Rabbi Michael Leo Samuel

One of the more interesting themes I try to examine in my new Genesis commentary is the complicated issue of God and chaos. This is the first of several articles that takes issue with some of the leading exegetes of our time. Enjoy, and please send me your feedback.

==========

1:2 וְהָאָרֶץ הָיְתָה תֹהוּ וָבֹהוּ– the earth was a formless void – The 10^th century Jewish grammarian and theologian, Saadia Gaon, astutely observes that neither the existence of wind or water precede the creation of the heavens and the earth; rather, both these forces are only subsequent to the earth’s creation, which consists of the elements earth, water, and wind.[1] He further contends that intratextual passages from the Tanakh also bear this point out: “For lo, the one who forms the mountains, creates the wind. . . .” (Amos 4:13); and “The sea is his, for he made it, and the dry land, which his hands have formed” (Psa. 95:5); and finally, “Praise him, you highest heavens, and you waters above the heavens! Let them praise the name of the Lord, for he commanded and they were created” (Ps. 148:4-5).[2] Saadia’s point supports what we just mentioned in our notes on Genesis 1:1.

Scholars often assume the biblical idea of תֹהוּ וָבֹהוּ is the Hebraic equivalent of the Greek notion of “chaos” (from the Greek Χάος). However, this translation only begs the issue: What exactly is meant by the Greek term “chaos”? How was chaos originally used in the ancient Greek texts? Did its definition change over time, and if it did, how? Historically, chaos first appears in Hesiod’s Theogony (ca. 850 B.C.E.); its original meaning simply meant “chasm” or “gaping void.”[3] For Hesiod, Chaos is the progenitor of the primeval deities: Gaia (Earth), Tartarus, Erebus (Darkness), and Nyx (Night). From Chaos emerged the worlds of the gods, the earth, and humankind.[4] When Hesiod wrote his work, he drew upon earlier mythical sources; his essential view of Chaos was unquestionably critical, for the Titans personified the surging and undisciplined passion of the earth’s primordial condition, which ultimately had to be violently defeated by Zeus, the god responsible for establishing the stability and universality of the Olympian order.

For the Roman poet Ovid, chaos is a confused and formless mass from which the Maker of the Cosmos fabricated the ordered universe.^[5] As later Hellenistic thought developed, chaos eventually became specifically associated with the notion of primordial matter, e.g., either with water[6], or with primordial time[7] and the netherworld.[8] In the Gnostic[9] literature, chaos takes on a more philosophical meaning, and is bound up with darkness, shadow, and non-being.[10] The presence of chaos is dispelled only by the power of “Pistis Sophia,” who is the “Spirit of Wisdom.”[11]

The mythical association of Greek mythology does not fit with the biblical cosmogony of the universe. The תֹהוּ וָבֹהוּ of Genesis 1:2 hardly resembles the Greek idea of “chaos,” or for that matter, the Latin “Nihil.” Cultural and mythical concepts do not always translate from one language to the other, nor do they always have an equivalent parallel. The biblical writer does not say the world was a disorderly chaos and confused mass, but simply that it was not yet ready to be inhabited by humankind. At the beginning of creation, the earth was nothing more than a barren wasteland—a world desolate of life.[12]

According to the biblical imagination, YHWH is Creator and Author of good and evil,יוֹצֵר אוֹר וּבוֹרֵא חֹשֶׁךְ עֹשֶׂה שָׁלוֹם וּבוֹרֵא רָע אֲנִי יְהוָה עֹשֶׂה כָל־אֵלֶּה “I form the light, and create the darkness, I make well-being and create woe; I, the LORD, do all these things” (Isa. 45:7). This verse is a complete rejection of the Zoroastrian belief that the universe is governed by two opposing principles, the power of light and the power of darkness.[13] In Isaiah’s monistic vision, there is no duality whatsoever. YHWH is the sole Creator of opposites—there is no ontological state that exists apart from God’s sovereignty—even evil and chaos serve God’s creative purpose. Lastly, the Book of Job also echoes this same sentiment, גַּם אֶת־הַטּוֹב נְקַבֵּל מֵאֵת הָאֱלֹהִים וְאֶת־הָרָע לֹא נְקַבֵּל “Shall we accept good from God, and not trouble?” (Job 2:10). The destructive forces alluded to in Isaiah 45:7 all fulfill an important purpose in the overall grand scheme of history and nature.

In Arabic tīh can mean “wilderness” and “empty place.” The semantic fields of other Semitic languages seem to bear this out as well. In Ugaritic thw denotes a “wasteland,” or “wilderness.” This pattern occurs elsewhere in the Tanakh; every instance where either תֹהוּ (töºhû) or בֹּהוּ (böºhû) appears it almost always refers to a barren tract of land.[14] This land may have been barren to begin with (as seen here in the creation story), or else it might have become a wasteland as a result of war, natural disaster, or as an act of divine retribution (Isa. 34:11). A biblical text must first be properly understood in terms of its language and context before advancing any kind of theological or metaphysical speculative interpretation. When exegesis fails to adhere to this simple principle, the speculative reading being advanced lacks a solid foundation.

Among early Christian exegetes, Martin Luther appears to have a far better grasp of the nature of תֹהוּ וָבֹהוּ than did many of his postmodern counterparts:

• A wider significance attaches to the Hebrew words תֹהוּ (töºhû) andבֹּהוּ than can be reproduced in translation. Yet they are used frequently in the Holy Scripture.תֹהוּ is employed in the sense of “nothing,” so that the earth is a בֹּהוּ, which so far as it itself is concerned, is empty, where there are no roads, no separate localities, no hills, no valleys, no grass, no herbs, no animals, and no men. Such indeed was the first appearance of the unfinished earth; for since mire was mixed with the water, it was not possible to observe the distinctive marks which are observable now, after it has been finished. Thus Isaiah, in the chapter where he threatens the earth with desolation, says (34:11): “There will be stretched over it the line תֹהוּ and the plummet בֹּהוּ,” i.e., the earth will be laid waste to such an extent that neither human beings nor beasts of burden will remain, and the houses will be laid waste and everything thrown into confusion and disorder. This is how Jerusalem was later laid waste by the Romans, and Rome by the Goths, to such an extent that the traces of the very famous ancient city cannot be pointed out. You now see the earth standing out above the waters, the heaven adorned with stars, the fields with trees, the cities with houses, etc.; but when all these are removed and thrown together into a shapeless mass—what then results Moses calls תֹּהוּ and בֹּהוּ.[15]

One last thought: תֹהוּ וָבֹהו is the Torah’s first example of how the biblical writer(s) takes pleasure in expressing alliteration[16] and rhyming. Later in this chapter we find another similar type of alliteration: פְּרוּ וּרְבוּ וּמִלְאוּ (Pürû ûrübû ûmil´û), “Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill. . .” (Gen. 1:22). Indeed, there are many other examples of this type of rhythmic pattern scattered throughout the Pentateuch and the Tanakh.[18]

Marvin Wilson calls attention to an insight by historian of Near Eastern cultures and languages, Cyrus Herzl Gordon (1908-2001), who fondly refers to this particular type of alliteration as possessing a “boogie-woogie” construction. The reader will recall that boogie-woogie is a style of blues music characterized by an up-tempo rhythm, a repeated melodic pattern in the bass, and a series of improvised variations in the treble.

Notes:

[1] Rashbam arrives at a similar conclusion on Genesis 1:1.

[2] Saadia, Emunot VeDeot 1:1.

[3] For a similar usage in other classical texts, see Aristophanes, Aves 1218; Bacchylides 5, 27.

[4] First came the Chasm; and then broad-breasted Earth, secure seat for everof all immortals who occupy the peak of snowy Olympus; the misty Tartara in a remote recess of the broad-pathed earth; and Eros, the most handsome among the immortal gods, dissolver of flesh, who overcomes the reason and purpose in the breasts of all gods and men . . .

Hesiod’s Theogony, trans. M. L. West (New York: Oxford, 1988), 6.

^[5] In Ovid’s poetic compendium of mythology known as the Metamorphosis, the poet describes the state of chaos that existed before the earth assumed its present form:

Before the ocean and the earth appeared—

before the skies had overspread them all—

the face of Nature in a vast expanse

was naught but Chaos uniformly waste.

It was a rude and undeveloped mass,

that nothing made except a ponderous weight;

and all discordant elements confused,

were there congested in a shapeless heap.

P. Ovidius Naso, Metamorphoses, Book 1, line 5

[6] The Stoics, deriving the word from χὲω, defined Chaos as the elemental Water (school of Apoll. Rhod. i. 498). Continue Reading

Below is from my new Jewish Values Online column:

My mother and I are presently having an issue about tznius (the Jewish laws of Modesty). I wear long skirts and when skirts are just past the knee or a little longer, I wear pants underneath. I also prefer to wear long sleeves rather than 3/4 sleeves, and I generally do not wear red. My mother thinks that all this is unnecessary, and won’t let me out of the house in more than two layers during the summer, although I never get overheated. If I feel that dressing this way is essential to my Judaism, do I have to listen to my mother?

=================

Assuming that you are new to the Orthodox life, I think your mother is correct; honoring her wishes is certainly one of the most important precepts—especially since she does not mind you dressing like a Modern Orthodox young woman. Before you know it, someday you will be on your own and you can dress as modestly as you like.

I suggest you not try to be overly modest with your attire. As a general rule, one should always dress by the standards of one’s community and not try to draw too much attention to oneself (e.g., by dying your hair green, or wear a style of clothing that would stop traffic).

Modesty is really more about a state of mind than it is anything else. Being “modest,” is an important value in our tradition. Perhaps the most famous passage regarding modesty comes from the prophet Micah 6:8, which reads:

You have been told, O man, what is good,

and what the LORD requires of you:

Only to do right and to love goodness,

and to walk modestly with your God.

The traditions of tsiniut (modesty) really vary from community to community. What one community considers “modest,” is considered “immodest” by another. For example, a couple of years ago in Israel, there were some Haredi rabbis who complained about a dress shop’s display of naked mannequins! I can assure you there are no laws of tsniut governing mannequins! Some places in Israel even ban women’s pictures in their newspapers, billboards, and magazines.

Here are some other examples to consider:

• In Sephardic countries, even young girls used to cover their hair because it was (and still is in many parts of the Muslim world), for young girls to appear “immodestly dressed.” Some ladies in Jerusalem have upset even the most pious of rabbis by wearing a burka, only exposing their eyes. However, as the great Sephardic scholar Ben Ish Chai explains, the custom of head coverings was rejected by the women of Europe.[1]

• Some Halachic scholars argue that a little bit of exposed hair presents no Halachic problem.[2]Many Modern Orthodox women will not cover their hair once they are married; those who do cover their hair, don’t mind letting large portions of their hair show underneath a hat. Now in other communities like in Me’ah Sha’arim in Jerusalem, that would be the height of immodesty.

• Another perennial question regarding tsniut is the matter whether or not women may sing in a public event; once again, there are ample precedents that permit women to sing—but others would regard this position as “immodest.”

• Women are routinely assaulted by the Haredim in Israel for not sitting at the “back of the bus,” and that their failure to do so is because of an alleged lack of tsniut.
• Some communities insist that women walk on opposite sides of the street, or that they not attend a store whenever there are men inside shopping.

Obviously, your community has different modesty standards than the examples I mentioned in Israel. As you can see, there is no limit how modest one wishes to be.

In summary, there is much to be said that, “When in Rome, do as the Romans.” Modesty rules commiserate with the standards seen in your community. Modesty is never pretentious; a modest person is not interested in merely “looking” modest, but is truly modest—she’s the real deal and not an imitation.[3]

One last note, I have noticed that some young women do wear dresses over pants; I am told by some of the young teenage girls in my Shul, that this is considered fashionable. As always, it behooves young and old alike to communicate their perspectives in a pleasant manner. Sometimes it is not what we say that is important, it is how we express our opinions that really matters.

Notes:

[1] Ben Ish Chai writes further, “Look at the women of Europe, whose custom is not to hide themselves from strangers. Nonetheless, their clothes are orderly; they do not expose their bodies except only their faces, necks, hands, and heads. It is true that their hair is uncovered and this custom of theirs is not possible according to our laws. However, they have one justification.They say, ‘Yet still, this custom (of having their hair uncovered) was accepted by all their women – both Jewish and Gentile – to walk about with their hair uncovered is no different than revealing of their faces. It does not arouse erotic thoughts in men when they see their hair with their eyes.’ This is the justification for their custom, and there is no need to reject this [halachic] position of theirs”( Ben Ish Chai, Rav Po’alim 4:5).

[2] R. Moshe Feinstein, E.H. 1:58; cf. Igrot Moshe OH 4:112:4.

[3]There is a fascinating psychological concept in Halacha known as מחזי כיוהרא (mechzei k’yuhara), i.e., public religious actions that give an appearance of excessive piety). For example, the Mishnah Berurah mentions the practice of one individual who used to publically put on Rabbanu Tam’s Tefillon as a show of his excessive piety. Such behavior is considered ostentatious and inappropriate (O.H. 34 MB 16, cf. O.H. 652:6).

Here is an interesting question asked to me from Jewish Values Online. The psychological aspects pertaining to becoming religious can prove to be unsettling for many families. Becoming “religious” often tends to divide families and I have seen this many times as a congregational rabbi.

1. If a child (teenager or older) chooses to observe mitzvot differently than their parents, does a parent have a right to try to persuade them otherwise? Where is the line? What if the child wants to observe tzniut (modesty) or a level of kashrut (dietary laws) with more stringency?

Adolescent rebellion is a normal part of growing up. All of us as adults can remember fond—and perhaps not so fond—memories of issues that we have experienced in our early youth. That being said, whatever response a parent crafts must be expressed in a loving and positive manner. Authoritarian power will more likely create greater resentment and only serve to create more family disharmony and dysfunction. Adolescence is the time when our children attempt to define their identity. The Lebanese poet Kahil Gibran offers parents some practical advice:

• Your children are not your children. They are the sons and daughters of Life’s longing for itself. They come through you but not from you. And though they are with you, yet they belong not to you. You may give them your love but not your thoughts. For they have their own thoughts. You may house their bodies but not their souls . . .

When a young person looks at the parent, s/he may ask themselves, “Am I my own person? Or am I just a mini-Me of my parent?” If the adolescent is to develop his or her own identity, it behooves parents to allow their children (to some degree) to have some space to make that discovery. If anything, verbally acknowledging your child’s uniqueness can take the sting out of Oedipal or Electra Complexes from developing.

The last thing any parent wants is for the child to consciously overthrow the parent’s authority —which will psychologically happen if the parent chooses to rule the home like a dictator rather than as a wise counselor. Wise parenting demands that parents be attuned to the child’s unspoken desire to be accepted and respected by one’s peers and family.

On a practical note, I would suggest that if it is a matter of adhering to a higher degree of kashrut, then parents need to ask: Is my daughter’s request for glatt kosher meat affordable? Or, would it make the observance of kashrut more of a financial hardship? In these tough times, the daughter needs to be sensitive to the fact that stricter observances of kashrut often comes with a heftier price tag. If the adolescent wishes to contribute a little bit toward purchasing a higher grade of kosher meat, the young adolescent might rethink her position. It’s always easier to be super strict if someone else is footing the bill.

If my adolescent son/daughter wanted to keep a stricter standard of kashrut, I would definitely to know why my child is feeling this way? Are the teachers at the Day School or Yeshiva speaking critically about those kosher-observing families observing what they consider to be an “inferior standard, or not?” If someone from the yeshiva is attempting to persuade my child to keep a higher degree of kashrut or modesty, I would be upset at the yeshiva for attempting to seize parental authority away from the parents!

As a parent, if your family is invited to a friend or family’s home where their kashrut observance is less than your present family is, then I suggest that your daughter observe the level of kashrut of the host, so as to not embarrass or humiliate the host family. Shaming someone is a much more serious sin because failing to observe kashrut is considered to be only a sin affecting one’s relationship with God alone. Shaming anyone is a sin that weakens our relationship with God and people alike. If your daughter wishes to be extra religious, it is imperative that her interpersonal behavior be as exemplary, otherwise she is not being religiously consistent.

With respect to the tzniut issue, I think it’s important to dialogue with your daughter about the importance of being modest. Obviously, some women wear stylish pants, others insist on wearing as much clothing as possible. Some women in Jerusalem, known as the “Jewish Taliban,” look indistinguishable from the Taliban women in Afghanistan. The local Haredi rabbis have taken the position that this degree of modesty is too excessive even for them!

Parents should engage the adolescent and ask her, “What do you think is the real meaning of tsniut? Obviously modesty is more of an interior attitude; it should not be about showing the world how pious one is.[1]

Lastly, with adults, the problems become more nuanced. If the parents are not observant at all, it is important for the parents to try to accommodate the child and be support the child’s desire by maintaining separate dishes, foods, and so on. Actually, my parents did that for me when I was becoming observant in my early teens. If the child is an adult, it is important for the child to act respectfully—and give simple instructions how to cook kosher for whenever s/he visits. There is always one principle that remains unchanging: one’s ways should always be conducted in the manner of “Her ways are pleasant ways, and all her paths are peace” (Prov 3:17). Continue Reading