By the creation of man, Hashem said (to the angels), “Let us make man.” The midrash says that when Moshe Rabbeinu was writing down the Torah, once he reached this pasuk, he said to Hashem, “Master of the World, why are you giving the heretics an argument to support their views?” Hashem responded, “Write it, and whoever wants to make a mistake will make a mistake.” (Bereishit Rabba, 8:8). Moshe seems to express surprise and concern, while Hashem doesn’t seem to show concern. Why not?
The midrash further says (based on Rashi’s understanding of it) that Hashem wrote the pasuk this way to teach us derech eretz and the middah of anavah (humility), so that if a greater person will be in a situation which requires him to consult or obtain permission from one who is less great than him, he shouldn’t think that he does not need to since he is greater than him.
The question is, granted Hashem wanted to teach us this, but at the cost of risking the potential for people to err in the fundamentals of emunah in Hashem? At first glance, this doesn’t seem to be a logical opportunity cost!
Rav Elya Dessler (Michtav M’Eliyahu, 1, p. 121) explains this enigma by picking up on a nuance in Hashem’s response to Moshe. Hashem didn’t say “Write it, even though there will be people who may make a mistake.” Rather, Hashem said, “Write it and whoever wants to make a mistake will make a mistake.” What’s the intention of this nuance in Hashem’s response?
Rav Dessler explains that our thoughts and perceptions ultimately stem from our “ratzon” (our wants and desires in life). Our intellect is guided by our ratzon. Therefore, an inappropriate ratzon can lead to faulty beliefs. Whoever “wants”—meaning, anyone whose “ratzon” is a certain way—will make such a mistake.
It would seem to emerge from Rav Dessler that one’s ratzon is what can ultimately dictate his level of belief in Hashem, and based on this, we can suggest that Hashem seemingly wasn’t showing concern. Anyway the heretics would be heretics with or without the pasuk of “let us make man,” as this pasuk would merely serve as just an excuse for their corrupted beliefs but it would not be the cause for their heresy. Ultimately, their heresy doesn’t stem from a textual indication or from a pure and honest intellectual thought process, but from an emotional one—their ratzon.
Furthermore, the midrash itself (just a bit later) quotes Rav Simlai who says that although the pasuk of “let us make man” can lead heretics to support their views, however, the very next pasuk serves as a rebuttal to their claims for it states, “God created man…,” which is in singular form. So we may see that even if “the proof is in the pudding”—as the very next pasuk shows them the truth and that they are mistaken, yet, since their ratzon is on a certain wavelength, they still would stick to their erroneous beliefs. Indeed, as the Chafetz Chaim seems to point out, even if theoretically there were absolutely no room for error, nevertheless, one’s ratzon could still influence him to believe whatever he wants to believe, even if it’s patently false. Hence, if it’s not essentially the pasuk that would mislead them since they are already misled by their ratzon, it’s quite worthwhile then to write the pasuk the way it’s written to teach us derech eretz and the middah of anavah.
According to Rav Dessler’s explanation, it seems that Hashem wasn’t necessarily offering a solution to potential emunah issues, but was simply relating to Moshe that the real issue has to do with the person, not with the wording of the pasuk. However, Rav Chaim Friedlander presents an insight from which emerges that Hashem is actually offering a solution to deal with potential issues in emunah.
Rav Friedlander understands that the pasuk of “let us make man” and the middah of anavah that we learn from it, is essentially coming to teach us that through anavah, one won’t come to err in emunah! The reason is because—as explained from R’ Dessler—the root of errors in emunah stem from one’s ratzon—i.e., haughtiness and self centeredness. Such a person wouldn’t be open to views different than his own, nor will he submit himself to recognize and accept Hashem’s will. Hence, this person essentially “wants” to err; his ratzon—stemming from his ego and self interests—leads him to continue in his mistaken beliefs and ways of life. For if he concedes to the truth, he would have to abandon his ways. On the other hand, one with the middah of anavah becomes submissive to Hashem and can acknowledge and accept His sovereignty and will. Thus, anavah leads to emunah in Hashem for it overcomes the issue of “ratzon” (see Sifsei Chaim, Moadim 1, p. 186). Indeed, the pasuk (Devarim, 8:14) says “And your heart will become haughty and you will forget Hashem…,” perhaps teaching us that gaavah (haughtiness) interferes with and decreases one’s emunah, which may indicate that the opposite of gaavah—anavah—encourages and increases emunah.
Naturally then, when challenges in faith could arise, the haughty person might see a shortcoming in Hashem, thus decreasing his emunah, whereas the humble person might see the shortcoming within himself, not with Hashem, for he accepts Hashem’s ways, understanding that Hashem and His ways are just. His emunah is thus retained, if not increased.
The Steipler (Rav Yaakov Yisrael Kanievsky) says that on every [I assume theological/philosophical] question that may arise from one’s personal experiences, one must realize that the shortcoming is within oneself (Birkat Peretz, Bereishit), not with Hashem: In our parsha, Hashem commands Adam Harishon not to eat from the Etz Hadaat on pain of death. Chava however seemed to believe that Hashem’s command included not even touching it (see 3:3). The Nachash attempted a ploy, and he pushed Chava, causing her to touch the tree, and then said to her, “Just like you didn’t die from touching the tree, so too you won’t die from eating of it.” Chava was convinced, and the rest is history.
But why did Chava listen to the Nachash’s argument—couldn’t she have instead realized that maybe she was mistaken with regard to believing that touching the tree was also off limits? Moreover, even if theoretically that were true, who said she would die immediately? Maybe it would be a short while later! Yet, it seems that Chava had a “question” on God—on His word that this tree posed a danger; she seemed to think Hashem fabricated it, without taking into consideration that maybe the shortcoming is within her—that she is the one who is wrong or is misunderstanding what Hashem meant.
Says Rav Henach Leibowitz, Chava not considering that maybe she is mistaken, and instead believing that Hashem made things up sheds light on human nature, where the middah of gaavah and being self absorbed could cause one to not recognize and admit that it is he or she who is mistaken (Chiddushei Halev, Bereishit), and not Hashem. We could perhaps learn from here that Chava’s gaavah caused her to entertain a negative belief about Hashem, and thus, if Chava was more humble and less haughty, she could have seen the shortcoming within herself and as a result remained firm in her emunah in Hashem.
Binyamin is a graduate of Yeshivas Rabbeinu Yitzchok Elchanan and of Wurzweiler School of Social Work.
