Judaism and the Fall

[gluadys]

How does Judaism interpret Genesis 3?

I have long understood that Judaism does not have a doctrine of original sin, and I can see that the concept of a "depraved" human nature depends on a Pauline-Augustinian interpretation, so would not be relevant to Judaism.

But there is still the question of the Fall.  I heard recently that Judaism does not include this concept either.  If that is correct, how does Judaism understand Genesis 3?  What is that story getting at? 

[metis]

Probably most Jews today, including the orthodox groups, tend to view these accounts as probably being allegorical, and most would reject the idea that these accounts give evidence for "original sin".  The central idea seems to center around what happens when we disobey God and the concept that our sin, not only affects us, but the society as well and, quite possibly, may include more than just one generation. 

Shalom,
Vern

[gluadys]

Probably most Jews today, including the orthodox groups, tend to view these accounts as probably being allegorical, and most would reject the idea that these accounts give evidence for "original sin".  The central idea seems to center around what happens when we disobey God and the concept that our sin, not only affects us, but the society as well and, quite possibly, may include more than just one generation. 

Shalom,
Vern

I have no problem with allegorical accounts.  Whether Adam is a literal person or a metaphor for humanity (an Everyman) is irrelevant to the point of the story. 

How does sin affect us?  (Excluding the original sin idea.)

[metis]

 
How does sin affect us?  (Excluding the original sin idea.)

In traditional Judaism, it means we disobey God and that we may well be punished for it.  However, there is the opportunity for us to deal with the harm we may have caused by approaching those whom we have offended and make up for it.  In Judaism, this must be done if at all possible and the belief is that if we make no attempt to do so, then that sin may not be forgiven us.

However, as mentioned, sin is not just something that affects just one person, so the one who sins may also have to deal with others who have been tainted by his/her sinning.  Therefore, there's a communal aspect to sin.  Here's where the importance of Yom Kippur and, in previous days, where the Temple sacrifices come in, as well as doing our best to make up for the damage we've done to our families and our community.

Ultimately the general belief is that it will be God's choice as to how He'll deal with our sin and whether we will be punished now or in the hereafter or not at all.

Shalom,
Vern

[gluadys]

 
How does sin affect us?  (Excluding the original sin idea.)

In traditional Judaism, it means we disobey God and that we may well be punished for it.  However, there is the opportunity for us to deal with the harm we may have caused by approaching those whom we have offended and make up for it.  In Judaism, this must be done if at all possible and the belief is that if we make no attempt to do so, then that sin may not be forgiven us.

However, as mentioned, sin is not just something that affects just one person, so the one who sins may also have to deal with others who have been tainted by his/her sinning.  Therefore, there's a communal aspect to sin.  Here's where the importance of Yom Kippur and, in previous days, where the Temple sacrifices come in, as well as doing our best to make up for the damage we've done to our families and our community.

Ultimately the general belief is that it will be God's choice as to how He'll deal with our sin and whether we will be punished now or in the hereafter or not at all.

Shalom,
Vern

Would it be fair to say that in general sin is seen as an offense against another person (or more than one person)?  In short, what makes an act sinful is that it harms someone.  And it is the harm that must be mended if possible.

Is there a sense of sin being against God as well as harmful to humans, to creation, etc.?  You mentioned Yom Kippur, which I believe translates as Day of Atonement.  What does "atonement" mean in the framework of Judaism?

I am also interested in your last sentence:  "it will be God's choice...."  If I understand Christian theology, God may have the choice of dealing with sin either now or in the hereafter, but without atonement he does not have the choice of not dealing with it at all. All sin must be atoned for in order for the repentant sinner to be able to approach God. 

At least that is the penal understanding of Christ's atonement which is the most widespread formulation, though not the only one. 

So this sentence suggests to me that Judaism does not take the view that sin is something for which atonement is strictly necessary. 

What of repentance?  Is that necessary? 

I guess what I am getting at is whether sin is seen not only as something harmful to other humans, but as harming the relationship between sinner and God.  And how is the harm to this relationship mended?

[metis]

Would it be fair to say that in general sin is seen as an offense against another person (or more than one person)? 

It is also construed as a violation of what God wants us to do, so He's offended as well.

Is there a sense of sin being against God as well as harmful to humans, to creation, etc.? 

Absolutely.  And many of the Laws found in Torah relate specifically to God and creation.  One of the main purposes of Torah is believed to be tikkun olam ("repair the world") whereas we must respect creation and do our best to improve the conditions that we can, so in that sense we're often referred to as "co-creators". 

 

You mentioned Yom Kippur, which I believe translates as Day of Atonement.  What does "atonement" mean in the framework of Judaism?

Yom Kippur is especially for sins we may have inadvertently committed and also for sins that affect the community as a whole, but the service also includes prayers for sins that we do voluntarily commit.  But the belief is that if we've offended others and have not dealt with them properly, then those latter sins may not be forgiven until after our death. 

I am also interested in your last sentence:  "it will be God's choice...."  If I understand Christian theology, God may have the choice of dealing with sin either now or in the hereafter, but without atonement he does not have the choice of not dealing with it at all. All sin must be atoned for in order for the repentant sinner to be able to approach God.

 

He doesn't have the choice?  I'd be careful assigning what God cannot do.    Anyhow, in Judaism, when we die, the belief is that we go to sheol and it's there that punishment may be dealt out if needed.  But we have to remember that both Christianity and Judaism believe sins may be forgiven by God through confessing them to Him and asking forgiveness.  But notice the word "may" since if we no intent to stop our sinning as best as possible, maybe God may not be willing to forgive them. 

 

So this sentence suggests to me that Judaism does not take the view that sin is something for which atonement is strictly necessary.

I think we tread on very thin ice when we attempt to say with any certainty what God will or will not forgive.  Generally speaking, the feeling often tends to be to just do the best we can do, attempt to amend wrongs we've committed both with other humans and God, and then let God do the final judging.

 

Shalom,
Vern

P.S.:  Just a reminder that I am personally non-theistic.

[metis]

Let me add to what I posted last.

The word "torah", which is usually translated as "law", may be better translated as "discipline".  When one says the word "law", what typically is conjured up is something like civil "law".  But torah is not exactly the same as that even though some of the torah did indeed become civil law.  Many of the laws are not civil in nature, such as the Temple "laws" or the kosher "laws", and may be viewed as being procedural "laws" (like many of those involving the Temple) or possibly advisory "laws" (like those involving keeping kosher).  However, the trouble we may have is how can it be determined which is which?  But my point is that we shouldn't necessarily view all torah as having penalties attached if they're not followed precisely.       

We also have to remember that the word "sin" means to "miss the mark", which sounds simple enough-- or is it?  What if I do harm to an innocent person by telling the truth?  Or what about those men who attempted to murder Hitler?  Or what about a mother who engages in prostitution because there may be no other way to feed her children?  Etc.  Now what I am not advocating is "situation ethics" but, on the other hand, we sometimes have to look at the bigger picture and take that into consideration.

Shalom,
Vern

[gluadys]

I am also interested in your last sentence:  "it will be God's choice...."  If I understand Christian theology, God may have the choice of dealing with sin either now or in the hereafter, but without atonement he does not have the choice of not dealing with it at all. All sin must be atoned for in order for the repentant sinner to be able to approach God.

He doesn't have the choice?  I'd be careful assigning what God cannot do. 

Yes, I am thinking that concept is grounded in the original sin idea that the person is, as it were, infected by sin.  God being holy by nature, nothing that is sinful by nature can approach God without harm.  Hence, the necessity of atonement. 

It is not really a matter of God not being able to choose to forgive.  Rather that God cannot choose to be unholy, and it is as impossible for a sinful person to come near that holiness without harm as it is for a moth to approach a flame and not be consumed by it. 

So what I think I am getting from this is that Judaism always sees sin as an act, never as a quality of the person.  The person who has committed a sinful act is not thereby rendered so unholy as to be unable to approach God and hope for a merciful reception.

Am I on the right track? 

[metis]

Yes, I am thinking that concept is grounded in the original sin idea that the person is, as it were, infected by sin.  God being holy by nature, nothing that is sinful by nature can approach God without harm.  Hence, the necessity of atonement.

 

But God can forgive. 


 

It is not really a matter of God not being able to choose to forgive.  Rather that God cannot choose to be unholy, and it is as impossible for a sinful person to come near that holiness without harm as it is for a moth to approach a flame and not be consumed by it. 

Did God confront Moses?  But, again, I must return to "God can forgive". 
 

So what I think I am getting from this is that Judaism always sees sin as an act, never as a quality of the person.  The person who has committed a sinful act is not thereby rendered so unholy as to be unable to approach God and hope for a merciful reception.  Am I on the right track? 

"Sin" means to "miss the mark", so how can a new borne baby "sin"-- how can it "miss the mark"?  And if "original sin" is somehow to be pictured as being realistic, then should we imprison you for a crime committed by your great-grandfather? 

However, it's impossible, imo, to know exactly what level or types of sins may or may not be forgiven.  Therefore, most observant Jews will simply say that we should just do the best that we can do, and when we screw up, to offer help and ask forgiveness for those we've offended (including God of course), and then let God do the judging.

You're asking some good questions and I just hope my responses are clear.

Shalom,
Vern 

[gluadys]

Yes, I am thinking that concept is grounded in the original sin idea that the person is, as it were, infected by sin.  God being holy by nature, nothing that is sinful by nature can approach God without harm.  Hence, the necessity of atonement.

But God can forgive. 


 

It is not really a matter of God not being able to choose to forgive.  Rather that God cannot choose to be unholy, and it is as impossible for a sinful person to come near that holiness without harm as it is for a moth to approach a flame and not be consumed by it. 

Did God confront Moses?  But, again, I must return to "God can forgive". 
 

So what I think I am getting from this is that Judaism always sees sin as an act, never as a quality of the person.  The person who has committed a sinful act is not thereby rendered so unholy as to be unable to approach God and hope for a merciful reception.  Am I on the right track? 

"Sin" means to "miss the mark", so how can a new borne baby "sin"-- how can it "miss the mark"?  And if "original sin" is somehow to be pictured as being realistic, then should we imprison you for a crime committed by your great-grandfather? 

However, it's impossible, imo, to know exactly what level or types of sins may or may not be forgiven.  Therefore, most observant Jews will simply say that we should just do the best that we can do, and when we screw up, to offer help and ask forgiveness for those we've offended (including God of course), and then let God do the judging.

You're asking some good questions and I just hope my responses are clear.

Shalom,
Vern 

Well, I am not really sold on the Augustinian concept of original sin as something almost biologically inherited myself, so I can't really defend it.  And probably I am not really explaining it properly either.  Maybe we should call on Elluminati for an RC perspective.

But what I am getting to is that apparently Judaism would never see "sinfulness" apart from a specific action that "misses the mark" or "offends" God, right?

Whereas the classic doctrine of original sin would see "sinfulness" in the newborn infant apart from and prior to any specific sinful act. 

[metis]

But what I am getting to is that apparently Judaism would never see "sinfulness" apart from a specific action that "misses the mark" or "offends" God, right?  Whereas the classic doctrine of original sin would see "sinfulness" in the newborn infant apart from and prior to any specific sinful act. 

Pretty much so, but with two exceptions that come to mind.  One is that, even though Judaism tends to put more emphasis on action than p.c. beliefs, not believing in God is still considered a sin.  And the Talmud also has it that if you don't believe in heaven, you're ineligible to go there.  So not everything is "action". 

Secondly, one may also be careless with God's other creations and have that still fall under the category of "sin".  So, for examples, if I don't take care of animals properly or if I destroy trees that are producing fruit, I am still sinning.

Let me just mention that there are some Christian theologians who do not believe that people should look at "original sin" as really being a "sin" in the conventional use of the term.  The Dutch Catholic theologian Edvard Schillebeeckx, for example, believed "original sin" was not a real "sin" but was our eventual propensity to sin as a by-product of our free will. 

Shalom,
Vern

[Howiedds]

I have read the exchange with interest, but hesitate to jump into the discussion for fear that gluadys will then direct some of the questions to me. Metis has done an excellent job of trying to communicate the Jewish concepts of sin and repentance, and I understand them and can verbalize them less well than he.

I would only add one more concept into the mix which might help round out the Jewish understanding. It is probably no different than what Metis has been saying, but the choice of words are different.

God offers us a prescription for life that if followed, will improve our world and our lives in it. That is the reward for following the prescription. We will live better for having followed it. When we sin, we "miss the mark;" we add to the power of evil; we set up obstacles to the perfection of creation; we delay achieving that perfection. We suffer in that we will not enjoy that perfect world, because we have delayed it.

Just as the Hebrew word for "law" (Halakcha) means "the road" or "the way," (the road to the perfect end of days, the perfection of creation), the word we have for repentance (teshuvah) really means " a turning." When we sin, miss the mark, we have gotten off the road/way. When we repent, we turn back onto the road, we continue on our assigned journey of perfecting creation.

I like this description because it makes sense to me; it seems true to me. It is unlike so much else that seems to be a human creation to explain the inexplicable. Original sin seems to me be a human invention to help explain what happened to Jesus. One of the questions that I imagine must have needed to be addressed from the very beginning of Christianity is why Jesus, who certainly had powers beyond ordinary men as the son of God, would have allowed his own death. The answer was that he chose to die, which leads to the next question, why would he choose to die? The answer to that would be that he chose to die to atone for the sins of humankind. The next question would be, why not have each person atone for their own sins? The answer would be that there is one sin for which no one person could atone, the sin of Adam in the Garden, so great a sin that only God's own son could atone for it. To a non-beleiver, it looks as though original sin developed over hundreds of years as the explanation for Jesus choosing to die and not get down off the cross.

And just to be evenhanded, I also can't get my head around one sin that Metis mentioned that the rabbis intoned. not believing in God is still considered a sin.  And the Talmud also has it that if you don't believe in heaven, you're ineligible to go there. That sounds too much like a human assumption about what God considers sin.

Therefore, most observant Jews will simply say that we should just do the best that we can do, and when we screw up, to offer help and ask forgiveness for those we've offended (including God of course), and then let God do the judging.

Now that is a prescription that appeals to my understanding.

[Acumen]

Howie,

but hesitate to jump into the discussion for fear that gluadys will then direct some of the questions to me.

Nonsense!!!  You are one of the most knowledgeable posters I've ever run into on the boards, there is nothing to fear.   

[gluadys]

Pretty much so, but with two exceptions that come to mind.  One is that, even though Judaism tends to put more emphasis on action than p.c. beliefs, not believing in God is still considered a sin.  And the Talmud also has it that if you don't believe in heaven, you're ineligible to go there.  So not everything is "action".

Interesting.   

Secondly, one may also be careless with God's other creations and have that still fall under the category of "sin".  So, for examples, if I don't take care of animals properly or if I destroy trees that are producing fruit, I am still sinning.

Agreed.  Sins of omission are just as bad as sins of commission.  And sins against creation are just as sinful as acts dierctly hurtful to humans.

Speaking of different types of sins, I once heard a Jewish saying (don't know the source) that God will judge us not only for every wrong act we did and every good act we failed to do, but for every legitimate pleasure we failed to enjoy. 

That seems to me a quintessentially Jewish perspective we can all learn from. 

Let me just mention that there are some Christian theologians who do not believe that people should look at "original sin" as really being a "sin" in the conventional use of the term.  The Dutch Catholic theologian Edvard Schillebeeckx, for example, believed "original sin" was not a real "sin" but was our eventual propensity to sin as a by-product of our free will.

Yes, that would be closer to where I am in the mix.  I also like what howiedds said:

When we sin, we "miss the mark;" we add to the power of evil; we set up obstacles to the perfection of creation; we delay achieving that perfection. We suffer in that we will not enjoy that perfect world, because we have delayed it.

I would add to this that having set up obstacles to the perfection of creation, we also create obstacles for the next generation. The obstacles already in place make it more likely that those growing up in this imperfect world will add their own sins. 

In this sense, I do not understand original sin as personal sin or personal imperfection, but as that imperfection in a world that makes it difficult not to sin.  I see original sin transmitted not via inheritance from our parents, but via the imperfect social structures and cultural traditions into which we are socialized. 

[gluadys]

I have read the exchange with interest, but hesitate to jump into the discussion for fear that gluadys will then direct some of the questions to me.

Actually, I have been hoping you would jump in, for I have really appreciated your contributions to other threads.  Are my questions really all that scary? 

God offers us a prescription for life that if followed, will improve our world and our lives in it. That is the reward for following the prescription. We will live better for having followed it. When we sin, we "miss the mark;" we add to the power of evil; we set up obstacles to the perfection of creation; we delay achieving that perfection. We suffer in that we will not enjoy that perfect world, because we have delayed it.

Just as the Hebrew word for "law" (Halakcha) means "the road" or "the way," (the road to the perfect end of days, the perfection of creation), the word we have for repentance (teshuvah) really means " a turning." When we sin, miss the mark, we have gotten off the road/way. When we repent, we turn back onto the road, we continue on our assigned journey of perfecting creation.

I like this description because it makes sense to me; it seems true to me.

I agree.  What do you think of the additional extrapolation I made in my reply to metis? 

It is unlike so much else that seems to be a human creation to explain the inexplicable. Original sin seems to me be a human invention to help explain what happened to Jesus. One of the questions that I imagine must have needed to be addressed from the very beginning of Christianity is why Jesus, who certainly had powers beyond ordinary men as the son of God, would have allowed his own death. The answer was that he chose to die, which leads to the next question, why would he choose to die? The answer to that would be that he chose to die to atone for the sins of humankind. The next question would be, why not have each person atone for their own sins? The answer would be that there is one sin for which no one person could atone, the sin of Adam in the Garden, so great a sin that only God's own son could atone for it. To a non-beleiver, it looks as though original sin developed over hundreds of years as the explanation for Jesus choosing to die and not get down off the cross.

Well, it definitely developed over hundreds of years.  But it may have been a reverse process to what you have set out.  The classic form was proposed by Augustine at the height of the controversy over the teachings of Pelagius.  Pelagius taught (if we can glean anything correctly from the writings of his detractors) that a perfect human life in  imitation of Christ's is possible, such that atonement for sin is not necessary to that person.  The orthodox reaction was to appeal to original sin as an insurmountable obstacle preventing such a perfect life.  Therefore, since atonement was necessary, Christ's death was necessary.  The Pelagian "danger" from an orthodox perspective is that one might be able to live perfectly without the sacraments, i.e. apart from the church.  In fact, original sin was used primarily to promote and defend infant baptism, which had been relatively rare until then.

[metis]

Speaking of different types of sins, I once heard a Jewish saying (don't know the source) that God will judge us not only for every wrong act we did and every good act we failed to do, but for every legitimate pleasure we failed to enjoy.  

Yes.  As my father used to say: enjoy each day as if it were your last because someday it will be.



 

I would add to this that having set up obstacles to the perfection of creation, we also create obstacles for the next generation. The obstacles already in place make it more likely that those growing up in this imperfect world will add their own sins.  

Agreed. 



 

In this sense, I do not understand original sin as personal sin or personal imperfection, but as that imperfection in a world that makes it difficult not to sin.  I see original sin transmitted not via inheritance from our parents, but via the imperfect social structures and cultural traditions into which we are socialized. 

Yes, and it appears to me that we may well serve as role models, whether they be good or bad, to our children and possibly for some others.  IMO, we have a responsibility to ourselves, our family, our religion/philosophy, our society and our world.  And it's not a matter of being locked in but actually it's typically a joyful experience when we have the opportunity to help others and we fulfill that opportunity. 

With so much we can do, how can anyone be bored?

Shalom,
Vern

[gluadys]

Yes.  As my father used to say: enjoy each day as if it were your last because someday it will be.

Very sound advice indeed.  A muslim proverb tells us to enjoy each day as if it is our last, and to plan for the future as if we will live a thousand years. 

And another, (I believe again, Jewish) proverb says that blessing follows the person who plants a tree knowing s/he will never live to enjoy its shade. 

And it's not a matter of being locked in but actually it's typically a joyful experience when we have the opportunity to help others and we fulfill that opportunity. 

With so much we can do, how can anyone be bored?

Shalom,
Vern

Amen.  And thanks for all the assistance. 

[metis]

Amen.  And thanks for all the assistance. 

And the same to you.  I've truly enjoyed our discussion here.

Shalom,
Vern