Skip to main content

Think Before Acting - Parashat Bereishis 5779 - October 5, 2018


This week’s parasha, Parashat Beresheit, begins with a phrase known the world over – beresheit bara Elokim et hashamayim ve’et ha’aretz – “in the beginning G-d created the heavens and the earth”. 
In reference to this verse, the Talmud, in Masechet Megila, records the very interesting and somewhat famous “origin story” of the Septuagint – the Greek translation of Tanach written in Egypt in the second century BC. The Gemara records that King Talmai placed seventy Torah scholars (hence the name Septuagint – seventy) into separate rooms to individually translate Tanach into Greek.

The Talmud explains that the first phrase of the Torah, beresheit bara Elokim, contains an ambiguity. In Hebrew, the subject of a sentence can come before or after the verb. In the phrase beresheit bara Elokim, the object of the phrase, beresheit (in the beginning), is located before the verb, bara (created), which is placed before the subject, Elokim (G-d) – G-d created in the beginning (Object-Verb-Subject). 
Herein lies the ambiguity. From a grammatical perspective, beresheit bara Elokim can be translated as: “in the beginning” created G-d. The philosophy of dualism, a belief that two competing godly powers control the world, was ascendant at that time. This philosophy goes back to the time of Paroh in Egypt and is totally antithetical to the Torah’s teaching that Hashem is One. The Talmud teaches that each of these seventy scholars, independently, was concerned that keeping the Torah’s word order (in the beginning – created – G-d) in the Greek translation, would lead to a corruption of the Torah’s teaching that Hashem is One – as it may communicate dualism, chas v’shalom. Miraculously, explains the Gemara, each of the scholars translated the verse identically, but in a way that created no ambiguity, “G-d created, in the beginning the heavens and the earth”.

Why did the Torah not simply write the phrase less ambiguously – Elokim bara beresheit – G-d created, in the beginning? What message is the Torah conveying through this ambiguous word order?
Rashi explains that “in the beginning” is a reference to the Torah. In other words, this verse is communicating that G-d created the heavens and the earth in service of Torah. Hashem’s ultimate goal in creating the world was to promote the ideas, values and ideals of the Torah. The promulgation of the Torah is the purpose of the world.

By placing “in the beginning”, referring to Torah, prior to the verb, “created”, the Torah teaches a fundamental idea – actions should be in service of a purpose.  “G-d created, in the beginning” would not have taught this lesson. Only by writing the object before the verb, “In the beginning, G-d created” does the Torah convey that actions are in service of a purpose.  (See Yalkut HaUrim cited in Torah Le’Da’at for a related interpretation)

Purpose and intentionality precede action. Think before you act. By considering our purpose before acting, we emulate Hashem and act with the part of us that makes us uniquely human, our tzelem Elokim, our Free Will.



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Honor and Glory - Parashat Termuah 5780, February 28, 2020

This week’s  parasha , Termuah, and next week’s parasha , Tetzave, introduce Hashem’s command regarding the plans for the  mishkan  and its vessels – including the clothing worn by the  kohanim . One of the vessels that Hashem commands to be built is the  menorah  – the candelabra. The description of the plans for the menorah are described in Parashat Terumah and the description of its service is described in Parashat Tetzave. In Parashat Tetzave, the Torah says, “and they will take for you pure olive oil pressed to be lit to raise an everlasting candle.” Each evening the  kohanim  were obligated to light the candelabra with enough oil to last the night. In the morning, the  kohanim  were obligated to fix and relight the  menorah , as necessary, thus ensuring that the candelabra would constantly be lit. The Rambam – Maimonides – explains, based on a later verse, that the  mitzvah  to light the candelabra in the mishkan creates “honor and glory” for the  mishkan . It seems obvious

Unity Through Shared Purpose - Parashat Tetzaveh 5780, March 6, 2020

This coming week, we will celebrate the holiday of Purim. We know that Megilat Esther is the record of the miraculous saving of the Jewish People that occurred in Shushan and in the surrounding areas of King Achashverosh’s reign. One of the culminating themes in the  megila  is the unity within the Jewish People that was forged as a result of this miracle. This unity expressed itself in a number of ways. One of the expressions was the re-acceptance of the Torah that occurred in that generation –  kiyemu ve’kibelu . This re-acceptance included a unified acceptance of the mitzvah of Purim that was legislated by the Anshei Kinesset HaGedola – the Men of Great Assembly. Another expression of this unity is the emphasis on forging brotherhood within the Jewish People – we read the  megila  in big groups, we give money to the poor and we give food gifts to our fellow Jews. Clearly, unity is a fundamental theme of Purim. Given this focus on unity, there is a striking difference between P

Promoting Justice through Litigant Participation - Parashat Mishpatim 5776 - February 5, 2016

Parashat Mishpatim continues the Torah’s presentation, which began in last week’s parasha , of the mitzvot that were revealed to b'nei yisrael at Mount Sinai. One of the topics that is shared between the two parashiyot is the primacy of creating a judicial system with integrity. The Torah admonishes us not to testify as a group with evil people. The Torah admonishes judges to not show favoritism to a poor person. The Torah forbids judges to accept bribes. In last week’s parasha, the Torah records Yitro’s suggestion of the four qualities that a judge should have: accomplished, G-d-fearing, committed to truth and money-despising. Basing himself on the Mechilta, Rashi elaborates on the quality of commitment to truth. Rashi explains that these are trust-worthy people, and that, because it is reasonable to rely on them generally, people will listen to the judgments that they render. The first part of Rashi’s comment is easily understood – a judge must be trust-worthy. Trust-wor