay attribute of mercy (Hashem) and the Elokim attribute of strict justice, this leads me to believe that when G-D says that He wanted to create man in "Our image and Our likeness" that refers to creating man with both the attribute of strict justice and the attribute of mercy. That when G-D created man, He created man through the attribute of strict justice and the female through the attribute of mercy "Our likeness and Our image." I believe this since by man it says Elokim, but by woman it mentions nothing (which would refer to yud kay vav kay).
This brings me to an idea that I want to discuss. When referring to Kibud av viaim, honoring ones mother and father, the Torah says that one should honor ones father and mother. However, when the Torah refers to fearing ones parents it says one should fear their mother and father. Why would the Torah switch the order? The Torah is pointing out that most people do not fear their mothers because they exemplify the attribute of mercy therefore the Torah emphasizes that one must fear her as well as give her kavod. The Torah is also pointing out that the father is someone who exemplifies the attribute of justice and that is why the Torah emphasizes that one must give him kavod as well as fear.
In the end of the day the verses here allude to the fact that G-D made women through the attribute of mercy and men through the attribute of justice and this is why man can only be in the image of G-D when male and female are combined in marriage making them into a single entity. Through marriage man and woman can become one and really exist in the image of G-D.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)