Parsha Paragraphs
Rabbi Naftali Kassorla
Parshat Bereishit 5778
In His Image
The D’var Torah for this week is dedicated in memory of: ר׳ אלחנן יעקב ז״ל בן מורי וחמי ר׳ שמואל פנחס
If you are interested in sponsoring a D’var Torah in honor or in memory of someone, or for any occasion, please email: ParshaParagraphs@gmail.com
In this week’s parsha the Torah describes G-d’s creation of the world and all within it. For six days G-d created and on the seventh day He rested. Each of these first days was dedicated to different creations, until finally coming to the pinnacle: the creation of Man.
The Torah writes, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.” (Bereishit 1:26) The Abarbanel comments that this prefatory statement indicates to us that man’s creation was achieved with great deliberation and care.
The Abarbanel explains that the command to create Man was different than previous ones. With the other creations, G-d would proclaim a directive: “Let the earth bring forth…” (ibid. 11) or “Let there be light...”(ibid. 14). However, when creating Man, G-d diverges from this and instead couches the command in the form of “Let us make man.” This was meant to point out that man’s creation was different – on a wholly different plane than the rest of creation, and thus of more cosmic importance than the previous creations.
The commentators are puzzled with a fundamental issue in the verse. When telling us of G-d’s grand plan to make Man, the Torah uses the plural “Let us…,” which would seem to indicate there is more than one creator! This notion would obviously be completely antithetical to the monotheistic basis of Judaism. Yet nonetheless, the Torah uses these words. Why?
Furthermore, we find Moshe himself raised this very concern. The Midrash tells us that when Moshe wrote the Torah and came to our verse he asked G-d,“Why would You create a פתחון פה (pretext) for heretics to maintain their belief of Polytheism?” Yet G-d replies, “Write it! For whoever wishes to err will err.” G-d commands Moshe to write it anyway, and whoever wishes to make this mistake i.e. to not investigate the issue, will nonetheless be held responsible.
In light of G-d’s response, one could wonder: why? What is to be gained by using this specific way of expression which could lead to mistaken beliefs? Why even risk the possibility of making an error?
In light of G-d’s response, one could wonder: why? What is to be gained by using this specific way of expression which could lead to mistaken beliefs? Why even risk the possibility of making an error?
To answer this very question we must look at Rashi on our verse. Rashi cites Chazal: “From here we learn of the great humility of Hashem, for He consulted the Angels before creating man; so too we should always consult others before embarking upon a new idea.” The plural form was used intentionally to teach us a valuable lesson: that just as G-d sought counsel from the angels before acting, so to we should be deliberate and cautious in our own ways and consult with others before making important decisions.
This Chazal is astounding; can the lesson to seek counsel be so important so as to justify a verse that risks heresy? How can we better understand this idea?
Clearly Hashem felt that the concept of humility – to act with the necessary guidance – is so important that despite the possible error which may come from this verse, it should be taught nonetheless. For nothing can be allowed to get in the way of acting with forethought and with clarity of mind when embarking upon a course of action – not even the possibility of the great error of heresy!
Another idea that can be brought out of this Chazal is that there is inherent value to seeking out advice and counsel from anyone, even when you may (think you) have all the answers. For G-d himself, the King of Kings “seeks” the counsel of the Angels. Surely the Angels have no deeper or wiser insight on creation than G-d himself! Yet G-d still “consults” them. Hashem is teaching us that the very process of seeking advice is worthwhile.
My Rosh Yeshiva’s brother Rav Dovid Soloveitchik שליט״א has a fantastic vort on the episode of Nadav and Avihu, who were punished for bringing a foreign fire into the Kodesh Hakodashim. Among a slew of other reasons explaining why they were punished, the Midrash says, “שלא נטלו עצה זה מזה” (they didn't ask each other for advice). Rav Dovid aks: how would that have helped? They were both equally involved and intending on bringing the foreign fire; what was to be gained by them asking each other? Wouldn’t they just reinforce each other’s bad intentions? Says Rav Dovid, it must be that just by them going through the process of asking each other, it would have had a deterring effect, bringing them to reexamine their intentions. This is the value of seeking advice and counsel from others – even from equals or our subordinates.
Too often we demure from seeking advice and constructive criticism from others “because they don’t get it.” While we may legitimately feel that others’ advice is not applicable, it is still important to go through the process of seeking that advice, if only to challenge your own preconceived notions.*
Perhaps this can also help us better understand why G-d was willing to “risk” this verse’s implied idea of Polytheism. For if one who reads it is also able to glean from it a lesson of humility and the reexamination of his own ideas, utilizing the counsel of others, then surely he will avoid such a terrible error in interpretation. Only one who is completely set on his own logic and is opposed to a humble analysis of his approach, may come to a heretical notion. And if he errs, he errs.
This should serve for us as a lesson in the immense benefit of humbly asking others for help and advice when needed, and spur us to take heed of those greater and more wiser among us.
Shabbat Shalom
*The popular Israeli social scientist and economist Dan Ariely conducted a fascinating experiment. Participants were asked to complete a very simple math exercise. When done, the first set of participants (control group) were asked to hand in their answers for independent grading. The second set were subsequently given the answers and asked to report their own scores. At no point do the latter hand in their answers; hence the temptation to cheat.
In this experiment, some students are asked [before the math exercise] to list the names of 10 books they read in high school while others are asked to write down as many of the Ten Commandments as they can recall prior to the math exercise. Ariely wanted to know whether this would have any effect on the honesty of those participants reporting their scores.
In this experiment, some students are asked [before the math exercise] to list the names of 10 books they read in high school while others are asked to write down as many of the Ten Commandments as they can recall prior to the math exercise. Ariely wanted to know whether this would have any effect on the honesty of those participants reporting their scores.
The results were amazing (though to us not surprising): The students who had been asked to recall the Ten Commandments had not cheated at all. In contrast, participants who were asked to list their 10 high school books and self-report their scores cheated: they claimed grades that were 33% higher than those who could not cheat (control group). The lesson that Ariely draws from this that just the very contemplation of a moral benchmark had a massive impact on the students’ honesty, even on those students who claimed no religious affiliation.
Clearly, going through the process of contemplating, expressing and clarifying moral concepts, puts one in a mindset which leads to moral behavior. So too, the process of seeking counsel in-and-of-itself helps one clarify issues and can aid him in avoiding mistaken judgements and behavior.
