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.