2020, 5780

Do not sleepwalk through life:
Do not live unconsciously

Genesis 1:1-5

Do Not Sleepwalk Through Life: Do Not Live Unconsciously

I propose:

Genesis 1:1-5 can be read as a commentary on the way in which we make sense of the world

The earth being tohu and bohu and khoshekh upon the face of the tahum -Genesis 1:2

first, compare:

Tohu  תהו  confusion, unreality, emptiness, formlessness, difficult to seize

Tahum תהום abyss, bottomless chasm, unfathomable depth

Also:

Bohu בהו emptiness

Finally:

Khoshekh חשך darkness, obscurity

Thus we can read Genesis 1:2:

The earth was emptiness and emptiness

The earth was confusion and emptiness

The earth was unreality and emptiness

The earth was difficult to seize, and emptiness

And obscurity was on the face of an unfathomable abyss

And Elohim’s breath hovering over the face of water -Genesis 1:2

And Elohim said ‘Be! or!’ And or is -Genesis 1:3

Or  אור light, dawn; 

Rabbi S R Hirsch adds: enlightening, awaken, wakefulness

Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik characterizes this or as “metaphysical illumination”

Further, Rabbi Soloveitchik reads Rashi: “or אור discussed here does not refer to the electromagnetic phenomenon of light”

(in any event, the sun and moon and stars won’t be created for a few more “days”)

Confused?

Of course!!

Don’t you find this all to be tohu and bohu?

Yes! This is all tohu and bohu and obscurity is upon the face of an unfathomable depth!!

Ok. 

Perhaps if we go a bit further, we shall find clarity:

And saw Elohim, es ha'or, that it was good, 

(hang onto es ha'or)

and yavdel Elohim between the or and the khoshekh -Genesis 1:4

Yavdel יבדל 

From badal בדל divide, separate, set apart, distinguish between one state and another

So:

Elohim distinguishes between the or and the khoshekh

Elohim distinguishes between the or and obscurity

Therefore, or must be the opposite of khoshekh / obscurity

And if or, in this instance, is not the electromagnetic phenomenon of light, 

then let’s call it clarity

Clarity:

Might we say wakefulness

consciousness

In any event: Elohim distinguishes between clarity and obscurity

Elohim distinguishes between wakefulness and non-wakefulness

And Elohim sees clarity, wakefulness, consciousness: that it is good

Returning to es ha'or:

es ha’or

This is a problem.

Es את can mean with or by means of

But to say that Elohim sees by means of anything is absurd.

Ah, but can’t we say: the human is created in Elohim’s image.

So, let’s substitute the human for Elohim:

The human can distinguish between clarity and obscurity.

The human can distinguish between wakefulness and darkness.

And Elohim saw: that clarity and wakefulness and consciousness are good,

i.e. they are good for the human.

Therefore, their opposite must be the opposite of good.

It is good for the human to see with or אור, 

It is good for the human to see with clarity,

rather than to drift sleeping across the face of a confused and obscure unfathomable abyss

Unconscious living is the opposite of good.

How do we know? How do we know this is a defensible reading?

The fifth verse is a summation of the first four:

Elohim called the or “day” . . . there is erev and there is boker: day one -Genesis 1:5

So: clarity, wakefulness, consciousness is the same as day.

Erev ערב means evening; but also undifferentiated mixture: i.e. chaos

Boker  בקר, to be sure, means morning. However,

ibn Ezra relates boker בקר to l’vaker לבקר

Vaker בקר that state in which a person is able to distinguish one thing from another

It was erev and it was voker: clarity

In other words:

It was chaos

And then “I” was able to distinguish:

This must be consciousness: 

day one.

And now read Genesis 1:1-5:

The earth was emptiness and emptiness 

and unreality and emptiness

and confusion and emptiness

and difficult to grasp and 

obscurity was 

on the face 

of this unfathomable

abyss

And . . .

THERE SHOULD BE THE OPPOSITE OF THIS!!!!

And the opposite of obscurity was.

Thus, 

summation:

there was a jumbled mass of information

And then: 

there was the ability 

to distinguish one thing from another

And finally

It was day:

Consciousness

One.

And Elohim saw this conscious awareness: 

that it was good.

Notes:

For Hebrew translations, I tend to rely on Brown-Driver-Briggs “Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament”

Tohu —See I Samuel 12:21, which describes idols as tohu: empty, and worthless 

Or אור —see Rabbi Samson R Hirsch (1808-1888) “Etymological Dictionary of Biblical Hebrew”; also Hirsch Commentary on the Torah Genesis 1:3 “to become or be receptive to external impressions” 

Genesis 1:3 — Moshe Alshich (1508-1593) “both spiritual and physical light were created on the first day”

Me’am Lo’ez (18th century), Genesis 1:4 - “With this primeval light, it was possible to see from one end of the universe to the other. One could see not only tangible things, but even ethereal things, which are normally invisible. This light was very fine, filled with glowing mental power. Through it, one could attain knowledge with which one could see to the ends of the world.” Me’am Lo’ez seems to be saying that this light was far beyond visible light: it was the light of absolute conscious awareness.

Rabbi Joseph B Soloveitchik (1903-1993), Chumash with commentary based on the teachings of Rabbi Joseph B Soloveitchik, p. 5: “Rashi comments that Elohim recognized that the world did not deserve to use the originally created light, and Elohim therefore reserved it for the righteous of the eschatological era (see Talmud, Chagigah 12a). He thus maintains that the or אור discussed here does not refer to the electromagnetic phenomenon of light . . . each person is endowed with some degree of this metaphysical illumination” 

es ha’or — This is somewhat difficult to understand. Es את can function as a prefix marking the accusative case of a noun, so that es-ha-or את–האור of Genesis 1:4 could be read simply as the light. Alternatively, es can function as a prefix marking instrumentality: i.e. the means by which something is accomplished. In this way, the same verse es-ha-or את–האור can be read as with the light, or by means of the light. The problem is, if we say Elohim saw with the light or by means of the light, we have uttered an absurdity. However, if we substitute human for Elohim, and we say the human saw with the light or by means of the light, we have merely reported upon something that occurs billions of time every day.

distinguish between clarity and obscurity - See The Lubavitcher Rebbe’s commentary on Genesis 1:4: “In order to be fully effective, light must be contrasted with darkness, enlightenment with ignorance, clarity with confusion, objectivity with subjectivity, rationality with irrationality.”  

es ha’or - Ramban (1194-1270) offers a different view in his commentary: “Scripture added here the words the light (es ha’or) because if Scripture had said just, and God saw that “it” was good, it would seem to refer to the creation of the heavens and the earth. Whereas, God had not yet decreed permanent existence for them (as God had for the light).