Commentaire sur La Genèse 1:7

ויעש אלהים את הרקיע AND GOD MADE THE EXPANSE — He put it in proper condition in its place: this is the meaning of “making” it. Similarly (Deuteronomy 21:12) ועשתה את צפרניה “And she shall let grow (literally, make) her nails”.

"And G-d made the firmament" - and it was that when some of the elemental water was removed from under that part of the waters which became vaporous in nature, as it was when He said, "let the waters be gathered from beneath the heavens" Genesis 1:9, it was fit that the vaporous part would descend to that same place from which the that [non-vaporous portion of] waters was removed. But He made it such that that "firmament" that separates would have the power to stop and prevent the vaporous portion from descending - that's the "waters which are above the firmament", such that the transformed atmospheric portion would descend, while the vaporous would remain in its original place. Because of this, when the moist vapor reaches it [i.e., the firmament], it condenses and gives rise to rain, snow and hail. As they condense they descend, as it is said, "at the sound of His placing an abundance of water in the heavens" Jeremiah 10:13. - what it wanted by saying "heavens": the firmament which condenses the atmospheric part [of the waters], as it is said "And G-d called the firmament "heavens" Genesis 1:8. Now when the cloudy, excited vapor arrives there [at the firmament], it generates thunder and lightning, and it is said: "He lifts up clouds from the ends of the earth, thunder from the rain He makes" [continuation of verse quoted previously from Jeremiah]. Now, seeing as how some of the heavier watery element is above the lighter air, which from our perspectives is against their nature - this without doubt indicates the action of an volitional actor, intended such an outcome, as it is said, "the work of His hands shall the firmament declare" Psalms 19:2

And it was so: that the firmament sufficed to hold up the higher waters, that they should not get mixed up with the lower ones.

AND G-D MADE THE FIRMAMENT. The word asi’yah (doing) always means adjusting something to its required proportion.

From above the firmament: There are two [places this appears] according to the tradition: here and the other is (Ezekiel 1:25), "and there was a voice from above the firmament," in the chariot [apparition] of Ezekiel. And in the same way that we don't teach about 'the story of creation' in public, so [too] do we not teach about 'the story of the chariot' [in public].

And God made the firmament: This verse should not have been stated; since the verse before this already stated, "And God said, etc." and it should have finished by stating, "and it was so." And I also saw that it was not justified to state "and it was so" after it stated, "And God made." Rather, after stating, "And God said," [such a phrase] would tell us that He said and it was.

And God made the firmament and He separated, etc.: This verse says, 'explain me according to the simple meaning.' Since behold, this verse ends "and it was so," and [so] what is the verse missing? And also, why is it written, "and He separated, etc." - behold the firmament separates automatically? And also the difference [is noteworthy,] that [here] it is written, "between the waters, etc and the waters etc. and not, "the waters, etc. from the water," as in the previous verse. And also here it should have written, "between the waters that are above the firmament and the waters that are below the firmament." But to begin with, we must understand - is the screen between the waters according to its simple understanding not essentially needed for that day [alone]? Since behold, on the morrow, God said, "let the waters gather, etc." and the lower waters were submerged very much; and if so there was no need for a screen that would separate between them and this is a wonder. But even more difficult is that which is found in Chagigah 15, that Ben Zoma peeked and saw that there is only two or three finger breadths between the higher waters and the lower waters, as it states, "And the spirit of God was hovering over the waters." And [this is] surprising, since, behold they are far from each other like the sky is [far] from the earth. But all of this is explained according to the Midrash Kohelet, that [states] that the firmament is not the lower skies, that are upon the earth, but rather it is a second firmament, within which the luminaries were placed later and [which] is called the firmament of the skies and not just skies, and the Sages, of blessed memory, brought an explicit verse [to prove this] (Nehemiah 9:6), "The skies [and] the skies of the skies and all of their hosts." And according to this, the explanation of, "let there be a firmament in the waters and it will separate the waters from the waters" is understood. Meaning [that it is] between the waters that are above the lower ones and the waters that are above the higher skies which [comprise] the [actual] firmament. (And similar to this is found in the Guide for the Perplexed 2:30.) (And this is as is found in Shemot Rabbah 33: Above - "let there be a firmament in the waters;" Below - "and the curtain will separate for you between the holy and the holy of holies" (Exodus 26:33). Behold, the separation between the two waters is compared to the separation between the holy and the holy of holies, and this is as I have written.] From this, [we see that] the understanding of the separation of this verse is not a screen that separates, but rather an unusual entity between these waters. And the matter is clear that both of them are not in the form of waters that are visible to us in the lower world. Rather, the waters are purified and provide good and kindness in a different from, that is referred to here with the name, 'water;' and that is [God's] running [of the world] which emanates great goodness and kindness. And about this [concept of 'water'], it is written (Psalms 42:8), "The depths call to the depths [for the voice of Your water channels]." And it is written (Psalms 65:10), "the stream of God is full of water;" and many [other] verses and midrashim [relate to this], and [this] is called by us, 'the upper waters.' And in truth, everything that is under the second firmament is exactly the running of the world through nature, and the luminaries and the 'constellations' control it and [they] are called 'lower.' And the verse [here] informs us that God separated between running the world through kindness and emanation - which is above the firmament, meaning above the running of the 'constellations;' and the waters that are below the firmament - which is the running [of the world] exactly by the 'constellations.' And for this reason, it is written "from on top of the firmament," the meaning of which is [to convey] not on top of on top; as is found in in the Chapter Mitsvat Chalitza about the wording of the verse (Deuteronomy 25:9), "from on top of his foot." And so [too] is the understanding of "from on top of the firmament," close to the firmament and not far [from it]. And it comes to make us understand that the intention is not that the upper waters are kindness that appears through complete and absolute miracles. For, if so, there would be no need for a separation from the kindness that is in nature, since it is automatically separated. And so [too], there would be no need to say that the waters that are under the firmament, means the physical waters and the ones that we see; for, if so, they are certainly not comparable to the upper waters. But rather, it is necessary to separate between the running [of the world] through providence and 'through hiding it from nature;' and between the running [of the world] through the 'constellations,' exactly according to nature. And this is what Ben Zoma peeked at and said that there is not more than two or three finger breadths between them; and it is hinted to in the earlier verse "and the spirit of God," meaning His providence, may He be blessed, "was hovering upon the face of the waters," which is the network of kindness in nature. And the meaning of "and God made the firmament" is that He refined and set it up on its essential foundations, (as I have written in Parshat Ha'azinu on the verse [Deuteronomy 32:6], "He is your maker," and in several places), which means that the bottom face of the firmament would extend more towards the lower waters - which is exactly natural - and the upper face would extend more to the higher waters, like any thing that separates between two items. And [the reason that] it is written [here] "between" and "between" is as I have written earlier on verse 4. And this firmament is from the wonders of the Perfect Knowledges, may He be blessed, such that His providence, may He be blessed, is mixed together with nature, for each person according to his deeds. And about this, it is written (Psalms, 19:2), "and the work of His hands is spoken by the firmament;" that the Holy One, blessed be He, always does wonder [and] supervises his creatures and, nonetheless, gives nature dominion together [with His providence].

ויהי כן. “so it came to be.” Nachmanides queries the need of the Torah to write these words. Granted that after the first report in the Torah of G’d giving a directive the Torah had to inform us that G’d’s directive had been carried out; here the Torah had already added after G’d giving the directive that He Himself carried it out to the last detail, עשייה; so why did we need to be told that it indeed came to be? Nachmanides concludes that this is why the Bereshit Rabbah 4,6 on this expression writes that concerning this expression Ben Zoma made a great commotion among the scholars. He questioned the entire series of the expression ויהי כן, seeing we have an explicit statement in Psalms 33,6 that the heavens were made completely, in their last detail, at the word of G’d. It is clear that Ben Zoma did not question the words ויעש אלוקים as being strange, but the words ויהי כן. [by the way the Bereshit Rabbah does not answer the question there but only at the end of chapter 10. Ed.] The answer given is that G’d’s directive was carried out immediately, without delay, and that He, being G’d, did not have to exert Himself in any manner in order to bring about what He intended. Not only that, but the words ויהי כן include the assurance that as long as heaven will exist, it will exist in the format it was created at that time. [not like earth which has been subject to great upheavals from time to time, not the least of which was the deluge. Ed.] Ibn Ezra explains that the words ויהי כן should be read as if they referred to what follows, so that we would realize that when the first verse already spoke about a phenomenon known as שמים, the reference as to what is now being named as שמים by G’d. Nachmanides adds further that the heavens referred to in these verses are not the planetary system as we know it, but describe part of the merkavah, the celestial regions forming the entourage of the Creator, as in Ezekiel 1,22 ודמות על ראשי החיות רקיע כעין הקרח הנורא נטוי על ראשיהם מלמעלה, “and as for the semblance of the expanse above the heads of the chayot, it resembled awesome ice, spread out above their heads.” The Torah did not write a word about the creation of these creatures which formed part of Ezekiel’s vision, just as it had not reported a word about the creation of the angels or any other disembodied phenomena in the universe. The Torah lumps together all these phenomena as having been created on the second day when the creation of the רקיע, later named שמים, is referred to in only general terms. Basically, these phenomena were all created from the waters, and that is the reason for the repeated use of the term רקיע השמים, the word שמים being a composite, i.e. שם מים, “there is water there.” The planetary system which the Torah describes as G’d placing ברקיע השמים, clearly is not part of the concept רקיע השמים, but consists of inhabitants of that “expanse.” Nonetheless, even taking into consideration the words of Nachmanides, we have to add that the word ארץ in the first word of the Torah does indeed refer to the “earth” as we know it, the Torah having used the appellation in anticipation of the globe that became visible on the third day.

He fixed it... Rashi is answering the question: Were the heavens not already created on the first day?

ויהי כן und da ward es also, so, wie es Gott gewollt, wahrscheinlicher aber: so wie wir es jetzt erblicken. Der uns jetzt gegenwärtige Zustand war nicht von je, sondern ist erst auf Gottes Geheiss also geworden.

ויהי כן, “and so it came to be.” The meaning of the word: כן, is that what came to be then is still so nowadays. Actually, according the sequence of the subject matter discussed by the Torah this statement could have been expected already immediately after the words: בין מים למים, “between one type of water and the other type of water,” in verse 6. The reason it was not inserted there is that it might have misled us into thinking that the separation by itself constituted the completion of a creative act by G-d involving the water. Nonetheless, seeing that a certain stage of the separation of the waters had been concluded, the Torah saw fit to insert the line: “it was evening, it became morning, a second “day.”Our sages in the Zohar on Parshat Eykev page 273, state that one does not do things “in pairs.” What they mean is that just as in the story of creation something that had been commenced on one day was not completed until the second day, [to avoid creating both types of water on the same day, Ed] there is no need to complete on the same day other matters that one has commenced on a certain day. The quotation we cited from the Zohar continues with: “just as one does not begin to do something in pairs so one should not complete it in “four.” The reason is that on the fourth “day,” the universe as we know it was completed; [except for the living creatures therein. Perhaps the deeper meaning of this is that man must not try to “copy” what G-d did at the time of creation so that he may not be viewed as competing with the Creator, as a form of idolatry. Ed. ] As to the fact that we do not read that “G-d saw that it was good,” at the end of the report of the second “day” of His creative activity, the reason most likely is that on that day gehinom, purgatory, was also created, as stated in Pessachim 54, and the Creator does not derive any satisfaction from having to consign any of His creatures to that region of the universe. We know this from Sanhedrin 39. Moreover it is written in Chronicles II 20,21: ויועץ אל העם ויעמד....בצאת לפני החלוץ ואמרים הודו לה' כי לעולם חסדו, “aftertaking counsel with the people.....as they went forth ahead ofthe vanguard, saying: ‘praise the Lord for His steadfast love is eternal.’” [The subject there is the miraculous salvation of Yehoshaphat and the army of Yehudah from a combined assault against them by three nations. Ed.] Our sages say that the reason that in this prayer of thanksgiving by the army of the King of Yehudah the attribute of G-d’s goodness is omitted, is that He does not enjoy the necessity of having had to kill His creatures, even when in fact they killed one another, as in that instance.(verse 23 there) Rabbi Elazar claims that on the sixth day of creation the Torah added the word: מאד, “very,” after the word טוב, “good, to make up for the missing “good” at the end of the report of what had been created on the second day.” (Compare Genesis 1,31)

מעל לרקיע ABOVE THE EXPANSE — It is not said here על הרקיע “upon the firmament״, but מעל “hanging from above”, because they (the waters) were suspended in space (Genesis Rabbah 4:3). Why is it not stated in reference to the work of the second day “that it was good”? Because the work associated with water was not completed until the third day — He only began it on the second — and anything that is not completed is not in a state of perfection and at its best (and so cannot be termed “good”). Therefore on the third day when He completed the work associated with water and another work was commenced and finished, the words כי טוב are repeated, once in reference to the completion of the work of the second day, and again in reference to the completion of the work of that day (Genesis Rabbah 4:10).

"and it was so" - it remained thus against its nature.

Similar to, “And she made [fixed]...” I.e., ועשתה also means fixing [i.e., improving]. You might object: There (Devarim 21:12), Rashi explained that ועשתה means that she lets her nails grow in order to make herself repulsive. Thus it means [the opposite], not fixing up! The answer is: letting the nails grow indeed improves them, although it makes the woman appear repulsive. Hence, Rashi’s proof from ועשתה is valid. (Re’m) Another answer: By letting her nails grow, although it makes her repulsive, it will eventually improve her status — for otherwise she is prohibited to marry. (Maharshal) The term עשייה clearly means fixing, according to all views, as the Gemara (Yevamos 48a) proves from מפיבושת, about whom it says, ולא עשה רגליו ולא עשה שפמו (Shmuel II, 19:25). Although in that Gemara, Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Eliezer disagree whether ועשתה means letting her nails grow or trimming them, the reasons for their views are explained there. (Nachalas Yaakov, see further elaboration there)

And it appears that three tasks were done with the firmament: The first was the creation of its substance's existence in reality, and this is what was created on the first day in the first proclamation.

AND IT WAS SO. On the first day, And there was light is written after And G-d said, ‘Let there be light,’ in order to explain that after the command of G-d, it [the light] came forth into actuality and was as He decreed it to be. But here, after the command, Let there be a firmament, it is written, And G-d made the firmament, and divided, etc.; why then has Scripture added here, And it was so? It is to tell us that it was to be ever so, for all times.
But Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra explained that the expression and it was so is attached to the verse which follows, meaning when it was so, G-d called the firmament Heaven. That is not correct.
In Bereshith Rabbah⁹⁹4:7. the Rabbis have said: “And G-d made the firmament. This is one of the verses which Ben Zoma¹⁰⁰A colleague of Rabbi Akiba. He was one of the four men of his time who were deeply engaged in the interpretation of the mystical doctrine of creation. See Chagiga 14b. found difficult:¹⁰¹Literally: “caused the world to shake.” And G-d made, etc. But was not [the world created] by command, as it is written, By word of the Eternal were the heavens made?”¹⁰²Psalms 33:6. Now Ben Zoma’s difficulty was not only on account of the word vaya’as (And He made), since on the fourth,¹⁰³Verse 16. fifth,¹⁰⁴Verse 21. On the fifth day the word vaya’as is not found; only vayibra (and He created). and sixth day,¹⁰⁵Verse 25. vaya’as is also written. Rather, his difficulty was, as I have said, that on the other days, immediately after G-d’s command, it is written, And it was so, indicating that it came into being immediately after the command, but here on the second day, after it says, And G-d said — vaya’as (And He made) is written! This was his question. Perhaps Ben Zoma had some secret interpretation which he did not want to reveal. This is the explanation of the cause of his difficulty.

Because they are suspended in space. A question arises: Do we not learn from, “Let there be a canopy in the midst of the waters,” that the waters were suspended, as Rashi explained earlier? The answer is: Both phrases are needed. If it said only, “in the midst of the waters,” we would know that there is a separation between the canopy and the upper waters, but we would not know that they were suspended. Only the phrase “from above the canopy” teaches us this point. And if it said only, “from above the canopy,” we would know that the waters were suspended in space, but we would not know that there is such a big separation [between them and the canopy]. Only the phrase “in the midst” teaches us this point. (Nachalas Yaakov)

And the second is that that God said to it that it should make a firmament, the explanation [of which] is that it should stretch out and make a partition and God measured the [appropriate] size of its stretching, so that it would suffice to separate between the waters and the waters; and that is what is stated in the verse before this.

And why does it not state... You might ask: How is this question relevant to [the waters being suspended, which is the subject] here? The answer is: We would say that the Torah omitted “It was good” when referring to the canopy since it disobeyed Hashem’s command. For Hashem said, “Let there be a canopy in the midst of the waters,” teaching that it should be equally distant from the upper waters and the lower waters. And we might think that the canopy did not do so, and the upper waters were right on it. Similarly, we find that the earth disobeyed Hashem’s command, as Rashi explains later (v. 11) regarding the fruit trees. But now that Rashi explains that the waters are suspended in space, we see that the canopy obeyed Hashem’s command. If so, why does it not state, “It was good”? Another answer: [We would say that] the lower waters are jealous of the upper waters which actually touch the canopy — hence it does not say, “It was good.” But now that Rashi explains that even the upper waters do not touch the canopy, the question arises: why does it not state, “It was good”? [Another answer: We would say that] the Torah omits “It was good” because the creation of the waters is not finished, since the object upon which the upper waters would rest was not yet created. But now that Rashi tells us that they are suspended in the air, the creation of the waters was apparently completed. Thus the question arises: Why does it not state about them, “It was good”? (Nachalas Yaakov)

And the third is that, since the heavens are spherical and slanted, we cannot say that the firmament would be different than all [the rest of] the heavens, and in the statement that states, "let there be a firmament," He only said said that it should stretch out, but the order of its setup - whether it be stretched out like a straight partition or one slanted on its ends or whether it inclines to one of the four corners of the world - this is not understood from the statement of God, when He said, Let there be a firmament. For this reason, He went back and stated, "And He made;" the explanation [of which] is that he adjusted the order of its arrangement according to the order of the adjustment of the heavens, which are like an upside down bowl facing down and their back is upwards, for reasons that are known to the Creator of the world. And He went back and stated, "and He separated, etc." since the order of its formation to which the Creator set it up is the opposite of the adjacent statement, that "He separated between, etc," since an [object] arranged like this does not block out between these two waters. For this reason, it states that even if He made it in this arrangement, nonetheless, "and He separated between, etc." And about these two (the second and third) items, the verse stated, "And He made," [meaning] that he fixed it according to the order that was correct in His eyes, and that He created in it an invention that would be able [to accomplish His plan] even with this arrangement.

Because the work involving the water was not completed... You might ask: Why does it not state, “It was good” on day two for the completion of the canopy, as Rashi explained earlier (v. 6) that it was fluid but solidified on the second day? The answer is: The gathering of the waters [on the third day] was a work on its own, as well as the completion of day two’s work. But the canopy’s solidification only completed the earlier work and was not a work on its own. And the phrase, “It was good” is inappropriate just for the completion of an earlier work. (Re’m) Another answer is: The canopy’s solidification was not a [significant] act since it did not change from its original appearance; rather, the fluid merely thickened. Thus, “It was good” is inappropriate. You might object: [If so,] why does it not state, “It was good” three times on day three? Twice as Rashi said, and a third for the completion of the earth’s work — as it is written (v. 9), “And let the dryness be seen,” as Rashi explains there [that this refers to the earth]. For the earth changed from its original appearance! The answer is: This is not called a change, for the earth remained the same — only that before it was not visible [due to the water covering it].

And He was precise in stating, "which were above, etc." to say that even though it was made in this arrangement, it separated [also] between the waters above it, a reality that would [normally] not be able to exist in the world. And after all this, He stated, "and it was so," [which] goes back on verse 1 and 2; since when He told it to spread, so was it, and when He told it to be a separation - even if its setup does not allow for it to separate in this manner, according to nature, as mentioned - "and it was so." Or it is possible that the reason it delayed stating, "and it was so" until the [end of the] verse [of] "And He made," was that He did not want to state, "and it was so," until He completed the act in all the details of [its] creation.

And after I wrote all this, I found that an explicit verse of the Bible testifies to our explanation, since it is written (Isaiah 42:5), "So said etc., Creator of the heavens and who unfolded them;" behold it mentioned two things, the creation by itself and the unfolding by itself. And this is what I explained about the first and second [tasks], since in the first day was the creation and in the second day was the unfolding, and within [that] was the unfolding and its manner, which are the two things that we hinted to.

And I saw the statement of our Rabbis, of blessed memory, in Bereishit Rabbah 4:6, and this is what they said, "'And God made the firmament;' this is one of the verses [about] which Ben Zoma shook the world, [asking] is it not that the heavens were made in one statement by the word of God?" And [yet] according to our approach, 'and the earth was quieted' from its shaking; and perhaps that which Ben Zoma shook the world was before he resolved the verses, but after the resolution of the verses, 'the earth was quieted' [and] calm.

Or one could say in the following way, according to what we have explained on the verse, "And God said, 'let the waters gather, etc.," that there are two [types of] water, one male and one female; and according to this, from the perspective that all the waters were mixed in the way that the light and darkness were mixed, 'a bit here and a bit there,' as they, of blessed memory, said (Bereishit Rabbah 3), "'And God separated between the light, etc.,' so too with the higher (elyonim) waters" - the explanation [of which] is the better (meulim) waters, and these are the male - "mixed with the lower waters" - lower in their status; and so God now said that the firmament should make two separations: the first one that it separate one from the other - according to what the Holy One, blessed be He, implanted in it, that it should separate one form the other; and the second one that these [waters] should always be divided by it, [such] that it would split between the two of them; and according to this, its stating, "let there be a firmament within the waters" here refers to the separation that separates between the two waters. And that is why it states "within the waters," since all of the waters were mixed. And afterwards, God arranged the firmament that it should be able to split the two of them perpetually; and that is the second separation, and about both of them the verse stated, "and it was so."