A legend tells of the mythical Sphinx that sat at the gates of Thebes. The Sphinx allowed people to pass through the gates only if they could solve her riddle: what is the creature who first walks on four legs, then on two, and finally on three? The one who answered the riddle correctly and saved the city was Oedipus, who established that the answer was “man.” In his early years, he crawls on all fours; as he develops, he walks on two legs, and in his old age, he leans on his walking-stick. Oedipus’s solution led to the death of the Sphinx. The downfall of the formidable Sphinx via the code-word “man” symbolizes the fall of the gods and the rise of man as ruler.
The words of the Sphinx present man’s life as a sine-wave, beginning his life close to the origin (of the axes), stands up on his feet, and then falters and collapses downward again. The metaphor of a wave reflects the idea that man’s life is ephemeral and fleeting. But it was the one who could recognize man’s transience who was ultimately able to vanquish the supernatural Sphinx. Out of this weakness comes man’s strength.
Many myths attempt to capture man’s essence and the conflict surrounding him. According to the theory of evolution, man descended from various ancestors of multiple species. Humanity continues to become stronger and more varied. In a certain sense, man’s dominion is ensured not because of his transience, but because he develops an ability to survive as his intelligence increases through continuously developing communication, language, social interactions, cooperation, and ability to use different intelligences to interpret his surroundings. According to the theory of evolution, the secret to man’s success is his strength and superiority.
Primordial man is discussed in Tractate Sanhedrin, and is presented in different ways. Some sages described him in mythical dimensions, such as R. Yehuda in the name of Rav, who suggested that primordial man filled the entire expanse of space in the world, but after his sin was made to be much smaller. According to Rabbi Eliezer, primordial man was enormous and of such a great height that when he stood on the round, his head touched the sky. Here, too, it is clear that because of his sin his height was diminished to the height familiar to us today.
It seems that Rabbi Eliezer’s view presents man as having strengths that integrated the supernatural with an understanding of reality. His feet were placed firmly on the ground, but his head reached the heavens. His capabilities were impressive in his ability to look ahead, his linking of the spiritual and the physical, and the connection between high and low, the sublime and the mundane.
According to Rabbi Yehuda in the name of Rav, primordial man filled all of space with his presence. This metaphorical representation reflects man’s centrality and importance in creation.
Whereas Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion emphasizes man’s centrality, Rabbi Eliezer emphasizes man’s impressive capabilities. Common to these two approaches is the sense that the ancient ancestor of creation is not identical to us in form, stature, or intelligence; rather, primordial man is closer to the image of God, more spiritual, and stands out much more in the context of life on earth. Man became diminished in spirit, dimensions, and abilities, and thus became what we have today. Man, therefore, is a product of the infinite potential hidden within him. It is not his transience and dynamic nature, nor his physical strength or evolutionary superiority which give him his power, but rather – the knowledge that he can aspire to more.
What was primordial man’s sin that caused him to be diminished? Three answers are offered by the sages. The first, from Rabbi Yehuda in the name of Rav, states that primordial man was a heretic. The second, that of Rabbi Yitzhak, is that primordial man “lengthened his foreskin.” The third, that of R. Nahman, said that he denied the existence of God. Each of the above answers are very strange. The first opinion accuses man of straying from God and of having foreign thoughts. The second explanation accuses him of trying to abrogate his covenant with God. The third suggestion suggests that he did not believe in God. These three suggestions are difficult to understand: Did he not feel comfortable identifying with God? Did he wish to run away from the connection with God? Did he see options in the world that would not require him to recognize God?
It appears that the sages wish to say that the challenges and difficulties of faith are not only tied to the presence of foreign worship or external influences. The roots of these challenges lie in the dichotomy of man being a physical creature, while also having the status of being formed in the image of God; he has elements of the divine but he is transient. The struggle between these two aspects create a lack of coherence and a blurred identity. Belonging to the heavens and the earth at the same time, and the ability to be everywhere at once, does not allow for the humanity’s distinct aspects to be manifest. The diminishing process of the midrash allows man to have faith. The fortitude with which man began is there so that he can appreciate God’s greatness. Neither man’s transience nor his natural and biological strength is the basis for his power. Rather, it is the struggle between these two parts – between the potential and the force of action, between “I am but dust and ashes” and “the world was created for me.”