Rashi famously begins his commentary to Sefer Bereshis with the words of a medrash:
Rabbi Yitzchak said, “The Torah should have begun with Kiddush Ha-Chodesh (Sanctification of the New Month), which is the first mitzvah commanded to B’nei Yisroel (and is found in Sefer Shemos). Why did the Torah instead begin with Bereshis (Creation)? Due to the pasuk (verse - Tehillim 111:6) that states, ‘The strength of His actions did He relate to His people, to give them the inheritance of nations’, which justifies Hashem giving Eretz Yisroel to the Jewish People. For should the nations of the world accuse the Jews of being thieves by conquering and possessing the Canaanite lands, the Jews can reply that the entire world belongs to Ha-Kadosh Baruch Hu (the Holy One, blessed is He), Who created it gave it to whom He saw fit. He willingly gave it (Eretz Yisroel) to the nations of Canaan and willingly took it from them and gave it to us."
The obvious question is how will B’nei Yisroel invoking Bereshis as the basis of our right to Eretz Yisroel convince the nations that we are not thieves regarding the Land? The nations of the world do not accept the Torah and will surely reject our use of it as proof for our rights to the Eretz Yisroel. What is the medrash quoted by Rashi actually telling us?
I believe that there are two answers, which form a unified idea.
Although the nations of the world do not accept the Torah, at least not as their final authority, the Torah is the source of profound universal and eternal truths which people do indeed accept, at least on a subconscious level, despite their denial thereof. The unparalleled and unique primacy of man as the most advanced creature in the biosphere; people’s almost uncontrollable inclination to break rules and violate their dearest values in the face of carnal temptation, as well as for money, personal honor and control over others; deep-seated characteristics of the male and female personalities, and of human nature in general, especially pertaining to siblings and their rivalries; the role of the Jew in Golus (Exile) as accused and persecuted, thereby forced to scheme for his survival, as per the prototype of Yaakov Avinu in Lavan’s house - as well as paramount notions of an all-powerful Being and Force of Creation, of a higher morality, of the prohibitions of murder, theft, sexual deviance, and so much more - are universal concepts that the Torah introduces in Sefer Bereshis.
The world at large has accepted these ideas outright or at least subconsciously, and they have become the bedrock of human existence.
Among these universal truisms is also the divine and historical connection of the Jewish People to Eretz Yisroel. Although this connection might be robustly denied by the nations of the world, in their innermost minds and souls it does resonate, and when the Jews stake their claim to the Land as articulated by the medrash, it strikes an intuitive chord, as much as the nations consciously deny and fight it.
The extreme and inexplicable fixation of world powers over Jewish reign in a minuscule sliver of land, while gross injustices are committed elsewhere by the various nations with usually minimal or no condemnation by anyone, surely indicates that regarding Eretz Yisroel, a raw nerve has been struck, for the nations cannot shake themselves of the truism that is the Jewish People’s ontological connection with the Land; the nations are obsessed with attempts to deny this connection and they relentlessly pursue irrational means in every effort to sever it, as deep down, they know that the connection is divinely ordained, and it often bothers them to no end.
There is another perspective to this all. When B’nei Yisroel lay forth their claim to Eretz Yisroel based on the Torah, it is not for the sake of the nations that B'nei Yisroel need to do so - for even though the nations deep down accept the words of B’nei Yisroel, fierce denial and refusal will usually be expressed by the nations, until the time of Moshiach. What then is the function of B’nei Yisroel’s assertion of their right to Eretz Yisroel based on the Torah, on the story of Bereshis?
The function is to encourage and inspire B’nei Yisroel themselves. We must always know that our rights to Eretz Yisroel are by virtue of Hashem creating and gifting the Land to us; once we overlook this and resort solely to pragmatic arguments, as powerful and true as they often are, we strip away notions of sanctity and of our relationship with Hashem through the Land. Therefore, our instinctive and immediate claim to Eretz Yisroel must flow from the words of the Torah, which affirm Hashem’s authority over the world and His unchallenged ability to apportion its lands to whomever He sees fit. Just as ultimately, the Plagues in Egypt were designed to forge a permanent impression on B’nei Yisroel and not on the Mitzrim, for any impact on Mitzrayim was temporary and did not endure (v. Ibn Ezra on Shemos 9:16), so too do we affirm our divinely-pledged claim to Eretz Yisroel for our sake, to fortify our own emunah (belief).
One might still ask why, according to the medrash cited by Rashi, the Torah did not simply present the story of Bereshis (and Hashem’s promise of the Land of Israel to B’nei Yisroel) and then jump to the mitzvah of Kiddush Ha-Chodesh in Sefer Shemot, if the purpose of the Bereshis story is solely to affirm our divine right to Eretz Yisroel. The answer is that the entirety of Sefer Bereshis sets forth the cardinal principles of the human experience, as described above, and it also teaches us by example of the Avot (Patriarchs) and their families how to live as Jews. The unique and exceptional character qualities of the Avot and Imahot, their interactions with Hashem and with other people, and how they were impacted by all that transpired in the narratives of their lives, have created eternal blueprints and paths for us to follow.
Rabbi Yitzchak’s explanation of the foundational function of the inceptive Bereshis text is an illustration of this broader idea that encompasses the entirety of Sefer Bereshis. Before we commence reading the halakhot (laws) of the Torah, Rabbi Yitzchak teaches that we must be presented with the Torah’s core values, ideals and lifestyle, as embodied by the lessons of Creation and its aftermath, and of the holy personalities of the Avops and Imahot and of their experiences in Sefer Bereshis.
This is the deeper and paramount significance of the first words of Rashi in his Torah commentary.
When Hashem rebukes Adam for his sin, He tells him, "...Because you listened to your wife and ate of the tree from which I commanded you not to eat, the earth will be cursed on your account..." (Bereshis 3:17) Why did Hashem not state the cause of Adam's punishment more directly by saying, "Because you disobeyed me..."? Why state in the indirect form, "Because you listened to your wife?" The sin was that Adam violated Hashem's command by eating of the tree, regardless of the third party (Chava) who coaxed him to sin. So why the indirect admonishment?
Adam's import and role are delineated in the first chapter of Bereshis (1:27-28): Adam was placed in the universe in the likeness of Hashem to lead, control and build; he was to populate, conquer and exert his full influence over the universe, being its physical leader and primary being in all ways. (Although Chava was originally biologically part of Adam , her role was defined somewhat differently even from the start. )
With this in mind, we can easily see why Hashem admonished Adam for having "listened to your (his) wife" rather than phrasing the rebuke in terms of "not listening to Me" or "disobeying Me", for by heeding Chava's advice to sin, Adam compromised his role and his very mandate in the universe. Rather than being a leader at the charge of Hashem, Adam instantly became a follower and abandoned his charge. This is why he was chastised for having "listened to your (his) wife", as Adam's sin was not merely in violating Hashem's command not to eat of the tree; his sin reflected a large-scale abdication of his role and a perversion of his being. Listening to his helpmate (Chava) to sin rather than leading in Hashem's ways represented a total breakdown of Adam's purpose as it was intended.
We can now better understand the punishments meted out to Adam and Chava as a result of their aveira (sin). Adam demonstrated that he was incapable of properly leading and taking charge as a being reflective of Hashem's image, as he became a lame follower in sin at the very first opportunity. Thus, rather than being a master over the earth, Adam would have to struggle with it and live at its mercy, as it were, hoping that the earth would be fertile each season, as he would toil to bring forth its yield. So, too, Chava lost her unique role of mastery, for rather than having a controlling stature in procreation and bearing children, she was cursed with a subservient role in procreation and would endure suffering during childbirth, being stripped of any image of control and mastery in these endeavors. (V. Rashi, from Gemara, on Bereshis 2:16.)
On a broader level, we can clearly apply the lessons of Adam and Chava to our lives and behavior patterns. Like Adam and Chava, we are charged to represent Hashem in this world. When our acts become violative of Hashem's mitzvot, we pervert our very role and essence. Mitzvot are not just rules; they define our position and purpose in the world. Rather than viewing ourselves as being commanded to observe the Torah because we are Jews, we need to reevaluate the situation and consider that it is the reverse - that our obligation to keep the Torah is what defines us as Jews. The Torah not only regulates our lives; it is the core of our purpose and the fulcrum of our existence.
Let us strive to elevate ourselves through proper adherence and attitude to Torah and mitzvot, and let us reclaim the divine role charged to Adam and Chava at the beginning.
“And Hevel was a shepherd, and Kayin was a farmer." (Bereshis 4:2) Rashi (ibid., from medrash) explains that Hevel chose shepherding because he saw that the earth was cursed (when Hashem punished Adam); Hevel therefore opted for a non-farming occupation.
One can ask why Kayin did not likewise enter another field of work; did Kayin not also realize that the earth was cursed and that farming was not an opportune profession?
When one contemplates the ideas expressed by Kayin as well as the curse placed upon him for murdering his brother, one readily draws a comparison between Kayin and the Nachash (Serpent). Targum Yonasan ben Uziel (on Bereshis 4:8) explains that during his confrontation with Hevel, Kayin denied that Hashem applies justice to the world. Kayin likewise was quite brazen when communicating with Hashem, for when Hashem asked him, “Where is Hevel your brother?", Kayin disrespectfully responded, “Am I my brother’s keeper?" (ibid. v. 9) In contrast with the punishments meted out to Adam and Chava , which placed them at the mercy of the domains over which they would have been masters (the earth and procreation), Kayin’s punishment was a total, overwhelming curse which ruined his future and reduced him to the lowest level of society.
Similar to Kayin, the Nachash spoke brazenly against Hashem (v. Targum Yonasan ben Uziel on ibid. 3:4) and denied that He would execute judgment (Bereshis ibid.). Like Kayin, the Nachash was punished with a curse that forever changed and immeasurably lowered his existence.
Targum Yonasan ben Uziel (on Bereshis 3:1) notes that the Nachash was the most cunning of all creatures in terms of evil; comparably, Or Ha-Chaim (ibid. 4:1) quotes the Zohar (Bereshis 54a), which explains that Kayin’s spiritual root was from evil. If put together, the message that emanates from these and the aforementioned sources is that Kayin was a spiritual continuation of the Nachash. The same brazenness toward Hashem and denial of His justice permeated both Kayin and the Nachash, for they shared the same spiritual roots.
It is thus understood why Kayin chose farming rather than shepherding or some other trade as his occupation. Kayin’s decision was not made as a result of sloppy judgment. Rather, Kayin denied the veracity and actuality of Hashem cursing the earth. Kayin, the brazen heretic, did not accept that Man should have been punished and that the earth’s fertility was at Hashem’s total mercy. Just as the Nachash maintained that Man could compete with Hashem (v. Targum Yonasan ben Uziel on Bereshis 3:4 and Rashi on ibid. v. 5), so too did Kayin challenge Hashem's mastery over the earth and the Divine curse placed thereon. By entering the profession of farming, Kayin was sending a message of refutation of Hashem's ultimate control over all, echoing the sentiments of the Nachash, whose words brought about the downfall of Kayin's parents.
May we learn from and emulate the ways of Hevel, whom Or Ha-Chaim notes (from Zohar ibid.) shared the same soul as Moshe Rabbeinu. In contrast with Kayin, who was the spiritual progeny of the Nachash, let us strive to be forever worthy to be identified as the progeny of Moshe and his flock.
We read that Lemech (the first Lemech, descended from Kayin) had three sons, named Yaval, Yuval and Tuval-Kayin. (Bereshis 4:20-22) These names are all uncannily similar, and it seems quite odd that a parent would give his sons names which are nearly identical. What is going on here?
Before addressing this, there is another “naming" perplexity to consider in Parshat Bereshis. The Torah enumerates the direct generational descendants of Kayin: Chanoch, Irad, Mechuyael, Mesushael and Lemech. (Ibid. v. 17-18) Let’s now take a look at the direct generational descendants of Shais (Seth), who was Kayin’s the youngest brother: Enosh, Keynan, Mahalalel, Yered, Chanoch, Mesushelach and Lemech. (Ibid. 5:6-21) We note the similarities between many of these names (as well as the similar general order): Kayin/Keynan, Irad/Yered, Mesushael/Mesushelach - as well as the totally identical names of Chanoch/Chanoch and Lemech/Lemech. What is happening?
Although the generations between Adam Ha-Rishon (Adam, the first man) and Noach became steeped in evil (v. e.g. Bereshis Rabbah 23, Pirkei Avos 5:2), there were notable sparks of positivity during this period as well on the part of a few individuals. One opinion in Chazal (Bereshis Rabbah ibid.) is that Naamah, the sister of Yaval, Yuval and Tuval-Kayin (Bereshis 4:22), was a righteous woman and in fact married Noach; the second Chanoch was a tzaddik (Bereshis 5:24 with Rashi, based on Beresihis Rabbah); Mesushelach was a very pious person (Rashi, from Sanhedrin 108b); etc. It can be suggested that Lemech, the father of Yaval, Yuval and Tuval-Kayin, likewise exhibited righteousness and positivity in the midst of a prolonged period of darkness.
To be precise, our parshah (Bereshis 4:23-25) presents Lemech’s emotional declaration to his wives about his lesser degree of sin or his lack of sin (opinions in Chazal and the Meforshim/Commentators differ on this); according to Chazal, Lemech’s declaration was a plea for his wives to have more children, for they were disinclined to do so due to the curse that Kayin’s progeny would be obliterated after seventh generations and due to the impending Mabul (Great Flood).
Chazal explain that Lemech approached Adam Ha-Rishon about the matter, and Adam instructed Lemech’s wives to continue having children, as that was their mitzvah, and that they should not get involved in Hashem’s plans. (V. Rashi.)
It can be suggested that Lemech maintained a forward-thinking and positive position despite impending doom and a downward, pessimistic thrust on the part of larger society. Lemech nonetheless sought to fulfill the mitzvah to have children, and in fact, the perplexing ring of his three sons’ extremely similar names, Yaval, Yuval and Tuval-Kayin, attests to this. “Yaval" in Hebrew refers to a stream, indicative of motion and life, and is related to the word “Movil", to move something. By “obsessively" giving his all of sons names reflecting various permutations of this same concept, we see that Lemech robustly and passionately believed that there was hope and that no one should feel stuck and paralyzed by the curse of Kayin and impending doom. As Adam told Lemech’s wives, "You do your mitzvah and Hashem will do His".
It can further be suggested that the name Tuval-Kayin refers to moving beyond the foreboding and immobilizing state represented by Kayin after his sin. Tuval-Kayin means moving onward with life after the crippling state of mind harbored by Kayin and by those who could not fathom living constructively and positively.
This is connected with the names of the progeny of Shais, who were very plausibly named after Kayin and his descendants, to reflect that one must move forward, and that the legacy of generations condemned to obliteration should be carried on and not abandoned.
This does not mean that one should chas v’shalom ignore Hashem’s decrees for the future, but rather that if Hashem commanded mankind to procreate, populate the world, be productive and grow civilization, such is the mandate to pursue, as we find regarding Chizkiyahu Ha-Melech (King Hezekiah) who initially hesitated to procreate due to his knowledge that his future son Menashe would be evil; Yeshayahu (Isaiah) told Chizkiyahu that his job was to follow the Torah’s command to have children and that he must leave Hashem’s plans in Hashem’s hands. (Berachos 10a) Our job is to follow the Torah and move spiritually upward; Hashem’s affairs are not our business.
It is thus so fitting that Lemech’s cousin, the second Lemech/father of Noach, took a strikingly similar approach to life, for we read: “And he (Lemech) called his name Noach, saying, ‘This (son) will being us comfort us from our actions and the weariness of our hands (v. Targum Onkelos) from the earth that Hashem has cursed.’" (Bereshis 5:29) Lemech expressed optimism, for Hashem did not forbid mankind to work the earth productively; rather than give up, Lemech davened (v. Seforno) that Noach could bring about positive change. Upon the birth of Noach, the earth returned to normal yield of produce and Noach invented the plow, which revolutionized agriculture. (Medrash Tanchuma ibid.) Lemech, the optimist in a time of downward spiral and depression, was indeed the spiritual twin of his cousin, the first Lemech.
Our task is to have emunah and follow Hashem’s command. We leave Hashem’s plans for the world up to Him, and we carry on, try to move forward and always ascend to greater levels of kedushah.
Although the narrative of Noach and the Mabul (Flood) is presented primarily in Parshas Noach, the initial part of this story is featured in Parshas Bereshis: “And Hashem saw that the evil of man was great in the earth, and that the entire inclination of his thoughts was negative on a constant basis. And Hashem regretted that He created man, and He was saddened (by man’s deeds). And Hashem said, ‘I will wipe out man, whom I created, from the face of the earth - from man to beast'… And Noach found favor in the eyes of Hashem." (Bereshis 6:5-8)
Why does the beginning of the story of Noach and the Mabul start in Parshas Bereshis?
The actions of man (and of the animal kingdom) that precipitated the Mabul were not merely acts of great sin; rather, they were acts that wholly distorted and reversed the very Creation itself. We read a bit earlier in Parshas Bereshis (ibid. v. 2): "… and they took to themselves wives from all that they chose", which Rashi, quoting Medrash Bereshis Rabbah, explains as “even the wives of other people; even males and beasts". In other words, the basics of Creation, such as marital fidelity, hetero relationships, and adherence to the natural order as decreed and established by Hashem, were being overturned. As Rashi further invokes from Medrash Bereshis Rabbah (on ibid. 6:12), even animal life was violating the natural order. Hence, the world needed to be largely destroyed and restarted, as the very Creation was being overturned by the conduct of man and animal.
Viewed from this perspective, the Mabul was not only a punishment, but it was a perforce response to Creation voluntarily capsizing itself and sabotaging its mandate.
We can now understand why the account of Noach and the Mabul commences in Parshas Bereshis rather than in Parshas Noach, for the acts which caused the Mabul comprised a mass defiance and subversion of Creation; the Mabul was essentially the result of man’s and animal’s undoing of Creation, and not merely a punitive response to sin.
There is yet another connection here to Parshas Bereshis; that connection is Noach himself.
Unlike Avrohom Avinu, who was raised in a home of idolatry and who was from a pagan background, until he discovered Hashem on his own, Noach was actually of esteemed religious pedigree. Noach’s grandfather was the tzaddik Mesushelach, Noach’s father was Lemech (the second Lemech), who was likewise a believer in Hashem (v. Bereshis 5:29, with Seforno), and Noach’s great-grandfather was Chanoch, who was a righteous man (with a weakness - v. Rashi from Medrash Bereshis Rabbah on Bereshis 5:24). Noach had a serious mesorah (religious tradition) of faith and service of Hashem, even if Noach’s commitment might not have measured up to that of Avrohom.
Furthermore, Noach’s role, as per Lemech’s aspiration or prayer, was to restore the inorganic world to the state that existed before the sin of Adam, and Noach actually succeeded in doing that, by inventing the plough and thereby removing the curse upon the earth that resulted from Adam’s sin. (V. Rashi from Medrash Tanchuma on ibid. v. 29; but v. Rashi from Medrash Bereshis Rabbah on Yechezkel 14:14.) What emerges is that Noach, in terms of his righteousness and restoration of the inorganic world to a pre-sin state, became a reflection of Adam before the sin.
Noach was the new Adam, who was charged with salvaging the world from its own undoing and returning it to its intended role, as per Hashem’s will upon Creation. This is precisely why Noach’s background and early accomplishments must be featured in Parshas Bereshis rather than in Parshas Noach.
As we know, the world under Noach did not totally fulfill its mission, yet Noach’s greatness planted the seeds that would eventually sprout and flourish into the beautiful tree of Avrohom Avinu and the Jewish People.