Rosh Hashanah: Celebrating the Creation of the Individual or the Community?

Rosh Hashanah is described in the machzor and the Talmud (b. Rosh Hashanah 27a) using the phrase “the conception of the world” (הרת עולם), i.e., the day of creation.^[1]

It may be surprising to some, but the Bible contains many different creation accounts, such as the account in Psalm 104, Proverbs 8, and various passages in Isaiah and Job. The most important and influential accounts, however, are found in the first three chapters of Genesis, if for no other reason than that they open the biblical corpus and set the tone for all that follows. As is well known, these chapters reflect two different accounts of creation, referred to by bible scholars as the Priestly source, which is found in Genesis 1–2:4a, and the non-Priestly source, which is found in 2:4b–3.

In his classic essay, The Lonely Man of Faith, Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik offers a profound theological analysis of two differing accounts, as part of an effort to argue for single authorship.

Rav Soloveitchik’s Two Adams

Soloveitchik sees the Torah as offering us two contradictory perspectives on the place of humankind within the economy of God’s creation that correspond to the contradictory modes of existence within each of us. He sets up a strong dichotomy between the Adam of the first creation story, “Adam the first,” who is bold, socially oriented, and creative in his dealings with God and man, and the Adam of the second creation story, “Adam the second,” who is highly conscious of his mortality, questions his own worth, and longs for intimacy with God and fellow.

Ultimately, Soloveitchik seems to think that a complete synthesis between these two contradictory modes of existence is impossible. We are destined to move back and forth between these two modes of existence, each of which has its legitimate place, at different points in our lives. A life that is totally enveloped in only one of these modes, he believes, is a life that is lacking in the fullness of existence. At the same time, Soloveitchik shows clear preference for “Adam the second.” He is sharply critical of Adam the first, attributing to him an overly esthetic and utilitarian sensibility, and an emotionally shallow orientation to life.

The Loss of Adam the First

Based on a different reading of the first creation story, I would like argue for a greater appreciation of “Adam the first.” Put quite simply, there is no “Adam the first.” Soloveitchik follows the common assumption that Genesis 1:27 refers to the creation of one man and one woman:

^{בראשית א:כז} וַיִּבְרָא אֱלֹהִים  אֶת הָאָדָם בְּצַלְמוֹ בְּצֶלֶם אֱלֹהִים בָּרָא אֹתוֹ זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה בָּרָא אֹתָם.

^{Gen 1:27} And God created man in His image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

This assumption is certainly influenced by the story of “Adam the second,” where creation indeed begins with a single human couple. In Genesis 1, however, this understanding is doubtful.^[2]

For instance, in verse 20, God calls forth creatures from the waters:

^{בראשית א:כ} יֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים יִשְׁרְצוּ הַמַּיִם שֶׁרֶץ נֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה וְעוֹף יְעוֹפֵף עַל הָאָרֶץ עַל פְּנֵי רְקִיעַ הַשָּׁמָיִם.

^{Gen 1:20} God said, “Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures, and birds that fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky.”

Similarly, in verse 25, we read:

^א:כה וַיַּעַשׂ אֱלֹהִים אֶת חַיַּת הָאָרֶץ לְמִינָהּ וְאֶת הַבְּהֵמָה לְמִינָהּ...

^1:25 God made wild beasts of every kind and cattle of every kind...

Clearly, these singular forms (שֶׁרֶץ, עוֹף, חַיַּת הָאָרֶץ, הַבְּהֵמָה) are collective nouns. The “bird” that God called forth from the water was no more a single bird than was “the frog” that rose from the Nile to plague the Egyptians (Exodus 8:2).^[3] And no one seems to think that when God created “beasts” he created a single male and female lion, and a single male and female lamb, and so on. Rather, God created the animals – lots of them, so that they would multiply and fill the earth.

If so, the same thing must be said about God’s creation of the human. This is not a single human couple, but “mankind” as a category, comprised of lots of males and lots of females. (This collective use of הָאָדָם is well-attested in other biblical texts; see e.g. Exodus 9:9; 33:20.) The substantial community of males and females are created “in the image of God” בְּצֶלֶם אֱלֹהִים. This is not a trait attributed to the isolated Adam of Genesis 2.

Sanctity of the Community

When I first pondered this matter and came to accept the idea that “the human” האדם is a collective noun, I immediately felt a distinct sense of loss. I had always cherished the teaching of the Mishnah (Sanhedrin 4:6) that God created all of mankind out of a single, common ancestor in order to teach us that each individual merits the creation of the entire world, and so that no individual (or nation!) may make claims to a superior lineage.

Upon further reflection, however, I realized that the lessons drawn by the Mishnah still hold true with regard to the second story of creation, and that the new understanding of the first creation story should be seized upon as an opportunity for seeking out other lessons. What, then, may we learn from the idea that mankind was created in the form of a community of males and females, and not just as an individual, or a single couple?

The first creation story in Genesis 1 teaches us about the sanctity of the community. It depicts human beings as social animals, in need of the spiritual fellowship offered by a community of males and females in creative collaboration. Soloveitchik was correct when he sensed that the relationship between man and woman in the first creation story is of a less intimate nature. The reason for this is that the first creation story is not really focused on the couple, but on the larger community. Though the relationship here is less intimate, this does not necessarily mean that it is shallow, or strictly utilitarian, as Soloveitchik would have it.

Genesis 1 presents humanity as created by God in the form of a human community, charged with the task of “conquering” the world as a community, and it is as a member of the human community that the human reflects the the image of God. There is thus little reason to belittle the spiritual and emotional significance of this community. The larger family unit, for example, does not partake in the same kind of intimacy as does the couple, yet few would limit its value and importance both emotionally and spiritually. The same may be said for the broader community. Community, at its best, can and should be both emotionally supportive and spiritually uplifting. If it is not, something is wrong.

Creation of Humanity in Genesis 1 as a Foil to the Tower of Babel Account

Exegetically, I would argue that the charge to the divinely created community in Genesis 1 to fill the world and master it serves as a kind of corrective to the story of the tower of Babel in Genesis 11. Taken alone, the non-Priestly story of the city and tower of Babel points to the essentially negative character of the human desire to remain together and rooted in a community. This desire could be taken as inherently sinful, reflecting an illegitimate quest on the part of the individual to overcome mortality by identifying with a great communal project that bestows a “name” in the realm of the collective.

The later priestly narrative of Genesis 1 offers a moderating voice. The fact that God created humankind as a great collective, and charged that collective to fill the world and conquer it, clearly indicates that there is nothing wrong per se with communal existence and collaboration. The value of the community depends on how we direct our communal activity. If it is directed horizontally, toward the expansion and betterment of society, it may constitute a reflection of the divine image. If it is directed vertically, against heaven, it is an effacement of that same image.

Humanity and Prayer

On Rosh Hashanah we recall the time of creation. Though many of us focus on our individual self-reflection (heshbon nephesh), the analysis of the first creation story may remind us of the need for reflection on the communal level as well. In fact, the Amidah of Rosh Hashanah is all about the collective Adam,^[4] and the Yom Kippur confessions are all written in the plural.

As we stand together to listen to the shofar, we might ask ourselves if the communities in which we live and participate genuinely reflect the fact that we were created as a community. Do they enrich us and inspire us, or have they become as alienating or misdirected as building project of the tower of Babel? Are they utilitarian and shallow, or do they promote true fellowship? On Rosh Hashanah, God built the human community. It is our task today to ensure that that building is well founded.