창세기 2:23의 유대 사상

Since we have proof from all parts of the Bible that it is the nature of man to follow "woman" whose ways are crooked and perverted, how can man escape that trap? He has after all two "women" to contend with. One is the "woman" that accompanies him from birth, concerning which the Torah has stated "male and female He created them" (Genesis 1,27), as well as "this one shall be called ‘woman’" (Genesis 2,23). See the parable which explains all this a little further on. The second woman is the one he acquires from the outside, the world at large, through marriage. These two kinds of matings have been discussed briefly in Chapter eight. Since the male is inclined to seek physical comforts and enjoyment, he is apt to follow the demands made upon him by these two women, to do their bidding, since they are the ones who provide him with these comforts. Since the first woman already turned out to be a trap for man, the situation becomes aggravated when he freely chooses another woman, i.e. a wife. A look at the life story of Samson illustrates how someone who starts out pure, a heroic figure at that, can become ensnared by women until he cannot escape their clutches (Judges Chapter 14). Even the wisest of men, Solomon, was led astray by women (Kings I 11,4), "His wives turned his heart aside." Or, consider Achav the king of Israel, who was led astray by his wife Izzebel (Kings I 16,31). Solomon, in Kohelet 7,26, states, "I have found something worse than death-- woman." It is clear from all this that in order to escape the enticements represented by "woman," one requires tremendous assistance. If man's attaining his perfection depends on the quality of the two women in his life, and both their characters would be determined in heaven, like the first one that accompanies him from birth, and who was not subject to his free choice, then everything in his life (including his character) would depend on mazzal, i.e. the horoscopic constellations plus environmental factors prevailing when he is born, (compare Aristotle Ethics Chapter 10, Essay 3) This also appears to coincide with the statement in Sotah 2 that forty days before the fetus assumes final form, a heavenly voice proclaims who would be this fetus's life partner in the future. From all the above it seems impossible to escape the conclusion that our path in life is predetermined by forces beyond our control. We also find our sages saying that birth under certain signs of the zodiac influences a person's character traits. In Shabbat 156, we are told that Israel is subject to mazzal, i.e. environmental and hereditary factors. Also, Rabbi Chaninah states that such factors contribute to whether a person will be rich or poor. On the other hand, we have Rava in Moed Katan 28 stating that whereas mazzal determines a person's economic status etc., it does not affect his personal merits. These discussions in the Talmud are not merely of a hypothetical nature, but examples from real life are cited of scholars experiencing totally different experiences in their lives though their merits were deemed similar. The life story of two outstanding scholars are meant to illustrate the point made by Rava. Rabbah, pious to the point where a prayer offered by him for rain would be answered immediately, died at the age of forty, had buried sixty next of kin during his short life, and had hardly enough money to live on bread made of barley flour. His contemporary Rav Chisdah, on the other hand, married off sixty next of kin, lived to be ninety years old and was so wealthy that even his dogs enjoyed luxuries. This example is cited in support of the claim that mazzal is of overriding influence in matters of one's success in life on this planet. These quotes all represent difficult questions vis a vis our belief in personal providence, hashgachah peratit, as opposed to mazzal, when it comes to the fate of Jews both nationally and individually. Our opening Midrash moreover seems self contradictory. If G-d decrees concerning wealth as well as concerning physical prowess of a person, all of which are necessary for a person to function at their optimal ability, how can such people attain their potential if they are handicapped from birth? We have a tradition that a person cannot attain the status of prophecy unless he is endowed with certain physical and material attributes. If these factors are subject to the caprice of mazzal, how can a person be blamed for not attaining that moral level? The fact that righteousness and wickedness respectively are not predetermined by the angel Laylah becomes relatively meaningless, since the attributes which help man to become righteous may be denied him by the very same angel. The Mishnah in Avot 2,6 states that an uncivilized person, bor, cannot be G-d fearing. So what chance do people who are genetically underequipped at birth have to reach ideals set for man, and to share in the reward in store for achieving such ideals? G-d then would have decreed the outcome by default, by denying the attributes that help man achieve his shleymut, perfection! Where is the concept of freedom of will and choice, then, and what sense would reward and punishment make if all our deeds are more or less preconditioned? The answer is, of course, that both physical and mental equipment which man receives prior to birth provides him with tendencies to act in a certain way. His will is not involved in any way. He remains free to follow these tendencies or fight them using his intellect, willpower, and heart. Isaiah 66,3 states clearly that responsibility for the sinners' actions is their own because "they chose their respective paths."

The Torah states that man became a human being after G'd had imbued him with nishmat chayim, which Onkelos renders as "a talking spirit." Clearly, he refers to the internal spirit, the thought process leading to speech. Kohelet 1,16, "I spoke with my heart," reflects the same idea. Speech is a mechanical process, merely reflecting and relaying the thought process that has preceded it. Adam had already possessed the power to reason. What G'd had added was the means to communicate his thoughts. Scripture provides ample proof for this interpretation. When G'd said to Moses "who gave man a mouth, or who made him dumb, deaf, seeing or blind?" (Exodus 4,11), it is clear that the power to express thoughts is part of the definition of being a human being. A deaf/mute is not obligated to keep the commandments of the Torah since he is not able to communicate his thoughts or have thoughts communicated to him. He is an incomplete human being.

One of these utterances is this: “Adam and Eve were at first created as one being, having their backs united: they were then separated, and one half was removed and brought before Adam as Eve.” The term mi-ẓal‘otav (lit. “of his ribs”) signifies “of his sides.” The meaning of the word is proved by referring to ẓel‘a, “the side” of the tabernacle (Exod. 26:20), which Onkelos renders setar (“side”), and so also mi-ẓal‘otav is rendered by him “mi-sitrohi” (of his sides). Note also how clearly it has been stated that Adam and Eve were two in some respects, and yet they remained one, according to the words, “Bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh” (Gen. 2:23). The unity of the two is proved by the fact that both have the same name, for she is called ishshah (woman), because she was taken out of ish (man), also by the words, “And shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh” (ii. 24). How great is the ignorance of those who do not see that all this necessarily includes some [other] idea [besides the literal meaning of the words]. This is now clear.