Bereishit
bara Elokim et ha’shamayim v’et’ha’aretz.
The
well-known opening verse of the Torah is commonly translated as “In the
beginning, God created heaved and earth.”
So when I began reading the JPS Tanakh this week I was immediately
struck by its translation with “When God began to create heaven and
earth.” Both are accurate as the prefix
letter bet can alternatively mean in, at, or with (in both Biblical and
modern Hebrew, I believe). Yet the
alternative translation offered by JPS does lead to a different portrayal of
the origin of the universe. When one
says “in the beginning God created” it implies that, quite simply, this
was the beginning of all existence notwithstanding God’s eternal nature. In the case of “when God began to
create” it implies that there was indeed something before, that God existed and
exists ad infinitum. The Torah
merely picks up when God decides to end His own solitude through creation. God’s existence prior to the creation of
light and darkness is not in question, it is merely not necessary to be
included in the Torah which was and is designed for the use of man. [I am not particularly interested in the
science-Torah relation, but this “when” would mark the Big Bang according to
many religious scientists who have written on the subject.]
And so, with
the beginning of a new Torah cycle I hope to begin a full year of Torah
lishma – studying Torah for its own sake in the hope that each week it can
speak to me in a new way and each week I can grow as a Jew and a person. I am far from a “Torah scholar,” so-to-speak,
but I believe one of the best ways to approach any new subject matter is to
strive to find your own chiddush.
As Rav Solovetchik stressed, every individual is required to create
their own chidushei Torah, new insights into Torah. A friend recently questioned me on what, in
fact, did this term mean. He proposed
that it was not the creation of a “new” idea that no one else had thought
of or had not been written down before.
Rather, someone may claim a thought as their own chidush when
they come to it on their own, regardless of whether it is in fact “new” in the
literal sense. After all, ayn kol
chadash tachat ha’shemesh – there is nothing new under the sun
(Ecclesiastes 1:9). With this in mind, I
believe one of the most prominent ways to attain “new” insights is through
reading source text (the Torah in this case) on its own terms, and without any
commentators, to see the impact it has on us. After doing so the Sages, classic
commentators, modern writers, and generations of Jewish thinkers can
strengthen, transform, mold, and perhaps even contradict or deny our own
thoughts. But without the initial
effort, the thoughts cannot be claimed as our own and I find it hard to claim
that I have truly “toiled in Torah.”
So here is a thought on Bereishit:
The “Original
Sin” as it has been named, has many elements to it and I think we can learn
from them all. Upon Eve’s first being
approached by the snake and asked if God has really commanded her to not eat of
the Tree of Knowledge, she responds: “Of the fruit of the trees of that
garden we may eat, but of the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden,
God has said: ‘You shall not eat of it or touch it, lest you die’”
(Bereishit 3:2-3). While we all know
that she later faltered and disobeyed God’s command, we can see from the way
she initially responded by recognizing the many fruits which God had provided
for her, that she was not inclined to sin.
Rather, it was the snake’s ability to convince her that led to sin.
Yet, no
matter how much one may resist temptation, upon faltering, punishment is
necessary. God’s rhetorical “Hast
thou eaten of the tree…What is this you have done!” is greeted by Adam blaming Eve and Eve, in
turn, blaming the snake. It seems that human
nature has not changed much over the years – blaming someone else is always the
easiest option. But God is not as easily
fooled and curses all three guilty parties.
It is Eve’s curse that I would like to look at though:
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.
(3:16)
Juxtaposed
to a statement not twenty verses earlier, after God had created Eve as Adam’s
helpmate, this is quite interesting:
Then the man said [of Eve]: “This
one at last is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh. This one shall be called Isha (Woman), for
from Ish (Man) was she taken.” Therefore
shall a man leave his father and mother and cling to his wife, so that they
become one flesh. (2:23-24)
On the one
hand Adam is to cling to Eve; on the other Eve is to urge for Adam. And this is what is necessary for a healthy
marriage. It is necessary for both man
and woman to need and desire each other.
It is not enough for a man to leave his parents and cling to a woman;
she must reciprocate his affection with her own. Perhaps for this reason, it is not until this point that the
Torah mentions that “man knew his wife Eve.”
It should be noted that there are many midrashim and rabbinic
commentaries that propose Adam and Eve did in fact have quite a fine sex-life
prior to their sin and expulsion from the garden. However, it is only after this mutual
dependency and reliance on each other was created, that Adam and Eve form a
union meant to fulfill the first commandment given: pru ur’vu – be fruitful
and multiply.
Below are two questions I received based on this post, along with my responses:
ReplyDeleteQuestion 1: You talk about how it is good that a man should cling to his wife and that a woman should urge for her man...but if this is a good balance for a marriage, then why is it part of Eve's curse that she urges for him? Wouldn't that really be a blessing?
It may be a blessing for a healthy marriage, but a curse for the woman. Prior to this curse, man clings to his wife but there is no sign that a woman has an equal attraction to the man. It is almost as if man senses that he is not complete; he his missing his side ("rib") which was taken from him to make woman, and therefore he is not whole without woman. She, however, can feel complete without him. This creates a lack of balance in the relationship (the opposite balance, in fact, than what Orthodoxy comes under critique for today).
Question 2: You don't comment on the part of the curse that man should rule over woman. I don't think man ruling over woman makes for a healthy relationship, do you? or do you think it was just an old sign of the times?
The curse that man shall rule over woman is in order to prevent more instances where future varieties of Eve could influence Adam to fall into sin. This is actually something that puzzles me: women are cursed that men should rule over their wives. Then, throughout Jewish tradition, we have plenty of midrashim where women swayed their husbands in ways both positive (the womens' leading their husband in leaving Egypt; Avraham has to listen to Sarah about Ishmael) and negative (ex. Korach's wife making him rebel against Moses). There are still other instances where the women tried to positively influence their husbands and failed (ex. sin of the golden calf). So it is obvious that Judaism doesn't view this curse as an absolute. In fact, later in the parsha (4:19-24) there is a midrash and Talmudic commentary that positively views Zillah and Adah who stood up to their husband Lamech and for a time refused to lay with him despite his demand that they do so (these commentaries fill in the apparent gap between verse 22 and 23).
One thought I have is that just because we are blessed or cursed does not mean that these blessings or curses are permanent or the ideal. Blessings give us added positive potential; curses are an added weight we have to overcome. I think this is supported by the article, which concludes: "Fighting inequality, arguing your point, revolting against the old guard -- this is the stuff Judaism is made of. G-d doesn't want a nation who will take its curses lying down. If He did, He wouldn't have chosen the Jews."
http://www.chabad.org/theJewishWoman/article_cdo/aid/90765/jewish/The-Curse-of-Eve.htm
Another Question I received: "It should be noted that there are many midrashim and rabbinic commentaries that propose Adam and Eve did in fact have quite a fine sex-life prior to their sin and expulsion from the garden."
ReplyDeleteHow do Rabbi's know this? How did there sex life change from pre-fruit eating to post-fruit eating? I know that pre-curse they were naked and didn't feel shame, was the post-curse sin that they felt shameful when they had sex (though not sure that makes sense because Judaism doesn't view sex as shameful)?
My Response:The change in sex life was that "only after this mutual dependency and reliance on each other was created, that Adam and Eve form a union meant to fulfill the first commandment given: pru ur’vu – be fruitful and multiply." The purpose of their relationship is different. The difference is in intent - physical gratification or a more meaningful union. I certainly don't think that they felt shame in sex post-curse, either based on the Torah itself or any rabbinical commentary I am aware of. That was solely due to nakedness in general, like we would never go naked in public today but we obviously take off our clothes for sex (I hope...).
As for how the Rabbi's know this about their sex-life...I think your question is really "How do the Rabbi's know anything?" It depends on whether we are referring to the gemara or a midrash as to the source's origin, but as most of this sex-stuff on Adam and Eve is in a midrash here is how I view them: they are a part of our oral tradition. They are rooted in truth and provide commentary on the Torah that help us further our understanding. They may or may not have evolved from the original version. The message that they convey is typically of more interest to me than their source, though. There are more extreme views of the midrashim on either side, with some claiming the Rabbis made up the stories and others claiming they are the literal word of God. I'm obviously somewhere in between.