Musar zu Bereschit 9:30

His table and his bed shall be clean and all things that pertain to him shall be clean. His own body or person shall be clean not loathesome and he should be careful to wash his face, hands and feet and all his body at frequent times. As we find that "When Hillel the elder took leave of his disciples they said to him, 'Whither you go?' And he said to them, 'To fulfill a precept!' Then they asked him. 'Which precept is Hillel about to fulfill?' He said to them, 'To bathe in the bathhouse.' They asked, 'Is this a precept?' He said to them, 'Yes! If you consider that the statues of kings which are set up in theatres and circuses are scrubbed and cleaned by the one delegated to this task, and this man receives sustenance for this and is among the honored men of the kingdom, should we who are created in the image of God (Gen. 9:6) have less regard for our bodies?' " (Leviticus Rabbah 34:3).

We now need to explain why both the blessing and the commandment to be fruitful and multiply had to be recorded twice, both to Adam and to Noach. I will endeavour to explain this as best as I can, and in the process I hope to deal with several puzzling aspects of the deluge, the rainbow and the building of the Tower. I also hope to clarify what is meant by the statement that failure to procreate diminishes G–d's image in the world. I will explain the apparent inaccuracy of Rabbi Yaakov in Yevamot 63 when he speaks about diminishing G–d's דמות, whereas the verse cited in support of his observation mentions צלם, not דמות. The fact is that the Torah's report when describing man's creation mentions both צלם, and דמות.

If one understands the deeper meaning of this commandment, one also gains an insight into the mysteries of Creation. We find a statement by Rabbi Eliezer in Yevamot 63 that anyone who neglects to fulfill the commandment to be fruitful is considered as having the sin of spilling innocent blood on his hands, the reason being that the Torah says in Genesis 9,6: "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed." Since the Torah goes on to say : "Be fertile, increase, etc.," it is clear that failure to do so is considered a mortal sin. Rabbi Yaakov says: "Failure to try and have issue is a way of diminishing G–d's image in this world, since the Torah (still in verse 6 of this chapter) adds: 'For in His image did G–d make man.' Immediately afterwards follows the commandment to be fruitful." The Rabbis taught in Yevamot 64 that Numbers 10,36 ובנחה יאמר: שובה ה' רבבות אלפי ישראל, "When the ark came to rest, Moses would say 'return O Lord, You who are Israel's myriads of thousands,'" teaches that G–d's Presence is not found when Israel numbers fewer than 22000 souls." If Israel would number 21999 at any time and one of those Israelites failed to perform the מצוה of פרו ורבו, that person would be responsible for preventing the whole people from enjoying the Presence of the שכינה in their midst. We have now had three separate statements on the seriousness of failing to comply with the commandment to be fruitful. A) Failure to try and reproduce is equivalent to committing bloodshed; B) Failure to try and produce issue diminishes G–d's image in the world; C) Failure to fulfil this injunction prevents Israel from enjoying the Divine Presence in its midst. Prior to the statement quoted in the name of Rabbi Eliezer, the same Rabbi Eliezer is on record saying that a person who fails to marry is not an אדם, seeing that the Torah says of man (אדם) that "G–d created him male and female. He called their name Adam." (Genesis 5,2). You should appreciate that the statement of Rabbi Eliezer is to be understood as a general rule, whereas the subsequent statements are פרטים details, i.e. applications of the כלל. We must first understand Rabbi Eliezer.

The commandment to be fruitful and multiply that we find in Genesis 9,7, is a repetition of the same commandment already recorded in פרשת בראשית in 1,28: "G–d said to them: "Be fruitful and multiply, etc". We have devoted considerable space to discussing that commandment in connection with the discussion in the Talmud Yevamot that failure to comply with this commandment is very serious. This commandment is obligatory for males only. Rabbi Yochanan ben Broka notes that in both instances this commandment is introduced in the Torah as a blessing, i.e. "G–d blessed them and said to them…" From this he concludes that the commandment applies equally to both men and women. The author of the Mishnah in Yevamot 65 bases his statement that only males are obligated to procreate on the fact that only males are in the habit of "conquering," and that the Torah connects the commandment with the directive to "conquer or subdue" the earth (Genesis 1,28). At any rate, both these rabbis understand the words פרו ורבו, "be fruitful and multiply," as a command. Bar Kappara in Ketuvot 5 says that the reason a widow should be married on Thursday evening is that when cohabitation takes place this will be on Friday, the day that G–d blessed mankind with the blessing to be fruitful.

“You must not destroy its trees, wielding the ax against them” (Deuteronomy 20:19). For we were warned with this not to cut down any fruit tree - even to build fortifications with it, so long as one finds enough fruitless trees for his needs. And we were also warned with this not to throw money around for no reason - even the value of a perutah (a small coin). And our Rabbis said (Bava Kamma 91b), “One who rends his garments excessively over his dead [relative] is lashed.” And all the more so, one who breaks vessels in his anger, as he has done two evils - destroying his wealth; and letting his anger be in control, to make him transgress matters of the Torah. As from now on, he will have a struggle with the impulse of anger, to make him transgress his religion - like the matter that is written (Proverbs 29:22), “a hot-tempered man commits many offenses.” And we have already let you know that which our Rabbis, may their memory be blessed, said (Shabbat 105b), “One who breaks his vessels in his anger [...] should be like an idol worshiper in your eyes, as that is the way of the evil impulse. Today it tells him, ‘Do this,’ and tomorrow it tells him, ‘[...] worship idols.’” And our Rabbis, may their memory be blessed, said (Yevamot 44a), “A man should not pour out water from his well when others need it.” We were even warned not to waste the body, by giving it over to dangers or torturing the body to consume it needlessly with fasts from his distress and anger, and not to mourn [more than is necessary] for his dead [relative]. But [regarding] one who grieves and mourns over his iniquities - about him is it stated (Isaiah 57:18), “I note how they fare and will heal them; I will guide them and mete out solace to them, and to the mourners among them.” And it is stated (Genesis 9:5) “But for your souls’ blood, I will require a reckoning.” And our Rabbis, may their memory be blessed, said (Bava Kamma 91b), “From the hand of your souls (i.e., from yourself), will I require your blood.”

Adam ruined this state of affairs by interfering with the סוד היין, the mystical properties of the grapes. [I suppose that this is based on the tree of knowledge having been a grape bearing tree. Ed.] He followed an evil path by squeezing a cluster of grapes (and consuming its juice). Had he not done so, that "wine" would have remained in the state of what our sages call the יין המשומר בענביו, "the wine that remained preserved within its grapes (compare Berachot 34).” In that event he would have been like "the cistern that does not lose a single drop” [hyperbole for total recall, see Avot 2,11. Ed.]. He would have retained all the holiness that had been his when he was created. When Adam sinned, he did not only lose some of his former glory, fall from a "high roof" (to the ground), but he fell into a "very deep pit" (below the ground). This was a בור רק, an empty pit [allusion to the pit Joseph had been thrown in. Genesis 37,24], since it did not even contain the ingredients for the survival of the species. The species was wiped out at the time of the deluge as a direct consequence of Adam having polluted that "drop of sacred semen," and made it "evil smelling." Due to G–d's personal intervention, Noach was saved seeing he was righteous, and the righteous are the foundation of the universe. The present universe was founded by him as a result.

Adam ruined this state of affairs by interfering with the סוד היין, the mystical properties of the grapes. [I suppose that this is based on the tree of knowledge having been a grape bearing tree. Ed.] He followed an evil path by squeezing a cluster of grapes (and consuming its juice). Had he not done so, that "wine" would have remained in the state of what our sages call the יין המשומר בענביו, "the wine that remained preserved within its grapes (compare Berachot 34).” In that event he would have been like "the cistern that does not lose a single drop” [hyperbole for total recall, see Avot 2,11. Ed.]. He would have retained all the holiness that had been his when he was created. When Adam sinned, he did not only lose some of his former glory, fall from a "high roof" (to the ground), but he fell into a "very deep pit" (below the ground). This was a בור רק, an empty pit [allusion to the pit Joseph had been thrown in. Genesis 37,24], since it did not even contain the ingredients for the survival of the species. The species was wiped out at the time of the deluge as a direct consequence of Adam having polluted that "drop of sacred semen," and made it "evil smelling." Due to G–d's personal intervention, Noach was saved seeing he was righteous, and the righteous are the foundation of the universe. The present universe was founded by him as a result.

A man should love his friends and all those near to him as well as the rest of Israel with a complete love to fulfill what is said: "And you shall love your neighbor as yourself" (Lev. 19:18). And this is a great general rule in the Torah: "That which is hateful to you do not do to your neighbor" (Shabbath 31a). And even more pertinent is the verse: "For in the image of God made He man" (Gen. 9:6). (This is commented upon in T.P. Nedarim 9:4.)

We have discussed elsewhere that the צדיק is linked to the emanation יסוד, and that this emanation is linked to מלכות through the covenant of circumcision. Noach's position in the world was demonstrated by the fact that he was born circumcised, i.e. without foreskin, according to Avot de Rabbi Nathan 2,8. Our sages say that "he guarded the covenant," and that though he did not succeed in reversing the decline of mankind to the extent of restoring man's stature to what it had been prior to Adam's sin, i.e. to have man clothed in garments of light so that individual immortality would be restored, at least he succeeded in restoring the immortality of the species. The reason that Noach did not succeed beyond this is that he drank afterwards from the vineyard he had planted, something not unlike Adam who had squeezed the juice from the grapes of the tree of knowledge. Actually, when he planted the vineyard (the tree that G–d Himself had planted in גן עדן), Noach had intended to repair the damage done by Adam, but he sinned by indulging in too much wine. Proverbs 25,27: "It is not good to eat too much honey” alludes to that incident^{Author's comment}The author mentions in an annotation that Pardes Rimonim describes the whole subject matter of the vineyard, wine, etc as something that can either be a fountain of spirituality or a source of debauchery, drunkenness. Although Noach strove to regain the יין המשומר, the reservoir of spirituality which Adam had lost by imbibing from what had been forbidden to him, Noach debased himself when he planted that vineyard; the fruit of its wine did not become his כוס ישועות, cup of salvations, but turned out to be the גפן סדום, the vineyard of Sodom, and its grapes turned out to be ענבי רוש and אשכלות מררת למו, "the grapes for them are poison, a bitter growth their clusters" (Deut. 32,32). In short, Noach had drunk the wrong kind of wine..

Having demonstrated that all our sources understand the meaning of the words פרו ורבו to be a commandment, we need to explain why Rashi (9,7) says: לפי פשוטו הראשונה לברכה, וכאן לצווי, "according to the plain meaning, the first time this expression is used it is a blessing, whereas in this instance it is a commandment." Rashi adds that the homiletical meaning to be derived from the verse is that anyone who does not practise the commandment to procreate is compared to someone who sheds blood. It appears from Rashi's words that he disagrees with the teachers of the Mishnah, all of whom had understood the words פרו ורבו each time to convey a commandment. If so, Rashi would find himself contradicting the Talmud in Sanhedrin 59 which we quoted earlier.

[What had happened to Noach was similar to what happened to the colleague of Rabbi Akiva who investigated the mysteries of the link between G–d and man only to emerge with his mind deranged (Chagigah 14). One must not overestimate one's spiritual capacity, just as one must not underestimate it. Ed.]. In spite of all this, G–d swore not to cause the extinction of the human race again, as had occurred during the deluge. When G–d promised this, He alluded to His previous statement of קץ כל בשר, in Genesis 6,13; this suggests that the present condition of immortality of the species only will continue during the length of mankind's natural history. Only after the arrival of the Messiah will there be a change, and when "G–d will rejoice in His handiwork again" (Psalms 104,31), the state of the universe will revert to what it had been at the time Adam was created. We will return to this later. The "descendants" which are the true descendants G–d had wished to see will not occur till the Messiah; this is indicated in Ruth 4,12 ואלה תולדות פרץ, where we find the word תולדות, descendants, spelled with two letters ו, to indicate that such descendants will correspond to all that G–d has hoped for from mankind. Peretz, of course, is another name for the Messiah.

The author quotes Rabbi Eliyahu Mizrachi, who addresses himself to that difficulty in his commentary on Rashi and opines that both in Genesis 1,28 and 9,1 the Torah expresses a blessing which subsequently is followed by the words פרו ורבו as a commandment. The latter statement is to be understood as an elaboration of the blessing. The actual commandment however is derived only from Genesis 9,7: ואתם פרו ורבו. This sentence does not contain a blessing and is in agreement with the statement in Sanhedrin 59.

According to this, the homiletical meaning Rashi speaks about, namely the comparison of someone who fails to carry out that commandment to a murderer as stated by Rabbi Eliezer in Yevamot 63, is based on the verse immediately prior to that in which the Torah proclaims: שופך דם האדם באדם דמו ישפך, "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed." He apparently holds that only males are commanded to fulfil this commandment, and disagrees with Rabbi Yochanan ben Broka. The latter holds that the line "He blessed them," applied to both man and woman. The reason that the other scholar disagrees is that he holds that just as only males are in the habit of conquering, a condition in Genesis 1,28, so only males have to fulfil the condition of being fruitful. Clearly then he must hold that the words "He said to them, etc." must be understood as a commandment. The same reasoning applies to the first time the words פרו ורבו appear in Genesis 9,1. Rabbi Yochanan would then be in disagreement with Bar Kappara and the Talmud Sanhedrin 59, who both hold that the commandment is only found in Genesis 9,7, i.e. ואתם פרו ורבו. Nonetheless he interprets these verses homiletically on the basis of Rabbi Eliezer who believes that a homiletical explanation based on matters which appear side by side in the Torah is almost a commandment in itself [words are mine. Ed.]. Rabbi Eliezer bases his approach to exegesis on Psalms 111,8: סמוכים לעד לעולם, that words next to one another always, i.e. under all conditions, have an exegetical significance. Rabbi Eliezer applies that principle even when the verses in question are not "free" for homiletics but have already been explained as necessary in a different context.

According to this, the homiletical meaning Rashi speaks about, namely the comparison of someone who fails to carry out that commandment to a murderer as stated by Rabbi Eliezer in Yevamot 63, is based on the verse immediately prior to that in which the Torah proclaims: שופך דם האדם באדם דמו ישפך, "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed." He apparently holds that only males are commanded to fulfil this commandment, and disagrees with Rabbi Yochanan ben Broka. The latter holds that the line "He blessed them," applied to both man and woman. The reason that the other scholar disagrees is that he holds that just as only males are in the habit of conquering, a condition in Genesis 1,28, so only males have to fulfil the condition of being fruitful. Clearly then he must hold that the words "He said to them, etc." must be understood as a commandment. The same reasoning applies to the first time the words פרו ורבו appear in Genesis 9,1. Rabbi Yochanan would then be in disagreement with Bar Kappara and the Talmud Sanhedrin 59, who both hold that the commandment is only found in Genesis 9,7, i.e. ואתם פרו ורבו. Nonetheless he interprets these verses homiletically on the basis of Rabbi Eliezer who believes that a homiletical explanation based on matters which appear side by side in the Torah is almost a commandment in itself [words are mine. Ed.]. Rabbi Eliezer bases his approach to exegesis on Psalms 111,8: סמוכים לעד לעולם, that words next to one another always, i.e. under all conditions, have an exegetical significance. Rabbi Eliezer applies that principle even when the verses in question are not "free" for homiletics but have already been explained as necessary in a different context.

And there is yet another confusing joy that casts smoke over all the Commandments and causes reverence for the Lord, may He be Blessed, to be forgotten from the hearts of men, for instance — those who get themselves drunk and rejoice in the banquet houses. And after this type of joy comes sorrow, for much hurt comes from drinking feasts. And who in wisdom was as wise as Solomon, the son of David, who said: "Who cries 'Woe!' Who cries 'Alas!' Who has quarrels? Who has ravings? Who has wounds without cause? Who has red eyes? They that tarry long at the wine; they that constantly try mixed drinks" (Ibid. 23:29, 30). Also the prophet said: 'Woe unto them that rise early in the morning that they may pursue strong drink. They tarry late into the night till the wine inflames them" (Is. 5:11). And he said further: "And the harp and the psaltery, the tabret and the pipe and wine are in their feasts, but the work of the Lord they do not regard and the work of His hands they have not seen" (Ibid. : 12). And he said : "Therefore, my people are gone into captivity for want of knowledge, and their honorable men are famished and their multitude are parched with thirst" (Ibid.: 13). And he said : "Therefore, has the netherworld enlarged her desire, and opened her mouth without measure and down go their glory and their tumult and their uproar and he that rejoices, among them" (Ibid. : 14). And he said: "But these also reel through wine and stagger through strong drink, the priest and the prophet reel through strong drink; they are confused because of wine, they stagger because of strong drink, they reel in vision; they totter in judgment" (Ibid. 28:7). See how much harm comes from the wine! And it is written : "Wine is a mocker, strong drink is riotous and whoever reels thereby is not wise" (Prov. 20:1).

Our author finds the reasoning of Rabbi Eliyahu Mizrachi very forced, and he feels that all the statements of the sages in the Talmud are totally acceptable and do not contain any internal contradictions. Before elaborating further we must be clear that the verse in Genesis 1,28 represents both a blessing and a commandment. The proof is simply the insertion of the words "G–d said to them." Why would the name of G–d appear twice in the same verse otherwise? Genesis 9,1, in which the name of G–d is not mentioned twice as a subject, is however capable of being interpreted in either direction.

Bereshit Rabbah 24,6 comments on Genesis 5,1 זה ספר תולדת אדם, "This is the book of the descendants of man," that those mentioned now are descendants, whereas the previous ones were not descendants. What then were the earlier ones? Were they deities perhaps? [sarcastically] The answer given is that the generations אדם-שת-אנוש were indeed תולדות. [The Midrash goes on to elaborate on all the changes that took place on earth during Enosh's lifetime, indicating a radical decline in man's spirituality. Ed]

(Bereshith 9:22): "And he [Cham] told his two brother outside": The Torah hereby tells us his sin, that aside from not covering him [Noach] himself, he also told of it outside; that is, in the market, as Onkelos says, paying no heed to his [Noach's] state, not to shame him before people — wherefore he [Noach] cursed him.

Rabbi Eliezer, who upholds the principle of סמוכים under all conditions, reads this verse as a blessing only, whereas he interprets verse 7 in the same chapter as both a commandment and a warning about the seriousness of failing to heed that commandment basing himself on the preceding verse. Rabbi Yehudah, however, sees a command in both 9,1 and 1,28; the fact that in one of these verses the words "G–d said to them" does not appear twice does not concern him, since the fact remains that both times the verse adds the words "He said to them." It follows that the words ואתם פרו ורבו ושרצו in 9,7 are totally superfluous and thus available for a conceptual comparison i.e. הקיש, with the preceding verse.

(Ibid. 5): "And Joseph dreamed a dream… (8) …Will you reign over us?": Scripture expatiates upon the dreams to rationalize somewhat the extreme hatred of the brothers to Joseph to the point of wanting to remove him from the world: They assumed that he desired to reign over them, for which reason he had brought "evil report" of them to their father, so that he should remove them from his presence [as Rashi explains (Ibid.): "for his dreams and for his words" — "for the evil report that he had brought to their father." And the robe that his father made him served as "supporting evidence" that he had accepted his report], and that perhaps, G-d forbid, he would agree with Joseph, so that he [Joseph] would be a "master" over them, as in Isaac's blessing to Jacob (Ibid. 27:29): "Be a master to you brothers, and your mother's sons will bow down to you." Or, [they thought,] G-d forbid, that he [Jacob] would banish them altogether, as Noach said (Ibid. 9:25): "Cursed is Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be to his brothers." Therefore, they took counsel on how to rid themselves of him.

The Zohar, Parshat Lech Lecha item 400 (Sullam edition), commenting on the verse in Psalms 27,3 בזאת אני בוטח, says that the word בזאת refers to the sign of the covenant concluded between G–d and Abraham at the circumcision. This is an ever present sign, since it is part of man's body. It is compared to the emanation מלכות This is what is meant by זאת אות הברית or זאת בריתי, "this is the sign of My covenant, or this is My covenant." We have learned that the expression זה refers to the emanation יסוד, whereas the expression זאת, refers to the emanation מלכות. Since the two always appear linked together, this means that זה and זאת are of the same rank. Because there was a time when David did not observe the requirements of that זאת implied in מלכות, this very מלכות was denied him during the flight from Absalom. At the time when David sinned with Bat Sheva a heavenly voice announced that he would be punished in a manner appropriate to his sin. Since he had transgressed against the spiritual ideal implied in זאת-מלכות, this very מלכות would be denied him. If a man of King David's caliber could become guilty of such a sin, how much more so is this possible for ordinary individuals?

The reason that in the Bible the Holy Land is referred to as the land of Canaan quite often even after the Jewish people took possession of it, is that Canaan was the first "slave" (Genesis 9,25). The word כנען also is derived from the word כנען, submission. The message to Israel in all this is that as long as they submit to the will of G–d the land remains theirs. When the people rejected their status as servants of G–d, they became slaves of the nations instead.

Anyone who is privileged to live in the Holy Land must constantly bear in mind that he is in the "land of Canaan;" this will remind him of the need for servitude and submission When Noach said of his grandson כנען that ארור כנען עבד עבדים יהיה לאחיו, "Canaan is cursed he will be the slave of slaves to his brothers," we must ask ourselves why Noach did not say ארור יהיה כנען "Canaan will be cursed etc. (Genesis 9,25). Although a simple explanation would be that Canaan had already been cursed, i.e. he was polluted by the original serpent to whom G–d had said "you are cursed," we prefer to believe that Noach had something else in mind. In the future the name Canaan would be associated with those who submit to the will of G–d. This particular "Canaan" is distinguished by not being G–d's עבד, servant, but by being עבד עבדים, a servant of others who are themselves only servants. The servants Noach had in mind are the Jewish people. Canaan is destined to become a slave of the Jewish people.

The Gentile slave obtains his release in the event any of 24 types of his limbs have been destroyed (Kidushin 24, Baba Kama 75). This is to remind us that man was created in the image of G–d (Genesis 1,27). Our sages explain that man's 248 limbs correspond to the number of the Torah's positive commandments. These in turn are symbolic of the 248 joints in the אדם העליון, man's spiritual counterpart in the Celestial Regions, who sits on the throne. This is why the first of the patriarchs, Abraham, was called אבר מה (the letters in his name being re-arranged). The מה, corresponds to the numerical value of the word אדם, which in turn is equivalent to the four lettered name of G–d spelled in letter form. =ה-א ,13=ו-א-ו ,6=ה-א ,20=י-ו-ד6, total=45. Abraham did not want to be associated through marriage with אליעזר, who is ארור, cursed, having been a descendant of כנען, who was cursed by Noach to remain a slave permanently (Genesis 9,25). It is not possible for ברוך and ארור, the blessed and the cursed, to be paired successfully. Abraham of course, was blessed, and so were his descendants (Genesis 12,2). Kabbalists perceive of ראשי אברים as referring to man at his moral best, i.e. אדם הפנימי, as well as a corresponding type of ראשי אברים, of the אדם החיצוני, man at his moral worst, i.e. man under the influence of Noach's curse. By destroying the ראש אבר of a Gentile slave, one releases that person from the influence of that curse. Therefore, he no longer needs to be a slave (as per Genesis 9,25). As a result, such a person can join the ranks of the free, the ones subject to G–d's blessing.

לא תגנובו, "Do not steal," alludes to Adam who was a thief. נטע רבעי, the legislation of sanctifying the fruit of a tree in its fourth year, alludes to Noach who was drunk on a Wednesday. When a stranger (convert to Judaism) takes up residence among you, etc.," is an allusion to the first convert, Abraham. The prohibition of offering one's children as a sacrifice to the Moloch (20,2) is not part of the general prohibition to worship idols, but concerns itself specifically with the worship of fire. There are two kinds of fire. There is the fire described by the prophet Ovadiah 1,18 in the words: והיה בית יעקב אש, "The house of Jacob will turn into fire." This is a sacred fire, because the Lord your G–d is also called "fire." Also the fire in the Temple (Deut. 4,24) was sacred fire. However, there is another kind of fire, the fire of Esau, the fire of purgatory, a destructive fire emanating from the קליפה. When discussing the Moloch, the Torah adds (20,3) למען טמא את מקדשי ולחלל את שם קדשי, "and he so defiled My Temple and profaned My holy Name." How does the Temple feature in this paragraph? What does a fire-offering to the Moloch have to do with the Temple? The Torah wishes to point out that though fire-offerings to the Moloch are an abomination, there are fire- offerings such as the ones brought by Jacob which reflect the highest level of sanctity. When the Torah writes: והתקדשתם והייתם קדושים, it is an instruction to sanctify את קדוש יעקב, the G–d considered as the personification of holiness by Jacob. This is merely another way of saying: קודש ישראל לה', or that His name is called ישראל, the concept known as ישראל סבא, the first manifestation of G–d when He commenced creating the universe as a יש מאין by means of the first נקודה, as we explained above.

Rebeccah concluded that there was no point in living a life that was measured by the yardstick of the undiluted מדת הדין, seeing that hardly anyone could survive if he were to be measured by that attribute alone. This is why she said: קצ-תי בחיי, i.e. what good is my life under such circumstances! (Genesis 27,46) Unless some relief is found for the rest of the world's population this is the end of meaningful life. She referred to the tribe of חת, a Canaanite tribe whose daughters Esau had married. Seeing that the Canaanites were cursed already and that Esau himself was an outgrowth of the סטרא אחרא, she considered the combination as lethal, bound to lead to the oblivion of their offspring. Because of such considerations, the name that should by rights have been קצחי was changed to יצחק, to introduce the element of joy into their lives. The immediate cause for this was Isaac giving tithes which resulted in G–d blessing his efforts, as related in 26,12. It is strange that when Malachi 3,10 describes the blessing that results from tithing, he uses the expression of ארובות השמים, "the windows of heaven." Since the Torah uses the same expression at the onset of the deluge in Genesis 7,11, we wonder why the prophet would use an expression to symbolize blessing when that same expression had symbolized a curse on mankind in its prior usage in the Bible.

Rabbi Berechyah means to tell us that from the moment Moses had become an איש, he was headed towards his ultimate achievement. His early youth foreshadowed his career. This is true in spite of the fact that at one point the Midrash Shemot Rabbah 45,5 comments that when Moses began to prophesy he was a relative child, i.e. immature in the ways of prophecy, since he had asked to be shown G–d's glory. Moses progressed constantly, until at the end of his life the Torah testifies that no one ever again attained his stature as a prophet and a man of G–d. The reason that he is described as איש, a title denoting that he was someone of stature already when he was a young man, is to indicate that sparks of G–dliness already came forth from him, such as when -as an act of jealousy on behalf of G–d- he killed the Egyptian who had tortured a Jew. He displayed his close attachment to G–d already at that time. Our sages expressed this thought when they said that Moses slew the Egyptian by uttering the Ineffable Name of G–d when cursing the Egyptian (Midrash Hagadol Exodus 2,20). We observe that even when engaged in an act at the beginning of his spiritual development, Moses is already described in a complimentary fashion, –

I have explained a Midrash in Bereshit Rabbah on Noach where Moses and Noach are contrasted. It says that Moses was more beloved than Noach, since the latter is first described as איש צדיק, a righteous man (Genesis 6,9), whereas later he is called איש האדמה, man of the earth (Genesis 9,20). Moses, on the other hand, is first called איש מצרי and later on he is called איש האלוקים.

This is why the Torah in 16,1 did not write בהקריבם, "when they brought close (their offering)" but בקרבתם לפני ה', when they came close to G–d. This "coming close" was of a spiritual, conceptual nature. Their death was an example of what the Psalmist meant when he said: "The death of His pious ones is something very precious to the Lord" (Psalms 116,15). Rabbi Abraham Saba, author of the Tzror Hamor, in his commentary on Genesis 13,5 already wrote that the experience of Nadav and Avihu paralleled the four sages – of whom Rabbi Akiva was one – who נכנסו לפרדס, entered the orchard, [euphemism for study of the mystical aspects of Torah. Ed]. The four were Rabbi Akiva, Ben Azzai, Ben Zoma and Elisha ben Avuyah (who emerged as an heretic). These four sages had already been preceded by Adam, Noach, Abraham and now the two sons of Aaron in their desire to probe the mysteries of the מעשה מרכבה. The word פרדס used in this story related in Chagigah 14 means a place in which grapes and pomegranates grow. Adam sinned regarding both the נגלה, revealed aspect of Torah legislation, as well as against the נסתר, hidden aspect of G–d's commandments. The Talmud describes him as קצץ בנטיעות, having mutilated the young saplings in the garden of religion, and having turned into an heretic. The same thing happened to his counterpart Elisha ben Avuyah. Noach too drank from the wine, became drunk, and as a result temporarily of unsound mind. Ben Zoma reportedly beheld something he was not spiritually prepared to understand and as a result suffered insanity.

“What is your craft?” (1:8). That is, “Recall how you performed your task in this world. How many lies and deceptions did you perpetrate in the practice of your profession and the pursuit of your livelihood? Make acknowledgment and do not be proud, for you can see that the day of your death is approaching. “And from where do you come?” (1:8). That is, “Cast aside your pride and arrogance and recall that you were formed from a putrid drop!” “Which is your land?” (1:8). That is, “Take note that you were created from the earth and that you will return to the earth.” “And of which people are you?” (1:8). That is, “Examine whether you have enough ancestral merit to protect you in your time of trouble.” These are the thoughts that the evil inclination awakens in a person’s heart as he lies upon his sickbed. (In light of this we can understand a passage in Midrash Rabbah, Bereishis 9:10. Commenting on the verse, “And indeed it was very good,” Bereishis 1:31, the Midrash first declares: “This refers to the evil inclination.” But afterwards the Midrash says: “This is the Angel of Death.” Perhaps what the Midrash is alluding to is that as death approaches even the evil inclination becomes good, arousing a person to repentance and confession.)

it is well known that Kabbalists have said that Korach was the re-incarnation (גלגול) of Cain. Cain had to undergo three גלגולים, one each for his נפש, his רוח, and his נשמה. They were the Egyptian whom Moses had slain; Yitro, Moses' father-in-law,as alluded to in Judges 4,17. In that verse Yael is described as the wife of Chever Hakeyni, the word "Hakeyni" being a reference to her being descended from Cain." He reappeared in the guise of Korach. Moses, on the other hand, was a re-incarnation of Abel whom Cain had killed. Moses took revenge on behalf of Abel on three separate occasions. 1) When he killed the Egytian who was the re-incarnation of Cain's נפש. This is hinted at in the wording ויך את המצרי. The numerical value of ויך, when you add one digit for the word itself, equals the numerical value of הבל, i.e. 37. The word המצרי, equals the numerical value of משה, i.e. 345. 2) Yitro deferred to Moses by giving him his daughter Tzipporah as a wife. She was the (גלגול) of the extra twin that had been born with Abel, on whose account Cain had slain Abel out of jealousy. When Korach now started a quarrel he simply reverted to the pattern in which his original ancestor Cain had acted. 3) Moses then killed him (i.e. caused his death), fulfilling the Torah's commandment that if someone has shed innocent blood, his own blood will be spilled by human hand (Genesis 9,6). We must understand that verse as telling us that the very person who had been slain, will in due course slay his murderer. This is why we find Moses, who was in reality the re-incarnation of Abel, slaying Korach who was the re-incarnation of Cain. The fact that Korach's death was due to the earth swallowing him was also an example of the punishment fitting the crime, since the same earth had been remiss when it opened to hide the evil deed that Cain had committed, and "covered" his blood (compare Genesis 4, 10/11). All this is explained by the Tziyoni.

We should remember that just as the "garment" of the body will be woven of light and will be prestigious, so the body itself will be the distinguished clothing of the soul. Israel experienced a glimpse of such a future while in the desert. This is why the Torah tells us in Deut. 8,4: שמלתך לא בלתה מעליך, “your clothing did not wear out, etc. during all these forty years. The first step in restoring man to the garments that he ought to be wearing were taken by two of Noach's sons when they covered their father by taking hold of the שמלה and covering him with it (Genesis 9,23).

By feeding all the animals in the ark for a full year, Noach himself had begun the process of repairing the damage done by Adam in the area of food. When Jacob prayed (Genesis 28,20) that G–d should give him "bread to eat and clothes to wear," he may well have referred to a world in which man would wear clothing made of light, and in which all the trees would bear fruit and their trunks would taste just as their fruit. Because Noach had commenced the process of repairing the damage to the production of food caused by Adam, he was given the right to improve his diet and that of mankind after him. He was allowed to include meat in his diet (Genesis 9,3). His son Shem, who had begun to repair the damage to the kind of clothing man was allowed to wear, merited that his descendants, Israel, when wearing ציציות on a four-cornered garment, could ignore the prohibition of mixing wool and linen. In other words, a linen garment may have ציציות made of wool. Ever since the dispute between Cain and Abel linen and wool symbolized their strife, hence the prohibition of mixing them. The people of Israel kept rising to higher spiritual levels until they qualified for food made in the heavens, i.e. the מן, Manna. The jewelry that the Jewish people wore from the time G–d revealed Himself until they forfeited it through participating in the sin of the golden calf, was symbolic of the כתנות אור Adam had worn before the sin (compare Exodus 33,5).

Adam squeezed out a cluster of grapes and became a heretic at that very moment, as our Rabbis have stated in Sanhedrin 38b. Our sages have expressed this as והיה נעשה אחר, "he turned into someone else." Noach planted a vineyard (Genesis 9,20) and when drunk became spiritually hurt, lost his sanity. Abraham planted an orchard and emerged unscathed. This is the mystical dimension of being the מרכבה, the carrier of the שכינה. The two sons of Aaron, Nadav and Avihu, also had a glimpse of these mysteries but they died in the process. The Talmud described the experiences of the four scholars as being identical with the four people who had tried to probe these mysteries before them. As far as the death of the two sons of Aaron is concerned, it occurred because they had penetrated so deeply into these mystical matters, i.e. they came so close to the purely spiritual dimensions of G–d that their bodies could not keep up the pace. It is significant that the Torah speaks about their coming close to G–d i.e. בקרבתם, not about בהקריבם, their bringing close, i.e. sacrificing something else (Leviticus 16,1). This means that their very death was their coming close to G–d. They had brought themselves to such closeness. They sanctified G–d by their very death because they had achieved an exceptionally high spiritual level. Moses explained this to his brother Aaron in 10,3: בקרובי אקדש ועל פני כל העם אכבד, "Through those near Me I will show Myself holy, and gain glory before all the people." G–d Himself testified to the stature of these two sons of Aaron and to the fact that He felt honoured by their attempt to draw close to Him. These two sons of Aaron rehabilitated their forebear Adam. We have a tradition going back to the Arizal that these two sons of Aaron were the re-incarnation of the soul, נפש, of Adam. These re-incarnations can occur on three levels, נפש, רוח, or נשמה respectively. Nadav and Avihu were re-incarnates of the נפש of Adam as is hinted at in Numbers 9,6: ויהי אנשים אשר היו טמאים לנפש אדם, "There were two men who were impure due to the soul of Adam." Rabbi Akiva believed that the men referred to were Mishael and Eltzafan who carried the bodies of Nadav and Avihu out of the Sanctuary. He appears to have understood the word נפש in our verse as referring to that of first man, Adam (Sukkah 25b). This is supported by Leviticus 10,5 in which Mishael and Eltzafan are described as וישאום בכתנותם, as having carried them in "their tunics," the latter word referring to the כתנות אור, the tunics made of light worn by Adam prior to his sin.