Breishis/Genesis

A) The secret to greatest spirituality and divine revelation

B) Humans are actually 'higher' than angels; Adam & Eve as Spiritual Heros; Adam and Eve Were NOT Cursed

C) Did the snake have a godly message? (and what is 'holiness'?)

D) Why Jews - though an ancient people - remain few: i. the Problem of Evil; ii. a deep essence of Monotheism.

E.) Science & the creation/Eden accounts

F.) Material to use in countering Christian missionizing directed at Jews

G.) Relating the 4 levels of reality/existence according to Kabbalistic teachings (or in that terminology, "4 worlds") to the terms used in the creation account.

H.) Relating the 39 forbidden actions on shabbat ('mlachot') to God's actions in the creation account;

I.) A surprising missing word in Genesis (Shabbos vs shavat; shabbos ledoros vs shabbos breishis): Connecting the themes of: a. creation, b. 'resting' from creation, c. institution of the shabbat as a recurring day; d. refraining from specifc activities on shabbat, d. the exodus from Egypt, and e. the mishkan (and the universe).

For my commentary in Hebrew, with more involved and technical material: see:

A) The secret to greatest spirituality and divine revelation:

There is balance: On the one hand, we are made of 'the dust of the earth', but on the other hand God the all-powerful creator of everything crafted us in the divine image, and our life-force is God's breath/spirit.

On the one hand, Adam & Eve are placed at the top of the chain of living beings, but on the other hand they are charged with "working for and preserving" the Garden.

Next week, Noah, who on the one hand we are told is the most righteous person of his entire generation and is selected to be the ancestor of all future humanity, is on the other hand tasked with years of physical labor building a huge ark for myriads of animals, and then rather than relaxing on the ark, or studing or praying or engaging in other lofty 'spiritual' pursuits, is charged with feeding and caring for the animals.

The Torah is clearly making the point for us to learn from - just as our ancestors Adam/Eve and Noah (who according to Jewish Tradition were lofty individuals who received direct communication from God) were tasked by God not with teaching God's message or imparting spiritual truths, but tending to the material needs of the plant-life and/or the animals, so too we should concern ourselves not just with spiritual/religious duties but with this very 'mundane' task.

All throughout the Torah we find that the most highly-developed protagonists, the most beloved of God, are those with greatest humility and willingness to serve - to serve God, or at God's behest to lower the sense of self and 'serve' others: to serve God by tending to the needs of humanity (like Abraham), by tending to the needs of the animal kingdom (like Noah) or by tending to the needs of vegetation (like Adam). And later we will read that when the Jewish People are to select a King, special attention is given to ensuring that he not "raise his heart above his fellows". Imagine, the King has to be humble! A king is meant to lead, but also to serve, not just to serve God, but to serve his people.

The 'mystical secret' revealed by Genesis in this way is that this 'serving' is not just very noble, it is also highly 'spiritual': When we lower our ego, what shines forth is that which was hidden behind it, the breath/spirit of God. Thus, humility and devotion to the material benefit of others is what brings about the manifestation of the divine presence - the ego-lowering acts of feeding and tending others, especially those on a seemingly 'lower level' (humans tending to animals and vegetation, or a king tending to the needs of his subject, the spiritual giant Abraham running to feed and provide shelter to any human being) rather than the more ego-rewarding acts of moralizing to others or teaching them in order to 'enlighten' them - is the secret of the highest level of spirituality, and the way to bring about the greatest degree of revelation of the spirit of God.

More re the above topic:

Kings & Trees: Ego, limits and balance, for harmony at various levels:

The Torah presents rules regarding the Kings who will rise in Israel "in order that he (the king) not become haughty to his brethren""לְבִלְתִּי רוּם-לְבָבוֹ מֵאֶחָיו" (Deut 17:20) & כי האדם עץ השדה "A human..... the tree of the field(?)" ((Deut 20:19) and other passages.

As I myself learned the hard way, Kings don't own their people, to do with them as they please, and this is a message in this week's portion, which also teaches that people do not own all the trees of the field to cut them down when they please. All are part of one system meant to run harmoniously - a concept radical for its time, proposed in this week's portion.

The Torah lays out a constitutional monarchy, with the Torah itself as the constitution.

"What's the use of being king if you are bound with so many limitations?" Well, the answer is "it's not about you." And the king cannot claim he doesn't know this or that law - the Torah mandates that he has to actually write out the entire Torah himself, including of course the passage stating "in order that he (the king) not become haughty to his brethren" לְבִלְתִּי רוּם-לְבָבוֹ מֵאֶחָיו" .

What's the use of being king if you can't be haughty!? Well, too bad, the Torah is explicit that the king should be a 'brother' to his people (17:15). And we will see several examples of how the highest souls gave themselves over to caring for the needs of those who others in this lofty situation might consider beneath them

To continue my humblebrag: At one point in my career, my brothers let me know that I was not fulfilling this command... I was in charge of a program, given lots of leeway, quite independent, but didn't adequately realize that those who were working 'under me' saw us all as working for the overall faraway system, the Big Boss, and did NOT consider that they worked FOR ME. Of course I knew this in a technical sense, but hadn't internalized it, so my attitude (it seems) didn't adequately reflect it (and of course all the politics made doing my job much more difficult than it had to be).

We don't work for our king, the king is placed in charge of a system meant to be run for the benefit of all - in fact the Torah explicitly stats that the king is appointed due to the choice of the people that there be a king (17:14), not that he imposes himself on the people. And it is God who chooses who will be king. And of course God is the "King of kings", and all of creation - the top of the pyramid and the bottom - are meant to work together to achieve harmonious fulfilment of the divine plan.

There are similar points made by the Torah in other contexts, many of them in this week's portion:

God created humanity in the divine image, the pinnacle of creation, but not in order to enjoy ourselves in the garden, and not in order to be served by all that was there, nor even to sit in a corner and praise God or 'be holy', but rather our task in Eden was to SERVE: we were placed there as custodians, not owners: "le'ovdo u'le'shomro" "to work it and watch/keep it" [Gen 2: And the LORD God formed the human of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life..And the LORD God planted a garden eastward, in Eden; and there He put the human....And the LORD God took the human, and put him into the garden of Eden to serve it (or 'work' it) and to preserve it." Humanity, the tip of the pyramid, was created in the divine image not to be served by those below but rather in order to accomplish God's desire to take care of all creation, and to ensure the needs are met especially of those at the bottom of the pyramid!
The Flood was because of loss of balance of all living things; Gen. 6:12: "And God saw the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth". So the most righteous man of the generation was chosen, not to pray or praise God or 'be holy' but to actually labor for many many years to himself physically construct a huge ark, and then to work throughout the entire Flood to feed all the animals and tend to all their needs. The most righteous man on Earth was chosen...to be zookeeper and garbage-collector! This is the true holiness, and what set him apart as the person to be the progenitor of the second round of the human race;
Abraham who was the first to recognize God as God wished to be understood, and this led him to make sure to serve the physical needs of humans, and in that way he caused the manifestation of the divine presence (Gen 18);
We humans rule the animal kingdom, but we cannot inflict unnecessary pain on them, not even covering an animal's mouth when it is working for us in 'our' field and wants to nibble but it mouth is sealed ('lo tachsom shor bedisho'), and other such laws;
And the same re vegetation: this week's portion tells us that if we humans must go to war and destroy each other, we shouldn't think that we have permission to destroy the fruit trees to help achieve our war aims כי האדם עץ השדה "A human..... the tree of the field(?)" ((Deut 20:19);
Our crop doesn't belong to us - we need to give a tithe to the priests (beginning of Deut Ch 18, in this week's portion), and to the poor, and whatever falls from our hands while gathering, and the edges of the field etc;
And re ecology: keeping the 7-year cycle (shmitah) and other such laws;
the Jewish People are told several times by God that they do not 'own' Eretz Yisrael (the Land of Israel) - there are conditions to fulfill: righteousness, no idolatry, as told in the beginning of this week's portion, Deut 16:20, and by implication also elsewhere in this weeks portion re the conditions for 'inheriting the land'; the Promised land is not ours, but rather we get to live there, on condition, if.... for example if we keep the shmittah cycle, the rest-year of the Land itself, and other laws; all this in order to maintain our stay in The Land, otherwise it vomits out its inhabitants (this week's portion, Deut 18:12).

Conclusion: We need to lower our individual and collective ego. We don't own the planet, the animal and vegetable world do not 'belong' to us, surely not 'Nature' as a whole.

We need to practice ecological awareness, humane attitude to animals, not destroying fruit trees, led by a king who serves humbly as a leader, brother-in-chief. We need balance, to see our proper role in the entirety, and to see each human as the image of God (tzelem elokim) whose essence is powerfully depicted in Genesis 1&2: [And God created the human in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them...... the LORD God formed the human of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life"] and we are told this in order to ensure that we treat all humans accordingly.

Every human has their role, and every nation has its role.

We are all souls (neshomos, 'chelek eloka mema'al'), playing our roles, and we are all part of the same play, just with different positions, (though according to reincarnation those roles gets interchanged in different generations!), and so we need to remember that whatever our role, we all work for the same screenplay, all meant to attain the overall goal set by 'the boss'! And if we work harmoniously as a team in this way irrespective of our specific role in the team-effort, and treat all humans and all the rest of the system as appropriate - and not via ego, us triumphing over other people or over other aspects of the system (animals, plants, planet) - we are promised that we will obtain blessing.

May it be so!

The secret to greatest spirituality and divine revelation: There is balance: On the one hand, we are made of 'the dust of the earth', but on the other hand God the all-powerful creator of everything crafted us in the divine image, and our life-force is God's breath/spirit. On the one hand, Adam & Eve are placed at the top of the chain of living beings, but on the other hand they are charged with "working for and preserving" the Garden.

...

There are similar points made by the Torah in other contexts, many of them in this week's portion: God created humanity in the divine image, the pinnacle of creation, but not in order to enjoy ourselves in the garden, and not in order to be served by all that was there, nor even to sit in a corner and praise God or 'be holy', but rather our task in Eden was to SERVE: we were placed there as custodians, not owners: "le'ovdo u'le'shomro" "to work it and watch/keep it" [Gen 2: And the LORD God formed the human of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life..And the LORD God planted a garden eastward, in Eden; and there He put the human....And the LORD God took the human, and put him into the garden of Eden to serve it (or 'work' it) and to preserve it." Humanity, the tip of the pyramid, was created in the divine image not to be served by those below but rather in order to accomplish God's desire to take care of all creation, and to ensure the needs are met especially of those at the bottom of the pyramid!

The Flood was because of loss of balance of all living things; Gen. 6:12: "And God saw the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth". So the most righteous man of the generation was chosen, not to pray or praise God or 'be holy' but to actually labor for many many years to himself physically construct a huge ark, and then to work throughout the entire Flood to feed all the animals and tend to all their needs. The most righteous man on Earth was chosen...to be zookeeper and garbage-collector! This is the true holiness, and what set him apart as the person to be the progenitor of the second round of the human race; .

Abraham was the first to recognize God as God wished to be understood, and this led him to make sure to serve the physical needs of humans, and in that way he caused the manifestation of the divine presence (Gen 18);

We humans rule the animal kingdom, but we cannot inflict unnecessary pain on them, not even covering an animal's mouth when it is working for us in 'our' field and wants to nibble but it mouth is sealed ('lo tachsom shor bedisho'), and other such laws; And the same re vegetation: this week's portion tells us that if we humans must go to war and destroy each other, we shouldn't think that we have permission to destroy the fruit trees to help achieve our war aims כי האדם עץ השדה "A human..... the tree of the field(?)" ((Deut 20:19);

Our crop doesn't belong to us - we need to give a tithe to the priests (beginning of Deut Ch 18, in this week's portion), and to the poor, and whatever falls from our hands while gathering, and the edges of the field etc;

And re ecology: keeping the 7-year cycle (shmitah) and other such laws;

the Jewish People are told several times by God that they do not 'own' Eretz Yisrael (the Land of Israel) - there are conditions to fulfill: righteousness, no idolatry, as told in the beginning of this week's portion, Deut 16:20, and by implication also elsewhere in this weeks portion re the conditions for 'inheriting the land'; the Promised land is not ours, but rather we get to live there, on condition, if.... for example if we keep the shmittah cycle, the rest-year of the Land itself, and other laws; all this in order to maintain our stay in The Land, otherwise it vomits out its inhabitants (this week's portion, Deut 18:12).

...

And in a later parsha we will read that when the Jewish People are to select a King, special attention is given to ensuring that he not "raise his heart above his fellows". Imagine, the King has to be humble! A king is meant to lead, but also to serve, not just to serve God, but to serve his people. [Se more about this further below.]

The 'mystical secret' revealed by Genesisin this context: This 'serving' is not just very noble, it is also highly 'spiritual': When we lower our ego, what shines forth is that which was hidden behind it, the breath/spirit of God.

Thus, humility and devotion to the material benefit of others is what brings about the manifestation of the divine presence .

This the reason that the ego-lowering acts of feeding and tending others, especially those on a seemingly 'lower level' (humans tending to animals and vegetation, or a king tending to the needs of his subject, the spiritual giant Abraham running to feed and provide shelter to any human being) - rather than the more ego-rewarding acts of moralizing to others or teaching them in order to 'enlighten' them - is the secret of the highest level of spirituality, and the way to bring about the greatest degree of revelation of the spirit of God.

More re the above topic: Kings & Trees: Ego, limits and balance, for harmony at various levels: The Torah presents rules regarding the Kings who will rise in Israel "in order that he (the king) not become haughty to his brethren""לְבִלְתִּי רוּם-לְבָבוֹ מֵאֶחָיו" (Deut 17:20) & כי האדם עץ השדה "A human..... the tree of the field(?)" ((Deut 20:19) and other passages.

As I myself learned the hard way [warning: humble-brag ahead!], Kings don't own their people, to do with them as they please, and this is a message in this week's portion, which also teaches that people do not own all the trees of the field to cut them down when they please. All are part of one system meant to run harmoniously - a concept radical for its time, proposed in this week's portion. The Torah lays out a constitutional monarchy, with the Torah itself as the constitution. "What's the use of being king if you are bound with so many limitations?" Well, the answer is "it's not about you." And the king cannot claim he doesn't know this or that law - the Torah mandates that he has to actually write out the entire Torah himself, including of course the passage stating "in order that he (the king) not become haughty to his brethren" לְבִלְתִּי רוּם-לְבָבוֹ מֵאֶחָיו" . What's the use of being king if you can't be haughty!? Well, too bad, the Torah is explicit that the king should be a 'brother' to his people (17:15). And we will see several examples of how the highest souls gave themselves over to caring for the needs of those who others in this lofty situation might consider beneath them.

We don't work for our king, the king is placed in charge of a system meant to be run for the benefit of all - in fact the Torah explicitly stats that the king is appointed due to the choice of the people that there be a king (17:14), not that he imposes himself on the people. The nation is a team, and the king is the leader but is still part of a term - the top of the pyramid and the bottom are meant to work together to achieve harmonious fulfilment of the divine plan. .

Conclusion: We need to lower our individual and collective ego. We don't own the planet, the animal and vegetable world do not 'belong' to us, surely not 'Nature' as a whole. We need to practice ecological awareness, humane attitude to animals, not destroying fruit trees, led by a king who serves humbly as a leader, brother-in-chief. We need balance, to see our proper role in the entirety, and to see each human as the image of God (tzelem elokim) whose essence is powerfully depicted in Genesis 1&2: [And God created the human in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them...... the LORD God formed the human of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life"] and we are told this in order to ensure that we treat all humans accordingly.

Every human has their role, and every nation has its role. We are all souls (neshomos, 'chelek eloka mema'al'), playing our roles, and we are all part of the same play, just with different positions, (though according to reincarnation those roles gets interchanged in different generations!), and so we need to remember that whatever our role, we all work for the same screenplay, all meant to attain the overall goal set by 'the boss'!

And if we work harmoniously as a team in this way irrespective of our specific role in the team-effort, and treat all humans and all the rest of the system as appropriate - and not via ego, us triumphing over other people or over other aspects of the system (animals, plants, planet) - we are promised that we will obtain blessing. May it be so!

Hemingway Style

Life’s a balance. On one hand, we’re made from dust. But God, the all-powerful creator, crafted us in His image. He breathed His spirit into us. Adam and Eve were put at the top of the chain. But they were also told to work and keep the Garden. Next week, we’ll read about Noah. He was the most righteous man of his time. But he spent years building an ark and then caring for animals. Not relaxing, not just praying, but feeding and tending to them.

The Torah wants us to see this. Like Adam, Eve, and Noah, we shouldn’t only focus on spiritual duties. We need to take care of the world around us. The greatest people in the Torah are the humble ones. They serve God and others. Abraham served humanity. Noah cared for the animals. Adam took care of the plants. Even kings are told not to be haughty. They lead but also serve their people.

The secret? Lowering our ego. When we do that, God’s spirit shines through. True spirituality comes from humility and service. Feeding and tending to others brings out the divine presence. That’s the real path to spirituality.

Kings and Trees: Ego and Limits

The Torah tells kings not to be haughty. And it says we can’t just cut down trees. We’re part of a system meant to work in harmony. Kings have limits. They have to write out the Torah themselves. They need to know and live by its laws. The king is a brother to his people.

The Torah’s message goes further. We were made in God’s image to serve and keep Eden. The Flood happened because the world lost its balance. Noah, the most righteous man, had to build the ark and take care of the animals. True holiness is found in service.

Abraham served others and brought God’s presence to them. The Torah’s laws remind us to treat animals and plants with care. Don’t muzzle an ox. Don’t cut down fruit trees in war. Take care of creation.

Conclusion: Humility and Service

We don’t own the planet. We need to lower our ego. Practice ecological awareness. Treat animals humanely. Preserve the environment. Leaders must serve humbly. We all have roles in God’s plan. By working together and respecting creation, we fulfill our mission. That brings blessing and harmony. May it be so.

the style of the late former Chief Rabbi of England, Lord Jonathan Sacks:

The Secret to the Greatest Spirituality and Divine Revelation

In the Torah, we discover a profound balance: on one hand, we are crafted from the "dust of the earth," yet on the other, we are made in the divine image, with our life-force being the breath of God. Adam and Eve, placed at the pinnacle of creation, are charged with the care and cultivation of the Garden. Next week, we encounter Noah, described as the most righteous of his generation, chosen to be the ancestor of all future humanity. Yet, Noah is tasked with years of labor to build an ark and care for its myriad of animal occupants, not to rest or engage solely in spiritual pursuits, but to serve and tend to the physical needs of the animals.

The Torah's message is clear: like our ancestors Adam, Eve, and Noah, who were elevated individuals receiving direct communication from God, we too must engage not only in spiritual duties but also in the mundane tasks of tending to the material world. This divine mandate reveals that true spirituality encompasses humility and service.

Throughout the Torah, the most highly developed characters, those closest to God, exhibit profound humility and a willingness to serve. Abraham, for instance, embodies this ideal by serving the needs of humanity, while Noah and Adam are entrusted with the care of the animal and plant kingdoms respectively. The Torah even instructs that a king, chosen to lead the people, must remain humble and serve his subjects, a radical concept for its time.

The mystical secret unveiled by Genesis is that genuine service, especially when it involves lowering one's ego to serve those seemingly on a lower level, is not just noble but deeply spiritual. When we set aside our ego, the divine breath within us shines forth, revealing God's presence. Acts of humility and devotion to others, such as feeding and tending to animals and plants, or a king serving his people, are the true path to the highest level of spirituality and the greatest revelation of the divine.

Kings and Trees: Ego, Limits, and Balance for Harmony

The Torah sets forth rules for kings, emphasizing that they must not become haughty. "Lest his heart be lifted above his brethren" (Deut. 17:20). Similarly, the Torah teaches that humans do not own the trees of the field to cut them down at will. Both lessons highlight a fundamental truth: we are part of an interconnected system designed for harmony.

A constitutional monarchy, with the Torah as the constitution, ensures that a king, though a leader, must serve humbly. The king must write out the entire Torah, including the command to remain humble, to internalize that his role is to serve the people as a brother.

The Torah’s broader message extends to our relationship with nature and each other. Humanity, created in the divine image, is placed in Eden not to be served but to serve and preserve it. The Flood narrative reinforces this, as Noah, the most righteous man, is chosen to labor for years and care for the animals, exemplifying true holiness through service.

Abraham's recognition of God leads him to serve the physical needs of others, manifesting the divine presence. Similarly, the Torah's laws on humane treatment of animals and preservation of vegetation (e.g., not muzzling an ox while it treads grain, Deut. 25:4, and not cutting down fruit trees during war, Deut. 20:19) underscore our responsibility to care for all of creation.

Conclusion: Humility and Service as Pathways to Blessing

We must lower our individual and collective egos, recognizing that we do not own the planet or its inhabitants. The Torah instructs us to practice ecological awareness, humane treatment of animals, and responsible stewardship of the environment, guided by humble leaders who serve their people.

Our roles, whether as individuals or nations, are part of a divine plan. By working harmoniously, respecting all aspects of creation, and treating all humans as bearers of the divine image, we fulfill our collective mission. In doing so, we are promised blessing and harmony. May it be so.

Sir Arthur Eddington Style

The dichotomy of our existence is profound. On one side, we are constructed from the fundamental particles of the earth. Yet, on the other, the omnipotent Creator fashioned us in His divine image and imbued us with His breath. Adam and Eve, positioned at the apex of living beings, were charged with the stewardship of the Garden. Next week, we encounter Noah, distinguished as the most righteous of his era. Yet, his righteousness manifests in years of laborious ark construction and the care of numerous animal species, not in repose or exclusive spiritual endeavors.

The Torah imparts a salient lesson. Like Adam, Eve, and Noah—exalted beings who received direct divine communication—we must engage not solely in spiritual activities but also in the tangible tasks of nurturing the material world. The narrative indicates that the most virtuous individuals in the Torah are characterized by their humility and readiness to serve. Abraham exemplifies this by attending to human needs, Noah by caring for animals, and Adam by tending to vegetation. Even the monarch, appointed to lead, is admonished to remain humble and serve his subjects, a concept remarkably progressive for its time.

The esoteric principle elucidated by Genesis is that genuine service, particularly when it involves subsuming one's ego to assist those perceived as lower, is not merely commendable but profoundly spiritual. By diminishing our ego, we allow the divine breath within us to become manifest. Acts of humility and service to others, such as feeding and tending to animals and plants, or a monarch serving his people, constitute the true path to elevated spirituality and the most profound revelation of the divine.

Kings and Trees: Ego, Constraints, and Harmony

The Torah prescribes limitations for kings to prevent arrogance: "Lest his heart be lifted above his brethren" (Deut. 17:20). Similarly, it teaches that humans do not have unrestricted dominion over trees. These directives underscore an integral truth: we are components of an interconnected system designed for harmony.

A constitutional monarchy, with the Torah as its foundation, ensures that a king, though a leader, remains a humble servant. The king must transcribe the entire Torah, internalizing its commandments, including the imperative to remain humble. The king serves as a brother to his people.

The broader message of the Torah extends to our interactions with nature and one another. Humanity, created in the divine image, was placed in Eden to serve and preserve it. The narrative of the Flood illustrates the consequences of ecological imbalance. Noah, the most righteous man, was tasked with constructing the ark and caring for the animals, exemplifying true holiness through service.

Abraham's recognition of God led him to serve the physical needs of others, thereby manifesting the divine presence. The Torah’s laws, such as those against muzzling an ox or cutting down fruit trees during war, emphasize our duty to care for all creation.

Conclusion: Humility and Service as Pathways to Harmony

We must diminish our egos and recognize that we do not possess the earth or its inhabitants. The Torah instructs us to practice ecological awareness, humane treatment of animals, and responsible stewardship of the environment. Leaders must serve humbly. Our roles, whether individual or national, are part of a divine schema. By working harmoniously and respecting all aspects of creation, we fulfill our collective mission. This harmonious effort promises blessing and prosperity. May it be so.

C. Did the snake have a godly message?

The snake told Eve that if she(they) ate from the Tree of Knowledge "you will be like God" (or 'like a god').

However we see that a crucial step was left out of the snake's message, for God tells us (Lev 11:44, in parshat "Shmini"):

"you shall make yourselves holy,

and you shall(/will) be holy,

for I am Holy"

And in the next passage, 11:45

"you shall(/will) be holy

for I am Holy".

So God's message is not that

“we should be 'like God' “

as the snake promised, but rather - inserting the words which were not in the snake's message

“we should (develop ourselves to) be (holy) as God (is Holy)”.

With these extra words the snake’s message is transformed into God’s.

To continue on this theme, see "Holiness" below:

Holiness

Holiness is a recurrent theme in the Torah, eg Ex: 29:43-46 which intertwines holiness and the mishkan and the Exodus - as in Lev (parshat “shimini”) - where God's message is:

"holy....holiness...I will dwell in the children of Israel....I will be their God......I took them out of Egypt to dwell among them (inside them)....I am the Lord their God.".

The above is quite incredible, but there is not a seeming inherent lack of logic as there is in God's statement "you shall(/will) be holy for I am Holy" - both parts of this statement are seemingly non-sequitars:

a. Why does God's holiness mandate that we be holy as in "Be holy for I am holy"; and:

b. how does God's holiness guarantee that we will indeed be able to achieve holiness as in "you will be holy for I am holy"?

The answer is in the Torah's radical message in the creation & Eden account: that God made humans 'in the divine image', and 'breathed into us' that which is our essence, e in reference to the questions above:

a. we should become holy because God is Holy, and:

b. indeed we CAN be holy because we are created by God in the divine image, and our essence is God's breath/spirit!

In contrast, the snake in that account had a more pagan message - for humans to BE gods - so it was a 'godly' but not 'Godly' message.

The Torah's message is:

1) that we must labor, make the effort, to actualize our innate potential, and:

2) the promise from the Lord our God that if we do so we will succeed - God creator of the universe and of us, who took us out of Egypt, who dwelled within us in the desert and later tells us that it is indeed possible for us to be holy.

Summary:

We do not "strive to be as God",

but rather we "strive to be holy, as God is Holy".

...

Humanity’s Path: Out of Eden, into the gym, and spiralling back to Eden:

The 'snake' tempted humanity (Adam & Eve) to eat of the tree of Knowledge by promising that by doing so they would be as God (or: as gods). Why use this temptation? I believe it was because the humans had been created in the image of God and their essence is God's breath/spirit, so to be like God was the humans' greatest desire!

Eve was enticed by the message: 'you (plural, ie to Adam also) will be as god/as gods", ie the snake recognized that their innermost desire was to be more than they were! ie they were not satisfied with the static perfection of Eden! So he used that in a twisted way.

When God saw their choice - their desire to be more - God created specially for them a possibility of growth, ie transitioning from a state of Eden to that of a physical word where they could use the Torah as a vehicle for spiritual growth - to become holy, as God is holy, not "to become God/gods"

And as explained by Rabbi Y Y Horowitz in his “Madregat Ha’adam” (see photo excerpt on this webpage) this was effectively God’s preferred outcome, that they would choose this path. And they did!

In other words God was testing the humans to determine whether they had deep yearnings to grow, and would chose that path freely, and therefore gave them the gift of physical existence (‘olam hazeh’), which is effectively a sort of gym, where struggle provides growth, so that humans could ascend to higher levels. Our path is meant to be up the spiral, starting from Eden in a high state that was given as a gift without our having earned it, then the exit from Eden at a lower level and spiraling up to the highest level back to the same place - Eden - but at a higher level since it was acquired by struggle, through our own determination to be holy .

More detail: Adam and Eve had deep yearnings to grow, but could not since they were perfect as they were, living in a perfected Eden, with no challenges to overcome. So their yearning to grow led them to choose the path of the Tree of Knowledge.

However, one cannot consummate that path in Eden, and so it would not have been constructive if they had also then eaten of the Tree of Life planted there - the path for those who have eaten from the Tree of Knowledge is only fulfilled by overcoming the struggles of "the real world" outside the garden, as a mortal being.

God rewarded humanity for their brave choice with the gift of life in that 'real world' outside, a gym (the physical universe and a physical body) with a manual - the Torah - specifically designed for our state after we ate from the Tree of Knowledge; crafted to make us struggle to achieve this goal of being holy, like the machines in a gym are designed to require the struggle to produce the desired end-result - to 'return to the Edenic state' as a result of our own efforts (not as an automatic default-status as was the case in the original Eden) and thereby spiral around to the same point but at a higher level.

May we be blessed to keep this promise in mind, so that it can motivate us, uplift us, as we face the real-life every-day challenges, remembering that they are all part of the gym-gift designed to help us achieve what we most deeply desire - to be holy, as/because God is Holy.

…

Appendix: A response to someone who asked me about the above: "What does it mean 'to be holy".

Holiness is a state, a goal of self-development, not an intellectual concept, and so I who have not pursued that cannot truly describe what it is. However I would suggest reading 'mesilat yesharim' by the holy Ramchal/Luzatto

Mesilat Yesharim: This holy book (see links below) is a manual for practice, how to ascend step by step to holiness through character-refinement. Each chapter is a step, and the steps are sequential, so it is truly a manual for self-development rather than a text to read or study. The author,was himself known to have followed this path and so he IS qualified to speak on the subject.

Hebrew: https://www.sefaria.org/Messilat_Yesharim?lang=bi ; English: http://dafyomireview.com/mesilat.php

I encourage you to read the author's introduction, and chapter 1. After reading that, you will be well-equipped to begin further research on the topic, or to actually implement his path.

Note: The last public step is outlined in the final chapter of the book ,Chapter 26, titled 'holiness'. Below I have copied the first paragraph of that chapter. Note that it is like a commentary on the dual usage of the phrase "you wil be holy for I am Holy" which I mentioned above:

ענין הקדושה כפול הוא, דהיינו: תחלתו עבודה וסופו גמול, תחלתו השתדלות וסופו מתנה. והיינו: שתחלתו הוא מה שהאדם מקדש עצמו, וסופו מה שמקדשים אותו, והוא משז"ל (יומא לט א): אדם מקדש עצמו מעט מקדשים אותו הרבה. מלמטה מקדשים אותו מלמעלה.

The matter of holiness is dual. Its beginning is service [of G-d] while its end is reward; its beginning is exertion while its end is a [divine] gift. That is, its beginning is that which a person sanctifies themselves, while its end is their being sanctified. This is what our sages, of blessed memory, said: "if one sanctifies oneself a little, they become much sanctified. If one sanctifies oneself below, they become sanctified from above" (Talmud: Yomah 39a).

D) A Deep Essence of Monotheism, understood by Abraham:

a conception not digestible by most other nations which is however the foundation of the special connection between God and the Jewish People.One reason why Jews - though an ancient people - remain few.

"GETTING" (ie 'deeply understanding in an appreciative way') God:

How amazing it is when we feel someone truly 'gets' us (understands us and sees us as we see ourselves).

Imagine if we just did something that looked really bad, but was actually good, but would only be realized as being good by someone who understood it all sufficiently deeply and was determined to judge favorably. Others seeing it judge us harshly, because ultimately they are being superficial, even if unintentionally, even if they are brilliant, just because they are not determined to judge favorably, and are not sufficiently subtle-minded.

The "Problem of Evil"

Genesis is a radical document of contrasts.

God is all powerful creator of everything, who planned the universe's content and design; humans are weak and fallible, created from the dust, but are fashioned in the creator's image, infused with the creator's 'breath/spirit', and mirror God in possessing a free will, and so they (like God) are morally responsible for their actions.

Judaism - as understood by those who received Genesis from God - is a difficult belief system. On the one hand God is merciful and all powerful and infuses all of existence and knows all that occurs everywhere always including thoughts, intentions and plans and has complete power of nature as well as the power to change human thought and to confute any plan, yet throughout history every day so many people suffer terribly, there is so an abundance of cruelty and hate, and natural disasters have devastated populations for as long as humanity has existed. And we think of God as a moral being and we are supposed to hold all accountable for their actions, so how are we to believe in a God who violates every command God gave to US!? Given this very basic contradiction it is understandable why so few outside people have adopted Judaism in the millenia since its origin.

Instead, throughout the world there are belief systems designed to not engender this dichotomy: eg:

there is only the natural universe no God or Supreme Being of cosmic mind;
there is a Mind but it is not concerned with humanity, or it is inscrutable or evil; there is a natural system of Karma but no Being designed it and oversees it;
there is a cosmic Mind or Love Force but it is insufficiently powerful to intervene to prevent tragedy;
there are several powerful beings and they are competing and this causes the chaos and strife we experience; god the creator is old, vengeful and angry and lesser beings, younger and more loving protect us from god.

Only Judaism proposes the impossible combination outlined earlier. And this is the essence of the radical Jewish notion of "Monotheism", that there is ONLY God ('en od milvado'), that ALL is from God, God is ALL powerful and ALL knowing, and God is all-merciful. Removing God's responsibility for the pain and suffering in our world by diminishing God's ability to act is not the Jewish belief, nor is splitting the divine into a powerful angry old god and a nicer younger one who protects us. Jews recognize that ONLY GOD EXISTS. And God is all-merciful and compassionate and loving. Go figure!

Judaism is about "getting" God at the deepest level, judging God favorably, even when we see terrible tragedy that we know God could have prevented. And in this way we establish the deepest connection with God, rather than the more superficial connections established when one deeply misunderstands what God is all about, even if this misunderstanding derives from good but misplaced intentions.

Why did God love Abraham and choose him to start a nation? Because Abraham was the first to understand all this. To really 'get it', that God was both all-powerful and yet also all-loving. To be so deeply understood by Abraham created a deep bond - this is why God loved Abraham deeply. And since Abraham would teach his children this cosmic secret, he could be the progentior of a nation dedicated to connecting to God as Abraham did via embracing this true difficult and sophisticated complex and seemingly contradictory understanding of the Being to which one is connecting. Only Jews can accept that God knew of the Holocaust and the tsunami and all cancers etc and allowed them all to happen and is all-compassionate, and can pray to God and try to connect more deeply. And when God feels the desire to connect on the part of someone who truly 'gets' this, the Abrahamic connection is ratified.

And Abraham's son Isaac and then Abraham's grandson Jacob understood not only the the first part, but also the second, that God is all merciful and that we should follow this aspect of God, which includes not forcing others to accept our religion, and to respect all humans as being created in the image of God and with the divine breath as their essence, and to recognize Noah's righteousness though he was not chosen to be the founder of a nation as with Abraham and his descendants who are the Jewish People, and to accept that other nations are fully righteous if they keep the laws of our common ancestor, the righteous Noah, whereas we are tasked with many other very demanding observances of action and of restraint.

This combination of beliefs is very difficult for most, and perhaps is an explanation for why Abraham did not push all his specific beliefs onto others, trying to convert all to become part of his nation, and why Jews remain much smaller than the two missionizing religions which claim to be Abraham's continuation and to have supplanted Judaism.

...

Abraham building upon the achievements of Noah: We can in the light of the above understand an aspect of what tradition teaches in terms of the difference between Noah and Abraham: Whereas Noah accepted the destruction of the world, Abraham argued with God about the intended destruction of Sdom and Gomoroh. Abraham understood that the fact God rules over all existence, and that one must accept God's commands does not negate the equally important precept that God is all-merciful - and so one can appeal to the divine mercy rather than simply accepting divine justice. And the very act of feeling compassion and pleading for mercy for others is itself of great merit and can tip the scales.

Furthermore, when Abraham's effort fails, and the cities are destroyed, Abraham does not abandon God or this conception of God, instead Abraham accepts that God is indeed merciful yet for whatever reason the cities needed to be destroyed, and even some righteous people in it if there are fewer than 10, and despite all this he is ready for the next test. And so too we, his descendants, whatever terrible calamities befall the Jewish People, we do not abandon God and our belief in the oneness and onlyness and all-knowingness and all-powerfullness and all-mercifulness of God. And this is a ratification of our eternal bond, and a continuing source for God's love of us. ...

.....

Appendix: See for example the words of this relatively recent song, which is extremely popular in Israel and is sung all over in times like these: by singing it with true emotion, we are re-affirming our deep eternal bond with the ONE GOD::

ואפילו בהסתרה veafilu be'hastoro

Yossi Klein https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KcGX2xBaMbw&t=86s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sc1FW5EOaCU Shweky with english subtitles

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gDeWaOGC8w karduner with english explanation and subtitles

sources https://www.sefaria.org.il/sheets/visual/8847

E. Is Life Fair? God & "The Problem of Evil"

I believe that the Eden account can be interpreted in a way that casts it as a response to this fundamental question. (This issue is known in philosophical literature as "The Problem of Evil" or "The Theodicy")

Existence can be a burden, can involve pain, and it is patently unfair to create an entity if it will be burdened, or in pain. I would propose that this is the reason that the Eden account relates that God created the first being in an idyllic environment – “the Garden of Eden” – thus gaining its retroactive agreement to having been created - at least for as long as it is this idyllic situation.

However God desired that Adam/Eve become capable of free-willed moral choice, facing challenges and observing a moral code, thus taking the path of growth rather than the stagnation of a-priori spiritual perfection. Thus God desired that they eat from the Tree of Knowledge.

The Eden account it true, in the sense that all the words were directly tansmitted from God to Moses, and they hold deep mystical secrets. However as various Traditional sources point out (see for example Rmabam), this does not mean that God intended for it to be understood completely literally. Rather, it can be that God crafted the Eden account as an allegory, which each word chosen carefully by God to best refer allegorically to deep spiritual processes which are beyond human comprehension and are therefore not possible to present to humans in ordinary non-allegorical terms. Or it can be that - as insisted on by various other Traditional sources - it is meant to be understood literally.

However one undestands the Eden account, I would consider it unfair to impose the obligation of moral responsibility and the pain of growth on a being without its prior consent; in fact it seems reasonable to me that any being could perhaps reject moral responsibility for its actions on the basis that it hadn’t chosen to exist and be faced with moral dilemmas. So I believe that this is why the Eden account teaches us that this additional burden wasn’t in fact imposed, that instead, since God wished for Adam/Eve to willingly taking upon themselves the burden., a situation was arranged whereby the being itself chose to bear the burden of moral responsibility. In fact, in the Eden account the Creator forbade the eating of the Tree of Knowledge which would precipitate this burden, so that the responsibility of the choice became that of the chooser alone.

In this way, the Eden account presents a resolution of sorts to the Problem of Evil - it is not that God is immorally standing by and not intervening to prevent our pain and suffering, but rather we chose to undergo all this, in order to achieve a tremendous spiritual goal, which however is not transparently known to us in or physical state and this is part of the challenge we accepted of course).

ANOTHER ALLEGORICAL RESOLUTION OF "THE PROBLEM OF EVIL"

A kabbalistic/philosophical question: how there can exist anything other than God?

Answer: all consciousness is part of God, not 'other than' God. The source of human consciousness is God’s unified consciousness. The multiplicity of consciousness as seen from the human perspective is therefore illusion. Seen as an element of this ‘fragmented’ aspect of the divine personality, human interaction and moral struggle are actually the reintegration process of the divine fragments, as seen from the perspective of the (alleged) fragments themselves. (Note: The above is in a sense a Kabbalistic approach to the philosophical “mind-body” problem: ie all is spiritual, in analogy to the idealist position which postulates that all is mind.)

Now we can resolve a different problem, the “problem of evil”: (why if God is all good and all powerful, God does not interven to prevent evil, suffering) :In the allegorical scenario we outlined above, no being is inflicting pain on any other being – rather, all are in their fundamental essence part of one being, and everything occurs according to the will of that being. Rather than seeing human beings as exterior creations of God who must suffer the consequences of God's decision to create them, not even having been consulted about whether to have been created at all, one can see humanity as simply an aspect of God. Human suffering is then not inflicted by God on man, but rather it is part of the struggle which God has voluntarily undergone. The fragmentation which was a necessary prerequisite for struggle and therefore growth also necessarily resulted in the creation of limited consciousnesses,which are unaware of their true unitary nature, and the illusory perception by these fragments of the divine consciousness that they are separate beings from each other and from God. Only after complete reintegration can all the components understand that all they had undergone was the result of their own undertaking.

...

May we be blessed to reach spiritual awareness of our true metaphysical situation, so that we view all challenges and pain as part of our incredibly brave undertaking to leave Eden, or even a higher realization that we are in fact not separate beings but rather 'en od milvado' ="there is only God!".

BibleThemes - Yom KippurYK parallel to G Eden & sukkos joy after YK reconnection, ... See the "General observances" section of the Wikipedia article on Yom Kippur, and click on the relevant link (reference #5): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_Kippur , ...... הקבלה בין העינויים ביום הכיפורים לבין תנאי החיים שנתחדשו לאדם

WHAT KIND OF SHOES SHOULD RABBIS WEAR ON THEIR HOLIEST DAY?

Answer: The shoes Adam wore when he was RUN out of the garden of eden - running shoes! (would he use 'sneakers' to sneak back in?)

https://sites.google.com/nyu.edu/biblethemes/yom-kippur

E. Science & the creation/Eden accounts

A brief summary of two 500-page book ms's:

a) Free Will and creation “in the image of God”

Genesis can be read as describing God’s infusion of a soul into a humanoid who emerges from “the dust of the earth” as detailed by evolutionary theory, in a universe which developed from a big bang created by God as hinted at in the creation account.

In order for the created entities to be morally responsible for their actions (to become “moral beings”), they must possess certain special qualities besides some minimal level of intelligence: an intrinsically free-willed consciousness, and a moral sense. These distinguish humanity from the animals. Charles Darwin wrote in “The Descent of Man”: “I fully subscribe to the judgment of those writers who maintain that of all the differences between men and the lower animals, the moral sense or conscience is the most important.” In Biblical terminology, humans were created “in the image of God”.

b) What was the initial stage of creation?

The big bang and laws of nature were designed to lead to the emergence of the desired universe and beings. However, prior to all this must have been the assembling of a complete picture of a moral being and an appropriate universe, and the design of the appropriate big bang and laws of nature to lead to their emergence.

Thus creation began not with the big bang but rather with the prior idea to create a being with moral responsibility, and a mental conception of this moral being and of the universe it would inhabit. The collection of the desired main ingredients of the universe necessary to produce a moral being is its “blueprint”; mental assembly of the blueprint is the first stage of creation.

In Genesis the universe is created one stage at a time. A new stage is initiated after the previous stage is seen to fit into the whole—“God saw … that it was good”—until the end product is reached. A being is created in the Divine image and is integrated into the rest of the Creation—“God saw … that all … was very good.” However, the Eden account describes the events of the last day of creation, Friday, and it is clear that what is described is not the physical universe as we know it - non-mortality, trees with the ability to grant knowledge of good and evil, and to grant eternal life, a talking walking serpent.... so this can be a hint that the description is of an event not in the physical plane we are familiar with, so that the physical existence of the universe begins later on in the story, ie the creation and Eden account are not to be taken as decriptions of the 'begining' of our physicla universe, but rather of events in the spiritual realm and in the creator's "Mind", which were 'prior to' the emergence of a physical universe.

c) How Old Is the Universe? (How old were YOU when you were born?)

The model offered by physics is, of a universe emerging from a big bang billions of years ago, without any free willed moral activity, where everything is determined/random, and therefore not purposive to God. From this perspective Creation is completed not with the emergence of the big bang but rather billions of years later when the first moral being emerges, aware of and accepting the burden of moral responsibility for its actions. From the perspective of its purpose, the universe is born when beings exist within it who have moral responsibility for their actions, even from the perspective of the Being who designed and created th euniverse and those beings - in other words it is a scenario in which despite the design of all by the Creator, humans have sufficient free will for the Creator to be able to legitimately consider that they have some moral responsibility for some of their acitons .

The materialilistic view denies the very possibility of this type of free will and moral responsibility - which the creation & Eden accounts cleary refer to - and so there is a total divergence between that worldview and that of the Torah. Science itself is neutral - the type of free will underlying Genesis is one which cannot be included in science, and is not even logically defensible, but that is not to say that it cannot be, just that it is not within the purview of science - some scientists are atheist materialists and some are religious or even 'spiritual'.

In any case, in the scientific model, the universe began with a big bang, whereas in Biblical context it began with creator's decision to create, and with the design of the universe by the creator. The purposive aspect of the actual physical universe began when there were 'interesting events' to the creator, namely those which did not follow randomly or detemrinistically from that which the Creator originated, eg free willed moral choices, and perhaps true creativity and even non-material conscious processess in minds (all three of these are also not enfranchised by science).

...

All the above is a framework within which one could interpret the creation and Eden accounts in ways that do not counter the acceptance of the divine origin of every word of the creation and Eden accounts as well as the fact that when one investigates the physical universe using the incredibly sophisticated and deep methods of science, one arrives at the well-known scientific models.

F. Material to use in countering Christian missionizing:

Why Jews Don't Need to be "Saved"

Why Jews Don't Want to be 'saved'

Generally, the reason it is so important for Christians to accept Jesus, as messiah or otherwise, is that they believe in some need for 'salvation' of humanity. However the Torah does NOT state that humans are damned to hell for eternity and so of course there is no need for 'salvation'. Anyone reading the beginning of Genesis, the story of the Garden of Eden, can immediately see that although the snake and the land were 'cursed', humans were NOT cursed. And certianly there is no mention at all of any 'damnation', or consignment to hell for eternity, or anything even remotely like that.

And, they will see that at the very outset the Bible teaches very clearly that all humans are created in the image of God and that at their core, the essence of every human being is "the breath of God", or "a soul. What this means is that all humans can DIRECTLY reach God - the creator of all - by accessing their essence, getting in touch with their soul. There is NO need for intermediaries, no need for 'salvation' from something terrible.

We Jews don't believe anyone is damned, not Christians not Jews not Hindus not Muslims not atheists not anyone. Of course we respect the religions of others, and if Christians believe that they will be damned to hell for eternity unless they accept Jesus, we can respect this belief, but of course as one can see from the Biblical creation & Eden accounts, given to the Jewish People by God, even if in a discussion we would accept the possibility that this doctrine has some truth out of politeness and tolerance ot other religions, we would certainly NOT accord it any truth in its application to Jews. And it does NOT apply to those who abide by the 7 laws taught by God to Noah (termed the "Bnei Noach"; to find out what those laws are, one can consult the Torah, the Traditional Jewish teachings about the laws of grandfather Noah). Indeed, one could tell them that our orah teaches that "ETERNAL DAMNATION" CERTAINLY DOES NOT APPLY TO ANYONE WHO BELIEVES IT DOES NOT APPLY TO THEM.

Also: Christians will write messiah with capital M because they believe Jesus is not actually human but rather is partly god. For Jews the messiah is a fully human being, a person, not a god or son of a god or anything remotely like that. A belief that Jesus is the messiah immediately implies he is not fully human, since he died long ago, so to be messiah he has to be somehow still alive though dead thousands of years ago. By definition this is non-human, and therefore he cannot be the Jewish messiah.

That Jesus is the "Messiah" is part of the essence of Christianity and is a DENIAL OF JUDAISM, and therefore convincing a Jew to accept "Jesus as Messiah" constitutes converting them to Christianity. Denying that this constitutes "missionary activity geared to converting Jews to Christianity" is a repellent form of disingenuousness.

Of course Jews respect and admire all other religions, certainly Christianity; however this belief in Jesus, as god or as "Messiah" etc is anathema to Jewish belief, and someone who believes this, is Christian not any version of 'Jewish', even if they use the term "Jewish" as part of the description of their belief. It's like if Hasidic Jews called themselves "True Christians" - since Christ is the Greek word for moshiach (= annointed) and they believe in the true moshiach, and these "True Christian" Hasidim went out and missionized in Christian communities to convert young people to Hasidic Judaism and claimed it was not conversion because after all they call themselves True Christians. So...It is beautiful to be a Christian, but let noone pretend that it is not "converting" to convince a Jew to accept Jesus as messiah - or worse as 'Messiah'.

Perhaps if Christians were taught this message when they are young (that those who follow the path of Noah and the 7 laws he passed down to humanity or the Way of Abraham which incorporates these 7 laws plus others as mandated/requested by God, certainly do not need 'salvation' or 'Jesus as Messiah') they will know when they are adults that they do not need to support missionary activities directed at Jews, and can direct their energies more fruitfully elsewhere.

Perhaps whenever there are efforts directed at converting Jews (as there was intensively in Jerusalem over the sullot holiday this year) Jews can perform this important outreach in Christian communities around the world which support this missionizing, for example by distributing flyers with this message outside Christian schools and places of worship.

G. The 4 Kabbalistic levels of reality/existence (or in that terminology, "4 worlds") and the terms used in the creation account

Summary:

1) three of the 4 (though some teach of a fifth) are mentioned directly in Breishis, and humanity is mentioned directly with those; the 4th one is hinted at, closely connected to humanity.

2) There's a correlation between the words for the worlds and the name of God used.

Introduction:

Starting from the highest they are: atzilut, bri'a, yetzirah, asiyah.

Note: I understand very little about this, you can know more than I do about it if you read this - I didn't read it: https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/361902/jewish/The-Four-Worlds.htm)

....

It is interesting that three of these terms are found directly in the creation account: the description of the 6 days of creation uses three action-terms (as anyone can easily see in a Hebrew-English version of Genesis, or even a transliteration, or even just looking for these combinations of shapes, בָּרָא ,עַשׂ ,יצֶר in the Hebrew version https://mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0101.htm):

God:

creates = 'bara' Gen בָּרָא, 1.1,21,27 ,
'makes' = 'asah' , vaya'as, na'aseh:Gen וַיַּעַשׂ. נַעֲשֶׂה 25, 26 ,16 1.7
forms = va'yitzer, וַיִּיצֶר; in ch2, the Garden of Eden account (2:19)

One can perhaps see a hint to the 4th term, relating to the highest level. Various of the creations and actions are described using one or more of the above three, but all three terms are used in connection with the creation of humanity, and so it makes sense perhaps that the fourth would be there as well: if so then indeed there is a hint in the root 'atzal', in the word for "God created humanity in the divine image ("tzelem")", where the key syllable combination tz-l is in common; the meaning of the words image and leha'atzil (atzilut) is also similar [see Numbers 11:25], and this physical world is an 'image' tzel of the highest realm. (also in ch 2, re fashioning Eve: the rib = side = tzela)

[Vaye'etzal ruach: tzelem elokim: H breathes in "ruach", and ruach elokim merachefes" which is mystical, spirit and matter connection non-conneciton a la Descartes].

Using the above possible insight, we can interpret God's creating humans "betzalmo" (in the divine image) as meaning"via the divine attribute related to the level of the highest realm 'atzilut' ". And this would then explain the passage "And God said let us make humans betzalmenu" ie we would read it as "with the level/aspect of tzelem".

Those who are Traditionaly-knowledgable and mystically-trained can 'unpack' all this, I am not qualified (I'm a very modest person, but I say this in order to be forthright, not just out of my profound modesty 😄).

....

As is well-known, there are sections of the extended creation story where God is referred to as Elokim, and others where God is referred to as H(ashem) Elokim.

It is interesting that "making" appears in both, but "creating' is only in the section with "Elokim", and 'forming' is only in the section with "H Elokim".

........

From the wording of the text we can also see a relation between the characteristics of humanity and the type of action by God to produce it:

i. Humanity's 'tzelem' is connected in the creation account to "creating" = bri'ah.

ii. Humanity's aspect of emerging from the 'dirt' or 'earth' = "afar" is connected to "yetzira" "forming".

iii. Humanity's aspect of 'dmus' = 'likeness' is connected to "asi'ah" "making".

.....

Surely there is a lot of hidden wisdom encoded in all this - one of the reasons I offer the above without being able to give any interpretation (I can of course make things up, but I prefer to hear what real Traditional experts would say) is simply to alert people to how much there potentially is in the actual Hebrew text that cannot be directly or easily gleaned from the translations.

H. Connecting the themes: creation, 'resting' from creation, institution of the shabbat as a recurring day to be 'kept' by refraining from speicifc activities, and the mishkan

ל"ט מלאכות שבת בבריאת העולם

זה אי היגיון מוזר שאנו מצווים:

"הימנעו בשבת מ-39 מלאכות המשכן כי נחתי מבריאת העולם"

זה יהיה הרבה יותר הגיוני אם מלאכות הבריאה יהיו זהות לאלה של המשכן, מה שיאפשר לנו לקרוא את המצווה כ"הימנעו בשבת מ-39 מלאכות המשכן כי בהם יצרתי את העוֹלָם"

!אכן הם אותו דבר

ל"ט המלאכות האסורות בשבת הן אותן מלאכות שבהן ברא הקב"ה את העולם, ולכן נאסרו עלינו - ובאותן . מלאכות נעשה המשכן, מפני שהמשכן מקביל לעולם

<----- ראה רשימה מלאה המציינת כיצד ניתן לראות זאת

B) Humans are actually 'higher' than angels:

There are so many vital teachings to be learnt from Genesis it is hard to choose one, however there is one that I feel is urgent, to dispel the notion that humanity was damned, or even cursed. The Torah tells us that humans are repositories of the divine breath/spirit, and so God-forbid that we think of people as damned or cursed.

The Torah clearly distinguishes in the Eden account between the snake and the ground which were 'cursed', and humanity which is not, and the contrast says it all. And it is very important to read the story and notice that there is no mention of being 'damned', certainly not to "Hell" and obviously not "for eternity". All of that is NOT in the story, and not in Jewish belief.

Indeed, see Rav Yosef Yozel Horowitz's "Madregat Ha'adam -->

and other Traditional sources, teaching that Adam fulfilled his divinely-preferred destiny and chose to eat of the Tree of Knowledge and leave the garden in order to be able to have free will and fulfil the Torah and mitzvot, which is only meaningful when the being must chose their actions, rather an angel, perfect and without any inclination to disobey (no free will). And so Adam & Eve chose the more meaningful and of course difficult path of self-perfection via overcoming challenges, rather than spending an 'easy' life in Eden as the equivalent of non-free-willed angels perfectly obeying God in all aspects. So in this view Adam & Eve did not commit an evil act, and did not "fall" in the moral sense, but in fact it was quite the opposite, they rose to the challenge.

And see the end of the Eden story - it is quite contrary to what most of us remember from the story: God had us leave the Garden NOT because we ate of the Tree of Knowledge, as we almost all 'remember' after reading the story! Instead, God says we had to leave "now that they ate from the Tree of Knowledge, lest they eat of the Tree of Life and live forever"!

Adam & Eve acquired the ability:

1. to comprehend the notion of good and evil and distinguish between them in individual instances, and:

2. freely choose between them, and in this new state it would not have been productive for them to live forever, in an imperfected state as would be if they had immediately eaten of the Garden variety of the Tree of Life, but rather their new destiny was to end up living forever after the death of the body, in the perfected world after full attachment to God via the Torah, which is the post-Eden version of the tree of Life (the Torah is called "Tree of Life" : 'etz chayim hi lamachazikim bah' = "a tree of life is it for those who hold on to it[observe it]"]).

Combining the two messages (of A & B above):

If anyone ever tells you that as a human you are damned or cursed tell them it is not so, in fact quite the opposite, God the creator of all told us directly that humanity is created in the divine image and has at their essence a soul which is of God.

And if someone tells you that you are too fallible to reach through to God directly, tell them that you can always reach God very directly by reaching your essence.

How do we accomplish this?

By lowering our ego.

How?

It is best accomplished by helping others with their material needs.

And it is crucial to remember always that when we encounter another human being - especially someone seemingly 'beneath' us - as the vegetation and animals of the Garden were to Adam and the beasts in the ark were to Noah, or as we might think in comparing simple travelllers to the great spiritual sage Abraham, to keep foremost in mind that as Abraham & Sarah taught us by their actions, and as was revealed to us by God in the Torah, they are God's image and contain as we do a soul which is of God.

And to remember that the best way to achieve a spiritual closeness with God is to help that person - as God told us all in the Torah "children are you all to the Lord your God" and no greater joy can a parent have than seeing their children help each other, and so helping God's children (including helping one's self as needed) is a guaranteed path to God's heart. And as beings created in the divine image and whose essence is the divine 'breath', we are often meant to be God's way for God to help other such beings (ie to help other people, created in the divine image whose essence is the divine 'breath').

May we all be blessed to be able to keep this in mind, and act on it, and for that to be a true blessing for us, as we are a blessing to all those we help.

......

Another version of the above:

Adam & Eve as Spiritual Heros

How could it be that a state of free will, and therefore the ability to do good and avoid evil, is the result of a disobedience of God's will?
If the Torah is the purpose of creation, and the Torah with all God’s commandments can be fulfilled only by a being who makes moral choices, struggling with good and evil, how can it be that the ability to fulfil the Torah was only achieved by man through a violation of God's commandment?

One way to resolve this is to deny that Adam violated God’s commandment by eating of the Tree of Knowledge.

In fact it has been proposed by various sources, including R. Yosef Yozel Horowitz, that God desired man to eat from the tree of knowledge and to thereby accept the burden of moral responsibility and follow the Torah lifestyle. God was simply advising Adam that to do so would be hazardous to him, and therefore that Adam had to make the decision himsel. And not just difficult or hazardous but it would also entail giving up on eating from the Tree of Life and therefore being susceptable to death rather than eating of the Tree of Life whenever needed and living further. However Adam and Eve accepted the heroic challenge of living in a physical universe while working for its reintegration into the spiritual cosmos from which it was generated.

Adam and Eve Were NOT Cursed: The New Post-Eden Reality

The expulsion from Eden was therefore neither punishment nor exile. Instead it was a necessary change in the metaphysical status of humankind and of the universe it inhabited, from a spiritual reality to an environment ruled by 'natural law', an environment which allowed for the freedom of choice necessary for moral drama.

In this new reality - which in the context of the traditional understanding of Genesis took place at the close of the sixth day of creation - the heretofore spiritual universe became a physical entity, self-consistent and operating harmoniously on the level of physicality, ecology, mathematics, logic, in accordance with a set of 'natural law'.

God wished for mankind to choose the burden of moral responsibility, and there was no punishment involved even the curses at the end of the Eden account apply only to the earth and snake, not to Adam and Eve. Godleft this decision to humans themselves, and the choice by humanity of moral responsibility is represented in the Eden account by 'Adam and Eve eating of the tree of knowledge', but if this is meant as an allegory then also it possibly refers to the root soul of humanity's acceptance of this task prior to the creation of physicality.

Instead of being in an 'Eden-state', it was necessary that humanity's reality be transformed from a God-manifest one to a universe in which God was at least one step removed, where God's actions in the universe would be perceived by humans as the operation of a set of 'natural law', and where it would be up to the choice of the individual to consider this 'natural law' as deriving from God or not. Indeed, Adam was catapulted into a state in which it was necessary to work for one's food, there was pain and misunderstanding, and where God was not manifest directly - and in fact after the exit from the reality-state of Eden, there is no mention of Adam perceiving a communication from the God he spoke to so freely while 'in Eden'.

I. What the creation account in the Torah does NOT say about creation and about Shabbat:

(Shabbos breishis vs shabbos ledoros)

If we had read the Torah from the middle to the end and were quite famialr with the way material was presented there, and were told that the first chapters of the first book are about the creation of the world, we might perhaps have expected that the Torah would open as follows:

"And God said to Moses, speak unto the People of Israel and tell them: 'In the beginning God created Heaven and Earth...' " (What is the significnace of this NOT being the way it is written?!)

If we were told that in relation to creation God blessed a day, we might have expected something like on of the following:

"In the beginning God created heaven and earth, and then God blessed that day. " NO!
"God said "let there be light", and there was light, and God blessed the light". NO! So perhaps: "God said "let there be light", and there was light, and God blessed that day?" No!
"And God created the fish, and all that swarms in the waters. And God blessed the fish." No, this is absurd! But wait, it DOES say this!
Oh.. OK. "And that day was a blessed day forever ". NO!
And God created humanity... and God blessd them (YES) and that day, their BirthDay, was blessed and to be celebrated by humanity forever . NO!
And God on the 6th day finished everything, and saw that it was all VERY GOOD, and in recognition of this wonderful outcome God blessed that day and made it to be celebrated forever. NO, and NO!
Instead, God blessed ...... the whole of the day he rested! What?! Which creative person would celebrate the timeof their vacation after hard work rather than celebrating the work itself, or the moment of its completion! so strange! (What is the significnace of this?!)
OK, well..... And then after resting, God said: "And forever shall this day be a day of rest for all". NO! Maybe you think it DOES say something like this? Well, check, because it does NOT.
And God created Adam & Eve, and brought before them all the animals to give names to. And God told Adam: "Before I created you, for six days did I work to created heaven and earth and all vegetation and the animals and fish and birds,". No! There's nothing even similar to this.
"And God commanded Adam & Eve to rest on every seventh day." No! (Really??!!)
"And from then on, though God did not tell humanity of this, God celebrated every 7th day to commemorate the cessation of creation and the original resting from it it". No!
"And God said, 'Although now it is only I who am aware of the sabbath day, in the future I shall reveal this to humankind' ". No!
And God said
On the 7th day God 'rested' but it was NOT made to be a day to be celebrated by God or by humanity afterwards. And we are not told there that anyone was notified then about the original day of God's resting, nor that eventually there would be a concept of "every 7th day as a day of holiness". (Maybe.)
"And Noah was commanded to build an ark, and he asked God whether he should stop building it on shabbat, and whether he could feed the animals on Shabbat." NO. There is no passage mentioning that Noah was commanded to rest on that day. There is NO mention in the Torah that shabbat was celebrated on the ark.
Ok. Well obviously it doesn't mention Abraham Isaac or Jacob in the creation or Eden account, but later on when those forefathers are mentioned, the Torah tells us that God commanded them to celebrate shabbat. NO!!! [Though there IS an oblique hint of passover.]
The word "Shabbat" (ie meaning a special day, rather than "shavat" meaning 'rested') does NOT appear in the creation account or anywhere in the book of Genesis, it appears first only after the Exodus from Egypt!!! And similarly re the notion of there being a weekly day of rest for humans.
Shabbat is only introduced in the Torah only after the Exodus from Egypt. This sheds light on the fact that the second version of the ten commandments presents shabbat as (also) being a remembrance of the Exodus. Surely this is significant. (And it may be worthwhile to try to understand shabbat [as it is understood by Halachik Judaism] utilizing insight gained from the above, and other facts.)
The events which occured prior to the emergence of Moses are written by Moses at God's command without mention of the fact that they are dictated by God, in distinction to (most of) the events Moses records which took place after he began. This enables the creation account to stand out separately from the context of its significance later on as the reason for the shabbat.

Note:

Summary: In the end of the creation account, we are told that God sanctifies the 7th day. There is no hint that a cycle of 7 days was instituted - it seems from the creation account that after that 7th day would come the 8th day...the 15th day....and we are now in day 106,000, 00...... And even if there was a new 7-day cycle there is no mention of this sanctification of the first 7th day applying to EVERY 7th day! And no mention that WE are to somehow observe this - neither to observe the memory of that specific first 7th day, nor every 7th day.

.......

Notes re Kiddush:

A) Friday night: the full psukim are from breishis. וַֽיְהִי־עֶ֥רֶב וַֽיְהִי־בֹ֖קֶר י֥וֹם הַשִּׁשִּֽׁי׃ וַיְכֻלּ֛וּ הַשָּׁמַ֥יִם וְהָאָ֖רֶץ וְכָל־צְבָאָֽם׃

וַיְכַ֤ל אֱ' בַּיּ֣וֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִ֔י מְלַאכְתּ֖וֹ אֲשֶׁ֣ר עָשָׂ֑ה וַיִּשְׁבֹּת֙ בַּיּ֣וֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִ֔י מִכָּל־מְלַאכְתּ֖וֹ אֲשֶׁ֥ר עָשָֽׂה׃

וַיְבָ֤רֶךְ אֱ'אֶת־י֣וֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִ֔י וַיְקַדֵּ֖שׁ אֹת֑וֹ כִּ֣י ב֤וֹ שָׁבַת֙ מִכָּל־מְלַאכְתּ֔וֹ אֲשֶׁר־בָּרָ֥א אֱ'לַעֲשֽׂוֹת׃

The words/phrases in the long brocho are not from Breishis, as can be seen from the mention of 'shabbos', and that they refer to bnei yisroel and yitzias mitzrayim, but they not full psukim.

The day kiddush traditionally uses psukim not from Breishis.

......

B) Why does kiddush begin with "Yom HaShishi"! Wouldn't it have made sense to begin with "Vayechlu"? Looking at the first letters of the words in the Torah, the first time there are four consecutive words starting with these letters is Yom HaShishi Vayechulu HaShamayim! Interestingly, Chazal do not seem to say that the first two words of these four were added to kiddush for this reason, but rather for a somewhat related reason, but that reason seems odd, and is not really accurate if one counts the words of the brocho on the wine.

One can divide the first part of Breishis into three: the 6 days of creation, the account of the resting etc on the 7th day, and then Gan Eden. The first two use the name Elokim, whereas Gan Eden uses H' Elokim. The account of the 7th day between them is a bridge between the other two, and the two words at the end of the first and the two words at the beginning of the middle section have this letter combination forming the name H. (though the name used after this, for the rest of the middle section, is Elokim).

Vayechulu has 35 (all are psukim). And the final brocho is 35, counting the words "Baruch ata" etc, making 70 total, but it is not quotes from psukim. But if one adds the brocho "boreh pri hagefen" there are more than 72, so why add "Yom HaShishi"? Why can't the gefen brocho count? Adding yom hashishi doesn't make it 72 words from psukim, and if we count the "baruch ata" in the kiddush then why not in the brocho on the wine?

So maybe yom hashishi is to make it the 4-letter name of H, and that is why they talk of its addiiton being for the 72-name of God, ie hinting at the 4-letter name's meaning?

But it seems the Rabbis feel it is a separate matter, see below:

http://web.webix.co.il/Sites/orchma/PAGE689.asp

הרמ"א כתב שכשמתחילים הקידוש עומדין קצת לכבוד ה', כי מתחילין יום השישי ויכולו השמים, שנרמז השם בר"ת

בענין יום השישי שנהגו לאומרו הש"ץ והקהל קודם ויכולו

שלפני ברכת מעין שבע במעריב של ליל שבת

מקור ההלכה : נהגו העם [עובדיה]י"ב, וכתב שם שלפום שעתא לא מצא מקום למנהג זה, שכל הפוסקים כותבים לומר יום הששי רק קודם ויכולו, שלפני הקידוש בבית. והטעם כדי להשלים ע"ב תיבות כנגד שם ע"ב, שהוא צירוף של הוי' ברוך הוא. והנתיבי עם כתב עוד יש אומרים ויכולו אחר יום הששי, וטעות הוא בידם, שדוקא בקידוש אומרים כן, כדי להשלים ע"ב תיבות. ולהלכה הכה"ח כתב שכן נראה מדברי הטור. והנה רבינו הרמ"א כתב שכשמתחילים הקידוש עומדין קצת לכבוד ה', כי מתחילין יום השישי ויכולו השמים, שנרמז השם בר"ת, ונראה שהטעם הזה שנמצא השם בר"ת, הוא טעם נפרד מטעם השלמת ה' ע"ב, וכן נראה מדברי היסודי ישורון מערכת ד' קידוש דף רמ"ג, שהם שני טעמים נפרדים, ולפי"ז לענ"ד נשתרבב המנהג לומר יום השישי גם בויכולו שקודם ברכת מעין שבע, כדי להשלים את השם בר"ת כמ"ש.

....

http://shut.moreshet.co.il/print.asp?id=114959&kod=&modul=15&codeClient=58

יום השישי ויכולו (התקבלה בתאריך 19/05/2009)

שלום כבוד הרב

בגמרא (ברכות יב, ב) גמירי כל פרשה דפסקה משה רבינו פסקינן דלא פסקה משה רבינו לא פסקינן.

א. למרות זאת פסקו חז"ל לומר יום השישי לפני ויכולו בקידוש ערב שבת כדי להשלים ע"ב תיבות, וכן הרמ"א כתב שכשמתחילים הקידוש עומדין קצת לכבוד ה', כי מתחילין יום השישי ויכולו השמים, שנרמז השם בר"ת.

אם כך מניין השתרבב המנהג לומר יום הששי לפני ויכולו בבית הכנסת לאחר תפילת עמידה ? והאם יש לו סמך ?

ב. בקידוש של שבת בבוקר נוהגים לומר רק חלק מפסוק (שמות כ''יא) "על כן ברך ה' את יום השבת ויקדשהו", כתב משנה ברורה (או"ח רפט, ב) שאין לעשות כן, מדוע אנו נוהגים בכל זאת כן לומר חלק פסוק בקידוש ?

תודה וכל טוב

תשובת הרב

א. אין לומר יום השישי בבית הכנסת, כי כל הטעם כמו שכתבתם כדי להשלים ע"ב תיבות, וזה לא שייך בביהכ"נ כלל.

ב. מנהג הספרדים לומר את הפסוק על כן וגו', וכל שהאמירה נעשית לשבח או לתפלה לעורר רחמים מותר. ורק אם מצטט פסוק צריך להיזהר לומר פסוק מלא.

מקורות לתשובה

תשובה מאת הרב אברהם יוסף

....

Rambam and Ramchal make us of this method, ie presenting in the openings of their works the name as the first letters of four consecutive words. I assume Ramchal copied Rambam in this as a tribute; I asked some scholars which is the first text with authenticated date which uses this method, but none I asked seemed to know. It should be possible to find the answer soon, when AI can scan all exisiting ms's.

END OF ORGANIZED PART OF WEBPAGE

Philosophy, Metaphysics, Kabbalah

Philosophical material

Designing the Cosmos according to the Kabbalah

Allowing the free-willed actions of humans to be truly independent of the will of their designer-and-creator involves a sacrifice of the sovereignty of the creator’s Will, a withdrawal and narrowing of its exclusivity. This parallels God’s tsimtsum (contraction) before creation, as described in the Kabbalah.

In order for the Creator to bring an additional independent consciousness into existence, the pre-existent Unity had to be shattered. This parallels the traditional mystical concept of shvirat ha’kelim, the breaking of the vessels.

So that it will be morally responsible for its actions, the created being is given a share of the Creator’s free will—the attribute that underlies Creation itself. In biblical terms, humans were created “in the image of God”, with some infusion of the Divine during the Creation process: “And God breathed into man the spirit of life”.

Fragmentation and Reintegration

At first there is only God. Then God creates the universe, but there is no independently existent consciousness. All is UNITY.

Then comes the creation of mankind, and the infusion into man of 'the soul of life', so that there is an independent consciousness 'other than God’, but which is nevertheless part of the divine unit. Since the creation of humanity and its independent consciousness involve the perception of ‘otherness’ than God, the wording used is plural: "let us make Man in our image".

As the Eden account relates, first there was a unitary being (‘Adam’), then a split into two. The process of fragmentation continues with the emergence into moral awareness so that there is now not only a physical universe 'other than' God, but an independent consciousness; then two independent consciousnesses, and then, as detailed in the Eden account, an independent will.

Following this is the creation of the perception of a duality of good and evil, and the introduction of pain, suffering, and mortality, and then of the struggle between the independent free-willed consciousnesses among themselves (Adam/Eve, Cain/Able), and between them and the divine law.

Nevertheless, the path to the tree of life still exists, being guarded for its eventual use at some future time, when all consciousness will return to its original unity, and all free-will will be directed to the divine law, becoming thereby reintegrated into a unity, raising the physical universe and all consciousness to a purely spiritual level, re-enacting in reverse the process of creation itself.

...............

Circularity, Existence and Free Will

“I exist” is the quintessential self-reference. Free will is non-causal, as is creation.

The creation and Eden accounts symbolize the onset of those two aspects which are circular and self-referential - existence and free will - and do so in a manner which in itself implies circularity; the creation of a being who chooses to exist, and the free willed choice of a created being which leads to the onset of moral choice, and of physical existence itself.

Of course in the Eden account, the being who chooses to acquire a moral sense, thereby accepting moral responsibility for his actions, is named "Adam". However, rather than simply being a proper name, Adam' is the Hebrew term for 'Mankind'. Thus, the Eden account relates not merely to an individual named Adam, but rather to the entire human race. From the Biblical perspective, in some metaphysical sense all Humankind chose to accept moral responsibility. From this perspective, no human can claim that they were not consulted as to whether or not they wanted a moral sense and its concomitant moral responsibility, that the burden of moral action is unfair, that they are exempt.

In the terms of the creation and Eden accounts, we are all descendants of Adam and Eve, and we are all obligated by their choice, or alternatively our situation is determined as a consequence of their choice. But at a deeper level Genesis is meant to teach us that in the most fundamental sense, that which is the essence of each one of us - namely our souls – individually made the choice to exist, and to accept moral responsibility.

Parshas Breishis.Hebrew mostly.EdOct 09. Combining several files ....doc

NEWER.Parshas Breishis.Hebrew mostly.Edited Oct 09. Combining several files including Sent by shuvi Kaplan typing chumash.doc

File: "Breishis from old file chumash complet.03 .Nov09"

Beginning and end of this file are in Hebrew, most of the midlle is in English...

Breishis from old file ChumashCompleteNov03 Eng Heb,Nov09.doc

mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#advanced-search/subject=Chumash:+most+of+the+newer+files&subset=all&within=1d&sizeoperator=s_sl&sizeunit=s_smb&query=subject:(Chumash:+most+of+the+newer+files)/FMfcgxmTpBzpPppvHVfrDQSCmtbrPVbb

BELOW: File on GDrive "Breishis from old file ChumashCompleteNov03 Eng Heb,Nov09"

Breishis from old file ChumashCompleteNov03 Eng Heb,Nov09.doc

Why Jews - though an ancient people - remain few:

A Deep Essence of Monotheism , understood by Abraham

From emails: "subject: "Chumash breishis": earliest was 2010, most from 2015-2017: collected and placed here, with some editing, Oct 13 2020

re ego in each parsha: breishis . noach: Adam and Noah: chesed etc:

See nyu email for beginning of bamidbar.

Breishis: sets the stage: tzelem, ruach etc. can give deeper phi’l interp etc. FW to choose. God cares aobut our choices, reacts.

Interesting that other than chanoch, no-one in parshas breishis is singled out as good.

We are created in order to do for others. Adam was made "le'ovdo u'leshomro".

Noach: the god who created th u niverse a parsha earlier, and who arranged a worldwide flood and got th animals to come on their own to the ark, could arrange food to be there as well, or send manna as in the desert. But instead , like adam is leovdo uleshomro, Noach takes care of the animals, the whole time that people are dying his family is doing chesed for the entire animal kingdom, this gives them the zchus to live.

Based on the above re Adam & Noah: We should not ask "what is there in the universe for me" nor even "what is my mission in life, what is my special purpose" but rather "for whom was i created" "what needs were in the uinverse which necessitated my creaiotn here, now" "who is the other half of the 'al ken ya'azov' for whom I was created to be the other half"

Why didn't the God who sent Manna to the Jewish people in the dessert 40 years send food miraculously to the naimals in the ark? Why didnt the God who miraculously had all the animals come on their own 2 x 2, 7 x 7, walking into the Ark, also make food appear there miraculously? Why didnlthe God who enabled M"R to live for 40 days and nights at Sinain allow the Ark's inhabitants to live without food during the flood?

The answer (perhaps) is that Noach was righteous (in his generaiton, for good or for bad) and deserved to be saved from the flood, but during the flood, a time of destruciotn, he and his family needed to have a zchus. Or maybe it was just his family which needed this zchus. And the greatest zchus is to serve food to the hungry. And to be makayem Adam's task of "le'ovdo u'leshomro". And this was the opposite of 'Chomos", which filled the world previously and necessitated its destruciton. The god who created the universe a parsha earlier, and who arranged a worldwide flood didn't send manna - instead, Noach takes care of the animals, the whole time that people are dying his family is doing chesded for the entire animal kingdom, this gives them the zchus to live.

.......

Can the chumash shed light on nistar?

Nistar is by definition different than nigleh, but can it be that nigleh, namely the chumash in this case, can shed light on nistar as well? Since the chumash is meant to be read at different levels, the young child and the talmid chacham and the mekubal, then presumably there are indeed aspects of nistar in the chumash as well. Perhaps one must first know all of nigleh, and then learn nistar, and then re-read nigleh in the light of the nistar. I haven’t accomplished either of these steps, but I make an attempt in any case.

Example: Shedding light on the creation account:

A) The four worlds: For example, only by hearing ideas of kabbalah does one learn that there are 4 (really 5) olamot, and then one can read the creation account and upon seeing that one is missing one can identify it by remez, and then the fact that it is only hinted at, plus the context in which the terms are used, might shed some light on the general idea which is not available only via the nistar alone.

…….

B) Mlachot shabbat and briyat haolam

Can one learn something about mlachot Shabbat by seeing the context in which they appear in the creation account?

……………

C) Ma’aseh Merkava and Ma’aseh Breishis

What can one learn about the spiritual cosmos by seeing this parallel?

................

Corrections/additions for little blue book Hebrew material

Breishis: 4 olamot: re atzilut:

Vaye'etzal ruach: tzelem elokim: H breathes in "ruach", and ruach elokim merachefes" which is mystical, spirit and matter connection non-conneciton a la descartes

See later vort re "Chibur ruach veguf": maybe bring it into this and the other related (see below)

At opening under title give a small overview:

1) three of the 4 are mentioned directly in Breishis, and humanit yis mentioned directly with those, and the 4th one is hinted at, closely connected to humanity.

2) There's a correlation between the words for the worlds and the name of God used.

.....

#3: meaning of bara: this can be combined with first vort? Bara as choice = FW, ruach , atzilus as the deciding choosing to create, what to create

Bara as separation: maybe mind/mater body/soul ruach elokim/mayim.etc

"Elokim": start with "If mayim kodmu, so who created it?" answer: "El hayam", so the beginning of the next creation starts with Elhayam = elokim.

...

vort #2: insert diagram of scroll ending with last word sof torah and meeting the first word: the last words speak of the Torah and the word 'Breishis' is the heading of the rest (beginning) of the torah

Large font for Breishis covering three continuations:

........

2010: sent to Baruch Kahane

Parshas Breishis: a few new vorts, and some unfinished

..........

….

Adam and Chavah made aley te'eynah to cover themselves, so why did Adam answer God saying 'I was afraid because I am naked so I hid'?

……

Chazal say that the world was created in a way that Humanity must earn its bread, so that we do not feel embarrassed at taking God's charity. Of course in Eden everything was easy. Maybe 'velo yitboshashu' means they didn’t feel shame even though everything was given to them?

Actually it says leovdo u'leshomro, so there was some work involved

..........

wo Breishis-related vorts. Questionable?

A tardemah was placed on Adam – we are not told that he awoke. Maybe everything afterwards was in a machazeh, as part of the tardemah?

Note: Rambam says that Adam was a navi, and he also says that all nevuah is in a machazeh (including for example the visit of the three angels, and the conversation between Bil'am and the aton).

…………..

Two stories with somewhat similarity: Breishis 2 and 15-17: God places a 'tardemah' on Avraham and Adam. Both are alone and are given someone to fill that emptiness: Avraham says he is alone, without a child, Adam has no wife (no other human). Adam didn’t complain, but tried to find companionship with all the animals and couldn’t find a mate. Avram tried to have a son, couldn't and so turned to hagar/Yishmael. God gives them what they seek from their own body (Adam: Basar mibsari. Avram: ִּי-אִם אֲשֶׁר יֵצֵא מִמֵּעֶיךָ). There is a splitting of flesh (basar) associated to both tardemahs: the brit ben habetarim and the brit of 8 days, and Chavah is taken from Adam's tzelah.

They are in places chosen for them by God (Eretz Can'an, Gan Eden), but there will be a galut in the future. They are made into the ancestors of great nations, all humanity will be blessed through them or descended from them.

Maybe Adam was to have been the only human, or the spiritual leader of humanity, but didn't quite reach the level required, and instead Avraham was given that role.

,....

INSERTED into Hebrew ms: add to vort on the word "breishis" as opening (ike 'the end' at the end); and other editing

when we see the torah scroll, no punctuaiton, so there is no break indicaitng beginning and end of a sentence, it is easier to accept this possiblitly, we can enter our punctuaiton ":" after the first word.

.....

Also, since Hebrew is read in a different direciotn than European languages, we can easily imagine someone opening the torah scroll or printed book at the end thinking it is the begining, etc., so when coming from the end the next word is "the beginning". Also, it is a scroll, so it is more natural to think of it as a circle.

.....

when we finish it, we start over, as a continuaiton, because now e see the beginning in the context of the entirety, and then 3rd time etc.

................

In Yona, in pasuk where have "el hayam", also have "eleyhem", same letters at 'elokim' with one pair interchanged.

.....

Edit: parallel of m breishis and m merkava: place in two columns to save space, smaller font, place double bar between the two columns.

....

recasting the parallel between merkavah and breishis, breishis as a nevuah

This can also be a commetnary on "Breishis..": Why doesn't the chumash say: Vayomer H' el moshe, breishis...", or at least "Vayomer H': Breishis"?

Answer: it is not God's descriptoin of creation told from the vantage point of God's understanding, which is incomprehensible to us and maybe cannot be rendered in words, it is necessarily less than that. Bit it is also not somethign that H' just told to M"R, and recorded by M"R at God's command - rather, it is much more than that - givne the parallels of merkavah and breishis maybe we can say it is the record of a vision given by God, as merkavah, but as described by God! (not as merkavah which was described by Yechezkel.)

in other words:

The bri'ah itself was not an event comprehensible to human minds.

A regular nevuah is like 'maekl sha'ked ani ro'eh' but to M"R it is aspeklariah me'irah. But if H' tells us a description of what H' showed to a novi as a mar'eh nevuah, it is as it is, it is more than aspkelaria me'irah, just that it is transmitted via M"R which reduces it to aspeklaria me'irah.

So perhaps all klal yisrael had a nevuah at matan torah, which included ma;aseh breishis, and that is why they were at a higher level than yechezkel, who 'just' had merkavah, which is a type of unclear mirror relection of maaseh breishis.

So the parallels suggest the possibility that maaseh breishis is a nevuah, either to klal yisrael, or to M"R, or perhaps even to Adam HaRishon, but told not from the understanding of the navi as is the case wiht Merkavah, told by Yecheskel, but told by H', and told via M"R's aspeklaria me'ira. So it is much more than a nevuah received by M"R and then he writes down what he saw.

...

gan eden: material for new vort: etz ha'da'at is not mentioned in almost the whole story! it is only obliquely referenced

Tree of K is not the reason for the exile.

And it is barely mentioned directly:

ח וַיִּטַּע יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים, גַּן-בְּעֵדֶן--מִקֶּדֶם; וַיָּשֶׂם שָׁם, אֶת-הָאָדָם אֲשֶׁר יָצָר. ט וַיַּצְמַח יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים, מִן-הָאֲדָמָה, כָּל-עֵץ נֶחְמָד לְמַרְאֶה, וְטוֹב לְמַאֲכָל--וְעֵץ הַחַיִּים, בְּתוֹךְ הַגָּן, וְעֵץ, הַדַּעַת טוֹב וָרָע. י וְנָהָר יֹצֵא מֵעֵדֶן, לְהַשְׁקוֹת אֶת-הַגָּן; וּמִשָּׁם, יִפָּרֵד, וְהָיָה, לְאַרְבָּעָה רָאשִׁים. ..... טו וַיִּקַּח יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים, אֶת-הָאָדָם; וַיַּנִּחֵהוּ בְגַן-עֵדֶן, לְעָבְדָהּ וּלְשָׁמְרָהּ. טז וַיְצַו יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים, עַל-הָאָדָם לֵאמֹר: מִכֹּל עֵץ-הַגָּן, אָכֹל תֹּאכֵל. יז וּמֵעֵץ, הַדַּעַת טוֹב וָרָע--לֹא תֹאכַל מִמֶּנּוּ: כִּי, בְּיוֹם אֲכָלְךָ - מִמֶּנּוּ

מוֹת תָּמוּת.

...In the above, it is clear that there is an etz ha'da'as and that it is forbidden to be eaten from. But in the rest (below), there is studious avoidance of the term 'etz ha'da'as'!

Instead it is referred to as:

1. "the tree IN (the midst of?)['betoch'] the garden";(and yet even the phrasing eferring to the etz ha;adat as Betoch hagan is strange compared to that re the etz ha'achayim)

2. In some cases (by snake etc), 'mimenu' is used to refer to it;

3. Mostly it is 'the forbidden tree'.

Even at the end, where 'etz ha'chayim' is mentioned again, the term 'etz ha'da'as' is avoided.

א וְהַנָּחָשׁ, ... וַיֹּאמֶר,... לֹא תֹאכְלוּ מִכֹּל עֵץ הַגָּן. ב וַתֹּאמֶר הָאִשָּׁה, אֶל-הַנָּחָשׁ: מִפְּרִי עֵץ-הַגָּן, נֹאכֵל. ג וּמִפְּרִי הָעֵץ, אֲשֶׁר בְּתוֹךְ-הַגָּן--אָמַר אֱלֹהִים לֹא תֹאכְלוּ מִמֶּנּוּ, וְלֹא תִגְּעוּ בּוֹ: פֶּן-תְּמֻתוּן. דוַיֹּאמֶר הַנָּחָשׁ, אֶל-הָאִשָּׁה: לֹא-מוֹת, תְּמֻתוּן. ה כִּי, יֹדֵעַ אֱלֹהִים, כִּי בְּיוֹם אֲכָלְכֶם מִמֶּנּוּ, וְנִפְקְחוּ עֵינֵיכֶם; וִהְיִיתֶם, כֵּאלֹהִים, יֹדְעֵי, טוֹב וָרָע. ווַתֵּרֶא הָאִשָּׁה כִּי טוֹב הָעֵץ לְמַאֲכָל וְכִי תַאֲוָה-הוּא לָעֵינַיִם, וְנֶחְמָד הָעֵץ לְהַשְׂכִּיל, וַתִּקַּח מִפִּרְיוֹ, וַתֹּאכַל; וַתִּתֵּן גַּם-לְאִישָׁהּ עִמָּהּ, וַיֹּאכַל. זוַתִּפָּקַחְנָה, עֵינֵי שְׁנֵיהֶם, וַיֵּדְעוּ, כִּי עֵירֻמִּם הֵם; וַיִּתְפְּרוּ עֲלֵה תְאֵנָה, וַיַּעֲשׂוּ לָהֶם חֲגֹרֹת. ח וַיִּשְׁמְעוּ אֶת-קוֹל יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים, מִתְהַלֵּךְ בַּגָּן--לְרוּחַ הַיּוֹם; וַיִּתְחַבֵּא הָאָדָם וְאִשְׁתּוֹ, מִפְּנֵי יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים, בְּתוֹךְ, עֵץ הַגָּן. ט וַיִּקְרָא יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים, אֶל-הָאָדָם; וַיֹּאמֶר לוֹ, אַיֶּכָּה. י וַיֹּאמֶר, אֶת-קֹלְךָ שָׁמַעְתִּי בַּגָּן; וָאִירָא כִּי-עֵירֹם אָנֹכִי, וָאֵחָבֵא. יא וַיֹּאמֶר--מִי הִגִּיד לְךָ, כִּי עֵירֹם אָתָּה; הֲמִן-הָעֵץ, אֲשֶׁר צִוִּיתִיךָ לְבִלְתִּי אֲכָל-מִמֶּנּוּ--אָכָלְתָּ. יבוַיֹּאמֶר, הָאָדָם: הָאִשָּׁה אֲשֶׁר נָתַתָּה עִמָּדִי, הִוא נָתְנָה-לִּי מִן-הָעֵץ וָאֹכֵל. יג וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים לָאִשָּׁה, מַה-זֹּאת עָשִׂית; וַתֹּאמֶר, הָאִשָּׁה, הַנָּחָשׁ הִשִּׁיאַנִי, וָאֹכֵל. ..... יז וּלְאָדָם אָמַר, כִּי-שָׁמַעְתָּ לְקוֹל אִשְׁתֶּךָ, וַתֹּאכַל מִן-הָעֵץ, אֲשֶׁר צִוִּיתִיךָ לֵאמֹר לֹא תֹאכַל מִמֶּנּוּ--

כב וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים, הֵן הָאָדָם הָיָה כְּאַחַד מִמֶּנּוּ, לָדַעַת, טוֹב וָרָע; וְעַתָּה פֶּן-יִשְׁלַח יָדוֹ, וְלָקַח גַּם מֵעֵץ הַחַיִּים, וְאָכַל, וָחַי לְעֹלָם.

.... ... לִשְׁמֹר, אֶת-דֶּרֶךְ עֵץ הַחַיִּים

photos notes chumash, last batch of folder: Breishis, first page of ms, large breishis distributed over three psukim, Noach notes

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?tab=om#advanced-search/from=air1%40nyu.edu&to=air1%40nyu.edu&subject=chumash+breishis&subset=all&within=1d&sizeoperator=s_sl&sizeunit=s_smb&query=from%3A(air1%40nyu.edu)+to%3A(air1%40nyu.edu)+subject%3A(chumash+breishis)/FMfcgxmMmMdRfCQRmRDGpSMFDjgXXbrS?compose=DmwnWsLSCxNwXFCNSWCRmddbQhXcBwRQszTwWnsVnJbtrLNwfKntqsQpwtCGGCWDqmPjxpxHJlvv

........

Photos of some chumash folder notes handwritten from manuscript binder, 1-8 of 21 photos: Noach notes, perush hatanach latanach, melachos shabbos and breishis, list of topics TOC

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?tab=om#advanced-search/from=air1%40nyu.edu&to=air1%40nyu.edu&subject=chumash+breishis&subset=all&within=1d&sizeoperator=s_sl&sizeunit=s_smb&query=from%3A(air1%40nyu.edu)+to%3A(air1%40nyu.edu)+subject%3A(chumash+breishis)/FMfcgxmMmMdRfCPNcDgvXfvKJjBpWjvV?compose=DmwnWsLSCxNwXFCNSWCRmddbQhXcBwRQszTwWnsVnJbtrLNwfKntqsQpwtCGGCWDqmPjxpxHJlvv

A few partially-redundant files in Ylm: And: My Corrections handwritten on an earlier version

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?tab=om#advanced-search/from=air1%40nyu.edu&to=air1%40nyu.edu&subject=chumash+breishis&subset=all&within=1d&sizeoperator=s_sl&sizeunit=s_smb&query=from%3A(air1%40nyu.edu)+to%3A(air1%40nyu.edu)+subject%3A(chumash+breishis)/FMfcgxmTnNlbSjmvrdSZgDTwtXdVfnnD?compose=DmwnWsLSCxNwXFCNSWCRmddbQhXcBwRQszTwWnsVnJbtrLNwfKntqsQpwtCGGCWDqmPjxpxHJlvv

...

re Breishis and parshas/sefer Dvorim (though/spoke on shabbos 9 b'av)

Add to theme of 'who appears when in chumash'

1. It is interesting that God doesn;t open with "Anochi Hashem elokecha"

And even if it was the creaiotn account, it could be Vayomer H', anochi borosi shamayim va'aretz....

And it could have been "Vayedaber H el Moshe laymor."..."/

But M"R is not mentioned until he appears in the story itself! Even though it was transcribed by M"R! (why?!)

2. RaMban? etc said can start after mabul etc. AR: This is possible without changing anything only because Adam and Noach are re never mentioned agian!

...

Add to re 'sneh', and to idea of how his fear at sneh transformed to the fear of others seeing him (koran or panav):

Irony, interesting: M"R made an inner journey from he time of the sneh ot the end: the whole sefer mishneh torah is named after him, eleh hadvarim asher dibber moshe.... 'sefer dvarim'.... but he siad of himself to H' "lo ish dvarim anochi'! So idea is that H' needed M"R to be an ish dvarim. didn;t anymore need his ordinary humility. M"R was needed a sa leader who could cajole, chastise, remind, exhort, warn.... right before his death, so that the B Yisrael not go astray after his death.

.....

Vorts

snake has last laugh since he eats the dust which we turn into. (maybe the idea is that our body is not the important thing, and that as soon as we die the body is of no real value? But it is strange, i need t find a better reason)

snake eats dust 'kol yemey chayecha'! is this olam haba?!

...................................................................

Q: Most of the chumash stories happened to people, and so those people may well have been aware of all that had happened (but of course Eve knew asects re the snake which maybe Adam didn;t etc) and they told it to their descendants. However no-one was around at creation (God kind of says this, to Iyov!), so were there aspects of the creation which were revealed in the written torah for the first time, ie were there details not known to Adam? or to Noah? or to Abraham, etc? Or alternatively, when M"R taught the Torah to the zkenim, did they all know this (and more), and they nodded 'yeah, yeah, we know that....'? Or was it that the way M"R spoke (ie the way God wrote) contained many allusions not in the oral tradition (as passed on to that point)?

....

Why doesn;t it say "Vayomer H el Moshe: breishis barati..." etc. If M"R wrote it all, why is he only mentioned when he is born? Of ocurse he is not mentioned even when he is alive, it doesn;t say "Vayomer H el Moshe: "Vayomer Moshe el Tziporah..." nor " "Vayomer H el Moshe: Vayetzaveh Par'oh el ha'am..."

...........

http://maagarim.hebrew-academy.org.il/Pages/PMain.aspx?mishibbur=640000&mm15=000000013170%2000 פרקי רבי אליעזר Adam was afraid "כּי ערום אני ממעשׂ"

so maybe this is lo yitboshashu, ie in gan eden before the chet, there was no busha of nahma dekisufa, but afterwards there was.

..........

The words "Breishis" and "Bara"

The word 'brieshis': gratitude, and Ramchal/Rambam: 'breishis' = 'avur oneg', as Ramchal would put

Chazal differ in their interpretaitons, but they must all come from the ornginal understnading, and perhaps there was one deeper level that eventually split into many different ones, and given these pieces we can try to sew them back into the orignal one, eg by finding the unifying underlying feature in various conflicting interpretations we can arrive at a deeper understanding:

eg: rashi brings several different seemingly unrelated explanations of what breishis means - so if there are so many inteprretaiotns does it mean that it means all these different things?

or alternately: there is a unifying idea:

Breishis = avur reishis.

There are two steps in chazal's interpretaiton: 1. that it is about the reason why the universe was created not just a description of HOW it was created, and then 2. what creation was for

But just as this interpretaiotn goes deeper, we can go deeper with it, further, by finding the unifying theme: ie: OK, so reishis is chalah etc, but what is the purpose of those things called reishis? the answer is gratitude.

And why? Bec it leads to oneg.

So combining all this we have: Breishis (bara elokim) = in order for there to be oneg (God created the universe).

And this then makes sense in the context of the story which follows, which ends with the creations of humans, of God saying "all is tov me'od' and blessing humanity, and the blessing of being fruitful, where this fruitfulness comes from cohabitaiton, which later H; says is for dvekus, so the universe is created for oneg of dvekus.

So change the title of the vort from eretz yisrael and hakarat hatov, to Breishis = avur oneg shel dvekus (in olam habah, and in E"Y with mishkan etc in olam hazeh).

More detail:

Existence is Good, (tov me'od) [and as taught by Rambam], and we are blessed (vayevoech..) and it is a blessing to be satisfied with one's lot (bec three things take one out of the world (this is Not good), and they are siatisfactions with what one has), and if we approeciate what we have we will find ourselves satisfied with what we have.

Smiling physically causes happiness, don't need it to be the other way around, first hapiness then smiling, and similarly: feeling grattude will bing satisfaction, which is a blessing, and we will feel the goodness of existence. nd for the J people being in their place, in the country where H;s shchinah rest more, will bring us this happiness.

So there's a conneciotn of hakarat hatov running as a thread throughtout the various ideas brought by Rashi, and it ties in to tov me'od, and so this tying of the vairous interpretaiotns to their essential similarity shed slight on the meaning of 'breishis'.

Breishis = 'avur oneg', as Ramchal would put it, Breishis bara = God created the universe so that we would feel oneg, and we feel it via feeling the goodness of existence, which we feel by inducing feelings of gratitude, which is what underlies the vairous explanations brought by Rashi.

Also: feeling gratitude is a way of lowering ego, being humbled to admit that one's happiness comes form another's power (and if someone did something for us it is their unselfishness and maybe it helps us too in this way, helps us in reducing our own ego?).

Eretz Yisrael is the special place which replaces gan eden, eretz zavat chalav udvash etc, with fat harvests etc and peace promised if follow the ways of H', all the equivalent of Eden, and chotzev etecha veshoevey meymecha, no work to be done....so Bne Yisrael werecreated to live in E"Y etc.

[There are various stages: in gan eden, in galus as in midbar but experiencing shchinah of anan and having food via man, and clothes not rot etc, and then in E"Y and with Bet HaMikdash, eventually Mashiach times, and then olam habah similar to eden, oneg of ful dvekus with shchinah] and experience oneg via dvekus.

[As hint to what the oneg of dvekus is like, H gives us oneg at union of male and female, vedovak beishto].

.............

דברים פרק ד ד : וְאַתֶּם הַדְּבֵקִים בַּה' אֱלֹהֵיכֶם חַיִּים כֻּלְּכֶם הַיּוֹם

משלי פרק ג

א בני, תורתי אל-תשכח; ומצוותיי, ייצור ליבך.

ב כי אורך ימים, ושנות חיים ושלום, יוסיפו לך.

ג חסד ואמת, אל-יעזבוך:

.....

ו בכל-דרכיך דעהו; והוא, יישר אורחותיך.

ז אל-תהי חכם בעיניך; ירא את ה', וסור מרע.

ח רפאות, תהי לשורך; ושיקוי, לעצמותיך.

ט כבד את ה', מהונך; ומראשית, כל-תבואתך.

י ויימלאו אסמיך שבע; .....יב כי את אשר יאהב ה' יוכיח;

......

.....יג אשרי אדם, מצא חכמה;ואדם, יפיק תבונה.

.טז אורך ימים, בימינה; בשמאלה, עושר וכבוד.

יז דרכיה דרכי-נועם; וכל-נתיבותיה שלום.

יח עץ-חיים היא, למחזיקים בה; ותומכיה מאושר.

יט ה' בחכמה יסד-ארץ; כונן שמיים, בתבונה.

כ בדעתו, תהומות נבקעו; ושחקים, ירעפו-טל.

..............

The word "breishis" in tanach

בראשית

http://www.snopi.com/xDic/Bible.aspx

[פרק א' פסוק א']

בְּרֵאשִׁית בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִם וְאֵת הָאָרֶץ

ירמיה

[פרק כו' פסוק א']

בְּרֵאשִׁית מַמְלְכוּת יְהוֹיָקִים בֶּן-יֹאשִׁיָּהוּ מֶלֶךְ יְהוּדָה הָיָה הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה מֵאֵת יְהוָה לֵאמֹר

[פרק כח' פסוק א']

וַיְהִי בַּשָּׁנָה הַהִיא בְּרֵאשִׁית מַמְלֶכֶת צִדְקִיָּה מֶלֶךְ-יְהוּדָה בַּשָּׁנָה הָרְבִעִית בַּחֹדֶשׁ הַחֲמִישִׁי אָמַר אֵלַי חֲנַנְיָה בֶן-עַזּוּר הַנָּבִיא אֲשֶׁר מִגִּבְעוֹן בְּבֵית יְהוָה לְעֵינֵי הַכֹּהֲנִים וְכָל-הָעָם לֵאמֹר

[פרק מט' פסוק לד']

אֲשֶׁר הָיָה דְבַר-יְהוָה אֶל-יִרְמְיָהוּ הַנָּבִיא אֶל-עֵילָם בְּרֵאשִׁית מַלְכוּת צִדְקִיָּה מֶלֶךְ-יְהוּדָה לֵאמֹר

מסכת חגיגה

[פרק ב' משנה א']

אֵין דּוֹרְשִׁין בָּעֲרָיוֹת בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה. וְלֹא בְּמַעֲשֵׂה בְּרֵאשִׁית בִּשְׁנָיִם. וְלֹא בַּמֶּרְכָּבָה בְּיָחִיד, אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הָיָה חָכָם וּמֵבִין מִדַּעְתּוֹ. כָּל הַמִּסְתַּכֵּל בְּאַרְבָּעָה דְּבָרִים, רָאוּי לוֹ כְּאִלּוּ לֹא בָּא לָעוֹלָם, מַה לְּמַעְלָה, מַה לְּמַטָּה, מַה לְּפָנִים, וּמַה לְּאָחוֹר. וְכָל שֶׁלֹּא חָס עַל כְּבוֹד קוֹנוֹ, רָאוּי לוֹ שֶׁלֹּא בָּא לָעוֹלָם:

....

...

The Word "Bara" in tanach and its meaning

re "bara" for evo and etc: See emailhttps://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?tab=om#advanced-search/from=air1%40nyu.edu&to=air1%40nyu.edu&subject=chumash+breishis&subset=all&within=1d&sizeoperator=s_sl&sizeunit=s_smb&query=from%3A(air1%40nyu.edu)+to%3A(air1%40nyu.edu)+subject%3A(chumash+breishis)/KtbxLwGvbvvxcvNxnNwwdtRzBJhLpVRKtg?compose=DmwnWsLSCxNwXFCNSWCRmddbQhXcBwRQszTwWnsVnJbtrLNwfKntqsQpwtCGGCWDqmPjxpxHJlvv

Breishis bara = "in H's Mind was planned freely a design for" ; evo book instant universe big bang

Interpret Bara as "planned" ie blueprint, and then this makes sense: וַיְבָרֶךְ אֱלֹהִים אֶת-יוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי, וַיְקַדֵּשׁ אֹתוֹ: כִּי בוֹ שָׁבַת מִכָּל- מְלַאכְתּוֹ, אֲשֶׁר-בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים לַעֲשׂוֹת

H rested from creating the blueprint from which to make the universe.!

...

Or it is also "freely-choosing to do", ie a plan that is freely made for the future, see below: re "ברא בראש" which is exactly like breishis! it must be Yecheskel hanavi's play on words or perush to breishis!

...

תנ"ך בכתיב מלא - יחזקאל פרק כא

https://www.mechon-mamre.org/i/t/k/k1221.htm

כד ואתה בן-אדם שים-לך שניים דרכים, לבוא חרב מלך-בבל--מארץ אחד, ייצאו שניהם; ויד ברא, בראש דרך-עיר ברא. כה דרך תשים--לבוא חרב, את רבת בני-עמון; ואת-יהודה בירושלים,

...

מצודת ציון

"ויד" - מקום כמו יד אבשלום (שמואל ב יח)

"ברא" - מלשון ברירה כמו ברו לכם איש (שמואל א יז)

...

AR: So it is a matter of WILL! ie H' CHOSE to make heaven and earth, with FW!

So maybe Breishis means in H's MIND.

...

קטע:רש"י על יחזקאל כא כד

לא בדוק

קפיצה לניווט

קפיצה לחיפוש

"שים לך שנים דרכים" - כמו שהוא מסיים המקרא

"ויד ברא בראש דרך עיר" - פנה לך מקום בראש דרך שאתה בה עשה לך כמין דרך מפוצלת[1] לפרשת דרכים אחד פונה לימין ואחד פונה לשמאל

"יצאו שניהם" - שני הדרכים

"ויד ברא" - מקום פנוי מן קוצים והברקנים (אישרטי"ר בלע"ז) ודוגמתו בספר יהושוע (יהושע יז) עלה לך היערה ובראת לך שמה ועוד כי הר יהיה לך כי יער הוא ובראת (יהושע יז) ומנחם חברם כולם לשון ברירה כמו ברו לכם איש (שמואל א יז) ברא לישנ"ט בלע"ז

^ בכל הדפוסים מופיע מפולצת, אך ברור שזו ט"ס, והגירסה הנכונה היא מפוצלת, וכפי שמופיע גם בתנ"ך הכתר.

....

מלבי"ם על יחזקאל כא כד

לא בדוק

קפיצה לניווט

קפיצה לחיפוש

"שים לך שנים דרכים", צוה לו שיצייר שנים דרכים מחולקים המוכנים "שיבא בם חרב של מלך בבל", ושיצייר ששני הדרכים יוצאים מארץ אחד שהוא ארץ כשדים, "ויד ברא", שבסוף כל דרץ יצייר מקום פנוי, "בראש דרך עיר ברא", שבראש כל דרך משני הדרכים יפנה עיר אחת ויכרות אותה להיות מקום פנוי אל מחנה נ"נ, לסימן שבכ"מ שיבא באחת משני הדרכים יכרית ויברא את העיר ויעשה שם יד ומקום למחנהו:

ביאור המילות

"ויד". מקום כמו ויד תהיה לך מחוץ למחנה:

"ברא". מופנה ע"י כריתה, כמו וברא אתהן בחרבותיו:

" עיר ברא". עיר שנכרתה והופנה מקומה, וברא ציווי, שתפנה יד ותפנה עיר:

.. .

This usage also fits with blueprint etc bec it is about numbers and names ie like equaiotns/descriptions rather than the objects themselves,

תנ"ך בכתיב מלא - ישעיהו פרק מ

https://www.mechon-mamre.org/i/t/k/k1040.htm

כו שאו-מרום עיניכם וראו מי-ברא אלה, המוציא במספר צבאם; לכולם, בשם יקרא

...

We have Free Will, but the overall nature of our neshama is pure: 'bara li elokim' = H imbued inme the ability of free choice:

תהילים פרק נא

https://www.mechon-mamre.org/i/t/x/x2651.htm

יב לב טהור, ברא-לי אלהים; ורוח נכון, חדש בקרבי.

So we able to freely choose to do evil, but our basic nature is pure.

תנ"ך בכתיב מלא - שמואל ב פרק יב

https://www.mechon-mamre.org/i/t/k/k08b12.htm

יז ויקומו זקני ביתו, עליו, להקימו, מן-הארץ; ולא אבה, ולא-ברא איתם לחם. יח ויהי ביום השביעי, וימת הילד; וייראו עבדי דויד להגיד לו כי-מת הילד, כי אמרו הנה בהיות הילד חי דיברנו אליו ...

מצודת ציון

"ברה" - היא אכילה מועטת כמו (לעיל ג לה) להברות את דוד

קטע:רש"י על שמואל ב יב יז

לא בדוק

קפיצה לניווט

קפיצה לחיפוש

"ולא ברה" - לשון אכילה כמו (לקמן יג ו) ואברה מידה

...

ירמיהו פרק לא פסוק כא - עד מתי תתחמקין הבת השובבה כי ברא ה' חדשה בארץ נקבה תסובב גבר.

This is Aramaic, so bara is "bar":

תנ"ך בכתיב מלא - דנייאל פרק ב

https://www.mechon-mamre.org/i/t/k/k3402.htm

לח ובכל-די דיירין בני-אנשא חיוות ברא ועוף-שמיא, יהב בידך, והשלטך, בכולהון; אנת-הוא, רישא די דהבא. לט ובתרך, תקום מלכו אוחרי--ארע מינך; ומלכו תליתאה אוחרי די נחשא, די תשלט .

...

"Therefore (al ken) shall a man leave his father and mother and cleave unto his wife". Very famous passage.

In English, the word cleave means also the opposite: to cleave intwo rather than to cleave unto!"

Kind of like "to forge an agreement" - who wants to sign an agreement that was forged?

There's reason to think that even the word/phrase for "therefore" ('al ken') could actually mean the opposite in this context, ie "nevertheless". Similarly in the other famous passage with 'al ken': "Therefore did God bless the shabbat day and made it holy". In both cases the conclusion is actually counter-intuitive rather than deserving a "therefore"...

breishis , noach,lech lecha: shem, cna'an, avram, terach,

recasting Eden story: evolution says an individual first emerged as human, so it was alone, and mating with the others was like with animals, and so God made it a partner, of its same genetic makeup.

by cain & hevel: potzeso haaretz es piha: the same word as :nafutz: the earth spread its mouth to swallow the blood/body...?

Is there a conneciotn between choron and horon?: so that there's a balance here:

וַיָּמָת הָרָן, עַל-פְּנֵי תֶּרַח ...וַיָּמָת תֶּרַח, בְּחָרָן.

...

"al ken" in pashas Breishis and in Purim Megillah Esther

When I showed the unexpected ending misleading "al ken" to R Machlis, and re B'er Sheva/Shova, he mentioned that a perush says that "al ken" introduces an unexpected idea. So I thought of somehting for al ken ya'azov:

עַל-כֵּן, יַעֲזָב: Adam/eve didn;t have parents, and so adam was connected to eve as his flesh by the fact that he was taken from him, and one might think that although 'it is no good for man to be alone', men born of parents have a flesh-conneciton already and so are not alone, but nevertheless, 'al ken' they should leave their parents and cleave unto their wife!

[ לֹא-טוֹב הֱיוֹת הָאָדָם לְבַדּוֹ; אֶעֱשֶׂה-לּוֹ עֵזֶר, כְּנֶגְדּוֹ. יט וַיִּצֶר ..כָּל-חַיַּת הַשָּׂדֶה ......וּלְאָדָם, לֹא-מָצָא עֵזֶר כְּנֶגְדּוֹ. ... וַיֹּאמֶר, הָאָדָם, זֹאת הַפַּעַם עֶצֶם מֵעֲצָמַי, וּבָשָׂר מִבְּשָׂרִי; לְזֹאת יִקָּרֵא אִשָּׁה, כִּי מֵאִישׁ לֻקְחָה-זֹּאת. כד עַל-כֵּן, יַעֲזָב-אִישׁ, אֶת-אָבִיו, וְאֶת-אִמּוֹ; וְדָבַק בְּאִשְׁתּוֹ, וְהָיוּ לְבָשָׂר אֶחָד]

........

Similarity/difference to breishis:

וַיֹּאמֶר, מֶה עָשִׂיתָ; קוֹל דְּמֵי אָחִיךָ, צֹעֲקִים אֵלַי מִן-הָאֲדָמָה. יא וְעַתָּה, אָרוּר אָתָּה, מִן-הָאֲדָמָה אֲשֶׁר פָּצְתָה אֶת-פִּיהָ, לָקַחַת אֶת-דְּמֵי אָחִיךָ מִיָּדֶךָ. יב כִּי תַעֲבֹד אֶת-הָאֲדָמָה, לֹא-תֹסֵף תֵּת-כֹּחָהּ לָךְ; נָע וָנָד, תִּהְיֶה בָאָרֶץ. יג וַיֹּאHe meniotned "al ken...purim.." that it is an unexpected name for the holiday, so I looked there and can see that the psukim are maybe leading one to believe that the name will be connected to "venahapochu" in some way, and instead it is 'purim'. (I pointed out that the essential aspect of all the holidays are also completeley unexpected, matzo/chometz on pesach etc) [AR: and in any case, if the megillah says 'hu hagoral' why not cal it 'goral'? but the persian name is used, as is Hadassah's persina name, esther.]

וַיִּכְתֹּב מָרְדֳּכַי... לְקַיֵּם, עֲלֵיהֶם--לִהְיוֹת עֹשִׂים ... בְּכָל-שָׁנָה, וְשָׁנָה. כב כַּיָּמִים, אֲשֶׁר-נָחוּ בָהֶם הַיְּהוּדִים מֵאֹיְבֵיהֶם, וְהַחֹדֶשׁ אֲשֶׁר נֶהְפַּךְ לָהֶם מִיָּגוֹן לְשִׂמְחָה, וּמֵאֵבֶל לְיוֹם טוֹב; לַעֲשׂוֹת אוֹתָם, יְמֵי מִשְׁתֶּה וְשִׂמְחָה, וּמִשְׁלֹחַ מָנוֹת אִישׁ לְרֵעֵהוּ, וּמַתָּנוֹת לָאֶבְיֹנִים. כג וְקִבֵּל, הַיְּהוּדִים, אֵת אֲשֶׁר-הֵחֵלּוּ, לַעֲשׂוֹת; וְאֵת אֲשֶׁר-כָּתַב מָרְדֳּכַי, אֲלֵיהֶם. כד כִּי הָמָן בֶּן-הַמְּדָתָא הָאֲגָגִי, צֹרֵר כָּל-הַיְּהוּדִים--חָשַׁב עַל-הַיְּהוּדִים, לְאַבְּדָם; וְהִפִּל פּוּר הוּא הַגּוֹרָל, לְהֻמָּם וּלְאַבְּדָם. כה וּבְבֹאָהּ, לִפְנֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ, אָמַר עִם-הַסֵּפֶר, יָשׁוּב מַחֲשַׁבְתּוֹ הָרָעָה אֲשֶׁר-חָשַׁב עַל-הַיְּהוּדִים עַל-רֹאשׁוֹ; וְתָלוּ אֹתוֹ וְאֶת-בָּנָיו, עַל-הָעֵץ. כו עַל-כֵּן קָרְאוּ לַיָּמִים הָאֵלֶּה פוּרִים, עַל-שֵׁם הַפּוּר--עַל-כֵּן, עַל-כָּל-דִּבְרֵי הָאִגֶּרֶת הַזֹּאת; וּמָה-רָאוּ עַל-כָּכָה, וּמָה הִגִּיעַ אֲלֵיהֶם. כז קִיְּמוּ וקבל (וְקִבְּלוּ) הַיְּהוּדִים...לִהְיוֹת עֹשִׂים אֵת שְׁנֵי הַיָּמִים הָאֵלֶּה, כִּכְתָבָם וְכִזְמַנָּם: בְּכָל-שָׁנָה, וְשָׁנָה. כח... וְהַיָּמִים הָאֵלֶּה נִזְכָּרִים וְנַעֲשִׂים בְּכָל-דּוֹר וָדוֹר... וִימֵי הַפּוּרִים הָאֵלֶּה, לֹא יַעַבְרוּ מִתּוֹךְ הַיְּהוּדִים, וְזִכְרָם, לֹא-יָסוּף מִזַּרְעָם.

....

So I looked and see even the date has this type of issue:

בְּיוֹם-שְׁלוֹשָׁה עָשָׂר, לְחֹדֶשׁ אֲדָר; וְנוֹחַ, בְּאַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר בּוֹ, וְעָשֹׂה אֹתוֹ, יוֹם מִשְׁתֶּה וְשִׂמְחָה. יח והיהודיים (וְהַיְּהוּדִים) אֲשֶׁר-בְּשׁוּשָׁן, נִקְהֲלוּ בִּשְׁלוֹשָׁה עָשָׂר בּוֹ, וּבְאַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר, בּוֹ; וְנוֹחַ, בַּחֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר בּוֹ, וְעָשֹׂה אֹתוֹ, יוֹם מִשְׁתֶּה וְשִׂמְחָה. יט עַל-כֵּן הַיְּהוּדִים הפרוזים (הַפְּרָזִים), הַיֹּשְׁבִים בְּעָרֵי הַפְּרָזוֹת--עֹשִׂים אֵת יוֹם אַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר לְחֹדֶשׁ אֲדָר, שִׂמְחָה וּמִשְׁתֶּה וְיוֹם טוֹב; וּמִשְׁלֹחַ מָנוֹת, אִישׁ לְרֵעֵהוּ

...

REFERENCE MATERIAL

kabbalah: sfirot, 10 ma'amarot of breishis

עשרת המאמרות שבהן נברא העולם, או לחילופין ששת הימים שבהם הוא נברא, מבטאים הדרגתיות ותהליכיות בבריאה

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?tab=om#advanced-search/from=air1%40nyu.edu&to=air1%40nyu.edu&subject=chumash+breishis&subset=all&within=1d&sizeoperator=s_sl&sizeunit=s_smb&query=from%3A(air1%40nyu.edu)+to%3A(air1%40nyu.edu)+subject%3A(chumash+breishis)/FMfcgxmTnXVjPrWnqjSfsxFRKMLwjbSB?compose=DmwnWsLSCxNwXFCNSWCRmddbQhXcBwRQszTwWnsVnJbtrLNwfKntqsQpwtCGGCWDqmPjxpxHJlvv

for evo (instant universe etc) and for chumash:

"The attempt to find in the evolutionary history of Man some sequence of events for which the Genesis myth might be considered a metaphor – a key theme of Fisher's novels – is such an attractive notion that it has infected anthropological theory as well as speculative fantasy. Austin Bierbower's From Monkey to Man (1894) offers a simpler account of a metaphorical expulsion from Eden [(circa 1844-1913) US academic and author whose Prehistoric SF tale, From Monkey to Man, or Society in the Tertiary Age: A Story of the Missing Link [for full title see Checklist] (1894), suggests the Ice Age as the effective cause of the Missing Link's expulsion from the Garden of Eden, which is located in the heart of what would become the United States; and that proto-men's struggles with snakes were the reason the Serpent has subsequently been symbolized as Evil (see Apes as Human). In the end, a successful branch of the original tribe returns to America. [JC] ]. A fierce reaction against such superstitions can be found in The Sons of the Mammoth (trans 1929) by the Russian anthropologist V G Bogoraz. "" https://sf-encyclopedia.com/entry/origin_of_man

An abundant literature dealing with the remote ancestry of the human species inevitably sprang up in the wake of the theory of Evolution, as propounded by Charles Darwin (1809-1882). T H Huxley (1825-1895), the principal champion of Darwinism, published the classic Evidence as to Man's Place in Nature (1863), and Darwin himself wrote The Descent of Man (1871) soon after. The main point at issue was, as Benjamin Disraeli (1804-1881) put it, "the question of whether Man is an ape or an angel". Disraeli was on the side of the angels, but science and serious speculative fiction were not; their main interest was in how Man had ceased to be a brute beast and become human.

Huxley took a rather harsh view of the process of natural selection, and so did his one-time pupil, H G Wells, whose Prehistoric SF venture "A Story of the Stone Age" (May-November 1897 Idler) envisages the crucial moment in human evolution as the invention of a "new club" – a better means to cut and kill. This view recurs constantly, being memorably envisaged in Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968), in which the dawn of intelligence occurs as an ape realizes that the bone he uses to smash other bones can also be used as, among other things, a Weapon. Darwin presented a rather different account, stressing the positive value of cooperation and mutual protection in the struggle for existence. This stress on cooperative emotions as well as physical inventions is found in such works as Jack London's Before Adam (October 1906-February 1907 Everybody's Magazine; 1906), although previous, more religiously inclined authors had represented the origins of humanity in purely spiritual terms; Gouverneur Morris's The Pagan's Progress (1904) is an example. The domestication of fire was also widely seen as the crucial invention, notably in Stanley Waterloo's The Story of Ab (1897), in Charles Henry Robinson's Longhead: The Story of the First Fire (1913), and in the most famous novel by the most prolific author of prehistoric fantasies, J-H Rosny aîné's La guerre du feu (1909; cut trans as The Quest for Fire: A Novel of Prehistoric Times 1967; vt Quest for Fire 1982). Rosny's prehistoric stories – which include Vamireh (1892), Eyrimah (1893), Le felin géant (1918; trans 1924 as The Giant Cat 1924; vt Quest of the Dawn Man 1964) and Helgvor de Fleuve Bleu ["Helgvor of the Blue River"] (1930) – inspired numerous works by other French writers, including Marcel Schwob's "La Mort d'Odjigh" ["The Death of Odjigh"] (1892; trans by Iain White in The King in the Golden Mask, coll 1982), Claude Anet's La fin d'un monde (1925; trans as The End of a World 1927) and Max Bégouën's Les bisons d'argile (1925; trans as Bison of Clay 1926).

The Huxleyan account of human nature was comprehensively rejected by two UK writers in Scientific Romances that glorified the innocent state of Nature and blamed civilization for all human ills: S Fowler Wright in Dream, or The Simian Maid (1929) and its intended sequel The Vengeance of Gwa (1935) (as by Anthony Wingrave) and J Leslie Mitchell in the polemical Three Go Back (1932) and the lyrical "The Woman of Leadenhall Street" (in Masterpiece of Thrills (anth 1936) ed anon John Gawsworth) as by Lewis Grassic Gibbon. Similar nostalgia for a prehistoric Golden Age is displayed in William Golding's The Inheritors (1955), though Golding follows Wright rather than Mitchell in refusing to grant innocence to Man's direct ancestors, and presents a more brutal view of prehistoric life in "Clonk Clonk" (in The Scorpion God, coll 1971). All these works are, in part, admonitory fables, and by natural exaggeration prehistoric fantasies have also been employed for Satire, as in Andrew Lang's "The Romance of the First Radical" (September 1880 Fraser's Magazine), Henry Curwen's Zit and Xoe (April-May 1885 Blackwood's Magazine; 1887), W D Locke's "The Story of Oo-oo" (in Stories Near and Far, coll 1926) and Roy Lewis's What We Did to Father (1960; vt The Evolution Man 1963; vt Once upon an Ice Age 1979).

http://www.sf-encyclopedia.com/entry/origin_of_man

There have been several attempts to write novels on a vast scale which link prehistory and history to provide a "whole" account of the "spirit of Man". The most impressive is Den Lange Rejse (1908-1922 Denmark; trans as The Long Journey 1922-1924; omni 1933) by the Danish Nobel Prize winner Johannes V Jensen, the first two parts of which are prehistoric fantasies.

A work on an even greater scale is the Testament of Man series by Vardis Fisher, a 12-novel series of which the first four volumes are prehistoric fantasies.

Also in this tradition is Les enchainements (1925; trans as Chains 1925) by Henri Barbusse, while more trivial examples include The Invincible Adam (1932) by George S Viereck and Paul Eldridge and Tomorrow (coll of linked stories 1930) by F Britten Austin, who also wrote a volume of prehistoric short stories, When Mankind was Young (coll 1927).

The attempt to find in the evolutionary history of Man some sequence of events for which the Genesis myth might be considered a metaphor – a key theme of Fisher's novels – is such an attractive notion that it has infected anthropological theory as well as speculative fantasy.

Austin Bierbower's From Monkey to Man (1894) offers a simpler account of a metaphorical expulsion from Eden. A fierce reaction against such superstitions can be found in The Sons of the Mammoth (trans 1929) by the Russian anthropologist V G Bogoraz.

In the US Pulp magazines there grew up a romantic school of prehistoric fiction glorifying the life of the savage. Its most prolific proponent was Edgar Rice Burroughs, author of the Pellucidar series, The Eternal Lover (stories 7 March 1914, 23 January-3 February 1915 All-Story Weekly; fixup 1925; vt The Eternal Savage) and The Cave Girl (July-September 1913 All-Story; exp as fixup 1925). Novels from outside the pulps, however, often show a similar if more muted romanticism. Examples include most of Jack London's stories in this vein, Sir Charles G D Roberts's In the Morning of Time (1919), H Rider Haggard's Allan and the Ice-Gods (1927) and Richard Tooker's The Day of the Brown Horde (1929). Prehistoric romances in the Cinema, which are notorious for their anachronisms, are perhaps the extreme examples of the romantic school, from D W Griffith's Man's Genesis (1911) onwards. Although Hugo Gernsback reprinted Wells's "A Story of the Stone Age", Genre SF did not really take prehistoric fantasy aboard, with a few notable exceptions including Lester del Rey's "The Day is Done" (May 1939 Astounding), Jack Williamson's "The Greatest Invention" (July 1951 Astounding), Chad Oliver's juvenile Mists of Dawn (1952) and Theodore L Thomas's "The Doctor" (in Orbit 2, anth 1967, ed Damon Knight). Progress in physical Anthropology has encouraged a sophistication of fictional images of prehistoric life, reflected in such works as Cook (1981) by Tom Case and No Enemy But Time (1982) by Michael Bishop. The most remarkable modern manifestation of prehistoric fantasy is, however, the series of bestselling novels by Jean Auel, collectively entitled Earth's Children, which begins with The Clan of the Cave Bear (1980). Auel ingeniously combines a realism based in modern scientific understanding with robust literary romanticism. Also worthy of special note is a series of surreal prehistoric fantasies included in Italo Calvino's Cosmicomics (coll 1965; trans 1968) and t zero (coll 1967; trans 1969; vt Time and the Hunter). Significant scientific speculations on the topic are contained in two novels by the palaeontologist Björn Kurtén, Dance of the Tiger (1978; trans 1980) and Singletusk (1984; trans 1986).

There have, of course, been several unorthodox accounts of the origin of Man, including various hypothetical extraterrestrial origins. Some, like that propounded by Erich von Däniken, have been presented as fact. Such notions recur throughout the History of SF, usually developed as silly plot gimmicks (see Adam and Eve). Among the more interesting examples are Eric Frank Russell's Dreadful Sanctuary (June-August 1948 Astounding; 1951; rev 1963), which plays with the Fortean hypothesis (see Charles Fort) that Earth is an asylum for the lunatics of other worlds, and James Blish's "The Writing of the Rat" (July 1956 Galaxy), one of many stories which makes us the descendants of a "lost colony" within a galactic civilization. [BS]

"Vayar elokim es ha'or kitov"

"Vayar elokim es ha'or kitov".

Beforehand all was darkness, so one might first assume when seeing 'yehi ohr' that H meant to light up the darkness, to see what had been already created, but this is not so because it doesn't say "biglal ha'or, hashem saw the heaven and earth which had just been created',, instead it says that God saw the light itself, not used the light to see something else!

And then one might think that H said "oh the light is useful, it's good" but rather the word "ki" is key. Later the pasuk says "ki voi shovas" where ki mean because, so here too we'll read it that way, as: "vayar elokim es ho'or biglal shezeh hayah tov"!

...---------

Holiness, the snake & the gym: see vort for Shmini .

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kUqUyPFi4LdKyZoFMXAT89wtsEv5Hcj-o7EdFKq1Bvo : Did the snake have a godly message?

Also: since they ate from the etz hadaat in order to fulfil their innate purpose, being Holy as God is Holy, and since the end-result was return to Eden at a higher level, they understood that God's words "when you eat it you will die" was not a thrreat or punishment but just outlining the price. And they accepted the challenge. So it was NOT disobedience or betrayal, quite the contrary.

Letters of the AlephBet: Shape, Order etc

The letters, shape, order etc

There's no letter samech in breishis, but in the gan eden account it appears twice, in words related to the shape of the letter, closed (vayisgor bosor tachteha) and going around (rivers go around): I looked it up and found source of no samech but not re the two refs in eden re shape. But then found modern physicisit writing this! but his drash on it is a bit diff than mine he talks of closed space vs my idea of cirucular time of Greeks, fate, kohelet etc.

Letter samekh: The only letter that does not appear in the creation account. It appears only in the garden of Eden account.

The shape of the letter is round, closed: it first appears as 'sovev' , circling around, relating to rivers in Eden הַסֹּבֵב, אֵת כָּל-אֶרֶץ הַחֲוִילָה, and 'sagur', closed: וַיִּקַּח, אַחַת מִצַּלְעֹתָיו, וַיִּסְגֹּר בָּשָׂר תַּחְתֶּנָּה.

Letter gimmel appears only with the next letter, daled, in two words: hagadol and bidgas.

שְׁנֵי הַמְּאֹרֹת הַגְּדֹלִים: אֶת-הַמָּאוֹר הַגָּדֹל ; וְיִרְדּוּ בִדְגַת הַיָּם

In one there is gimmel daled heh, in the other bet gimmel daled.

Zayin appears only in two biologically-related words: זָכָר , זֶרַע . (There are seven groupings of these). The shape of the letter is appropriate to the meaning of these words.

its shape and words using it in gan eden, circular, closed, like the letter itself

and someone else who says very similar

gimmel and samech are not in creation account, until gan eden story (gan, gichon, sovev, sagar)

Samech words seem to be on theme of same as shape of the letter, closed and round.

הוּא הַסֹּבֵב,-הוּא הַסּוֹבֵב.. וַיִּסְגֹּר

בָּשָׂר, תַּחְתֶּנָּה

....

zayin is in: zochor, and zera erveral times, fittingly.

chet: choshech, chai...

tet: tov, and in katon

lamed: layla (and many times in elokim, and as "to"etc)

samech is not in creation account, until gan eden story (sovev, sagar)

Samech words seem to be on theme of same as shape of the letter, closed and round.

R Yakov baal haturim says, in his "Perush Al ha-Torah, a less known commentary on the Pentateuch (Zolkiev, 1806), taken mainly from Nachmanides, but without his cabalistic and philosophical interpretations. Jacob quotes many other commentators, among them Saadia Gaon, Rashi, Joseph Daraand Abraham ibn Ezra."

SEE PHOTO FOR TEXT

and someone else says very similar

I said exactly the same as below except that the reason is that circular shape means no begining, which is the opposite of the message of breishis, yesh me'ayin, big bang etc.

https://www.biu.ac.il/JH/Parasha/bereshit/can.htmlפרשת בראשית, תשס"ד

הבריאה והאות ס'

פרופ' עדו קנטר

המחלקה לפיסיקה

חשיבותן של צירופי האותיות וסדר הופעתן בתורה ככלל ובמעשה הבריאה בפרט נדונה רבות במפרשים. נזכיר בעניין זה את השאלה הידועה מדוע פתחה התורה באות בי"ת (בראשית) ולא באות אל"ף? על שאלה זו נאמרו פירושים רבים וביניהם: "פתחה התורה באות ב' תחילה וכן כל המסכתות בש"ס פותחות בב', כדי שידע האדם שאפילו את האות א' לא השיג". [1]

חשיבותן של כל כ"ב האותיות לשלמות מעשה הבריאה מקובלת כגישה המופיעה בספרי הקבלה (ספר היצירה פרק ב' סעיף ה'): "כ"ב אותיות יסוד, חקק"ן חצב"ן שקל"ן צרפ"ן והמירן וצר בהן נפש כל היציר וכל העתיד לצור". [2]

אולם המעיין בספר בראשית פרק א' ימצא כי כל האותיות מופיעות בו מלבד האות סמ"ך. ליתר דיוק, האות סמ"ך מופיעה לראשונה בפרק ב', פסוק י"א: "שם האחד פישון הוא ה סֹ בב את כל ארץ החוילה". המסקנה מעובדות אלו היא כי האות סמ"ך אינה מופיעה בפרק המתאר את בריאת העולם. הדבר תמוה, איננו מסתבר ודורש הסבר.

בהעדר הסבר מניח את הדעת על דרך הפשט, אנסה להעלות תירוץ על דרך הדרוש. הסמ"ך היא אות סגורה גיאומטרית, [3] וזאת כפי שמרמזת גם המילה סגור הפותחת בה, ועל פי הופעתה הראשונה בתורה: "הוא הסֹבב את כל ארץ החוילה".

כפי שידוע כיום ממחקרים בקוסמולוגיה, היקום מתפשט, מתרחב לכל עבר בכל רגע ורגע, וייתכן שאף יתפשט לעד. [4] לכן העולם אשר ברא הקב"ה לא יכול היה להיבראות סגור ומסוגר, והדבר מרומז באי הופעת האות סמ"ך בבריאה.

the words of the other letters of the alephbet

........

Add to: the order of the letters etc: 10 commandments begins with aleph, anochi. is this the sourc eof the notion that the torah as a whole should have started with aleph?

...

Add to: Letters of breishis are fist 2 and last three and middle: add this:

The last three r sh t, are interspersed with first two and middle, BET, ALEPH , YUD: BET r ALEPH sh YUD t

......

There are 22 letters, 21 appear in the creation account. Separating off the first two and the last three, 5 in all, leaves 21-5 =16. The letters Yod and Kof are the middle ones.

The first two, plus the last three, plus yod from the middle are: אב י רשת (father inheritance?)(cloud net?)

which (zigzagging back and forth, ratzo va shav, to choose the letters) spells בראשית

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, …

אֱלֹהִים בָּרָא בֹהוּ גְּדֹלִים דְשֵׁא הִנֵּה הָיְתָה יִקָּווּ מִקְוֵה זְרִיעַ זֶרַע חֹשֶׁךְ טוֹב יְהִי יַּבָּשָׁה יוֹם כִּי כּוֹכָבִים כֵן לָיְלָה עֶרֶב נֶפֶשׁ מָּיִם עַל-פְּנֵי

צֵא צַלְמֵנוּ פְרִי

וַתּוֹ)צֵא רֵאשִׁ קְרָא

שָּׁמַיִם תֹהוּ תַּחַת

...

In the order of the alephbet:

.....

צֵא צַלְמֵנוּ פְרִי

וַתּוֹ)צֵא רֵאשִׁ קְרָא

שָּׁמַיִם תֹהוּ תַּחַת

...

In the order of their appearance:

רֵאשִׁ בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים שָּׁמַיִם הָיְתָה תֹהוּ בֹהוּ חֹשֶׁךְ עַל-פְּנֵי רוּחַ מָּיִם יְהִי כִּי-טוֹב קְרָא יוֹם לָיְלָה עֶרֶב

תַּחַת כֵן

יִקָּווּ יַּבָּשָׁה מִקְוֵה דְשֵׁא זְרִיעַ זֶרַע פְּרִי (וַתּוֹ)צֵא

גְּדֹלִים כּוֹכָבִים

נֶפֶשׁ פְּרוּ

צֵא צַלְמֵנוּ פְרִי הִנֵּה .

......

א בְּרֵאשִׁית, בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים, אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִם, וְאֵת הָאָרֶץ. ב וְהָאָרֶץ, הָיְתָה תֹהוּ וָבֹהוּ, וְחֹשֶׁךְ, עַל-פְּנֵי תְהוֹם; וְרוּחַ אֱלֹהִים, מְרַחֶפֶת עַל-פְּנֵי הַמָּיִם. ג וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים, יְהִי אוֹר; וַיְהִי-אוֹר. ד וַיַּרְא אֱלֹהִים אֶת-הָאוֹר, כִּי-טוֹב; וַיַּבְדֵּל אֱלֹהִים, בֵּין הָאוֹר וּבֵין הַחֹשֶׁךְ. ה וַיִּקְרָא אֱלֹהִים לָאוֹר יוֹם, וְלַחֹשֶׁךְ קָרָא לָיְלָה; וַיְהִי-עֶרֶב וַיְהִי-בֹקֶר, יוֹם אֶחָד. {פ}

ו וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים, יְהִי רָקִיעַ בְּתוֹךְ הַמָּיִם, וִיהִי מַבְדִּיל, בֵּין מַיִם לָמָיִם. ז וַיַּעַשׂ אֱלֹהִים, אֶת-הָרָקִיעַ, וַיַּבְדֵּל בֵּין הַמַּיִם אֲשֶׁר מִתַּחַת לָרָקִיעַ, וּבֵין הַמַּיִם אֲשֶׁר מֵעַל לָרָקִיעַ; וַיְהִי-כֵן. ח וַיִּקְרָא אֱלֹהִים לָרָקִיעַ, שָׁמָיִם; וַיְהִי-עֶרֶב וַיְהִי-בֹקֶר, יוֹם שֵׁנִי. {פ}

ט וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים, יִקָּווּ הַמַּיִם מִתַּחַת הַשָּׁמַיִם אֶל-מָקוֹם אֶחָד, וְתֵרָאֶה, הַיַּבָּשָׁה; וַיְהִי-כֵן. י וַיִּקְרָא אֱלֹהִים לַיַּבָּשָׁה אֶרֶץ, וּלְמִקְוֵה הַמַּיִם קָרָא יַמִּים; וַיַּרְא אֱלֹהִים, כִּי-טוֹב. יא וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים, תַּדְשֵׁא הָאָרֶץ דֶּשֶׁא עֵשֶׂב מַזְרִיעַ זֶרַע, עֵץ פְּרִי עֹשֶׂה פְּרִי לְמִינוֹ, אֲשֶׁר זַרְעוֹ-בוֹ עַל-הָאָרֶץ; וַיְהִי-כֵן. יב וַתּוֹצֵא הָאָרֶץ דֶּשֶׁא עֵשֶׂב מַזְרִיעַ זֶרַע, לְמִינֵהוּ, וְעֵץ עֹשֶׂה-פְּרִי אֲשֶׁר זַרְעוֹ-בוֹ, לְמִינֵהוּ; וַיַּרְא אֱלֹהִים, כִּי-טוֹב. יג וַיְהִי-עֶרֶב וַיְהִי-בֹקֶר, יוֹם שְׁלִישִׁי. {פ}

יד וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים, יְהִי מְאֹרֹת בִּרְקִיעַ הַשָּׁמַיִם, לְהַבְדִּיל, בֵּין הַיּוֹם וּבֵין הַלָּיְלָה; וְהָיוּ לְאֹתֹת וּלְמוֹעֲדִים, וּלְיָמִים וְשָׁנִים. טו וְהָיוּ לִמְאוֹרֹת בִּרְקִיעַ הַשָּׁמַיִם, לְהָאִיר עַל-הָאָרֶץ; וַיְהִי-כֵן. טז וַיַּעַשׂ אֱלֹהִים, אֶת-שְׁנֵי הַמְּאֹרֹת הַגְּדֹלִים: אֶת-הַמָּאוֹר הַגָּדֹל, לְמֶמְשֶׁלֶת הַיּוֹם, וְאֶת-הַמָּאוֹר הַקָּטֹן לְמֶמְשֶׁלֶת הַלַּיְלָה, וְאֵת הַכּוֹכָבִים. יז וַיִּתֵּן אֹתָם אֱלֹהִים, בִּרְקִיעַ הַשָּׁמָיִם, לְהָאִיר, עַל-הָאָרֶץ. יח וְלִמְשֹׁל, בַּיּוֹם וּבַלַּיְלָה, וּלְהַבְדִּיל, בֵּין הָאוֹר וּבֵין הַחֹשֶׁךְ; וַיַּרְא אֱלֹהִים, כִּי-טוֹב. יטוַיְהִי-עֶרֶב וַיְהִי-בֹקֶר, יוֹם רְבִיעִי. {פ}

כ וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים--יִשְׁרְצוּ הַמַּיִם, שֶׁרֶץ נֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה; וְעוֹף יְעוֹפֵף עַל-הָאָרֶץ, עַל-פְּנֵי רְקִיעַ הַשָּׁמָיִם. כא וַיִּבְרָא אֱלֹהִים, אֶת-הַתַּנִּינִם הַגְּדֹלִים; וְאֵת כָּל-נֶפֶשׁ הַחַיָּה הָרֹמֶשֶׂת אֲשֶׁר שָׁרְצוּ הַמַּיִם לְמִינֵהֶם, וְאֵת כָּל-עוֹף כָּנָף לְמִינֵהוּ, וַיַּרְא אֱלֹהִים, כִּי-טוֹב. כב וַיְבָרֶךְ אֹתָם אֱלֹהִים, לֵאמֹר: פְּרוּ וּרְבוּ, וּמִלְאוּ אֶת-הַמַּיִם בַּיַּמִּים, וְהָעוֹף, יִרֶב בָּאָרֶץ. כג וַיְהִי-עֶרֶב וַיְהִי-בֹקֶר, יוֹם חֲמִישִׁי. {פ}

כד וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים, תּוֹצֵא הָאָרֶץ נֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה לְמִינָהּ, בְּהֵמָה וָרֶמֶשׂ וְחַיְתוֹ-אֶרֶץ, לְמִינָהּ; וַיְהִי-כֵן. כה וַיַּעַשׂ אֱלֹהִים אֶת-חַיַּת הָאָרֶץ לְמִינָהּ, וְאֶת-הַבְּהֵמָה לְמִינָהּ, וְאֵת כָּל-רֶמֶשׂ הָאֲדָמָה, לְמִינֵהוּ; וַיַּרְא אֱלֹהִים, כִּי-טוֹב. כו וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים, נַעֲשֶׂה אָדָם בְּצַלְמֵנוּ כִּדְמוּתֵנוּ; וְיִרְדּוּ בִדְגַת הַיָּם וּבְעוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִם, וּבַבְּהֵמָה וּבְכָל-הָאָרֶץ, וּבְכָל-הָרֶמֶשׂ, הָרֹמֵשׂ עַל-הָאָרֶץ. כז וַיִּבְרָא אֱלֹהִים אֶת-הָאָדָם בְּצַלְמוֹ, בְּצֶלֶם אֱלֹהִים בָּרָא אֹתוֹ: זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה, בָּרָא אֹתָם. כח וַיְבָרֶךְ אֹתָם, אֱלֹהִים, וַיֹּאמֶר לָהֶם אֱלֹהִים פְּרוּ וּרְבוּ וּמִלְאוּ אֶת-הָאָרֶץ, וְכִבְשֻׁהָ; וּרְדוּ בִּדְגַת הַיָּם, וּבְעוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִם, וּבְכָל-חַיָּה, הָרֹמֶשֶׂת עַל-הָאָרֶץ. כט וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים, הִנֵּה נָתַתִּי לָכֶם אֶת-כָּל-עֵשֶׂב זֹרֵעַ זֶרַע אֲשֶׁר עַל-פְּנֵי כָל-הָאָרֶץ, וְאֶת-כָּל-הָעֵץ אֲשֶׁר-בּוֹ פְרִי-עֵץ, זֹרֵעַ זָרַע: לָכֶם יִהְיֶה, לְאָכְלָה. ל וּלְכָל-חַיַּת הָאָרֶץ וּלְכָל-עוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִם וּלְכֹל רוֹמֵשׂ עַל-הָאָרֶץ, אֲשֶׁר-בּוֹ נֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה, אֶת-כָּל-יֶרֶק עֵשֶׂב, לְאָכְלָה; וַיְהִי-כֵן. לא וַיַּרְא אֱלֹהִים אֶת-כָּל-אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה, וְהִנֵּה-טוֹב מְאֹד; וַיְהִי-עֶרֶב וַיְהִי-בֹקֶר, יוֹם הַשִּׁשִּׁי.

………………

Parshas Breishis:

re four world in breisheet: see (Via Yehoshua):

Netziv: “Ha’amek davar”: malbim, ramban:
harav breuer re first and second prakim of breisheet.
Megadim journal.

4 worlds (Kugel?):

related to four letters of tetragramaton.
Briya related to God’s throne, Yetsira to the Merkava (of Ma’aseh Merkava)
Asiya: lower angels (who bring human prayers to God, etc).
In some sources Asiya also includes the natural physical world we live in, but some say this is so only after the klipot attached themselves to the world of Asiya, and after Moshiach they will be separate again.

Encyc Jud: “Worlds”: p641-2.

See Yeshayahu 43:7

…

Amos L. Kugel: Harvard: “The Bible as it was”: (in HU bookstore). Basically how Rabbinical sources through time reinterpreted the pshat of the text. Contains some material relevant to my ‘perush hachumash al hachumash” etc because he also looks at how later books reinterpreted earlier material in the Bible.

“In Potiphar’s House”: similar.

……

There are 22 letters, 21 appear in the creation account.

Separating off the first two and the last three, 5 in all, leaves 21-5 =16. The letters Yod and Kof are the middle ones.
The first two, plus the last three, plus yod from the middle are: אב י רשת (father inheritance?)(cloud net?)
which (zigzagging back and forth, ratzo va shav, to choose the letters) spells בראשית

The letters of breishis are fist 2 and last three and middle:

The last three r sh t, are interspersed with first two and middle, BET, ALEPH , YUD, BET r ALEPH sh YUD t

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Letter samekh: The only letter that does not appear in the creation account. It appears only in the garden of Eden account.
The shape of the letter is round, closed: it first appears as 'sovev' , circling around, relating to rivers in Eden הַסֹּבֵב, אֵת כָּל-אֶרֶץ הַחֲוִילָה, and 'sagur', closed: וַיִּקַּח, אַחַת מִצַּלְעֹתָיו, וַיִּסְגֹּר בָּשָׂר תַּחְתֶּנָּה.

Bahir(?): the order is actually daled then gimmel!

In the creation account, the letter gimmel appears only with the next letter, daled, in two words: hagadol and bidgas. שְׁנֵי הַמְּאֹרֹת הַגְּדֹלִים: אֶת-הַמָּאוֹר הַגָּדֹל ; וְיִרְדּוּ בִדְגַת הַיָּם
In one there is gimmel daled heh, in the other bet gimmel daled.

Zayin appears only in two biologically-related words: זָכָר , זֶרַע (sefer haBahir says it is male).

(There are seven groupings of these). The shape of the letter is appropriate to the meaning of these words.

…

Why doesn;t it say "Vayomer H el Moshe: breishis barati..." etc. If M"R wrote it all, why is he only mentioned when he is born? Of course he is not mentioned even when he is alive, it doesn;t say "Vayomer H el Moshe: "Vayomer Moshe el Tziporah..." nor " "Vayomer H el Moshe: Vayetzaveh Par'oh el ha'am..."

Bney Yisroel heard the ‘Anochi’ of th 10 commandemtns before they received the written Torah with Breishis story in it, and hearing this was indeed the beginning of what they heard at Sinai, so it is the real beginning of the torah. And so indeed the torah begins with aleaph, and it DOES begin with God saying “I am God, the author”. (And so the Torahindeed begins with mtzvot, as stated by those who say it should have stared with “hachodesh hazeh lachem”.

...

Add to: the order of the letters etc:

10 commandments begins with aleph, anochi. is this the source of the notion that the torah as a whole should have started with aleph?

What they heard was maybe only the aleph of anochi , and hearing this was indeed the beginning of what they heard at Sinai, so it is the real beginning of the torah.

………………....

Breisheet: is in form of smichut. Both the Torah and this word begin with the letter bet. It is the only (?) letter which means a word which is in smichut form: bet-hashem, bet-lechem, bet-knesset etc, as opposed to ‘bayit’ which stands alone. And its shape is open to what follows it, so its shape ties to is meaning as smichut.

…....................

Why did God give them 'kotnot or', leather clothing, if they already had 'aley te'enah'? Answer: For the leather there was likely a dead animal, or God killed one, ie death was already present right after the eating from the tree – maybe the leather was to remind them of death, since it was a result of the eating (or it was instead of 'on the day you eat you will die').
….
Adam and Chavah made aley te'eynah to cover themselves, so why did Adam answer God saying 'I was afraid because I am naked so I hid'?
……
Chazal say that the world was created in a way that Humanity must earn its bread, so that we do not feel embarrassed at taking God's charity. Of course in Eden everything was easy. Maybe 'velo yitboshashu' means they didn’t feel shame even though everything was given to them?
Actually it says leovdo u'leshomro, so there was some work involved

….

Tardemah and prophecy

Radical interpretation: Rambam says that Adam was a navi, and he also says that all nevuah is in a machazeh (including for example the visit of the three angels, and the conversation between Bil'am and the aton). A tardemah was placed on Adam – we are not told that he awoke. Maybe everything afterwards was in a machazeh as part of the tardemah?

……

Yonah: Mah lecha nirdam – kum kra: Maybe Yonah went into a terdemah to speak to H’, not to sleep, but they woke him up in order to ask him to daven to H’, not just to speak to H.

…..
Two stories with somewhat similarity: Breishis 2 and 15-17:

God places a 'tardemah' on Adam, and on Avraham;
Both are alone and are given someone to fill that emptiness (Avraham says he is alone, without a child, Adam has no wife, no other human).
Adam didn’t complain, but tried to find companionship with what existed (all the animals) and couldn’t find a mate. Avram tried to have a son with the wife he already had, couldn't and so Sarah suggested he turn to hagar.
God gives them what they seek from their own body (Adam: Basar mibsari. Avram: ִּי-אִם אֲשֶׁר יֵצֵא מִמֵּעֶיךָ).
There is a splitting of flesh (basar) associated to both tardemahs: Chavah is taken from Adam's tzelah, and both the brit ben habetarim and the brit of 8 days.
They are in places chosen for them by God (Eretz Can'an, Gan Eden), but there will be a galut in the future.
They are made into the ancestors of great nations, all humanity will be blessed through them or descended from them.
……..

Due to the above similarity: Maybe the torah is telling us that Adam was to have been the only human, or the spiritual leader of humanity, but didn't quite reach the level required, and instead Avraham was given that role, and so he went through the same process as did Adam….
…
it was (ha'hepech').

…………………………………………………………

Eden: conditions chosen to not hinder total devotion to self-development

As one can see from the attitude of mekubalim like Ramchal to Torah, it cannot be that Torah was incidental, it must be that Torah existed in Eden and will exist after tchiyat hametim return to Eden etc. So we can say that it is not that Torah was not in Eden but rather the form which Torah takes changes, in Eden in past and future it will be different than it is now.

Ramchal shows that the purpose of Torah is to get us to dvekus so that we will experience joy in the world to come ('Eden'). So we don;t need to think of Torah as the essence, it is a means to the goal, so we can just say that there is a path to joy via dvekus, and the path takes different forms depending on the situaiotn, in Eden, or out of it.

In Eden the idea was that Adam would self-develop via contemplation etc, maybe in interaction with God, and could do this on a complete stipend, no distracitons, all food and material and medical needs taken care of, no need to work or grow food, no dangeorus animals or insects, no disease, etc. Also: no relaitonships, no kids. Just pure self-development.

And at some point he would eat from the Trees and be in eternal bliss in dvekus with God.

But it didn't work. Adam needed to be split into two in order for there to be a dynamic, and the opportunity for self-growth. There was need for some element to assist via being opposed, ezer kengdo. Like a runner excels when there is competition etc etc.

However, after the split into man-woman, we see almost immediately that they were not on the same page, she was off talking to the snake, probably because he was too busy with 'important things' to talk to her. So they were not really going in the right direction.

She ate from the Tree (maybe thinking it was a shortcut to the purpose of dvekus, to be like God) and after Adam ate the fruit, when God asked him, he blamed her etc, no evidence of self-development. so this was not the right environment, especially now that they already ate from the tree.

Had they eaten also from the tree of life, they would have been stuck eternally in this state. And had they shown evidence of self-development after eating from the Tree, they could stay in the garden (but there wasn't such evuidence).

So now we need to do self-development via the challenges of life, we need to grow food, to work, to have pain, to be at odds with wildlife, to deal with the issue arising in the man-woman relationship etc. And when we are successful, we can "get back into the Garden and eat from the Tree of Life", ie have eternal bliss in dvekus with God. And the Way is shown by the Torah, which is etz chayim, the tree of life.

..............

existence/love is good so people having kids is like God: God created existence of beings because as Rambam says, existence is a good in of itself, and giving love unconditionally to that which you brought into existence (and guidance support etc). So we do the same, have kids and give unconditional love (and guidance support etc).

……..

The snake gets the last laugh?

has last laugh since he eats the dust which we turn into. (maybe the idea is that our body is not the important thing, and that as soon as we die the body is of no real value? But it is strange, i need t find a better reason)

Adam was convinced to eat via the snake (indirectly) so evetually he is eaten by the snake (indirectly): אֶל-הַנָּחָשׁ, כִּי עָשִׂיתָ זֹּאת, אָרוּר אַתָּה מִכָּל-הַבְּהֵמָה, וּמִכֹּל חַיַּת הַשָּׂדֶה; עַל-גְּחֹנְךָ תֵלֵךְ, וְעָפָר תֹּאכַל כָּל-יְמֵי חַיֶּיךָ. טו וְאֵיבָה אָשִׁית, בֵּינְךָ וּבֵין הָאִשָּׁה, וּבֵין זַרְעֲךָ, וּבֵין זַרְעָהּ: הוּא יְשׁוּפְךָ רֹאשׁ, וְאַתָּה תְּשׁוּפֶנּוּ עָקֵב. .... יזוּלְאָדָם אָמַר.....אֲרוּרָה הָאֲדָמָה, בַּעֲבוּרֶךָ,... וְאָכַלְתָּ, אֶת-עֵשֶׂב הַשָּׂדֶה.... תֹּאכַל לֶחֶם, עַד שׁוּבְךָ אֶל-הָאֲדָמָה, כִּי מִמֶּנָּה לֻקָּחְתָּ: כִּי-עָפָר אַתָּה, וְאֶל-עָפָר תָּשׁוּב.

…..

nochosh is yetzer hara, if we try to suppress totally lie “don;t touch” instad of dont eat, it opens space for Yhara, who then beguiles us to do what we are supposed to do but in the worng way and wrong time. If we dont suppress, we can do it right, not channeling Y hara but actually doing what the y hara was created for.

……

snake eats dust 'kol yemey chayecha'! is this olam haba?!

...................................................................

Interesting that other than chanoch, no-one in parshas breishis is singled out as good.

.….………

for chumash, Jewish philosophy book, Eden, snake, tree of knowledge

A yetzer can be abolished cosmically, and can also be internalized: Chazal say that the nochosh of Eden was internalized to become the yetzer ha'ra and at some point much later in history the yetzer hara for avoda zara was abolished. Similarly, perhaps one can say that this explains Chava’s ta'ava (la'enayim) etc to eat of the tree. The yetzer for sex didn't yet exist, it was a yetzer for tov-va ra etc, and eating from the tree internalized it to become the sexual yetzer. Just as we know how strong lust can be, derailing us, motivating us to do strange counterproductive things, so too its earlier incarnation, the yetzer to eat from the Tree of Knowledge (and “to become like God”, as the snake put it).

[AR: for chumash, Jewish philosophy book, Eden, snake, tree of knowledge]

….……………….….…………….

Did Adam have Shes only after Kayin was killed? Was it because he was afraid Kayin would kill Shes like he killed his other brother? Or was it that Adam and Chava had now outlived both their sons, and so wanted another one? Or maybe after Lemech's action, they saw that Kayin's line had killing ingrained and that another line would be needed.

…

Vayar hashem ki tov:

really means “and God judged it to be good, not saw it to be good, it is colloquial to say “I saw it was good” does not mean vision specifically. Why the use of vayar not vayeda?

Why was it necessary to actually create it for god to know that it was good, God could know what it was like by thinking about it.

Maybe it was in thought. Or….

Combination of vayar and vayikra:

god saw it was good, and God called it “water” etc.

Some it does not say vayar, some not vayikra. Which …. Etc?

Re adam and the animals: Lir’os ma yikra lo”.

…

Re adam and the animals: God Says lo to v heyos ha’adam kevado” and then creates the animals and brings them to Adam “Lir’os ma yikra lo”. Lekulam adam nasan shemos: but not the name “isha”, and the term vasyikra is not used for the naming of the animals, until it says… “lezos yikorei isha ki me’ish lukacha zos”. Ie god wanted to see which animal Man would call “isha”….

Adam is from adamah, isha is from ish (but is reverse in terms of original and created from…)

Refers to “adam” not to “ish” until woman is created – maybe because cannot be a woman until there is a man…

Ish ve ishto, isha el achosa…. Used for animals when god is commanding re taking then into the tevah (7 clean ones) and for the hooks and loops in the curtains of the mishkan

So what does ish mean? When is it used first?

Also elokim has various non-god meanings like great man and idol, judge etc and when hashem tells moshe “ata tihyeh lo elohim” re ahron..

Vaye-ovek ish imo – ish here is angel, also the three visitors to avraham…

So ish is used for angels, men, animals, and elohim is used for god, judges, and idols: why?

….…

Is God’s Command Binding?

Even a direct commandment from God is not in itself binding; one must accept that it is binding in order for one to feel bound. Therefore all such commandments are essentially only suggestions or advice. It is only binding on us when we internalize the divine communication, and our sense of obligation is actuated in response, to act in accordance with the 'commandment'.

This may also be the symbolism behind the eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil: by eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, man has become a creature knowing good and evil[36], so that the eating of the tree symbolizes the initial internalization of a sense of obligation, a moral sensitivity. From the Biblical perspective, this internal sense of moral obligation may be something which is not part of the natural physical world acquired through a process of random mutation, but rather bestowed from above, or more precisely, appropriated by mankind from the realm above.

Alternatively, the sense of moral obligation may have been implanted in man (creating man "in the image of God") but without providing a focus for this sense. Eating of the tree then induced a sense of distinction between good and evil, and this gave a focus to the internal sense of obligation.

Adam chose freely to eat, but this was not a good or evil choice because good and evil were not within his psyche, he only had an unfocused sense of moral obligation - afterwards this sense of obligation was activated by moral dilemmas, and choices became characterizable by good and evil.

…………...........

Etz hada'at: first of all it gives da'at, which is a separaiton from God, alienation rather than perspective from within God; and when Adam was part of God there is only Good, not good and evil, so the very division of these into two is what was caused by the eating. Not that the apple had magical powers but that the act of disobedience caused separation which caused a perception in terms of separateness, knowledge, and seeing a dichotomy of good/bad.

So it was not really important which tree was forbidden, the idea is that there was such a tree and they ate from it.

An indicaiotn of this point is that:

Etz ha'da'at is not mentioned in almost the whole story - it is only obliquely referenced!

מוֹת תָּמוּת.

...In the above, it is clear that there is an etz ha'da'as and that it is forbidden to be eaten from. But in the rest (below), there is studious avoidance of the term 'etz ha'da'as'!

Instead it is referred to as:

1. "the tree IN (the midst of?)['betoch'] the garden";(and yet even the phrasing eferring to the etz ha;adat as Betoch hagan is strange compared to that re the etz ha'achayim)

2. In some cases (by snake etc), 'mimenu' is used to refer to it;

3. Mostly it is 'the forbidden tree'.

Even at the end, where 'etz ha'chayim' is mentioned again, the term 'etz ha'da'as' is avoided.

So the torah is stressing that the effect was not due to the properties of the Tree but the very fact tha it was forbidden...

Etz ha'da'at is not mentioned in almost the whole story - it is only obliquely referenced!

Report abuse