By Rabbi Dr. Israel Drazin
PIKESVILLE, Maryland — The great Greek Philosopher Plato (c. 427-348 BCE) describes the events and conversations that occurred just before and during the day his teacher Socrates died (c. 469-399 BCE). The story is in Plato’s Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, and Phaedo. Phaedo is the most widely read Plato dialogue.
A 500-member jury of Athenians found Socrates guilty of corrupting the city’s youth by asking them questions. They gave him a choice. Either leave Athens or drink the poison hemlock. Socrates felt he was helping the youth think by asking them questions, and he chose to die for his beliefs.
Today, we recognize that Socrates was correct and a hero. Humans need to learn and can only do so by asking questions.
The Athenians were disturbed by Socrates’ questions despite their politeness. They were so incensed that they wanted to kill him. Questions are disturbing. But we must remember that if something is easy, there is a good chance it is wrong.
Another problem is that some answers shatter what we thought was true, ideas we relied upon for years. Frequently, an adult’s answer to a question differs from the response given to kids in school, even religious schools.
An example is the idea taught to children that God becomes angry when humans misbehave and punishes them. Few adult rational thinkers believe God becomes emotional.
Another widespread belief is the need to follow the rules of morality. In his Guide for the Perplexed 1:2, Maimonides (1138-1204) interprets the story of the Garden of Eden as a parable. He stresses that people must use the “image of God,” which Genesis 1:27 states God placed in humans. In Guide 1:1, he interprets the “image” as intelligence. In Guide 3:17, he explains that the concept of “Divine Providence” does not mean that God helps people; the “Divine Providence” is the intelligence that God placed in humans, and the more developed the intelligence, the more excellent help it gives.
He notes that Adam and Eve are not prohibited from eating from a tree of truth and falsehood but a tree of good and evil. He explains that this tree is a symbol of morality. Morality is generally easy to understand, with wise and courteous rules that advise people how to act. They are frequently perfect guides, but not always. Sometimes, it makes more sense to do the opposite.
Maimonides explains that the parable teaches that people should develop their intelligence to decide how to act so that they never rely on moral teachings that are good for most citizens but not the best way to determine how to act.
This was also the view of the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche in his 1883 book Thus Spoke Zarathustra. Nietzsche has Zarathustra teach the Übermensch, the superior human, as a goal for humanity to set for itself. The Übermensch rejects the otherworldly Christian values and the mindless moral concepts that ordinary folks need.
Übermensch is a German word that translates to “overman” or “superman>” It’s a philosophical concept that describes a person who transcends conventional morality, relies on the person’s learning and intelligence, and creates values and meaning in life.
As Maimonides taught, God did not want the creation of puppets. He did not desire that humans should be strapped to strings that He would pull to direct their lives and through which He would help them. Humans are not God’s toys. Instead, he gave them free choice, the “image of God,” which is intelligence, and explained that intelligence, not God pulling strings, that helps humans when they need help. The more individuals develop their intelligence, the more help they receive.
But humanity has not yet sufficiently developed. Large numbers of them fail to spend time improving their minds, learning, and having the ability to make decisions. As a result, society developed rules called morality that guide and advise people on how to act. These guides are not perfect; they vary in different locations and times. They fail to address all situations.
While God did not want to tie people as puppets, society did so with the imperfect rules of morality. Unfortunately, people who are not accustomed to thinking before acting but rely on the strings of morality become confused.
Thinking is challenging but usually leads to better results than imperfect moral codes.
For example, some members of the general public find it hard to understand many issues of war, such as collateral damage, which conflicts with the moral concept of protecting lives. They gather in mobs and protest the war because they have insufficient knowledge of how philosophers handle the subject.
The patriarch Abraham is the best example of the Übermensch. Time after time, he rejected the moral teachings of his time and used reason. He fearlessly questioned God’s destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. He struggled against the ethical teaching of his society that it was proper to sacrifice a son that one loved to God. When his nephew was captured by more than several nations in war, he gathered his armed forces and rescued him. In contrast, the matriarch Rachel agreed with the moral idea of her time that an older daughter must be married first and deceived and hurt Jacob, who loved her by allowing her sister to marry Jacob. It resulted in Jacob needing to work many years to gain the woman he loved.
Far worse, those who rely on morality live a life of passivity, rarely taking the initiative. Instead, they allow moral strings to draw them to proper behavior. As a result, these moral men and women often fail to become all they can be and make little or no contribution to society.
Readers of the Torah should not be bothered by Maimonides reading the story of Eden as a parable. They can read it as both an accurate history and a parable. Or, even if it is a parable that did not occur and must be a parable because snakes cannot speak, it is still sacred because of its message.
It is not the only parable in the Bible. The story of Balaam’s donkey speaking to him was either his internal thinking or a parable since donkeys do not have conversations with humans.
Did Eve misspeak when she told the snake that God gave two instructions: not to eat the fruit of a specific tree and not even touch it? Some rabbis say she did. I think this is one of the many examples where the Bible makes a general statement in one place and then clarifies it later by adding information. A classic example of this is, as Rashi (1040-1105) explains. In Genesis 1, the Bible states that God created a male and a female, and Chapter 2 tells how it was done.
In Plato’s book Symposium, the comic playwright Aristophanes states that initially, humans were single creatures with male and female parts. Later, these creatures were divided into two distinct beings. He explains that this is why males and females search for people of the other sex; they seek part of their original selves. The playwright gave this thought at a party where many participants were drunk. Nevertheless, many rabbis agreed that this is the proper interpretation of the Torah.
Why were Adam and Eve’s descendants punished for what they ate?
This is a Christian concept that rational Jews reject. God does not kill innocent children because their parents did wrong. Additionally, such a punishment makes no sense. It is cruel. No sensible mother or father would kill their child for eating a fruit set aside for the dinner dessert. Furthermore, the story may be seen as a parable, and no one is killed for parables. Grimm brothers wrote parables, and no one was punished because they did so.
Why did Cain kill Able, and how did he know God rejected his sacrifice?
The Bible does not explain why the brothers decided to offer God a sacrifice, why each chose what he did, what Cain said to Abel, why he became angry, why he killed Abel, how he knew God rejected his sacrifice, or anything related to the events. We can imagine what we want.
Many people believe that the brothers Cain and Abel built an altar with Cain burning fruit, Abel offering the firstlings of his flock, and God only accepted Abel’s offering. Actually, there is no mention of an altar or burning in the chapter, and no passage says that God “accepted” Abel’s offering; it states that “the Lord had respect for Abel and his offering,” but it doesn’t say how.
Dr. Marc B. Shapiro, a highly respected rabbi and scholar, described Rabbi Chaim Hirschensohn’s interpretation of this event in his article “Assorted Comments,” published in Feedblitz. Rabbi Hirschensohn lived from 1857 to 1935 and was the Chief Rabbi of Hoboken, New Jersey, from 1904 until he died in 1935.
Rabbi Hirschensohn understood that there was no altar, and neither Cain nor Abel burned their gifts, even though today we consider a sacrifice an item burnt on an altar. He supposed that Cain brought his vegetables to the top of a mountain closer to heaven, where he would commune with God, and left the gift there. Because of his “meager religious, philosophical knowledge,” Cain probably thought God would take his gift after he left. Later, when Cain returned to the site, he saw the vegetables where he had left them and concluded that God had refused to accept his sacrifice. Actually, God was not involved. The notion that the Lord had no respect for his offering was only in Cain’s mind.
Rabbi Hirschensohn imagines Abel did not leave his animal offering on the mountain, but he sent them to wander freely, expecting God to find and take it. He did not kill the animal, perhaps thinking that God would not want a dead beast. What would God do with a dead animal? Since Abel sent the animal away and did not find it, he assumed that God accepted his offering.
Rabbi Hirschensohn thought Noah offered the first burnt sacrifice when he left the ark after the flood. God did not like the offering and thought it was ridiculous, even offensive, since Noah was killing beings that God created, thinking that God wanted him to do so. Rabbi Hirschensohn accepted the traditional view that when Noah descended from the ark, he was not yet allowed to eat meat, yet Noah thought that he was allowed to murder animals and birds to thank God for saving his life during the flood.
The rabbi recognized that Noah’s behavior was strange. We would have assumed that after virtually every animal died in the flood, Noah would have preferred to ensure the animals multiplied rather than killing some of them.
Rabbi Hirschensohn notes God’s reaction to Noah’s sacrifice. In Genesis 8:20, Noah offers his sacrifice of thanks. Genesis 8:21 reads, “And the Lord smelled the sweet savor; and the Lord said in His heart: ‘I will not again curse the ground any more for man’s sake; for the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more everything living, as I have done.’”
Rabbi Hirschensohn understands that God disapproved of Noah’s sacrifice. The rabbi wrote: “It is not farfetched to interpret this verse that God laughed and had pity on the simplicity of a man who thinks he can thank Him by offering a burnt animal or bird and destroy them at a time when there are so few of them in the world, and think he is doing what is right. This indicates that the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth in that even a gift to God is given with such cruelty…. How is it possible that this would please God?” In essence, Rabbi Hirschensohn reflects Maimonides’ understanding of sacrifices that God only “allowed” to continue for these primitive people.
In summary, while most people do not bother to learn more about the Bible than they learned as children, a more mature examination of Scripture is obtained by questioning what we are reading, such as Rabbi Hirschensohn’s interpretation of the Cain and Abel story.
*
Rabbi Dr. Israel Drazin is a retired brigadier general in the U.S. Army Chaplain Corps and the author of more than 50 books.