God鈥檚 Partners in Torah
The ancient rabbinic Sages taught that the people of Israel must consider themselves, 砖讜转驻讬讜 砖诇 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 讘诪注砖讛 讘专讗砖讬转 鈥淕od鈥檚 partner in the work of creation鈥� (BT, Shabbat 119b and elsewhere). Often overlooked is that reading the Torah鈥檚 opening (讘专讗砖讬转 讘专讗 讗诇讛讬诐…, which I am deliberatively leaving untranslated for now) demands a similar type of partnership. The reason for this is that the opening of the Torah contains impenetrably difficult syntax. Let us consider the very first verse: 讘职旨专值讗砖执讈讬转 讘指旨专指讗 讗直诇止讛执讬诐 讗值转 讛址砖指旨讈诪址讬执诐 讜职讗值转 讛指讗指专侄抓. If we were to translate this verse literally, and absolutely retaining the order of the words, we would understand it along these lines: 鈥淚n the beginning of, he-created God (did), heavens and earth . . . 鈥� This is a far cry from the affecting cadence of the majestic King James Bible鈥檚 translation, 鈥淚n the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.鈥� The question is, given the difficult syntax, what does this verse 鈥渁ctually鈥� mean?
Since it鈥檚 traditional for 黑料社 readers to begin with Rashi (R. Shlomo Yitzhaki), let us do that very thing! Rashi鈥檚 first efforts to understand the verse are midrashic in nature. Sensing the difficulty in making sense of the verse (鈥淭his text says nothing other than 鈥榚xpound me鈥�!鈥�), Rashi breaks the first word into two constituent parts: the prefix 讘 (bet), followed by the word 专讗砖讬转 (reshit). Whereas we typically learn to associate a prefixed bet as meaning either 鈥渋n鈥� or 鈥渨ith,鈥� Rashi prefers another legitimate understanding, 讘砖讘讬诇 (bishvil), 鈥渇or the sake of.鈥� But for the sake of what? Well, Rashi would read the verse, 鈥淔or the sake of reshit, God created the heavens and the earth. But Rashi does not leave it that way. He quickly launches into midrashic discourse: 鈥渇or the sake of reshit . . . as long as one understands that Hebrew word as being a reference to Torah!鈥� How does he get there? Rashi notes the presence of the word reshit in Proverbs 8:22: 鈥淵HWH created me at the beginning of His (God鈥檚) way鈥� (reshit darko). Who is speaking in this verse? Modern scholarship regard this as Personified Wisdom announcing that God created Wisdom (讞讻诪讛 hokhma) at the onset of God鈥檚 creation of the world. But the rabbis see in the word not a reference to an abstract 鈥淲isdom鈥� (personified or not) but to Torah: 讗讬谉 讞讻诪讛 讗诇讗 转讜专讛, 鈥渢here is no occurrence of the word 鈥榳isdom鈥� (in Scripture) that is not actually a reference to Torah鈥� (e.g., Tanhuma Vayelekh 2). That we might consider such a statement as hyperbolic should in no way diminish our appreciation for the midrashic hermeneutic through which the Sages find 鈥淭orah,鈥� writ large, in the Book of Proverbs. Deftly employing a different midrashic move, Rashi understands this as expressing a tautology: reshit = wisdom = Torah, and if this is so in Proverbs, it is just as true in Genesis. Thus Rashi 鈥渕oves鈥� the presence of reshit in Proverbs 8 in its rabbinic understanding as 鈥淭orah鈥� to Genesis 1 and resolves the syntactic problem by interpreting the first verse: 鈥渇or the sake of Torah, God created the heavens and the earth.鈥澛犅� Now, it goes without saying that you are not likely to find such a translation in any English Bible. But it must be admitted that from a rabbinic perspective, the interpretation is both elegant in its resolution of the syntax and informative in teaching an essential rabbinic truth: Torah is the most precious thing in God鈥檚 entire universe and in fact, in this view, God created the entire universe for its sake!聽
Deft? Surely! But not unusual for the Sages; in fact, Rashi quickly follows this midrashic interpretation with another one that employs the very same technique. In this second interpretation, Rashi notes the presence of the word 专讗砖讬转 (reshit) in yet another verse (Jeremiah 2:3): 拽止讚侄砖讈 讬执砖职讉专指讗值诇 诇址讛鈥� 专值讗砖执讈讬转 转职旨讘讜旨讗指转止讛 鈥淚srael is holy to the LORD,/The first fruits of God鈥檚 harvest.鈥� By now you already know the routine: Rashi 鈥減lucks鈥� the word reshit from Jeremiah, though this time with the associative meaning of 鈥淚srael,鈥� and transfers it to Genesis, and鈥攖he syntactic problem again being resolved鈥攊nterprets: 鈥渇or the sake of Israel, God created the heavens and the earth.鈥�
Are you catching a trend here? In only a very few words, Rashi has reassured his 黑料社 readers that while the Christian and Muslim worlds may dwarf the 黑料社 world in population and power, in fact God created the entire universe for the sake of Israel and Torah! And again, it matters not a whit that such interpretations do not comport with our sense of what the words 鈥渁ctually鈥� mean, in these two interpretations Rashi is living in the world of midrash, where different rules apply.
Having offered two different midrashic resolution of the syntactic problem of Genesis 1:1, Rashi then turns his attention to what he terms聽驻砖讜讟讜 砖诇 诪拽专讗 鈥渢he plain sense of Scripture.鈥� Rashi is an here: as he states in his famous on Genesis 3:8, he is interested in interpreting both according to midrash and peshat in his effort to provide what Professor Edward L. Greenstein has as 鈥渢he fullest possible accounting of the language of Scripture.鈥� As Rashi makes his transition to the verse鈥檚 plain sense, he signals the shift to the reader: 讜讗诐 讘讗转 诇驻专砖讜 讻驻砖讜讟讜, 讻讱 驻专砖讛讜 鈥淚f you have come to explain this passage according to its plain meaning, this is how you should explain it.鈥� In other words, while the syntactic problem of Genesis 1:1 still remains, the peshat approach demands a different accounting. This time Rashi鈥檚 attention turns to the verb 讘专讗 (鈥淗e [God] created鈥�) and notes as well that the preceding word 讘专讗砖讬转 (bereshit) does not really meaning 鈥渋n the beginning,鈥� but rather 鈥渋n the beginning of . . .鈥� In this understanding of the verse鈥檚 syntax (that grammarians regard as incorporating a noun in 鈥渃onstruct formation,鈥� typically to a noun that follows it), Rashi senses that the verse means 鈥渁t the beginning of . . . something . . . God created or did . . .聽 something.鈥� Thus, we can ask: at the beginning of what, and what was it that God did? Rashi鈥檚 understanding that the word reshit typically means 鈥渢he beginning of鈥� leads him to wonder whether or not we are really served well by regarding the word that follows it (bara) as a conjugated verb, since as we already know it should be followed by a noun! This leads Rashi to interpret, 鈥渢his is how you should explain it: 鈥業n the beginning of the creating (产别谤颈鈥檃迟) of heaven and earth鈥攁nd the earth was howling waste, and darkness [was on the face of the deep] . . . 鈥攖hen God said, 鈥淟et there be light!鈥濃�欌�� Thus, Rashi chooses to read 讘专讗 (bara) as a gerund (鈥渃reating鈥�) instead of a conjugated verb; and incidentally demonstrates that the first sentence of Scripture does not actually occur until verse three (鈥淕od said 鈥榣et there be light鈥�!鈥�). Moreover, a bit later Rashi follows this interpretation by stating that the gerund (产别谤颈鈥檃迟, 鈥渃reating鈥�) is probably better understood as a verbal noun that grammarians call an 鈥渋nfinitive鈥� (here 讘专讜止讗, bero). This means he reads the beginning of the Torah as starting with a two-verse long subordinate clause that does not conclude until verse three. That this interpretation likely reflects as close to the peshat, plain meaning of the opening of the Torah as we can get, lead the translators of the NJPS Tanakh translation to render:
When God began to create heaven and earth鈥�2 the earth being unformed and void, with darkness over the surface of the deep and a wind from God sweeping over the water鈥�3 God said, 鈥淟et there be light鈥�; and there was light.
To make the point clearer, we might consider Everett Fox鈥檚 translation in the Schocken Bible, 鈥淎t the beginning of God鈥檚 creating of the heavens and the earth . . . God said: Let there be light! . . . 鈥�
All in all, Rashi has provided three readings of the opening of the Torah, two rooted in rabbinic midrash and one rooted in an effort to elucidate the plain meaning of Scripture. But attempts to access the multivalent understanding of the Torah鈥檚 opening only begin with Rashi, by no means do they conclude with him. Were we to continue our investigation into the meaning of Genesis 1 by consulting other commentaries typically found in a (Rashbam, R. Abraham Ibn Ezra, R. David Kimhi, etc.), the elusiveness of Scripture and our inability to pin it down to one theoretically precise meaning would become even more apparent. And this elusiveness brings us right back to our initial observation about being God鈥檚 partners as we read Torah. In our brief journey to understand the opening of Genesis, we see that Torah can鈥檛 鈥渕ean鈥� anything without its human readers, for even at this relatively early stage of our investigation we have three meanings from which to choose! On its own it鈥檚 like the proverbial falling tree in the forest 鈥� who knows if it makes any noise unless there is someone to hear it? And this means we need to take our responsibility as Torah readers with the utmost seriousness, to closely read Scripture as best we can (and, I might add, in Hebrew!) and to engage Torah in the fullness of both its midrash and peshat. God has begun God鈥檚 own Torah with an invitation to unlock its mysteries and delight in its pleasures鈥攎ay the new cycle of Torah readings that begin with this week鈥檚 Parshat Bereishit see us all accept this invitation with open arms and a willing heart. Shabbat shalom!
The publication and distribution of the JTS Commentary are made possible by a generous grant from Rita Dee (z鈥漧) and Harold Hassenfeld (z鈥漧).
