Return To TorahWeb.org Homepage
Vayomer Elokim naaseh adam be-zalmeinu ke-demuteinu ve-yirdu be-degat ha-yam u-be-of ha-shamayim u-ba-beheimah u-bechol ha-aretz u-bechol remes ha-romes al ha-aretz. Va-yivra Elokim et ha-adam be-tzalmo, bi-ttzelem Elokim bara oto zachar u-nekeivah bara otam. Va-yevareich otam Elokim va-yomer la-hem Elokim peru u-revu u-milu et haaretz ve-kivshuhah u-redu be-degat ha-yam u-be-of ha-shamayim u-bechol chayah ha-romeset al ha-aretz
The Torah (Bereishit 1:26-28) describes the creation of man, according to Chazal the purpose of the world itself, in an extremely complex and perplexing fashion. Numerous difficulties present themselves.
It is noteworthy that the Torah immediately links the plan of man's creation to his destined dominion over his environment and other creatures, as if it this function were vital to his very existence. Yet, the Torah later (2:8,15) defines man's role in more reflective, passive ("va-yita Hashem Elokim gan bi-eiden va-yasem sham et ha-adam asher yatzar" [see Netziv 2:8,15]) and conservative terms ("vayenicheihu be-gan eiden le-avdah u-leshamrah").
The mefarshim struggled with the language utilized in this initial presentation of man's genesis and telos. The use of the plural "naaseh" attracted the attention of the commentators. While some are satisfied with the explanation of the "royal we" used in connection with sovereign actions, the Ibn Ezra and others dispute this approach. Rashi explains that this plural formulation reflects Hashem's humility in formally consulting with lower beings and he posits that the inculcation of this important midah justifies even some small risk of theological confusion. It is, however, reasonable to further speculate whether this instructive lesson has specific significance to the context of man's creation. The Ramban explains that the plural usage is designed to convey that man is a hybrid creature who is composed of and whose essence reflects both lower and upper realms. Again, we may pose the question whether underscoring this fact simply satisfies accuracy or whether if accomplishes some more fundamental goal specifically in this context, justifying an anomalous and potentially confusing expression.
The more acute difficulty with the Torah's terminology centers on the amorphous terms "tzelem" and "demut". The implication that man is in some meaningful fashion in Hashem's image is both theologically problematic and specifically contradicted by other verses in Tanach. The Ibn Ezra invokes one pasuk in Yeshayah (40:25): "el mi tedamyuni", while the Chizkuni cites another (Yeshayah 44:13):"u-mah demut taarchu lo". The commentators uniformly emphatically reject any such notion of an actual comparison. Indeed, the very first chapters of the Rambam's Moreh Nevuchim contend with the implications of "tzelem Elokim". The Rambam refutes any literal interpretation that allows for an anthropomorphic view of Hashem. While some mefarshim (see Rashbam, for example) essentially deny the significance of these terms, linking "tzelem" and "demut" to the angels or providing even more innocuous explanations, these approaches encounter their own challenges. Why does the Torah employ phraseology in its description of man's creation that potentially engenders theological confusion if in fact nothing particularly transcendent was intended. Moreover, both Ibn Ezra and Chizkuni note that the Torah invokes the status of "tzelem Elokim" in the aftermath of the flood to explain the severity of murder (Bereishit 9:6 [see, also 5:1]). Chazal, in keeping with this pattern, frequently cite "tzelem Elokim" in the context of treating man's uniqueness and the supreme value of each individual.
An cursory examination of just a few of the actual perspectives of the mefarshim on "tzelem Elokim" may clarify the Torah's choice of formulation. The Ramban notes that even the Torah's seemingly innocuous introduction of man's creation with a distinct "va-yomer Elokim" sets the tone for man's unique and elevated status in creation. The term "tzelem Elokim" conveys unequivocally that man by his essence and by virtue of his destiny was qualitatively distinct from other beings. The fact that man is a physical-spiritual hybrid, reflected both by the plural verb "naaseh" and the term "demuteinu" is not merely accurate technical information, but encapsulates man's singular challenge and opportunity to sanctify the physical world.
The Rambam (Moreh Nevuchim) argues that "tzelem" refers to the essential defining and differentiating feature that characterizes and defines a subject or object. While it would be philosophically absurd to misconceive that man can in anyway approximate Divinity, Hashem did gift man with the most salient of His unique features, His spiritual-incorporeal dimension, albeit only in the most general sense. By depicting man as having "tzelem Elokim" in its initial reference to man, the Torah highlights man's intellect and spiritual potential, which is intended to be his exclusive focus. According to the Rambam's perspective, man's physical nature constitutes a significant obstacle to achieving his true destiny. Indeed, sin constitutes a concession to man's physical nature that suppresses or eradicates the "tzelem Elokim".
Like the Rambam, Rashi attributes to "tzelem Elokim" man's special capacity to reason and to grow intellectually (le-havin u-lehaskil). Perhaps the quality of humility, implied by the plural usage of "naaseh", was intended to establish a context and control for man's application of this gift that elevated him from the rest of the physical world. This perspective is consistent with the Torah's immediate application to man's dominion. Rashi notes that the term "ve-yirdu" has a double meaning. Depending on man's proper approach to his "tzelem Elokim" opportunity, he may either succeed in asserting sovereignty and jurisdiction over his environment and other creations, or he will fall victim to the abuse of that capacity. Perhaps the Torah's identification of the goal of man's dominion can be better comprehended in this light as a reflection of man's special potential and capacity, rather than as an immediate goal. [See, also R. Saadia Gaon's interpretation of "tzelem Elokim" as a reference to the capacity to conquer and rule.]
The Seforno links "tzelem Elokim" with man's unique capacity for free choice, which is the foundation for reward and punishment, as well as repentance.
It is evident that the Torah ascribed great importance to the value of accentuating man's singular status in creation, as well as his unique spiritual potential. Apparently, the urgent need to underscore this dimension of human potential outweighed the risk of any potential theological confusion. It would soon become obvious in human history and in the Torah's own immediate narrative concerning Adam and Chavah, Kayin and Hevel, the generation of the mabul etc. (see also Bereishit 6:3-6;8:21) that man was not only an imperfect being who could hardly be confused with Hashem, but one that was inherently flawed and beset with deficiencies. Almost immediately it would be easier to lose sight of the "tzelem Elokim" dimension than to actually misconstrue the significance of "tzelem Elokim" in a theologically dangerous way.
Moreover, man's astonishing, almost immediate descent into sin confirmed the more nuanced and accurate understanding of "tzelem Elokim" itself. To some extent, the factor of "tzelem Elokim" also explains man's otherwise puzzling conduct, as well as Hashem's seemingly harsh response to man's missteps. The context of "tzelem Elokim", properly understood, establishes that man's greatest strength and potential- his intellectual ability, his fusion of physical and spiritual dimensions, his capacity for free choice- also constitutes his greatest vulnerability. Human history from its very onset demonstrates that the very qualities and attributes that serve to elevate man, may also lead him astray. Precisely because he is endowed with "tzelem Elokim", his personal responsibility and liability is concomitantly greater. In this sense, the endowment of "tzelem Elokim" is an indispensable consideration in comprehending the Divine decree.
Notwithstanding man's disappointing performance in biblical and subsequent history, the Torah's initial assessment and promise of his true essential nature and promise persists undiminished. The ideal and potential of "tzelem Elokim", the Torah's first word on man, continues to inspire and to stimulate a sense of purpose and duty unobscured by either theological confusion or man's actual imperfect history.