My Rejected Kiruv Article on the Purpose of Life

The Torah content for these two weeks has been sponsored by Judah and Naomi Dardik in loving memory of Rabbi Moskowitz zt''l, who taught his students to pursue truth by asking questions, who modeled love of Torah and learning, and who exemplified living a life of the mind.

Click here for a printer-friendly version of this article, and click here for an audio version.

Artwork: Lifelink , by Terese Nielsen

My Rejected Kiruv Article on the Purpose of Life

Foreword                                                                                                                     

I was planning on just posting the article I wrote and leaving it at that. But the more I thought about it, the more I deemed it important to provide the background information about why and for whom I wrote this article, to tell you how it was received, and to share my thoughts on its rejection. I think it’s especially important to provide this context because I’d really like to hear your feedback on the article.

Here's the backstory. A few months ago, I was contacted by two editors from a kiruv (Jewish outreach) organization. After introducing themselves, they told me about their new project:

We are looking for credentialed philosophers to write one or two articles from the following seven themes (or another if you prefer):

Is there a God? Where did the Universe come from? What is the meaning of life? What happens to us after we die? What is consciousness? Is there free will? and What are good and evil?

They specified the following criteria, in this language:

1. Length: 800-1200 words
2. Audience: Mostly millennials but accessible to all who have never studied philosophy
3. Style: Deals directly with the issue in a universal way (no proofs from any scripture), must use examples from contemporary culture
4. Tone: Serious, but fun and a bit sassy (70/20/10)

Despite my personal stance on kiruv and my not being a “credentialed philosopher,” I told them with genuine excitement that this project sounds right up my alley, and that I’d be delighted to write an article or two in July. 

I chose “What is the meaning of life?” as the subject for my first article because it's a topic I’ve addressed on many occasions throughout my high school teaching career, but I hadn’t yet written it up in any form. I welcomed the somewhat restrictive assignment specifications because it would be way too easy to let an article like this to get out of hand if I had the freedom to write it as I saw fit.

Below is the final draft of the article. The only difference between this and the version I submitted is the presence of a single paragraph in brackets towards the end – a paragraph which they liked but felt would be better saved for the sequel. I chose to include that paragraph here because, as you might have inferred from the title of this blog post, a sequel will not likely be forthcoming.

After you read the article, I’ll tell you how it was received. I'll share my own thoughts on the feedback I received and then I'll ask you for your feedback.

The Purpose of Life (According to Maimonides)

Introduction

All religions are expected to answer the question: “What is the purpose of life?” It should come as no surprise that this question is taken up by Maimonides (a.k.a. Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon, or Rambam, 1138-1204 C.E.), in his Guide for the Perplexed. [1]

For those who have only heard the “traditional” Jewish answers to this question, Maimonides’s answer might come as a shock. Best to sit down and buckle up!

The Purpose of the Universe

Maimonides’s treatment of this topic takes place in the context of an even larger question: What is the purpose of the universe as a whole?

He begins by challenging the notion that the universe was created for the sake of human beings. He argues that the universe is far too vast to be necessary for the human species, which is like a mere drop in the sea. (See the recent images taken by the Webb telescope released by NASA in July 2022.) And if a person claimed that all the planets, stars, and galaxies in the universe aren’t necessary for humans but nonetheless benefit us, the burden of proof would be on that person to explain how. (If Maimonides were playing chess, this is the first place he’d say, “Check.”)

Next, he refutes the common religious answer to our initial question, namely, that the purpose of man is to serve God. He writes: “Even if the universe existed for man's sake and man existed for the purpose of serving God, as has been mentioned, the question remains: What is the purpose of serving God? God does not become more perfect if all His creatures serve Him and comprehend Him as far as possible, nor would He lose anything if nothing existed beside Him.” In other words, God is perfect and has no needs; therefore, the purpose of the universe and of man cannot possibly be for His sake. (“Check again.”)

At this point, it would seem there is only one move left for the religious individual to make: the universe exists for us, we exist to serve God, and our service of God is not for His sake, but for our sake. Maimonides serves this view up, then smacks it down: “It might perhaps be replied that the service of God is not intended for God's perfection, but for our own perfection; it is good for us and perfects us. But then the question might be repeated: What is the purpose of our perfection?” (“Check yet again.”)

And this is where he drops the M-bomb (short for “Maimonides bomb”). Ready for it? According to Maimonides, life has no purpose. (“Checkmate.” Mic drop.)

The Purpose of Life (or Lack Thereof)

Many of us were taught that each person was given a special mission to accomplish which is their purpose in life, but Maimonides doesn’t buy that. Nor does he buy the other common answers, such as “God created the universe because He wanted to bestow His kindness” or “God created us in order to reward our service,” both of which run into the problems mentioned above.

But before you tip over your king and careen into the nihilistic void, allow me to unpack Maimonides’s nuanced position.

Think about how we relate to the question, “What is the purpose of X?” We ask this question when the utility of an entity is not readily apparent. Consider the following scenario. You see me holding an unfamiliar gadget. You ask me, “What is that for?” and I answer: “Oh, this? This thing has no purpose.” You might reply, “Then what’s the point? What good is it?” In other words, you assume that if it has no purpose, then it is not good.

But that conclusion isn’t necessarily warranted. In truth, there are two possibilities for why (or how) something “has no purpose.” One possibility is that the entity is, indeed, useless. Its existence lacks justification. It is a means to no end whatsoever. The other possibility is that its existence is an end in and of itself. It doesn’t need any purpose outside of itself to justify its own existence because its existence is intrinsically good. 

That is the sense in which Maimonides would say that life has no purpose: because existence is good, in and of itself. 

The Basis in Torah

This view is borne out in the opening chapter of Genesis. The phrase “and God saw that it was good” appears six times in the account of creation. If the Torah had withheld this declaration of goodness until after the creation of man, one might be justified in concluding that man is the purpose of the universe. But that's not what the Torah says. God creates light and deems it "good." He separates the seas and dry land and deems this "good." He creates vegetation and trees and deems them "good." And the luminaries, and the fish, and the birds, and so on.

Maimonides understands this to mean that each and every component of the universe is good simply by virtue of its existence. And when the account of creation ends with “God saw everything that He had made and behold! it was exceedingly good” (Genesis 1:31), this means that the universe has no purpose outside of itself. According to Judaism, existence in accordance with the will and wisdom of the Creator is the only standard by which goodness is measured. [2]

Now we can rephrase the answer to our original question in a more uplifting way. What is the purpose of life? To exist! To live! Life is inherently good! You don’t need any special, personalized mission to imbue your life with value because your life has intrinsic value!

And that is the end of the story … almost.

The Anomaly of Humanity

On Day Six, God creates the land animals and declares them to be good. Then He creates man and woman but does not declare them to be good. Why not? The answer lies in the essential difference between humans and all other phenomena in the universe. What is that difference? Free will.

We are the only creations that have free will and who can choose to disobey God. The Sages express this in the Tamludic dictum: “Everything is in the hands of heaven except for the fear of heaven” (Berachos 33b), which Maimonides explains to be a reference to free will. All other creations in the universe are “programmed” to exist in line with the will and wisdom of the Creator, without any possibility of deviation, and are therefore good “by default.” We humans can deviate. We can choose to live like animals, neglecting our unique capacity for abstract intellection, or we can attempt to live like angels, neglecting our physical and psychological needs. Both paths run contrary to our design, and therefore lead to self-destruction.

Rather, we humans must choose to live in line with the will and wisdom of the Creator. God does not declare man and woman to be good because this goodness isn’t guaranteed. The sociologist, Eric Hoffer, wrote: “Animals can learn, but it is not by learning that they become dogs, cats, or horses. Only man has to learn to become what he is supposed to be.” We must learn what it means to be human, and to consciously align ourselves with that ideal to the greatest extent possible in order to thrive.

[This is where the Torah comes into the picture. Gersonides (a.k.a. Ralbag, 1288-1344 C.E.) defines Torah as “a God-given regimen that brings those who practice it properly to true success.” Perhaps it would be more accurate to translate “true success” as “true human flourishing” – to find fulfillment by living in line with our true nature as truth-seeking beings devoted to seeking knowledge and practicing kindness, righteousness, and justice on earth, in harmony with ourselves and our fellow human beings. How the Torah serves this function is a topic for another article …]

The Purpose of Your Life

And this is where the notion of individual purpose finds its place. According to Maimonides, there is no extrinsic purpose to any individual’s life as an individual. We all share a common mission: to live in a manner which actualizes the human potential inherent in our nature. However, this actualization will play out differently based on our strengths, weaknesses, and individual differences, as determined by nature and nurture.

For example, Moses, Rabbi Akiva, and I belong to the same species and aspire to the same standard of human “goodness,” but since each of us possesses a different set of potentialities and lives in a different set of circumstances, each of us will have a different path of “goodness” to follow.

Here the maxim “know thyself” takes on additional significance: to live a “good life” we must know ourselves as humans, but we must also know ourselves as individuals, so that we can actualize our individual potentialities in accordance with the blueprint of universal human nature. 

Conclusion

Let us conclude with a summary of the main points. What is the purpose of life? According to Maimonides, life has no purpose – not because it is pointless, but because existence in line with the will and wisdom of the Creator is inherently good. This is true for everything in the universe, including for us, but unlike the other creations, we must learn what it means to be human and deliberately choose to live that way in order to live good lives. And because each of us is different, we must acquire enough self-knowledge to actualize our individual human potentialities, thereby making each of our lives worth living.

[1] Although the main ideas presented in this article can be found in Maimonides’s Guide for the Perplexed 3:13, I have incorporated insights and examples gleaned from various other texts and teachers.

[2] Some might object to this entire line of reasoning, saying: “The whole notion of ‘intrinsically good’ is a cop-out! You can’t just say that something is good for no purpose. If a thing is good, then it must be good for something – not in and of itself!” To this objection I would reply by pointing out that ALL value systems, Jewish and non-Jewish, religious and secular, right and wrong, must have at their foundation something which is regarded as an intrinsic good. The alternative is an infinite regression of desire: a series of means with no end. For example, if you ask the average person, “Why is it good to go to school?” they might say, “So I can get a job.” “Why is getting a job good?” “So I can make money.” “Why is money good?” “So I can buy things.” “Why is buying things good?” and so on, until eventually, you will reach something which is regarded as good in and of itself. In some societies, that intrinsic value might be pleasure. In others, it might be accomplishment. In others, it might be status. No one answers these “Why?” questions with infinite “so that”s all the way down; everyone’s answer will have a terminus, and that terminus will be conceived of as an intrinsic good. Mortimer J.Adler observed that one of the most common answers in our society is “happiness,” which is deemed to be intrinsically good. Adler supported this observation by pointing out that it is impossible to complete the sentence: “I want to be happy because _____.” To sum it up: this answer is not a cop-out because everyone will have something which occupies the slot of intrinsic value. According to Maimonides’s understanding of Judaism, that intrinsic value is “existence in line with the will and wisdom of the Creator.”

Afterword

After sending in my rough draft, I received an email from one of the editors (who is a rabbi) saying, “Thank you very much for this excellent article.” I asked a few questions about matters of style, which he answered. The only suggestion he had about the substance of the article was to omit the paragraph about the role of Torah, saying that “a separate piece on ‘What is Judaism?’ would do very well.” I made these cosmetic changes and then submitted my final draft. 

After not hearing back from either of my contacts for a week, I emailed them to ask whether there are other changes I should make. The editor who initially contacted me apologized for the delay (explaining that her response had been sitting in her draft folder), and then went on to say:

Even though we personally enjoyed it, our editor in chief flagged it and shared the piece with the Rosh HaYeshiva and they got back to us and said that they feel the article is "confusing and misleading." Unfortunately the whole approach doesn't work for them.  We do sincerely thank you for your time and effort and will of course be remunerating you for it.

I would have appreciated it if the editor in chief and/or the Rosh HaYeshiva had elaborated on what they meant by “confusing and misleading,” but I wouldn’t expect them to take the time to provide detailed feedback to a total stranger about a piece they decided not to use. Of course, this left me with two options: (1) to speculate about what they might have meant, and (2) to solicit feedback from other people.

My speculations are straightforward: I suspect they deemed the article “misleading” because they fundamentally disagree with what I wrote, and they called it “confusing” because since they couldn’t openly denounce the Rambam for his views, they instead placed the blame on my presentation of his views.

What, exactly, do I think they found so disagreeable? It could be any of several points: that the universe wasn’t created for man, that man doesn’t exist to serve God, that God doesn't need us for anything, that God did not create the universe in order to bestow His kindness to man, that the Torah is “merely” a means of making us good rather than the standard by which goodness is measured, that Olam ha’Ba isn’t mentioned anywhere in the article, that no distinction is made between Jews and non-Jews, that I say nothing about spirituality, etc.

But if I had to bet money on which sentence they found to be the most objectionable, it would be this: “Many of us were taught that each person was given a special mission to accomplish which is their purpose in life, but Maimonides doesn’t buy that.” Since I was writing for an audience of laypeople, I didn’t refer to this notion by its commonly used Hebrew term “tafkid” or by the related term “tikkun.” I cannot definitively say how, from where, or when this belief originated, but I do know that it was popularized by the Hasidic movement to the point where it can now be described as “mainstream.” For example, here’s an excerpt from the book “The Garden of Emunah” (2006) by Rabbi Shalom Arush, a Breslov Hasid, translated into English by Rabbi Lazer Brody:

Each of us comes to this earth for the express purpose of fulfilling a mission. Longevity depends on the task we have to complete. One’s death – even in a sudden tragedy or accident – is always the result of Hashem’s personal decision. Some live for twenty years and others for one hundred years, but we all eventually leave this earth at the precise moment that Hashem decides. A mind-boggling set of Divine considerations influences the circumstances of a person’s life and longevity – the person’s deeds, former lives, public edicts, and other criteria that defy our understanding.

Some souls come to this earth for a short and specific tikkun, and then return to the upper worlds. Such souls are usually remarkably special people, with little or no evil inclination, gentle, kind, and pleasant. Therefore, don’t be surprised when you hear of young upright people that die suddenly; they’ve simply completed their tikkun – their soul correction and mission on earth. (p.44)

As you can see from just this short excerpt – and certainly from the rest of the book – the notion of a Divinely ordained mission in life is inextricably bound up with many other fundamental doctrines: hashgachah pratis (individual Divine providence), sachar v’onesh (reward and punishment), tzadik v’ra lo (“Why do bad things happen to good people?”), bitachon (trust in God), and more. To question, challenge, or deny the notion of an individual purpose in life is to threaten these foundational beliefs. And that’s essentially what I did by presenting the Rambam’s view in the manner that I did.

Of course, I knew I was doing this when I wrote the article. I knew that their readership would be unlikely to hear this idea from anyone else, and I know how powerful this idea can be. In fact, the first time I heard this answer given in this exact way was at a Q&A with high school students held by my Rosh ha’Yeshiva. I still remember the feeling that reverberated through the room when he said, “life has no purpose,” and then went on to explain the ideas in this article. (You can listen to the recording by clicking here and skipping to 24 minutes; note that my Rosh ha’Yeshiva had laryngitis at the time.) I wanted to replicate that experience as much as I could in my article because I know that it will resonate with others the same way it resonated with me and with all the other students who were present at that Q&A.

This is also why I left the reader “an out” by underscoring that this is the view of Maimonides. I did not claim that this view is unanimous. I included the phrase “according to Maimonides” in the title. I repeatedly stressed throughout the article that this is all “according to Maimonides.” I did this so that if someone felt threatened, they could dismiss it by saying, “That’s just the Rambam's view.”

And this is why I think it is misleading to call my article “misleading.” It would be misleading if I misrepresented the Rambam’s view. To my knowledge, I didn’t do that. I could be wrong, though, which is why I’m sharing this article and the feedback publicly. If I’ve misunderstood the Rambam’s position, then I’d like to know how – especially on such a fundamental issue as the purpose of life. 

To reiterate: I can see how a person might consider this article “misleading” if they felt it would lead the reader astray from (what they maintain is) the truth. But “confusing”? I thought I did a decent job of presenting this idea clearly, which is another reason I’d like feedback. I would especially like to hear feedback from someone who says: “I completely understand what you are saying and you presented these ideas very clearly, but I think you are 100% incorrect.” At least that way I’ll know that the reader isn’t biased by their agreement with what they've read. 

And so, my readers and listeners, what do you think? Do you find this article to be confusing and/or misleading? If so, why? What other thoughts, questions, and critiques do you have? I'm all ears.

___________________________________________________________________________________

If you've gained from what you've learned here, please consider contributing to my Patreon at www.patreon.com/rabbischneeweiss. Alternatively, if you would like to make a direct contribution to the "Rabbi Schneeweiss Torah Content Fund," my Venmo is @Matt-Schneeweiss, and my Zelle and PayPal are mattschneeweiss at gmail.com. Even a small contribution goes a long way to covering the costs of my podcasts, and will provide me with the financial freedom to produce even more Torah content for you.

If you would like to sponsor a day's or a week's worth of content, or if you are interested in enlisting my services as a teacher or tutor, you can reach me at rabbischneeweiss at gmail.com. Thank you to my listeners for listening, thank you to my readers for reading, and thank you to my supporters for supporting my efforts to make Torah ideas available and accessible to everyone.

Be sure to check out my YouTube channel and my podcasts: "The Mishlei Podcast", "The Stoic Jew" Podcast, "Rambam Bekius" Podcast, "Machshavah Lab" Podcast, "The Tefilah Podcast"  Email me if you'd like to be added to my WhatsApp group where I share all of my content and public shiur info. 

How I Teach Maaseh Bereishis - Part 2 of 2

This post is a continuation of How I Teach Maaseh Bereishis - Part 1 of 2. It is recommended that you read that post before reading this one.

Click here for a printer-friendly version of this blog post.

How I Teach Maaseh Bereishis - Part 2 of 2

Reminder: The term “Maaseh Bereishis” in this post refers specifically to the text of Bereishis Perek 1 (Genesis Chapter 1). It does not refer to the pesukim after the first perek, nor does it refer to the event of the creation – just the pesukim. 

Kass's Approach to Maaseh Bereishis 

We left off with the following question: if the pesukim of Bereishis Perek 1 were never intended to be taken literally, and the true meaning was only intended for the elite chachamim, then what purpose do these pesukim serve for the masses? What is the average Jew supposed to get out of a literal reading of Maaseh Bereishis? Why didn't the Torah simply state the fact that Hashem created the universe in Six Days in a single pasuk and leave the detailed account to Torah she'baal Peh, as the Ramban suggested?

The best answer to this question I’ve encountered can be found in Leon Kass’s commentary on Sefer Bereishis, entitled, The Beginning of Wisdom: Reading Genesis (2003). Kass is a secular philosopher [1] whose commentary utilizes what he refers to as “a wisdom-seeking approach” to the text of the Bible (see this post for an elaboration). Though I cannot endorse his entire book, both because I haven’t read it all and I didn’t agree with everything I did read, his approach to Maaseh Bereishis certainly opened my eyes, and inspired the direction I take in teaching this unit. 

Here is Kass’s commentary on the first pasuk of Bereishis. I’ve underlined the passages which led me to develop the approach I use when teaching this to my students: 

Unfortunately for those who demand clear pictures, the text’s account of the very beginning is shrouded in mystery:

In beginning, God [’elohim] created the heavens and the earth. 

The first sentence of Genesis majestically summarizes the entire story and states its main theme and thesis: creation, by God, and creation by God. Yet there is much in this verse that is hard to understand: in beginning of what? (Of time? Of everything? Of God’s creative activities?) What is “creating”? And who or what is this creating being, God? To some of these difficulties – especially creation – we shall return. But even now, with our incomplete understanding, we grasp a major point: the assertion of creation by God emphatically denies important competing alternatives. Right from its beginning, Genesis, by speaking about the origins of heaven and earth, denies the eternity and, a fortiori, the divinity of the visible universe: neither the heavens – the lofty celestial vault with its sun, moon, stars – nor the earth, the fertile, teeming source of life, are gods. They are, rather, creatures, creations of God. Perhaps more important, Genesis denies the alternative of generative beginnings: the sky did not beget upon the earth; our world is not the result of sexual (or warring) activities of gods and goddesses. In denying that the world comes to be through giving birth – that is, in rejecting cosmogony and, all the more so, theogony – Genesis begins by rejecting the necessity of polytheism. The coming into being of our world does not imply or demand more than one god.  

The Bible does not polemicize against these alternatives. As Umberto Cassuto remarks, “the controversial note is heard indirectly, as it were, through the deliberate, quiet utterances of Scripture, which sets the opposing views at naught by silence or by subtle hint.” Still, one cannot exaggerate the importance the Bible attaches to rejecting these alternatives. Numerous people of the ancient Near East – and elsewhere – regarded the heavenly bodies as divine. In the course of Genesis, we shall meet – as alternative and rejected ways of life – the Babylonians, who looked up to the heavens, and the Egyptians, who worshipped the sun and other nature gods. Because every people (and also every person) is defined ultimately by what it (or he or she) admires and reveres, the Bible wastes no time in denying the standing of other peoples’ candidates for the divine. The reason for this urgent rejection is a matter to which we will return. 

Skipping a few paragraphs, here’s another part of Kass’s commentary which highlights his approach: 

The account, though comprehensive, has an earth-centered focus. Though it speaks about what we call, in nonbiblical language, the universe or the cosmos, it addresses us, as terrestrial beings and as seeing beings, looking around and, especially, up. It begins with what we recognize and trust: the visible world we see above and about us. It shows us the articulated world of our native experience, as it manifests itself to sight.

All the beings mentioned are known to us in ordinary experience: There are no mythical beasts and no gods and goddesses. The main regions of our world are present – land, sea, and air – with their appropriate inhabitants, divided into recognizable kinds or species. And the overarching, star-studded, watery blue vault of heaven that beckons our gaze is present almost from the start, preceded only by light, in the absence of which nothing at all could be distinguished or gazed upon. By addressing human beings exactly as they experience the world, especially through sight, Genesis begins with what is both familiar and first for us, and for all mankind at all times.

But in the course of appealing first to our familiar point of view, the story in fact calls that viewpoint into question. Although addressed to our experience, the account of Genesis 1 does not simply accord with our experience; indeed, some of the peculiarities of the account induce perplexities about the way we ordinarily encounter the world. 

To review, our question is: What purpose is served by the literal pshat of Maaseh Bereishis, as read and understood by the masses? Based on the approach set forth by Kass, we may answer our question as follows: Maaseh Bereishis is intended to be a philosophical primer for healthy development as a tzelem Elokim (truth-seeking intellect). Specifically, its purpose is twofold: (1) to establish the foundations of a worldview which helps the masses develop a philosophically mature way of relating to the world around them, and (2) to steer these readers away from competing worldviews which would otherwise arrest their philosophical maturation. 

This may seem like a radical move on the Torah’s part, but in truth, it is merely a specialized instance of dibra Torah ki’lshon bnei adam (“the Torah speaks in the language of man”). Rather than stating the “raw truth” explicitly, in a manner that would be incomprehensible and/or detrimental to the majority of readers, the Torah presents the truth in a manner which is accessible to the average readers on their level, in terms they can easily relate to. This “watered down” version of the truth is designed as a developmental primer. In other words, the literal interpretation is not intended to remain as the reader’s permanent understanding, like a classical myth; it is meant to temporarily frame the reader’s conception and lay the groundwork for the next step in his or her understanding. As the reader continues to develop intellectually and psychologically, he or she will delve deeper into the true meaning underlying the external sense of the pesukim and come to terms with the truth at his or her own pace. The Torah uses this approach when speaking about Hashem; the Neviim and Kesuvim use this approach with many subjects; Chazal use this approach in midrashim. It shouldn’t surprise us that the Torah uses this approach when discussing the profound subject of Maaseh Bereishis.

Before expanding on this approach, I'd like to anticipate and address an objection. Our instinctive reaction as "modern readers" is to compare and contrast the Torah’s account with our modern scientific understanding of cosmogony. If we do this, we will surely be disappointed. The Torah's geocentric narrative of the Six Days of Creation pales in comparison to the current theoretical model of the Big Bang and the unfolding of the entire universe. Some might even consider the Torah's account to appear childish in comparison. 

But we must remember that the Torah was not addressing itself to "scientifically enlightened" readers in the 21st century. Rather, as Kass pointed out, the Torah's narrative was competing with pre-scientific and non-scientific creation mythology - and rightly so, for it is these myths which have dominated mankind's conception of the heavens and earth for millennia. If the Torah had been written specifically for the 21st century, for an audience that already has a basic grasp of scientific thinking, or for readers immersed in a world where secular atheism is the competing worldview with Torah monotheism, I'm sure that the pesukim of Maaseh Bereishis would look quite different. 

It is this realization that the Torah was aimed at combating myths which prompted me to use an out-of-the-box method in presenting this to my students. 

Comparing Maaseh Bereishis to Creation Myths of Other Religions 

Rather than spoon-feeding this reading of Maaseh Bereishis to my students or having them read the relevant excerpts from Kass’s book, I try to have them derive it on their own. I found a site called www.BigMyth.com. The home page shows a map of the world with 25 dots identifying regions on six of the seven continents. If you hover your mouse over a dot, the name of the nation, culture, or religion will pop up (e.g. Egyptian, Chinese, Maori, Inuit, Inca, etc.). Once you make your selection, you’ll be taken to an early 2000’s era “flash animation” which depicts that group’s creation story, complete with cheesy sound effects and narration. 

I show my students the first couple of minutes of around 5-7 of these animations, then encourage them to watch more at home prior to doing their assignment. Their assignment is to identify the major differences between the Torah’s account of creation and the creation myths of these groups. I tell them to focus on how each account of creation might impact the way that these people view the human race, God (or gods), and the universe as a whole. 

On the day after the assignment is due, we go through the students’ findings and discuss them. I conclude the unit by presenting what I see as the key differences between the Torah’s account of creation and the common features of these creation myths. Here are a few examples. 

anthropomorphic creator(s) vs. non-anthropomorphic Creator: Other religions depict their god(s) in highly anthropomorphic ways. The Torah does not. The only verbs it uses are verbs which do not evoke strong anthropomorphic imagery (e.g. creating, speaking, seeing, separating, calling, making, placing etc.) as opposed to the gross anthropomorphisms found throughout the rest of the Torah (e.g. body parts, such as eyes, ears, hand, arm, or emotions such as anger, sadness, regret, mercy, love). It is as though the Torah wants our introduction to Hashem to be as devoid of physicality as possible, so as not to not lead us to associate the physical universe as proceeding from a physical creator – especially one that resembles ourselves. All of this prepares our minds to seek out the non-physical causes of nature, which will ultimately lead us to the non-physical First Cause.

multiple creators vs. One Creator: Many other creation stories involve multiple creators and/or divinities. According to the Torah, Hashem was the sole cause of the universe. A person who believes that the universe is the product of multiple gods will have no impetus to seek a unity of design underlying the diverse particulars of the universe. Why should he, if different parts of the universe belong to different gods? But according to the Torah, there is only One Architect of the universe with one law that governs His entire domain.

“scientific” account of creation vs. “magical” account of creation: Other religions’ creation stories are mythological and fantastical. Many of them involve a multiplicity of divine beings (e.g. spirits, angels, demons, demi-gods), supernatural objects with mystical properties, and magical generative processes. In contrast, Maaseh Bereishis is scientific in its character. It describes an orderly creation process involving things we see in the world around us: no otherworldly beings or supernatural things – just earthly phenomena that we observe around us every day. Even the actions of the Creator are not described in miraculous terms. It is easy to see how this orientation towards the world lends itself to a value system which promotes scientific inquiry, rather than imaginative mythos and primitive superstiion.

yeish me’yesh (creation out of something) vs. yeish me’ayin (creation out of nothing): Many other creation stories begin with something that already exists, and everything emanates or is created from that. According to the Torah – as understood by the majority of the meforshim – Hashem created the universe out of nothing. Therefore, He is truly the First Cause, and nothing can be compared to Him in His eternality. In other words, there is nothing in the Torah’s account that occupies the “throne” of eternality other than Hashem.

universe as divinity vs. universe as creation: Other religions maintain that the universe itself is divine, or has divine qualities. The Torah makes it clear that the entire universe is a creation. This rules out the possibility of worshipping the universe or parts of the universe (e.g. sun, moon, stars, planets) as gods, or having godly qualities. It can be argued that this is the essential difference between a primitive outlook and a scientific one. So long as a society perceives nature as a panoply of divinities, each with its own independent will that must be appeased, the gates of scientific inquiry will be barred and concealed.

creation process as melachah (intelligent design) vs. creation as non-melachah: Other religions’ creation stories involve accidents, mistakes, and automatic generative processes. According to the Torah, the entire work of creation is characterized as “melachah” – a deliberate creative process in which matter is transformed in accordance with intelligent design – and the sequence of days follows a logical, hierarchical order. Moreover, it is clear that our Creator knows what He is doing: at each step of the way, he declares what He intends to do, He does it, and He perceives that it is good. At the end of the Six Days of Creation, He deems the entire creation as “very good” – that is, produced in complete accord with His plan. It is easy to see how this analogy of melachah would radically alter a person’s view of the universe. Are we living in a universe which is an expression of wisdom, with an underlying lawfulness and order that can be discerned by the truth-seeking human intellect, or was the universe a fluke, a blunder, or the result of blind forces acting without any objective or blueprint.

no motives are given for creation vs. creation is a result of human motives: In the creation stories of other religions, motives are given for the actions of the gods. Usually these motives are petty: because the god is lonely, because the god is angry, because the god wants to be worshipped, etc. In stark contrast, the Torah says nothing about why Hashem created the universe. This underscores the Torah’s view that we cannot know the purpose of the universe, because we cannot know Hashem’s Mind, which is identical with His unknowable Essence. 

These aren’t the only differences between Maaseh Bereishis and the creation myths of other religions, but I hope they illustrate how a literal reading of the pesukim paves the way for the development of the scientific and philosophical worldview that is the ultimate objective of the Torah regimen. At the very least, I hope these fundamental distinctions highlight how being raised with the creation myths of other religions makes it extremely difficult for scientific truth-seeking thinkers to arise from their ranks. 

Conclusion 

So that concludes my overview of Unit 1: Maaseh Bereishis. I tweak it from year to year, and emphasize different things based on my students and their questions, but the core presentation has remained the same. If the only thing my students walk away with is an awareness that the pesukim of Maaseh Bereishis were never intended to be taken literally, and that that the literal meaning of the pesukim was designed to promote a scientific, philosophically mature worldview, then I have done my job. But I am always looking for ways to improve, so if you have any questions, objections, or suggestions about what I have presented here, then please do share!

[1] According to his Wikipedia page, he is “an American physician, scientist, educator, and public intellectual, best known as proponent of liberal education via the ‘Great Books,’ as an opponent of human cloning, life extension and euthanasia, as a critic of certain areas of technological progress and embryo research, and for his controversial tenure as chairman of the President's Council on Bioethics from 2001 to 2005. Although Kass is often referred to as a bioethicist, he eschews the term and refers to himself as ‘an old-fashioned humanist. A humanist is concerned broadly with all aspects of human life, not just the ethical.’” 

How I Teach Maaseh Bereishis - Part 1 of 2

Click here for a printer-friendly version of this blog post.

How I Teach Maaseh Bereishis – Part 1 of 2 

Note: Throughout this post, the term “Maaseh Bereishis” (lit. “the work of In the Beginning”) is used in reference to the pesukim of Sefer Bereishis Perek 1 (the Book of Genesis Chapter 1). Although this term can refer to the first several chapters of Bereishis – including the second account of the creation of Adam and Chava in Gan Eden, their sin, their banishment, Kayin and Hevel, and the first generations – I teach Bereishis Perek 1 as its own unit, and this post is about that unit specifically. I intend to write another post about how I teach about Adam and Chava in Gan Eden, but that has nothing to do with the Maaseh Bereishis of this unit. 

Introduction 

I have taught Sefer Bereishis to 12th graders for the past seven years. One might think that Bereishis Perek 1 would be relatively easy to teach, since the “storyline” of Maaseh Bereishis is familiar to most students. I, however, have found that the task of teaching this perek is far from easy, due to the questions and problems which have arisen since the dawn of the scientific age. 

Students are aware that Maaseh Bereishis clashes with the modern scientific account of how the universe came to be. Some students are bothered by this conflict, and others are not. Of the former, some take the Torah’s account at face value and look askance at science; others embrace the scientific account and are troubled by how the Torah’s account could possibly differ. My approach to teaching Maaseh Bereishis aims to address all of these students, no matter where they are coming from, while upholding the truth of both Torah and science. Suffice it to say, this is easier said than done. 

There are additional difficulties in teaching this particular perek. Many of the meforshim (commentators) explain the pesukim using outdated Aristotelian physics, much of which has little meaning to offer my students. Even the meforshim who prioritize the pshat (straightforward meaning) of the pesukim exhibit this trend. The midrashic literature is rich in its content, but does very little to address the pshat of the pesukim. There is also the time constraint: during most years, we have a very limited number of days in September before we break for the moadim (holidays), which means that this unit has to be fairly quick. 

This post is about how I teach Maaseh Bereishis to my students. I am not claiming that this is the only way – or even the best way – to present this topic. I am aware that my approach is somewhat radical, and some may even find it objectionable, but at the present time, I think it represents my best efforts to teach this difficult material to the types of students I tend to have. I will now walk you through my actual lesson plan, explaining what I do and why I do it. 

Maaseh Bereishis was Never Meant to Be Taken Literally 

My first step is to show my students that the Torah’s account of the creation was never intended to be taken literally. I put the emphasis on “never” because I want to make it clear that this approach should not be dismissed as “apologetics” (i.e. interpretations aimed at upholding the truth of Scripture which only arose after these scientific questions came to light). Rather, the non-literal reading of Maaseh Bereishis has always been part of our mesorah (oral tradition), going back to the giving of the Torah at Sinai. 

I support my contention by drawing upon the words of “two trustworthy witnesses, pillars of the world, great Sages of understanding and refined intellects who are the recipients of the secrets of Torah,” [1] namely, the Rambam and the Ramban. 

[Reminder: when I say that “Maaseh Bereishis was never meant to be taken literally,” I am referring to how we interpret the pesukim of Maaseh Bereishis. Obviously, the phenomenon of God creating the universe was meant to be taken literally.]

Rambam on the Non-Literalness of Maaseh Bereishis

The Rambam expresses this in several places throughout the Moreh ha’Nevuchim, but I’ll content myself with citing a single passage from 2:29: 

Not everything mentioned in the Torah’s Maaseh Bereishis was intended to be taken literally, as the masses imagine. For if this were the case, then those who know [the true interpretation] wouldn’t have taken so much care to conceal it, and Chazal wouldn’t have tried to keep it secret and prevented people from talking about it in the presence of the masses. The literal meaning of the words [of the pesukim in Maaseh Bereishis] might lead us to form false ideas and false opinions about Hashem, or even to totally deny and reject the foundations of Torah. Therefore, it is proper to refrain from explaining this subject based on our empty imaginations which come from ignorance of science. In contrast, there are ignorant darshanim (i.e. people who give Torah lectures to the masses) and meforshim who imagine that wisdom consists in knowing the explanation of the words [in the pesukim], and that greater excellence is attained by using more words and longer speech. Rather, the proper understanding can only be attained after acquiring complete knowledge of the substantiated sciences and the sodos (esoteric truths) of the Prophets. 

The Rambam offers two arguments as to why the pesukim of Maaseh Bereishis shouldn’t be taken at face value. His first argument is that if Maaseh Bereishis were intended to be taken literally, then why did Chazal take such strict measures to conceal it and restrict its teaching? The Rambam is referring to the numerous restrictions on how and by whom Maaseh Bereishis ought to be learned and taught. The source of these restrictions is the mishnah in Chagigah 2:1 (Talmud Bavli, Chagigah 11b): 

One may not expound on arayos (sexual prohibitions) with three [people], nor Maaseh Bereishis with two, nor Maaseh Merkavah (the Work of the Chariot) with one, unless he is wise and intuitively understands with his own mind. Anyone who contemplates four things – it would be better for him if he didn’t come into the world: that which is above, that which is below, that which came before, and that which will come after. Anyone who does not have mercy on the glory of his Creator – it would be better for him not to have come into the world. 

The Rambam explains the restrictions on Maaseh Bereishis in his commentary on this mishnah: 

He said nor Maaseh Bereishis with two – and certainly not with more than two. The Sages said [on the pasuk] “When you inquire of the early days” – one may inquire, but two may not inquire. We have already explained the reason for this in our introduction to this composition, namely, that it is impossible for the masses to understand these concepts; [hence] they were only transmitted from individual to individual. The Sages were cautious with them because the masses would be able to understand very little. When the fool hears them, his beliefs will become confused and he would think that they contradicted the truth, though they are [actually] true … [For this reason the mishnah] spoke in an intimidating manner concerning one who applies his thoughts to Maaseh Bereishis without the prerequisites, saying, “anyone who contemplates four things etc.” 

Likewise, [the mishnah] intimidates the one who applies his thoughts and simple imagination to metaphysics without first having ascended the rungs of the sciences, saying, “anyone who does not have mercy on the glory of his Creator, it would be better for him not to have come into the world.” The explanation of this is that it would be better for [the totality of] existence if this individual were negated from humanity and were a different species of animal instead, for he desires to know in a manner contrary to his developmental course and contrary to his nature. The only one who imagines that he can know what is above and what is below is a person who is utterly ignorant regarding matters of truth. When a person who is devoid of all knowledge desires to comprehend in order to know what is above the heavens and what is under the earth by using his faulty imagination (for he imagines [the heavens] to be like the upper story of a house) and likewise, that which preceded the creation of the heavens and what will be after the cessation of their existence – such a person will certainly fall into madness and desolation. [2]

Going back to the Rambam’s statement in the Moreh ha’Nevuchim: if Maaseh Bereishis could be understood from a literal reading of the pesukim, then why would – or how could – Chazal place such a high barrier of entry around the subject matter? Rather, it is clear from their cautionary words and restrictions on how the subject is studied and taught that the true interpretation of Maaseh Bereishis is esoteric, and cannot be understood by the masses from the pesukim in the Torah. 

The Rambam’s second argument is that a literal reading of Maaseh Bereishis would lead to conclusions which are heretical, foolish, or both. We are in an even greater position than the Rambam to recognize the extent to which a belief in the literal understanding of the pesukim would lead to a denial of the truths arrived at through empirical science. It’s no coincidence that those Jews and Christians who insist on taking Maaseh Bereishis literally are invariably anti-science in their general outlook. 

For more on the Rambam's non-literal approach to Maaseh Bereishis, see the Moreh ha'Nevuchim 2:29-30.

Ramban on the Non-Literalness of Maaseh Bereishis

The Ramban (in his commentary on Bereishis 1:1) is just as firm in his assertion that Maaseh Bereishis should not be taken literally. The context of these comments is the Ramban’s analysis of the tanna R’ Yitzchak’s suggestion that the Torah could have started with the mitzvah of Rosh Chodesh in Sefer Shemos, and that there was no need for the entirety of Sefer Bereishis: 

Since Maaseh Bereishis is a sode amok (deep esoteric truth) which cannot be understood merely by reading the pesukim, and cannot be known with clarity except through the kabbalah ish mi’pi ish (the special oral tradition going back from mouth to mouth) from Moshe Rabbeinu who heard it from Hashem, and even the people who know this tradition are obligated to conceal it, therefore, R’ Yitzchak said that there was no need for the beginning of the Torah to include “In the beginning, God created etc.”, or the account of what was created on the first day and what was made on the second day and other days, or the lengthy story of Adam and Chava and their sin and punishment, or the story of the Garden of Eden and Adam’s banishment from it – for all of this cannot be fully understood by merely reading the pesukim. All the more so is this true for the story of the Generation of the Flood and the Generation of the Dispersion, which are not of such great necessity. It would have been enough for the followers of Torah without these pesukim, and they would believe in the general statement concerning the Six Days of Creation in the Decalogue: “For in six days Hashem made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and He rested on the seventh day” (Shemos 20:11), and the specialized knowledge of the Six Days of Creation could have been left for the yechidim (highly qualified individuals) as a halacha l’Moshe mi’Sinai (an authoritative tradition given directly to Moshe at Sinai), together with the rest of Torah she’baal Peh (the Oral Torah). 

Like the Rambam, the Ramban explicitly states that the pesukim of Maaseh Bereishis were never intended to be taken literally. Also like the Rambam, the Ramban says that Chazal concealed the true interpretation from the masses. He even goes so far as to entertain the possibility that the first several chapters of Sefer Bereishis could have been omitted from the Written Torah altogether, and relegated to the Oral Torah, where they could be understood properly by those individuals who are qualified to grasp the subject without distortion. [3] But unlike the Rambam, who maintains that our path to understanding Maaseh Bereishis is to study the empirical sciences and the esoteric ideas alluded to by the Prophets, the Ramban believes that the correct understanding can only be attained by a direct line of tradition going back to Moshe Rabbeinu – a mesorah that is part of the subject commonly referred to as “Kabbalah.” 

The question of what the true understanding of Maaseh Bereishis is will have to be left for another time. The point I intended to extract from the Rambam and the Ramban is clear: Maaseh Bereishis, as stated in the pesukim, was never intended to be taken literally. Chazal have always regarded the true interpretation to be among the “secrets of Torah” that have been concealed, and only taught to those who are ready. The Baalei Mesorah (transmitters of the Oral Tradition) have always viewed Maaseh Bereishis this way, even before science demonstrated that a literal reading of the pesukim was untenable. 

A New Question 

Although this “solves” the problem Maaseh Bereishis vs. science, it raises a new question: if the true interpretation of Maaseh Bereishis was only intended for the elite chachamim (wise men), then what purpose does it serve for the masses? What is the average Jew supposed to get out of a literal reading of the pesukim? 

We’ll leave that question for the next installment. 

[1] The adulation quotation comes from the Sefer ha’Chinuch: Parashas Ki Teitzei, Mitzvah #545. Not only do I love this description of the Rambam and the Ramban, but I also like the Sefer ha'Chinuch's approach of turning to these two Rishonim specifically when he wants to demonstrate that a certain idea is unanimous or mainstream.

[2] Even though I am trying to avoid discussing Maaseh Merkavah here, and I considered omitting the part of the Rambam’s commentary in which he discusses that part of the mishnah, I ultimately decided to retain it, since what he says about “one who applies his thoughts and simple imagination to metaphysics without first having ascended the rungs of the sciences” is equally relevant to those who attempt to approach Maaseh Bereishis based on their simple imagination without knowledge of science, as the Rambam excplicitly stated in the excerpt from the Moreh ha’Nevuchim. 

[3] The Ramban goes on to explain why these passages were included in the Written Torah, but his answer is irrelevant to our question, since the Ramban was not addressing conflicts between science and Torah. 

Mishlei 3:19-26 - Mishleic Security in God

Click here for a printer-friendly version of this blog post.

Artwork: The Mirari Conjecture, by James Arnold

Mishlei 3:19-26 - Mishleic Security in God

Some of my students decided to start learning Mishlei on their own this summer. They recently contacted me and asked for my assistance in learning the pasuk: "Hashem founded the earth with wisdom; He established the heavens with understanding" (Mishlei 3:19). They said that they had made some headway, but the ideas they came up with "didn't feel like Mishlei ideas."

I responded by affirming their observation: yes, the main idea of Mishlei 3:19 doesn't feel like a Mishlei idea, nor should it. Why not? Because this pasuk is from the first nine chapters of Mishlei, which serve a different purpose and are written in a different style than "regular Mishlei."

I wrote about this in my How to Learn Mishlei: A Step-by-step Guide. Chapters 1-9 constitute Shlomo ha'Melech's introductory discourse. The pesukim in chapters 1-9 were written to be learned paragraph by paragraph, sequentially. In contrast, the pesukim in chapters 10-29 are "standalone proverbs" which can be learned in any order, without any regard to their context within the sefer.

For this reason, I urge newer Mishlei students to skip chapters 1-9 and begin with chapters 10-29. These pesukim are easier to learn because they can be analyzed on their own. Moreover, it is also easier to approach chapters 1-9 after building up a basic "Mishleic intuition" from "standard Mishlei" pesukim, which will serve as a guide through the introductory material.

Although I usually write about standalone pesukim from chapters 10-29, I decided to switch it up for this week's Mishlei post and write about the pasuk that my students are learning, in order to illustrate just how different these introductory chapters can be.

The first step is to figure out the unit of which Mishlei 3:19 is a part. It's clearly not related to the pesukim before it, since that unit ends with the paragraph break at 3:18. It's also clear that 3:19 is connected to 3:20 at the very least, and the use of the pronoun "them" in 3:21 suggests that 3:19-20 is connected to 3:21-26. The pesukim after 26 seem to be their own thing.

Thus, the cluster of pesukim we'll be working with is this:

משלי ג:יט-כו

(יט) יְיָ בְּחָכְמָה יָסַד אָרֶץ כּוֹנֵן שָׁמַיִם בִּתְבוּנָה: (כ) בְּדַעְתּוֹ תְּהוֹמוֹת נִבְקָעוּ וּשְׁחָקִים יִרְעֲפוּ טָל: (כא) בְּנִי אַל יָלֻזוּ מֵעֵינֶיךָ נְצֹר תֻּשִׁיָּה וּמְזִמָּה: (כב) וְיִהְיוּ חַיִּים לְנַפְשֶׁךָ וְחֵן לְגַרְגְּרֹתֶיךָ: (כג) אָז תֵּלֵךְ לָבֶטַח דַּרְכֶּךָ וְרַגְלְךָ לֹא תִגּוֹף: (כד) אִם תִּשְׁכַּב לֹא תִפְחָד וְשָׁכַבְתָּ וְעָרְבָה שְׁנָתֶךָ: (כה) אַל תִּירָא מִפַּחַד פִּתְאֹם וּמִשֹּׁאַת רְשָׁעִים כִּי תָבֹא: (כו) כִּי יְיָ יִהְיֶה בְכִסְלֶךָ וְשָׁמַר רַגְלְךָ מִלָּכֶד:

Mishlei 3:19-26

(19) Hashem founded the earth with wisdom; He established the heavens with understanding. (20) With His knowledge the depths were cleaved, and the heavens drip dew. (21) My son – do not let them deviate from your eyes; guard wisdom and strategic thought, (22) and they will be life for your soul, and a graceful [ornament] for your neck. (23) Then you will walk securely on your path, and your foot will not falter. (24) When you lie down, you will not be afraid; you will lie down your sleep will be sweet. (25) Do not be afraid of sudden terror, nor the darkness of the wicked when it comes, (26) for Hashem will be your security, and He will guard your foot from ensnarement.

When learning "standard Mishlei" pesukim from chapters 10-29, we try to ask all the questions we can. If we did that on this paragraph, we'd easily be overwhelmed. Instead, it is advisable to focus on getting the main idea of the paragraph as a whole - much like we do in our approach to Sefer Tehilim - and then examine the details in light of that main idea.

The major questions on this paragraph as a whole are:

(1) What are the first two pesukim saying? This certainly doesn't seem to be a practical decision-making idea, since it's about Hashem's creation of the world. These pesukim seem to be more appropriate for Tehilim or Bereishis than Mishlei!

(2) What is the relationship between 19-20 and 21? I am assuming that there is a connection because of how 21 begins: "Do not let them deviate from your eyes" - with the "them" referring to the chochmah, tevunah, and daas mentioned in 19-20.

(3) How do all of the benefits listed in 22-26 result from implementing the advice in 21? In other words, how do these effects (i.e. "they will be life for your soul ... and He will guard your foot from ensnarement") result from these causes ("do not let them deviate from your eyes; guard wisdom and strategic thought")?

Before we move on to the main idea, I just want to underscore how different these questions are from the kinds of questions we normally ask. For example, if we approached pesukim 22-26 as we would approach "regular Mishlei" (i.e. chapters 10-29), then we'd focus on all of the specifics - but since our pesukim come from Chapters 1-9, we need to prioritize the main idea over the details. 

It's not always clear which questions are major and which are minor. For example, one could expand on Question #1 by asking: "What are the definitions of chochmah (wisdom), tevunah (understanding), and daas (knowledge)?" or "Why is chochmah associated to Hashem's founding of the earth, tevunah to His establishing the heavens, and daas to His causing them to drip with dew?" An argument could be made that these are major questions which are critical for understanding the main idea. However, my intuition tells me that these questions are minor. Pesukim 19-20 are basically saying "Hashem created the universe with knowledge," and the terms used are synonyms.

[Okay - now it's time to think! Continue reading when you're ready.]

Due to the difference in style between "regular Mishlei" and the introductory chapters, I think it's best if I answer each of the three questions individually, and then summarize the main idea in 1-4 sentences - much like I do in my posts on Tehilim.

Answer to Question #1: What are the first two pesukim saying? 

The Meiri [1] offers several explanations of these two pesukim, but his final explanation appeals to me the most:

There are those who explain that the phrase "with chochmah" here refers to the [design of the] earth, meaning to say that He created it in accordance with chochmah - that is, with [laws of] nature that do not deviate from their creation, and which are responsible for the establishment and continued existence of the earth, [such as] the rotation of the earth, the rising and setting of the sun, the orders of the moon and stars which provide light at night, etc.

Turns out that the Meiri was quoting the Sefer Chukah, [2] whose explanation is spelled out a bit more:

"Hashem founded the earth with wisdom; He established the heavens with understanding" [means] that from the day He created them, they do not deviate from their ways, nor does any part of His design deteriorate, such that he would need to fix it - unlike human beings, who build a building, only to have it deteriorate years later and be in need of repair. The Creator (blessed is He) created all of His works with wisdom, and firmly established the earth through nature and [laws of] cause-and-effect - [such as] the rotation of the earth, the rising and setting of the sun, the order of the moon and the stars to provide light at night - and each and every one of them stands at its post and performs His commands. 

In other words, these two pesukim convey the idea that Hashem created the world and endowed it with lawful principles of cause and effect, which are consistent, perfect, and harmonious in their preservation of the universe, obedient to the will of the Creator. The terms chochmah, tevunah, and daas here all refer to the quality of intelligent lawfulness that is manifest everywhere in the universe. 

Answer to Question #2: What is the relationship between 19-20 and 21? 

Mishlei's premise, as stated in Saadia Gaon's Introduction to Mishlei, is that man is unique on account of his tzelem Elokim (i.e. truth-seeking intellect), which allows him to comprehend abstract knowledge, and to make decisions based on long-term benefits and consequences. 

In light of this premise, and the premise stated in 19-20 that the universe operates by natural cause-and-effect, it follows that man should utilize his intellect to understand the lawfulness of the world around him, in order to align himself with it to the best of his ability to maximize long-term pleasure and minimize long-term pain (again, as Saadia Gaon wrote in his Introduction to Mishlei). 

This manifests itself in two ways: "guard[ing] wisdom," which refers to avoiding actions and decisions which lead to harmful consequences, and "strategic thought," which refers to using knowledge of the laws of nature to bring about benefits that one wouldn't have otherwise received. But these two things will only be possible if he exercises Mishleic vigilance, "not letting [wisdom, understanding, and knowledge] deviate from his eyes." 

This might also be why the emphasis is on the "eyes": it's not enough to know, in abstract, that the universe operates by lawful cause and effect; you need to be able to see opportunities to implement Mishleic thinking in the sensory particulars of everyday life. 

Answer to Question #3: How do all of the wonderful benefits listed in 22-26 result from implementing the advice in 21?

These pesukim are a breakdown of the two general categories mentioned in the previous pasuk (i.e. "guarding wisdom and strategic design"). I don't know whether this is a comprehensive list or just a series of particular examples. Here's what my intuition tells me about each item on the list:

"they will be life for your soul" - If "soul" means your physical life, then this is a reference to all the ways that Mishlei literally prolongs your life by helping you make intelligent decisions to improve your physical health and to deter you from taking unwarranted risks and engaging in unhealthy practices or behavior. If "soul" means your mind, then this is referring to the enjoyment of Mishleic thinking, which will become the central pleasure of your life. (Judging by the rest of the list, I'd say that the first explanation is the correct one.) 

"and a graceful [ornament] for your neck" - If I recall correctly, "neck" in Mishlei refers to your larynx (a.k.a. vocal cords). [3] Mishlei will change the way you speak, the contents of your speech, and when you exercise your speech - all in a manner which will give you the quality of "grace" (i.e. people will naturally be drawn to you because of the benefits and pleasantness they derive from the effects of Mishlei on your personality, and the beneficial results of Mishlei in your life [4]). 

"you will walk securely on your path" - I think "your path" refers to the general direction you take in life (i.e. the goals you pursue), which will be "secured" by your intelligent decision-making. 

"your foot will not falter" - I doubt this means that you won't make mistakes, since that would be humanly impossible. Rather, I think it means that even when you do make mistakes, you will learn from them and benefit from the insight you gain. Thus, in the long run, even your mistakes will enhance the quality of your life. Either that, or it just means that you will make fewer mistakes than a person who doesn't learn Mishlei. 

"if you lie down, you will not be afraid" - As a student of Mishlei, you will have a healthy recognition and acceptance of what is in your control and what is not in your control; you will take all of the precautions to protect yourself from threats that are within your control, and you will accept that whatever is out of your control is out of your control, to the extent that when you go to sleep (i.e. a state of complete lack of control, and therefore, complete vulnerability), you will still feel secure that you have done everything in your ability to protect yourself from harm.

"when you lie down and your sleep will be sweet" - This physical security will also lead to an emotionally secure state of mind, which will enable you to have a restful sleep, free from those late-night bouts of stress, fear, and anxiety about the worries of the day. 

"do not be afraid of sudden terror, and the darkness of the wicked when it comes" - Even when unexpected catastrophes happen, whether natural ("sudden terror," such as hurricanes, earthquakes, volcanoes, etc.) or brought about by human beings ("darkness of the wicked," such as assaults, robbery, war, the Holocaust, etc.), you need not be afraid; as a student of Mishlei, you will use the same decision-making approach in these situations as you would under normal conditions, and will be sure to achieve the best results that are in your control to achieve. 

"Hashem will be your security, and He will guard your foot from ensnarement" - I believe that this pasuk is framed in terms of Hashem in order to chiastically conclude this cluster of pesukim as it began. How does one take security in Hashem? By aligning oneself with Hashem's chochmah, tevunah, and daas which constitute the fabric of His universe. To the extent that you trust in His will, as manifest in the laws of nature, you will feel secure, and not become ensnared in the consequences of bad decisions, or in the stress and anxiety that results from non-Mishleic thinking.

Having said all of that, here is my four-sentence summary of the main idea:

The basis of Mishleic security in Hashem is the recognition that He created the universe in accordance with laws of cause and effect – laws which are universal, consistent, and rational (i.e. they can be known and understood by human beings). The Mishlei student’s trust in Hashem is based on the reliability of His will as manifest in these laws of nature. By using wisdom and strategic thinking to align himself with these natural laws, thinking and speaking about them constantly and harnessing them to his advantage, he will achieve both physical and emotional security – physical security from making the best decisions within the realm of his control based on the best of his knowledge, and emotional security derived from his trust in Hashem’s will, and from his knowledge that he has done everything in his power to make the best decision he can. And even when he makes a mistake, which will inevitably happen, he will learn from it, and use the insights he gained to improve his decision-making in the future.

There you have it. See how different this feels from a "regular Mishlei" idea? It's far more general and less focused on particular practical decision-making strategies. I also hope you can see what I meant when I said that I encourage students not to learn these introductory chapters until after they've developed their Mishleic intuition by learning chapters 10-29 for a while.

[1] Rabbeinu Menachem ben Shlomo Meiri, Commentary on Sefer Mishlei 3:19

[2] Rabbeinu Yosef Kimchi, Sefer Chukah on Mishlei 3:19

[3] see, for example, Rabbeinu Yonah on Mishlei 1:9

[4] I heard a great example of this yesterday from my Mishlei rebbi, who recently spent nearly an entire week in the hospital. He told me that many nurses and doctors came up to him and told him that he is the best and most pleasant patient they've ever had. My Mishlei rebbi attributed this to the effects of Mishlei on his personality, which we spent a while discussing and analyzing.