THE FIRST WORD – THE FIRST PROBLEM
Are the translators right to say that "B’reshit bara Elokim" means "In the beginning God created"?
Possibly not, though despite the translation it is axiomatic to the believer that history did begin with God’s act of Creation. The problem is that "reshit" does not mean "the beginning" but "the beginning of" (compare Gen. 10:10), which is supported by the vocalisation with a "sh’va", which denotes "in (or at) the beginning of…". If it really meant what the translators say, it would not have had the vowel "sh’va" but different vowels.
The way it stands it might be a similar form to what we find in Gen. 5:1, "B’yom b’ro Elokim" – "on the day of God’s (act of) creation", and so Rashi and Ibn Ezra render our verse, "At the beginning of God’s (act of) creation".
Others, like Saadya Ga’on, think it is an independent statement and the first word is to be read as if it had the vowel "kamatz". Hence we are being told, "First of all, God created…". Ramban and Sforno note that the verb "b-r-a", "created", is used in a more precise sense than the vague word "made". It indicates bringing something into being out of nothing – "Creatio Ex Nihilo". This is the way God works. Man, by contrast, cannot create out of nothing, but needs raw material of some kind onto which to impose shape, form and potential function.
It is no contradiction to see the Midrash telling us that God created earlier worlds and discarded them (Gen. R. 9:2). It is not only that this is the world in which we are interested, but God as Creator has the logical right to create whatever He wishes whenever He wishes it.
Were the earlier worlds "heavens and earth" like ours? What does the text say in relation to our world? "In the beginning (if that is the translation you want to use), God created the heavens and the earth (i.e. our world)."
THE EVIL INCLINATION
The human being whose creation is described in this sidra is not a perfect paragon. Just as he can do good, so can he do evil. He has an evil inclination (a "yetzer ha-ra") just as he has a good inclination (a "yetzer ha-tov").
Would he have been better off to have been created as an angel? The sages say no. The evil inclination is actually regarded as good for him and it can be used to serve God (Deut. 6:5, Rashi’s commentary, and Mishnah B’rachot 9:5).
One way of understanding this statement is that in bringing the evil inclination under control, a person is serving the Creator. On the Mishnah in B’rachot, the M’lechet Shlomo says that conquering the evil inclination is a means of service of God. As an example, the evil inclination is a source of cruelty, and by being compassionate instead of cruel, one is defeating this inclination and serving the purposes of the Almighty.
Another view is that it is because of this inclination that one is moved by the drive for sexual gratification (which is one reason for marriage), building a house and pursuing an occupation, so the stimulus of the "yetzer ha-ra" leads one to actions that enhance the world (Gen. R. 9:7).
THE PAUSE MAKES ALL THE DIFFERENCE
It is clear that there is a system in the process of the creation of the world.
Day by day things take shape, step by step the work moves towards completion. God the great Architect checks each stage and declares Himself satisfied. The story is magnificent and majestic. But it is not without its problems.
For example, why does the system change once the sixth day is over?
Everything up to that point is material and physical – land and seas, sun, moon and stars, flora and fauna, man himself – but creation now becomes non-physical with the seventh day Sabbath.
The clue comes in the word "la’asot", “to function”; the physical world is created “to function”, but subject to a condition: everything must have time out. The earth has to rest – hence the sabbatical year. The animals have to rest – hence they must rest when we do.
Above all man, as the only part of creation with a consciousness of time and purpose, must rest. This is why Shabbat was created. Yet Sabbath rest is not just physical; the day is not merely for sleep and inactivity but for spiritual and cultural refreshment.
A famous pianist was asked, “What is the secret of your playing?” His answer? “The magic is not in the notes, but in the pauses between them!”
Shabbat is the pause that makes the difference.
EVE’S PUNISHMENT
Q. Why was Eve punished so harshly?
A. Much of life is unfair. Some might even say this begins to be true right at the beginning of the Bible.
True, God did command Adam and Eve not to eat the fruit of the tree, and He spelled out the punishment if they transgressed – death. Yet the first couple were new and inexperienced, and the fact that they gave way to temptation could have been treated leniently. In a sense this is in fact what happened, because instead of suffering death a different punishment was meted out.
Eve’s punishment is especially interesting. “In pain shall you bear children”, she was told (Gen. 3:16). This is not death, though tragically death can occur in childbirth, but it still seems harsh that the most creative moment open to a woman should be a moment of pain.
SM Lehrman comments, “Had Eve yielded on account of the desire to be omniscient, her punishment would not have been so severe. For the sake of wisdom, much is forgiven. What, however, really attracted Eve to break God’s first command was the plain, unvarnished fact that the tree was good for food and a delight to the eyes. Like many others who have sinned since, the chief cause is physical desire and sensuous motive… How commensurate with her crime was Eve’s punishment. In pain shall her children be born. The aftermath of mere physical, sensuous pleasure, was pain…”
Is Lehrman implying that because marital relations are sensual, there has to be a punishment? And if so, why single out the woman? There may have been views of this kind in earlier generations, and maybe Jewish views too. But is this normative Judaism?
A better answer is suggested by a comparison with Adam’s punishment: “With the sweat of your brow shall you eat bread” (Gen. 3:19). Childbirth is no more sinful than working for a living. The fact is though that neither God nor the heavenly beings reproduce or work. Adam and Eve have to know that being human brings its great joys and rewards, but they do not come easily.
Had they not sinned they might have found their earthly tasks less strenuous. But they gave in to human weakness, and they had to be reminded at the most critical moments of life that humanness brings its responsibilities.
AS OLD AS ADAM
Q. Why do we need the Seven Laws of the Sons of Noah when we already have the Ten Commandments?
A. The Seven Noachide Laws came first. Rabbinic discussion even includes the view that six of the seven were given to Adam in the first instance, making this a universal code meant from the moment of Creation for all mankind (Gen. R. 16:6, 24:5).
A great deal of attention is given to whether there are differences in applicability between Jews and gentiles. One opinion is that ancient pre-Sinaitic commandments which are not repeated at Mount Sinai apply only to Jews. Some post-Sinai commandments also devolve only upon Jews, such as, for example, laws that arose out of Israelite history (such as eating matzah on Pesach and blowing the shofar on Rosh HaShanah) which are not obligatory on gentiles.
It should be noted that the Sinai versions of laws which are repeated in the Revelation are generally much more extensive than the Noachide versions.
LIFE OF THE SPIRIT
Q. What does the Bible mean when it says, “The spirit of God hovered over the surface of the waters” (Gen. 1:2)?
A. Some non-Jewish scholars think that "ru’ach" is Spirit, with a capital S. They believe the text is saying that through the working of the Divine Spirit the emptiness of the world gave way to an ordered creation (e.g. Anthony Phillips, Lower than the Angels: Questions Raised by Genesis 1-11, 1983).
Jewish commentators tend to translate "ru’ach" literally as wind. Ibn Ezra says that by means of the wind, God made the waters dry up and the land appear.
Rashi takes "ru’ach" to mean breath. He says the Throne of Glory was suspended above the waters, held there by the breath of God. This does not indicate that God really has breath; He has no physical characteristics. The word “breath” is metaphorical.