Thanks to Adi Holzer, the artist of this magnificant picture

 
Rabbi David Etengoff
 
Dedicated to the sacred memories of my mother, Miriam Tovah bat Aharon Hakohen, father-in-law, Levi ben Yitzhak, sister-in-law, Ruchama Rivka Sondra bat Yechiel, sister, Shulamit bat Menachem, Chaim Mordechai Hakohen ben Natan Yitzchak, Yehonatan Binyamin ben Mordechai Meir Halevi, Avraham Yechezkel ben Yaakov Halevy, HaRav Yosef Shemuel ben HaRav Reuven Aharon, David ben Elazar Yehoshua, the refuah shlaimah of Devorah bat Chana, and Yitzhak Akiva ben Malka, and the safety of our brothers and sisters in Israel and around the world.
 
And it came to pass after these things, that G-d tested Abraham, and He said to him, “Abraham,” and he said, “Here I am.” (Sefer Bereishit 22:1, this and all Bible and Rashi translations, The Judaica Press Complete Tanach)
 
Our pasuk (verse) is the introduction to the celebrated narrative known as the “Akeidat Yitzhak,” (the Binding of Isaac). References to this passage abound throughout Rabbinic literature, and serve as the subject for many of the Rosh Hashanah prayers. Chazal  (our Sages of Blessed Memory) note that Avraham underwent 10 trials in order to proclaim his love for the Creator: “With ten tests our father Abraham was tested and he withstood them all - in order to make known how great was our father Abraham's love [for G-d].” (Pirkei Avot 5:3) Beyond a doubt, the Akeidah was Avraham’s most challenging and heart-rending trial.
 
The beginning phrase of our pasuk, “And it came to pass after these things,” is very mysterious, since there is no clear indication as to what “these things” actually were. Rashi (1040-1105), basing himself on various Midrashic traditions, suggests these explanations:

After these things: Some of our Sages say [that this happened]: after the words of Satan, who was accusing and saying, “Of every feast that Abraham made, he did not sacrifice before You one bull or one ram!” He [God] said to him, “Does he do anything but for his son? Yet, if I were to say to him, ‘Sacrifice him before Me,’ he would not withhold [him].”

And some say, “after the words of Ishmael,” who was boasting to Isaac that he was circumcised at the age of thirteen, and he did not protest. Isaac said to him, “With one organ you intimidate me? If the Holy One, blessed be He, said to me, ‘Sacrifice yourself before Me,’ I would not hold back.”
 
Allow me to focus my attention upon Rashi’s second interpretation. The actual texts of the Talmud and Midrash from which Rashi created the dialogue between Yishmael and Yitzhak are worded a bit differently from that which he presents. As such, the original versions contain nuances that are not found in Rashi’s commentary. The most striking example of these differences is the following Talmudic passage from Talmud Bavli, Sanhedrin 89b:

Rabbi Levi said [“after these things” connotes]: “After the words of Yishmael to Yitzhak.” Yishmael said to Yitzhak: “I am greater than you in [the fulfillment] of the commandments, since you were circumcised when you were eight days old, and, [in contrast,] I was13 years old [and, I was therefore able to protest – yet, I remained silent!]” Yitzhak responded to him:

“Regarding one limb you attempt to anger me [with your specious claim of superiority in mitzvot observance?] If the Holy One Blessed be He were to say to me: ‘Sacrifice yourself before me,’ I [would unhesitatingly] sacrifice myself!” Immediately [the Torah then states:] “And it was after these things.” (Translation and brackets my own)
 
Leaving aside some of the relatively minor variations between Rashi’s presentation and our Talmudic narrative, one is swiftly struck by the Gemara’s point of contention between Yishmael and Yitzhak, namely, mitzvot observance. At first glance, this seems rather odd. After all, the Torah was not given to the Jewish people at Mount Sinai until the time of Moshe Rabbeinu (our teacher, Moshe). The notion that Avraham, and by extension, his entire family, kept the Torah prior to the Sinatic Revelation, however, is presented in a well-known statement in Talmud Bavli, Yoma 28b:

Rava said, while others say it was actually Rav Ashi: “Avraham Avinu (our father Avraham) fulfilled the entire Torah, up to and including erev tavshilin (the Rabbinic enactment allowing cooking on the second day of Yom Tov for Shabbat). As the Torah states: ‘[Because Abraham hearkened to My voice, and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and] My instructions (Torotai, Sefer Bereishit 26:5).’ “Torotai” [the plural of Torah] – This means both the Written Torah and the Oral Law.” (Translation, parentheses and brackets my own)
 
Thus, according to the Talmud, the encounter between Yishmael and Yitzhak was nothing less than an epic battle for the spiritual future of the Jewish people. Clearly, Hashem weighed in on the side of Yitzhak, since the Holy One Blessed be He immediately gave him the opportunity to demonstrate his absolute loyalty to Him.
 
Rav Nissan Alpert zatzal (1927-1986), perhaps the greatest disciple of Rav Moshe Feinstein zatzal (1895-1986), in his posthumous work entitled Limudei Nissan, asked a fundamental question on our Talmudic passage from tractate Sanhedrin:

[At first glance,] it is very difficult to state that “after these things” refers to [the fractious] interchange between Yishmael and Yitzhak. If this were to be the case, the text should have read, “And the L-rd tested Yitzhak,” [rather than, “and G-d tested Abraham.”] (Page 175, translation and brackets my own)
 
Rav Alpert responded to his query by suggesting “the trial of one’s son is ultimately the trial of the father, if the father has properly taught him to withstand the tribulations of the test.” He suggested this idea based upon the grammatical construction of the Hebrew phrase, “v’haElokim nissah et Avraham” (“and G-d tested Avraham”), wherein the word “et” is seemingly superfluous. Utilizing the exegetical principle that everything in the Torah is absolutely necessary, Rav Alpert suggested the “et” really means “with,” i.e. that Yitzhak was simultaneously tested at the moment of Avraham’s greatest trial; alternately, the “et” can refer to that which was secondary to Avraham, namely, his son, Yitzhak. Therefore, the Torah’s phrase, “and G-d tested Avraham,” can be interpreted quite properly as “and G-d tested Avraham and Yitzhak.”(Page 176)  
 
The second best-known narrative in Parashat Vayera is that of the Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Indeed, that story, coupled with Avraham’s heartfelt pleading before the Almighty for the inhabitants of these wayward cities, captures our imagination to such a degree that the following verses are often all but forgotten:

And the L-rd said, “Shall I conceal from Abraham what I am doing? And Abraham will become a great and powerful nation, and all the nations of the world will be blessed in him. For I have known him because he commands his sons and his household after him, that they should keep the way of the L-rd to perform righteousness and justice, in order that the L-rd bring upon Abraham that which He spoke concerning him.” (Sefer Bereishit 18:19)
 
The original Hebrew of the phrase, “that they should keep the way of the L-rd to perform righteousness and justice” is “v’shamru derech Hashem la’asot tzedakah u’mishpat.” In his posthumously published work, Abraham’s Journey: Reflections on the Life of the Founding Patriarch, my rebbe and mentor, Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik zatzal (1903-1993), known as “the Rav” by his students and followers, notes that the Hebrew words “v’shamru derech Hashem” refer to the pursuit of holiness (kedushah), whereas the expression “la’asot tzedakah u’mishpat” connotes practicing righteousness and justice. Thus, Avraham Avinu’s “… testament was twofold: keeping the way of the L-rd, which requires kedushah, and also practicing righteousness and justice.” (Page 106)
 
In my estimation, Yitzhak Avinu (our father Yitzhak) perceived himself as the next link in the chain that connected he and his father, and Jews for all time to the Almighty. Therefore, he proved his loyalty to G-d and the mitzvot, by undertaking the potential ultimate sacrifice of dying al Kiddush Hashem (to sanctify G-d’s Name). Thus, he stood steadfast in his resolve to continue the primacy of “v’shamru derech Hashem la’asot tzedakah u’mishpat.”
 
With G-d’s help and blessings, may we, too, continue to uphold the spiritual values of Avraham, Yitzhak, Yaakov, Rivka, Rachel and Leah. Moreover, may we lead lives dedicated to the pursuit of holiness and the practice of “righteousness and justice.” V’chane yihi ratzon.
 
Shabbat Shalom,
 
 
Past drashot may be found at my blog-website: http://reparashathashavuah.org
They may also be found on YUTorah.org using the search criteria of Etengoff and the parasha’s name.

The email list, b’chasdei Hashem, has expanded to hundreds of people. I am always happy to add more members to the list. If you have family or friends you would like to have added, please do not hesitate to contact me via email [email protected].
 
*** My audio shiurim for Women on “Tefilah: Haskafah and Analysis,” may be found at: http://tinyurl.com/8hsdpyd
 
*** I have posted 164 of Rabbi Soloveitchik’s English language audio shiurim (MP3 format) spanning the years 1958-1984. They are available here: http://tinyurl.com/82pgvfn.
 
**Follow new postings on my Twitter accounts: @theRavZatzal and @Torahtech613.
 
 

 
Rabbi David Etengoff
 
Dedicated to the sacred memories of my mother, Miriam Tovah bat Aharon Hakohen, father-in-law, Levi ben Yitzhak, sister-in-law, Ruchama Rivka Sondra bat Yechiel, sister, Shulamit bat Menachem, Chaim Mordechai Hakohen ben Natan Yitzchak, Yehonatan Binyamin ben Mordechai Meir Halevi, Avraham Yechezkel ben Yaakov Halevy, HaRav Yosef Shemuel ben HaRav Reuven Aharon, David ben Elazar Yehoshua, the refuah shlaimah of Devorah bat Chana, and Yitzhak Akiva ben Malka, and the safety of our brothers and sisters in Israel and around the world.
 
After these incidents, the word of the L-rd came to Abram in a vision, saying, “Fear not, Abram; I am your Shield; your reward is exceedingly great,” Sefer Bereishit 15:1, this and all Bible and Rashi translations, The Judaica Press Complete Tanach)
 
Our pasuk (verse) is the introduction to the well-known narrative of the Brit bein Habetarim (Covenant of the Pieces) wherein the broad outline of the destiny of the Jewish people was revealed to Avraham Avinu (our father, Abraham). The pasuk is unique in that it is the sole instance in the Torah’s multi-chapter encounter between the Almighty and Avraham that utilizes the phrase “in a vision” (“ba-mahazeh”). Rabbi Don Yitzchak Abarbanel (1437-1508) elaborated upon the singular nature of our verse in the following manner:

It is the case that the Torah relates that prophecy was vouchsafed to Avraham on numerous occasions. It never explained, however, on which level of the prophetic experience the prophecy was to be found. For the types of prophecy are of two kinds or varieties; namely, dreams and visions… The terms “mareh” (“visualization”) and “mahazeh” (“vision”) are synonymous. As such, why did the Torah inform us in this particular case that Avraham’s prophecy was specifically a “mahazeh?” After all, this information is irrelevant to the matter [i.e. the Brit bein Habetarim] at hand. (Commentary on the Torah, Sefer Bereishit 15:1, translation and brackets my own)
 
The Abarbanel was not the first interpreter to raise the question as to why the Torah utilized the term “mahazeh.” Two classic commentators who addressed this issue were the Radak (Rabbi David Kimchi, 1160-1235) and the Ramban (Nachmanides, 1194-1270). The Radak suggested that the Torah used “mahazeh” in order to linguistically differentiate the impending prophetic experience from those that had come before:

Mahazeh is used in this instance – even though it was never said regarding any matter about which Hashem spoke to him prior to this moment – since this prophecy was not just verbal in nature. Instead, it contained elements of action, namely, G-d taking Avraham outside, the counting of the stars and the specific matter of the Brit bein Habetarim. (Commentary on the Torah, Sefer Bereishit 15:1, translation and brackets my own.
 
In sum, Rav Kimchi opined that the Torah employed the term “mahazeh” in order to prepare us for the new kind of prophecy Avraham Avinu was about to experience, a prophecy of words and action, rather than one comprised solely of verbal communication.
 
In contrast to the Radak, who focused upon the new nature of the prophecy foreshadowed by the term “mahazeh,” the Ramban suggested that the Torah used our expression to inform us that Avraham was now able to receive G-d’s message at a new time: “Now Avraham was able to receive devar Hashem (the word of G-d) in a vision during the day, whereas at first, his prophecy [like all of the other prophets except Moshe,] had been limited to visualizations of the night.” (Commentary on the Torah, Sefer Bereishit 15:1, translation and brackets my own)
 
In our own time, my rebbi and mentor, Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik zatzal (1903-1993), known as “the Rav” by his students and disciples, took a different approach regarding the meaning of “mahazeh” than either the Radak or the Ramban. For the Rav, our term signified a different kind of visionary experience than those Avraham had shared with the Almighty in the past. Heretofore, G-d’s prophecies had enabled Avraham to experience his Creator’s warmth, care and concern. Now, however, “ba-mahazeh,” Avraham was confronted with distance and separation from the Master of the Universe. In part, Rav Soloveitchik derived this concept from the glaring absence of the term “va-yomer” (“and He said”) that had accompanied all of Avraham’s other prophetic encounters, and the presence of the newly introduced term “devar Hashem”:

The introduction, “hayah devar Hashem el Avram ba-mahazeh, the word of the L-rd came to Abram in a vision” (Gen. 15:1), is very interesting… Here the Torah omits the term va-yomer, which it had used repeatedly to describe G-d’s encounters with Abraham, and adds the word ba-mahazeh. Va-yomer means a dialogue, a conversation held face to face. G-d encountered Abraham and addressed Himself to him. Devar Hashem connotes communication from a distance; the message got to Abraham, but indirectly, G-d was not present. Ba-mahazeh means perspective, vision. Va-yomer is a higher medium of prophecy than devar Hashem. Here G-d was a little distant because the message G-d delivered to him [in the Brit bein Habetarim] was one of galut, of exile, oppression, humiliation, and suffering. (Abraham’s Journey: Reflections on the Life of the Founding Patriarch, pages 139-140, underlining and brackets my own)
 
At this juncture, the Rav focused his energies on further elucidating the term, “ba-mahazeh:” “Before G-d spoke to him face to face; now, suddenly it is ba-mahazeh, from a distance. The word reaches him from infinity, from G-d’s transcendent abode.” In other words, for the first time in Avraham’s adult life, he experienced G-d’s remoteness rather than His immanence. Little wonder, then, that he desperately needed to hear Hashem immediately declare, “Fear not, Abram; I am your Shield; your reward is exceedingly great.” (Underlining my own)
 
We are b’nai Avraham, the descendants of Avraham, and we continue to live in a world in which the message of G-d is far too often “one of galut, of exile, oppression, humiliation, and suffering.” As such, like the first Patriarch, we long to hear G-d’s reassuring words: “Fear not, Abram; I am your Shield; your reward is exceedingly great.” With G-d’s endless mercy, may the time of our reward as His chosen and beloved nation be ushered in by Mashiach Tzidkanu (the Righteous Messiah), when will we witness the fulfillment of Zechariah’s most famous prophecy: “And the L-rd shall become King over all the earth; on that day shall the L-rd be one, and His name one.” (14:9) May this vision be realized soon and in our days – amen v’chane yihi ratzon.
 
Shabbat Shalom,
 
Past drashot may be found at my blog-website: http://reparashathashavuah.org
They may also be found on YUTorah.org using the search criteria of Etengoff and the parasha’s name.
The email list, b’chasdei Hashem, has expanded to hundreds of people. I am always happy to add more members to the list. If you have family or friends you would like to have added, please do not hesitate to contact me via email [email protected].
 
*** My audio shiurim for Women on “Tefilah: Haskafah and Analysis,” may be found at: http://tinyurl.com/8hsdpyd
 
*** I have posted 164 of Rabbi Soloveitchik’s English language audio shiurim (MP3 format) spanning the years 1958-1984. They are available here: http://tinyurl.com/82pgvfn.
 
**Follow new postings on my Twitter accounts: @theRavZatzal and @Torahtech613.
 

 
Rabbi David Etengoff
 
Dedicated to the sacred memories of my mother, Miriam Tovah bat Aharon Hakohen, father-in-law, Levi ben Yitzhak, sister-in-law, Ruchama Rivka Sondra bat Yechiel, sister, Shulamit bat Menachem, Chaim Mordechai Hakohen ben Natan Yitzchak, Yehonatan Binyamin ben Mordechai Meir Halevi, Avraham Yechezkel ben Yaakov Halevy, HaRav Yosef Shemuel ben HaRav Reuven Aharon, David ben Elazar Yehoshua, the refuah shlaimah of Devorah bat Chana, and Yitzhak Akiva ben Malka, and the safety of our brothers and sisters in Israel and around the world.
 
Now the entire earth was of one language and uniform words (דְבָרִים אֲחָדִים). (Sefer Bereishit, Parashat Noach 11:1, this and all Bible and Rashi translations, The Judaica Press Complete Tanach)
 
Our pasuk (verse) is the introduction to the famous narrative of the Tower of Babel. It immediately presents us with two exegetical challenges, namely, what do the terms “one language,” and “uniform words” actually mean? Rashi (1040-1105) explains the first expression as “the Holy Tongue [i.e. Hebrew].” This interpretation seems to be nearly universally accepted. The second term, however, proves to be far more elusive. Instead of offering us a gloss composed of a few words, Rashi presents no less than three Midrashically based interpretations:

and uniform words: Heb. דְבָרִים אֲחָדִים. They came with one scheme and said, “He had no right to select for Himself the upper regions. Let us ascend to the sky and wage war with Him.” Another explanation: [they spoke] against the Sole One [i.e. G-d] of the world. Another explanation of דְבָרִים אֲחָדִים. (other editions read: דְבָרִים חָדִים  sharp words): They said, “Once every 1,656 years, the sky totters, as it did in the time of the Flood. Come and let us make supports for it.”
 
In Rashi’s first two explanations, the Dor Haflagah (Generation of Separation) sought to challenge the Holy One Blessed be He, and either had planned to literally wage war against Him or had spoken vehemently against Him and His hegemony over the Universe. In contrast, the third interpretation seems to suggest that the people of the time doubted Hashem’s omnipotence, and therefore thought it was necessary for them to support the sky to prevent its collapse. The connective link in all three instances appears to be the generation’s inability to recognize G-d’s unlimited power and ability.
 
Perhaps Rashi suggested multiple explanations of our term based upon Rabbi Elazar’s statement in Midrash Bereishit Rabbah 38:6: “The matter [concerning the destruction] of the Generation of the Flood is explicitly explained, [in contrast,] the matter concerning [the separation] of the Generation of Separation [i.e. our case] was not explained.” Given the inexplicit nature of the narrative of the Tower of Babel, Rashi, driven by his singular intellectual honesty, was well nigh forced to share all three Midrashic interpretations.
 
The Netziv (Rabbi Naftali Tzvi Yehuda Berlin, 1817-1893), in his classic work of Torah exegesis, Ha’amek Davar, took an entirely different approach to “דְבָרִים אֲחָדִים” than that of Rashi. His analysis begins in a parallel fashion to Rabbi Elazar’s observation:

The text does not clarify the matters [associated with the Generation of Separation] except through insinuation as is explained in the Midrashim. The text, however, does not explain what these matters were – only that they were “uniform words.”
 
At this juncture, the Netziv shared his own unique thoughts to facilitate our understanding of “the story behind the story” regarding the participants in the construction of the Tower of Babel:

And we may learn that it was not because of the qualitative nature of these matters that the Holy One Blessed be He was bestirred, for if it was solely because they were united, this, in and of itself, would have been of no account, and therefore, it appears that there was no sin in this instance. In fact, the opposite is true, for it is proper and fitting to leave even a group of discontents (chibur atzavim) to their own devices. Here [in this specific case], however, [the act of being united] enabled them to think along certain lines that led to the destruction of their civilization … (Translation and brackets my own)
 
In sum, according to the Netziv, the Dor Haflagah thought “along certain lines that led to the destruction of their civilization.” The exact content of their thoughts, however, appears to remain undefined.
 
My rebbi and mentor, Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik zatzal (1903-1993), depicted the nature and being of the Generation of Separation in his interpretation of two verses that appear in our parasha. In so doing, he delineated the vague “lines of thought” that led to their ultimate demise and channeled Rashi’s comments into the context of modern tyrannies:

The construction of the tower represented industrialization. The society enslaved the individual, not to other individuals, but to the state, to the collective, to the group… the dor haflagah, the generation that built the tower of Babel, were disciplined and well organized. They had a strict political code… They were aggressive in undertaking, bold in design, and arrogant in execution. The ideology of Marxism as interpreted by Lenin and Mao Tse Tung could not have found a better portrayal than in these verses... The dor haflagah were a power-hungry band of fanatics who wanted to rule the heavens as well as the earth, scoffing at faith in G-d, human weaknesses, at the very idea of individual human dignity and freedom… (Chumash Mesoras HaRav, Sefer Bereishit: with Commentary Based Upon the Teachings of Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, verses 11:3-4, pages 66-67)
 
In conclusion, the Dor Haflagah was an authoritarian “band of fanatics” that outlawed the best in mankind in order to ensure the realization of their arrogant undertaking. Their worldview eschewed freedom and dignity, and “scoffed at G-d.” Little wonder, then, that “… the L-rd scattered them from there upon the face of the entire earth, and they ceased building the city.” (Sefer Bereishit 11:8) After all, their united existence was antithetical to G-d’s presence in the world.
 
With Hashem’s help, may we lead lives that repudiate the essence of the Dor Haflagah. Moreover, may we become sensitized to the needs of all mankind, so that we can help build communities and societies that realize the values “of individual human dignity and freedom.” V’chane yihi ratzon.
 
Shabbat Shalom,
  
Past drashot may be found at my blog-website: http://reparashathashavuah.org
They may also be found on YUTorah.org using the search criteria of Etengoff and the parasha’s name.

The email list, b’chasdei Hashem, has expanded to hundreds of people. I am always happy to add more members to the list. If you have family or friends you would like to have added, please do not hesitate to contact me via email [email protected].
 
*** My audio shiurim for Women on “Tefilah: Haskafah and Analysis,” may be found at: http://tinyurl.com/8hsdpyd
 
*** I have posted 164 of Rabbi Soloveitchik’s English language audio shiurim (MP3 format) spanning the years 1958-1984. They are available here: http://tinyurl.com/82pgvfn.
 
**Follow new postings on my Twitter accounts: @theRavZatzal and @Torahtech613.
 

​
 
Rabbi David Etengoff
 
Dedicated to the sacred memories of my mother, Miriam Tovah bat Aharon Hakohen, father-in-law, Levi ben Yitzhak, sister-in-law, Ruchama Rivka Sondra bat Yechiel, sister, Shulamit bat Menachem, Chaim Mordechai Hakohen ben Natan Yitzchak, Yehonatan Binyamin ben Mordechai Meir Halevi, Avraham Yechezkel ben Yaakov Halevy, HaRav Yosef Shemuel ben HaRav Reuven Aharon, David ben Elazar Yehoshua, the refuah shlaimah of Devorah bat Chana, and Yitzhak Akiva ben Malka, and the safety of our brothers and sisters in Israel and around the world.
 
And G-d said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness…” (Sefer Bereishit 1:26, this and all Bible and Rashi translations, The Judaica Press Complete Tanach)
 
The phrase, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness,” has been the subject of intense scrutiny since time immemorial. To whom, after all, did the Holy One Blessed be He refer when He employed the terms, “us” and “our?” Rashi (1040-1105), in his commentary on our verse, provides us with a famous interpretation that is based upon several Midrashim:

Let us make man: From here we learn the humility of the Holy One, blessed be He. Since man was created in the likeness of the angels, and they would envy him, He consulted them… Let us make man: Even though they [the angels] did not assist Him in His creation, and there is an opportunity for the heretics to rebel (to misconstrue the plural as a basis for their heresies), Scripture did not hesitate to teach proper conduct and the trait of humility, that a great person should consult with and receive permission from a smaller one. Had it been written: “I shall make man,” we would not have learned that He was speaking with His tribunal, but to Himself.
 
G-d’s humility is certainly writ large in Rashi’s explanation. This is congruent with the well-known Rabbinic dictum, “Rabbi Yochanan said: ‘In every instance wherein you find the greatness of the Holy One Blessed be He referenced, therein you will find a statement of his humility.’” (Talmud Bavli, Megillah 31a, underlining my own) At the same time, however, Rashi notes that the angels were envious of man and “they [the angels] did not assist Him in His creation [of man].” The following passage from the Gemara helps elucidate this comment:

Rav Yehudah said in the name of Rav: “At the time the Holy One Blessed be He sought to create the first man, he created one group of ministering angels. He said to them: ‘Is it your will that we should create man in our image?’ They said before Him: ‘Master of the Universe, what will be his actions?’ He [G-d] responded: ‘His [man’s] actions will be thus and so.’ They [the angels] then said before Him: ‘Master of the Universe, “What is man that You should remember him, and the son of man that You should be mindful of him?”’ (Sefer Tehillim 8:5) At that moment, He sent forth his smallest finger amongst them and consumed them with fire. So, too, with the second group [of angels that He had created]. The third set of angels then said to Him: ‘Master of the Universe, the first ones who spoke before You – What purpose did they serve? The entire Universe belongs to You and everything that You want to do in Your world – do!’ When the terrible behaviors of the Generations of the Flood and the Tower of Babel came to the fore, they [the angels] said to Him: ‘Did not the first groups of angels speak properly [i.e. accurately] before You?’ [After all, look what man has now done!] G-d then said to them: ‘And until old age I [G-d] am the same, and until you turn gray I will carry; I have made and I will bear and I will carry and deliver.’” (Sefer Yeshayahu 46:4, Talmud Bavli, Sanhedrin 38b, Talmud translation and all brackets my own)
 
Man, it appears, is the ultimate study in contrasts. In one sense, man is capable of living on an almost angelic plane of being, “Yet You have made him [i.e. man] slightly less than the angels, and You have crowned him with glory and majesty.” (Sefer Tehillim 8:6) Nonetheless, immediately prior to this paean of praise, the same King David declared, as did the ministering angels in our Talmudic passage, “When I see Your heavens, the work of Your fingers, the moon and stars that You have established, what is man that You should remember him, and the son of man that You should be mindful of him?” (Verses 4-5, underlining my own).
 
Many Kabbalistic and Chassidic works focus upon man’s dual nature, and speak in terms of the raging battle within us between the nefesh behamit (animalistic-oriented soul) and the nefesh Elokit (the G-dly soul). Perhaps the recognition of this unceasing internal psychological and spiritual conflict lead our Sages to question whether or not man should have been created at all:

Our Rabbis taught: Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel argued for two and a half years [regarding the creation of man]. This group said, “It would have been better for man not to have been created than to have been created.” [In contrast,] the other group stated: “It was better for man to have been created than to have not been created.” [Finally a consensus was reached,] and they concluded: “It would have been better for man not to have been created than to have been created.” Now, however, that man has been created, let him carefully examine (y’phashpfash) his actions. Others said the proper text is that man should scrutinize (y’mashmash) his actions. (Talmud Bavli, Eruvin 13b, translation, brackets and underlining my own)
 
Rabbi Shmuel Halevi Eidels zatzal (1555-1631), known by his Hebrew acronym as the “Maharsha,” is renowned for his detailed two-part commentary on the Talmud Bavli that analytically examines both Halachic and Aggadic passages. In his glosses on the above-cited Aggadic section from Talmud Bavli, Eruvin 13b, he notes that man is an essential part of Hashem’s Universe, for if he did not exist there would be no one to perform the Torah’s commandments. Yet, on the pragmatic level, this idea contains a conceptual double-edged sword: The mitzvot lo ta’aseh (negative commandments) are, in the main, fulfilled by simply refraining from performing certain specified actions. Therefore, were man never to have come into being, each of the mitzvot lo ta’aseh would be fulfilled by default, since there would be no one to violate their integrity. With man’s creation, however, this calculus changes and a negative risk-reward valence incorporating the distinct probability of violating the mitzvot lo ta’aseh is present. The plus side of the equation of man’s existence in the Cosmos is to be found, however, in his potential fulfillment of mitzvot aseh (positive commandments):

… for if he had not been created, it is incontrovertibly the case that the positive commandments would never be fulfilled. Now that man has been created, it is possible that he will act meritoriously and perform them, and in that way he will be rewarded.
 
At this juncture, the Maharsha arrives at the crux of the machloket (dispute) between Beit Hill and Beit Shammai:

One side said that it would have been better for man not to have been created because of the [probable] violation of the mitzvot lo ta’aseh, since it is possible that the ultimate loss [due to these prohibitions] will far outweigh any benefit that will accrue as a result of man’s creation and consequent fulfillment of the positive commandments. [In other words,] yatzah scharo b’hefsado (his reward will be as naught in comparison to his loss). The other view opined that is was better for man to have been created than not created, since it is possible that he will fulfill the mitzvot aseh, rather than merely have the mitzvot lo ta’aseh fulfilled by default. [In other words,] d’yatzah hefsado b’scharo (his loss will be as naught in comparison to his reward). (Translations my own)
 
As we have seen, the original passage concludes with the statements: “It would have been better for man not to have been created than to have been created. Now, however, that man has been created, let him carefully examine (y’phashpfash) his actions. Others said the proper text is that man should scrutinize (y’mashmash) his actions.” I believe that the key to man’s potential spiritual growth and improvement may well be contained in both these Hebrew terms that are  explained in different ways by our classic commentators.
 
The Aruch (Rabbi Yechiel ben Natan, 1035-1110) explains “y’phashpfash” as referring to careful inspection of one’s actions after having committed a sin. In contrast, “y’mashmash” refers to the scrutiny of one’s potential actions to ascertain whether or not they fit the criteria of meritorious behavior. Each of these approaches, therefore, should prevent a person from committing a chate (sin) or, at the very least, from repeating it. Rashi follows the Aruch’s approach in reference to “y’phashpfash,” while significantly expanding upon the analysis of “y’mashmash.” In doing so, he comes close to paraphrasing the Mishnah in Pirkei Avot 2:1, wherein Rabbi Yehudah Hanasi said: “Be as careful with a minor mitzvah as with a major one, for you do not know the rewards of the mitzvot. Consider the cost of a mitzvah against its rewards, and the rewards of a transgression against its cost.” Thus, in his commentary on our Talmudic passage, Rashi states the following:

Y’mashmash b’ma’asuv – for example, if one has an opportunity to perform a mitzvah, he should consider the loss that will obtain due to its non-performance in light of the reward that would accrue as a result of its performance. He should, therefore, not put off its performance because of the [momentary] monetary expenditure, since its reward will surely come in the future. [Moreover,] if the possibility of performing a sin presents itself, he should carefully consider the “reward” that will accrue immediately over and against the future loss for which he will have to make restitution.
 
In my opinion, however, the most trenchant analysis of “y’phashpfash b’ma’asuv” and “y’mashmash b’ma’asuv” is found in the classic gem of the Mussar Movement entitled, “Mesilat Yesharim,” authored by the great Italian kabbalist and ethicist, Rabbi Moshe Chaim Luzzatto zatzal (17707-1746). Rav Luzzatto defines “pishpush” (the nounal form of “y’phashpfash”) as:

…to examine all of our actions, in general, and to carefully think about them. [To ascertain] if they contain therein actions that we ought not to do that do not follow the ways of the commandments and statutes of Hashem. Any actions that fit [this negative criterion] should be destroyed from the world.
 
In contrast, he defines “mishmush” (the nounal form of “y’mashmash”) as:
 
…the careful and exact analysis of even good actions, to determine and see if they contain any aspect, whatsoever, that is not good or any bad feature that must be removed and destroyed…one must scrutinize his actions [in this fashion] to examine their innermost content, the purpose of this examination to [yield] actions that are pure and perfect.
 
According to Rav Luzzatto then, the ultimate purpose of “pishpush” and “mishmush” is “for man to scrutinize all of his actions and to be aware of all of his approaches [to the world], in order that he will not have any bad habitual behaviors or negative moral qualities – and all the more so that he will not perform any manner or variety of sins.” (Translation and emphasis my own)
 
Rav Luzzatto has provided us with a blueprint for true spiritual growth and development that will allow the Almighty to dwell among us; namely, to examine all of our actions, those that we know need improvement, and even those that we currently believe to be above reproach. Now, we have the authentic opportunity to become more than who we are today, by changing our ways so that we may ultimately change ourselves. V’chane yihi ratzon.
 
 
Shabbat Shalom,
 
 
Past drashot may be found at my blog-website: http://reparashathashavuah.org
The email list, b’chasdei Hashem, has expanded to hundreds of people. I am always happy to add more members to the list. If you have family or friends you would like to have added, please do not hesitate to contact me via email [email protected].
 
*** My audio shiurim for Women on “Tefilah: Haskafah and Analysis,” may be found at: http://tinyurl.com/8hsdpyd
 
*** I have posted 164 of Rabbi Soloveitchik’s English language audio shiurim (MP3 format) spanning the years 1958-1984. They are available here: http://tinyurl.com/82pgvfn.
 
**Follow new postings on my Twitter accounts: @theRavZatzal and @Torahtech613.