Bereshit 41:54-42:7, 47:15 – Was Egypt the breadbasket of the world in the time of Yosef?

Bereshit 41:54,56,57 record that the famine predicted by Yosef was throughout the lands, and throughout the face of the earth. How extensive was the famine? Could it really have been all over the world? In North America? Did all the people in the world who were unable to get to Egypt and buy food from Yosef die from the famine? Was it really possible that there was enough food in Egypt to feed the entire world?

Bereshit Rabbah 90:6 writes that the famine was in three areas besides Egypt, Phoenicia (Lebanon), Arabia and Israel. Similarly, Benno Jacob (1974, p. 280) notes that the phrase "all the earth" in 41:56,57 just refers to the surrounding countries. In fact, since the point of the famine was to "force" Yaakov's family to go to Egypt, there was no need for there to have been a famine everywhere except in Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan (following the modern names) and the land of Israel. 

A related question is, did Yosef sell the grains to anybody who came to Egypt? This would be surprising since one would not expect that the Egyptians would be happy to see the grains that they grew being sold to other people in the midst of famine. It could be that they did not have a say in the matter, but 41:55 records that they were able to cry out to Pharaoh, and 47:15 records that they cried out to Yosef.

Another question about the extent of the famine is that 42:5 records that the famine was in the land of Canaan in the context of the brothers of Yosef travelling down to Egypt. Yet, after 41:54,56,57 record that the famine was in all the lands, and the brothers were going to Egypt due to the famine, why did 42:5 need to record again that the famine was in the land of Canaan? The Radak (on 42:5) explains that this information is to tell us that there were many people coming to Egypt from the land of Canaan at the same time as the brothers. I am not sure how this extra mention of the famine in the land of Canaan enables us to assume that many people were coming to Egypt from the land of Canaan. How many were then coming? Is this unspecified number important? Why did the Torah not simply write that the brothers came to Egypt amongst the people coming from the land of Canaan?

My guess is that the end of 42:5, which specifies that the famine was in the land of Canaan, is coming to tell us that people coming from Canaan due to the famine had a different status than other people who lived outside of Egypt. (A generalization and then a specification, kellal and perat.)

41:57 records that people from all the lands came to Egypt to buy food, but it does not record that they were able to buy food, only that they had to go to Yosef. My guess is that initially Yosef sold some food to anybody who came to Egypt to make it known that people could come to Egypt to buy food since he wanted his family to come to Egypt. However, he was unable to continue with this policy both because of the limit on the amount of food to sell, and that Egyptians would get upset from Yosef selling to foreigners. Once the word got out that food was available in Egypt, Yosef limited sales to people from Canaan (the end of 42:5) since he needed his family to come to Egypt. It could be that this is why 42:6 repeats that Yosef was in charge of Egypt since this authority allowed him to sell large amounts of wheat to foreigners, people from Canaan, even if this would upset the Egyptians. Afterwards, when Yosef first spoke to the brothers he asked where they were from. This was a legitimate question since at that time only people from Canaan had the right to buy food, and the brothers answered that they met this requirement, 42:7. Also, 47:15 records that Yosef had gathered all the money of the people of Egypt and Canaan. We see that people from Canaan were able to buy large quantities of food, but no other foreign country is mentioned. The second half of 47:15 then records that the people of Egypt complained to Yosef, as the people of Canaan, foreigners from the Egyptian perspective, could not complain to Yosef. Yosef then instituted the third stage of his policy, which was only to sell food to Egyptians since once Yosef’s family had come to Egypt, he had no need to keep allowing people from Canaan to buy the Egyptian wheat.

Another question concerning the purchase of the food in Egypt during the famine is that 42:1,2 record that Yaakov told his sons that they should go to Egypt to buy food. While this is a reasonable, why did Yaakov not move to Egypt during the famine, like Avraham did (12:10) and Yitzhak tried to do (26:1,2)? I believe there are six possible answers.

One, it is possible that due to the extensive famine, Egypt was not allowing foreigners to take up residence in Egypt. If this is true, then the fact that Yaakov eventually went to live in Egypt, 46:27, was a special dispensation due to Yosef.

Two, maybe logistically it was not feasible for Avraham or Yitzhak to send somebody to Egypt since their children had not yet been born, were too small, and they did not have enough trustworthy servants to bring back the food from Egypt. However, Yaakov was able to stay in Israel since his sons were old enough to bring back food.

Three, maybe once Yitzhak was told not to go to Egypt, Yaakov thought it was forbidden for him to go to Egypt (see Radak and Bekhor Shor on 46:1). Yaakov had left Israel to go to Haran, but possibly this was permitted while Egypt was not. A problem with this idea is that later, 45:28, Yaakov decided to go to Egypt before G-d told him it was okay. Yet, maybe one could argue that Yaakov was not going to leave without G-d’s approval and that was why he stopped in Be'er-Sheva, 46:1.

Four, maybe Yaakov was worried that if he left the land of Israel then Esav would return to the land of Israel. 36:6 records that Esav left the land of Israel because it was too much for Esav and Yaakov to live together in the land. However, if Yaakov was to leave the land for a substantial amount of time, then it was conceivable that Esav would come back, and Yaakov would have lost the land of Israel to his brother. This approach accords with Luzzatto’s (on 46:1) suggestion that Yaakov stopped in Be'er-Sheva to pray before leaving Egypt not only to inquire as to whether it was permissible for him to go to Egypt but also to ensure that he would not forfeit the land of Israel by going to Egypt.

Five, in the covenant of the pieces, G-d told Avraham that his descendants would suffer in a foreign land, and that the fourth generation would return to Israel, 15:13-16. I understand the fourth generation to be from Avraham which is Yaakov’s children, see our discussion, "Who is the fourth generation?" If this is true, then Yaakov had good reason to fear going down to Egypt since this could be the beginning of the prophecy, as in fact it was (see Ramban on 46:1 and Hizkuni on 46:3). If this approach is correct, then it could be that later Yaakov went to Egypt since his desire to see Yosef prevailed over his fear that the prophecy of the future suffering was about to begin. (This idea could also apply to reason four.)

Six, in a personal conversation, Eric Sherby suggested that maybe Yaakov did not want to leave the land of Israel in case Yosef might return.

Bibliography:

Jacob, Benno (1869-1945), 1974, The first book of the bible: Genesis, commentary abridged, edited and translated by Earnest I. Jacob and Walter Jacob, New York: Ktav Publishing House.

Bereshit 35:27-29 - The end of the toledot section of Yitzhak: The homecoming

Bereshit 35:29 records the death of Yitzhak and this verse ends the toledot section that began in 25:19, “these are the toledot of Yitzhak.” The main character in this section, except for chapters 26 and 34, was not Yitzhak but Yaakov. Yaakov is alive and plays an important role for almost the entire continuation of the book of Bereshit (his death is recorded in 49:33), but except for chapters 48,49, Yosef and Yehuda are the main characters and not Yaakov. Thus 37:2 starts a new toledot section, “these are the toledot of Yaakov,” which signals the beginning of the story of Yosef.

There are some interesting parallels between Yaakov and Odysseus, the Greek hero. Gary Rendsburg (1984, also see C.H. Gordon, 1955) writes “the entire Jacob cycle, moreover, parallels the Odyssey, Sinuhe, and Gilgamesh where the protagonist must leave home and then happily returns.” He uses the parallelism between Yaakov and the Odyssey to explain 35:2, which records that Yaakov told his family, “Purify (wash) yourself, change your garments.” He argues that chapter 35 is the homecoming of Yaakov and when in ancient literature there was a homecoming, there was always a washing and changing of clothing prior to returning home. Thus, 35:2 records a washing prior to the homecoming of Yaakov. This last point is not clear since he notes (footnote #8) that it is possible that the washing in 35:2 was for cultic reasons and not simple cleaning before coming home. The cultic reason seems more likely since the washing was a while before Yaakov returned home to his father and seems to be directly related to G-d’s command to offer sacrifices at Bet-El, 35:1. Yet, one could argue that the homecoming was to Bet-El, where Yaakov had his dream when he left home, 28:19. In addition to this possible connection between Yaakov and Odysseus, other parallels between Yaakov and Odysseus can be found.

The first parallel between Yaakov and Odysseus is their personality that both were renowned for their cleverness. Homer continually refers to Odysseus as the wise or sagacious hero and Odysseus used tricks to explicate himself from difficult situations. Yaakov also used his intellect and tricks to overcome his difficulties with Esav and Lavan. Yaakov tricked his father, 27:35, and then was tricked by Lavan, 29:23-25. Afterwards, he became wealthy by using his acumen by raising animals, 30:28-43.  He then escaped from Lavan since Lavan was about to impoverish him, 31:42.  When Yaakov returned home, he showed his sagacity by giving Esav gifts and calling Esav his lord. This allowed Esav to think that he was the superior brother, which ended the conflict peacefully. Furthermore, when Esav offered to journey with Yaakov, Yaakov realized he might be walking into a trap, so he politely but determinedly refused to go, 33:12-16, see our discussion on 33:1-16, "My brother, my enemy?"

A second parallel between Yaakov and Odysseus is the structure of the stories here of Yaakov and the Odyssey. The Odyssey is usually divided into three sections. The first four books of the story record the troubles in Odysseus’s home that due to his absence there were many suitors for his wife. The next eight books record Odysseus travels on the way home from the battle at Troy. The final twelve books record the homecoming of Odysseus that he killed all the suitors and returned to his wife, son and father.

Chapters 25-33 follow the same structure though without all the gory killings and fantastic creatures. In chapters 25 and 27, there is trouble at home that Yaakov was not beloved by his father, and the parallel suitor here is Esav who was Yitzhak’s favorite. Chapters 28-31 record all the adventures of Yaakov when he was away from home. Coincidentally, both Yaakov and Odysseus were away from home for 20 years. While Rendsburg argued that chapter 35 should be thought of as the homecoming of Yaakov when Yaakov returns to his father, I would expand the homecoming to begin from chapters 32, as chapters 32 and 33 record that Yaakov returned to Israel and faced his brother. My understanding is that in the middle of the night Yaakov fought Esav (see our discussion on 32:25-31, 33:10, "Who fought with Yaakov?) which would parallel Odysseus fighting the suitors of his wife. But even if one follows the usual interpretation that Yaakov fought an angel, still in the end due to Yaakov, Esav left Yitzhak’s home, 36:9.

The third parallel is from James Joyce, who re-created the Odyssey in his book Ulysses. Daniel Boorstin (1992, p. 704) notes that Joyce chose Odysseus as his model since he was the most complete man in literature. Joyce writes “Odysseus is the son of Laertes, but he is father to Telemachus, husband to Penelope, lover of Calypso, companion in arms to the Greek warriors around Troy and King of Ithaca. He was subjected to many trials but with wisdom and courage came through them all.”

Could not Yaakov also be considered a complete man? Yaakov might even be more of a complete person than Odysseus if one looks at his relationships with his family members, father, mother, brother, uncle, four wives and children. For example, Yaakov is the only person, who the Torah records a conversation between the person and his mother, 27:6-13. Furthermore, Yaakov's relationship with Rahel is undoubtedly the most romantic relationship recorded in the Torah.

Joyce also notes that Odysseus did not want fight in Troy, but once he agreed he showed his heroism. This also occurred by Yaakov who did not want to fight Esav. He tried sending gifts to appease Esav, 32:14-21, but when he was attacked in the middle of the night, he showed his heroism by fighting even though he was wounded, and even insisted on getting a blessing, 32:26,27.

One difference between Yaakov and Odysseus is that Yaakov was only a leader of the family and not of many people, but by the time the family went down to Egypt, the clan consisted of 70 men. Also, in the end, Yaakov kept the family together, while Odysseus lost all his men by the time he returned home.

Erich Auerbach (1953, p. 17) notes another difference between Yaakov and Odysseus and other Greek figures, that in the stories of Homer the people do not age, while figures in Tanakh change with time. Auerbach notes that “Odysseus on his return is exactly the same as when left Ithaca two decades earlier. But, what a road what a fate, lies between the Jacob who cheated his father out of his blessings, and the old man whose favorite son has been torn to pieces by a wild beast.” Yet, if we “stop” the story of Yaakov when he returned to the land of Israel after twenty years, then he too does not yet seem to have aged. (This non-aging would exclude the story of Dinah, see our discussion above, 34:1-35:7, “How old was Dina when Shekhem wanted to marry her?” where I argue that this incident is recorded out of chronological order.) Note, Auerbach (pp. 7-12, partially quoted by N. Leibowitz, 1976, pp. 196-199) in his comparison of the Akedah with Homer has noted many other differences in style between Tanakh and the stories ascribed to Homer.

If one has accepted these comparisons between Yaakov and Odysseus, the question becomes is there any significance to the parallels? A possible answer is maybe both texts are trying to portray a real genuine hero that people can look up to. The hero is a person, who is not perfect. Thus, we see all the family relationships of the hero, the complete man of Joyce. The similar structures show the difficulties faced by the hero and how they were surmounted. The heroes are smart and show their greatness by conquering many challenges in their lifetime. They do not choose to fight, but if necessary, they are willing and able.

The depiction of Yaakov as a hero is not unique in the Torah. It also occurs by Avraham and Moshe. Avraham also overcame numerous tests, (Mishnah, Pirkei Avot 5:4 states that there were 10 tests) but Avraham was a different type of hero than Yaakov. Yaakov was a fighter who used his wisdom and strength to succeed while by Avraham the tests involved his faith in G-d. As for Moshe, some scholars have argued that the events of his birth followed the pattern of other heroes in literature, see our discussion on Shemot 2:2-6, "Moshe, a foundling?" Moshe was also a different type of hero from Yaakov and Avraham as he demonstrated great leadership abilities by guiding the people out of Egypt to the border of the Promised Land.

Bibliography:

Auerbach, Erich, 1953, Mimesis: The Representation of Reality in Western Literature, Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Boorstin, Daniel J., 1992, The Creators, New York: Random House.

Gordon, Cyrus, H., 1955, Homer and the Bible, Hebrew Union College Annual, 26, pp. 43-108.

Rendsburg, Gary, 1984, Notes on Genesis XXXV, Vetus Testamentum 34:3, pp. 361-365.

Bereshit 26:6-11(Toledot) - Wives and Sisters III

Bereshit 26:6-11 records that Yitzhak tried to conceal his marriage by claiming that his wife Rivka was his sister, but the ruse was revealed when Avimelekh, the ruler of the Philistines, saw them acting as man and wife. This is the only time this ploy is mentioned by Yitzhak, yet this incident is very similar to the two times that Avraham and Sara also tried to conceal their marriage, 12:10-20 and 20:1-18 (see our discussion on Bereshit 20:1,2 "The second abduction of Sara"). In all three cases, the patriarch attempted to conceal his marriage by claiming his wife was a sister, the ruler of the area castigated the patriarch, and the motive for the ploy as proclaimed by the patriarch was to protect his life. However, this incident is significantly different than the other two cases, since here Rivka was not abducted while Sara had been abducted twice. Therefore, here G-d did not have to intervene to save the matriarch and no presents are given to Yitzhak and Rivka.

Why would Yitzhak have tried to conceal his marriage by claiming to be Rivka’s brother when the ploy had failed twice by Avraham? S. R. Hirsch (1989, p. 432) points out that the danger to Yitzhak and Rivka was real since after Avimelekh learned that they were married, Avimelekh felt it was necessary to decree a death penalty for anybody who harmed them, 26:11. However, after what happened to Sara his mother, could Yitzhak really believe that this ploy was offering greater protection to Rivka than if they stated that they were man and wife? I believe there are four possible answers.

One, possibility is based on the Ramban's (12:11) idea that really Avraham and Sara used this ploy all the time and Torah only mentioned the two times it failed. If this is true, then Yitzhak was following the percentages, the plan usually worked.

A second possibility is that Yitzhak copied his father indiscriminately. The idea being that if it was good enough for my father, it is good enough for me.  Possibly Yitzhak thought of his father with such awe that he could not recognize that the ploy was a bad idea.

A third possibility is that maybe Yitzhak did not know what happened to his parents. Both cases occurred before he was born and parents do not always inform their children about all of their deeds. Maybe Avraham and Sara thought it was better that Yitzhak did not know that Sara had twice been abducted. For example, Ramban (on 26:1) suggests that Yitzhak wanted to go to Egypt since he thought that his father had been honored there! If this was true, then Yitzhak only knew that Pharaoh gave Avraham presents but not the real reason for the presents.

A fourth possibility is that Yitzhak might have thought that everything that Avraham had done was because of G-d’s command, and this would include Avraham and Sara concealing their marriage by pretending to be brother and sister when they were in Egypt and in Gerar. Yitzhak might have come to this conclusion from the blessings he received prior to this incident, where G-d ended these blessings by saying that the blessings were because Avraham had listened to G-d’s voice, 26:2-5. If Yitzhak thought that Avraham had concealed his marriage due to G-d's command, then the failure of the ploy in the previous cases was irrelevant, and he and Rivka would also conceal their marriage when in Gerar.

Bibliography:

Hirsch, S. R. (1808-1888), 1989, The Pentateuch, rendered into English by Isaac Levy, second edition, Gateshead: Judaica Press.

Bereshit 18:9-14 (Va-yera`) – The second announcement of Yitzhak's birth: A foil

Bereshit 18:9 records that three visitors who visited Avraham asked where was Sara, and Avraham answered that she was in the tent. Afterwards, G-d told Avraham that Sara would have a child, 18:10. How does the question in 18:9 relate to 18:10? The visitors did not enter the tent or speak directly to Sara, as Sara only over heard what they were saying to Avraham, 18:10. The visitors did not even inquire as to Sara's welfare. Why did they ask about Sara's whereabouts?

Rashi (on 18:9) quotes from Baba Metzia 87a three answers. One, it is proper conduct that a person should ask their host about their spouse's welfare, two the question was to increase Avraham's love for Sara or three, the question was to send her the wine cup of blessing. All of these answers are difficult. They did not ask about Sara's welfare, it is difficult to see how a question concerning Sara's location would increase Avraham's love for her and there is no mention that they gave her anything.

Rashbam explains that the question, "where was Sara?" was simply a way to begin the conversation, as we see by the Garden of Eden where G-d asked where were Adam and Havva, 3:9. (Rashbam also cites Bemidbar 22:9, Kings II 20:14 and Isaiah 39:3, but the questions in these verses do not refer to a person's location.) Yet, the cases are not parallel since by the Garden of Eden, G-d spoke to both Adam and Havva, and hence the question where are you was an introduction to the ensuing conversation. However, here the visitors did not speak to Sara. How can the question "where is Sara?" be a polite opening to a conversation that did not happen?

A different idea is that maybe it was the custom in those days that visitors would not speak directly to the wives of their hosts, and if a visitor wanted to speak to the wife, then she would stand behind a curtain, or here the tent.

Another difficulty with 18:10 is that the visitors told Avraham that Sara would have a child in the following year, but Avraham already knew this. 17:16-21 records that Avraham had already been told by G-d that he was to have a son.

One answer (see Rashi on 18:2) is that the information in 18:10 was for Sara, as in 17:16-21, G-d only told Avraham and did not speak to Sara. Yet, surely after waiting so many years for a child, Avraham would have told Sara this information, see Netziv on 18:10.

Ramban (end of 18:15) argues that Avraham never told Sara about the impending birth since either he wanted Sara to hear from G-d directly or that Avraham had been too busy since he had immediately circumcised himself after hearing about the son and he was still recovering from the circumcision. Both answers are difficult. Did Avraham know that G-d was going to re-tell this information? Was there really no time at all? Avraham had time to tell Sara to make bread for the visitors, 18:6. Furthermore, the Abravanel (2007, p. 410 and Chavel, 1993, notes to Ramban on 18:16) points out that the visitors used the new name Sara and not Sari, which means that she must have learned about the change of her name and this change of name was concurrent with news of the upcoming birth.

Another question concerning this conversation, is the re-action to the announcement. After Sara overheard the news about the birth, she laughed to herself since she doubted that she and Avraham could have a child, 18:12. G-d then questioned Avraham as to why Sara was laughing, and said "Is anything beyond G-d?" 18:13,14. Yet, Avraham had laughed when he heard this same information, 17:17, and he had not been rebuked. Why was Sara rebuked for laughing when Avraham had not been criticized? Furthermore, Avraham was not rebuked even though he laughed so strongly that he fell on his face, while Sara just laughed inwardly?

Ramban (on 17:7 and 18:15) distinguishes between their laughter. Avraham laughed out loud, which he claims was a sign of happiness, while Sara laughed to herself, which he claims was a form of mocking showing her disbelief. Bekhor Shor (on 17:7) suggests a similar approach, that as Avraham fell on his face upon hearing the news of the birth this signaled a laughter of happiness. He also suggests that G-d did not want to rebuke either Avraham or Sara directly, and Sara was only rebuked since it was done indirectly.

Abravanel suggests that Avraham was not punished since he laughed by the first announcement of the birth, but Sara was punished since this was already the second time she had been told of the impending birth. Yet, if Avraham had not been rebuked for laughing the first time, why was it wrong to laugh a second time, and again Sara laughed much less this time than Avraham had laughed.

Hizkuni (on 18:13) writes that the situation is similar to a woman who wants to criticize her daughter-in-law and does so by criticizing her own daughter with the idea that the daughter-in–law will also get the message. The idea being that Avraham was also being criticized when G-d criticized Sara. (Yehuda Keel, 2000, on 18:15, quotes this idea from R. Saadiah Gaon, but I did not find it in my copy of his commentary.) The idea is that really Avraham should also have been criticized for laughing but G-d waited until Sara laughed and then the criticism of Sara was also intended for Avraham.

This idea of Hizkuni and R. Saadiah Gaon can explain why the announcement of the future birth was repeated and why the messengers asked where was Sara but did not actually go to speak to her. The answer is that since Avraham was to be rebuked for his laughing this meant that there was a need for a second announcement to recreate a situation where Avraham could be criticized for laughing. Avraham was not likely to laugh again but Sara could laugh, and then Avraham could be criticized for Sara's laughter, 18:13,14. The visitors asked for Sara not to speak to Sara but to get her attention to listen to the conversation, which would lead her to laugh. My guess is that either she heard her name being mentioned or when the visitors asked Avraham where was Sara, either Avraham or his servant went and checked that she was in fact in the tent, and this inquiry prompted Sara to listen to the conversation. However, because the goal was to criticize Avraham for his previous laughter the messengers only spoke to Avraham.

Yet, if Avraham was supposed to be criticized why did G-d have to wait for Sara to laugh? Why was Avraham not criticized immediately after he laughed in 17:17? My guess is that the delay was due to the fact that Avraham and G-d were making a covenant in chapter 17, and during the establishment of the covenant, where Avraham was circumcising himself when he was 99, it was inappropriate to criticize Avraham. However, immediately after the covenant was completed then Avraham could be criticized for laughing.

Bibliography:

Abravanel, Yitzhak (1437-1508), 2007, Commentary on Bereshit, Jerusalem: Horev.

Chavel, Hayyim Dov, 1993, Commentary of the Ramban, revised edition, Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook.

Keel, Yehuda, 1997, 2000 and 2003, Commentary on Bereshit: Da'at Mikra, Three volumes, Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook.

Bereshit chapter one - A literary pattern to the description in the Torah of the creation of the world

Chapter one of the book of Bereshit (Genesis) records that the creation of the world occurred in six days, and beginning in the 20th century it has been noted that this process can be sub-divided into two groups.

David Tzvi Hoffmann (1969, p. 36, on 1:20, see a recent formulation by Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, 2009, pp. 28,29) notes that the creation of the first day, light, corresponds to the creation on the fourth day, the sun, the moon and the stars. Also, the creation on the second and the fifth days are connected since the animals created on the fifth day, fish and birds, populated the water and air which were formed on the second day. Furthermore, the third and sixth days are also interrelated since the animals and mankind that were created on the sixth day populated the land that was created on the third day.

Cassuto (1883-1951, 1961, pp. 16,17,53) records this same pattern, though he notes that it depends on designating the creation of water or the seas to the second day and not to the third day.

Leo Strauss (lecture in 1957, 1997, pp. 364,365) also notes this pattern. He writes, "There seems to be a kind of parallelism to the biblical account. There are two series of creation, each of three days. The first begins with a creation of light, the second with that of the sun. Both series end with a double creation." Furthermore, he notes a difference between the two sets of creation. He suggests "that the principle of the first half is separation or distinction simply, while the principle of the second half, the fourth to sixth day, is local motion." (Leon Kass, 2003, pp. 27-36, further develops Strauss's ideas with regard to the differences between the two sets.)

Nahum Sarna (1989, p. 4) adds this double creation on days three and six to the pattern from above. He notes that on day three, the two acts of creation, dry land and vegetation, correspond to the two acts of creation on the sixth day, land creatures and humankind. He suggests that vegetation is parallel to humankind since vegetation is the lowest form of organic life while people are the highest form of organic life.

I believe that there is a different literary pattern to the six days of creation. The first day is not part of the parallelism. On day two, the key element was the creation of the rakia, 1:6,7,8, which was populated on the fourth day, 1:14,15,17.

On the third day, the first act of creation was that the land and seas were created, and these were populated on the fifth day by the fish and the birds who would multiply on the land and in the seas, 1:22. Note the Torah relates the birds to the sky in day five, 1:20, and afterwards in 1:26,28,30, which is to be expected, but on day five the crucial aspect is that the birds would populate the land, 1:20,22. The relationship between the birds and land on day five is unexpected and it is not mentioned in day six, but it highlights the connection between the creation on day five and the first act of creation on day three.

The third parallelism is that the second act of creation on the third day was that the vegetation came forth from the earth, 1:12, and similarly, on the sixth day the animals came forth from the earth, 1:24.

With this understanding, mankind, the second act of creation on the sixth day, is outside the parallelism just like the creation of light on the first day is outside the parallelism. Instead, there is a different type of relationship between the creation of light and the creation of mankind. The creation of light started the creation process, while the creation of mankind signaled the end of the creation process.

Overall the pattern of creation is 1, 3, 3, and 1. The first half of creation until the third day has an introduction and three acts of creation, and this is parallel to the second half of creation, the last three days, when there were three corresponding acts of creation and a conclusion. (This numeric pattern is similar to the pattern by the plagues in Egypt; see our discussion, "The ten plagues in Egypt: Their structure, order and maybe their rationale.")

Bibliography:

Cassuto, Umberto (1883-1951), 1961, A commentary on the book of Genesis, part one: From Adam to Noah, Jerusalem: Magnes Press.

Hoffmann, David Tzvi (1843-1921), 1969, Commentary on Genesis, Bnei Brak: Nezach.

Kass, Leon, 2003, The beginning of wisdom, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Sacks, Jonathan (1948-2020), 2009, Koren Siddur, Jerusalem: Koren Publishers.

Sarna, Nahum (1923-2005), 1989, The JPS Torah Commentary: Genesis, Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society.

Strauss, Leo, 1997, On the interpretation of Genesis, in Jewish Philosophy and the rises of modernity: Essays and lectures in modern Jewish thought by Leo Strauss, edited with an introduction by Kenneth Hart Green, State University of New York Press, pp. 359-376.

Kapparot

The Rama (16th century, Poland) in his comments on the Shulchan Arukh (Orah Chayyim 605:1) writes that on erev Yom Kippur, the day before Yom Kippur, "the custom in Europe was for a man to take a rooster, a woman to take a hen, a pregnant woman to take two chickens…." The chicken was swung over one's head, while stating that it was a replacement for the person, and then the chicken was killed. This custom is called kapparot since the idea of the custom is for a person to attain atonement, khapparah.

According to Lauterbach (1935), “the oldest known form of this ritual is given by Sheshna Gaon of Sura in the middle, or the second half of the seventh century.” R. Sheshna Gaon states that he did not know the source for this custom, which suggests that it began by regular people and not as a rabbinic enactment. (This response by Rav Sheshna Gaon is partially quoted by the Tur, Orah Chayyim, 605, and more fully by Jacobson, 1989, vol. 5, pp. 174,175.)

R. Sheshna Gaon explains that fowl were used since they were easy to obtain, and more importantly, the Talmud in Yoma 20b, refers to a rooster as a gever which is the same word in Hebrew for man. This connection from the word gever increased the idea of substitution in the custom, and once this connection from the word gever was made, then a woman could not use a rooster so instead women use hens.

In the time of the Geonim, there was another version of the kapparot. Otzar ha-Geonim Yoma (quoted in Agnon, 1948, p. 149, Jacobson, 1989, p. 274, also see Rashi on Shabbat 81b) records that children would grow plants in a basket before Rosh Hashanah, swing the plants around their head saying “this is my substitute,…” and then thrown the plants into the stream. Lauterbach (above) suggest that this was an earlier form of the kapparot custom, but maybe it was a child’s version of the custom since most children would not want to or be able to swing fowl over their heads. In any event, this custom has been lost.

In the Middle Ages, the custom of kapparot seems to have been very popular amongst Ashkenazim and the Machzor Vitry (France, 11th century, quoted in Jacobson, p. 176) provides an interesting reason for the custom. He explains that the custom is an attempt to re-create the sending away of the goat to Azazel in the sacrificial service in the Bet ha-Mikdash on Yom Kippur (Vayikra chapter 16). In this ritual, the sins of the people were transferred to the goat, and then when the goat was sent away the people would attain atonement. With this rationale, after the destruction of the Bet Ha-Mikdash there was a desire to re-create the process of sending away one's sins through an animal, and hence the kapparot custom developed. The transfer of sins to the fowl by kapparot parallels the transfer of sins to the goat in the Bet ha-Mikdash. (Lauterbach above also quotes other Medieval sources for this idea, and Jacobson, p. 174 quotes this idea from the Shelah who in turn refers to the Ari.) Note with this idea, the kapparot could be done with other animals, and the Mishnah Berurah (605:4) quotes the possibility of using a goose or fish.

Machzor Vitry also quotes that the intestines of the bird are to be thrown on the roof, and this is quoted by the Rama, 605:1. Agnon (1948, p. 148) quotes two reasons for this. One, fowls eat worms and creeping things and the intestines are the first receptacles for this food so people should not eat them. Two, by throwing the intestines this enables other birds to eat them. A person is then showing compassion for the birds, in the hope that G-d will show compassion on the person. These reasons are difficult. If we worry about what chickens eat, then we should not eat any part of the chicken. Also, while we are feeding some birds from the intestines, the custom involves killing other fowl, which shows a lack of compassion on those birds. The Mishnah Brurah (605:9) quotes a variation on the first reason. He writes that chickens feed from stolen food and since the intestines are the first receptacles of the stolen food we should stay away from theft. Yet, again this is difficult since if we are worried about theft, then we should not eat any parts of the bird.

More likely, the throwing of the intestines was also to copy the goat being sent away. The Torah just records that the goat was sent away, but Chazal (Mishnah Yoma 6:6) explain that goat was thrown off a cliff. Most people do not live near cliffs and also people would not want to waste a whole animal, so instead a portion of the birds, the worse part, was thrown on the roof or out into the courtyards. The roof is closer to the idea of a cliff, but possibly this was not simple for everybody to do, so throwing into the courtyard was also considered sufficient.

In the 14th century, the Maharil (1365-1427, Germany, quoted in Darkei Moshe) quoted three additions to the custom. One, that instead of giving the chickens to the poor, one could estimate the value of the bird and give the money to the poor since the poor might feel insulted that they were given a bird that had many sins. This would make the custom more expensive since a person needs to have a chicken for every person in the family, and money for the value of all the chickens. Two, that a mother was to do kapparot even for a fetus. The mother is to take a rooster and a hen. A rooster in case she had a male child, and if she had a girl, then the hen would count for herself and the girl, see Mishnah Berurah 605:3. Three, that a person should take a white chicken based on the verse (Isaiah 1:18) that “though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow.” This last idea was also relevant to the goat that was sent away to Azazel since according to the Mishnah (Yuma 6:8) there was a red scarlet that turned white in the Bet ha-Mikdash when the goat reached the desert.

This idea to take a white chicken was accepted by the Rama (605:1), but later authorities (see Mishnah Berurah 605:4) thought that if a person makes a special effort to get a white chicken then this would be considered as being darkei amori, a superstitious practice that would be forbidden. Why would using a white chicken be considered superstitious? Schauss (1938, p. 166) writes that the idea of a white chicken is to scare or chase away the devil, and this is also the reason for swinging the chicken over the person’s head.

In the Middle Ages, the Sefardim challenged the custom of kapparot. The Rambam did not mention this custom. The Ramban (1194-1270, Spain, quoted in Bet Yosef, 605) forbade the custom arguing that it was a pagan custom. The Rashba (1235-1310, Barcelona, a student of the Ramban, quoted in Bet Yosef, 605) writes that while he was told (by Rabbenu Asher, who stayed by him?) that all Ashkenazi Rabbis do kapparot, he stopped people from doing kapparot in his city. In our editions of the Shulchan Arukh, R Yosef Caro (1488-1575, 605) writes that one should stop people from doing kapparot, while in the earlier editions of the Shulchan Arukh, R. Yosef Caro called it a foolish custom, see Jacobson, p. 177.

It is possible that the difference between the Ashkenazim and the Sefardim is based on the background of each community. It could be that kapparot developed in Israel in the first millennium since they had a greater connection with the Bet ha-Mikdash. Thus, since medieval Ashkenazi Jewry had a greater connection with the community in Israel, the custom was more ingrained than amongst Sefardim, who were more connected with the communities in Bavel. If the custom developed in Israel, then this could also explain why R. Sheshna Gaon was not aware of the basis for the custom, while the Machzor Vitry was.

Dr. Shnayer Leiman (lecture on tape titled “Two types of tshevuah, http://leimanlibrary.com/tape_library.html) suggests that there was also a conceptual difference between the Ashkenazim and the Sefardim. He explains that according to the Rambam, and the Sefardim who followed him, repentance is a mental action, where a person confesses, feels contrite about one’s sins and resolves not to sin again. However, for Medieval Ashkenazi Jewry, repentance also required atonement, that there was some penalty to be paid if one sinned. For example, this viewpoint would instruct people to fast to gain repentance since the suffering from the fasting would be considered atonement. (Another example is the Rama's comment in Orah Chayyim 343:1, where he writes that if a child sins, then while he technically does not need to repent when he gets older since he sinned when he was a child, still he should accept upon himself some form of repentance and khapparah.)

Thus, for Ashkenazim the killing of the bird by the custom of kapparot was the atonement that was needed for a person to gain repentance. However, if one believes that the repentance is a mental action, then it is up to G-d to determine whether punishment is required for a sin and it is up to G-d to do the punishing. With this understanding, the swinging and killing of a chicken/ rooster would be silly: if the person had done real repentance there was no reason for the ceremony and for the rooster to die, and if the person had not done real repentance, then the ceremony and death of the rooster would not stop G-d from punishing the person. While the kapparot might have been an attempt to re-create the sending away of the goat, that was commanded by G-d, but G-d never commanded the killing of the fowl.

With this idea, Leiman also explained the shocking idea that a mother needs to do kapparot for her fetus. What could a child or a baby in the womb have done that necessitates atonement? Leiman explains that the basis for the atonement of the children are the verses in Shemot 20:5, and 34:7, that G-d punishes the sins of the parents on the children up to four generations. A human court cannot punish children for their parents’ actions (Devarim 24:16), but there is the idea that G-d can punish children for the sins of the parents. Thus, if G-d can punish the children, then children would also need atonement.

As mentioned above, the Rama in the Darkei Moshe (605:5) and in his comments on the Shulchan Arukh (605) defended the custom of kapparot. The Bach (1561-1640, Poland) also defended the custom of kapparot but he agreed that buying a white chicken was a pagan practice. The Taz (586-1667, Poland, 605:2) and the Magen Avraham (1637-1683, Poland, 605:3) accept the Bach's comments with regard to white chicken. R. Avraham Danzig (1748-1820, Vilna, Chayei Adam 144:4) also agreed that using white chickens was a pagan practice, but he noted that in his time the popular custom amongst the women was to seek out white chickens and to pay more for them.

R. Danzig also noted that because there was great pressure on the butchers to slaughter so many chickens and the butchers were tired from working all night there was a high probability that the chickens would not be slaughtered correctly. Thus, he writes that it is better to swing money over one's head instead of a chicken unless one can be sure that the chicken was slaughtered correctly. A friend of mine, Yair Alek, pointed out that once a person is using money, then there is no reason for a person to swing money over their heads, but I think that is what is done by people who use money instead of chickens.

This suggestion to use money was novel though R. Danzig writes that poor people had being doing this on their own if it was too expensive to get a chicken. He notes that if people did use chickens, then they should know that this custom does not bring the person atonement, only that it should induce the person to repent. I wonder if his suggestion to use money is not only because of the danger of eating non-kosher chicken, but also because he was concerned about the opinions that it was a pagan practice.

The Mishnah Berurah (605:1) quotes the idea of using money, but from my conversations with several people who lived in Europe prior to Holocaust, it seems that prior to Holocaust, almost everybody in Eastern Europe did kapparot with chickens, see comments of Arukh Hashulchan 605:5.

Even though R. Yosef Caro was against this custom, it became popular amongst Sefardim due to the Ari z”l since it was “known” that the Ari did kapparot (see Magen Avraham 605:1 and Jacobson pp. 173,174). Did the Ari z”l do kapparot because some of his family was Ashkenazi?

Not all Jews accepted the custom. Agnon (1948, p. 150) quotes from the Sede Hemed (1832-1904), that in the 19th century, the Jews of Yemen were unaware of this custom, and that a majority of the Jews in Constantinople did not do kapparot.

My own impression is that in the 1980s most people in the US did the ceremony with money and not chickens, while only those people of a kabbalistic bent used chickens. In 2019 living in Israel, I think more people are doing kapparot with chickens, which has generated a backlash from animal rights organizations, and also various charity institutions have started fundraising campaigns based on the custom.