Sunday, March 27, 2016

The Tree, The Naming, and Eyzer k'negdo

            Consider the following: What was the original timeline God intended for Mankind? In other words, had Adam and Chava not acted incorrectly with regard to the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil-“ עֵץ הַדַּעַת טוֹב וָרָע”, what was supposed to happen next? Note that this question holds whether one understands this section to be partly or wholly allegorical. For example, Adam can be read as either a historical person, or as the archetype of Mankind (which is at least somewhat supported by Adam being called “the Adam” throughout).
            First, let us consider the possible meaning of the ancient-Hebrew phrase. It could be better translated (including an attempt to reorder constructs into their equivalent English forms) as Knowledge-Tree that is Good and Bad. It is important to note that “רָע” can mean negative utility as opposed to literal evil. Similarly, “טוֹב” can mean the non-moral-spectrum good. Additionally, the conjunctive “ו” is often used for or as well as and in the Torah. One could also read this, using brackets to indicate application of adjectives, as the Tree of [Knowledge that is (Good or Bad)]. Note that “דַּעַת” means specifically experiential knowledge.
Question: What is this? What experiential knowledge is gained by eating the fruit of this tree?

            Second, let us consider the first command given from God to Adam:

1.      2:16-17
a.       טז וַיְצַו יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים, עַל-הָאָדָם לֵאמֹר:  מִכֹּל עֵץ-הַגָּן, אָכֹל תֹּאכֵל.  יז וּמֵעֵץ, הַדַּעַת טוֹב וָרָע--לֹא תֹאכַל, מִמֶּנּוּ:  כִּי, בְּיוֹם אֲכָלְךָ מִמֶּנּוּ--מוֹת תָּמוּת.
b.      16: God [duplex name, mercy & judgment together] commanded, upon-Adam saying: “From all the trees-of-the-garden, you MUST eat. 17: “And from the Tree of Knowledge that is Good and/or Bad: do not eat, from it; as on that day of your eating from it; you WILL die.
A brief digression to ensure we are all on the same page: The notes according to which the Torah is chanted when it is read in public serve a practical purpose: punctuation. Various notes are either disjunctive or conjunctive to varying strengths (for example, consider the difference between a comma, apostrophe, and parentheses Very often, much information can be unpacked by paying close attention to oddly placed punctuation that might not be apparent from standard translations.
The Ri haKadosh, in the Shem Shel Shmuel, claims that based on this punctuation of these verses, which I have attempted to preserve in my above translation, the prohibition of eating from the Tree of Knowledge only applied on exactly that day.
Additionally, the word ‘וַיְצַו’ is understood to be used to indicate a command of God that is applicable for all generations[1].
Question: Why would it only apply to that day? Why is there an implication that this commandment is directed at all of humanity, for all time?

Thirdly, immediately following the above:
יח וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים, לֹא-טוֹב הֱיוֹת הָאָדָם לְבַדּוֹ; אֶעֱשֶׂה-לּוֹ עֵזֶר, כְּנֶגְדּוֹ.  יט וַיִּצֶר יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים מִן-הָאֲדָמָה, כָּל-חַיַּת הַשָּׂדֶה וְאֵת כָּל-עוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִם, וַיָּבֵא אֶל-הָאָדָם, לִרְאוֹת מַה-יִּקְרָא-לוֹ; וְכֹל אֲשֶׁר יִקְרָא-לוֹ הָאָדָם נֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה, הוּא שְׁמוֹ.  כ וַיִּקְרָא הָאָדָם שֵׁמוֹת, לְכָל-הַבְּהֵמָה וּלְעוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִם, וּלְכֹל, חַיַּת הַשָּׂדֶה; וּלְאָדָם, לֹא-מָצָא עֵזֶר כְּנֶגְדּוֹ.  .
18: Said God[name of mercy-name of judgment]: It is not good for the Adam to be by/for himself; I will make for him a compatriot-in-task, as his counterpart. 19: Formed God[name of mercy-name of judgment] from the earth/soil: all the wild animals of the field and all the birds of the skies; and He brought them to-the-Adam, to see what he would call them; and all-that-was-called-to [by] the Adam; living beings – that was its name. [line break] 20: Named the-Man names, to-all-the-animals and the birds of the skies, and-to-all, the wild animals of the field; but [lit. and] the Man did not find a compatriot-in-task, as his counterpart.
            Question: What is the purpose of the naming of the animals? Why does it interrupt the narrative of Chava’s creation?         
            Perhaps, the original – and ongoing – mission of Mankind is encapsulated by this naming –exploring the Universe, seeing its beauty and wonder, and naming its structures and all the creatures that dwell within them. Why? God created us in his image – “בְּצַלְמוֹ. The Rambam states in his Guide for the Perplexed that צלם means the essence of the being, the essential properties that make the being what it is. According to the Rambam, God created us to ourselves be creators – our mission is to join Him in creating Creation. Consider: God names exactly five things – Day, Night, Heavens, Land, and Sea. Everything else was left for the Adam, and his descendants, to name – and God tells us: “everything the Adam named – that was its name” God approved[2].
            But, the Adam, aware of the immensity of the task, despairs – how can he, but one man, in one small lifetime, name all things, see all sights, explore an entire Universe? This is why he now searches for a partner, a mate – he realizes that this is not a task he can accomplish alone.
            Finally, I conjecture that the other trees of the Garden of Eden, which Adam was commanded in the strongest terms to eat of, are trees of various other knowledges – the Tree of Knowledge [that is] Good & Bad is representative of the knowledge that Mankind, and each individual, needs maturity to wield without causing great harm[3]. The other trees of the Garden represent those things that Mankind can learn without danger – and those that must be internalized prior to ingesting the knowledge that could destroy Mankind– or his world.
The entire Garden of Eden is thus not be merely written and passed to us a tale of an error of our distant ancestors, but as an eternal warning to their descendants - us -  a warning we today understand all too well. Today, never before has our mission been so firmly within grasp – and never before have we been so able to destroy it. We can build the future God desires for His children, so long as we do not drive ourselves out once again.
May we act with these in mind always, and build eternally amongst the stars.




[1] Talmud Bavli, Daf 29A.
[2] I would like to thank and give credit to David Brin, in whose novel Earth the original formulation of this idea appears (If you enjoy this blog, you will very likely enjoy his novels).
[3] Prime Directive from the Torah!

Tuesday, March 15, 2016

On conceptualizing the degree of the Presence of God

With regard to the shechina - the "Divine Presence of God, I have noticed that some grapple with the concept of how God can be more or less present in a given place or time.

A scalar field is a function that assigns a value to every point in space. One way to picture an approximation of this is to imagine a three dimensional grid overlaying the scene in your mind's eye, and place a small LED at each juncture of the lines of the grid. The larger values of the function can be indicated by a brighter light.

To extend this visualization to the shechina, one can identify the degree of the presence of God with the intensity of the light in the above visualization.

However, I have not discerned a satisfactory interpretation of this model with regard to the underlying theological question - of what God being more or less present means - or if it a thing entirely internal, not having an existence in our Universe at all.