Audio Shiur: Parashat Bereishit - Good and Evil

Audio Shiur:
Parashat Bereishit - Good and Evil

The creation of man represents a core issue of Jewish faith today. With a race to create artificial intelligence, the question of whether man can "create" a self-aware "individual" presents a challenge to faith in a Creator. We also deal with the famous question: How could man have sinned, if he was only exposed to the possibility of evil by eating from the forbidden fruit? We address this very famous question from a number of different perspectives.



Click here to navigate to the shiur on YUTorah.org.

Click on the player below to play the Shiur or right click here to download)


Did you know that this shiur is available as a free podcast on iTunes? Click here to subscribe - and leave a comment and rating so more people will find the shiur! Thanks!

Audio Shiur: Parshiot Bereishit-Noach: The Attribute of Kayin According to Rav Kook

Audio Shiur:
Parshiot Bereishit-Noach: The Attribute of Kayin According to Rav Kook

Is there a common theme between the people of Migdal Bavel and Kayin? I think there is. From there we turn to Rav Kook's interpretation of what was wrong with Kayin's offering, as we study a long piece from Orot. Source Sheets here.


Click here to navigate to the shiur on YUTorah.org.

Click to play the Shiur (or right-click to download)

Audio Shiur: Parshat Bereishit - The Powerful Messages in Shabbat

Audio Shiur:
Parshat Bereishit - The Powerful Messages in Shabbat

After looking at the dispute between Rashi and Ramban about the reason for the Torah relating the story of Bereishit, we then turn to Vayechulu, and examine some of the challenges presented by this very familiar text.



Click here to navigate to the shiur on YUTorah.org.

Click to play the Shiur (or right-click to download)





Now you can subscribe to this shiur as a podcast, directly from iTunes! To subscribe, click here.



Got an Android phone? Want to listen to the Parshah shiur on the go? Simply click here and let the phone do the work! You may also want to download a podcasting App like Podkicker.

Genesis and the "Big Bang"

When I Googled "Big Bang Theory," the first result wasn't the astronomy theory I was looking for. Tells you where our culture's collective head is. In any case, Wikipedia describes the "Big Bang Theory" (the real one) in this way:

The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model of the early development of the universe. The major premise of the Big Bang theory is that the universe was once in an extremely hot and dense state that expanded rapidly (a "Big Bang"). This rapid expansion caused the young universe to cool and resulted in its present continuously expanding state. According to recent measurements, scientific evidence, and observations,the original state happened around 13.7 billion years ago (see age of the Universe), which can be referred to as the time that the Big Bang occurred.

In 1991, Dr. Gerald Schroeder, a noted physicist and lecturer published a book called, "Genesis and the Big Bang", which, according to his website, "offers convincing evidence that science's "Big Bang" creation model and the Bible's Genesis One's explanation for the creation of the universe are one-in-the-same." I love Dr. Schroeder. An engaging and fascinating figure and dynamic speaker who spoke in my former shul in Michigan, his work represents an important attempt to reconcile theology and scientific theory. But his work isn't a work of fact. Neither is the Big Bang Theory itself. It's only a scientific theory - with many possible difficulties that I personally don't understand. (Read the real Wikipedia article if you're interested.) A problem arises though, when writers and thinkers confuse theory and argument with fact, and write as if the Big Bang Theory and Creation are one and the same.
In a recent piece that appeared on the Jewish Ideas Daily website, Michael Carasik (who I don't know, but is described as "the creator of The Commentators' Bible and of the Torah Talk podcast", who "teaches at the University of Pennsylvania") opens his Torah piece ("The End of the Torah") writing,

The Torah begins with a bang—the Big Bang, the creation of the universe.  But it ends with a whimper, albeit a whimper concealed by a very loud noise of another kind.  

The piece concludes similarly,

Literarily, the Torah ends as it began, invoking the historical story of the Jewish people in a cosmic frame.  The Big Bang of Genesis 1 distracts us from the silent mystery of the instant "before" creation (if that is indeed a theologically or scientifically possible moment at all).  

Personally, I don't find the piece all that compelling and wouldn't have written about it. But Carasik's casual intermingling of the "Big Bang" with Creation does trouble me.
I have no issue with modern attempts to rectify science and theology. Yet, we must always remain cognizant of the fact that these represent attempts to reconcile theories - nothing more and nothing less. We make these attempts in an effort to accept seemingly contradictory theories, when science tells us one thing and religion another. How indeed can the universe be the product of a billions-year-old explosion when the Torah tells us that God created the world several thousands years ago? Good question. We can either reject science (not a good option in my view), reject religion (a far worse option), or try to find some way to merge the two, as Dr. Schroeder does. But, when we begin to refer to these efforts as facts, we endanger our faith by equating the two systems with each other. I'll explain.
A Torah Jew accepts axioms of faith. Creation is a pretty important one, upon which every other religious tenet rests. These principles are, by definition, eternal. They do not and will not change.
Science finds itself under no such restrictions. It creates theories based on observations and rejects them when new observations cannot be reconciled with those theories. A scientist cannot hold eternal scientific truths. She can only believe what she can see right now, and must reject a theory, no matter how ingrained, when it can no longer be proven. (Even this year, scientists have questioned the Holy of Holies of Theories: Einstein's Theory of Relativity, based on recent experiments.)
Allowing ourselves to identify a religious doctrine with a certain scientific theory creates two problems: First and foremost, it equates two very different systems of belief, one eternal and unchanging, and the other in constant flux. By definition, this cheapens the strength of our belief and faith, until we feel comfortable shifting religious philosophy and tenets of faith as we would an antiquated scientific theory. And, on a more practical level, what happens when science comes up with a new theory to replace the Big Bang which better matches new observations from even more powerful technology? Do we then say that Creation was wrong as well? After all, weren't Creation and the Big Bang one and the same?
Am I making too much out of a pithy literary attempt to frame a Torah piece on a popular website? Perhaps. But meshing theology and science is always a dangerous game which requires a very delicate touch. As we read Bereishit yet again this week, and return once again to  the mystery of Creation, let us commit ourselves to accept our own limitations, and realize that the Creation story isn't a scientific text, nor should it be. Underlying any attempt to reconcile science and faith must be a firm commitment to our religious beliefs.
Scientific theories come and scientific theories go. Today the Big Bang is an important astronomy theory, and tomorrow it will just be a bad sitcom from the early 21st century. But our faith in God, whether we can accurately explain how He created the world, remains absolute.

Kayin's Canine Companion

Can you believe the name of this place? It's real!

I get a weekly parshah piece called Netvort written by Rabbi Joshua Hoffman. This week he pointed out a Midrash I hadn't heard before.
We all know that after Kayin kills his brother and finds himself confronted by God, he says to God, גדול עווני מנשוא - "my sin is too great to bear" (Bereishit 4:13). Yet, it's not altogether clear whether in this cryptic statement Kayin fesses up to his heinous act and his statement represents a declaration of repentance, or whether he rejects God's wrath telling Him, "Sorry, it's all too much for me to worry about, God. Not my problem." (I think it's the latter, but it's a huge machloket.) In any case, God responds that, "Whoever kills Kayin will be punished seven-fold," (verse 15) and God gives a "sign" to Kayin to protect him. What sign did God give Kayin. The Midrash says,

אמר ר' יהודה - הזריח לו גלגל החמה. א"ר נחמיה - לאותו רשע היה מזריח לו הקב"ה גלגל החמה? אלא מלמד שהזריח לו הצרעת...רב אמר כלב מסר לו. אבא יוסי בן קסרי אמר קרן הצמיח לו. רב אמר עשאו אות לרצחנים. רבי חנין אמר עשאו אות לבעלי תשובה  - בראשית רבה כ"ב

Rabbi Yehudah said, [God] rose the sun for him. Rabbi Nechemia said, For that evil person would God have risen the sun? Rather, it must mean that God shone upon him leprosy. Rav said that he gave him a dog. Abba Yossi ben Kisma said that he grew a horn upon him. [Another] Rav said that he made him a sign for murderers. Rabbi Chanin said that he made him a sign for Ba'alei Teshuvah. (Bereishit Rabbah 22)

Clearly, the rabbis in the Midrash themselves couldn't agree whether Kayin had repented, and interpreted the sign that God gave Kayin in light of how they viewed his declaration. If they felt that he did repent, he got the sunrise or a "sign for Ba'alei Teshuvah" (whatever that was). If not, he got leprosy, or a horn. (Was he then the first "humacorn?" Get it: human + unicorn?)

In any case, what about the dog? Was it a sign of his repentance, or of his refusal to repent? Rabbi Hoffman notes that Ramban, who quotes the Midrash, sees the dog as a sign of Kayin's repentance, as the dog would now serve to guide him away from any dangerous animals looking to kill him.

I've got my doubts. Despite our current infatuation with dogs as pets, Chazal (as well as the Torah) didn't see dogs in a very positive light. Think of the dog references in the Torah. What do we do with treif meat? We "Throw it to the dog." When is chametz no longer forbidden? When it's no longer ra'ui l'achilat kelev - "edible by a dog", the lowest of animals.

I guess then if you're a dog owner, you'd have to agree with Ramban and see the dog as a gift. But if you're not, Kayin's dog might be more of a punishment than a gift.

Have More Children! An Old Piece from the Detroit Jewish News

A former congregant (and friend) from Michigan is now the editor of Red Thread Magazine, a Jewish venture seemingly focusing on a youngish Jewish demographic. Perusing the magazine's website, I came across an article (The Price of Progeny) describing the parental dillemma of exactly how many children to have, and the advice of a New Jersey based therapist to carefully consider the question of how many children to have and their effect on one's marriage.
It's a sobering piece, and certainly one cannot ignore the statistics and the good doctor's research. But while the question of how many children to have should certainly include questions of marital and financial health, the article failed to include an important additional factor that Jews should consider in this perplexing question: faith. Put simply, it's a mitzvah to have children, and a greater mitzvah to have more children.
Then I remembered that I wrote about this once in my parshah column in the Detroit Jewish News. So I'm sharing with you the article I wrote back then (and hope to share more in the future). This piece first appeared back in 5763 (2003).

Building the World One Child at a Time
I don’t need to tell you that we, as a Jewish population, are not growing as we should be. While the Jewish population in 1970 was somewhere close to six million, we’re still hovering around that six million mark more than thirty years later. Why? It’s a rather complex question, but I can think of two pressing reasons: first and foremost, intermarriage carves a devastating chunk out of the Jewish population pie. But, there’s an equally obvious reason that we don’t have Federation studies and synagogue initiatives to counteract: American Jews simply aren’t having enough children.
Quick: What’s the first mitzvah in the Torah? To believe in God? Close, but not really. No, it must be the Ten Commandments, right? Actually, wrong again. The very first mitzvah in the Torah commands us to have children – a lot of them. The Torah tells us, “God blessed them [Adam and Eve] and God said to them, be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth and subdue it.” Be fruitful and multiply. To me, that sounds like much more than the 1.6 children Americans (and most American Jews) have nowadays.
In fact, not only is it a blessing, it’s an imperative, a mitzvah, a commandment. The Chinuch, in listing the commandment to be fruitful and multiply, explains that having children must be the first commandment in the Torah because it’s the commandment upon which all others are based. How can we fulfill the mission of the Torah – to bring spirituality and godliness into the world without doing so ourselves, in our families, with our own children?
Today we consider how many children (and whether we have children at all) to be an issue of personal choice. With the wonders of modern medicine we (if we’re blessed with the ability) can decide when to have children, how many children we want to have, and now, even whether we’re going to have children at all. Yet, the Torah reminds us that having children isn’t so much a biological question as much as a religious one: what’s my mission here on this earth? What do I want to accomplish, and can I do more? If I’m here to make sure that I enjoy myself and have a comfortable life, then I’ll put off having children, or not have them at all. But if I understand that my mission in life is be a tzelem elokim, to live in God’s image and to emulate Him to the best of my ability, I can only do that by giving to others, and we give our best to our children.
Yes, having children is hard. Raising them is even harder. But the satisfaction and love and beauty of raising children, despite the hardships, the costs, the difficulties and frustrations are more than worth it. They justify our existence in the world.
While I’m writing to all Jews, I’m really writing to you – someone who’d read the “Rabbi’s message” in the Jewish News each week. You, just because you’re reading this, must be a caring, thinking member of the Jewish community. You must be someone who wants to grow spiritually each week. That’s why you’re reading this column right now. Don’t you think that you can give some of that wonderful energy to another child?
So, have more kids! There’s no better mitzvah to begin the Torah, and the New Year!

Belated Beraishit Post: A Thought from Rav Charlap

Rashi's Israel-focused commentary on the first verse of the Torah is well known. I'll quote it anyway. Thanks to Chabad for saving me a ton of time with the Rashi text and translation.

אמר רבי יצחק לא היה צריך להתחיל [את] התורה אלא (שמות יב ב) מהחודש הזה לכם, שהיא מצוה ראשונה שנצטוו [בה] ישראל, ומה טעם פתח בבראשית, משום (תהלים קיא ו) כח מעשיו הגיד לעמו לתת להם נחלת גוים, שאם יאמרו אומות העולם לישראל לסטים אתם, שכבשתם ארצות שבעה גוים, הם אומרים להם כל הארץ של הקב"ה היא, הוא בראה ונתנה לאשר ישר בעיניו, ברצונו נתנה להם וברצונו נטלה מהם ונתנה לנו

Said Rabbi Isaac: It was not necessary to begin the Torah except from “This month is to you,” (Exod. 12:2) which is the first commandment that the Israelites were commanded, (for the main purpose of the Torah is its commandments, and although several commandments are found in Genesis, e.g., circumcision and the prohibition of eating the thigh sinew, they could have been included together with the other commandments). Now for what reason did He commence with “In the beginning?” Because of [the verse] “The strength of His works He related to His people, to give them the inheritance of the nations” (Ps. 111:6). For if the nations of the world should say to Israel, “You are robbers, for you conquered by force the lands of the seven nations [of Canaan],” they will reply, "The entire earth belongs to the Holy One, blessed be He; He created it (this we learn from the story of the Creation) and gave it to whomever He deemed proper When He wished, He gave it to them, and when He wished, He took it away from them and gave it to us.

First of all, the fact that Rashi chose to focus on the Land of Israel with his first comment on the Torah speaks volumes. Rena and I were discussing the comment on Shabbat, and she pointed out that Rashi was most probably making a historical comment to the people of his times, as they watched Christian hordes pillage Europe on their way to conquer the Holy Land. "Not to worry," he seems to tell them - and us. "They might take it now, but one day it will once again be ours."
How right he was.
On Shabbat, I heard a talk which quoted Rabbi Yaakov Moshe Charlap, one of Rav Kook's main students, who asked a very pointed question about the verse that Rashi quotes from Tehillim, "The strength of His works He related to His people, to give them the inheritance of the nations”. If the whole point of the message is for us to convey our ownership of the Land of Israel to the nations of the world, then the verse should say, כח מעשיו הגיד לעמים - "The strength of His work He related to the nations." Why does God first have to tell His nation?
That, said Rav Charlap, is precisely the point. Sadly, too often Jews themselves fail to appreciate our own inherent, intrinsic connection to God's holy land. They think other inhabitants have as much right to the Land as the Jewish people do , and that while it might be a Jewish homeland, we have no more claim on the Land than other nations.
That's our biggest problem. If we believed fully in our inherent right and connection to the Land of Israel, then the nations of the world would accept our position as well. As long as we waver, the world will as well.

Audio Shiur: Aseret Yemei Teshuvah and Parshat Bereishit - Frumkeit on the Back of My Brother

Audio Shiur:
Aseret Yemei Teshuvah and Parshat Bereishit - Frumkeit on the Back of My Brother
We often think of our own frumkeit in terms of the relationship we have with God, giving little thought to how our spirituality affects those around us, and those that we're closest with. The story of Kayin and Hevel has a great deal to teach us not only about brotherly love, but about our yearning for spirituality, competitiveness in religiosity, and the need for repentance and improvement.

Click here to download the shiur, or here to navigate to the shiur on YUTorah.org.

Audio Shiur: Parshat Bereishit - The Roles of Men and Women

Audio Shiur:
Parshat Bereishit - The Roles of Men and Women
The age-old struggle over the roles of men and women in society emanates from the careful words of the Chumash describing our creation. How was Woman created? What was her original status vis-a-vis man? By looking at both the text itself, together with Rashi and the view of the Midrash, we struggle with the worldview that emanates from the Chumash, and how it contrasts with our modern-day attitudes towards this critical issue.

Click here for the audio link, or listen in the handy audio player supplied below.

Conscientious Objectors - Parshat Bereishit Edition

Returning to Bereishit - the beginning of the Torah - brings a certain comfort: a return to the familiar and a revisiting of stories that we know but reread with a fresh perspective. It was in this light that a read an article in this morning's Jerusalem Post: "High-school students decry 'occupation'":

Claiming to represent over 80 of their peers, four high school seniors on Monday publicly announced their refusal to serve in the IDF because of what they termed the "occupation and oppression in the occupied territories."
"We, male and female Jews and Arabs from all across the country whose signatures are below, declare that we will take action against the Israeli government's policy of occupation and oppression in the conquered territories and in Israel, and therefore refuse to take part in those actions, which are done in our names by the Israel Defense Forces, We were born into the reality of the occupation and many in our generation see it as something 'natural.' For most of society it is obvious that at the age of 18, every young man and woman must join the Israeli army. But we cannot ignore the truth - the occupation is a violent, racist, inhumane, illegal, undemocratic, immoral and an extreme condition that presents a mortal danger to both peoples. We, who were educated on the values of liberty, justice, honesty and peace, cannot accept it."

Reading about their objection, what struck me wasn't their naivete, or chutzpah or lack of appreciation for the IDF. I wondered: Only four students? That's it? And even if they really do represent eighty, only eighty? That's all the students that they could find? I'll explain.
These students have been spoon-fed a left-leaning liberal education from kindergarten, completely devoid of any Jewish value or content. In their worldview, the State of Israel is simply one nation among many, without any special or unique claim to the land. It promotes freedom, democracy and human rights for all people (which it does). From that perspective, the Palestinians have just as much right to be here as we do, if not more. After all, they've been here longer than most of us (at least most recently).
This is, of course, the perspective that drives much of the liberal camp campaigning against Israel from the United Nations, to the Hague to the Netherlands (see Barack Obama and the Nobel Peace Prize). In a way, I truly do understand them. If we have no unique claim to the Land of Israel, then it's easy to see us as "occupiers" who "oppress" the Palestinians in the West Bank. They do not have a say in their elected representatives - at least in the larger sense. They don't live in their own country. Their land was taken over by military force in 1967, and we really have no business being there. I get it.
But if these are the values which underlie these kids' noble sentiments, what strikes me isn't their passion and commitment, but the lack of any such passion on the part of their peers. There shouldn't be four or even eighty conscientious objectors - there should be hundreds! Where are the rest of the liberal Israeli youth, refusing to serve in the imperialist IDF? I can think of only three possibilities:

1. Most kids get a substandard liberal education, so they don't really appreciate the worldview enough to stand against it (quite possible)
   
2. The education is fine, but teenagers are too self-centered and apathetic to take a stand like these kids (most likely)
   
3. The kids are getting an education, but one rich enough in Jewish values to forestall this ultra-liberal perspective (much less likely in my view).

What Jewish values? Actually, it's the first Rashi in the Torah.

אמר רבי יצחק לא היה צריך להתחיל את התורה אלא מהחודש הזה לכם שהיא מצוה ראשונה שנצטוו בה ישראל ומה טעם פתח בבראשית משום (תהלים קי"א) כח מעשיו הגיד לעמו לתת להם נחלת גוים שאם יאמרו אומות העולם לישראל ליסטים אתם שכבשתם ארצות שבעה גוים הם אומרים להם כל הארץ של הקב"ה היא הוא בראה ונתנה לאשר ישר בעיניו ברצונו נתנה להם וברצונו נטלה מהם ונתנה לנו:

Said Rabbi Yitzchak: the Torah should only have begun from "This month is to you" which is the first commandment in the Torah that Israel was commanded. Why does the Torah begin at Bereishit? Because, "The power of His deeds He told to His nation, in order to give them the portion of the nations” (Psalms 111) That if the nations of the world say to Israel, "You are thieves! You conquered the land of the seven nations!" Israel could respond, "The whole world belongs to God. He created it and gave it to whoever was righteous in His eyes. With His will he gave it to them, and with His will He took it from them and gave it to us."

The very first Rashi in the Torah (by the way, my wife Rena wrote a great piece on this Rashi available here) addresses the concerns of our four students: we didn't steal the land. God gave it to us. But these kids lack a fundamental fact underlying Rashi's premise. Rashi assumes that the Jews appreciate the difference between themselves and other nations; that they appreciate the calling of the Jewish people, and our special and unique role in the world. But our passionate Israeli kids feel none of that. Let's return to their letter in which they write,

Out of responsibility and concern for the two nations who live in this country, we cannot stand aside.

In their mind, the State of Israel isn't a Jewish State. It's a democratic state, inhabited by both Jews and Arabs, both with equal rights and claims to the land. We're not different or unique. Rather, we're just one of "two nations who live in this country". Rashi fundamentally disagrees. The verse in Pslams that states "The power of His deeds He told to His nation, in order to give them the portion of the nations” teaches us two critical things:

1. We are "His nation" - God's nation - with unique responsibilities and obligations
2. We are not "the nations". We stand apart, separate and distinct

Without an appreciation for those two fundamentals, you cannot accept Rashi's argument. If everyone's the same, then we did steal the Land.
I'm not angry at these children. I don't think that they're ungrateful or selfish; quite the opposite. They seem passionate and committed to the beliefs. What they do make me is sad - for them and for us. They were raised in the Modern State of Israel, as Jews living in one of the most exciting times in Jewish history. And yet, they have zero appreciation for the uniqueness of the Jewish people, and no understanding of any Jewish connection to the Land of Israel. That's not their fault. It's our fault.
Bibi Netanyahu recently said that the Palestinians "must recognize Israel as Jewish state for there to be peace". Before we start worrying about our enemies, we better start paying more attention to our own children.

Keeping the Boss Updated - Table Talk for Bereishit 5769

In the rabbinate, I always had the blessing of a great deal of self-motivation. It's a requirement for the job. Sure, there's a board and president and officers, but they really have neither the time, desire or inclination to oversee the rabbis daily activities. As long as the complains remain at a manageable level, they're busy enough with the business ends of the shul. Usually, boards have to reign in the rabbi, because every good idea, program and initiative costs money.
At the same time, the position also gave me a great deal of autonomy. No one really asked how I spent my time, and no one checked to make sure that I was doing programs or classes.
So, with that it mind, my new job has been a real learning experience. My new boss emailed me this week asking about my progress. It wasn't that he thought that I wasn't working or was unhappy with my progress. I just hadn't updated him at all about what I'm doing. Truth be told, it never occurred to me to do so. I figured that as long as I was doing my job (which I think I am), all was well. He - rather reasonably, I think - expects regular updates. So, we've decided to meet regularly to keep communication open, so that he has an idea of what I'm doing.
All of this got me thinking about another kind of updating as well. We think of God as a boss We call God an אדון - a Master. But אדון can also mean "Boss." In fact, my son is now reading a very popular Jewish book called "All For the Boss" about Rabbi Ya'akov Yosef Herman, who lived in New York during the early to mid-twentieth century. (The book is so named due to the fact that its protagonist constantly referred to God as "the Boss.")
In light of my recent experience, I started to wonder: Am I supposed to keep the Boss updated as well? After all, I had always assumed that He knows what I'm doing. After all, He is God. Of course he knows. But then, in the parshah, we see two examples where God clearly knows what people have done, but He wants them to give Him an update.
First, following the Original Sin - when Adam eats the forbidden fruit, instead of immediately confronting Adam and Eve with their sin, He asks them, "Where are you?" Only when Adam explains his desire to hide because of his nakedness, God asks him, "Who told you that you are naked? Did you eat from the tree?" (3:12)
Later, when Cain kills his brother Abel, again God does not immediately confront Cain with his crimes. He first asks Cain, איה הבל אחיך - "where is your brother Abel?" Only when Cain denies any knowledge and culpability does God throw the book at him.
In each case, God looks first for an update: What have you been doing? Is everything OK? Of course He knows the answer. But he wants us to come to Him. He needs us to approach.
And, if we must approach God and admit our mistakes when things go wrong, should we not also approach God with an update when things are well?
He is, after all, the Boss.