Basic Balances | Rabbi Shmuel Goldin | October 21st 2025

uh beginning of the term after the yin toim and that is we rarely get to speak about brachit we already are up to no I want to today speak about a phenomenon that's used in the Torah which is a dialectical phrase a phrase at critical junctures where the Torah is talking about a duality where the Torah is speaking about to >> Yes. Um, close the door, please. Or ask them to come in. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> All right. Where the Torah is speaking about two different phenomena or two different forces that are acting in consort. Now, let's talk about it. And we're going to speak about it as it appears in Brit. We're going to speak about it as appears in Noah. We're going to come back to bra sheet at the end. But the first thing I want to do is there are going to be some side things that we're learning as we're going. I want you to take a look at the four quotes that I have for you on the first page. And I want you to notice how Adam is referred to differently in the first two from the last two. And these are just representative of that those periods of time in the biblical text. What's the difference between hadam and Adam? Why does the Torah begin by talking about Adam as Adam and Hashem speaking to him as the man or the Adam? And why later on is he simply referred to as Adam? What's the what's the change? This is one of those very subtle changes in the text that you have to look at. You have to be careful to find and it's very important. What would you suggest? Does anyone have a suggestion? What would be the difference between ham and >> one is mankind and one is specifically >> exactly correct. Whenever the Torah refers to she said one is mankind and one is specifically this man and that when the Torah refers to Adam as communicates with him as he's communicating with Adam as the representative of mankind and therefore all of the stories that take place during the time that he's being referred to in that way are actually stories that are not just taking place to him but stories that are taking place to mankind and lessons that are emerging for mankind. And therefore, if you take a look at the the critical juncture, the critical juncture is the story of Cayenne and he that's the last piece that takes place in the Torah in which Adam is is referred to. And therefore what occurs to us is that the lessons that are learned from that story as well as the stories before it are critical to mankind as a whole. And I'll just give you one example from the story of of cayenne and he've spoken about it before. When it comes to cayenne and he there's a a very strange puk in the Torah. The puk in the Torah says as follows. [Music] And Cen said to He and they were in the field and Hen Cayenne rose up against him He and killed him. Uh what's the problem? What did he say? Correct. All right. So, we're going to we're going to we're going to skip most of the the Torah on this and we're going to go straight to the pashuphat. It's a beautiful medish, but we don't have time for it today. The what does the what's the pashhat? Why would the Torah leave out what Cayenne said to He push? Is it doesn't matter. >> It doesn't matter. No matter what Cayenne said to He, the act that he performs is so despicable that there is no rationale for it and no excuse for it. And what the Torah does, it's amazing because it uses the verb instead of if we would have said, it would have been it would have been okay. It would have been okay. They had a conversation. You don't have to tell us what. When you say Omar, you are saying in the text he said X. There is no other place in the Torah to my knowledge where the word Omar appears where the text does not then tell us what's being said. And that's what that's why this is such a profound lesson. What the Torah does is the Torah tells us something was said. Perhaps it there it excuse it was a rationale that Cen had for what maybe he was lording over him because of uh God's approval of he sacrifice maybe Cen felt rejected whatever it is it doesn't matter once you get to that kind of act whatever preceded it there is no excuse there's no rationale I I think I told you once I remember using this I don't remember all Russo for sure. I don't remember them, but I remember that I used this drasha after 911. The shabas after 911. That's exactly the PK I spoke to. I don't care what the what the ration so despicable can can have no excuse. Okay. Now, so therefore that's what we have here is we have Adam is mankind and Adam is man, right? Adam is this individual. Now I want you to take a look at the first dialectical phrase and this one's very clear. Take a look at P the first the first PUK that I have for you. Elohim. And by the way, elohim is a dialectical phrase as well, but we won't talk about that now. God places man in the Garden of Eden, mankind, right? To what? To work it and to guard it. To work it and to preserve it. So what we have here is a very powerful dialectical phrase because those two potentially are mutually exclusive. If I'm here to work the land, work the ground, then I do what what's happening on lots of other places, right? This is in front of my house. All right? And that is I I work the ground. I dig. I plow. I put down railroad tracks. Whatever it is I need to do, if I am going to be the share of Ghana, if I'm going to be the share of the world, then I've got to preserve it as it is. And that's the balance that really we're we as mankind have have for years failed to realize and that is that you have to preserve a lot of what is and not change it. and all of the issues that are happening that that they say and again I'm not getting into whether there is climate change or not climate change but certainly things are a bit offkilter and a lot of that has to do with the way we've behaved and what we've done to our world and to our environment so therefore that's the first phrase first phrase that I want to point out yes >> where was he before >> what >> where was he >> where was Adam before this no idea Yeah. >> Yeah. Right. Right. But let's remember that at this point he's not really he's mankind. Right. In other words, >> right? This is all what this is still still in the still in the portion of the text where he is being referred to as so what? >> No. No, I wouldn't because the man is haadam. the man, right? Adam is Adam, right? So, the man refers to mankind. Adam refers to Adam. And >> I understand what she's saying because when you say the same idea, it's a specific >> a specific thing, right? >> This is really the opposite. >> This is the opposite. I understand what you're saying. But but nonetheless when we think about it it the the man sort of refers to mank a a global a global force right and and by the way the first time that it changes to Adam is in the last p last line on the p um no the second to last line on the page vamto at that point he has relations again after Cen is murdered and they have another child. >> After he is murdered. Thank you. I'm sorry. Changed the change the story. Um and and they have another child and that child is chase and all of mankind descends from this third child. So what is happening at this point is Adam is moving from the representative of mankind to the progenitor of mankind. As the progenitor he is Adam as the representative he was hod. Okay. Now let's go to the next. The next is is glaring but also somewhat strange. Take a look at what at the creation of kavo on page number two. Now, this should be pretty familiar to us, but I want to want to go over it with you. Take a look quickly at that paragraph. Um, either in Hebrew or in English, right? So, and I'll summarize it while you're looking. All right? If anybody wants to be lazy, basically what I'm saying is the follow that that at the beginning who says it's not good that man is alone is alone. Right? I'm going to make for him an Azerdo. That's the phrase Azerdo because again those and then what he does is he parades all of the animals before Adam and Adam doesn't find an Azer connect and then finally he does now there are very serious questions about this this paragraph let's start with the first if God knew it wasn't good for man to be alone then what >> why didn't he create kaba immediately All right. Why which which may be the maybe according to the medi the first being it says and that they were there two parts sufim there were two sides but I think that's that's interesting because it also it also um speaks to the biology of our of our differences. In other words we begin as an egg that could go either way and then then something happens. But anyway, the So why was he created alone? If it's not good to be alone, why does it God parade all the animals before him? Okay, so I believe that there are a number of reasons that Adam is created alone. One of them is very is sort of a very sobering idea and that is that we are alone when we're born and we're alone when we leave. no matter who's with us or how you know we're we're embarking on journeys that are uniquely ours and in each case we don't know what the journey's going to be like right so therefore we are alone but I think there's a more basic answer do you have to teach me ask family do children know to share naturally you have to teach your child to share Why? Adam had to be taught the need to share. He had to be alone for a moment or a time, see all of all of nature and the the pairs that are within the animal kingdom. And he had to say, "It's not good for me to be alone." He had to say it himself. He had to come to the conclusion because if God would have immediately created Kava, then he would never have known what it would be like without her and therefore what he wouldn't have been able to share. It would have been another Cayenne and He god forbid. It would have been arguments over who owns what. Yes. that I was there for a long time before came on. It wasn't like the same day, >> right? So, okay. So, the all right the answer to she said that I'll repeat the the comment she read in a commentary that Adam was there for a very long time before he actually uh before kava was created. He was alone for a long period. I think it's it's a matter of of commentary. In other words, it's not clear. It's not clear from the text. Maybe he needed a very long time. It's one thing to teach your child not to share when he's an infant. It's quite another to teach an adult not to I mean to share. Yes. >> Also, it doesn't really say that Adam came to the realization. >> No, it doesn't. >> It does not. >> Right. But that's why that's why I think you have the parade of the animals, right? the parade of animals in this paragraph >> because what's what >> lotove >> we we >> the answer is what's bad about being alone that's that's really it is not good for man to be alone it's not we need each other we need you know you know the I I'll quote another proet for you when Yakov is suddenly ly involved in the struggle with the angel right before he meets as what does the Torah say was left alone how that happened we'll we'll get to someday but that was the moment he became vulnerable and that sorno I think it is says that that's why we have we were we don't eat the giridhanosha because which is the seiatic nerve which is take dates back to this event we can't eat it because that's where Yakov was wounded and the sorno says it's it's a fine we are being fined we never should have left Yakov alone so across time we have that permutation yes Why do we both? >> All right. Okay. So the rabbis say why do we he's asking again I'll repeat the question I mentioned that hashem elohim is a dialectical phrase and the rabbis explain that hashem is the midim mercy and elohim is so it says that the Torah begins elim first wanted according to the med it's not a not in the text god wanted to create the world through strict justice and and he were realized that it wouldn't work or he or he wants us to realize it wouldn't work and therefore he becomes hashem for part of the time here. Uh that dialectical phrase is fascinating because again what does it tell us? Why do we have to have those to me don't? Because in our world if you are totally just can you be merciful? And if you're merciful, can you be totally just? No. The two are mutually exclusive. Somehow God in his realm is totally just and totally merciful. And therefore, but for us to be able to understand him, sometimes he acts through the mid of sometimes he acts through the mid of but it in his world they're not mutually exclusive. All right. Yes. God's project would mankind. [Music] >> Well, oh, you're saying biologically he needed a partner. Correct. We don't know. In other words, it could be that that if if Kaba wouldn't have been created, nature would have been different and and and somehow there would be or Ajam was would live forever if he never ate from the tree of knowledge. whatever whatever it is. But but what we we just know what the Torah tells us. And what the Torah is telling us is that God comes to the conclusion, which he already knew from the very beginning, but he's teaching us that it's not good for man to be alone. He then parades all of the animals before Adam. And Adam names each one. And what does it say? He doesn't find Azer connected and then God creates an Azerdo. Yes. Isn't there a theory also that God did create a man and woman at the same time? >> There is a theory. I mentioned that there is a theory that yes, that they were actually created as one being. Right. Right. Man, Right. So that's that's possible because the Torah has two versions of man's creation. In the big when it when it's found in the days of creation, it says he he made them male and female. Then when it gives the detail, it has kava being created now. So it it could be that what God does was just split. Oh no, we don't know. Yes. >> Very good. All right. Right. Well, you can't have proof of that, which was what was what was said. Correct. Correct. Very good. Very good. In our natural world, you you need you need kava and right. Okay. >> Yes. Okay. One more quick comment and then one more. Uh, could you, if it fits in with your speech, could you say something about Lilith? >> Uh, no. Right. All right. I think that that would be off off our off our, you know, we take some time and we don't have that. All right. I'll be happy to I'll be happy to speak with you after the class about I'll be happy to speak with you after the class but it's not >> she she wanted me to speak about Lilith >> what oh Allen's point was that it's supporting the point that was said before the after it says God says so therefore it's an indication that you need both all right now yes One less >> more gaps certain things like create money. >> Yeah. Yeah. Right. >> Many gaps. Those gaps we fil but you said that all the problem. >> What's I didn't hear what you said. All the >> all the entire world came from >> from Jay. Yeah. >> Why? Because there's no one else. the he that I would think the Torah would tell us if Adam and Eve had other children. >> Yeah. Well, I'll tell you a big gap. >> There had to be girls. Where do they come from? All right. So, but anyway, let's Okay, let's go. Let's go on. What what we need to do is is see what the text is telling us. What is this parade of Adams? So, it's showing Adam two things. Everyone has a companion in nature and it's not good to be alone. He's getting he's rec and none of the things that already exist none of the beings that already exist are what are appropriate for his companion. He's not as much as he's anim animalistic he's human and that and therefore companionship will require more than the physical companionship and therefore hashem and then now yes >> what >> the naming I think is the naming is I think >> that's correct I believe the naming is a recognition that that's an animal and I'm not correct Correct. Okay. That that that's an animal and I'm not. All right. Now, let's go. But let's go to the dialectical phrase. Azerdo. God says, "I want to create an Azerdo. I want to create >> an Ozair." What's ozair? >> Help. What's neg against? Right. What? So, the rabbis come and they do what they often do with these dialectical phrases and they say either one or the other. If if you are worthy then you're going to be aer you'll have be ozim and if not you're going to be kaggdom and therefore and that's very beautiful um medish that says >> if you take a look what >> doesn't say as old >> no it doesn't that's correct so we'll no that's why I'm going to come up with another suggestion but but the rabbis see this as impossible phrase in other words they say many of them they say either or you're either an Ozair or you're Canadian and it depends on on your whether you're worthy and that's what you find in in the medish that says if you look at the words ish and isha >> right the difference is yud if God is present in the union then it's isa if he's not what is it right and as many of us know unfortunately ely relationships can change and when they change very often the the people who are closest to each other become the most distant and very Yes. Last >> what he said I don't had no mother-in-law. Yes. >> What >> creates the relationship? >> Who creates the relationship? >> God. >> What? No. Well, well, that's that you're getting. All right, we're getting to all another another shear for that, which is why does God change his mind and create a flood? What all of that? In other words, what >> first? Okay. All right. So, so yes. >> All right. Last comment. Last comment. Yes. >> Yes. is saying >> okay. >> Okay. Your suggestion is again that they are mutually exclusive and that what what God is saying is I'm creating for you an ozair who you will be opposite. You're going to you're going to fight it. I think it's different. What is an aeronto? What is a pro an appropriate relationship between man and woman? It is when they have their individuality and when they have their commonality. Right? I've often said this and their commonality. They have their individuality. They they retain their their own being. Right? No one is overwhelmed. Not one is overwhelming the other. And at the same time they find a way to be oaring. They find a way in in in spite of their differences and enriched by their differences they find a way to be helpmates to each other. So an Azerdo when God says I want to create an Azer conneto it is the most appropriate phrase for what is needed at this moment. Someone who will be connected. someone who will have their their own independent thoughts and dreams. Ozair somehow trying to also be oim and to make those dreams come true and the things that I want and the things that you want should become the things that we want. All right? So therefore that's another way in which the Torah talks about a dialectical phrase. in other words uses a a a phrase where there there's a duality where there's Now let's go to the next one. I really I got to move. I got to move. I'm going to run out of time. Yeah. I'll take questions at the end. Okay. How about that? Um all right. So, let's go to the next. The next one is actually in paras Noah. And this one I really have to would have to spend a little bit more time on in order to to really do it well. So, but we're not going to do it so well. We're going to do it as best we can. All right. So, >> there are on page number three and four. Oh, where are we? Yeah, page number three and four. Correct. There are two generations or two that are destroyed in paras Noah. We often forget that. The first is the dhaabu, right? The generation of the flood. The second is dhao. It's the generation of dispersion, right? Now, what's fascinating is their punishments are vastly different. Right? In other words, they're both they're both have to be rejected. And what is why is the Torah telling me this? what what what I what do I learn from these stories? So you have to try to say okay so what was the sin of the people of the flood and what was the sin of the people of Doraflago. So the Torah tells us it's on your sheets. The Torah tells us when it comes to the generation of the flood it uses one word kamas. Amazing isn't it? Right. All right. Amazing. All right. And what what is kamas? Kamas is violent theft. So in other words, the Torah said the rabbis will say there were all sorts of horrible things happening, but the thing that sealed the deal was violent theft. Next, what was the sin of the generation of the flood? >> It's hard to tell. Doesn't The Torah does not indicate what that difference was, right? the Torah basic and there are all sorts of potential answers. God wanted them to to spread out and to explore the world, not to stay together. Uh they're trying to rebel against Hashem. But the most pivotal medish, I think, is the following. It's a famous medish. It's on your sheets. The the medish says that the tower above was seven tiers. And what would happen is someone would come up one side carrying a brick, put it down, and go down the other side. If a brick if a man fell off, let's start the other way. If a brick fell off the tower, then the people would go into mourning. Oh, where are we going to find another brick? If a person fell off the tower, all right, right? So that that's how the rabbis view the sin. Now let's back up. How do the rabbis view the sin of Damabul? Okay. So they view the sin of Darham in a very very strange way. Take a look at page number five. No four. Four. Four. Four. No sorry. Three. Three. Number three. If you take a look at the next to the page at the at the paragraph towards the bottom actually in the middle right in the middle in the middle of the rabbis say what was that let's describe this violent theft. So they say what would what was happening was a person would go with grapes or legumes or whatever it might be and they would stand at one end of the path and they would walk down the path and as they walked everybody took one grape oad right everybody took one grape wasn't taking one grape but so you could not convict anyone of a crime time because it's not a sha it's hardly anything. What are you going to you going to punish me because I take a grape? But but what happens is that by the end of the path, what there ain't no grapes left. So that's how the rabbis see that sin. Why are they so I believe that this is another dialect. It's not a dialectical phrase. It's a dialectic between the two generations. Every society is formed out of a balance between two potentially opposing forces. Individual and community, right? Individual and community. How you define that balance determines the nature of your society. When I when I went to the Soviet Union before Glasnos to visit with the Fusnik, the subways were pristine. No graffiti. Why? Because if you did graffiti, you ended up in Siberia, right? In other words, what was the Soviet Union? The Soviet Union was a society that believed in the collective and minimized individual, not only individual freedoms, but individual value. One of the things we found when we were there is that it was falling apart because people weren't working because there was no incentive for them to to do the hard work because they were never going to get any further. So therefore, they would do the the minimum or not even the minimum and then go home. And that's one of the reasons the Soviet Union was falling apart. It's a basic reason. Now America people will argue maybe we've gone too much to the other side right but are we are we giving too much to the Miranda laws are we treating criminals the way what whatever it may be but it's the dialectic between those two phrases that duality that defines society now let's take a look at these two the way the rabbis view these two sins when it comes to the dormabul Everybody's taking a grape, individual greed, my need, and I'm doing it in a way that endruns the community around the community. I'm basically showing no respect for the collective. I'm saying I can take what I want and if it's minimal enough, you can't do anything. So, I'm finding a an endun around collective law and collective being. When it comes to the dora, it's exactly the opposite. If a brick falls off, they go into mourning. If a man falls off, they don't don't pay attention. What does that mean? The only thing that mattered to them was what? The collective. The only thing that mattered to them, individual rights and individual worth. That's why I believe these two generations are punished so differently when it comes to the doram where the issue is the balance is is skewed towards the individual in an unhealthy way. How do you how do you deal with it? You get rid of the individuals. When it comes to the dorhao where the problem is not the individuals but the collective, how do you solve it? You get rid of the collective. You they all speak different languages. They spread out. This society can no longer exist. And I believe that that is why the Torah is telling us these two stories. Torah is telling us these two stories because this is the beginning of civilization. And the Torah wants us to understand that for civilization to thrive, you have to have that healthy balance between individual and collective. And the Torah is challenging us to see that balance within these two stories. So again, opposing forces, this case, not a dialectic phrase, but opposing forces. Now, we're going to go to the most important one of all. Take a look at page five. Five and six. All right. Take a look at the six the second day of creation and the sixth day of creation. What is missing in the second day? It doesn't. Everybody notes this. The rabbis note it. You probably learn many of you may have learned it in school. What's missing is the phrase vy elim. It's not present on that second day. Right now, let's go to the sixth day, which means God saw that it was good. And what that means according to the Ramban obviously God knows whether it's going to be good before he makes it. But basically says the Ramban that that phrase means that creation has reached a point where God wants to sustain it as it is. He moves from creator to sustainer. And the Ramban says if he would withdraw, he's constantly sustaining. And God forbid if he would withdraw that would be Hester Ponyim and that the initial primordial chaos would reemerge. Okay. Now, we've seen it. Now, take a look at the sixth day of creation. Now, there is a phrase, but it precedes what? The creation of man. saysim after he creates all the animals and then he creates man and then what happens God saw everything he created and it was very good different explanations for that the simplest would be that everything together is more than the sum the ind the sum is more than the individual parts in other words all together right correct Now, now why would the Torah leave out Kito on those two occasions? So, most of the commentaries will say they they're two separate reasons. In the case of the second day, it's because he wasn't finished with the act of separating, right? He finishes that on the third day where you find the phrase Keto twice. One to indicate that he's finished what he began on the second day and one to indicate that he's starting now to he started now to create the third. Why would God leave out Kito when it comes to man? That you should be what? What do you say woman? >> You mean woman? We got that already. Um >> because man is not by definition good. He is the only creature that what that has free will and that can choose good or evil. Now I would suggest and this is just something that came to me a while ago. I don't I haven't seen anybody else say it so I'm not sure it's right but it something we can learn from. Why are those kitos absent? Not because of individual reasons. For the same reason. The second day, God separates heaven and earth. Perhaps that separation on some level is not good, >> right? God doesn't really want heaven to be separated from earth. And what do you who will and what what then will be the being that will unite again heaven and earth >> man. And that is seen in a beautiful statement by Kazal on the last page. a form in this is a second version of the creation of Adam. Here he is still right etc. Look at this Rashi quoting the madishim and I changed the translation to to be I think more accurate. God created him from the lower and upper spheres, right? The lower sphere earth, the higher sphere heaven. Now what what are the rabbis telling us? Rabbis are saying that we are creatures in conflict that there is a fundamental conflict within our being. We are on the one hand animals. We have the same drives and instincts etc. But we can write poetry. We can we can envision dreams. We can do things that no one else can do. That's the elonim. And what are we supposed to do with those two realms? And this we this is where Judaism is so different from other religions. We don't reject either, right? We acknowledge that the best can be when they are together, right? Unlike let's say Catholicism which would say that reject the earthly, reject go become a hermit. No, our job is to unite the two. And therefore, perhaps it's a little bit madashic. It's a little uh perhaps that's why he leaves out he told on the second day and on the sixth day. Second day he divides heaven and earth. Why? To challenge man to unite them. And that becomes the most important dialectic of all. the dialectic, the duality that exists within us and that we have to recognize exists and that we have to try to deal with and bring together. Not reject not reject either either aspect of our being but bring those aspects together. Okay, that's finished. We're done. I'll take comments or questions. Yes. In a husband and wife relationship occasionally the one who is supposed to be aser has to be connected. You see that your husband is coming home through way or he's not spending enough time with the children in order to be aser you have to be >> okay good point. All right. Yes. I think one of the reasons the for why was created by himself alone was praise that he's on the news repeatedly but he's persevering along >> right correct you know actually I forgot to I forgot to say that that's that is all right that is also well the rabbis say that the rabbis say that Adam was created alone to teach us that each individual is an entire world. So that's another beautiful message. Yes. At that point he's a melik is in a very despondent mood and he is saying man is like nothing right it's uh it's >> what no no >> no that's an interesting question I don't know if it's related in other words his name was hell must be must be related but I never never thought about it I got to think about it yes >> but even before which to me would be and I'm wondering why it doesn't say >> right or which which do you remember where All right. While she's looking that up, anybody else? Um, okay. Yes. >> There's no on the second day also because the mag was spiked. I mean, it's getting led, >> right? >> There were too many fights there. Upper waters and the lower waters and the only one like you say who finally made the connection was >> okay. The separation wasn't good. Right. >> Very nice. Right. Right. Good. Okay. Yes. >> I learn more and more and more difficult for us to actually take it literal lessons morals from our limited abilities and the way human beings are created today and the way we operate. It's almost impossible to reconcile. >> It is. It is. Y it's almost I don't want to say it's >> which is why I often think what you're saying you're saying it's very hard to believe these stories and the an answer is that it's beyond us number one and number two the more important question is what do we learn from them right yes Well, for example, after >> right, good question. I don't know why it doesn't say la, right? >> In connection with someone else or some human, right? >> That he becomes Adam again, right? But it's it's before >> before he before he becomes a dumb completely. Yeah. Okay. Last comment and no last two comments. Yes. And what happened with the snake number three says she had instinctive good supposed to bring relationship and she was trying to do good. It refers to refer to the >> the same same same word. Very very interesting the use of the word tove by this by the no and the right something else to think about >> and sees and she interprets that to be to again that's another sheer as to what that that all means. Yes. Last comment >> would you say that the people were more evil than the other were destroyed? Okay. Yeah, I do. >> Would I say that the people of the FUD were more evil than the people of the destru of the because because of the seriousness of the punishment? I would say they were differently evil. That evil that they represented could not endure. Individuals could not last. We would have we would have self-imposed. In fact, there's a puzzle here. I I was going to get to it, but I didn't have time. where God talks about destroying the world which is interpreted by some to mean the world was on a path towards selfdestruction and that means that God saved a world with the flood as opposed to destroying the world. All right. So it and that that comes from a phrase if you want to look at it yourselves I was going to talk about it a little but we didn't have time. Take a look at page number three. The first all right you'll see the first paragraph there is a word that repeats itself over and over again and that is that is um shakas in other words to destroy. So it says so the world was destroyed. What does that mean? So the answer is everyone will most commentaries will say in that context it means the world was corrupt. But then the word again appears because they corrupted their their lives etc. And then it says it goes back to meaning destroy. So along comes and says no you're not reading it right. God saw that the world was nisha. God saw that the world was on a path towards selfdestruction. And therefore, what does God do? He destroys the world to save the world. Right. That what >> all over. >> Yeah, that's right. But it's but what's fascinating again is the language of the text, the way it says it. In other words, the repetition of that word over and over again in that paragraph. It's telling you, take a look at the word. Something's happening here. And that's I think it's again I think it's faro who comes up with that interpretation. Okay. Yes. >> Good question. We don't know. We don't know. We don't know. We don't know what the primordial chaos came from. Right. In other words, it's it's we don't know. But we only know what the text what the text tells us. Yes. >> The sin was greed. But mentioned the shame. They wanted to give a name and if you look at the word the whole idea of bricks the same root as so they were into continuity on their own was really against >> they were into continuity of their civil they were into the continuity of their civilization >> that's all they wanted >> they wanted a name they wanted renown as a community okay everybody thank you very very