Bereishis
בראשית ברא אלקים את השמים ואת הארץ (א, א).
In the beginning, G-d created the Heaven and the Earth.
ביום עשות ה’ אלקים ארץ ושמים (ב, ד)
On the day of Hashem-G-d’s making of Earth and Heaven.
The Midrash* tells us that initially Hashem attempted to create the world predicated purely on Judgement, hence the use in the first verse of the Name אלקים, that of Judgement. Being that it could not last, He added an element of Mercy, hence the latter use of ה' אלקים, the Names of Mercy and Judgement together.
What does this mean? Can Hashem change His mind? And what does it mean that the world was initially a project of Judgement – isn’t the purpose of existence for Hashem to bestow goodness upon His creations? And why does the order of Heaven and Earth change from one verse to another?
In order to resolve these difficulties, let us turn to another part of our sidra. The Midrash** observes from the nuances of the text that the soil had been instructed to produce trees whose bark would taste as its produce. In fact, the soil did not do so. As a result, when Adam was punished for his sin, the soil was punished along with him, blighted with a curse. The obvious question is: what intersection did these two infractions have that they were punished simultaneously? And, why indeed did the soil not heed the Divine command?
To help unlock these two cryptic matters, let us bring yet another into the mix. The Torah describes that Hashem created two מאורות הגדולים, great luminaries, then immediately details them as המאור הגדול והמאור הקטן, the great luminary and the small luminary***. In one of its more fantastic passages, the Talmud famously***** describes the backstory behind this change. One of the twin great luminaries complained that “two kings cannot share a single crown.” Hashem agreed, minimizing it.
What happened here? If, indeed, it is impossible for “two kings to share a single crown,” whatever that means, why did Hashem create them as such? If it is possible, what weight did the argument have?*****
To pivot to another matter entirely, we find conflicting statements as to how one should conduct himself if he cannot afford his Shabbos needs. One source****** states that Hashem figuratively assures him לוו עלי ואיני פורע, borrow on My account and I will pay it off. Another states******* עשה שבתך חול ואל תצטרך לבריות, make your Shabbos fare mundane rather than need to come onto others. See Tosafos to the first statement for a resolution. What I would like to focus on now is the different quantities of the subjects in these statements: it is plural in the first, while singular in the second. Why?
There is a midrash******** that records a query from Dovid ha-Melech to Hashem. “Why does income disparity exist? All people should be either wealthy or poor (as Your justice would dictate).” The response was that, indeed, that would be the sensible route. But the world was created as a theater for kindness. In a world of all have’s or have-not’s, how would charity be feasible?
I would continue to query, though: why is there a wisdom disparity? Let everyone be either learned or ignorant. The answer is that this allows the charity to move along multiple axes. Some people provide others materialistically; others with knowledge and guidance. This allows the recipients of charity to reciprocate with something meaningful instead of just being takers.
This is the meaning of the “two great luminaries.” They are representative of the reciprocal provisions of material wealth and wisdom. In truth, though, one is the “great luminary,” the other, the “small one.” That is because the primary provision is that of wisdom; that of wealth is secondary. Why? Because all material wealth only reaches our world on account of the scholars and the righteous. As the Talmud says*********, the entire world was nourished בשביל חנינא בני, on account of the great R. Chanina b. Dosa. The word בשביל can be rendered through the channel of, as it is the righteous who funnel the heavenly bounty into our world. As such, one cannot really give the credit for charity to the donors for sharing their wealth with the less-fortunate scholars, as it is the latter who provide them with it in the first place! If so, why are they called a luminary at all? For that we would need to appropriate the concept articulated by the Zohar**********, that while the tail of a lion is but a tail, it is still part of a lion. Simply being part of something great, even to a minimal degree, makes one a participant in its entirety.
What emerges is that when taken independently, there is one large luminary and one small one. However, when they are linked – with each bestowing of itself upon the other – even the smaller one becomes large. In the same vein we can interpret the Talmud’s message regarding Shabbos spending. The word לוו can be taken as meaning to borrow, or, to escort. If the scholar sees that the would-be lender desires to provide him with material support in order to create a relationship with him, creating a circuit of giving between the two, then he should proceed with it. Hence the plural of לוו. But if the donor’s intention is not so, rather he wishes to provide support while remaining aloof of the scholar, the instruction is instead עשה שבתך חול, in the singular, to refrain and suffice with what one has.
We are now able to offer an innovative interpretation to the evolution of the process of Creation. At first, Hashem desired to create the world with Judgement, with exactitude, i.e., that all people would be of equal financial status. However, that would have preempted the potential for acts of kindness between them. He therefore added the potential for such compassion through income disparity. The world would now consist of those who have wealth due to Compassion and those who have poverty due to Judgement, and they would work in tandem. In reflection of this, the verse says, ביום עשות ה' אלקים ארץ ושמים, first ארץ for the material well-to-do and then שמים for the spiritual down-and-out. This follows the pattern found elsewhere, such as the precedence of Zevulun to Yissochor*********** in recognition of the former’s role as the supporter of the latter.
This also resolves the mysterious issue of the trees and their flavor. Initially, Hashem instructed the soil to produce trees which were on par with their produce, reflecting the income uniformity that was sought. But when it came down to it, there was a taste disparity, reflecting the social disparity that would exist in practice.
Being that the world consists of disparate groups acting upon each other, the quality of each affects that of the other. As Rav Yehudah Leib Pistyner************ once explained, הושיעה ה' כי גמר חסיד כי פסו אמונים מבני אדם, Save, Hashem! For the pious one has ceased, for the faithful have disappeared from mankind.************* What caused the loss of the pious, the exceptionally devout? The drop in honesty within society in general. In response to this, Heaven messaged him in a dream that, to the contrary, the verse means to teach that it is the dearth of pious examples that drags down society. In any event, it is a truism that human society is an interconnected ecosystem, its members influencing each other for better or for worse. Typically, when its more material members are on the ascendency, it influences the spiritual ones for the worse; and when the spiritual ones are on a high, it influences the material for the better.
Hence, Adam attributed his failing to האשה אשר נתתה עמדי,************** i.e., the חומר, corporeality (which is traditionally symbolized by Woman) which was given to me to connect with. And so, in keeping with the above interplay, when he was cursed as a punishment for his failing, that חומר was cursed along with him. This explains why the soil, which set this process in motion, was punished along with Adam. This sorry state would continue until the advent of Noach who redeemed the soil from its curse. ***************As the Torah describes him, he was an איש האדמה,**************** one who overpowered the חומר with the צורה, form or spirituality.
________________________________________
* Bereishis Rabbah 12:15.** Ibid., 5:9.*** Bereishis 1:16.**** Chullin 60b.***** I did see in one work the suggestion that when Hashem said לכי ומעטי את עצמך, He was pointing out to the Moon that it was not a producer of light rather a reflector of that of the Sun, and as such there was only one true “king.” While this is an interesting take, it leaves unresolved how the luminaries could be described as such if only one produced its own light.****** Beitzah 15b.******* Pesachim 112a.******** Tanchuma, Mishpatim, 9.********* Berachos 17b.********** Terumah 147b.*********** See Bereishis Rabbah 72:5.************ See Matos, n. 14.************* Tehillim 12:2.************** Bereishis 3:12.*************** Zohar, Vayikra 15a.**************** Bereishis 9:19.