בראשית

The Descent or Ascent of Man?

The story of the Garden of Eden is one of the most cryptic and enigmatic in the Torah which has led to wide ranging interpretations over its symbolism and meaning.

A common view is that man's spiritual status was tainted by the sin of eating from the Tree of Knowledge. This takes its most forceful expression in the Christian doctrine of the Original Sin in which humanity exists in a state of sin ever since.[1] In its milder form, whereby the emphasis is on the tendency to sin rather than automatic guilt, various counterparts can be found in Jewish mystical thought.[2] On the rational end of the spectrum, Rambam understood the sin as resulting in a weakening of the intellect giving rise to a world of moral ambiguity governed by social norms.[3] Ibn Ezra on the other hand, saw it more specifically as awakening the sexual desire.[4]

The underlying basis of these approaches is that eating of the Tree of Knowledge was prohibited by God and therefore may be assumed to have resulted in some form of spiritual impairment. There is no doubt that the story presents the archetype sin between man and God, and this element cannot be ignored.[5] Nevertheless, there appears to be an inevitability in the story which ought to modify, or at least supplement, our perception of the 'sin' and its consequences.

Did God anticipate that man would eat from the Tree of Knowledge?

To address this question, it is necessary to look back at the description of man in Chapter 1. Day 6 of creation already has man and woman created together with the instruction (or blessing) to be fruitful and multiply. This is surprising as the creation of woman and the process of childbirth described in Chapter 2 are reported as consequential developments; the need for man to have a companion in the case of the former, and replacement for immortality, in the latter. Much ink has been spilt on dealing with the inconsistencies between Chapters 1 and 2 and that is not the topic of this post. For our purposes I mention this point simply to highlight the fact that the developments in Chapter 2 are hardly unexpected and the regression from Chapter 1 creates an atmosphere of inevitability.

More significantly though, is the internal evidence within Chapter 2 that man was not destined to stay in the Garden:

וְכֹל שִׂיחַ הַשָּׂדֶה טֶרֶם יִהְיֶה בָאָרֶץ וְכָל־עֵשֶׂב הַשָּׂדֶה טֶרֶם יִצְמָח כִּי לֹא הִמְטִיר ה' אלוקים עַל־הָאָרֶץ וְאָדָם אַיִן לַעֲבֹד אֶת־הָאֲדָמָה׃ (בראשית ב:ה)

The implied purpose of man in Chapter 2 is to work the land without which there could be no vegetation. Sure enough, following the above verse we find that man was created:

וַיִּיצֶר ה' אלוקים אֶת־הָאָדָם עָפָר מִן־הָאֲדָמָה וַיִּפַּח בְּאַפָּיו נִשְׁמַת חַיִּים וַיְהִי הָאָדָם לְנֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה׃ (בראשית ב:ז)

Yet much to our surprise, Adam is not left to cultivate the land. Instead, he is transferred to the Garden of Eden where everything is ready grown and fully developed. God himself has planted the garden, by virtue of which it will become known as ’God’s garden’.[6] Adam's task is now merely to maintain the pristine condition of the garden: 

וַיִּטַּע ה' אלוקים גַּן־בְעֵדֶן מִקֶּדֶם וַיָּשֶׂם שָׁם אֶת־הָאָדָם אֲשֶׁר יָצָר׃ וַיִּקַּח ה' אלוקים אֶת־הָאָדָם וַיַּנִּחֵהוּ בְגַן־עֵדֶן לְעָבְדָהּ וּלְשָׁמְרָהּ׃ )בראשית ב:ח(

This narrow plane of existence clearly diverges from man's broader purpose as implied in the earlier verse. When Adam is eventually banished from the Garden he returns to his original mandate:

וַיֹּאמֶר ה' אלוקים הֵן הָאָדָם הָיָה כְּאַחַד מִמֶּנּוּ לָדַעַת טוֹב וָרָע וְעַתָּה פֶּן־יִשְׁלַח יָדוֹ וְלָקַח גַּם מֵעֵץ הַחַיִּים וְאָכַל וָחַי לְעֹלָם׃ וַיְשַׁלְּחֵהוּ ה' אלוקים מִגַּן־עֵדֶן לַעֲבֹד אֶת־הָאֲדָמָה אֲשֶׁר לֻקַּח מִשָּׁם׃ (בראשית ג:כב)

The words אשר לקח משם can be read in two possible ways. Either it is geographical in the sense that Adam is returned to the original place he was taken from (thus undoing God's act of 'taking' him when he was transferred to the Garden – see verse 2:8 above). Alternatively, it is descriptive of man's essence; God returns him to the location of the matter he was made (lit. taken) from (see verse 3:19). Under either interpretation, the implication is that man's natural habitat is on Earth as we know it rather than a celestial garden.[7]

If the return to the raw undeveloped world is an inevitable consequence, the natural conclusion is that the purpose of the story is to address why man is led through a life of struggle on Earth and not placed in the blissful Garden from the outset. It informs us why Eden – though it may be an ultimate destination – is not the departure point in life.

The image of God derived from the Tree of Knowledge

As mentioned, many classic commentators consider the Tree of Knowledge to have lowered the status of man from his borderline angelic standing. However, the inevitability of the outcome suggests a more positive reading in which it is specifically via the Tree of Knowledge that man discovers his uniqueness.

Consider the status of man before the sin. The lifeforce (נשמת חיים) breathed into man in Chapter 2 is what turns him into a 'נפש חיה'. In Chapter 1 this is precisely the term used to describe the animal kingdom:

וַיֹּאמֶר אלוקים תּוֹצֵא הָאָרֶץ נֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה לְמִינָהּ בְּהֵמָה וָרֶמֶשׂ וְחַיְתוֹ־אֶרֶץ לְמִינָהּ וַיְהִי־כֵן׃ (בראשית א:כד)

The distinguishing feature of man, so strikingly referred to in Chapter 1 as the צלם אלוקים, is glaringly absent in the description of man at the start of Chapter 2. The breath of life he receives merely puts him on par with the animals. It is therefore unsurprising that in seeking a soulmate the animals are considered in contention at first and the snake is portrayed as conversing and competing with Eve. The lack of shame at being naked produces another commonality as only an animal, or small child, lacking in self-awareness, would possess no such shame: 

וַיִּהְיוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם עֲרוּמִּים הָאָדָם וְאִשְׁתּוֹ וְלֹא יִתְבֹּשָׁשׁוּ׃ (בראשית ב:כה)

It is against this backdrop that we need to reconsider the symbolism of the Tree of Knowledge. The form of knowledge represented by the tree is described in a neutral manner as comprising the 'knowledge of good and bad'. Where the phrase is used elsewhere in the Torah it refers to a child who cannot conceptually distinguish between good and bad:

וְטַפְּכֶם אֲשֶׁר אֲמַרְתֶּם לָבַז יִהְיֶה וּבְנֵיכֶם אֲשֶׁר לֹא־יָדְעוּ הַיּוֹם טוֹב וָרָע הֵמָּה יָבֹאוּ שָׁמָּה וְלָהֶם אֶתְּנֶנָּה וְהֵם יִירָשׁוּהָּ׃ (דברים א:לט)

The ability to evaluate actions as either good or bad is predicated on a sophisticated self-awareness enabling one to contemplate one's own actions from the outside and engage in self-evaluation. Someone who lacks a sense of self has no means of perceiving their actions as either good or bad as they do not observe themselves separate to the environment.[8] They may have desires and feelings, but their responses are governed by instincts. The consequence is that such a person or thing lacks personal autonomy in the true sense as they do not identify their independent self. Conversely, only God as a result of His transcendence (not being contained within any other environment) can be regarded as perfectly autonomous.[9]

When the verse imputes God as saying that eating from the tree will make man 'like one of us', the meaning is that man will obtain that Godly quality of autonomy. Indeed, after eating from the tree they immediately sense their nakedness and are ashamed, a seemingly insignificant discovery, but highly symbolic of their newly acquired sense of self:

וַתִּפָּקַחְנָה עֵינֵי שְׁנֵיהֶם וַיֵּדְעוּ כִּי עֵירֻמִּם הֵם וַיִּתְפְּרוּ עֲלֵה תְאֵנָה וַיַּעֲשׂוּ לָהֶם חֲגֹרֹת׃ (בראשית ג:ז)

As an objective observer of one's own thoughts one can potentially make the necessary inferences to identify other autonomous agents and attribute one's own mental states (goals, intentions, beliefs, desires, feelings etc) to them. It facilitates the recognition of the 'other' and cognition of one's relationships with them.[10] Taking this one step further, self-awareness, and particularly self-reflection, becomes the gateway to God-awareness.   

This perspective corresponds well with the view of R. Yehudah who associates the Tree with the development of language and identity in a child:

אִילָן שֶׁאָכַל מִמֶּנּוּ אָדָם הָרִאשׁוֹן, רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: גֶּפֶן הָיָה, שֶׁאֵין לְךָ דָּבָר שֶׁמֵּבִיא יְלָלָה עַל הָאָדָם אֶלָּא יַיִן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיֵּשְׁתְּ מִן הַיַּיִן וַיִּשְׁכָּר״. רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה אוֹמֵר: תְּאֵנָה הָיְתָה, שֶׁבַּדָּבָר שֶׁנִּתְקַלְקְלוּ בּוֹ נִתַּקְּנוּ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיִּתְפְּרוּ עֲלֵה תְאֵנָה״. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: חִטָּה הָיְתָה, שֶׁאֵין הַתִּינוֹק יוֹדֵעַ לִקְרוֹת ״אַבָּא״ וְ״אִמָּא״ עַד שֶׁיִּטְעוֹם טַעַם דָּגָן. (ברכות מ.)

For Adam and Eve, who had no biological parents, recognition of parent corresponds to recognition of God. Indeed, it is only after eating from the Tree that we see an awareness of God on the part of man (albeit in immature form) as they try to hide from God. Prior to this point there is no explicit dialogue.[11]   

What emerges from this is that eating from the Tree of Knowledge corresponds with the acquisition of the image of God. What was originally presented as the crowning glory of man in Chapter 1, is recast as a forbidden product of the Tree of Knowledge in Chapters 2 and 3.

This dual perspective presents the double-edged sword of being made in God's image. The climax of the six days of creation is the creation of a micro-creator who can imitate God's creative power on earth. In the creation story, the seventh day is when God steps back and hands over the reins to man. By exercising this power, he can become a partner with God and continue God's work. On the other hand, as an autonomous agent, man also competes with God. On the extreme, this can manifest in active denial of God,[12] but on a subtler level, the very notion of the self, creates inherent tension with God's unity. In order to create man in the image of God, He had to create philosophical space to enable his existence. In more practical terms, self-awareness facilitates the very notion of sin as, without knowledge of the self, concepts of good and bad are meaningless. For this reason, the acquisition of man's autonomy is allegorised in Chapter 2 as a story of sin as it is the source of sin itself.

Physical change vs self-discovery

Notwithstanding the symbolism of the Tree of Knowledge as described above, it does not seem to be the physical effect of the fruit alone through which man obtains his distinction. Rather, the innate but subconscious human need for self-autonomy is already reflected in the physical desire to partake of the Tree of Knowledge and is the very basis of man's attraction to it.

This means that the change of man's perspective after eating of the Tree is as much a consequence of a process of self-discovery from the act of sin itself, as it is the result of a physical change derived from the quality of the fruit. The rebellion within the story symbolises the discovery, and simultaneously the assertion, of the self. It is akin to a child that seeks to do something against their parent's wishes simply for the sake of asserting their independence. In the real world, the child's desire for self-autonomy will be expressed in an external object or event – they will want a certain thing which the parent will not provide, or to do something which the parent will not permit. In Genesis Chapters 2 and 3, however, the Torah exposes the raw spirit of humanity and therefore the object of desire represented by the Tree, is autonomy itself. 

To refine the earlier point, man is not identical to beast in Chapters 2 and 3 but is at the start of a journey of self-discovery as every child makes in life.[13] The Torah speaks the story of the elevation of man over animal through the model of a child maturing into an adult. At the onset of humanity, man undergoes a journey to discover his essence and uniqueness as he gradually steps out of his shell of naivety. By the end of the story he has become a fully conscious being and distinguished himself entirely from the animal kingdom.[14] He is now ready to leave God's garden to develop his own garden.

Knowledge of life

Based on the above it is understandable why the various consequences which Adam and Eve are informed about, are the key facts of life which a child is initially unaware of (but gradually acquires knowledge of): hard work required to produce food/provide sustenance; process and pain of childbirth; and, knowledge of one's own mortality.

הַרְבָּה אַרְבֶּה עִצְּבוֹנֵךְ וְהֵרֹנֵךְ בְּעֶצֶב תֵּלְדִי בָנִים וְאֶל־אִישֵׁךְ תְּשׁוּקָתֵךְ וְהוּא יִמְשָׁל־בָּךְ׃ (בראשית ג:טז)

בְּזֵעַת אַפֶּיךָ תֹּאכַל לֶחֶם עַד שׁוּבְךָ אֶל־הָאֲדָמָה כִּי מִמֶּנָּה לֻקָּחְתָּ כִּי־עָפָר אַתָּה וְאֶל־עָפָר תָּשׁוּב׃ (בראשית ג:יט)

Knowledge of these categories is indicative of a deep self-awareness as they cover the scope and boundaries of human life and potential. Cultivating land to produce vegetation and giving birth are the closest natural equivalents to God's own acts of creation, and death is the ultimate reminder of where the God-likeness ends. Man can create life but he himself is ultimately finite. Internalisation of these fundamentals is the pinnacle of self-awareness.

Quite remarkably, agriculture and food preparation, the central themes in our passage, are almost uniquely human traits.[15] The contrast with the snake which eats of the 'dust of the earth' is one of sophistication - raw versus prepared food. However, it is the cognition of these distinctions by Adam and Eve which are perhaps more important than the distinctions themselves. This cognitive aspect is reflective of the self-knowledge represented by the Tree of Knowledge. It is the creativity as well as the conscious enjoyment which the snake is deprived of.

In summary, the Tree of Knowledge represents the self-awareness which facilitates moral choice and God-consciousness. Simultaneously, this creates a need for self-realisation which is achieved through secondary acts of creation. Prohibiting access to the Tree of Knowledge is to separate man from his essence and therefore the 'sin' is inevitable. Without it, life is meaningless, even if one is immortal.

Continuing the symbolism of the Garden of Eden, the paradox of life is that man prefers to plant his own garden rather than live in God's garden. This causes man to suffer and is the source of sin, but it is also the reflection of the Divine image within him.

 

---

[1] 'The condition of man after the fall of Adam is such that he cannot turn and prepare himself by his own natural strength and works to faith and calling upon God' - Art. X, Free Will of the Thirty-nine Articles. 

The Torah commentary of R. Joseph Hertz (p.196) is at pains to emphasise Judaism's rejection of this doctrine:

One searches in vain the Prayer Book, of even the days of Penitence, for the slightest echo of the doctrine of the Fall of man. 'My God, the soul which Thou hast given me is pure,' is the Jew's daily morning prayer. 'Even as the soul is pure when entering upon its earthly career, so can man return it pure to his Maker' (Midrash).

[2] According to Nefesh HaChaim (R. Chaim Volozhin 1749-1821) the knowledge of good and bad vested in the Tree resulted in the conflation of good and bad within man. Needless to say, this assumes a wholly negative outcome:  

והענין כי קודם החטא. עם כי ודאי שהיה בעל בחירה גמור להטות עצמו לכל אשר יחפוץ להטיב או להיפך ח''ו. כי זה תכלית כוונת כלל הבריאה. וגם כי הרי אח''כ חטא. אמנם לא שהיה ענין בחירתו מחמת שכחות הרע היו כלולים בתוכו. כי הוא היה אדם ישר לגמרי כלול רק מסדרי כחות הקדושה לבד. וכל עניניו היו כולם ישרים קדושים ומזוככים טוב גמור. בלי שום עירוב ונטי' לצד ההיפך כלל. וכחות הרע היו עומדים לצד וענין בפ''ע חוץ ממנו. והיה בעל בחירה ליכנס אל כחות הרע ח''ו כמו שהאדם הוא בעל בחירה ליכנס אל תוך האש. לכן כשרצה הס''א להחטיאו הוצרך הנחש לבא מבחוץ לפתוח. לא כמו שהוא עתה שהיצר המפתה את האדם הוא בתוך האדם עצמו. ומתדמה להאדם שהוא עצמו הוא הרוצה ונמשך לעשות העון ולא שאחר חוץ ממנו מפתהו.

ובחטאו שנמשך אחר פתוי הס''א. אז נתערבו הכחות הרע בתוכו ממש. וכן בהעולמות. וזהו עץ הדעת טו''ר. שנתחברו ונתערבו בתוכו ובהעולמות הטוב והרע יחד זה בתוך זה ממש. כי דעת פי' התחברות כידוע. והענין מבואר למבין בע''ח שער קליפת נוגה פ''ב אלא שקיצר שם בענין. ועיין היטב בגלגולים פ''א. וזשרז''ל כשבא נחש על חוה הטיל בה זוהמא. ר''ל בתוכה ממש. ומאז גרם עי''ז ערבוביא גדולה במעשיו. שכל מעשי האדם המה בערבוביא והשתנות רבות מאד. פעם טוב ופעם רע. ומתהפך תמיד מטוב לרע ומרע לטוב. (נפש החיים שער א' פ"ו בהג"ה)

[3] Guide for the Perplexed (1:2):

Some years ago a learned man asked me a question of great importance… "It would at first sight," said the objector, "appear from Scripture that man was originally intended to be perfectly equal to the rest of the animal creation, which is not endowed with intellect, reason, or power of distinguishing between good and evil: but that Adam's disobedience to the command of God procured him that great perfection which is the peculiarity of man, viz., the power of distinguishing between good and evil-the noblest of all the faculties of our nature, the essential characteristic of the human race. It thus appears strange that the punishment for rebelliousness should be the means of elevating man to a pinnacle of perfection to which he had not attained previously. This is equivalent to saying that a certain man was rebellious and extremely wicked, wherefore his nature was changed for the better, and he was made to shine as a star in the heavens…

Collect your thoughts and examine the matter carefully, for it is not to be understood as you at first sight think, but as you will find after due deliberation; namely, the intellect which was granted to man as the highest endowment, was bestowed on him before his disobedience. With reference to this gift the Bible states that "man was created in the form and likeness of God." On account of this gift of intellect man was addressed by God, and received His commandments, as it is said: "And the Lord God commanded Adam" (Gen. 2:16)--for no commandments are given to the brute creation or to those who are devoid of understanding. Through the intellect man distinguishes between the true and the false. This faculty Adam possessed perfectly and completely. (M Friedlander translation)

Rambam goes on to describe how this faculty was lost in the process of the sin not just as a result of eating itself. This point will be discussed later on.

[4] Ibn Ezra (3:7)

[5] Hertz (ibid) describes it as follows:

Chapter III is one of the most beautiful in the Bible. It has been called 'pearl of Genesis', and men read with wonder its profound psychology of temptation and conscience. With unsurpassable art, it shows the beginning, the progress and the culmination of temptation and the consequences of sin. It depicts the earliest tragedy in the life of each human soul – the loss of man's happy, natural relation with God through deliberate disobedience of the voice of conscience, the voice of God. 'Every man who knows his own heart, knows that the story is true; it is the story of his own fall. Adam is man, and his story is ours’ (McFayden).

[6]

וַיִּשָּׂא־לוֹט אֶת־עֵינָיו וַיַּרְא אֶת־כָּל־כִּכַּר הַיַּרְדֵּן כִּי כֻלָּהּ מַשְׁקֶה לִפְנֵי שַׁחֵת ה׳ אֶת־סְדֹם וְאֶת־עֲמֹרָה כְּגַן־ה' כְּאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם בֹּאֲכָה צֹעַר׃ (בראשית יג:י)

כִּי־נִחַם ה' צִיּוֹן נִחַם כָּל־חָרְבֹתֶיהָ וַיָּשֶׂם מִדְבָּרָהּ כְּעֵדֶן וְעַרְבָתָהּ כְּגַן־ה' שָׂשׂוֹן וְשִׂמְחָה יִמָּצֵא בָהּ תּוֹדָה וְקוֹל זִמְרָה׃ (ישעיה נא:ג)                                                                                                                                            

[7] See Jonathan Grossman, Creation: The Story of Beginnings, p80-107 (Hebrew) for a similar analysis with further discussion and sources. 

[8] Modern psychology refers to this as Self-Awareness Theory. In its basic form, it is the idea that ‘you are not your thoughts, but the entity observing your thoughts; you are the thinker, separate and apart from your thoughts’ (Duval & Wicklund, 1972). The extent to which this attribute exists in parts of the animal kingdom is highly contentious. In any event, even if there is some form of sliding scale of consciousness, there appears to be a world of difference between recognising one's reflection in a mirror (the so-called MSR test) and the self-awareness in a human.

[9] The approach is similar but not identical to the Ramban (2:9):

והיפה בעיני כי האדם היה עושה בטבעו מה שראוי לעשות כפי התולדת כאשר יעשו השמים וכל צבאם פועלי אמת שפעולתם אמת ולא ישנו את תפקידם ואין להם במעשיהם אהבה או שנאה ופרי האילן הזה היה מוליד הרצון והחפץ שיבחרו אוכליו בדבר או בהפכו לטוב או לרע ולכן נקרא "עֵץ הַדַּעַת טוֹב וָרָע" כי הַ"דַּעַת" יאמר בלשוננו על הרצון כלשונם (פסחים ו) לא שנו אלא שדעתו לחזור ושדעתו לפנותו ובלשון הכתוב (תהלים קמד ג) מָה אָדָם וַתֵּדָעֵהוּ תחפוץ ותרצה בו יְדַעְתִּיךָ בְשֵׁם (שמות לג יב) בחרתיך מכל האדם וכן מאמר ברזילי האדע בין טוב לרע שאבד ממנו כח הרעיון לא היה בוחר בדבר ולא קץ בו והיה אוכל מבלי שיטעם ושומע מבלי שיתענג בשיר והנה בעת הזאת לא היה בין אדם ואשתו המשגל לתאוה אבל בעת ההולדה יתחברו ויולידו ולכן היו האיברים כלם בעיניהם כפנים והידים ולא יתבוששו בהם והנה אחרי אכלו מן העץ היתה בידו הבחירה וברצונו להרע או להטיב בין לו בין לאחרים וזו מדה אלהית מצד אחד ורעה לאדם בהיות לו בה יצר ותאוה

Nechama Leibowitz (Studies in Genesis, 3:25) interprets R. Bahya (whose explanation is almost identical with the Ramban) as associating the Tree with the onset of conscious desire. It is not clear to me, however, that this is the intent of either R. Bahya or the Ramban who seem to include the acquisition of sensory experience in the shift from the pre-sin state of man. Nevertheless, they see this as part of the process of obtaining free will and view it as a potentially positive attribute.

[10] In a human, this stage of development (known as Theory of Mind) is associated with the development of language. This is particularly interesting in light of R. Yehuda's statement. 

Admittedly, Adam’s naming of the animals already indicates a comprehension of separate identities even prior to the sin. This overlap between the pre and post-sin state is discussed in the next section. 

[11] The centrality of self-awareness is also reflected in the cosmological view of the Rambam where each of the spheres are conscious of 'themselves', and conscious of the First Cause/God (and the separate intellect/angel which emanated them). See Yesodei HaTorah 3:9.  

[12] R. Kook writes about this in Shemonah Kvatzim (see 1:129)

[13] R. Mordecai Breuer (Pirkei Mo'adot I. p. 113) also applies the maturing child model. Avivah Zornberg (cited Grossman) notes that since Adam and Eve did not have biological parents, God is the parent in the story who experiences the parental conflict inherent in fostering a child’s independence on the one hand, and separating from them on the other. 

[14] Interestingly, the interaction with the animal kingdom remains until the aftermath of the flood and then disappears almost entirely.

[15] There are some very small exceptions when it comes to farming – see http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150105-animals-that-grow-their-own-food. Cooking is entirely unique to humans – https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/10/121026-human-cooking-evolution-raw-food-health-science/

וזאת הברכה

The Final Verse of the Torah and the Yad Chazakah of Moshe

The last two verses in the Torah read as follows:

לְכׇל־הָאֹתֹת וְהַמּוֹפְתִים אֲשֶׁר שְׁלָחוֹ ה' לַעֲשׂוֹת בְּאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם לְפַרְעֹה וּלְכׇל־עֲבָדָיו וּלְכׇל־אַרְצוֹ׃ וּלְכֹל הַיָּד הַחֲזָקָה וּלְכֹל הַמּוֹרָא הַגָּדוֹל אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה מֹשֶׁה לְעֵינֵי כׇּל־יִשְׂרָאֵל: (דברים לד:יא-יב)

Rashi explains that the Yad ha-Chazakah in the final verse refers to Moshe 'receiving of the Torah with his hands'. At first glance, Rashi's comments are surprising as he is allocating the ‘hand’ in the verse to Moshe and not to God, distinguishing it from earlier references where the Yad Chazakah phrase refers to God's actions. Rashi's final gloss adds a further twist:

שֶׁנְּשָׂאוֹ לִבּוֹ לִשְׁבֹּר הַלּוּחוֹת לְעֵינֵיהֶם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר "וָאֲשַׁבְּרֵם לְעֵינֵיכֶם" (דברים ט') וְהִסְכִּימָה דַעַת הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְדַעְתּוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר "אֲשֶׁר שִׁבַּרְתָּ" (שמות ל"ד) — יִישַׁר כֹּחֲךָ שֶׁשִּׁבַּרְתָּ

Not only is the Yad Chazakah appropriated for describing the uniqueness of Moshe, but the verse captures the standout event in which Moshe acts spontaneously rather than as 'messenger of God’ (see previous verse) – smashing the tablets given to him by God and inscribed by God himself.[1]

The Torah does not directly comment on God's reaction to Moshe breaking the tablets, though we may reasonably assume that he approved of the action.[2] It was this act which – according to Rashi - represented Moshe's crowning achievement and, ironically, which the Torah signs off on.

The boldness of Moshe's actions and the message to be derived therefrom, are further highlighted in the original text of the Talmud (unrelated to this verse) which Rashi weaves into his commentary: [3]

אמר ריש לקיש פעמים  שביטולה של תורה זהו יסודה דכתיב (שמות לד, א) אשר שברת אמר לו הקב"ה למשה יישר  כחך ששברת (בבלי מנחות צט:)

Whilst we may assume that Rashi's final comment has a pedagogical function,[4] the opening for such an interpretation arises from the oddity that the text appears to attribute the Yad Chazakah to Moshe's actions rather than God's.

Aware of the difficulty in the verse, Ramban explains that the verse simply means to say that Moshe was an instrument of implementation for the Yad Chazakah of God:

וטעם אשר עשה משה שהכין והראה זה לעיני כל העם כלשון ואת הנפש אשר עשו בחרן (בראשית יב ה) וימהר לעשות אותו (שם יח ז) לעשות את יום השבת (דברים ה׳:ט״ו) כי משה לא עשה היד החזקה והמורא הגדול רק הכין אותם ובעבורו נעשו לעיני כל ישראל

Though this may reflect the plain sense, it does not fully address the anomaly. As respectively pointed out in the supercommentaries of R. Eliyahu Mizrachi (1455-1525) and R. Shabbethai ben Joseph Bass (1641–1718), if this was the intent, the verse should say either אשר עשה ה' ביד משה or אשר עשה משה על פי ה'. In fact, God is not mentioned at all in the verse. The inescapable impression is that the Yad Chazakah is referring directly to Moshe and this requires explanation.

Unique leader or unique generation?

To appreciate the significance of our verse, we should compare with another passage in Devarim which I think contains the 'source' of our verse:

כִּי שְׁאַל־נָא לְיָמִים רִאשֹׁנִים אֲשֶׁר־הָיוּ לְפָנֶיךָ לְמִן־הַיּוֹם אֲשֶׁר בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים אָדָם עַל־הָאָרֶץ וּלְמִקְצֵה הַשָּׁמַיִם וְעַד־קְצֵה הַשָּׁמָיִם הֲנִהְיָה כַּדָּבָר הַגָּדוֹל הַזֶּה אוֹ הֲנִשְׁמַע כָּמֹהוּ׃ הֲשָׁמַע עָם קוֹל אֱלֹהִים מְדַבֵּר מִתּוֹךְ־הָאֵשׁ כַּאֲשֶׁר־שָׁמַעְתָּ אַתָּה וַיֶּחִי׃ אוֹ הֲנִסָּה אֱלֹהִים לָבוֹא לָקַחַת לוֹ גוֹי מִקֶּרֶב גּוֹי בְּמַסֹּת בְּאֹתֹת וּבְמוֹפְתִים וּבְמִלְחָמָה וּבְיָד חֲזָקָה וּבִזְרוֹעַ נְטוּיָה וּבְמוֹרָאִים גְּדֹלִים כְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר־עָשָׂה לָכֶם ה' אֱלֹהֵיכֶם בְּמִצְרַיִם לְעֵינֶיךָ: (דברים ד:לב-לד)

The passage contains the same elements as our verse except for the fact our verse 'replaces' God with Moshe. In addition to the textual similarity, the function of both passages is similar insofar as both are used to highlight to the audience (or reader) a one-off phenomenon. The earlier verse discusses the unique experiences of the generation of the exodus and the later verse – with reference to the same events – relates the uniqueness of Moshe's prophecy and accomplishments.

The interplay between these verses suggests there is an interdependency between Moshe's unique status and God's special providence with respect to that generation. This should not be so surprising. It is surely not just fortuitous that the most elevated prophet lived in the generation destined to experience God's most intense revelation (described as a face to face encounter akin to Moshe's personal encounter). Put differently, Moshe's uniqueness as a prophet seems to have been an integral part of the exceptional providence and revelation experienced by that generation.[5]

The fact that Moshe was born with unique capability is already implied at the beginning of his life:

וַתַּהַר הָאִשָּׁה וַתֵּלֶד בֵּן וַתֵּרֶא אֹתוֹ כִּי־טוֹב הוּא (שמות ב:ב)

The phrase 'she saw him that he was good' alludes to the story of creation where this refrain describes every process of creation but one. With the creation of man it is not written 'it was good' as the completeness of man can only be obtained through the exercise of freewill which is not predetermined. Yet in relation to Moshe's birth this is exactly what the Torah says. We need not be so extreme as to say that Moshe had no free choice,[6] however it suggests there was a strong element of providence with respect to Moshe's life including attaining his unique prophetic status.

Since revelation is a choice of God and not fixed into the natural order,[7] the Torah can therefore say with certainty that there will not be another prophet like Moshe - in the same way it can guarantee that there will not be a similar revelation as experienced by that generation. It is as much a comment about the special status of that generation as it is about the personal achievement of Moshe.

By attributing God’s wonders to Moshe and refraining from any specific reference to God, the verse alludes to the pitfalls of overdependency and the danger of confusion between God and messenger. In doing so, the verse provides an insight (and critique) regarding Moshe's character as leader which also defines the generation he led. It thereby establishes the limits of such leadership (necessary and formative though it was) and provides the reason a leadership transition was required for the next generation as they entered the land. 

Moshe's hands and God's hands

Though this is the only occasion that the Yad Chazakah refers directly to Moshe, this is not the first time that God's hands are seemingly 'switched' for Moshe's hands. The most explicit revelation of the hand of God is of course at the splitting of the sea:

וַיַּרְא יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת־הַיָּד הַגְּדֹלָה אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה ה' בְּמִצְרַיִם וַיִּירְאוּ הָעָם אֶת־ה' וַיַּאֲמִינוּ בַּה' וּבְמֹשֶׁה עַבְדּוֹ (שמות יד:לא)

The passages immediately following the splitting of the sea consist of a series of challenges the nation faced on their journey to Mt Sinai. The series culminates in the battle of Amalek which contains many contrasting features with the battle of the sea (the first in the series). The progression of the series is a complex topic in of itself, however relevant to our discussion is the focus on Moshe's hands. Instead of seeing God's mighty hand, the people now see the hands of Moshe and it is Moshe's own hands that appear to be steering the course of the battle.

The absence of God in the battle of Amalek is so striking that it led the Sages to ask rhetorically whether Moshe's hands were really controlling the outcome:

וְהָיָה כַּאֲשֶׁר יָרִים משֶׁה יָדוֹ וְגָבַר יִשְׂרָאֵל וְגוֹ' (שמות יז), וְכִי יָדָיו שֶׁל משֶׁה עוֹשׂוֹת מִלְחָמָה אוֹ שׁוֹבְרוֹת מִלְחָמָה?! אֶלָּא לוֹמַר לְךָ, כָּל זְמַן שֶׁהָיוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל מִסְתַּכְּלִים כְּלַפֵּי מַעְלָה וּמְשַׁעְבְּדִין אֶת לִבָּם לַאֲבִיהֶם שֶׁבַּשָּׁמַיִם הָיוּ מִתְגַּבְּרִים. וְאִם לָאו, הָיוּ נוֹפְלִין. (משנה ראש השנה ג:ח)

As discussed in a previous post the overreliance on Moshe and the need for leadership diffusion, are major themes in the battle of Amalek. This is symbolised in Moshe's faltering hands and the required support provided by Aharon and Chur. This same theme feeds into the advice provided by Yitro to appoint judges in order to reduce the dependency on Moshe.

Subsequently, when Moshe ascends Mt Sinai we are reminded through various ways of the previous ascent at the time of the battle of Amalek. Only this time the tablets (containing the 'words' of God) are in Moshe's hands instead of the staff. By forming the golden calf in Moshe's absence, however, the people demonstrated how deeply entrenched their dependency on Moshe was. They were not yet ready to replace the staff of God with the words of God. As a result, Moshe's hands falter and the tablets are smashed.[8] 

As discussed on many occasions the period in the wilderness must be seen as a period of maturation for the newborn nation. During this stage of development, it was necessary to have an elevated leader with a direct channel of communication with God to instantaneously address their needs. The goal was that these formative years would stay forever ingrained in the national memory as emphasized on many occasions throughout the book of Devarim. However, the model was not intended for the long term as it creates a cycle of dependency on miracles and on Moshe. The negative effects of such dependency were plainly evident in the episode of the golden calf and - as alluded to above – were not wholly unexpected. God therefore planned to ween them off their dependency to enable them to stand on their own feet – both physically and spiritually.

Moshe's legacy therefore lies in representing the Yad Chazakah of God. As discussed above, as a conduit for revelation there is the inherent danger that the Yad Chazakah is attributed directly to him and Moshe becomes a substitute address for God.[9] It is this tension which is reflected in the ambiguity of our verse as to whether the Yad Chazakah is that of God or of Moshe.

Following a similar theme, R. Yoel Bin Nun argues that the song of Ha’azinu as the conclusion to Devarim is a foil to the song at the sea which he calls the song of the 'Yad Chazakah'. The song at the sea was a euphoric response to Divine salvation. Such was the unilateral nature of that intervention that even prayer was not called for:

ה' יִלָּחֵם לָכֶם וְאַתֶּם תַּחֲרִישׁוּן׃ וַיֹּאמֶר ה' אֶל־מֹשֶׁה מַה־תִּצְעַק אֵלָי דַּבֵּר אֶל־בְּנֵי־יִשְׂרָאֵל וְיִסָּעוּ׃ (שמות יד:יד-טו)

Ha’azinu in contrast, is intended to be sung in the depth of crisis where faith must be mustered through listening and not passive spectation:

הַאֲזִינוּ הַשָּׁמַיִם וַאֲדַבֵּרָה וְתִשְׁמַע הָאָרֶץ אִמְרֵי־פִי (דברים לב:א)

זְכֹר יְמוֹת עוֹלָם בִּינוּ שְׁנוֹת דּוֹר־וָדוֹר שְׁאַל אָבִיךָ וְיַגֵּדְךָ זְקֵנֶיךָ וְיֹאמְרוּ לָךְ (דברים לב:ז)[10]

It is the song of the sea which is the legacy of Moshe's leadership whereas the song of Ha’azinu is reserved for the next generation and only taught following the appointment of Yehoshua.

The Torah emphasizes that these were the characteristics of that generation but not a model for the future. The world of Moshe and the generation of the exodus was one of signs and wonders – the power of the hand, whilst post-entry to the land it would be one of listening to the word of God.

 

---

[1] It is worth adding that the smashing of the tablets - assuming it was deliberate - is seemingly at odds with the prohibition of destroying holy objects which Moshe will later command (see Devarim 12:3-4)

[2] Rashba derives this from the fact that the broken pieces were placed in the ark (though this is also not explicitly mentioned in the text). The Mizrachi quotes the Rashba but notes that the Talmud understood that God approved from the redundancy in the verse (Shemot 34:1) '…the first tablets which you smashed'. See also the Torah Temimah commentary of R. Baruch Epstein (1860-1941) on the above verse which neatly explains the exegesis.  

[3] The Sifri sees a reference to the breaking of the tablets in the final verse but Rashi adds the passage from the Talmud in Menachot which is not mentioned in the Sifri.

[4] In terms of peshat, Rashi's explanation is difficult as there is no (clear) hint to the breaking of the tablets in the verse. Furthermore, the second half of the verse does not describe an additional event and Rashi already interpreted the Yad Chazakah as referring to the receiving of the tablets. The pedagogical function is particularly relevant as these are the final words of his commentary (compare to the opening comments on the first verse of the Torah).

[5] It can also be seen that Moshe's prophetic distinction is intrinsically linked to the status of the nation during the esoteric dialogue at the 'cleft of the rock':

וְעַתָּה אִם־נָא מָצָאתִי חֵן בְּעֵינֶיךָ הוֹדִעֵנִי נָא אֶת־דְּרָכֶךָ וְאֵדָעֲךָ לְמַעַן אֶמְצָא־חֵן בְּעֵינֶיךָ וּרְאֵה כִּי עַמְּךָ הַגּוֹי הַזֶּה (שמות לג:יג)

וּבַמֶּה יִוָּדַע אֵפוֹא כִּי־מָצָאתִי חֵן בְּעֵינֶיךָ אֲנִי וְעַמֶּךָ הֲלוֹא בְּלֶכְתְּךָ עִמָּנוּ וְנִפְלֵינוּ אֲנִי וְעַמְּךָ מִכָּל־הָעָם אֲשֶׁר עַל־פְּנֵי הָאֲדָמָה (שמות לג:טז)

[6] Such a suggestion is made by the Meshech Chochma of R. Meir Simcha of Dvinsk (1843-1926) in the introduction to Shemot. He contends this was necessary to guarantee that Moshe would perfectly transmit the Torah. But even he only claims this happened once Moshe had exercised his freewill to arrive at such a level.

[7] Contrary to the view sometimes attributed to Maimonides based on his various statements about God's immutability and acquisition of prophecy

[8] According to Rashbam Moshe's hands really do falter due to his dismay. Even if the action is deliberate, the literary impression is the opposite of the battle of Amalek. It should be noted that the textual parallels with the battle of Amalek are mostly contained within the passage where Moshe comes down the mountain and breaks the tablets.

[9] We have previously suggested (see here) that the Yad Chazakah is also reflected in Moshe's own character. Commencing with the actions of his ancestor Levi in Shechem, continuing with the first action of his career when he (rashly?) smites the Egyptian, and ending when he smites the rock instead of engaging his power of speech. At the burning bush Moshe says perceptively about himself he is 'not a man of words' which seems to be a deep statement of character rather than a particular speech impediment. In the same dialogue, Moshe argues the people will not heed his voice and is only reassured when God provides him with miraculous signs and promises they will 'listen to the voice of the signs'. It is therefore not surprising that Moshe's leadership is ultimately taken away from him when he fails to exchange the power of the staff for words. 

[10] R. Yoel Bin Nun (see here) also shows that, from the vantage point of Devarim, signs and wonders are associated with the false prophet whilst speech becomes the characteristic of the true prophet.

 

נצבים

Concealed Matters

At the conclusion of the על חטא recital on Yom Kippur, the following verse is referenced:

הַנִּסְתָּרֹת לַה' אלקינוּ וְהַנִּגְלֹת לָנוּ וּלְבָנֵינוּ עַד־עוֹלָם לַעֲשׂוֹת אֶת־כָּל־דִּבְרֵי הַתּוֹרָה הַזֹּאת׃ (דברים כט:כח)

The meaning in the context of the Viduy prayer is very apparent. We can only formally confess the sins which are revealed (i.e. known) to us yet also request forgiveness for those that we are unaware of (i.e. that we may have committed unknowingly):

אֶת הַגְּלוּיִים לָנוּ וְאֶת שֶׁאֵינָם גְּלוּיִים לָנוּ. אֶת הַגְּלוּיִים לָנוּ כְּבָר אֲמַרְנוּם לְפָנֶיךָ. וְהוֹדִינוּ לְךָ עֲלֵיהֶם. וְאֶת שֶׁאֵינָם גְּלוּיִם לָנוּ לְפָנֶיךָ הֵם גְּלוּיִים וִידוּעִים.

In the original context, however, the meaning of the verse is different.[1] The passage starts with the discussion of the individual who considers himself outside the scope of the covenant, or at least immune to its consequences:

פֶּן־יֵשׁ בָּכֶם אִישׁ אוֹ־אִשָּׁה אוֹ מִשְׁפָּחָה אוֹ־שֵׁבֶט אֲשֶׁר לְבָבוֹ פֹנֶה הַיּוֹם מֵעִם ה' אלקינוּ לָלֶכֶת לַעֲבֹד אֶת־אלקי הַגּוֹיִם הָהֵם פֶּן־יֵשׁ בָּכֶם שֹׁרֶשׁ פֹּרֶה רֹאשׁ וְלַעֲנָה׃ וְהָיָה בְּשָׁמְעוֹ אֶת־דִּבְרֵי הָאָלָה הַזֹּאת וְהִתְבָּרֵךְ בִּלְבָבוֹ לֵאמֹר שָׁלוֹם יִהְיֶה־לִּי כִּי בִּשְׁרִרוּת לִבִּי אֵלֵךְ לְמַעַן סְפוֹת הָרָוָה אֶת־הַצְּמֵאָה׃ (דברים כט:יז-יח)

Although on the surface these verses serve to warn the individual who thinks he can act under the radar, the metaphor of the weed and wormwood suggests the true purpose is to alert the wider community to the infectious nature of the individual’s sin. It is thus the community's responsibility to ensure collective compliance.

The simultaneous messaging to the individual and the community is further developed in the subsequent verses which describe the resulting destruction and exile:

לֹא־יֹאבֶה ה' סְלֹחַ לוֹ כִּי אָז יֶעְשַׁן אַף־ה' וְקִנְאָתוֹ בָּאִישׁ הַהוּא וְרָבְצָה בּוֹ כָּל־הָאָלָה הַכְּתוּבָה בַּסֵּפֶר הַזֶּה וּמָחָה ה' אֶת־שְׁמוֹ מִתַּחַת הַשָּׁמָיִם׃ וְהִבְדִּילוֹ ה' לְרָעָה מִכֹּל שִׁבְטֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל כְּכֹל אָלוֹת הַבְּרִית הַכְּתוּבָה בְּסֵפֶר הַתּוֹרָה הַזֶּה׃ וְאָמַר הַדּוֹר הָאַחֲרוֹן בְּנֵיכֶם אֲשֶׁר יָקוּמוּ מֵאַחֲרֵיכֶם וְהַנָּכְרִי אֲשֶׁר יָבֹא מֵאֶרֶץ רְחוֹקָה וְרָאוּ אֶת־מַכּוֹת הָאָרֶץ הַהִוא וְאֶת־תַּחֲלֻאֶיהָ אֲשֶׁר־חִלָּה ה' בָּהּ׃ גָּפְרִית וָמֶלַח שְׂרֵפָה כָל־אַרְצָהּ לֹא תִזָּרַע וְלֹא תַצְמִחַ וְלֹא־יַעֲלֶה בָהּ כָּל־עֵשֶׂב כְּמַהְפֵּכַת סְדֹם וַעֲמֹרָה אַדְמָה וצביים [וּצְבוֹיִם] אֲשֶׁר הָפַךְ ה' בְּאַפּוֹ וּבַחֲמָתוֹ׃ וְאָמְרוּ כָּל־הַגּוֹיִם עַל־מֶה עָשָׂה ה' כָּכָה לָאָרֶץ הַזֹּאת מֶה חֳרִי הָאַף הַגָּדוֹל הַזֶּה׃ (דברים כט:יט-כג)

The first verse gives the impression that the sinner is being directly threatened with individual retribution. The next verse, though, is suddenly discussing retribution against the tribe and then the nation. The reader is caught off-guard as the field of the retribution rapidly widens.

The confusion is heightened by a literary quirk. Normal rule of language would suggest that the referent of the pronoun appended to the verb והבדילו (verse 20) is the last mentioned noun i.e. the individual sinner (verse 19). However, it quickly becomes apparent that the subject matter has moved to the wider tribe, notwithstanding that the previous mention of the tribe was way back in verse 17. A similarly switch happens when the scope of destruction shifts from tribe to entire nation in the subsequent verse. All of a sudden the country is desolate and the nation has been exiled. 

This appears to be an example of where literary form follows function. The reader is made to experience the powerful contagious effect of the individual sinner as the retribution subtly spreads from person to tribe to nation without the reader fully realising until it is over. The physical destruction thereby mirrors the process of spiritual corruption. 

This, therefore, continues the dual message. On the one hand, there is a threat to the individual that he is not automatically protected by the communal shield of righteousness. On the other hand, there is a stark warning directed towards the community of the negative spiritual and physical implications if the actions of the individual are allowed to persist. This duality continues into the final verse which may be seen as a summary of the passage:

הַנִּסְתָּרֹת לַה' אלקינוּ וְהַנִּגְלֹת לָנוּ וּלְבָנֵינוּ עַד־עוֹלָם לַעֲשׂוֹת אֶת־כָּל־דִּבְרֵי הַתּוֹרָה הַזֹּאת׃ (דברים כט:כח)

There is indeed a limit to what a community can do to prevent individual sin. To the extent that the sins are genuinely hidden, then the actions of the individual are fully in the domain of God to deal with it as He sees fit (how He does so is itself a 'hidden' matter). The second part of the verse sets outs the communal responsibility to deal with the matters which are within their capacity to prevent.[2]

In summary, the individual is wrong in thinking that he is protected on account of the community and the community is wrong in thinking that they will not be impacted by the actions of the individual. Arguably, these are but two sides of the same coin as the error of the former is sourced in the latter - the individual is not protected by the community because he ends up corrupting the community so he is destroyed with it. How these intricacies play out, however, are part of the inner workings of God and the passage seems to be deliberately ambiguous in portraying the directness and timeliness of the response to the individual. 

The metaphor of the 'moist and the dry'

The above sheds light on an enigmatic phrase in the earlier verse:

וְהָיָה בְּשָׁמְעוֹ אֶת־דִּבְרֵי הָאָלָה הַזֹּאת וְהִתְבָּרֵךְ בִּלְבָבוֹ לֵאמֹר שָׁלוֹם יִהְיֶה־לִּי כִּי בִּשְׁרִרוּת לִבִּי אֵלֵךְ לְמַעַן סְפוֹת הָרָוָה אֶת־הַצְּמֵאָה׃

This phrase as well as several others find parallels in the episode of the destruction of Sedom (one being explicit):

Bereshit 18-19	Devarim 29
הַאַף תִּסְפֶּה צַדִּיק עִם־רָשָׁע	לְמַעַן סְפוֹת הָרָוָה אֶת־הַצְּמֵאָה
וַה' הִמְטִיר עַל־סְדֹם וְעַל־עֲמֹרָה גָּפְרִית וָאֵשׁ מֵאֵת ה' מִן־הַשָּׁמָיִם׃ וַיַּהֲפֹךְ אֶת־הֶעָרִים הָאֵל וְאֵת כָּל־הַכִּכָּר וְאֵת כָּל־יֹשְׁבֵי הֶעָרִים וְצֶמַח הָאֲדָמָה׃ וַתַּבֵּט אִשְׁתּוֹ מֵאַחֲרָיו וַתְּהִי נְצִיב מֶלַח׃	גָּפְרִית וָמֶלַח שְׂרֵפָה כָל־אַרְצָהּ לֹא תִזָּרַע וְלֹא תַצְמִחַ וְלֹא־יַעֲלֶה בָהּ כָּל־עֵשֶׂב כְּמַהְפֵּכַת סְדֹם וַעֲמֹרָה אַדְמָה וצביים [וּצְבוֹיִם] אֲשֶׁר הָפַךְ ה' בְּאַפּוֹ וּבַחֲמָתוֹ׃
כִּי יְדַעְתִּיו לְמַעַן אֲשֶׁר יְצַוֶּה אֶת־בָּנָיו וְאֶת־בֵּיתוֹ אַחֲרָיו	וְאָמַר הַדּוֹר הָאַחֲרוֹן בְּנֵיכֶם אֲשֶׁר יָקוּמוּ מֵאַחֲרֵיכֶם[3]
וַה' אָמָר הַמְכַסֶּה אֲנִי מֵאַבְרָהָם אֲשֶׁר אֲנִי עֹשֶׂה׃	הַנִּסְתָּרֹת לַה' אלקינוּ וְהַנִּגְלֹת לָנוּ וּלְבָנֵינוּ עַד־עוֹלָם לַעֲשׂוֹת אֶת־כָּל־דִּבְרֵי הַתּוֹרָה הַזֹּאת

In the case of Sedom, the basis of Avraham's appeal was that a core community of the righteous should enable the entire city to be saved - presumably on account of their potential to positively influence their environment. In fact, establishing such a community as was missing in Sedom becomes the raison d'etre of the Jewish nation and explains the placement adjacent to the story of the announcement of Yitzchak's birth in which Avraham is told:[4]

וְאַבְרָהָם הָיוֹ יִהְיֶה לְגוֹי גָּדוֹל וְעָצוּם וְנִבְרְכוּ בוֹ כֹּל גּוֹיֵי הָאָרֶץ׃ כּי יְדַעְתִּיו לְמַעַן אֲשֶׁר יְצַוֶּה אֶת־בָּנָיו וְאֶת־בֵּיתוֹ אַחֲרָיו וְשָׁמְרוּ דֶּרֶךְ ה' לַעֲשׂוֹת צְדָקָה וּמִשְׁפָּט לְמַעַן הָבִיא ה' עַל־אַבְרָהָם אֵת אֲשֶׁר־דִּבֶּר עָלָיו׃ (בראשית יח:יח-יט)

The individual in our passage cynically exploits this model. Having concluded that he can do as he pleases and rely on the merits of the wider community to shield him, he casts off any personal responsibility. This is perhaps the meaning of the parable in the verse: the abundance of water (merit) in the moist (righteous) will supply the parched (wicked).[5] The sinner believes that the wicked will be able to freeride off the actions of the righteous. The consequence is that his selfish attitude spreads through the community. Rather than mutual responsibility and a spread of righteousness, the nation implodes on account of its wickedness and lack of responsibility. Instead of becoming a light unto the nations, the world takes heed from the scale of the punishment.

---

[1] The reference to the verse in the Viduy is nevertheless a legitimate adoption of the basic principle of the verse, namely that God is aware of sins hidden from us. It may also be said that the entire Viduy section is pluralised and therefore the sins said to be אינם גלויים לנו may indeed refer to sins committed by others which are unknown to us (not just sins which we committed unknowingly) and therefore cannot be confessed. This latter approach aligns better with the plain sense of the verse.

[2] This explanation is similar but not identical to Rashi and Rashbam. I have suggested here (as others have taken it to mean) that the נסתרות also captures the way God deals with the sinner. 

[3] This additional parallel was noted by Daniel Loewenstein of AlephBeta.

[4] It is noteworthy that the birth of Yitzchak is presented as a direct result of Avraham’s act of hospitality towards the three 'strangers'. The new nation is thus literally built on a model example of spreading righteousness beyond one’s home. This contrasts to the situation of Sedom whose inhabitants appear to be characterised by their disdain for strangers and visitors, presumably due to the potential drain on resources. It is hardly surprising that such a self involved environment cannot harbour or be reached by a community of righteous.

[5] The precise attitude of the sinner when he says these words is challenging to interpret (assuming they are the words of the sinner and not the Torah’s verdict - see Ramban). The approach I have taken is that the sinner believes he will be protected because his personal fate is tied to the community who he assumes will adhere to the covenant. He himself is therefore free to pursue his heart’s desires. In this sense the words שלום יהיה לי are to be taken at face value (i.e. he genuinely believes no harm will come to him). The word ספות is derived from יסף meaning to ‘add’. This is similar to Ibn Ezra’s second (preferred) explanation.

Alternatively, the sinner is dismissive of the effect of the covenant altogether and believes that ultimately punishment will come and everyone will be 'swept' (from the root ספה) away together, whether one is righteous or wicked. This fits better with the usage and context in the Sedom episode. According to this interpretation when the sinner says שלום יהיה לי he means to say that, on a personal level, he will not suffer directly from his actions or at least there will be no immediate consequence. (See first explanation of Ibn Ezra in the name of Ibn Janah.)