Chasidut zu Bereschit 5:34
Kedushat Levi
Genesis 6,9. “these are the generations of Noach;" there are two types of righteous people, both of whom serve the Lord. The first category does so with enthusiasm and profound devotion, but does so as an individual only, not endeavouring to draw other people, admitted sinners, nearer to their Creator.
There is a second category of tzaddik, righteous person, who not only serves the Lord himself, but who also is instrumental in leading sinners back to their Creator. Avraham was a prime example of the latter type of tzaddik. He was busy converting pagans to monotheism.
According to Ari’zal, Noach was even punished for not rebuking the pagans in his time; his punishment consisted of his soul being reincarnated in the body of Moses in order to accomplish then what it had failed to accomplish on its first round inside a human body. Moses made up for the sin of omission of Noach by constantly rebuking the Israelites for their shortcomings. When our sages in Kidddushin 40 discussed the difference between a צדיק, “a righteous individual,” and a צדיק טוב, “a good righteous individual,” they said that the former is righteous vis a vis G’d, whereas the latter is “righteous both vis a vis G’d, and vis a vis his fellow man.” Being “good” to one’s peers involves more than being helpful and charitable; it includes admonishing one’s neighbour when one observes him violating G’d’s commandments. According to Sanhedrin 99, teaching one’s neighbour’s son Torah is one of the most important ways in which to demonstrate one’s concern for him, so much so that a student who has been taught Torah by someone other than his biological father is deemed as having been sired by that teacher. In introducing Avraham to us, the Torah underlines (Genesis 12:5) that when heading for the land of Israel from Charan, Avraham and Sarah took with them את הנפש אשר עשו בחרן, “the souls they had acquired while in Charan”. (the converts to monotheism)
When the Torah refers to Avraham, it never wrote the line: אלה תולדות אברהם, as opposed to Genesis 6,9-10 where amongst the תולדות of Noach we are told about his three sons; there is no mention or allusion to any converts that Noach had attracted to monotheism other than his own flesh and blood. The word אלה, “these,” is almost always used as a limitation, i.e. “these and none other.” In Noach’s case, he had failed to “acquire souls.”
When we reflect on this we will understand why the Torah wrote ונח מצא חן בעיני ה', instead of ונח היה לו חן בעיני ה'. The latter formulation would mean that when Noach faced G’d he brought with him much to commend him, i.e. his converts, whereas the formulation the Torah uses implies that G’d had to go looking for Noach; indeed he was a valuable find, a צדיק תמים, a perfectly righteous man, but not one that could not be overlooked such as Avraham’s “Chassidim.”
When the Torah testifies that את האלוקים התהלך נח, “Noach walked with G’d,” this sounds as proof of Noach’s aloofness vis a vis his fellow man [at least during the 120 years prior to the deluge when he was busy building his ark. Ed.] He was in step with G’d, but out of step with his peers. This is why the Torah repeats once more (verse 10) that he sired three sons, although the Torah had informed us of this already at the end of the last chapter (Genesis 5:32).
Noach, though aware of the many sexual perversions practiced by the people around him, and being steadfast in not copying their behaviour, is attested to by the Torah describing him as תמים היה בדורותיו, “he was perfect in his time.” Nonetheless, his loyalty to the Creator certainly did not endear him to his peers, hence “he walked with G’d”, as there was no one else “with whom to walk.” Sadly, only G’d appreciated his self-restraint, his righteousness.
There is a second category of tzaddik, righteous person, who not only serves the Lord himself, but who also is instrumental in leading sinners back to their Creator. Avraham was a prime example of the latter type of tzaddik. He was busy converting pagans to monotheism.
According to Ari’zal, Noach was even punished for not rebuking the pagans in his time; his punishment consisted of his soul being reincarnated in the body of Moses in order to accomplish then what it had failed to accomplish on its first round inside a human body. Moses made up for the sin of omission of Noach by constantly rebuking the Israelites for their shortcomings. When our sages in Kidddushin 40 discussed the difference between a צדיק, “a righteous individual,” and a צדיק טוב, “a good righteous individual,” they said that the former is righteous vis a vis G’d, whereas the latter is “righteous both vis a vis G’d, and vis a vis his fellow man.” Being “good” to one’s peers involves more than being helpful and charitable; it includes admonishing one’s neighbour when one observes him violating G’d’s commandments. According to Sanhedrin 99, teaching one’s neighbour’s son Torah is one of the most important ways in which to demonstrate one’s concern for him, so much so that a student who has been taught Torah by someone other than his biological father is deemed as having been sired by that teacher. In introducing Avraham to us, the Torah underlines (Genesis 12:5) that when heading for the land of Israel from Charan, Avraham and Sarah took with them את הנפש אשר עשו בחרן, “the souls they had acquired while in Charan”. (the converts to monotheism)
When the Torah refers to Avraham, it never wrote the line: אלה תולדות אברהם, as opposed to Genesis 6,9-10 where amongst the תולדות of Noach we are told about his three sons; there is no mention or allusion to any converts that Noach had attracted to monotheism other than his own flesh and blood. The word אלה, “these,” is almost always used as a limitation, i.e. “these and none other.” In Noach’s case, he had failed to “acquire souls.”
When we reflect on this we will understand why the Torah wrote ונח מצא חן בעיני ה', instead of ונח היה לו חן בעיני ה'. The latter formulation would mean that when Noach faced G’d he brought with him much to commend him, i.e. his converts, whereas the formulation the Torah uses implies that G’d had to go looking for Noach; indeed he was a valuable find, a צדיק תמים, a perfectly righteous man, but not one that could not be overlooked such as Avraham’s “Chassidim.”
When the Torah testifies that את האלוקים התהלך נח, “Noach walked with G’d,” this sounds as proof of Noach’s aloofness vis a vis his fellow man [at least during the 120 years prior to the deluge when he was busy building his ark. Ed.] He was in step with G’d, but out of step with his peers. This is why the Torah repeats once more (verse 10) that he sired three sons, although the Torah had informed us of this already at the end of the last chapter (Genesis 5:32).
Noach, though aware of the many sexual perversions practiced by the people around him, and being steadfast in not copying their behaviour, is attested to by the Torah describing him as תמים היה בדורותיו, “he was perfect in his time.” Nonetheless, his loyalty to the Creator certainly did not endear him to his peers, hence “he walked with G’d”, as there was no one else “with whom to walk.” Sadly, only G’d appreciated his self-restraint, his righteousness.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Sha'ar HaEmunah VeYesod HaChasidut
God began to shine the words of Torah to man from the very day he was created. This is because the God created the world with the Torah.32Referring to the famous statement in the Zohar and the Midrash, that “God looked into the Torah, and created the world.” Since man was created through the vehicle of the very letters of the Torah, he was illuminated with the very knowledge with which he was created, and which consitutes the root of his life. Consider the following passages in the Zohar:33The following passages all relate that from the very creation of Adam, God gave man a book of rules and meditations through which he could live a just life and come to a knowledge of his Creator. And Rabbi Abba said, “We know that a book descended to Adam HaRishon, and through it he knew and understood the supernal wisdom. This book reached the, ‘bnei Elohim,’34See Bereshit, 6:2. who were the sages of the generation, and whoever else was worthy of looking into it. In this way they arrived at the knowledge of supernal wisdom … Similarly, it is taught that Hanokh had a book, and this book was from the place of the book of the Generations of Man.”35See Bereshit, 5:1. (Zohar, Bereshit, 37b): We have already explained that when Adam was in the Garden of Eden God sent him a book through Raziel, the holy angel in charge of the mysteries of the holy supernal ones. Supernal impressions were imprinted in this book, holy wisdom, and seventy-two kinds of wisdom were explained in three hundred and seventy engravings of supernal mysteries. He left this book to his son Shet and all his descendants until it reached Avraham. By means of it, Avraham knew how to gaze upon the Glory of his Master. This has been explained. Similarly, Adam gave a book to his son Hanokh, from which he looked upon the supernal Glory.”(Zohar, Bereshit, 55b) Come and see! From his childhood, Noah saw the actions of man and how they sinned against the Holy One, blessed be He. So he hid himself, and occupied himself with the service of his Master … If you ask, what book did he use to contemplate Divine service? He studied the book of Adam and the book of Hanokh in order to know how to serve his Master. (Zohar, Bereshit, 58b) Rabbi Shimon said, if I had been alive at the time when the Holy One, blessed be He, gave the book to Hanokh and to Adam, I would have made great efforts that they not become accessible to people. (Zohar, Noah, 78b)
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Kedushat Levi
Genesis 24,1. “and Avraham had become old, while G’d had blessed him in everything.” According to the Talmud Baba Metzia 87 the concept of ”old age,” was unknown to mankind until Avraham’s being described here in such terms. [According to the Talmud, the statement refers to external features of elderly people stamping them as having lived for many years. This was why up until then anyone looking at Avraham or Yitzchok could not be sure whether he was looking at the father or the son. Ed.]
[If I understand the Talmud correctly, what is meant is that when the Torah had described Adam as having begotten a son in his own image (Genesis 5,3) as opposed to his first two sons, the resemblance between fathers and sons continued unabated until the time when Avraham was described as having aged. Ed.]
The point the Talmud makes is that beneficial largesse provided from the celestial regions for the lower regions of the universe manifests itself in one of two ways. It may be measured in terms familiar to us in this part of the universe, or it may be described in terms of concepts applicable in the celestial regions, seeing that these two domains each have their own set of rules. When this beneficial largesse originates directly in the celestial spheres close to the Creator, it had not become subject to limitations applicable in the parts of the world we live in. [As an example, we may distinguish between nourishment provided by G’d through the earth giving its yield, when such nourishment is subject to limitations that apply on our planet, whereas when G’d fed the Jewish people with manna, such limitations did not apply, as the manna originated directly in one of the seven layers of heaven. Ed.] This latter method of benefiting from G’d’s largesse is reserved exclusively for the Jewish people. The Jewish people have become privy to this (on occasion) due to their having clung to their Creator with such devotion.
The other nations sharing this planet with us, receive whatever largesse G’d provides for them only through “nature,” which “processes” such gifts from G’d before it reaches its recipients. This is what is meant when the Torah wrote in Genesis 25,12-15 ואלה תולדות ישמעאל שנים עשר נשיאים לאומתם, “and this is the line of Ishmael, son of Avraham……12 chieftains, etc.” The word: לאומתם is derived from אמה, “mother;” when a mother measures her son she uses measuring devices used in our parts of the universe. The Torah (Genesis 25,13, and again in verse 16) adds: בשמותם לתולדותם and בחצריהם ובטירותם, “by their names, in the order of their births, and by their villages and their encampments;” these words describe the parameters within which they were privy to G’d’s benevolent largesse. The contrast with which the Torah describes a similar description of the development of the Jewish people can be seen in the words למשפחותם לבית אבותם, “according to their family, their respective father’s house”. The word אבותם in this instance is derived from אבה, as in לא אבה יבמי, “he did not want to perform levirate marriage with me.” (Deuteronomy 25.7) The word אבה is a synonym for רצון, “will, desire.” The widow describes that her brother-in-law does not wish to fulfill the will of heaven in maintaining his deceased brother’s name alive.
Let us illustrate by an example more familiar to all of us. A potter intends to create a vase of a certain shape and colour. Before setting out to shape the clay he has a definite image of the finished product in his mind’s eye. This image is known as מחשבה, or אב הפעולה, “the father of the finished product.” The רצון, the will to create a vase, is called אב, father, as it precedes even the sculptor’s vision of the final shape and colour of the product is about to embark on creating. The eventual product is known as בני בנים, euphemism for “grandchildren.” [In relation to the רצון the initial will to create something. Ed.]
Israel’s drawing down G’d’s largesse to itself is somewhat similar. The process begins with this celestial largesse entering the domain of the physical universe, גבולין. [A domain defined by borders both dimensionally and directionally. Ed.] The various shapes and forms this largesse assumes once it has entered our part of the universe is known as בני בנים, “grandchildren.” The original רצון, G’d’s intention to provide this largesse, is called זקן, “an old man.”
When Solomon in Proverbs 17,6 speaks about עטרת זקנים בני בנים, loosely translated as “grandchildren are the crown of their elders,” the meaning of this line on a deeper level, is: “the largesse that has been received by Israelites as a result of G’d’s benevolence, is rooted in the will of G’d,” i.e. from this רצון to the world known as בני בנים.
[If I understand the Talmud correctly, what is meant is that when the Torah had described Adam as having begotten a son in his own image (Genesis 5,3) as opposed to his first two sons, the resemblance between fathers and sons continued unabated until the time when Avraham was described as having aged. Ed.]
The point the Talmud makes is that beneficial largesse provided from the celestial regions for the lower regions of the universe manifests itself in one of two ways. It may be measured in terms familiar to us in this part of the universe, or it may be described in terms of concepts applicable in the celestial regions, seeing that these two domains each have their own set of rules. When this beneficial largesse originates directly in the celestial spheres close to the Creator, it had not become subject to limitations applicable in the parts of the world we live in. [As an example, we may distinguish between nourishment provided by G’d through the earth giving its yield, when such nourishment is subject to limitations that apply on our planet, whereas when G’d fed the Jewish people with manna, such limitations did not apply, as the manna originated directly in one of the seven layers of heaven. Ed.] This latter method of benefiting from G’d’s largesse is reserved exclusively for the Jewish people. The Jewish people have become privy to this (on occasion) due to their having clung to their Creator with such devotion.
The other nations sharing this planet with us, receive whatever largesse G’d provides for them only through “nature,” which “processes” such gifts from G’d before it reaches its recipients. This is what is meant when the Torah wrote in Genesis 25,12-15 ואלה תולדות ישמעאל שנים עשר נשיאים לאומתם, “and this is the line of Ishmael, son of Avraham……12 chieftains, etc.” The word: לאומתם is derived from אמה, “mother;” when a mother measures her son she uses measuring devices used in our parts of the universe. The Torah (Genesis 25,13, and again in verse 16) adds: בשמותם לתולדותם and בחצריהם ובטירותם, “by their names, in the order of their births, and by their villages and their encampments;” these words describe the parameters within which they were privy to G’d’s benevolent largesse. The contrast with which the Torah describes a similar description of the development of the Jewish people can be seen in the words למשפחותם לבית אבותם, “according to their family, their respective father’s house”. The word אבותם in this instance is derived from אבה, as in לא אבה יבמי, “he did not want to perform levirate marriage with me.” (Deuteronomy 25.7) The word אבה is a synonym for רצון, “will, desire.” The widow describes that her brother-in-law does not wish to fulfill the will of heaven in maintaining his deceased brother’s name alive.
Let us illustrate by an example more familiar to all of us. A potter intends to create a vase of a certain shape and colour. Before setting out to shape the clay he has a definite image of the finished product in his mind’s eye. This image is known as מחשבה, or אב הפעולה, “the father of the finished product.” The רצון, the will to create a vase, is called אב, father, as it precedes even the sculptor’s vision of the final shape and colour of the product is about to embark on creating. The eventual product is known as בני בנים, euphemism for “grandchildren.” [In relation to the רצון the initial will to create something. Ed.]
Israel’s drawing down G’d’s largesse to itself is somewhat similar. The process begins with this celestial largesse entering the domain of the physical universe, גבולין. [A domain defined by borders both dimensionally and directionally. Ed.] The various shapes and forms this largesse assumes once it has entered our part of the universe is known as בני בנים, “grandchildren.” The original רצון, G’d’s intention to provide this largesse, is called זקן, “an old man.”
When Solomon in Proverbs 17,6 speaks about עטרת זקנים בני בנים, loosely translated as “grandchildren are the crown of their elders,” the meaning of this line on a deeper level, is: “the largesse that has been received by Israelites as a result of G’d’s benevolence, is rooted in the will of G’d,” i.e. from this רצון to the world known as בני בנים.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Mevo HaShearim
As a rule, the essence of hasidism is not inscribed in a book, but rather in the hasidim themselves, in the sense of “This is the book of man’s lineage.”498Genesis 5:1. JPS translates “This is the record of Adam’s line.” R. Shapiro interprets the verse along the lines of “Man’s life and legacy is a book.” The person(s)—the hasidim—are the text(s) of hasidism : their travels and work on themselves and their emotions, how they worked to reach each ‘line of light’ and vitality in fulfilling the commandments and in prayer and the various levels of hasidism, and how they experienced themselves at each point. Only a bit of this is recorded in the holy books, and even that which is written is not organized as a ‘Shulkhan Arukh’ [Code of Jewish Law] with straightforward commandments so that a hasid might follow them all proceeding from strength to strength, first one then the next, and with alternative directives if one piece of advice doesn’t work, and highlighting pitfalls if one does arise to a certain level, etc… This is on account of the aforementioned point, that the essential locus and story of hasidism inheres in the very selfhood of the hasidim. It is not written in some book how one who wants to be a hasid should practice, because each avreikh who joins the hasidim in their physical and spiritual work on themselves, under the guidance of their rebbe, becomes a hasid.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Kedushat Levi
He (serpent) said to the woman; ‘although G’d has said you must not eat from any of the trees, etc;’ lest you die.” ….The serpent said: “you will surely not die, etc.”'.
Furthermore, it is clear from what follows that Adam and his wife did not die on the day they ate from the tree of knowledge. In fact Adam lived for close to 1000 years! (Genesis 5,5). Our sages have already had difficulty in reconciling these two verses.
In order to understand the whole episode, we must first of all understand what wiles the serpent used in order to seduce the woman. How could the serpent, a mere creature, persuade a human being to defy the law of its Creator? We must understand the serpent’s argument as follows: the serpent made it clear that it was aware that everything in this universe was created by G’d through a directive issued by word of mouth as when He said: “let there be light.” The continued existence of the universe is dependent every second since it began, and continues to depend on this original light created by G’d through His first directive. It follows that the tree of knowledge which also came into being by Divine command could not possibly be a source of harm and even death, seeing it too had been created subsequent to the original life-giving force in the universe, the light created on the first day. The serpent therefore argued that it follows that when G’d issued instructions not to eat from the trees in the garden, the reason for this command could not have been that it was a source of death for anyone eating from its fruit. Since this was so, why should man listen to a latter command, instead of to His initial command, as a result of which they had become living human beings!
This, however, was part of the perverted logic employed by the serpent. The truth of the matter is that the “root” of the tree of knowledge in the garden of Eden goes back to a period preceding creation of the physical universe and the “falling off” of 288 “sparks” from the Shechinah into the world of the קליפות, regions polluted by impurity, i.e. our physical universe.
Furthermore, it is clear from what follows that Adam and his wife did not die on the day they ate from the tree of knowledge. In fact Adam lived for close to 1000 years! (Genesis 5,5). Our sages have already had difficulty in reconciling these two verses.
In order to understand the whole episode, we must first of all understand what wiles the serpent used in order to seduce the woman. How could the serpent, a mere creature, persuade a human being to defy the law of its Creator? We must understand the serpent’s argument as follows: the serpent made it clear that it was aware that everything in this universe was created by G’d through a directive issued by word of mouth as when He said: “let there be light.” The continued existence of the universe is dependent every second since it began, and continues to depend on this original light created by G’d through His first directive. It follows that the tree of knowledge which also came into being by Divine command could not possibly be a source of harm and even death, seeing it too had been created subsequent to the original life-giving force in the universe, the light created on the first day. The serpent therefore argued that it follows that when G’d issued instructions not to eat from the trees in the garden, the reason for this command could not have been that it was a source of death for anyone eating from its fruit. Since this was so, why should man listen to a latter command, instead of to His initial command, as a result of which they had become living human beings!
This, however, was part of the perverted logic employed by the serpent. The truth of the matter is that the “root” of the tree of knowledge in the garden of Eden goes back to a period preceding creation of the physical universe and the “falling off” of 288 “sparks” from the Shechinah into the world of the קליפות, regions polluted by impurity, i.e. our physical universe.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Mareh Yechezkel on Torah
Novel Understandings of Aggadah for Weddings or a Channukat HaBayit
“Male and female He created them; […] and He called them, Man (Adam)” (Genesis 5:2): We must understand the matter of being called a name – of her first also being called Adam, but afterwards He called her “woman (eeshah), for from man (eesh), was she taken” (Genesis 2:23); and afterwards [Adam] called her, Chava (Genesis 3:20). [This can be understood] according to that which is written (Deuteronomy 22:8), “When you build a new house, you shall make a parapet for your roof, etc.” For it must be understood why He mentioned specifically a new house, since this law applies even to an old house and in any situation in which one needs to remove a hazard from his home. And [we must] also [understand] that which is written, “if the faller should fall from it” – as Rashi had to stretch. And it appears to me [that it can be explained] according to that which was written in Noam Meggadim on the verse, “Wealth and riches are in his house [and his charity will last forever]” (Psalms 112:3), and by way of further explanation according to that which is written (Avot 4:1), “Who is wealthy? One who is happy with his portion.” I mean to say that the way of most people is to become sad about expenses and happy about that which remains to them. But it is just the opposite! For what remains to him is not his, as it was written about Moonbaz (Bava Batra 11a), “My ancestors stored up [money] in a place where the hand can reach (such that it is not assured).” But [as opposed to them,] he was happy with what he spent on charity and for good deeds, as this is truly one’s portion. And this is the meaning of that which is written, “Wealth and riches are in his house” – meaning to say, and he cannot be certain that there are his – however the charity that he has done is what will last him forever.
“Male and female He created them; […] and He called them, Man (Adam)” (Genesis 5:2): We must understand the matter of being called a name – of her first also being called Adam, but afterwards He called her “woman (eeshah), for from man (eesh), was she taken” (Genesis 2:23); and afterwards [Adam] called her, Chava (Genesis 3:20). [This can be understood] according to that which is written (Deuteronomy 22:8), “When you build a new house, you shall make a parapet for your roof, etc.” For it must be understood why He mentioned specifically a new house, since this law applies even to an old house and in any situation in which one needs to remove a hazard from his home. And [we must] also [understand] that which is written, “if the faller should fall from it” – as Rashi had to stretch. And it appears to me [that it can be explained] according to that which was written in Noam Meggadim on the verse, “Wealth and riches are in his house [and his charity will last forever]” (Psalms 112:3), and by way of further explanation according to that which is written (Avot 4:1), “Who is wealthy? One who is happy with his portion.” I mean to say that the way of most people is to become sad about expenses and happy about that which remains to them. But it is just the opposite! For what remains to him is not his, as it was written about Moonbaz (Bava Batra 11a), “My ancestors stored up [money] in a place where the hand can reach (such that it is not assured).” But [as opposed to them,] he was happy with what he spent on charity and for good deeds, as this is truly one’s portion. And this is the meaning of that which is written, “Wealth and riches are in his house” – meaning to say, and he cannot be certain that there are his – however the charity that he has done is what will last him forever.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy