Ten Generations
11/29 notes from Howard Selznick - THANKS
Genesis 5
• This entire chapter seems to be a repetitious genealogy of the ten generations from Adam to Noach.
• It follows a pattern of ancient Near East texts, specifically a list of ten Sumerian kings, the last of whom was a hero of a flood story. A similar literary structure appears in Ruth 4:18-22 and I Chronicles 2:5, 9-15 where the line of David is traced back to Ruth. It will appear again beginning in Genesis 11:10, ten generations from Noach to Abram.
• Each of these ten-generation listings has a theme of destruction and rebirth where the turning point is in the tenth generation. The pattern is used for demonstrating theological meaning in history, i.e., how God shapes history.
• In contrast:
• According to Thomas Carlyle (Scottish essayist, 1795-1881), “history is a great dust heap” with no value whatsoever.
• Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (German philosopher, 1770-1831) believed that “we learn from history that we never learn anything from history.”
• Lord Chesterfield declared that history was “a useless heap of facts.”
• Arnold J. Toynbee (British historian, 1889-1975) stated that that history was “one damn thing after another.” However, Toynbee tried to find meaning in history, i.e., why some civilizations thrived and others didn’t. Toynbee wrote a twelve-volume analysis of the rise and fall of civilizations, A Study of History, 1934-1961, a synthesis of world history based on universal rhythms of rise, flowering and decline that examined history from a global perspective.
• There are numerous books documenting the rise and fall of empires and societies. What can we learn from this?
• Jews were the first people to bring meaning to history, perceiving God to have a place in history as well as the natural order.
• In “Yosef Hayyim Yerushalmi’s little book called Zachor, Jewish History and Jewish Memory, you will understand that the distinction between memory and history is crucial to Judaism. Three-quarters of the Hebrew bible is historical. Jews were, in Baruch Halpern’s phrase, “the first historians”. They were as J.H. Plum says in The Death of the Past the first people to see meaning in history, history as a narrative. Yet it’s very inter-esting to ask what the biblical word for history is and there isn’t one. When Hebrew was revived for the modern state of Israel and they wanted a word for history, they came up with ‘historic, they chose the Greek word. Instead the bible uses a quite different word [that] appears 169 times, zachor [זצור], remember. There is a difference between history and memory; to be very crude, history is his story – it happened some time else to someone else. Memory is my story.”
• The books of Kings are an essay in which history is used to make theological points. In this case, the points were that the Kings didn’t rule wisely in accordance with God’s plans, the result of which was the decline of Israel and Judah. However, the history was not complete. The authors use selected events to illustrate their position. For example, the narratives in 2 Kings 21 and 2 Chronicles 33 are concerned only with the rise of idolatry, not other aspects of King Amon’s life. In other words, the bible is an ideologically infused narrative.
• There is value in learning history. The entire book of Deuteronomy is essentially a look-ing back to Exodus and Numbers. We attach meaning to the past to provide guidance for the future.
• Throughout Chapter 5, there is no mention of women.
• The purpose of this chapter is to trace the patrilineal generations; it was not until the Mishnaic era that matrilineal descent became official in Judaism. Also, Cain’s line is not relevant here.
• However, in 5:2 there is clear mention of creating both male and female (ונקבה זכר) equally in God’s image, indicating that women play a “crucial but secondary role” in childbearing of the subsequent generation. If women are so “crucial”, why is their role considered “secondary”?
• Many names are repeated from the line of Cain in Chapter 4, such as Chanoch (Enoch), Lamech, Kenan (Cain), Jared (Irad). The may be the result (1) reworking of one list from the other or (2) both lists derived from a common source.
• The meaning of history is linked to whoever [whomever?] tells the story. Consider the events in Israel-Palestine in 1948; was this a “war of independence” (Israeli view) or a “disaster" (Arab view)? Similarly, was the capture and reunification of Jerusalem 1967 a case of God acting in history? Do Jews chant Hallel (songs of praise) for such situations?
• Why are the life spans in Chapter 5 so long?
• Those life spans are considerably shorter than those of the Sumerian kings on which they were (presumably) based: 241,200 vs 1,656.
• According to Rambam these were extraordinary people liv-ing extraordinary lives; other people lived normal life spans
• According to Radak such long lives were essential to sustain the culture.
• According to Ramban, the atmosphere was different then; since then, it has deteriorated
• According to Sarna , the meaning of the precise age figures is not known. They may be symbolic representations or “constituents of some comprehensive schematization.”
• The life of Enoch (Chanoch, חנוך, Genesis 5:21-24) appears to be anomaly. The previous generations sank into depravity, idolatry, and witchcraft.
• He lived for 365 years, the current (approximate) number of says in a solar year; perhaps this foreshadowed the current calendar.
• The text does not state that he died like the others. Instead, he “walked with God, then he was no more, for God took him.” [JPS translation]. Folklore is that he never died, like Elijah [2 Kings 2].
Footnotes:
Genesis 5
• This entire chapter seems to be a repetitious genealogy of the ten generations from Adam to Noach.
• It follows a pattern of ancient Near East texts, specifically a list of ten Sumerian kings, the last of whom was a hero of a flood story. A similar literary structure appears in Ruth 4:18-22 and I Chronicles 2:5, 9-15 where the line of David is traced back to Ruth. It will appear again beginning in Genesis 11:10, ten generations from Noach to Abram.
• Each of these ten-generation listings has a theme of destruction and rebirth where the turning point is in the tenth generation. The pattern is used for demonstrating theological meaning in history, i.e., how God shapes history.
• In contrast:
• According to Thomas Carlyle (Scottish essayist, 1795-1881), “history is a great dust heap” with no value whatsoever.
• Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (German philosopher, 1770-1831) believed that “we learn from history that we never learn anything from history.”
• Lord Chesterfield declared that history was “a useless heap of facts.”
• Arnold J. Toynbee (British historian, 1889-1975) stated that that history was “one damn thing after another.” However, Toynbee tried to find meaning in history, i.e., why some civilizations thrived and others didn’t. Toynbee wrote a twelve-volume analysis of the rise and fall of civilizations, A Study of History, 1934-1961, a synthesis of world history based on universal rhythms of rise, flowering and decline that examined history from a global perspective.
• There are numerous books documenting the rise and fall of empires and societies. What can we learn from this?
• Jews were the first people to bring meaning to history, perceiving God to have a place in history as well as the natural order.
• In “Yosef Hayyim Yerushalmi’s little book called Zachor, Jewish History and Jewish Memory, you will understand that the distinction between memory and history is crucial to Judaism. Three-quarters of the Hebrew bible is historical. Jews were, in Baruch Halpern’s phrase, “the first historians”. They were as J.H. Plum says in The Death of the Past the first people to see meaning in history, history as a narrative. Yet it’s very inter-esting to ask what the biblical word for history is and there isn’t one. When Hebrew was revived for the modern state of Israel and they wanted a word for history, they came up with ‘historic, they chose the Greek word. Instead the bible uses a quite different word [that] appears 169 times, zachor [זצור], remember. There is a difference between history and memory; to be very crude, history is his story – it happened some time else to someone else. Memory is my story.”
• The books of Kings are an essay in which history is used to make theological points. In this case, the points were that the Kings didn’t rule wisely in accordance with God’s plans, the result of which was the decline of Israel and Judah. However, the history was not complete. The authors use selected events to illustrate their position. For example, the narratives in 2 Kings 21 and 2 Chronicles 33 are concerned only with the rise of idolatry, not other aspects of King Amon’s life. In other words, the bible is an ideologically infused narrative.
• There is value in learning history. The entire book of Deuteronomy is essentially a look-ing back to Exodus and Numbers. We attach meaning to the past to provide guidance for the future.
• Throughout Chapter 5, there is no mention of women.
• The purpose of this chapter is to trace the patrilineal generations; it was not until the Mishnaic era that matrilineal descent became official in Judaism. Also, Cain’s line is not relevant here.
• However, in 5:2 there is clear mention of creating both male and female (ונקבה זכר) equally in God’s image, indicating that women play a “crucial but secondary role” in childbearing of the subsequent generation. If women are so “crucial”, why is their role considered “secondary”?
• Many names are repeated from the line of Cain in Chapter 4, such as Chanoch (Enoch), Lamech, Kenan (Cain), Jared (Irad). The may be the result (1) reworking of one list from the other or (2) both lists derived from a common source.
• The meaning of history is linked to whoever [whomever?] tells the story. Consider the events in Israel-Palestine in 1948; was this a “war of independence” (Israeli view) or a “disaster" (Arab view)? Similarly, was the capture and reunification of Jerusalem 1967 a case of God acting in history? Do Jews chant Hallel (songs of praise) for such situations?
• Why are the life spans in Chapter 5 so long?
• Those life spans are considerably shorter than those of the Sumerian kings on which they were (presumably) based: 241,200 vs 1,656.
• According to Rambam these were extraordinary people liv-ing extraordinary lives; other people lived normal life spans
("Maimonides"; Egypt; 1135-1204) "Only the people mentioned by name in the Torah lived such long lives. Other people lived normal, natural lives. Those who lived exceptionally long lives did so either through exceptional attention to their diets and their health or through miracles. It cannot be any other way." (Moreh Nevochim II 47)
“The idea that men in primeval times lived extraordinarily long lives is common to the traditions of most ancient peoples.”
• According to Radak such long lives were essential to sustain the culture.
R' David Kimchi z"l ("Radak"; Provence; 1160-1215) explains: It may be that all people lived that long, or it may be that only the named people did, while their contemporaries chased worldly pleasures which shorten a person's life. It also may be that G-d wanted these people to live exceptionally long lives so that they would have time to discover the various branches of human knowledge and record them for posterity. After all, there is no way that a person can learn enough in a normal life time if he does not have exist-ing works on which to build. (Radak: Commentary on the Torah)
• According to Ramban, the atmosphere was different then; since then, it has deteriorated
Ramban (Spain and Eretz Yisrael; 1194-1270) disagrees vehemently. He writes in part: Why should the people mentioned in our parashah have experienced such miracles? There is no evidence that most of them were prophets or even particularly righteous! And if you will attribute their longevity to their diets, how can even the best diet cause a person to live more than ten times the normal life span? Furthermore, if those generations knew the secret of such longevity, would they not have shared it with their contemporaries so that they too would have lived such long lives? And, how was the secret lost after the Flood, when life expectancy declined markedly?
Rather, Ramban explains, Adam lived as long as he did because he was made by the Hand of G-d. Even after he sinned and death was decreed on him, his nature (as the prod-uct of G-d's direct handiwork) allowed him and his earliest descendants to live superlatively long lives. All people before the Flood had similar life spans.
In other words, since Adam was created by G-d, he was physically perfect as were his descendants.
Following the Flood, however, the world experienced atmospheric changes [that] caused man's life expectancy to decline. Shem, the son of Noach, was the last to live nearly as long as the early generations (i.e., 600 years) because he was born before the Flood, al-though he lived most of his life after the Flood. After the generation of the Tower of Bavel, the atmosphere changed for the worse again [apparently as a punishment for their sins] and life expectancy became shorter still. In the time of the Patriarchs, Ramban writes, the ordinary life span was similar to our own. That is why Pharaoh was so amazed (47:8) when he met Yaakov, who was then 130 years old. (Ramban: Commentary on the Torah)
• According to Sarna , the meaning of the precise age figures is not known. They may be symbolic representations or “constituents of some comprehensive schematization.”
• The life of Enoch (Chanoch, חנוך, Genesis 5:21-24) appears to be anomaly. The previous generations sank into depravity, idolatry, and witchcraft.
• He lived for 365 years, the current (approximate) number of says in a solar year; perhaps this foreshadowed the current calendar.
• The text does not state that he died like the others. Instead, he “walked with God, then he was no more, for God took him.” [JPS translation]. Folklore is that he never died, like Elijah [2 Kings 2].
- • This may refer to a sudden, unexplained disappearance or euphemism for premature death or apotheosis.
- • Richard Elliot Friedman is blunt, honest, and succinct in writing, “I do not know what this means.” He points out that the word for “he was no more [JPS transla-tion]”, איננו [ay-nay-noo, whose base word is, אין, nothing, not there] also appears in Genesis 42:13 in the context of Joseph’s brothers expressing their lack of knowl-edge of his whereabouts, dead or alive. In this context, it may mean that Hanoch’s fate was unknown. At a minimum, use of איננו suggests that Hanoch’s life was unique and different in terms of his relationship to God and his “death” was not in the same manner as his ancestors.
- • According to Rashi, [Enoch] was a righteous man, but he could easily be swayed to re-turn to do evil. Therefore, the Holy One, blessed be He, hastened and took him away and caused him to die before his time. For this reason, Scripture changed [the wording] in [the account of] his demise and wrote, “and he was no longer” in the world to complete his years. — [from Gen. Rabbah 25:1].
- for God had taken him Before his time, like (Ezek. 24:16):“behold I am taking from you the desire of your eyes.” - [from Gen. Rabbah 25:1]
- • Hertz agrees in concept with Rashi. Because of his piety, Hanoch did not “die” in the same way as his ancestors.
The others were• 5:2 recalls 1:27 – these are Godly blessings for the divine gift of procreation, the rejuvenation of the human race.
• Eliezer, servant of Avraham
• Serach, daughter of Asher
• Basya, daughter of Pharaoh
• Eliyahu
• Miahiach
• Eved Melech Hakushi, who saved Jeremiah from the pit
• Chiram, king of Tzur, who assisted Solomon in building the Temple
• Procreation is an expression of faith in the future of mankind. Children were conceived even in the Nazi camps. Perhaps, but procreation may also be an unintended side effect of the short-term pleasure of unprotected sex. In such cases, there is no expressed or even im-plied “faith” in the future.
- Without marriage and children, a man some-thing less than a man. Not utilizing your seed is compared to death by warfare. Hav-ing no children diminishes God’s presence.
- However, what if a man chooses not to marry and procreate? There are some exceptions when a man loves the Torah.
- Unlike some branches of Christianity, Juda-ism does not consider celibacy to be a higher plane of morality.
- According to Talmud Yevamot 63a , R’ Elazar said:
- A man who does not have a wife and own land is not a whole man. In Genesis 5:2 it is said that God created both male and female (ונקבה זכר) and called them “man”. Thus, man and woman are collectively called “man”; they are enjoined to build a home to-gether. If a man lives alone by and for himself, he cannot be a “man.”
- From Ps 115:16, as the heavens were God’s, He gave the earth to man. Thus, if a man does not own land, he is not a “man” in the fullest sense.
- The remainder of this section is devoted to other statements of R’ Elazar on marriage, engaging in crafts, and working the land; and other teachers on agricultural and per-sonal economics.
Footnotes:
Also attributed to Augustine Birrell, British essayist (1850-1933) in his Obiter Dicta. However, in http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/History the quote is attributed to Winston Churchill.
Also attributed to Edna St. Vincent Millay.
. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnold_J._Toynbee
Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, “Power and Responsibility: Science, Humanity and Religion in the 21st Century”. An edited transcript of a discussion after a lecture delivered at the Cockcroft Lecture Theatre, University of Cambridge. 25th November 2003. Subsequent to the lecture, a dinner/discussion with the speaker was held at St Edmunds College, Cambridge. http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/faraday/CIS/sacks/discussion.html .
Etz Hayim, page 30
Sarna, JPS Commentary, page 41
(Guide for the Perplexed) http://www.torah.org/learning/hamaayan/5764/bereishit.html. Accessed 30 November 2008.
Hertz, J. H., ed. The Pentateuch and Haftorahs. Second Edition. London: Soncino Press, 1965. Page 17
http://www.torah.org/learning/hamaayan/5764/bereishit.html. Accessed 30 November 2008 Sherman, Nosson. The Chumash. The Stone Edition. Mesorah Publications, Ltd., 2003. Page 25
http://www.torah.org/learning/hamaayan/5764/bereishit.html. Accessed 30 November 2008.
JPS Commentary, page 41
Weismann, Moshe. The Book of Beraishis. New York: Bnay Yakov Publications 1999. Pages 71 ff.
Apotheosis: a transformation to a deity. Sarna, JPS Commentary, page 43
Commentary on the Torah. HarperSanFrancisco, 2001. Pages 32, 140; see also Holladay, William L. A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. E. J. Brill [Leiden, Netherlands]. 1988, page 13
Hertz, J. H., ed. The Pentateuch and Haftorahs. Second Edition. London: Soncino Press, 1965. Page 18
Weismann, page 73, who continues to explain the reason why each was granted such a special privilege. Other commentaries have seven or thirteen.
Soncino edition in Bet Am library.
posted by Chavarah @ 6:09 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home