Commentaire sur La Genèse 2:34

AND ALL THE HOST OF THEM. “The host of the earth” are those which have been mentioned: beasts, creeping things, fish, and all growing things, and also man. “The host of the heavens” are the two luminaries and the stars, mentioned above, just as it is written: And lest thou lift up thine eyes unto heaven, and when thou seest the sun and the moon and the stars, even all the host of heaven.²³⁶Deuteronomy 4:19. It also includes the Separate Intelligences,²³⁷Intelligences without matter, generally referring to the angels and spheres. See Rambam, Hilchoth Yesodei Hatorah 3:9. Also Moreh Nebuchim, I, 49: “The angels are likewise incorporeal; they are intelligences without matter, etc.” (Friedlander’s translation.) just as it is written: I saw the Eternal sitting on His throne, and all the host of heaven standing by Him;²³⁸I Kings 22:19. also, The Eternal will punish the host of the high heaven on high.²³⁹Isaiah 24:21. It is here [in the expression, all the host of them], that He has hinted at the formation of the angels in the work of creation. Similarly, the souls of men are included in the host of heaven.²⁴⁰Ramban is thus inferring that the souls of all men of all generations were created at the beginning of creation. This thought is clearly expressed in the other writings of Ramban. (See Ramban’s letter to Rabbeinu Yonah, Kithvei Haramban, Vol. I, 383. See also in same volume his Commentary to Job 38:21, p. 117).

ויכלו, when all the phenomena intended to comprise the physical universe had materialised

ויכלו השמים והארץ. Heaven and earth were completed. We are not sure what this verse is meant to teach us. It appears that we must understand it in the context of the saying of our sages that G'd is the מקומו של עולם, G'd is the place of His universe (and not vice versa). We also find statements to the effect that G'd fills the universe, such as Isaiah 6,3: "The whole earth if full of His glory." G'd's light surrounds the entire globe and it fills the globe itself. We need to understand why G'd has arranged things in this manner. I have heard from Torah scholars (who were my teachers) that the reason G'd made the earth spherical is to enable its various parts to endure with equal ease. The rabbis meant that of all the desires, urges and feelings of love in the universe nothing matches in intensity the urge of the spirit which has recognised the light of G'd and its desire to cleave to G'd's light. Every living soul which has been fortunate enough to recognise even a small amount of that light longs to behold visions of the pleasantness that is G'd. Know that G'd has endowed each category of His creatures with a two-tiered intelligence. One tier is the power to perceive, the other tier is the power to analyse. Human beings, i.e. creatures who are endowed with the power of speech, as well as all lower forms of life or even the inert part of nature, all received a degree of intelligence commensurate with their status in the universe which enables them to recognise their Creator. By means of this intelligence we know that the globe continues to exist without faltering. G'd has revealed some of this secret to those who revere Him and by means of these explanations these facts became translated to our senses [as opposed to merely abstract intelligence. Ed.] The force holding up the globe is G'd's beautiful and all-embracing light which surrounds the globe in equal measure. Every section of the revolving earth derives additional strength from the power of the fiery urge that burns within it urging it to cling to the manifestations of G'd's spirit. This is why the globe remains in its position in the universe. [I have abbreviated the author's treatise on what he terms spiritual motivations for keeping "earth on track." I have no way of knowing if the author was familiar with Newton's theories about centrifugal forces, gravitation, etc. Even assuming that he had heard of them, the chances are he would have preferred to account for these movements as having been inspired at least also by spiritual considerations rather than as being merely laws of physics. According to the author the reason for the Torah telling us something at this stage which seemed obvious is to explain the fact that spherical earth which is not propped up by a visible force could remain in place throughout the millenia. We are dealing then with gravitation, etc. as a spiritual force. Ed.]

ויכלו השמים והארץ וכל צבאם, this verse refers to both the hosts of heaven and the hosts of earth, including their respective derivatives, תולדותם. They had all been completed on the sixth “day,” and henceforth there would not be any new phenomena in the universe, unless created by a special act of miracle. The fact is, that already during the first six “days” when the laws of nature were formulated by the Creator, He inserted escape clauses into this system of natural law that would allow Him, if and when required, to temporarily suspend such laws at His discretion.
This is explained in Bereshit Rabbah 5,5 where Rabbi Yochanan (or Yonathan) is quoted as saying that G’d entered into an agreement with the oceans that when the time would come they would respond to Moses’ command to be split, etc., in order for the Israelites at that time to cross on dry land. This is the meaning of the words in Exodus 14,26 וישב הים לפנות בוקר לאיתנו, “the sea returned towards morning to its original format.” This is a reference to the condition which G’d had imposed on the sea at the time He set certain rules for it to follow. Rabbi Yirmiyah ben Eliezer added that G’d had not only made such arrangements with the oceans, but also with all other phenomena which He had created during those six “days;” this is reflected by Isaiah 45,12אני, ידי נטו שמים וכל צבאם צויתי, “My own hands stretched out the heavens and I marshaled their host.” The extra word צויתי, refers to this clause. We also have Joshua 10,13 in which Joshua is described as arresting the sun and the moon in their respective orbits. Had it not been for the provision by G’d at the time of the creation of these planets, Joshua could not have successfully ordered them to perform what would have been an act of disobedience against the rules set for them by G’d. The same holds true for G’d’s dispatching the ravens to feed meat to the prophet Elijah (Kings I 17,4-6), or His ordering the fire not to burn Chananyah, Mishael and Azaryah. (Daniel 3,23) G’d had also ordered the lions not to harm Daniel (Daniel 6,26). Similarly, G’d had commanded the whale to swallow Jonah, keep him alive, etc. (Jonah 2,11)

Onkelos translates "perfected"- Creation was the ultimate in beauty and elegance. This verse introduces verse 3- "And God blessed the seventh day". The reason God blessed the seventh day is that He was so pleased with the results of His Creation. Just as a man who sees a magnificent structure which gives him great pleasure will mark the day and celebrate it each year, so God loved the world which He created so much that he blessed the seventh day. The Gemara (Rosh Hashana 11a) interprets the end of the verse- "and all their hosts" to mean "in all its splendor" (See H.D. 1:11 tzevaam (hosts) = tzivyonan). At the end of Creation all the species were of the highest quality possible.

וכל צבאם, and all their hosts” The hosts of the earth, i.e. man and beast, as well as all the vegetation. It includes also the hosts of the heavens, so that we have here an indirect reference to the angels, i.e. that they had also been created during the six days of creation.

ויכלו השמים והארץ וכל צבאם, “and the heaven and the earth and its host were completed.” The word ויכלו has been positioned by the Torah next to the word הששי, to hint at the Ineffable Name of G-d in the respective first letters of the words הששי, ויכלו השמים והארץ. The message is that although this name of G-d has not appeared in the text of the entire chapter dealing with the creation of heaven and earth and all that is in it, this attribute of G-d nevertheless was involved during the creation from start to finish . The reason that in the opening verse of chapter one where the creation of heaven and earth is reported the Torah made no reference to the word צבאם, “their hosts,” is that at that point the Torah inserted the word את both in conjunction with “heaven” and in conjunction with “earth.” The word את always includes something which has not been spelled out. Here, at the beginning of chapter two, where the Torah did not insert this word, the words וכל צבאם take the place of the word את in the previous chapter.
The word צבאם in its various forms alludes to angels such as in Kings I 22,19. Another instance where the word צבא מרום clearly refers to the angels is in Isaiah 24,21 וכל צבא השמים. The reason that the Torah wrote the word in the singular, i.e. צבאם, instead of צבאותם, is that we have a tradition that each nation has a representative at the celestial court, an angel called שר. When G-d engages in destruction of the nation represented by such an angel, He does not proceed until He has first neutralized that angel. The source of this tradition goes back to Shir Hashirim Rabbah end of chapter eight. In other words, the Torah refers to these forces as individuals although they represent a multitude of people.
The Torah did not mention the word ברא, “He created,” in connection with either the angels the human souls which had not yet been assigned bodies in order to teach us that all parts of the universe are interconnected. The entire universe consists of three parts 1) The world of the angels; 2) the world of the planetary constellations, “outer space,” in our language; 3) the atmosphere and earth, our habitat. The world of the angels acts as the soul of the planetary systems, whereas the planetary system exerts its impact on our terrestrial part of the universe. We have a clear verse in Hoseah 2,23 which spells this out. אענה נאום ה', אענה את השמים, והם יענו את הארץ. ”I will respond declares the Lord, I will respond to the heaven, and it shall respond to the earth.”

ויכלו. Die Wurzel כלה vereinigt zuerst zwei scheinbar ganz entgegengesetzte Bedeutungen. כלה heißt vernichtet werden, völlig aufhören zu sein. ואתם בני יעקב לא כליתם (Maleachi 3): ihr Söhne Jakobs seid nicht zu Grunde gegangen, habt nicht aufgehört zu sein; und כלה heißt zugleich: die höchste Vollkommenheit des Daseins erreichen, כלה הבית לכל דבריו (Kön. I, 6): das Haus war in allen seinen Beziehungen vollendet. Derselben Eigentümlichkeit begegnen wir in der Wurzel תמס. Es dürfte dieser Eigentümlichkeit eine doppelte bedeutsame Wahrheit zu Grunde liegen. Einmal, dass jedes vollkommene Sein das völlige Aufhören eines Anderseins voraussetzt. Es kann nur etwas und es kann nur jemand in etwas vollkommen werden, wenn die Person oder die Sache diesem Ziele sich ganz, d. h. ja mit Aufgebung alles andern hingibt. Wer in mehreren Dingen zugleich vollkommen sein will, wird jedes nur halb sein! Ferner: es gibt keine völlige Vernichtung, alles Aufhören zu sein ist nur relativ, ist nur der völlige Übergang in einen anderen Zustand und in eine andere Form. —

ויכלו, “they had been completed;” whence does the practice to recite this paragraph during kiddush while standing originate? It is because this paragraph is a testimony, and testimony must always be given while the witness is standing. (Compare Maimonides laws about testimony, chapter 9, halachah 7 stating that minors are not acceptable as witnesses as it is required that two men, i.e. adults, stand when testifying,” i.e. ועמדו שני האנשים, “the two adult witnesses shall be standing, etc.”) (Deut 19,17). We are taught further in the Talmud tractate Shabbat folio 119, that when a Jew returns home from the synagogue on Friday night, and he recites this paragraph, two angels will place their hands upon his head and bless him, saying: “may all your sins be removed from you, and may you enjoy complete atonement.” If you were to ask where we can find this line in scripture? We refer you to Leviticus 5,8, where testimony is discussed, and the Torah condemns someone who knows of something that he is required to testify to, but refuses to give such testimony. It says there that by failing to give his testimony, he will have to bear his sin. It follows that testifying truthfully results in one’s sins being removed. Giving testimony that the Lord has created the universe in six days concluding on Friday night, by reciting this paragraph while standing, is such testimony.

Der Grundbegriff von כלה ist: zu einem Ziele hinstreben, daher תכלית: das Ziel, תכלה: das Streben nach einem Ziele. לכל תכלה ראיתי קץ, "für jedes Streben nach irgend einem Ziele giebt es eine Grenze" es gibt kein Ziel, an welches man alles andere daran setzen dürfte, רחבה מצותך מאוד "nur die Erfüllung göttlichen Gebotes ist ein alles umfassendes und alles forderndes Ziel." Daher auch כלה: schmachten nach einem Ziele, und כלי: alles, was einem bestimmten Ziele dient, Werkzeug, Gerät, Gewand usw. (כלה: das vollendete Lebensalter, in welchem wir das vollendete Hiersein mit dem noch vollendeteren Dortsein vertauschen.) כַּ‏‏‏‏‏‏‏‏‏‏‏‏‏‏‏‏‏‏‏‏‏‏‏‏‏‏‏‏‏‏‏‏‏‏‏‏‏‏‏לֵה: zu einem Ziele führen, ויכֻלו sie wurden zum Ziele geführt.

Wie das erste Wort der Schöpfungsgeschichte uns in den Anblick des Himmels und der Erde hinrief, und das große Wort uns vernehmen ließ: ganz uranfänglich hat Gott diese Himmel und diese Erde geschaffen, so führt uns nun dieses Schlusswort der Schöpfungsgeschichte wieder in den Anblick des Himmels und der Erde, und spricht das gleich große Wort: ויכלו! über Himmel und Erde aus, sie sind zu diesem Ziele ge- bracht worden! Sie waren nicht immer, sie wurden! Und ehe sie wurden, war ihr Dasein und ihr Jetztsein als Ziel im Gedanken ihres Urhebers vorhanden. Von Himmel und Erde, von dem ganzen Weltall war einst nichts als der Gedanke im Geiste ihres Urhebers vorhanden, und bei ihrem Werden war die Verwirklichung dieses Gedankens das Ziel eines sie schaffenden Urhebers. Nicht in Himmel und Erde liegt die Ursache des Himmels und der Erde, sie sind nicht selbst die Ursache ihres Entstehens — der widerspruchvollste, denkwidrigste, völlig undenkbare Gedanke! — die Ursache ihres Daseins liegt außer ihnen — und sie sind nicht das Produkt einer blindwirkenden Kraft, sondern das Werk eines denkenden, mit Ziel und Absicht allmächtig Schaffenden Einen! ויכלו

Die Weisen lehren uns den Begriff noch schärfer fassen. Siehe, lehren sie, המעשים היו מותחין והולכין die ins Dasein gerufenen Stoffe und Kräfte waren in fortlaufender Entwickelung begriffen, ויכלו, da setzte Gott ihrer Entwickelung Ziel und Grenze, da war Er שדי, da war Er, שאמר לעולמו די, der seiner Welt: Genug! zurief, שאלמלא אמר לשמים וארץ די עד עכשיו היו מותחין והולכין, hätte Er dem Himmel und der Erde nicht sein Genug! zugerufen, sie wären noch heute in fortwährender Entwickelung begriffen. (׳בר׳ י׳ ,ופא) (כלה heißt auch wie כלא einhalten, zurückhalten, eingrenzen,^־ יכלה ממך (B. M. 23 .1) ואת בניהם כלו בבית . Sam. 6, 10(. Es sind dies alles .1 Nuancen des Einen Begriffes: Ziel setzen.)

Der Abschluss der Schöpfung, das Nicht-mehr-Fortentstehen neuer Bildungen, sprechen wir es mit einem Begriffe aus, der gegenwärtige Sabbat der Schöpfung, das ist eine noch lautere, sprechendere Offenbarung des Schöpfers, als das positive Dasein des Himmels und der Erde. Wenn, wie die materialistische Beschränktheit zu allen Zeiten gelehrt, das Entstehen der Welt aus physischen Ursachen hervorgegangen, dabei kein freier, denkender, allmächtiger Wille thätig war, wenn die Welt nur den in der Welt vorhandenen Naturkräften ihr Dasein verdankt, warum ist denn bereits seit Jahrtausenden Sabbat in der Schöpfung? Warum wirken denn diese Kräfte nicht noch, allmächtig Neues schaffend, fort? Warum ist bei vorhandener Ursache die Wirkung nicht mehr vorhanden? Was hat ihrem Schaffen dies Grenze setzende Ziel gebracht? Eben, dass seit Menschengedenken keine neuen Schöpfungen entstehen, eben der in der Schöpfung waltende Sabbat beweist, dass diesem Sabbat ein denkendes, Ziel wollendes, allmächtig freies Schaffen vorangegangen, und diese ganze Welt nicht das physische Produkt mit blinder Notwendigkeit zeugender Naturkräfte, sondern das moralische Werk eines, mit höchstem denkendem Bewusstsein, frei wollenden und frei wirkenden, allmächtigen Schöpfers ist.

Ja, es führen uns die Weisen in den einzelnen Kreisen der Schöpfung umher und zeigen uns, wie nicht nur dem Weltganzen dieses allmächtige, Ziel setzende, den Schöpfer und Meister offenbarende די! aufgeprägt ist, sondern wie die Mannigfaltigkeit der bestimmt und scharf abgegrenzten Bildungen und Entwickelungen der einzelnen Arten innerhalb derselben Gattung dieselbe, Maß und Ziel setzende freie Schöpferhand offenbart. Siehe, sprechen sie daselbst, am Himmel: der eine Stern vollendet seinen Lauf in zwölf Monaten, der andere in zwölf Jahren, dieser in dreißig Tagen, jener in dreißig Jahren, andere erst in 480 Jahren — und auf Erden: wie verschieden und doch bestimmt die Reife der verschiedenen Pflanzen, diese Frucht reift in einem Jahre, jene braucht drei Jahre zu ihrer Reife — alles, im Himmel und auf Erden spricht es aus: כֻלִינו! Über uns hat ein freier Gedanke und ein freier allmächtiger Wille gewaltet, der uns Alle mit Ziel und Maß umgrenzt und eben in dieser Umgrenzung und durch diese Umgrenzung uns werden ließ und werden lässt, was wir sind! — !ויכֻלו, alles ist nach Maß und Ziel umgrenzt, allem ist Stoff und Kraft und Entwickelungs-Zeit und -Art zugemessen — ohne denkenden, wollenden, mit freier Allmacht Ziel und Maß setzenden Schöpfer, durch blos physisch wirkende, blind gebundene Naturkräfte konnte keine Welt und konnte kein Strohhalm entstehen! — So ist נַיכֻלו der große jüdische Protest gegen jede materialistische, den freien Schöpfer leugnende Weltanschauung aller Zeiten, so ist נַיכֻלו das große jüdische עדות, das große jüdische Zeugnis für die Erschaffung der Welt durch einen freien, weisen, allmächtigen Gott.

וכל צבאם. Die Tatsache, dass das jüdische Volk in seinem friedlichen, das Heiligtum umgebenden Lager nach יוצאי צבא gezählt wurde, dass die am Heiligtum dienenden Leviten als (4.B. M.4, 23) כל הבא לצבא צבא לעבוד עבודה באהל מועד bezeichnet werden, dass endlich die mit ihren Spenden zusammen kommenden Frauen הצבאת אשר צבאו פתח אהל מועד genannt werden, diese Tatsache beseitigt die Annahme, dass in צבא der Begriff des Kampfes liege; vielmehr ist offenbar die Grund- bedeutung: Heer. Nicht jede versammelte Masse ist ein Heer, vielmehr nur diejenige Masse, die sich dem Willen eines Einzigen unterstellt, der für die Zeit des Heeresdienstes über die geistigen und leiblichen Kräfte der ins Heer Eingetretenen zu gebieten hat, ist ein Heer. Die Intelligenz und der Wille des Heerführers macht somit das Heer zum Heer, und ein Heer ist eine große, von der Intelligenz und dem Willen eines Einzigen befehligte Menge. Die Heeresmenge ist gleichsam der Körper des Heerführers; ihre Kraft und Glieder gehorchen seiner Intelligenz und seinem Willen. So begreift sich die Verwandtschaft von צבא mit צבה, anschwellen, einen großen körperlichen Umfang gewinnen, und ähnlich צבה: wollen, sich zur Erreichung eines Gegenstandes ausdehnen, etwas in den Kreis seines Bereiches ziehen, oder sein Reich zum Einschluß eines Gegenstandes ausdehnen. (Vergl. התאוה und והתאויתם לכם). Daher auch צבי das Er- sehnte, das Reizende. (Ob צבי, der Hirsch, seinen Namen von der im Munde der Weisen so gerühmten großen Elastizität (Dehnbarkeit) seiner Haut hat, auf welcher auch vielleicht seine Schnellkraft mit beruht, wagen wir nur zu vermuten.) צַוֵה heißt: jemanden in seinen Kreis, in das Bereich seines Willens stellen, ihn auf seinem Posten anweisen, verpflichten, befehligen. צפה: vom Mittelpunkt aus seinen Kreis über- schauen, überwachen. צַפֵה: nach der Erscheinung eines Gegenstandes in seinem Kreis, nach etwas ausblicken, erwarten. Auch: einer Sache eine Umgebung bilden, sie mit etwas belegen.

Alles im Himmel und auf Erden Erschaffene bildet ein großes באצ, ein großes Heer, dessen Mittelpunkt ihr Schöpfer und Meister, ihr Herr und Führer ist. Jegliches ist von Ihm an seinen Posten gestellt. Jegliches hat seines Teils, an seiner Stelle, mit den ihm zugewiesenen Kräften das ihm zugewiesene Pensum zu lösen. Der Plan des Ganzen ruht im Geiste des Führers, Jedes hat seine Aufgabe voll gelöst, so es das ihm überwiesene Bruchstück vom Ganzen treu erfüllt. Groß und Klein, Keines steht, wo es steht, aus eigener Machtvollkommenheit, und Keines, wo es steht, für sich allein. Zu Gottes Einem großen Heere gehören wir Alle. Sein ist die Macht und die Größe und die Einsicht und der Wille und das Gebot, unser der Gehorsam und die Pünktlichkeit und die Treue, der Eifer und die Arbeit; da hat Keiner sich zu überheben; Bruchstück das Größte das Einer leistet; aber auch das Kleinste unverloren, so er nur treu das löst, was der Eine große Heerführer von ihm erwartet. Seinem Blick entgeht das Kleinste nicht, und für Seinen Plan ist nichts entbehrlich und geringe — הלא צבא לאנוש על ארץ, "in Heeresdienst ist jeder hienieden" כל ימי צבאי איחל עד בוא חליפתי müssen "ausharren bis zur Ablösung, wo Gott uns abruft und uns auf einen anderen Posten führt". — (Job. 7,1. 14,14.)

ויכל אלהים ביום השביעי AND ON THE SEVENTH DAY GOD FINISHED — R. Simeon says: A human being (literally, flesh and blood) who cannot know exactly his times and moments (who cannot accurately determine the point of time that marks the division between one period and that which follows it) must needs add from the week-day and observe it as the holy day (the Sabbath), but the Holy One, blessed be He, who knows His times and moments, began it (the seventh day) to a very hair’s breadth (with extreme exactness) and it therefore appeared as though He had completed His work on that very day (Genesis Rabbah 10:9). Another explanation: What did the world lack? Rest! Sabbath came — Rest came; and the work was thus finished and completed (Genesis Rabbah 10:9)!

ויכל אלוקים ביום השביעי, at the beginning of the seventh “day,” a moment which is indivisible from the time frame which follows, so that both the six previous “days” were an entity in themselves, and the seventh day was a totally self-contained entity. Our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 10,9 describe G’d as knowing the precise moment between the sixth and seventh day and describe it as “thin as a hair’s breadth.” [I believe the problem confronting the sages was the statement that G’d had completed all His work in the six days, and yet the Torah speaks of Him completing, ויכל, His work on the ”seventh” day, something that appears to be a contradiction to the former statement. Ed.]

ויכל אלוקים ביום השביעי. G'd completed on the seventh day. The plain meaning of the verse is to tell us that G'd did not engage in creational activities that the Torah has not mentioned after that date. The term כלה, completed, includes anything that had been in G'd's mind to do. It also means that G'd did not only desist from work on that Sabbath, but that He did not resume activity on the following six days.

ויכל ביום השביעי, by the time the seventh day had started, all G’d’s work had been completed so that there was no creative activity left for G’d to perform on the seventh day. It is therefore technically correct to state that the meaning of the words is that G’d’s work had been completed, and completion of work cannot be termed “work.” The meaning of the words אשר עשה, therefore is that “all the creative activities which G’d had performed during the preceding six “days” had been terminated with the advent of the seventh day, so that there was nothing left to be done on that day.” We have similar constructions in the Torah, for instance in Exodus 12,16 ביום הראשון תשביתו שאור, which means that on that day leavened things should be in a state of having been destroyed, banished. (compare Pessachim 5) וישבות, He discontinued, what He had completed (שבת).

This is an additional reason. Just as someone who completes construction of his house will rejoice and celebrate even if his house is not so beautiful, so God blessed the day on which He completed His Creation.

ויכל אלוקים ביום השביעי, “G’d completed on the seventh day, etc.” Although G’d knows exactly when the sixth day ends and the seventh day commences, to the onlooker it might appear as if the seventh day had already started. According to the plain meaning of the text, the line means that whatever G’d did on the seventh day was the completion of the seven days of creation.

R. Shimon said, flesh and blood who cannot know... Rashi is answering the question: ויכל אלהים ביום השביעי implies that Hashem worked even on the seventh day, but concluded the work then. Yet it is written, “He abstained on the seventh day,” implying that He did no work at all. [Thus Rashi explains, “It appears as if He concluded His work on that very day.”]

Mit dem Begriffe צבא steht ein anderer, der uns in diesem Vers entgegentritt, in engster Beziehung. Es wird alles, was Gott geschaffen: מלאכתו genannt. מלאכה ist nicht Arbeit, מלאכה ist Werk. Arbeit sieht nur auf die Mühe, auf die größere oder geringere Anstrengung einer Thätigkeit ohne Rücksicht auf das Produkt; Werk hat nur dies, das Erzeugte, Erwirkte, das Ziel und Produkt der Tätigkeit, im Auge. מלאכה ist aber nichts als das Femininum von מלאך. Was מלאך persönlich ist, das ist מלאכה sachlich. Wie מלאך ein Bote, der Träger und Vollbringer des Gedankens und der Absicht eines Andern ist, so ist מלאכה eine Sache, die Träger und Vollbringer des Gedankens und der Absicht einer Intelligenz geworden. Jeder Stoff, dem eine Intelligenz eine, einem bestimmten Zweck entsprechende Form verleiht, wird eben durch diese von ihr erhaltene Form ihre מלאכה, ihr sachlicher Bote, dienstbarer Träger ihres Gedankens und Zweckes. Es waren z. B. Weidenzweige, als solche hatten sie gar keine Bestimmung und standen dem verschiedenartigsten Gebrauche frei. Ich flechte sie zu einem Korbe. Fortan dienen die Zweige ausschließlich dem Zwecke, dem ich sie durch meine Formgebung dienstbar gemacht und helfen ihn fördern. Die von mir zum Korbe geflochtenen Zweige sind damit mein sachlicher מלאך, meine מלאכה geworden. Im weiteren Sinne heißen alle im Dienste einer Intelligenz stehende Dinge ihre מלאכה, so Jakob׳s Eigentum: לרגל המלאכה אשר לפני B. M. 33,14. לרגל המלאכה אשר לפני. Es ist klar, dass nur2 eine Intelligenz, Gott, und tief unter ihm, der Mensch eine מלאכה schaffen könne. Wenn das Tier eine מלאכה schafft, so wird seine Tätigkeit nur durch die Intelligenz des Menschen eine מלאכה, die sich seiner Kräfte als Werkzeug bedient. Alles Seiende wird hier ׳מלאכת א genannt. Es ist nicht nur an sich mit seinem Dasein die Verwirklichung eines Gottesgedankens, הגה — היה; sondern es ist fort und fort Träger und Verwirk- licher der ihm eingeprägten und durch es zur Verwirklichung kommenden Gottesgedanken. Das einem Jeden vom Schöpfer zuerteilte Maß von Stoff und Kraft und die einem Jeden vom Schöpfer aufgeprägte Form macht ein Jedes zu ׳מלאכת ד. "Sein" und "Wirken" im ganzen Weltall ist nichts als Gottes Gedanken und Gottes Botschaft. Alle menschliche Wissenschaft sucht nichts als diesen seienden und wirkenden Wesen die Gottesgedanken ihres Wesens und ihrer Sendung abzulauschen, und erst dann glaubt der Mensch etwas zu wissen, wenn es ihm halbwegs gelungen, den Dingen eine Spur dieser göttlichen Gedanken abzugewinnen. Der Gott leugnende Naturforscher, der sein Leben daran setzt, den "Gedanken in der Natur" forschend nachzugehen, deckt mit jedem Gesetz, das er einer Kraft, mit jedem Zweck, den er einer Form ablauscht, eine Spur des Gottes auf, den sein Mund verleugnet; ja, er verleugnet seine Leugnung schon mit dem ersten Schritte, den er zu seiner forschenden Wanderung im Gebiete der Natur ansetzt; das Ziel, das er sucht, setzt schon den von ihm geleugneten Gott voraus, der die Gedanken gedacht und in der Natur verwirklicht haben muss, die aufzufinden seine Sehnsucht ist, deren Ahnung ihn leitet, und deren Auffindung ihn mit hoher Freude erfüllt.

ויכל אלוקים ביום השביעי, “the Lord had completed on the seventh day;” at first glance this wording gives the impression as if G-d had still been working on the seventh day; seeing that on the sixth day it had not yet been known that this was the last day on which G-d performed creative activities, there is no contradiction. This became known only in retrospect on the seventh day through G-d’s abstaining from any such activity.

וישבות ביום השביעי, G’d’s inactivity on the seventh day set it apart from the previous six days.

This is a third reason. Someone who undertakes working at some task for a period of time will be pleased when he completes that period even if the job is not complete. God undertook to create the world in six days and when that designated time was over He made that day special and blessed it.

מכל מלאכתו, this means that after the sixth “day” G’d did not “create,” ברא, anything new. When the Torah used the expression וישבות, which gives the impression that G’d “retired” into inactivity, this is not accurate; the Torah used terminology that we humans can relate to. There is of course, no such things as יגיעה, fatigue, exhaustion, in connection with G’d. He is, by definition “tireless.” Compare Isaiah 40,28 who describes G’d as לא יעף ולא יגע, expressing exactly these sentiments. Creating the universe was not something tiresome for G’d. Another way of understanding the word וישבות, would be ויפסק, “He stopped, terminated.” This would also fit with Exodus 12,15 תשביתו שאור, “terminate leavened things!”

It can enter into it. I.e., the work enters into Shabbos.

We must pay close attention to the apparently superfluous words אשר עשה, "which He had done." We must also explore the meaning of the words ביום השביעי, "on the seventh day," which suggest that G'd did perform work on the seventh day but that "He completed it on that day." This was not so, but He had completed all His work already on the sixth day. Our sages already felt the need to correct the impression that G'd had still performed creational work on the seventh day. Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, quoted by Rashi and Bereshit Rabbah 10,9, says that human beings who do not know time accurately commence their Sabbath a few minutes early in order not to desecrate it. G'd who is aware of precisely when the Sabbath starts, can afford to do His work until the last second. Even allowing for Rabbi Shimon's comment, the word ביום in that verse is not adequately explained. This word creates the impression that G'd ceased work on the seventh day. Actually, according to our sages the word ביום is justified.

Es waren also der Himmel und die Erde und ihr ganzes Heer von Gott zum Ziele geführt, nicht nur das Weltall im Ganzen, jedes Einzelne auch, das in diesem Weltenraume von Gott auf seinen Posten gestellt, ist für diesen Posten von Gott, der es dahin gestellt, mit Kraft und Bildung ausgerüstet — "da vollendete Gott mit dem siebenten Tage sein Werk, das er gemacht hatte, und mit dem siebenten Tage hörte Gott von jeglichem seinem Werke, das er gemacht hatte, auf." Bei dieser Einsetzungs-Urkunde des Sabbats in die Schöpfung müssen wir uns wieder vergegenwärtigen, dass dem Volke, welchem sie eingehändigt wurde, bereits das Gesetz theoretisch und praktisch völlig bekannt und somit in erster Linie auch die Bedeutung des siebenten Tages, als Denkmal für die Weltschöpfung und die Stellung des Menschen in derselben und zu derselben unter Gott, völlig klar war. Ohne diese vorausgesetzte Bedeutung des siebenten Tages für die Gottes- und Selbst-Kenntnis des Menschen wäre das, was hier von dem siebenten Tage ausgesagt wird, die Vollendung der Schöpfung durch ihn, sein Segen und seine Heiligung durchaus unverständlich. Die sichtbare Welt war mit dem sechsten Tage vollendet, allein erst mit dem siebten Tage, durch die Einsetzung des siebten Tages für die Erziehung des Menschen zur Wahrheit und Sittlichkeit, vollendete Gott in Wahrheit sein Werk, und erst mit ihm, mit seiner Einsetzung und der durch ihn gesicherten Erziehung des Menschen für seinen großen Beruf, hörte Gott von jeglichem seiner Werke auf. Mit der Einsetzung des Sabbats erhielt erst jedes Werk der sichtbaren Schöpfung — nicht nur der Mensch — seine letzte Vollendung. Der Sabbat war der letzte Finger, den der Schöpfer an jedes seiner Werke, das er in die sichtbare Welt hinausgebildet hatte, legte. Denn der Bestand und die Bestimmung eines jeden seiner Werke ist an die Verwirklichung des Sabbats im Schoße der Menschheit geknüpft. Keine Kluft ist zwischen der physischen Natur und der sittlichen Welt und Bestimmung des Menschen. In die sichtbare physische Welt hinein hat Gott den Sabbat als ihr Ziel und ihre Vollendung gesetzt. "Adamah", Boden und Bereich des Gott ebenbildlichen, die Welt nach Seinem Willen sittlich verwaltenden Menschen zu sein, ist die Bestimmung der Erdwelt; ihm, dem "Adam", ist sie wie die Gattin dem Gatten angetraut; die ganze physische Welt jauchzt auf und blüht mit der sittlich heiteren Blüte des Menschengeschlechts, sie trauert und welkt, wenn das Menschengeschlecht sittlich welk wird und entartet. Das ist eine Wahrheit, die durch das ganze Gotteswort bis zum letzten Propheten führt, sie wurzelt in unserer Sabbaturkunde. Mit dem Menschen-Sabbat vollendete Gott die Schöpfung; die Bestimmung für den Menschen-Sabbat war das letzte, was Gottes Finger jedem seiner geschaffenen Werke aufdrückte.

השביעי, “The seventh;” this day too has the prefix ה, as it was a day reserved for rest from physical activity, something that is taboo on all the other days.

And it appears. I.e., it appears to people as if Hashem concluded His work on that day, but it is not really so. Thus, “Elohim completed on the seventh day” describes the appearance, not the reality.

They claim that until the Sabbath the world was trembling and shaking until the advent of the Sabbath. On the seventh day G'd gave the earth מנוחה, tranquillity (compare Rashi's second comment on our verse). On the Sabbath G'd created the "soul" of the world, and that is the deeper meaning of the words וביום השביעי שבת וינפש, and on the seventh day He rested and retreated to His Essence. Although our sages have interpreted the word וינפש as a lament about the withdrawal of the additional soul G'd grants to the Jewish people on each Sabbath (Beytzah 17) this is merely homiletics. They base that on the unusual construction וינפש (passive or reflexive) instead of merely, ונפש (ordinary intransitive). The plain meaning is undoubtedly that שבת וינפש, because He rested on the Sabbath and with it the soul arrived. This means that all creatures were granted an abundance of vitality, something they had lacked previously.

וישבת. Der Begriff Ruhe erschöpft die Bedeutung der Wurzel שבת nicht. שבת ist keine absolute Untätigkeit, שבת ist das Aufhören einer bis dahin stattgefundenen Tätigkeit. Die Lautverwandtschaft dieser Wurzel mit שבט ,שפר ,שפט ,שפת ,שות, lässt jedoch noch eine positive Seite ihrer Bedeutung erkennen. Alle diese Wurzeln vereinigen sich in der Bedeutung: an die gehörige Stelle, in die gehörige Stellung bringen und halten, daher: setzen, ordnen, richten, Bratspieß und Stab. Daher dürfte auch שבת einen solchen "Halt" in einer bisherigen Tätigkeit bedeuten, durch welchen Personen und Dinge in der ihnen gebührenden Stellung gehalten bleiben. Die durch שבת ihr Ende findende Tätigkeit ist daher entweder immer eine störende, gährende, wie והשבתי גאון זדים ,תשביתו חמץ ,משבית מלחמות ,והשבתי חיה רעה dergl. oder eine an noch unfertigen, erst noch zu vollendenden Zuständen arbeitende, wie .שביתה ממלאכה וישבת ביום השביעי מכל מלאכתו וגוי mit dem siebten Tage hörte Gott von allem von ihm geschaffenem Werke auf; denn mit dem siebten Tage hatte Jedes die Stellung in der Schöpfung erreicht, die es dort immer einnehmen sollte; Gotte hörte auf, weil keine Veränderung mehr notwendig war. Und auch den Menschen soll der שבת sich und die Welt in ihrer wahren Stellung betrachten lehren, ja, wenn die Wochenarbeit das gewesen, was sie nach dem Ausdruck des Sabbatgesetzes gewesen sein soll, — ששת ימים עבודה - תעבוד ועשית כל מלאכתך, im Dienste Gottes vollbracht — so sieht sich der Mensch mit jedem Sabbat am Ziele, er lässt die Hand vom Werk, weil er nach Gottes Willen das Seinige gethan, und mit dem Sabbat das vollbrachte Tagewerk Gott huldigend zu Füßen gelegt — sein Sabbat ist in Wahrheit: שבת.

Another explanation: What was the world lacking? Rest. You might ask: Why cannot the world exist without [a day devoted to] rest? Will heaven and earth otherwise cease to exist? The answer is: In fact they would [cease to exist], for Rashi explained above (1:1) that בראשית means that the world was created for the Torah which is called ראשית דרכו. And without a day of rest, Jews would not have time all week to engage in Torah study. Thus Hashem created Shabbos on which work is forbidden, giving them time to study Torah. Consequently, the existence of heaven and earth is due to rest.

We find a similar idea in the Zohar-Tazria (page 13 Sullam edition) as to why the rite of circumcision cannot be performed before the eighth day, and why an animal is not fit to serve as a sacrifice until the eighth day of its life. In either case one has to wait until at least one Sabbath has passed so that each has attained a נפש, a soul full of vitality. Our verse then describes G'd as putting the finishing touch to His creation by bringing on the Sabbath, not by creating on the Sabbath. The reason the Torah repeats once more מכל מלאכתו אשר עשה, from all His work which He had done, is to emphasise that this work had been done previously, i.e. before the onset of the Sabbath. The word ויכל therefore refers to activity carried out previously. All that had been lacking was something that would give permanence to this universe of ours. The seventh day, i.e. the Sabbath, completed the cycle that provides this permanence. We are therefore entitled to view the Sabbath as one of the seven days of creation. The proof that we are correct may be the very fact that we do not find the usual: "it was evening it was morning the seventh day," meaning there was no בריאה on that day.

The work was completed and finished. This explains why it is written, “Elohim completed on the seventh day,” since rest was created on the seventh day and all the work was completed. [At the same time, “He abstained on the seventh day,”] because rest is only an act of abstaining and not actual work. (Re’m) Rashi’s second explanation [that the world lacked rest], raises a question: Why does it say מלאכתו אשר עשה implying that Hashem did actual work? Thus Rashi gives the first explanation. And his first explanation, [that it entered by a hairbreadth,] raises a question: Why is it not written, “Elohim completed on the sixth day”? Therefore Rashi gives both explanations. (Maharshal) [You might ask:] How can the terms “creation” and “work” apply to rest, which is only an act of abstention [passive] and does not involve a physical action? It seems [that the answer is]: Had Hashem not added the seventh day to the days of creation, the nature of man and other creatures would be to work day and night without cease. Resting would not be part of nature, and the body of man would wear out, leaving the world empty and desolate. But by adding the seventh day, on which Hashem abstained from work and rested, it became part of the world’s nature to rest and refresh oneself, regaining strength. [Thus, it is part of creation.] (Nachalas Yaakov)

וישבות ביום השביעי. He rested on the seventh day. Here too we must ask for the reason the Torah wrote these lines as they seem to contain the same message as the words immediately prior to them.

Perhaps we have to explain these words in connection with Pessachim 54 according to which there were phenomena which were created at dusk on Friday afternoon but which could not be completed before the arrival of the Sabbath. According to our sages some of these phenomena became destructive agents in the universe as a result. This is an amazig statement in view of the tradition that G'd is able to create whole worlds in the time it takes to blink an eyelid! How can one suggest that the Creator ran out of time and was unable to complete His work?! We have explained already at the beginning of the פרשה that G'd created every part of the universe simultaneously. The words מכל מלאכתו suggest that G'd did not complete even such work as was already in progress.

What our sages had in mind when they told us about these phenomena and the time they were created is that G'd wanted us to know something about the importance of the Sabbath and the way it is to be observed. Halachah distinguishes between the rules of what is allowed on Friday afternoon close to the Sabbath and what is not. If work has been under way and it awaits only completion there are certain categories of work which may be completed under such circumstances, especially if they are performed in honour of the Sabbath or if financial loss is suffered if one does not complete the work before the Sabbath. If such work has not even been commenced it may not be undertaken until after the Sabbath. In the example in Pessachim the sages taught us that G'd desisted from completing even work He had already begun while it was still the sixth day. This in spite of the fact that non-completion would result in grievous loss to the universe, a loss which was beyond retrieving. This is what the word וישבות alludes to after we had already heard ויכל, that G'd completed creating. Not only did G'd not undertake something new, He did not even complete something that was in the process of coming into being. The reason this word is repeated is also to tell us that it was not G'd's inability to complete an undertaking on time. One of the reasons G'd's activities on each day during the days of creation are always followed by the statement "it was evening, it was morning, etc.," is to mark the contrast with the Sabbath concerning which no such statement is recorded.

ויברך … ויקדש AND GOD BLESSED … AND HE SANCTIFIED — He blessed it through the Manna, that on all other days of the week there should fall for them (the Israelites) an Omer for each person, whereas on the sixth day there should fall twice as much of that bread. So, too, He sanctified it through the Manna, that it should not fall at all on the Sabbath (Genesis Rabbah 11:2). This verse is written here with reference to what would happen in the future.

AND G-D BLESSED THE SEVENTH DAY AND HE SANCTIFIED IT. He blessed it through the Manna. [On all other days of the week there fell one portion per person, whereas on the sixth day — the eve of the Sabbath — a double portion fell.] And He sanctified it through the Manna [by not having it fall on the Sabbath]. And the verse is written here with reference to the future. Thus are the words of Rabbeinu Shlomo [Rashi] as quoted from Bereshith Rabbah.²⁴¹11:2. In the name of the Gaon Rav Saadia²⁴²Mentioned in Ibn Ezra here. they have said that the blessing and sanctification refer to those who observe the Sabbath, meaning that they will be blessed and sanctified. However, from the intimation of the verse it does not appear that it refers to something which will happen in the future.
And Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra said that the blessing signifies additional well-being, that on the seventh day there is a renewal of procreative strength in the body, and in the soul, a greater capacity in the functioning of the reasoning power. And He sanctified it by not working on it as He did on the other days. Now Ibn Ezra’s interpretation is correct to those who believe in it for this additional well-being he speaks of is not perceptible to human senses.
The truth is that the blessing on the Sabbath day is the fountain of blessings and constitutes the foundation of the world. And He sanctified it that it draw its sanctity from the Sanctuary on high. If you will understand this comment of mine you will grasp what the Rabbis have said in Bereshith Rabbah²⁴³11:9. concerning the Sabbath: [“Why did He bless the Sabbath? It is] because it has no partner,”²⁴⁴“Because it has no…” (l’phi sh’e) is a direct quote from the Midrash there. (See Theodore’s ed. of Bereshith Rabbah, p. 95, variants.) In the printed edition of the Midrash, the word l’phi (because) is missing. and that which they have further related [that G-d said to the Sabbath]: “The congregation of Israel will be thy partner.” And then you will comprehend that on the Sabbath there is truly an extra soul.

ויברך אלוקים את יום השביעי , when the seventh day arrived, G’d had already created and placed in position all the needs of His creatures, including their food supply, so that it turned out that the Sabbath day was blessed with everything good. (compare author’s comment on Exodus 20,10) [I assume that this comment is based on the fact that if G’d had not created anything on that day, and especially, seeing the comment is written completely out of context, it must have referred to something which had occurred previously. Ed.]

ויברך אלוקים את יום השביעי, this refers not only to the first Sabbath but to all subsequent Sabbath days. G’d endowed every Sabbath with this blessing so that it would more readily accommodate the additional “soul” He grants Jews on that day. Job 33,30 describes this phenomenon as לאור באור החיים, “designed that he may bask in the light of life.” Our sages (Beytzah 16) state that the words שבת וינפש in Exodus 31,17 refer to the loss of this additional soul at the end of the Sabbath.

ויברך אלוקים את יום השביעי. G'd blessed the seventh day. We need to know the exact nature of this blessing which the Torah does not spell out in this instance. Our sages (Mechilta Exodus 20,3) suggested that the blessing was the fact that while the Jewish people were in the desert an extra portion of manna descended on Fridays and they did not have to pick it up on the Sabbath. Such allusions are, of course, not the plain meaning of the verse. The plain meaning of the verse has nothing to do with isolated events two and half millenia in the future.

Just as holy objects may not be used for one's personal gain, so also Shabat is holy and may not be used for one's livelihood or any other personal profit. The reason for this is that God rested on that day. The first two reasons mentioned above are not relevant, only the third. (See H.D. on "Remember the Sabbath day" (Shemot 20:8-11) and "Observe the Sabbath" (Shemot 31:16-17) where I explain that the reason in each case is precisely suited to the subject.)

ויברך, this refers to the addition of something beneficial. The seventh day is distinguished by the fact that it enjoys additional good, i.e. additional Divine blessings. These consist of the fact that the Jew is afforded an opportunity to study Torah in a quiet unhurried setting, allowing him to derive the maximum benefit from such study. G’d extended this blessing at the time when He commanded the Jewish people to observe this day as a day of “rest” by sanctifying that day.

ויברך ויקדש, “He blessed and sanctified.” Rashi explains that the words ויברך ויקדשrefer to the manna. During the weekdays one omer of manna per person fell from the heavens, and on the Sabbath eve twice the amount, so that the Sabbath was sanctified by no manna descending. Rav Saadyah gaon explains that the blessing and sanctity are granted to those who observe the Sabbath in accordance with halachah. Ibn Ezra explains the blessing bestowed on the Sabbath as additional strength granted to the bodies to enable them to procreate and the additional mental and spiritual dimension known as נשמה יתירה, “additional soul,” which Jews enjoy on that day.

He blessed it through the manna... but on the sixth dayou might ask: Why is this a blessing? It would be a blessing if there was more on Shabbos than during the week, yet Shabbos had only an omer per person like the other days. An answer is: The manna that fell each day was a blessing, for it is written, “and sanctified it,” [meaning] that Shabbos was sanctified and no manna fell then. Nonetheless it had the blessing of the manna, for the sixth day was doubly blessed. Thus, “He blessed it” means that the blessing was not interrupted on Shabbos. (Re’m) An additional answer is: “He blessed it through the manna” means the manna did not spoil. On other days, leftover manna would spoil by the next day, as it is written (Shemos 16:20), “Some men left some over until morning. It became wormy and putrid.” However, if people would eat only a half omer [on Friday], and leave an omer and a half for Shabbos, it would not spoil. This is Shabbos’ additional blessing. (Maharshal) It seems, [as an additional answer,] that the blessing [of Shabbos] was the manna’s increasing and sufficing for three meals, while the other days the manna yielded enough for only two meals. (Divrei Dovid) It is amazing that in recounting the world’s Creation, it would say “blessed” and “sanctified” just because of the short time — forty years — that the manna came down. Thus it seems that this teaching means as follows: Hashem sanctified the Shabbos as a day that we may not do anything for material needs, such as work and business, nor even walk and speak in the same manner as he does during the week. Thus, due to our evil inclination which will tell us, “What shall we eat... we will not sow, and we will not gather in our produce!” (Vayikra 25:20) the Torah first tells us: “Elohim blessed the seventh day.” I.e., Hashem doubled the blessing on the sixth day so that the day of Shabbos may then be sanctified, and no work need be done. Otherwise a person might think he will lack bread, and be unable to restrain himself in the face of monetary loss. And this blessing and sanctity was not only with the manna. But each Shabbos, Hashem proclaims: “Borrow on Me [i.e., on My credit] and I will pay” (Beitzah 16b), involving blessing and sanctity. The manna was mentioned because we saw with our own eyes its great miracle of “The one who had taken less, was not lacking” (Shemos 16:18). And since there was no one to keep Shabbos at the time of Creation, for the mitzvah had not yet been given, Rashi commented, “This verse is written with reference to the future,” meaning when the Jews will keep Shabbos, not only in the time of the manna. (Nachalas Yaakov)

ברך, segnen, wie oben bei der Tier- und Menschen-Schöpfung. Gott stattete den siebten Tag mit der Kraft des Gedeihens, der Blüte, der Vermehrung, der immer reicheren Fülle des von ihm zu Erzeugenden, mit der Kraft der Erreichung seiner hohen Bestimmung an dem Menschen aus, ויקדש אותו: und stellte ihn hoch und heilig, unantastbar ewig und unvergänglich hin. קדש drückt die völlige, von keinem Gegensatz mehr erreichbare Entschiedenheit, das Absolute, aus. Daher קדוש: die völlige, von keiner Trübung mehr erreichbare Hingebung an alles Gute und Edle, jener sittliche Zustand, in welchem gar kein Kampf mehr mit dem Sinnlichen vorhanden ist, und קדש die entgegengesetzte völlige Hingebung an das Sinnliche, in welchem der Widerstand der besseren sittlichen Natur völlig erloschen. (Vgl. כבוד: der Eindruck des geistigen Gehalts, und כבד des materiellen; שלום: die innere geistige Harmonie, und שלם: die materielle Ganzheit.) Daher ist קדוש auch das gegen alle Vergänglichkeit Geschützte. Das absolut Reine ist auch das absolut Ewige, והיה הנשאר בציון והנותר בירושלם קדוש יאמר לו כל הכתוב לחיים בירושלם (Jes. 4,3) מה קדוש לעולם קיים אף הם לעולם קיימים Sanhedrin 92, a.) (Der Gegensatz): חלל ,חול, das Getödtete, der Vergänglichkeit Verfallene.)

ויברך אלוקים את יום השביעי, “G-d blessed the seventh day.”[If I understand the author correctly, he does not understand the word ויברך here as in the immediate past, but as description of the state of the universe on that day as a result of its Creator having blessed it previously. Ed.] On this day the world was in a state of perfection full of everything positive, and fully satisfied. Compare Deuteronomy 5,14: אשר ברכך ה' אלוקיך תתן לו, “that the Lord your G-d has blessed you with, give him of it.” (the departing servant). This is also what we recite regularly in our prayers: “You have blessed it more than any other days.”

[...] "from all His work that God created to do/make." The explanation of this is that "to do/make" refers to the future. That is that the Holy-One-blessed-be-He renews every day anew the work of creation. And the renewal of the work of creation on the Sabbath day is prepared on the day before and on the Sabbath He refrains from that too; and that is the meaning of what is said "from all."

אשר ברא אלהים לעשות WHICH GOD IN CREATING HAD MADE — The work which should have been done on the Sabbath He did in the double work which He executed on the sixth day, as it is explained in Genesis Rabbah 11:9.

The plain meaning is that certain things in Creation were not yet complete. It was God's intention to create those things and then do the changes later. However, a deeper explanation of the word "to do" is that "doing" sometimes implies bringing an object to its ultimate purpose. This stage is the true "creation" of something because without its purpose it cannot be said to exist. (See also Bereshit 39:22 and 41:34.) Now the purpose of Creation is God's glory as Isaiah (43:7) says: "Everyone that is called by My name, and whom I created for My glory, I formed him, yea I made him." I have explained in Bamidbar (14:21) on the verse "However, as surely as I live, and as the glory of the Lord fills the earth" that God truly lives when Creation achieves its purpose and the world is filled with His glory. This goal is reached, however, only when God makes changes in Creation, either temporarily or permanently, which reveal Him as the Creator and Sustainer of the world. God causes those changes which are needed in each hour of need. All this is included in the words "His work that God created to do." God's personal Providence continues to create changes which bring the world to its ultimate perfection- being filled with His glory. See also the Introduction to H.D. (d) where I explain that man is commanded to bring glory to God by releasing the forces of nature contained in all things.

ויקדש אותו, the day was to be sacred in the sense that it is set apart from other days precisely because the Jewish people treat it as such. In other words, its sanctity is due to the way the Jewish people relate to it. This day constitutes a visible sign linking G’d and His people, i.e. that they, just as He, are holy through observing the Sabbath which by itself is testimony to the fact that G’d created the universe. It is a statement aimed at all of mankind announcing that the existence of the universe did not precede the existence of G’d. A researcher has stated that there is a fish in the ocean which does not swim on the Sabbath, spending the entire day resting near the beach or near a rock.
Our sages (Sanhedrin 65) describe the river Sambatyon as carrying huge stone down from the mountain every day of the week except on the Sabbath. This is why it is called Sabbatyon. They report further (Bereshit Rabbah Albeck edition pages 92-93) that the hostile Roman governor Turnusrufus asked Rabbi Akiva (in a sarcastic manner) how the Sabbath was different from the other days of the week. He answered: “what makes one warrior greater than another warrior?” Thereupon he told him that G’d had made it such. Turnusrufus enquired how Rabbi Akiva could prove this. Rabbi Akiva then told him about the strange phenomenon of the river Sambatyon resting on that day and not hurling stones down from the mountain. This simply proves that G’d, the Creator, has equipped His creatures with a sign indicating to them that the universe is the product of His creative activity, and had not preceded His existence. Our sages (Bereshit Rabbah 11,1) also explain the sequence of ויברך...ויקדש in our verse in this fashion when they say ברכו וקדשו במן, “He blessed it and sanctified it by means of the manna,” i.e. by the fact that on that day the manna did not descend from the celestial regions, seeing that G’d already provided a double portion on the previous day.

ויקדש אותו, “He sanctified it.” This day is not slated for work being performed as are the six working days.

The work which was to have been done on Shabbos Rashi knows this] because לעשות implies [doing in] the future. Otherwise it should have written, “Which Elohim had created and made.”

The fact is that this present world can function only on the basis of an adequate supply of life-sustaining food and drink. All man's physical needs are attained only through toil and a great deal of effort on his part. Such activities are of a very mundane nature. Inasmuch as G'd wanted to sanctify the Sabbath, He first bestowed a blessing on that day so that it should not be devoid of anything. Although the amenities of this "lower" world are not normally attained through asceticism, withdrawal into the four walls of the Torah academy, etc., but through preocccupation with the profane and the mundane, G'd provided His blessing so that not only would there be no lack of the physical comforts but an abundance. This abundance is expressed by the halachah requiring us to have two whole loaves of bread when reciting the benediction over the Sabbath meal, to eat at least three meals on that day, and to enjoy delicacies not eaten on the days of the week. One might have expected the blessing to be of a purely spiritual nature. By not mentioning a spiritual kind of blessing, the Torah alludes to the Sabbath having been endowed by G'd with blessings of a physical nature. This is also what the Zohar meant when it speaks about the abundance of all the six days of creation being channelled into the Sabbath.

WHICH G-D IN CREATING HAD MADE. The work which should have been done on the Sabbath, He did in the double work which He executed on the sixth day, as it is explained in Bereshith Rabbah.²⁴⁵11:10. So says Rashi.
Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra, however, explained simply that His work refers to the roots of all species to which He gave the power to make [i.e., to produce] after their own kind. [Thus the verse would translate: which G-d had created in order to make it.]
To me, the explanation appears to be that He rested from all His work which He created out of nothing; to make from it all the works mentioned on the six days. Thus the verse is stating that G-d rested from creating and forming — from the creation He created on the first day, and from the formation He formed on the rest of the days. And it is possible that the word la’asoth (to make) is connected with the expression above in the verse, that in it He rested from all His work which He created from making, [thus making the word la’asoth to be understood as mila’asoth (from making)]. So also are the verses: Until he ceased ‘lispor’²⁴⁶Genesis 41:49. (to count), which means milispor (until he left off counting); And they ceased ‘livnoth’ (to build) the city,²⁴⁷Ibid., 11:8. which means milivnoth; Take heed to yourselves, that ye go not up into the mount;²⁴⁸Exodus 19:12. Aloth (going up) should be understood as me’aloth (from going up). And they departed not ‘mitzvath’ (the commandment of the king,²⁴⁹II Chronicles 8:15. which should be understood as mimitzvath (from the commandment); and thus in many other cases.
Know that in the word la’asoth (to make, to do) is also included a hint that the six days of creation represent all the days of the world, i.e., that its existence will be six thousand years. For this reason the Rabbis have said:²⁵⁰Bereshith Rabbah 19:14. It is noteworthy here that Ramban’s explanation of the history of the world in terms of the six days of Creation was regarded with approval by many later authors. Bachya ben Asher (see my edition, I, pp. 54-6) and Menachem Ricanti copied it verbatim. Surprisingly it found its way into Egypt, and was wholly incorporated into the Midrash Rabbi David Hanagid, (Book of Exodus, pp. 201-2, ed. by A. Katz), grandson of Maimonides. “A day of the Holy One, blessed be He, is a thousand years.” Thus on the first two days the world was all water, and nothing was perfected during them. They allude to the first two thousand years when there was no one to call on the name of the Eternal. And so the Rabbis said:²⁵¹Avodah Zarah 9a. “The first two thousand years there was desolation.” However, there was the creation of light on the first day corresponding to the thousand years of Adam who was the light of the world²⁵²Yerushalmi Shabbath 2, 6: “The first man was the light [literally: the candle] of the world.” and who recognized his Creator. Perhaps Enosh did not worship idols²⁵³See further, 4:26, Rashi. until the death of the first man.
On the second day G-d said, ‘Let there be a firmament… and let it divide,’²⁵⁴Above, 1:6. for on that “day” [i.e., the second thousand-year period] Noah and his sons — the righteous ones —²⁵⁵See Note 225 above. were separated from the wicked, who were punished in water.
On the third day, the dry land appeared; plants and trees began growing, and fruits ripened. This corresponds to the third thousand-year period which begins when Abraham was forty-eight years old,²⁵⁶In Avodah Zarah 9a it appears that Abraham, at the end of the first 2000 years, was 52 years old. for then he began to call the name of the Eternal. A righteous shoot²⁵⁷Jeremiah 23:5. did then spring forth in the world for he attracted many people to know the Eternal, just as the Rabbis interpreted the verse: And the souls that they had gotten in Haran²⁵⁸Genesis 12:5. “These are the converts which they converted.” (Bereshith Rabbah 39:21.) — and he commanded his household and his children after him, and they shall keep the way of the Eternal, to do righteousness and judgment.²⁵⁹Ibid., 18:19. This course continued until his descendants received the Torah on Sinai and the House of G-d was also built on that “day,” and then all commandments — which are “the fruits” of the world — were affirmed.
Know that from the time twilight falls it is already considered as the following day. Therefore, the subject of every “day” begins somewhat before it, just as Abraham was born at the end of the second thousand years. And you will see similar examples for each and every day.
On the fourth day the luminaries — the large and the small and the stars — were created. Its “day,” in the fourth thousand-year period, began seventy-two years after the First Sanctuary was built and continued until one hundred seventy-two years after the destruction of the Second Sanctuary. Now on this “day,” the children of Israel had light,²⁶⁰Exodus 10:23. for the glory of the Eternal filled the house of the Eternal,²⁶¹I Kings 8:11. and the light of Israel became the fire upon the altar in the Sanctuary, resting there like a lion²⁶²So in Yoma 21b. Maharsha explains there the symbolism of the lion and the dog, that the first Sanctuary was built by King Solomon who was of the tribe of Judah, likened to a lion (see Genesis 49:9), while the second Sanctuary was built by the government of the Persians, symbolized by the dog (see Rosh Hashanah 4 a). consuming the offerings. Afterwards their light diminished and they were exiled to Babylon just as the light of the moon disappears before the birth of the new moon. Then the moon shone for them all the days of the Second Sanctuary, and the fire upon the altar rested on it like a dog.²⁶²So in Yoma 21b. Maharsha explains there the symbolism of the lion and the dog, that the first Sanctuary was built by King Solomon who was of the tribe of Judah, likened to a lion (see Genesis 49:9), while the second Sanctuary was built by the government of the Persians, symbolized by the dog (see Rosh Hashanah 4 a). And then the two luminaries disappeared towards eventide and the Sanctuary was destroyed.
On the fifth day the waters swarmed with living creatures and fowl flying above the earth. This was a reference to the fifth thousand-year period which began one hundred seventy-two years after the destruction of the Second Sanctuary since, during this millennium, the nations will have dominion, and man will be made as the fishes of the sea, as the creeping things, that have no ruler over them; they take up all of them with the angle, catch them in their net and gather in their drag,²⁶³Habakkuk 1:14-15. and no one seeks the Eternal.
On the sixth day in the morning, G-d said: ‘Let the earth bring forth the living creature after its kind, cattle and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after its kind.’²⁶⁴Above 1:24. Their creation took place before sunrise, even as it is written, The sun ariseth, they withdraw, and crouch in their dens.²⁶⁵Psalms 104:22. Then man was created in the image of G-d, and this is the time of his dominion, as it is written, Man goeth forth unto his work and to his labor until the evening.²⁶⁶Ibid., Verse 23. All this is an indication of the sixth thousand-year period in the beginning of which the “beasts,” symbolizing the kingdoms that knew not the Eternal,²⁶⁷Judges 2:10. will rule, but after a tenth thereof — in the proportion of the time from the first sparklings of the sun to the beginning of the day²⁶⁸In Pesachim 94a it is so explained that the time from the beginning of the day to the first sparklings of the sun is one tenth of the day. — the redeemer will come, as it is said concerning him, And his throne is as the sun before Me.²⁶⁹Psalms 89:37. This is the son of David, who was formed in the image of G-d, as it is written, And behold, there came with the clouds of heaven, one like unto a son of man, and he came even to the Ancient One of days, and he was brought near before Him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom.²⁷⁰Daniel 7:13-14., This will take place one hundred eighteen years after the completion of five thousand years,²⁷¹This corresponds to the year 1358 C.E. See my biography of Ramban, p. 141, for further discussion of this matter. that the word of the Eternal by the mouth of Daniel might be accomplished:²⁷²See Ezra 1:1. And from the time that the continual burnt-offering shall be taken away, and the detestable thing that causeth appalment set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days.²⁷³Daniel 12:11. Yamim here means “years.” Thus 172 years after the destruction of the Second Temple, the fifth millennium began. Add this to the 118 years after the beginning of the sixth millennium, and you have 1290 years, as mentioned in the verse.
It would appear from the change of days — from the swarms of the waters and the fowl created on the fifth day to the beasts of the earth created on the sixth day — that in the beginning of the sixth thousand-year period a new ruling kingdom will arise, dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly,²⁷⁴Ibid., 7:7. Rambam refers here to rise of Islam. and approaching the truth more than the preceding ones.
The seventh day which is the Sabbath alludes to the World to Come, “which will be wholly a Sabbath and will bring rest for life everlasting.”²⁷⁵Tamid VII, 4.
And may G-d guard us during all the days and set our portion with His servants, the blameless ones.

Gott segnete also den siebenten Tag und heiligte ihn, gab ihm die Kraft, die geistige und sittliche Erziehung des Menschengeschlechtes zu vollbringen und stellte diese Erziehung als das absolut Siegreiche, gegen alle Trübung und Vergänglichkeit unantastbar Gesicherte hin. Warum? "Weil er ja mit diesem Erziehungsmittel der Menschheit von allem seinem Werke aufgehört hatte", weil es das Letzte und seine Bestimmung ja das Ziel der ganzen geschaffenen Erdwelt ist, und Gott ja diese Erdwelt von vorn herein ins Dasein gerufen hatte, um dieses Ziel herbeizuführen. Wäre der Mensch unfrei wie die übrigen Geschöpfe, es wäre das Gotteswerk mit dem sechsten Tage abgeschlossen. Weil aber der Mensch frei geschaffen und diese ihn selbst über die Engel erhebende Freiheit notwendig auch die Möglichkeit des Irrtums und der Verirrung bedingt, der Mensch vielmehr zur freien Anerkenntniß des Wahren und freien Übung des Guten erst heranerzogen werden soll: so ist nun freilich Gottes Werk in der Natur geschlossen, allein sein Wirken in der Geschichte des Menschen und die Fortgestaltung der natürlichen Verhältnisse für dieses Erziehungsmittel seines Waltens in der Menschheit hat eben damit begonnen: ב׳ר יא׳) ממלאכת עולמו שבת ממלאכת צדיקים ורשעים לא שבת). Diese Erziehung des Menschengeschlechtes zu seiner geistigen und sittlichen Adamshöhe war aber dem Sabbat anvertraut, die ganze Folgegeschichte der göttlichen Waltungen und Offenbarungen haben gar keinen anderen Inhalt, als den Sabbat zum Siege zu führen und ihm — wie das die Weisen tief sinnig ausdrücken — immer mehr בני זוג, immer mehr ihm sich vermählende Träger zu schaffen. Darum segnete er ihn und heiligte ihn, und die Bürgschaft für die unabweisbare Erreichung dieses geistigen und sittlichen Zieles des Sabbats liegt darin, dass: אשר ברא א׳ לעשות ,dass Gott diese Welt nicht nur für dieses Ziel gestaltet, sondern sie, Stoff und Kraft derselben, für dieses Ziel geschaffen. Diese Wiederholung des אשר ברא am Schlusse der Sabbaturkunde und der Schöpfungsgeschichte ist der Granitfels, auf welchem das Ganze ruht. Derselbe Gott, der das geistig und sittlich freie Ziel der Menschheit gesetzt, derselbe Gott hat ja für dieses Ziel die ganze stoffliche, sinnliche und geistige Welt — ש מאין׳ — frei ins Dasein gerufen. Es kann somit in dieser ganzen Welt nichts sein, was diesem freien, geistigen und sittlichen Menschenziele hindernd in den Weg träte, ja was nicht ganz eigentlich diesem Ziel entspräche und seine Erreichung förderte. Diese allmälige Gewinnung des Menschen für das Wahre und Gute war von vornherein Gottes Absicht. Darum ist die Verwirklichung dieses Zieles das einzige, dem der Sieg unverlierbar sicher und gewiß ist. Die freie Erschaffung der Welt durch Gott aus nichts (הידוש העול) ist nicht nur der Grundstein aller menschlichen Wahrheit, sie ist auch und mehr noch der Grundstein aller menschlichen Sittlichkeit.

ויקדש אותו “He sanctified it;” according to Rashi, this refers to the fact that the manna would not descend to earth on that day. [Maybe Rashi means that the Sabbath rest is observed also in the celestial regions. Ed.] If you were to counter that on festival days the manna did not descend either, as we read in Exodus 6,26: וביום השביעי לא יהיה בו , and our sages in the Mechilta, (according to Rashi) claim that this verse was written only in order to include the day of Atonement and the other Festivals as days on which no manna descended, we have to remember that the festivals are frequently also referred to as Sabbaths, so that there was no need for a special verse to include those days as days on which the manna would not descend. A different exegesis of these words: the meaning of “He sanctified it,” is that no creative activity was to be performed on that day, seeing that the Creator Himself had abstained from carrying out such an activity on that day. The idea that a day known as שבת must be sanctified even if it is not the seventh day of the week, is demonstrated when the Torah in Leviticus 23,3 calls that day שבת שבתון, before adding that this is the reason that no work may be performed on it. The day of Atonement is also called שבת שבתון (Leviticus 16,31) although most of the time it does not occur on the seventh day of the week. It makes sense therefore that because it is also a שבת שבתון, the rules about work prohibition are identical to those occurring every week on the seventh day.

"That God created to do/make." To do/make from then on. He created them in the six days of creation, so that from then on every species would make its descendants, according to what they are.

אשר ברא אלוקים לעשות, “which G’d had created to be developed further.” According to Rashi the meaning is that work (of a creative nature) originally intended to be carried out only on the seventh day, was moved forward so that G’d performed it already on the sixth day. According to Ibn Ezra the verse tells us that G’d enabled the various creatures, including plants, to be able to procreate and ensure their continued existence on earth Nachmanides holds that as of this day G’d desisted from any creative activity which was known as בריאה, i.e. creating matter out of no tangible raw material, יש מאין, “ex nihilo.” The meaning of the additional word לעשות, is that G’d did not even put finishing touches to phenomena He had already created in their primitive state. Nachmanides adds that we should know that the expression ששת ימים does not only refer to the six days of creation in a literal sense, but to the entire projected length of time this universe is to endure, i.e. 6000 years. This is why our sages described the length of a “day” in terms of G’d’s calendar as equivalent to 1000 years of our calendar. During the first two days the universe consisted completely of water. These “days” are an allusion to the 2000 years described by our sages a tohu, a degree of chaos, seeing that nothing had been completed during these two “days.” Seeing that during these 2000 years no one proclaimed the name of the Living G’d, our sages described this era as תהו. The first day during which light had been created is basically the period of close to 1000 years during which Adam lived, It is quite possible that even Enosh did not turn to idolatry until Adam had died. The second day which saw the creation of the heavens, etc. also produced a Noach who, with his sons, was righteous, whereas the rest of mankind was doomed to destruction during that millennium. Mankind was destroyed by water, another sign that this was the dominating influence during that era. The third day, i.e. also the third millennium, saw the emergence of an Avraham who was 48 years of age at the beginning of that millennium. Avraham was the first human being who succeeded in attracting many people to worship G’d as the only deity. He had begun converting people years before G’d told him to leave Charan and to move to what was then the land of Canaan. It was also the millennium during the middle of which Torah was revealed to the Jewish people at Mount Sinai. It is important to remember that with the onset of dusk after sunset the following day has already begun. [Avraham’s being born in the year1952 after the creation of Adam is considered as if he had been born during dusk of the second “day,” a stage preparatory to the third day (millennium).] Observance of the commandments of the Torah is equivalent of “the World having produced its fruit.” The fourth day, (or millennium) during which the sun and moon were created also produced the first Temple which Solomon built in Jerusalem. (72 years into the third millennium). This millennium lasted until 172 years after the destruction of the first Temple. The day the Temple was consecrated was a day of light when heavenly fire descended to consume thousands of sacrifices. The glory of G’d filled the Temple and the heavenly fire was reposing on the altar as does a lion that has eaten his fill. In other words, Israel’s light shone forth at that time as did the sun when placed in orbit for the first time. From that time on Israel’s glory diminished fairly steadily culminating in exile of the people and the subsequent minor rally during which the second Temple was built, a period which can be best compared to the kind of night during which the moon is the only source of light available. The fifth day which produced most of the living creatures of the water and the birds of the sky, is symbolized by the fifth millennium, commencing 172 years after the destruction of the second Temple. This was an era to which the verse in Chabakuk 1,14-15 can be compared. The prophet there writes: ותעשה אדם כדגי הים כרמש לא מושל בו. כולה בחכה העלה יגורהו בחרמו ויאספהו במכמרתו עלכן ישמח ויגל. “You have made mankind like the fish of the sea, like creeping things that have no ruler. He has fished them all up with a line, pulled them up in his trawl and gathered them in his net. That is why he rejoices and is glad.” [The prophet complains about the apparent absence of G’d’s providence during this millennium when human beings were treated as if they were fish in the sea with no value to their lives. Ed.] This era did not produce men of caliber who sought the nearness of their Creator. (Isaiah 31,1) On the morning of the sixth day the earth produced various land-based mammals, all of this occurring prior to sunrise as alluded to in Psalms 104, 22 תזרח השמש יאספון ואל מעונתם ירבצון, “by the time the sun rises they came home and crouch in their dens.” Following this, man was created in the image of G’d on the sixth day (sixth millennium) Then commenced the period of man’s dominance as described in the subsequent verse in Psalms 104,23יצא אדם לפעלו ולעבודתו עדי ערב, “man then goes to his work, to his labour until the evening.” David describes the sixth millennium during the early part of which the “animals” roam the world more or less unimpeded. These “animals” are humans who do not know their Creator, and therefore are hardly better than animals. After man’s creation, described as part of sunrise, will come the redeemer, scion of the house of David, who has been made in the image of the Lord of whom it has been written: (Daniel 7,13) וארו עםי ענני שמיא כבר אנש אתה הוא ועד עתיק יומיא מטה וקדמוהי הקרבוהי ולה יהיב שלטן ויקר ומלכו, “and behold with the clouds of heaven, one like a man came; he came up to the Ancient of Days, and they brought him before Him. He gave him dominion, glory and kingship, peoples nations and languages.” [although our author is quoting Nachmanides he has left out several sentences, perhaps he did not have the updated text that we have nowadays thanks to Rabbi Chavell.] It would seem from the Torah’s terminology which uses the same words to describe two different scenarios, i.e. days and millennia, that at the beginning of the sixth millennium an especially powerful and violent nation will emerge, a nation and religion which will be more monotheistic than previous ones. [reference to Islam. Ed.] The seventh day is the Sabbath, which in terms of millennia describes the future known as עולם הבא, an idyllic state involving מנוחה rest in a positive sense, something which the sages speak about. Some commentators see in the word לעשות the opposite of עשה, i.e. something G’d had done already, a reference to the spiritually negative forces in the universe, the מזיקים, the potential for which G’d had created. The phenomena have not been equipped with a body, hence the word לעשות describes them in their incomplete state. Still other commentators see in the word לעשות instructions to existing phenomena such as earth, water, etc., [in other words “nature” Ed.] to continue the process as it no longer involved anything basically new. From now on man would be the product of his parents, a reproduction of the ongoing process here called לעשות. In the Midrash the wordלעשות is understood to refer to something G’d had deliberately omitted to create at the time, i.e. the רוח צפוני the north wind. This wind would be put to use when it is time to judge the idolaters in the future. G’d will challenge them by saying to them that if there is any substance to their deities, He challenges them to produce the north wind which He had left in reserve for their expertise. If they would prove unable to produce this north wind, they would be convicted of having worshipped totally useless phenomena as deities. The reason why the Torah does not conclude with the words ויהי ערב ויהי בוקר יום שביעי, “it was evening and morning the seventh day,” is that the Jewish people would honour the Sabbath by commencing it before the end of the sixth day, thus lending it an extra measure of sanctity.

כי בו שבת, for on it He rested, etc. Here too we must explore exactly what the Torah had in mind. We fall back on what we wrote earlier, that the world had lacked the ingredients which assured it of permanence until the Sabbath came into existence. Assuming that this was so, we must ask what had enabled the world to continue up until the Sabbath? Since the world obviously was able to carry on without the נפש it received on the Sabbath, why would its continued existence have been endangered only then?

"That God created to do/make." These are the ten things that were created on the eve of the Sabbath at twilight: [1] the mouth of the earth, [2] the mouth of the well, [3] the mouth of the donkey, [4] the rainbow, [5] the manna, [6] the letters, [7] the writing, [8] the tablets, [9] the grave of Moses and [10] the ram of Abraham, our father. [...] For all these God created to do miracles and mighty deeds. [...]

כי בו שבת, the word שבת when applied to G-d, cannot mean “He rested,” in the sense this term is commonly used, as we have it on the authority of Isaiah 40,28 that G-d never “grows faint or weary;” seeing that He did not have to exert Himself when creating the universe, why should He have been tired so that would have to “rest?” The word has to be understood as G-d having put a temporary stop to an activity. We find a similar term used when the regular descent on weekdays of the manna came to a halt after the Israelites had crossed the Jordan, (Joshua 5,12) before they commenced eating from the produce of the land of Canaan. Both events are reported there as having occurred on the same day. We also find the verb שבת used in the sense of an interruption Job 32,1 when Job’s friends interrupted their arguing with Job for three days out of their respect for his righteousness. An even better proof is Genesis 8,22, where G-d assures Noach after the deluge that the regular phenomenon of day and night following one another will never again be suspended, i.e. יום ולילה לא ישבתו, “day and night will occur without interruption.” Neither day nor night will take “a break from their routine.”

We find that G'd has revealed the answer to this question in the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20,11) where the Torah writes: כי ששת ימים עשה השם את השמים ואת הארץ This means that at the time G'd created the universe He invested it with only enough power to endure six days for reasons known only to Himself and some kabbalists. G'd created one day which would be able to invest the world with staying power for another six days. If G'd had not created the Sabbath, the Tohu Vavohu preceding those six days would have returned and G'd would have had to start the process of creation ex nihilo all over again. Due to the infusion of the "soul" of the Sabbath the universe was placed on a more permanent basis, enabled to renew its batteries, so to speak. The words ובו שבת, mean that by means of this special day, the Sabbath, He was able to rest from all His work. The work referred to is that which only G'd could perform namely to create ex nihilo, something out of nothing. Had it not been for the Sabbath and its נפש, G'd would have had to repeat the process of בריאה, creation. The word עשה refers only to תיקון, improvement, repair. G'd rested from both aspects of creative activity.

מכל מלאכתו אשר עשה, “from all His work;” a reference to the functioning henceforth of the earth and its inhabitants, i.e. living creatures developing and multiplying, trees producing fruit, etc. An alternative exegesis of the phrase; the word: לעשות at the end of this verse refers to the continuity of this process for as long as earth would exist. This would be the Torah’s, i.e. G-d’s answer, to the heretics who claim that G-d performs His activities on the Sabbath seeing that He allows it to rain and bring about the growing and ripening of trees and crops on that day. This is utter nonsense, as these processes had all been part of the directive given by G-d when these phenomena or creatures were first created. The Torah here states categorically that G-d does nothing of the sort. Proof of this is that the fact that manna which, because G-d had not created it, i.e. it had not descended to earth during the first six days of the universe, was also not allowed to descend on the Sabbath, and it also had never been seen until after the Jewish people had left Egypt; all this refutes the theory that G-d “works” on the Sabbath. Yet another exegesis of our verse: the emphasis in our verse is on the expression אשר ברא לעשות, instead of אשר עשה; we are told here that the various types of destructive forces with which the earth seems to abound at time, were only “created,” i.e. were only made possible by G-d, but were not developed into finished products, i.e. powered by Him. G-d did not have time to completely fashion those destructive forces until dusk on the sixth day when it had already turned dark, as Midrash Tanchuma (ancient version) tells us on B’reshit 17. According to this exegesis our verse refers only to the constructive phenomena that G-d had created while it was still daylight on the sixth day. The reason that the Torah, at the end of its report on G-d’s “activity” on the seventh day does not conclude with the words: “it was evening it was morning,” is that there had been no evening; the entire Sabbath had been a day bathed in full light. (B’reshit Rabbah,11,2.)

When viewed in this light we can understand the statement of our sages that by reciting the benediction over wine on the Sabbath one becomes a partner to G'd in His creation of the universe (Shabbat 119). At first glance these words appear very forced. Who has ever heard of man becoming a retroactive partner in G'd's handiwork, something that He had long since completed? Besides, the act of reciting this paragraph from the Torah does not appear to be such a world-shaking effort that it would qualify us to become G'd's "partners!" What is the source of the statement in the Talmud? If the sages meant that the reward for reciting Kiddush is so great, should it not be awarded in public such as longevity, wealth, and physical prowess being granted to Sabbath-observers?

When we keep in mind my explanation thus far, it will be seen that the Talmud's statement is indeed most appropriate. In view of the fact that the Sabbath provides a secure existence for the six days following it after which another Sabbath repeats the same function, it follows that the very existence of the Sabbath equates with the existence of the universe. Unless there are people who observe the Sabbath there is no Sabbath, i.e. its existence has lost its meaning. Our rabbis have legislated that when one's life is in danger unless one desecrates a law of the Sabbath, one should desecrate a single Sabbath in order to remain alive and observe many subsequent Sabbaths. Assuming that there were no other Sabbath-observers at the time, what good would it do for the person whose life was in to skip the one Sabbath? The world would disintegrate before he would have a chance to observe another Sabbath! It follows that only Sabbath-observers keep the universe going. Therefore the Sabbath-observers have become G'd's "partners" by ensuring that G'd's universe survives for another six days. Observing the Sabbath means to preserve its holiness according to all its laws and customs. Ever since the creation of man the world did not lack at least one person who observed the Sabbath. Adam did so, his son Sheth, and many righteous people after him. Whenever one righteous person died, G'd had already arranged for another righteous person to be born. This chain of individual Sabbath-observers continued through Methusela, Noach, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, etc., until the Jewish people introduced collective Sabbath-observance. According to our sages, The Israelites observed the Sabbath even while in exile in Egypt (Shemot Rabbah 1,32). The word בהבראם, when they were created, is the reminder that whatever the earth or the waters produced was possible only due to the act of creation G'd performed on the day they were created themselves.

When we wrote earlier (2,1) that the spherical world is kept in balance and thus in existence due to the desire of the respective creatures to cleave to the light which surrounds this sphere provided by the Creator, this does not contradict what we have written. Were it not for the Sabbath, no creature would have had sufficient intelligence and desire to want to cleave to the Creator. On that day they were provided with the potential to produce what they produced subsequently.

אלה THESE [ARE THE GENERATIONS] — “These” means those that are mentioned above.

THESE ARE THE GENERATIONS OF THE HEAVEN AND THE EARTH WHEN THEY WERE CREATED. Scripture now relates the account of the heaven and the earth as regards rain and growth after they had been created and put in proper order, that the heavens shall give their dew²⁷⁶Zechariah 8:12. and rain, and the ground shall give her increase,²⁷⁶Zechariah 8:12. these making possible the existence of all living beings. And in the word b’hibaram (when they were created) — [which could be read as if it were two words: b’hei baram] — Scripture alludes to what the Rabbis have said:²⁷⁷Menachoth 29b., “He created them with the letter hei” [which is the last of the four letters of the Tetragrammaton]. It is for this reason that Scripture until this point mentioned only the word Elokim. This is explained in the verse: For all these things hath My hand made;²⁷⁸Isaiah 66:2. The last letter (hei) of the Tetragrammaton is in the Cabala considered the yad hashem (the hand of G-d). See my Hebrew commentary, p. 32. and so did Job say, Who knoweth not among all these, that the hand of the Eternal hath wrought this?²⁷⁹Job 12:9. This being so, the expression, in the day that the Eternal G-d made, refers covertly to the word bereshith (in the beginning).²⁸⁰See Ramban above at the end of 1:1 and see also Note 64.

אלה תולדות השמים והארץ בהבראם. These are the plants and the living creatures which had been the potential derivatives of heaven and earth already at the time when heaven and earth were first created. The potential ability for heaven and earth to produce the inhabitants of their respective domains was inherent in their respective composition from the first moment of their existence. When the Torah, in its very first verse, wrote the words את השמים and את הארץ, this was already an allusion to the additional factors which had been created together with heaven and earth, i.e. their ability to produce their respective derivatives.

2.4. אלה תולדות השמים והארץ. These are the developments of the heavens and the earth. Our sages have already explained this verse homiletically. However, the plain meaning of the verse is not known.

אלה תולדות השמים והארץ, the word אלה refers to the phenomena mentioned during the 6 “days” of creation. Even though we have been told that G’d created the universe, as is clear from the verbs ויברא and ויעש all referring to G’d Himself doing these things, so where did the derivatives, תולדות come from? The Torah means that indeed G’d had created all these, but He had employed intermediaries, i.e. heaven and earth to whom He had issued directives. In Bereshit Rabbah 12,7 we are told לכל יש תולדות, everything has derivatives. We know that heaven and earth have derivatives. Rain has derivatives as it says in Job 38,28 do you know who is the father of rain, do you know who sired dew? [The concept being described is that none of these phenomena created themselves but were the product of something preceding them. Hence all phenomena that we perceive are derivatives of heaven or earth, which alone had been created by G’d directly, without intermediaries. Ed.]
Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said that pearls are derivatives of dew; he referred to the bedolach mentioned in verse 12 of our chapter. Basically, the message of our verse is that everything that does produce derivatives, offspring, is itself slated to die and to disintegrate. This fact is proof that it is a creature and not a creator. On the other hand, if a phenomenon in the universe does not produce derivatives, this is proof that the phenomenon is not mortal, not subject to dissolution but that we are faced with a Creator and not a creature. Rabbi Azaryah in the name of Rabbi added that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish’s comment was directed toward heaven, i.e. seeing that G’d is eternal and not subject to disintegration He needs no derivatives, “offspring” in order to perpetuate Himself. Everything which is a visible phenomenon is a derivative of either heaven or earth, seeing that the Torah commenced with the words בראשית ברא אלוקים את השמים ואת הארץ “First, G’d created heaven and earth.”
בהבראם, on the very day G’d created the heaven it already began to produce derivatives . This is the meaning of the words: ביום עשות ה' אלוקים ארץ ושמים. This is a reference to the day on which G’d confirmed that heaven was to be the upper waters, rakia, and earth was to be the dry land, yabashah. Starting with that day, heaven and earth each produced derivatives, i.e. a process of evolution began, one that followed rules set by G’d. The meaning of the word ביום is that this occurred simultaneously, i.e. both heaven and earth began this process on the same day, as we explained on Genesis 1,6. Our sages explained the reason for the minuscule letter ה in the word בהבראם as meaning that G’d had used the letter ה as His agent in creating the physical universe. (Bereshit Rabbah 12,10.) The peculiarity of that letter is that all the other letters in the Hebrew alphabet demand an effort to pronounce them, whereas the letter ה demands no effort. The use of this letter here symbolises that the work involved in creating the physical universe did not cause fatigue, etc., to the Creator.
ה' אלוקים, this combination of two names to describe G’d occurs here for the first time, not having occurred during the report of the creation. Our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 13,3 explain it as appropriate saying that now that the universe was complete, also G’d’s name had to be spelled out in full. Ibn Ezra writes (in his book יסוד מורא chapter 12 page 42) that seeing that in this world nothing is permanent and enduring except the soul of man, as long as man did not exist there was no point in revealing another facet to G’d’s name. The only aspect of G’d’s essence which was revealed until that point was the attribute of Justice, i.e. the attribute designed to instill awe in the creatures whom He had created.
The superior soul of man is called לב, heart; but the heart is both גוף and something over and beyond merely a physical organ pumping blood. It is called by a name describing something physical, seeing it is the original organ combining spiritual and physical features. Seeing that also all of G’d’s activities had been implemented by means of angels, disembodied agents at home in the celestial spheres, these angels bear His name אלוקים. The name Hashem was co-opted on account of man, i.e. on account of the superior essence of man, the soul, which is of an enduring eternal nature. Man, after all, represented the purpose of G’d creating the entire universe. There is a reason why the name Hashem has not simply replaced the attribute אלוקים used by the Torah to describe the Creator until now, until the birth of Kayin (man’s first derivative, תולדה). We will have more to say on this on chapter 4,1.

We have just explained that the purpose of Creation is for all people to recognize God as the Creator and Supervisor of the world and so fill the world with His glory. God sits in heaven, as it were, and judges every person according to his actions. All this is due to man because everything depends on his actions. Now we have already explained (H.D. Bereshit 1:26) that there are two distinct types of man. One is elevated man who acts on the earth like the angels act in heaven and the second is practical, worldly man. Both types are needed to make Creation complete. If all men were of the elevated type like Adam before the sin there could be no reward and punishment and God's glory and kindness would never be revealed. So man of the second type is the principle source of God's glory. Even so, the existence of elevated man among the multitude of practical men is also a source of God's glory. Since the two types of man are like different species, they both needed to be created during the sixth day. If Adam had not sinned on the sixth day there would have been no possibility of creating practical man later and the world would not have achieved its purpose. And if only practical man had been created, there would be no possibility of the new species "elevated man" ever coming into existence. If Adam had not been enticed to sin, God would have created a second man of the practical type. As it happened both species were created in the same person- first elevated man and after the sin, Adam himself was transformed into practical man. In this way an ideal world was achieved. All this is implied by the words "These are the results of the heavens and earth at the time of their creation."

Those mentioned previously. Rashi is answering the question: Why is nothing mentioned afterwards? Thus it must refer to the previously mentioned.

אלה תולדות השמים והארץ בהבראם וגו׳. Es kann dies nicht heißen: dies ist die Entstehung des Himmels und der Erde. Einmal bezieht sich אלה im Anfange eines Abschnittes in der Regel auf das Folgende; von der Entstehung des Himmels und der Erde wird aber nichts weiter berichtet. Sodann bezeichnet תולדות nicht die Eltern, sondern die Kinder. תולדת ישמעאל ,תולדת תרח ,תולדת נח ,תולדת אדם usw. ist nicht die Abstammung, die Herkunft Adams, Noas, Therachs usw. sondern: deren Nachkommen, die von ihnen Erzeugten. Endlich ist ja auch תולדה gerade der Ausdruck für die natürlichste, organische Erzeugung, während, wie wir gesehen haben, der Charakter בריאה, des freien Entstehens aus dem Willen Gottes, das spezielle Erschaffen aus nichts, also der gerade Gegensatz zu תולדה, für die Entstehung des Himmels und der Erde mit solchem Nachdruck hervorgehoben wird. Es gäbe keinen ungeeigneteren Ausdruck für diese Entstehung als: תולדה. Wir haben es daher lediglich für die Er- zeugnisse des Himmels und der Erde zu rechnen, und es umfasst dies Alles, was nun nach der Schöpfung sich durch das Zusammenwirken des Himmels und der Erde erzeugt. Es ist dies somit die Überschrift für die ganze, nach der Schöpfung vor unseren Augen entstehende Entwickelungsreihe der natürlichen Welterscheinungen. Sie sind allerdings die natürlichen Erzeugnisse des Himmels und der Erde, allein es wird uns bedeutsam hinzugefügt: בהבראם. Diese ganze Folgenreihe der Entwickelungen aus Himmel und Erde liegen in der Erschaffung; nicht aktiv, sondern passiv stehen Himmel und Erde zu diesen ihren Erzeugnissen, nicht als schaffende Gottheiten, sondern selber als Geschöpfe. Ihre Erzeugnisse erscheinen uns natürlich, weil sie sich nach den von uns als konstant wahrgenommenen Gesetzen ihrer Natur erzeugen; allein diese ihre Natur ist erschaffen, die Gesetze, nach denen sie wirken, erzeugen und entwickeln, sind ihnen von ihrem Schöpfer bei ihrer Erschaffung eingepflanzt, und alle תולדות השמים והארץ wareה gegeben בהבראם, und haben ihren Ursprung in ihrer Erschaffung. Diese Passivität des Himmels und der Erde bei ihren Erzeugnissen, — die hier durch das ה des נפעל^ ausgedrückt ist — ist nur dem denkenden Menschen offenbar. Der oberflächlichen An schauung aller Zeiten verschwindet diese Passivität. Das ה, die dem Himmel und der Erde für den denkenden Menschen aufgeprägte Passivität und weibliche Abhängigkeit ist ihrem Blick זעירא, verschwindend klein, wie daher auch nach der Massora dieses ה klein zu schreiben ist. Über das konstante mächtige Wirken des Geschöpfes entgeht ihnen der allmächtige Schöpfer, dessen Schöpferallmacht eben dieses konstante Wirken der Geschöpfe hervorgerufen. Über die תולדות entgeht ihnen הבראם. Wo sie נבראים erkennen sollten, beten sie בוראים an, und nur dem klaren Gedankenblick eines Abraham zeigt sich dieses ה, die geschöpfliche Abhängigkeit des Himmels und der Erde; das Erkennen dieses, dem gewöhnlichen Blicke verschwindenden ה war sein זכות, sein Verdienst, und ward ihm der Leiter zur Erkenntnis des Einen Schöpfers und Herrn des Himmels und der Erde. Gedanken, die dem Ausspruche der Weisen (בהבראם בזכות אברהם :(ב׳ר יב - (בהבראם sind auch die Buchstaben des Namens (אברהם) — zu Grunde liegen dürften.

'אלה תולדות השמים והארץ וגו, “these are the derivatives of heaven and earth, etc.; seeing that in the first chapter the Torah had been extremely concise on a number of aspects of the story of creation, the Torah now fills in some of these gaps, by explaining more about the “how” of that period. We have a statement by Rabbi Abahu, quoted in B’reshit Rabbah 12,3, according to which every time in the Holy Scriptures when a paragraph commences with the word: אלה, this is meant to indicate that a state of affairs which had been described as in effect previously, is no longer valid. On the other hand, if a paragraph commences with the word: ואלה, this is meant to indicate that what follows is a continuation of a state of affairs that already been in existence. The state of affairs that the word אלה in our verse is to supersede is that of tohu vavohu, chaos and darkness, which the Torah had introduced in Genesis. 1,2.

‘תולדות השמים והארץ בהבראם ביום עשות ה THESE ARE THE PRODUCTIONS OF THE HEAVEN AND OF THE EARTH WHEN THEY WERE CREATED, IN THE DAY THE LORD GOD MADE EARTH AND HEAVEN — The verse teaches you that all of them (the productions of heaven and earth) were created on the first day when God made earth and heaven. Another explanation of the word בהבראם: It may be divided as בה' בראם He created them with the letter ‘ה, as it is said, (Isaiah 26:4) כי ביה ה' צור עולמים “For in Jah, the Lord, is the rock of worlds”, which may be explained to mean (taking צור in sense of Former, Creator) “for by means of ב these two letters י ה of the Divine Name (יהוה) God formed the two worlds” (Menachot 29b), and this verse teaches that this world was created by means of the ‘ה — a suggestion that all created beings must descend to the nether world “to behold the pit” — the world being like this letter ‘ה , which is closed on all sides but open at the bottom, thus giving a way by which they must descend.

ביום עשות ה' אלוקים ארץ ושמים, this potential was translated into an actual only on the day when G’d completed עשות, i.e. arranged in detail how these derivatives were to function and where and when. This occurred after the six “days” of creative activity. Only when that stage had been reached was G’d referred to in the Torah by His full name, i.e. ה' אלוקים.

Earth and Heaven were 'made' by virtue of their purpose being achieved by Man's transformation from 'elevated' to 'practical' on which everything depended. Earth appears here before heaven because the change which occurred on earth led to the change in heaven where God's Providence is determined by man's actions. The story continues by telling how it came to be that elevated man, who, like the angels in heaven, was not supposed to work the land, was banished from Eden and became practical man who works the land. This change achieved the purpose of creation- revelation of God's glory by His conduct of the world according to man's actions and His attributes. "The heavens are My throne and the earth is My footstool." (Yishayahu 66:1)

This teaches you that they were all... I.e., even the products of heaven and earth were created on the first day, as the verse states: “When they were created, on the day when Adonoy Elohim made.” You might ask: Earlier, on “Let there be lights” (1:14), Rashi wrote, “[All products of heaven and earth were created on the first day...] ‘with the heavens’ to include their products, ‘with the earth,’ to include its products.” [Why then does Rashi repeat it here?] The answer is: If not for this verse, I might think that the creation of heavens had its command, and each product of the heavens had its own command too — just as they each came to actuality on their own. Thus it is written here, “This is the history...” to teach that the products were created with the same command as the heavens. It is like wheat kernels sown on one day, and each kernel sprouts and emerges on its own, at its time.

It appears to me that the key lies in the fact that G'd had previously instructed the creatures i.e. heaven and earth respectively to also produce "offspring." The waters had been told to divide, to produce fish, etc, whereas the earth had been instructed to produce vegetation, mammals, etc. The Torah reiterates that what earth and heaven produce daily are only derivatives, תולדות, that there is nothing original about these phenomena so that we should not err and believe that both the waters and the earth possessed independent creative powers. Such an error would lead to heretic thoughts.

Allein dieser Gedanke an den schaffenden Gesetzgeber der Natur reicht noch nicht hin, um die ferneren Erzeugnisse des Himmels und der Erde verstehen und richtig würdigen zu lehren. Es wird uns noch ein Faktor gegeben, ohne dessen Würdigung wir die Dinge und Ereignisse nicht verstehen würden, er bildet den Inhalt der zweiten Hälfte des Satzes:

תולדות השמים. This is a reference to the luminaries and the stars as well as to all the phenomena that are part of the celestial regions, including fire (lightning) hail, tornados, etc.; However during the reign of King David, the latter succeeded in making most of these phenomena part of our terrestrial world. (Compare Talmud, Chagigah 12)

Another explanation of בהבראם... You might ask: Why is this “Another explanation,” a differing view? The first view did not explain the word בהבראם at all, and could thus agree with this explanation! The answer is: The first view relates בהבראם to the end of the verse, “When they were created, on the day.” But the second view relates it to the beginning of the verse, “The heavens and the earth בהבראם,” implying that He created them with the letter hey.

The reason that the Torah mentions only heaven and earth in this connection and not the waters is simply because the waters are part of שמים.

ביום עשות ד׳ א׳ ארץ ושמים. Es heißt hier: עשיה, nicht: בריאה; es tritt uns ein neuer Gottesname ׳ה entgegen; und es wird die Erde vor dem Himmel genannt, während es sonst immer שמים וארץ, oder vielmehr השמים והארץ heißt. Versuchen wir uns zuerst über den Namen ׳ה zu verständigen. Wenn uns auch die tiefe Wesenheit Gottes, die darin niedergelegt ist, ewig unergründlich bleibt, so haben wir uns doch das zu vergegenwärtigen, was uns von der Bedeutung dieses Namens zugänglich sein soll. Schon die Weisen lassen ihn als מדת הרחמים, als die waltende Liebe Gottes begreifen, und zeigt schon dies, wie weitab der Begriff "Ewiger" von seiner eigentlichen Bedeutung liegt, und wie dieser Begriff, unter welchen man gemeinhin diesen Namen fasst, nicht im entferntesten ihm entspricht, geschweige ihn erschöpft. "Ewig" ist ein metaphysischer, transzendentaler Begriff, der kaum irgendwie eine praktische Beziehung zu etwas anderem, geschweige denn zu unserem Sein und Werden enthält. Ein Ewiges stellt sich uns als das in sich geschlossenste Dasein dar. Das von einem Wesen ausgesprochene Prädikat der Ewigkeit offenbart uns nichts als die Art seines subjektivsten Seins, und enthält nicht das leiseste Merkmal seines Wirkens und Waltens. Der Gedanke "Ewig" lässt unser Herz kalt und enthält nichts für unser Leben, ist somit außer aller Verwandtschaft mit מדת הרחמים. Der vierbuchstabige Gottesname, unter welcher Punktation auch immer gedacht — die überlieferte ist ja die des שם אדנות, mit welchem wir ihn aussprechen: stellt sich nicht als das Präsens einer intransitiven Kalform, sondern als das Futurum einer transitiven Piel- oder Hifil-Form der Wurzel היה dar, somit nicht: der Seiende, sondern: der Sein Spendende, auch nicht: der das Dasein gespendet Habende, sondern: der immer zur Spende neuen Seins Bereite, und das ist ja eben in tiefster Fülle: Gott ist nicht etwa der ewige "Alte der Tage", der, nachdem er die .מדת הרחמים Welt erschaffen, nun in die Tiefe seines ewigen Seins versunken ausruht; er ist אלקים er ist der lebendige, ewig waltende Gott, von dem nicht nur die ganze ,חיים ומלך עולם Vergangenheit stammt, der jeden kommenden Augenblick verleiht, der jeden kommenden Augenblick dem Erziehungsbedürfnisse des Menschen gemäß gestaltet, und der jeden Augenblick bereit ist — wie immer die Vergangenheit verscherzt wäre — aus der Fülle seiner allmächtigen Barmherzigkeit neues Dasein zu verleihen. ׳אלקי ist דין, ist der Gesetz und Maß und Ziel gebende Schöpfer und Ordner der Welt. Wäre in dieser Welt kein Mensch, kein mit Freiheit, somit auch mit der Möglichkeit des Abirrens begabtes Geschöpf, die Weltentwickelung bedürfte nicht der מדת הרחמים. Alle Geschöpfe außer dem Menschen bewegen sich unabweichbar in dem bei der Schöpfung ihnen angewiesenen Geleise, und alle תולדות השמים והארץ wären nur das Produkt der בהבראם vom gesetzgebenden Schöpfer ihnen eingeschaffenen Gesetze der Entwickelung und Ordnung. Mit dem freien, somit abirrungsfähigen, zu seiner hohen Bestimmung zu erziehenden Menschen tritt מדת הרחמים, die in barmherziger Liebe erziehende Gotteswaltung ein, die den Menschen und seine Welt trotz seiner Verirrung erhält, ihn über den Irrtum zur Wahrheit, über die Verirrung zur Pflichttreue leitet, ihm immer aufs neue Kraft zu neuem Dasein und neuer Zukunft zu verleihen bereit ist, und die תולדות שמים וארץ nach dem jedesmaligen Erziehungsbedürfnis des Menschen gestaltet. Diese, für die Erziehung des Menschen, nach seinem Verdienst und Bedürfnis, die Weiterentwickelung des Himmels und der Erde gestaltende Gotteswaltung war schon in dem לעשות des vorhergehenden Verses angekündigt, und sie ist es, die der Name ׳ה repräsentirt. Als אלקי׳ hat Gott Himmel und Erde geschaffen und ihre Entwickelung auf Gesetz und Ordnung gestellt; als ה׳ greift er in diese Entwickelung ein, gestaltet und leitet sie in jedem Augenblick, seinem Ziele, der Menschenerziehung, entsprechend. Dort, in der physischen Weltordnung, ist die Erde vom Himmel abhängig; hier, in der sittlichen Welt- waltung, für welche die physische ihr Dasein erhalten, ist der Himmel durch das jedesmalige Verhalten des Menschen auf Erden, somit der Himmel durch die Erde be- dingt. Dort heißt es überall השמים והארץ, hier ארץ ושמים, ^d יום עשות ד׳ א׳ ארץ ושמים ist eben der siebente Tag, an welchem Gott den Sabbat in die Schöpfung eingeführt, sein ganzes Werk des Himmels und der Erde für die Erziehung des Menschen zum Adam bereit gestellt, und dessen Bestand und Bestimmnng von der Verwirklichung dieser Erziehung abhängig gemacht. Denn mit dem Menschen tritt der Name ה׳ zu אלקי׳, und zwei Faktoren sind es, die die Weltentwickelung weiter gestalten: a. die von Gott bereits in der ursprünglichen Schöpfung gegebene gesetzmäßige Ordnung, b. die von demselben Gott mit Rücksicht auf das Verhalten der Menschen dieser Entwicklung in jedem Augenblicke gegebene Leitung. "Alle die natürlichen Erzeugnisse des Himmels und der Erde liegen hiermit einmal in ihrer ursprünglichen Schöpfung, und zweitens wurzeln sie in dem Tage, an welchem Gott die Entwickelung der Erde und des Himmels von der freien That des Menschen bedingte", und es ist der Name "ה׳ אלקי׳", der uns durch die Geschichte leitet.

והארץ, this is a reference to both living creatures, and all manner of vegetation on earth. ביום עשות, at the time when heaven and earth had first been created, i.e. on the first day. All of these phenomena mentioned already on the first day, G-d had completed during the following five “days.”

Here it teaches you... But without this verse, we would not know which world was created with hey, and which with yud. There is a difficulty with the second view: why does it say, “On the day when...”? Thus Rashi brought the first view. And there is a difficulty with the first view: Why does it say בהבראם, with a hey? Therefore Rashi brings also the second view. That is why both explanations are needed.

The word בהבראם may also be understood as בהם בראם, G'd created all these תולדות by employing heaven and earth as His agents.

אלה תולדות השמים והארץ בהבראם ביום עשות ד׳ אלקי׳ ארץ ושמים" , Dies sind die bereits in ihrer Erschaffung, mit dem Tage als ׳ד׳ א Erde und Himmel gestaltete, gegebenen Erzeugnisse des Himmels und der Erde" — dieser in die Weltgeschichte einleitende Satz ist gleichzeitig ein Protest gegen jede Vergötterung der Natur und gegen den Wahn, als ob die physische Gestaltung der Welt unabhängig sei von dem sittlichen Verhalten des Menschen. "ד׳ אלקים" öffnet uns den Blick in die physische und sittliche Weltordnung und Weltwaltung Gottes, in die Gänge Gottes in Natur und Geschichte. Jenen, den Schöpfer und Ordner der physischen Weltordnung, hatte Abraham, unbeirrt durch die תולדות השמים והארץ, eben dem Himmel und der Erde abzulauschen verstanden, als Gott ihn darum erwählte, um ihn nun auch den Namen ׳ה, Sein Walten in der Geschichte, Seine sittliche Weltordnung zu lehren. Sichtbar, נודע, ward dieser Name aber erst, als Abrahams Nachkommen zu einem Volke herangewachsen waren, dem alle Vorbedingungen zum Völkerdasein in Mitte der physischen Weltordnung fehlten, und das nur vermittelst seines in Hingebung an Gott gewonnenen sittlichen Verhaltens seine physische Volksexistenz aus Gottes Händen erhalten sollte. Israels ganze Ge- schichte ist eine Offenbarung des Namens n׳. Das Korrelat für den Begriff ה׳ ist unsere sittliche Unterordnung unter seinen Willen, die sittliche Hingebung unseres ganzen Wesens in seinen Dienst; es ist daher völlig entsprechend, dass wir ׳אדנ׳ :ה nennen. (Der Name ה׳ ist unübersetzbar. Wir haben uns damit begnügt, ihn in unserer Ubersetzung mit "Gott" in gesperrter Schrift als Nomen proprium zu bezeichnen, zur Unterscheidung von "Gott" als Übersetzung von אלקי׳, das mehr Attribut ist. Wir mußten aber dabei verzichten, die so bedeutsame Zusammenstellung der beiden Namen: ה׳ א׳ auch in der Übersetzung wieder zu geben.)

ביום עשות ה' אלוקים, “on the day the Lord G-d had completed;” now that heaven and earth had been completely built up, the Torah for the first time reveals G-d’s full name in accordance with the principle we have learned from Proverbs 14,28 that ברב עם הדרת מלך “when there is a multitude the king’s real honour becomes manifest.” We find this principle invoked also in B’rachot 49 where the Talmud says: ”one does not invoke the tetragram when preparing to recite grace after a meal unless there are at least 10 adult males present.”The author quotes Rashi as commenting on our verse that G-d, now that there were free willed human beings on earth, coopted the attribute of mercy so that He would not automatically have to destroy His universe when man sinned. This has been hinted at in the prefix letter ו before the line: 'וה שמים עשה, “and the Lord (by contrast) completed the heaven.” [This quote is not found in our editions of Rashi on this verse. Ed.]

Like the ה which is closed on all sides. See Menachos 29b for another reason.

ארץ ושמים, “earth and heaven.” Previously, in 1,1 the Torah had listed heaven before referring to earth. Midrash Tanchuma comments on this that when speaking of the creation of something out of nothing, i.e. the stage known as בריאה, heaven preceded earth chronologically, whereas when speaking of the completion of their coming into existence, earth was completed first.

טרם יהיה בארץ WAS NOT YET IN THE EARTH — Wherever טרם occurs in the Scriptures it means “not yet” and does not mean “before”. It cannot be made into a verbal form, saying הטרים as one says הקדים (verbal form of קדם) and this passage proves that this is the meaning and not "before" as well as another (Exodus 9:30), כי טרם תראון “that ye do not yet fear the Lord”. Therefore you must explain this verse also thus: “No plant of the field was yet in the earth” at the time when the creation of the world was completed on the sixth day before man was created, and וכל עשב השדה טרם יצמח means “and every herb of the field had not yet grown”. But as regards the third day of creation about which it is written “The earth brought forth etc.” this does not signify that they came forth above the ground but that they remained at the opening of the ground (i. e. just below the surface) until the sixth day (Chullin 60a).

AND EVERY SHRUB OF THE FIELD. In the opinion of our Rabbis in Bereshith Rabbah,²⁸¹See Bereshith Rabbah 12:4 for a similar text. See also Rashi here. [every herb of the field created] on the third day [did not come forth above the ground but] they remained just below the surface of the earth, and on the sixth day they grew after He caused rain to fall on them.
In my opinion, in accordance with the plain meaning of Scripture, on the third day the earth did bring forth the grass and the fruit trees in their full-grown stature and quality as He commanded concerning them. And now Scripture tells that there was no one to plant and sow them for future purposes, and the earth would not produce until a mist would come up from it and water it, and man was formed who would work it — to seed, to plant, and to guard. This is the meaning of the shrub of the field… had not yet grown. It does not say “the shrub of the ground” for only a place which is cultivated is called “field,” as in Which thou hast sown in the field²⁸²Exodus 23:16. and We will not pass through field or through vineyard.²⁸³Numbers 20:17. This is the course of the world that was to be following the six days of creation and forever after, that due to the mist the heavens will bring down rain, and due to the rains the earth will make the seeds that are sown in it to spring up.

טרם יהיה בארץ, these words emphasise that although all phenomena had been created, this referred to their potential, not to their functioning as they do nowadays. כל עשב השדה, had not yet sprouted,

וכל שיח השדה טרם יהיה בארץ. None of the plants of the fields existed as yet. This stresses again that until the Creator irrigated the earth by bringing on rain, none of the vegetation produced by earth was able to function, to grow. The verse also tells us that the living creatures on earth were G'd's creation as indicated by 2,19, that "G'd formed all the beasts of the field." Earth's contribution was to provide the golem-like body pending G'd's infusing these bodies with a breath of life. The same applied to the swarms of "living" creatures produced by the waters as well as the birds. Our sages have already stated that the birds are the result of co-operation by water and earth, i.e. swamps (Eyruvin 28). This is why the Torah described the birds as עוף השמים, birds of the heavens, in 2,19, although the directive had been issued to the waters in 1,20.

וכל שיח השדה, now the Torah fills in details of the report of G’d’s creative activity during the preceding days which had been omitted, including how man had spent the hours remaining on the sixth “day” after his creation. It refers to some aspects of the plants created already on the third “day,” as well as to the animals which had been created on the sixth “day” which share the same habitat as man, i.e. they live on dry land.
Seeing that the Torah would shortly have to refer to the vegetation in Gan Eden, including references to the trees of knowledge and the tree of life which are part of the vegetation on earth, the Torah first describes the fact that the shrubs, etc., had not yet been able to grow to their full maturity due to an absence of rain on earth. The fact that even shrubs are significant plants, is demonstrated in Genesis 21,15 where Hagar is described as abandoning her son Ishmael under one such shrub. At this point the Torah informs us that although in response to G’d’s directive on the third “day” that earth produce herbs, etc., and that in response to this directive the earth did indeed produce not only herbs but fruit-bearing trees, G’d had not yet decreed that rain fall on earth, seeing that man the beneficiary of such rain, had not been created as yet. Rain, by itself, without man working the soil does not accomplish a great deal.
This raises the question how the vegetation described as coming into existence on the third “day” managed to do so? The Torah answers this by describing vapours which rose from the surface of the waters at that time, and through whose influence all these plants were enabled to develop temporarily. There are numerous plants, shrubs included, which do not depend on man’s labour for their continued existence. The only plants which do require man’s input first and foremost, are the plants which serve as his food. David already referred to this in Psalms 104,14 where he describes that bread is produced from the earth and that rain is required to ensure that this will materialise. If the Torah, at the beginning of this verse, mentions that G’d had not let it rain, prior to mentioning that the vapour had risen (by itself, without G’d’s input, apparently) and had irrigated the earth, this was to inform us that rain is produced as a result of the vapours rising, forming clouds, etc, but that all of this needs to be initiated by G’d’s goodwill in the first place.
The gaon Rav Saadyah, in his commentary on this verse, writes that the letter ו in the word ואד means, that there had not been a vapour rising from the face of the earth which could have irrigated the plants either; in other words that this is a continuation of the statement that there had not been any rain as yet, neither had there been dew or vapour, or any of the types of moisture which we know promote growth. Up until that point G’d Himself had seen to it that these plants developed, until the laws of nature had become activated as they were needed for the sake of man. If the Torah bothered to tell us that just as G’d had not yet initiated rainfall, neither had He caused vapours to rise from the earth to form clouds, (which would have been all that we needed to know) this is a lesson in why no rain had fallen. Seeing that no vapours had risen from the earth, no clouds had formed which could discharge their water at the appropriate time.
In Bereshit Rabbah 13,1 the author addresses the apparent contradiction between our verse in which we are told that due to the absence of rain even grass had not yet grown properly, and verse 9 where G’d is described as having made every desirable tree grow in Gan Eden. Rabbi Chaninah there solves the problem by saying that the conditions that prevailed at that time in Gan Eden were different from those prevailing in the rest of the earth, hence trees could grow there. Rabbi Chiyah disagrees, saying that no growth had taken place at that time in either region. How then does he resolve the apparent contradiction? He finds no contradiction, seeing that man’s creation had also been reported already in chapter 1,27, and here it is reported again. At this point, the Torah simply fills in details it had omitted in its earlier report. Whereas the various creatures and phenomena created during the first six “days” had been fully developed, man, as distinct from the other living creatures, had not received its life-force, נפש, from the part of nature producing it, as had the fish or the mammals. Hence this point had to be described graphically, i.e. G’d blowing the soul into Adam’s nostrils.

The apparent meaning of this verse relates to the field as the source of sustenance for the world. As it says in Kohelet (5:8) "Even the King is subservient to the field," meaning even the king worries about the produce of the field. According to this explanation, we don't understand the message of the verse. But there is a deeper meaning to the word siach (bushes) based on the gemara Avoda Zara(7b), "Siach means prayer as the Torah says (Bereshit 24:63) 'And Isaac went forth to pray (lasuach) in the field'". Tosafot adds that it means fixed prayer also known as avoda shebalev (service of the heart). From the very start of creation God established that earning one's livelihood in the normal way of the world is involved with entreating God for His Providence by prayer or by sacrifices where possible. Both of these are called avoda (service), more than other mitzvot (commandments) of the Torah. Based on the verse (Mishlei 12:11) "He who tills (oved) his soil will be sated with bread" we may explain that all of man's activities can be performed to earn a livelihood or for some other purpose, but tilling the soil is done only to earn one's livelihood. And such is the difference between the avoda of performing other mitzvot and the avoda of prayer or sacrifices. The reward for observing other mitzvot is given in olam haba (the world to come) and also in olam haze (this world) one may receive rewards of wealth or honor, measure-for-measure. The reward for prayer and sacrifices, however, is primarily livelihood, as seen in gemara Ketubot (10b) which interprets the word mizbeach (altar) as being related to nourishment (see also H.D. Bamidbar xx:xx) and also in gemara Shabat (10a) which states that fixed prayer sustains life. (See also Harchev Davar Bereshit 48:22.) The blessings recited over each type food also promote the abundance of that type as seen in gemara Berachot (35b) which considers someone who eats without reciting the blessing to be stealing from God and from the people of Israel and to be as evil as Yeravam ben Navat .(Based on Mishlei 28:24 " He who robs his father or his mother and says, "This is not a sin," is the companion of a destroyer.") The explanation is that by not reciting the blessing one denies God the pleasure of providing an abundance of that food, in effect stealing from Him and from the people of Israel. And such a person is a companion of Yeravam who prevented the people from bringing sacrifices, thus denying them livelihood. (See Melachim I chapter 12.)

וכל שיח השדה, “and all the greenery of the field, etc.” The vegetation which had begun to sprout forth on the third day had actually not broken through the surface of the soil until the sixth day when Adam prayed for rain to materialize. When the rain materialized all these plants surfaced above the earth. Nachmandes, explaining the literal meaning of our verse, the פשט, says that whereas on the third day all the plants mentioned materialized in their mature form, they did not develop as there was no one to tend them. The reason why the vegetation here is not described as שיח האדמה, the vegetation of the earth, but as שיח השדה, is that the word שדה is indicative of something subject to agriculture, ground that is being worked. This had not started until after the first rainfall.

וכל שיח השדה “and all the trees of the field, etc.” The Torah should really have written the words עצי השדה instead of שיח השדה, “shrubs of the field.” The reason the Torah chose the expression שיח is connected with Genesis 24,63 ויצא יצחק לשוח השדה, Yitzchak went out to the field to pray.” The expression שיח refers to prayer. The Torah hints by the use of this word that all the trees and plants pray to G-d, i.e. praise Him and acknowledge Him. Our sages have also based this on Psalms 65,14 יתרועעו אף ישירו, “they raise a shout and break out in song.” David had been speaking about pastureland in that Psalm. The “song” attributed to the plants is their praise of G-d. G-d had wanted that all is creatures including the plants praise Him.

It means ‘not yet.’ I.e., it stands in place of the two words עדיין לא.

Der vorhergehende Vers war die Einleitung zur Geschichte des Menschen, und hat uns die Weiterentwickelung der Erdwelt von dem Dasein und Verhalten des Menschen bedingt gezeigt. Es greift daher mit diesem Verse die Erzählung wieder zurück, führt uns den Moment vor, in welchem die Schöpfung ihrer Vollendung durch den ihre Weiterentwickelung bedingenden Menschen entgegenharrte, in welchem zugleich die im vorigen Verse ausgesprochene allgemeine Wahrheit sich sofort beim Eintritt des Menschen in die Erdwelt bethätigte, und offenbart uns zugleich speziellere Seiten über die Bildung des Menschen, die uns einen tiefen Einblick in sein Wesen und ein Verständnis seiner Natur in Beziehung zu der hohen Stellung und Bestimmung gewähren, die bereits oben bei seiner Schöpfung in der Reihe der übrigen Schöpfungen ausgesprochen waren.

כי לא המטיר BECAUSE GOD HAD NOT CAUSED IT TO RAIN — And what is the reason that God had not caused it to rain? כי אדם אין לעבוד את האדמה BECAUSE THERE WAS NO MAN TO TILL THE GROUND, and there was, therefore, no one to recognize the utility of rain. When Adam came (was created), however, and he realised that it was necessary for the world, he prayed for it and it fell, so that trees and verdure sprang forth.

כי לא המטיר, for G’d had not yet made it rain in such a fashion that it enabled the latent power of these plants to fully develop.

Based on this introduction we may explain this verse to mean that prayer had not yet been introduced on earth because there was as yet no man to pray.

And cannot form a verb. I.e., it is a noun that does not take the form of a verb.

Why did the Torah mention here that there was as yet no human being on earth who would work the land, and why is there a second report about the creation of man in the next verse, i.e. וייצר השם אלוקים את האדם? If the Torah only wanted to inform us that the raw material man is made of was the dust of the earth, it could have done so in 1,27 where man's creation by G'd is reported instead of repeating the whole story about man being created.

Die Worte שדה und אדמה, denen wir hier zuerst begegnen, zeigen sofort, dass wir uns im Menschenkreise befinden. Bisher war nur immer allgemein von ארץ die Rede. שדה aber ist der von dem Menschen für seine Nahrungszwecke in Anspruch genommene Teil der Erde: das Feld. Verwandt dürfte שדה mit שדה, der Wurzel von שד der Mutterbrust, sein, in welcher ja ebenfalls aus den allgemeinen Säften und Kräften des Körpers ein gesonderter Teil der Ernährung eines anderen Wesens zufließt, andererseits mit צדה, gleichbedeutend mit ציד ,צוד: auf künstlichem Wege (צ) die Erlangung eines Gegenstandes erstreben. Für die Nüancen der Künstlichkeit (צ) bildet den Begriff Feld das ש, welches die Mitte zwischen ש, dem Laute der völligen Natürlichkeit, und צ, dem der völligen Künstlichkeit hält. אדמה ist ja ohnehin schon die Erde nicht als kosmischer Weltkörper, sondern als die dem Adam vermählte, ihm zum Bereiche seiner Wirksamkeit hingegebene Erde. — שיח ist der allgemeine Name für Wachstum. Daher auch für das geistige Wachsen des Menschen (vergl. מלה ,שעיף ,חרש (rad. ,(מלל עץ — עצה. Ebenso auch צוץ — שוש ,צמח — שמח). Nach der Auffassung der Weisen insbesondere: beten. Beten ist nach dieser Anschauung nichts als Trinken aus der Quelle alles geistigen Lebens, damit alle Fibern und Fasern unseres inneren Wesens zu tränken, um neue Blüten zu erzeugen. — שיח heißt nun zwar sonst in der Regel das Gewächs selbst, hier aber kann es nicht das Gewächs bedeuten; diese waren ja bereits am sechsten Tage, dem Schöpfungstage des Menschen, vorhanden. Es dürfte vielmehr hier nur die Tätigkeit des Wachsens selbst, das Wachstum bezeichnen können. Die Pflanzen waren schon seit dem dritten Tage vorhanden; allein sie waren noch nicht fortgeschritten, noch nicht gewachsen, es fehlte der Regen, den Gott nicht der physischen Welt, sondern dem Menschen, den er nicht als ׳אלקי, sondern als ׳ד׳ אלקי spendet, und der Mensch war noch nicht da, für dessen sittliches Walten auf Erden Gott, sein Herr, die Weiterentwickelung der Erdwelt fördert.

ה' אלהים THE LORD GOD — The Lord (יהוה) is His Name, whereas אלהים signifies that He is Ruler and Judge over all. This, too, is its meaning, according to the plain sense, wherever it occurs: The Lord who is God (Ruler and Judge).

Rav Assi in the gemara (Hulin 60) cited by Rashi, resolves the contradiction between this verse and Bereshit 1:12 "And the earth gave forth vegetation" by saying that the vegetation was created on the third day but waited below the surface of the earth until man was created and prayed for rain. He learns from this that God yearns for the prayers of the righteous. The gemara continues with the story of Rabbi Hanina Bar-Papa who planted his garden with all kinds of seeds but nothing grew. Then he prayed for mercy and the rains came and the seeds grew, proving the statement of Rav Assi. According to this gemara, vegetation and fruits appeared on the earth only on the sixth day, after man sinned, was banished from Gan Eden, began to work the land and prayed for rain. Rav Assi's statement, attributing special qualities to the prayers of the righteous for sustenance, seems to be disputed by Medrash Rabbah (Vayikra 31) which says the prayers of all men are accepted by God equally in matters of livelihood and only in other cases of misfortune, God forbid, are the prayers of the righteous more effective. The medrash cites the examples of Sarah, Rivka, and Rachel whom God made barren so that their righteous husbands would pray for them. The answer is that Rav Assi's statement relates to a special case of livelihood, one in which sustenance is provided by a miraculous change in nature. The story of Rabbi Hanina Bar-Papa must be understood to refer to a situation in which all the other gardens grew normally and only Rabbi Hanina's did not, against the laws of nature, until he prayed. Rav Assi applied this lesson to our verse as well, since God Himself created the vegetation so it certainly should have grown. God changed nature so the vegetation would not grow because He yearned to hear the prayers of the righteous. All this is the opinion of Rav Assi, but that is not the plain meaning of the verse. The Ramban writes that all the vegetation appeared on the earth on the third day, but did not begin to produce new plants until man was created and began to pray. One may add also that the vegetation was created on the third day in its full height and beauty, and only after man prayed did it begin to grow gradually larger.

This verse proves this. Because if it means “before,” it would be connected to the words יהיה and יצמח written after it [thus forming an incomplete statement], and would not explain why Hashem had not brought rain. And if it is connected to the [implied but] omitted word “this,” as if it said: “Before this, all the plants were upon the earth, and before this, all the vegetation sprouted,” then it does not fit with: “For Adonoy Elohim had not brought rain.” (Re’m)

I believe the answer lies in what our sages alluded to when they described אדם הראשון, original man, as the חלת העולם, earth's gift to G'd, i.e. a concept parallel to the priest's share of the dough (Eyruvin 18). Our sages therefore believed that just as the principle of donating the first of the dough to the priest in his capacity of G'd's representative on earth is a duty, creation itself is morally bound to "donate" to its Creator something similiar. We find the following passage in the tractate חלה 2,5: "If someone sets aside the quantity of חלה that he is obliged to set aside in the form of flour (instead of as part of the dough), it (this quantity of flour) is not considered sacred." In 3,1 of the same tractate we are told that until the dough (of wheat) has developed so that the meal and the water form one body, a non-priest may still eat of it on an ad hoc basis, even if חלה has not yet been set aside from it. If one eats from such dough subsequently (knowingly) one is guilty of the death penalty. The descent of rain on the vegetation of the earth is akin to the mixing (kneading) of a dough from which to make bread. This is why consumption of the proceeds of grain i.e. bread or cake, is prohibited until חלה has been set aside. It is equivalent to what the Mishnah Challah 3,1 called גלגול העיסה. Earth was unable to produce viable vegetation without G'd contributing the rain. It follows that it is prohibited to eat or otherwise enjoy any of earth's fruit until an appropriate gift to G'd has been set aside. The creation of man [from raw material made of all parts of the earth Ed.] was that gift, i.e. that חלה. Prior to man's creation the earth was טבל, untithed produce, forbidden, out of bounds to man. This is what our verse wanted to convey. Although earth produced the plants on the third day, G'd had not provided the rain at that time, not until immediately before He formed the human being. Creation of man, i.e. the חלה of the universe, enabled all the creatures to enjoy it henceforth. The Torah mentions that the entire surface of the earth was irrigated because if G'd had irrigated only parts of the earth, such an incomplete "dough" would not have freed the remainder from the requirement to contribute further amounts of חלה.

Es ist tief bezeichnend, dass die den Erdboden beherrschende Tätigkeit des Menschen עבודה, iDienst, genannt wird. עבד (verwandt mit) אבר ist ja das völlige Aufgehen in die Zwecke eines Andern. Bei der Herrschaft des Menschen über die Erde steht er selbst direkt im Dienste Gottes, indirekt im Dienste der Erde, deren Zwecken Gott den Menschen dienstbar gemacht. Indem der Mensch die Kräfte der Erde für seine von Gott ihm angewiesenen Zwecke in Anspruch nimmt und sie für diese Zwecke umwandelt, verliert die Erde nicht ihre Bestimmung, sondern erreicht sie vielmehr. Der Mensch hebt die physische Natur durch seine Tätigkeit in das Bereich der sittlichen Weltzwecke. Die Herrschaft des wahren "Adam" über die Erde ist daher in Wahrheit: עבודת האדמה, eine dienende Förderung ihrer Bestimmung. Und für diesen Dienst des Menschen an der Erde giebt ד׳ אלקים den Regen. Die Regenbildung selbst gehört der physischen von אלקי׳ geschaffenen Ordnung der Dinge an. Allein dass der Regen sich bilde, wann und wo und wie er sich bilde, dass er לברכה und nicht לקללה komme, das hat Gott seiner sittlichen Weltwaltung vorbehalten, die von dem Namen ׳ה getragen ist. שאלו מד׳ מטר בעת מלקוש, ruft der Prophet (Secharja 10, 1) seinen Zeitgenossen zu, "erbittet euch von Gott Regen zur Zeit des Frühregens", ד׳ עושה חזיזים ומטר גשם יתן להם לאיש עשב בשדה וגו׳, "Gott bildet die Wolken und die Sendung des Regens gibt Er ihnen, für einen einzigen Mann, für ein einziges Kraut auf dem Felde. Denn die Naturvergötterungen haben von einer herrenlosen Kraft gesprochen, die Naturbewältiger haben Lügen erschaut und sprechen nun Träume der Nichtigkeit aus, sie wissen nur mit Vergänglichkeit zu trösten. Darum ziehen die Menschen wie Schafe dahin, sprechen, dass es keinen Hirten gebe!" (das.) "היה אם שמוע תשמעו wenn ihr gehorchen werdet", spricht Gott in seinem Gesetze (5. B. M. 11.) "בעתו ,ונתתי מטי ארעצכם, gebe ich den Regen eures Landes in seiner Zeit, wenn aber euer Herz sich bethört von Gott abwendet, so ועצר את השמים, so schließt Gott den Himmel, und es wird kein Regen kommen. Diese dem jüdischen Volke und dem jüdischen Lande, dem Boden der תורה, dem Boden des göttlichen Sittengesetzes angewiesene Stellung ist somit keine Ausnahmsstellung, keine unnatürliche; sie ist vielmehr die ursprüngliche, der Menschenwelt und ihrer Erde bestimmte, zu der einst beide wiederkehren werden, wenn die Gesamtmenschheit einst dem göttlichen Sittengesetze sich huldigend unterordnen wird. Hier ist somit die Wahrheit ausgesprochen, die die Weisen in dem Satze ausdrücken, dass die Regenspende eines der Dinge sei, deren "Schlüssel Gott nicht einem שליח, einem Boten überantwortet hat". Alle die als Gottes Boten in der Natur wirkenden Kräfte, לא יסבו בלכתן, gehen unverändert ihren geraden, unabänderlichen Gang. So z. B. die Sonne, dieser große Faktor für die Entwickelung und Blüte des irdischen Lebens. Auf mathematischen Gesetzen ruht ihre Bahn, לא יסבו בלכתן da giebt׳s keine Abweichung, keine das Erfordernis des wechselnden Erziehungsbedürfnisses des Menschen berücksichtigende Veränderlichkeit. Die Natur geht ihren Gang. Allein nicht Alles ist in die Hand dieses natürlichen Ganges gelegt. Die Regenspende, die ganze Gestaltung des atmosphärischen Niederschlags und die dadurch bedingte Gestaltung der Erdatmosphäre selbst, die wiederum die Wirkung des Sonnenstrahls für die Erde so wesentlich modifiziert und veränderlich erscheinen lässt, מפתח של גשמים, hat Gott der sittlichen Weltordnung seines Waltens über den Menschen und für den Menschen vorbehalten. "ירעם אל בקולו נפלאות, donnert Gott mit seiner Stimme Wunder, übt er auch Großes, wo wir nicht es merken, spricht auch zum Schnee: werde der Erde, und Regen ist seine Sendung, ja Regen sind die mannigfaltigen Sendungen seiner Macht. Sein Siegel legt er damit an jedes Menschen Hand, alle Männer seines Werkes zu überwachen." (Job. 37, 5.) — Also weil der Mensch noch nicht da war, fehlte auch der Regen, und die Pflanzenwelt harrte noch der ersten Entwicklung entgegen.

That is why there was none of the usual plant growth.

And another [proof]. Meaning, there is another proof for this point.

It is important to realise that G'd took "dust from the earth" to create man, as opposed to soil from גן עדן. This point is repeated again in 3,24 when Adam is expelled from גן עדן "to till the soil he had been taken from." There was no need to give חלה from any of the trees of גן עדן seeing it was totally holy already. This is why the Torah says (2,8) "G'd had planted a garden in Eden already previously (מקדם)," i.e. prior to the creation of man. He had prepared this holy region for Adam who was holy, being the חלה of the universe.

Because there was no man to engage in avoda (work/service) meaning prayer.

This verse, too, should be explained thus. Re’m wrote at length on this, but Maharshal explained that Rashi means that it is impossible to explain the verse any other way, for if we say that טרם means before, how can the future tense verb תיראון be applicable to it?

When man appeared. Rashi means as follows: Hashem, who surely desires the prayers of tzaddikim, knew that man would appreciate the rain — and pray for it. See Chulin 60b.

Adonoy is His Name. His actual Name is יהוה, as it has the letters of היה הוה ויהיה (He was, He is, and He will be), and that is His Name. An alternative explanation: It is the Name signifying His essence, whereas the other names each describe one of His traits. Rashi did not explain this earlier, when it is written (v. 4): “On the day when Adonoy Elohim made...” because there it was necessary to say “Adonoy Elohim,” as Rashi explained earlier (1:1 ד"ה ברא).

That He is Ruler and Judge. I.e., Elohim means that He is All-Powerful, as it says, “The powerful ones (אילי) of the land” (Melachim II, 24:15).

ואד יעלה AND A MIST WENT UP — This has reference to the creation of Adam: viz., He caused the deep to rise and filled the clouds with water to moisten the dust, and man was created. It is like a kneader of bread who first pours in water and afterwards kneads the dough — similarly here: He first watered the ground and afterwards He formed man (Genesis Rabbah 14:1).

ואד יעלה מן הארץ, on the day they were completed, i.e. at the end of the sixth “day” a vapour rose from the earth equivalent to beneficial dew which irrigated the earth and enabled it to bring forth further vegetation without the help of rain or man’s labour.

ואד יעלה מן הארץ, “vapour would rise from the earth, etc.” According to Rashi these words refer to the fashioning of man, G’d, so to speak, used the moisture called אד to make a kind of dough of the mixture of earth and these vapours, allowing Him to fashion and mould man in the shape He had intended for him. According to the plain meaning of the text it appears that seeing the Torah writes that at that time no rain had yet descended on earth, there was no point to rain descending until man had been created who would till the ground after the rain had fallen. The Torah therefore describes that vapours from the earth could keep the plants alive even in the temporary absence of man to tend to them.

For the purpose of creating. Rashi is answering the question: Earlier it is written that Hashem did not bring rain, since man had not yet been created. Why then is it written here, “A mist rose,” implying that there was rain before man was created?

ואד יעלה "und ein Dunst stieg fortwährendvon der Erde auf und tränkte die ganze Fläche des Menschen Bodens". Es kann dieses Tränken der Erde nicht die Stelle des Regens vertreten haben; denn unmittelbar zuvor ist uns gesagt, dass aus Regenmangel das Wachsen der Pflanzen noch nicht begonnen hatte. Es kann daher dieses Tränken der Erde wohl nur als Vorbereitung für die folgende Bildung des Menschen von der Erde gefasst werden. Von dem Tage, an welchem die Erde für den Empfang des Menschen mit ihrer Pflanzenwelt bereit da stand, harrte sie seiner Ankunft entgegen und ward fortdauernd für die Bildung desselben vorbereitet.

ואד, “and a kind of mist;” the letter ו at the beginning off the word אד, appears to be superfluous; there are numerous such apparently superfluous prefixes ו in the Torah. As a result, in order not to have to consider that letter as superfluous, our author suggests that the meaning of the two verses 56 must be understood thus: “all the grasses etc. in the field were in a state of suspense after having been created, as only a kind of mist had been rising from the earth due to the influence of sun and moon, this being only sufficient to provide minimal moisture for these herbs. The section of the verse commencing with: for “G-d had not yet let it rain, nor had there been a human being to till the earth,” interrupts the story in order to provide us with the reason why none of these plants have been reported as growing.

Here, too. Why was Rashi forced to explain [that “a mist rose” is from the waters of the deep and] not from the waters on the surface of the earth which [evaporate and] feed the clouds? Because it is written: “For Adonoy Elohim had not brought rain,” referring to ordinary rain, from which come the waters on the earth. Thus, before man was created it did not rain. Yet “a mist rose” before man was created, for only afterwards it is written (v. 7), “Adonoy Elohim then formed the man.” If this mist was from ordinary rain, the verses would contradict each other.

יעלה, “would rise;” the word must be understood as being in the past tense. Compare Genesis 8,20: ויעל עולות במזבח, “he (Noach) would offer burnt offerings on the altar.” (past tense).

והשקה את כל פני האדמה, “and it provided irrigation for the entire earth.” The reference is to the planetary system and all that is below it and exerts influence on life on earth. The additional word כל, “all,” is the reason the sages said in Sanhedrin 35 that the dust of the earth was collected from all four corners of the earth.

וייצר AND GOD FORMED — Here the letter yod is written twice to intimate that there were two formations — a formation of man for this world, and a formation of man for resurrection; in the case of animals, however, which will not stand after death for judgment before God the word referring to their formation— ויצר —(Genesis 2:19) is not written with two yods (Midrash Tanchuma, Tazria 1).

AND HE BREATHED INTO HIS NOSTRILS THE BREATH OF LIFE. This alludes to the superiority of the soul, its foundation and secret, since it mentions in connection with it the full Divine Name.²⁸⁴And the ‘Eternal G-d’ formed… and He breathed into his nostrils…. And the verse says that He breathed into his nostrils the breath of life in order to inform us that the soul did not come to man from the elements, as He intimated concerning the soul of moving things, nor was it an evolvement from the Separate Intelligences.²³⁷Intelligences without matter, generally referring to the angels and spheres. See Rambam, Hilchoth Yesodei Hatorah 3:9. Also Moreh Nebuchim, I, 49: “The angels are likewise incorporeal; they are intelligences without matter, etc.” (Friedlander’s translation.) Rather, it was the spirit of the Great G-d: out of his mouth cometh knowledge and discernment.²⁸⁵Proverbs 2:6. For he who breathes into the nostrils of another person gives into him something from his own soul.²⁸⁶Similarly, since G-d breathed into man’s nostrils, it follows that the soul in man is of Divine essence. It is this which Scripture says, And the breath of the Almighty giveth them understanding,²⁸⁷Job 32:8. since the soul is from the foundation of binah (understanding) by way of truth and faith.²⁸⁸Truth and faith here signify Cabalistic concepts. See my Hebrew commentary, p. 33. This corresponds to the saying of the Rabbis in the Sifre:²⁸⁹Numbers, beginning of Seder Matoth. “Vows are like swearing ‘by the life of the King:’ oaths are like swearing ‘by the King Himself.’ Although there is no proof for it in Scripture, there is an allusion to it: By the living G-d, and by the life of your soul.”²⁹⁰II Kings 4:30. Here in the verse where an oath is being expressed, it says, by the living G-d. It does not say “by the life of G-d,” which would indicate that His life is independent of Him; rather it says, by the living G-d, thus indicating that life is His very essence. (The correctness of this translation is indicated by the patach under the word chai, which is not in the construct state, and therefore means “the living G-d.”) See my Hebrew commentary, p. 33, for further elucidation of this point. Thus there is an allusion here to the teaching of the Sifre that “an oath is like swearing ‘by the King Himself,’” since in this verse quoted, where an oath is being given, it says, by the living G-d. This is an oath “by the King Himself.” In the case of a person, however, it says “by the life of your soul,” thus indicating that in a human being his life and his soul are two independent things. This explains the tzere under the word chei, which indicates a construct state combining two independent nouns. Thus there is an allusion to “Vows are like swearing ‘by the life of the King.’” See also Note 293. And in the Midrash of Rabbi Nechunya ben Hakanah we find:²⁹¹Sefer Habahir, 57. See above, Note 42. “What is the meaning of the word vayinafash (and He rested)?²⁹²Exodus 31:17. It teaches us that the day of the Sabbath preserves all souls, for it is vayinafash” [i.e., from the word nefesh, soul]. It is from here that you will understand the expression, speaking the oath of G-d.²⁹³Ecclesiastes 8:2. This denotes that an oath is like swearing “by G-d Himself.” See Note 290 above. The person learned in the mysteries of the Torah will understand.
Know that those who engage in research have differed concerning man. Some say that man has three souls. One is the soul of growth, like that in a plant; or you may call this “the force of growth.” Then there is also a soul of movement in him, which Scripture mentioned concerning fish, animals, and everything that creeps upon the earth. The third is the rational soul. And there are some philosophers who say that this soul in man which comes from the Most High comprises these three forces while the soul is but one.²⁹⁴The division of opinion among the philosophers as to the nature of the soul is clearly marked in Jewish philosophy. Ibn Ezra (Ecclesiastes 3:7) writes at length to prove that the soul in man consists of three parts. He quotes Saadia Gaon to be of the same opinion. The poet-philosopher Solomon ibn Gabirol (M’kor Chayim 5:20) also held this theory. Rambam, however, in his Sh’monah P’rakim, Chapter 1, holds that man’s soul is but one. This verse in its plain meaning so indicates for it states that G-d formed man of the dust of the ground, but he lay there lifeless like a dumb stone, and the Holy One, blessed be He, breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and then man became a living soul, able to move about by virtue of this soul, just like the animals and the fish, concerning which He said: ‘Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures,’²⁹⁵Above, 1:20. and ‘Let the earth bring forth the living creature.’²⁹⁶Ibid., Verse 24. This is the meaning of the expression here, ‘lenefesh chayah’ (into a living soul) man was made, meaning man turned into a soul in which there is life, after having been as a potsherd with the potsherds of the earth.²⁹⁷Isaiah 45:9. For the letter lamed in the word lenefesh indicates the opposite, [namely, that from being a potsherd he became a living soul]. And so it is in the verses, And the water shall turn ‘ledam’ (into blood) upon the dry land;²⁹⁸Exodus 4:9. And it turned ‘lenachash’ (into a snake);²⁹⁹Ibid., Verse 3. And He made the sea ‘lecharavah’ (into dry land).³⁰⁰Ibid., 14:21.
Onkelos, however, said: “And it became a speaking soul in man.” From this it would appear that his opinion coincides with those who say that man has various souls and that this rational soul which G-d breathed into his nostrils became a speaking soul.
It appears to me that this also is the opinion of our Rabbis, as we may deduce from what they said:³⁰¹Sanhedrin 65b. “Rava created a man. He sent him to Rabbi Zeira who spoke to him but he did not answer. Said Rabbi Zeira to him: ‘You are created by one of the colleagues; return to your dust.’”³⁰²This story indicates that man has various souls, since Rava was able to bestow the soul of movement upon the man he created, but he could not give him the soul of speech. And in Midrash Vayikra Rabbah we find written:³⁰³32:2. “Said Rabbi Avin: When a man sleeps, the body tells the neshamah (the moving spirit), and the neshamah tells the nefesh (the rational soul), and the nefesh tells the angel.”³⁰⁴The Midrash there concludes that each soul in man communicates to the other its sense of agreement that G-d’s judgment is just. At the same time it is obvious from this Midrash that the Rabbis are of the opinion that there are various souls in man. So also the verse, He gathers unto Himself his spirit and his breath,³⁰⁵Job 34:14. indicates, according to its plain meaning, that his spirit and breath are two distinct things.
That being so, the verse, And the Eternal G-d formed man, states the formation of movement, that man was formed into a creature capable of movement since “formation” denotes life and perception by virtue of which he is a man and not a kneaded mass of dust, just as it is said, And the Eternal G-d formed out of the ground every beast of the field, and He brought them unto the man.³⁰⁶Further, Verse 19. And after He formed him with the power of perception, He breathed into his nostrils a living soul from the Most High, this soul being in addition to the formation mentioned, and the whole man became a living soul since by virtue of this soul he understands and speaks and does all his deeds and all other souls and their powers in man are subject to it. The letter lamed in the word lenefesh is thus the lamed indicating possession, just as in the following verses: My lord, O king, ‘lecha ani’ (I am thine), and all that I have;³⁰⁷I Kings 20:4. ‘lakoneh’ (to him that bought) it, throughout his generations;³⁰⁸Leviticus 25:30., ‘lecha ani’ (I am thine), save me.³⁰⁹Psalms 119:94. Or, it may be that the verse is stating that man wholly became a living soul and was transformed into another man, as all His formations were, from now on, directed towards this soul.

וייצר ה' אלוקים, the animals had not rated involvement of both attributes of G’d in their creation and formation. Not only that, but in order to create man G’d had used עפר מן האדמה, the choicest of the dust available on earth. Moreover,

וייצר ה' אלוקים את האדם, the word is written with two letters י as is appropriate. We find this fact commented on allegorically in Bereshit Rabbah 14,2 where it is suggested that these two letters י allude to man’s basic urges, contradictory tendencies of either being obedient to G’d or rebelling against His dictates. [there is an obscure reference to two different kinds of development of the fetus before birth, i.e. a seven month pregnancy or a nine month pregnancy respectively, being alluded to by the two letters י. If that is the meaning of the spelling, there is no moral lesson involved here. Ed.] עפר מן האדמה, the Torah here mentions only one of the four raw materials man is made of, seeing it is the predominant one, at least quantitatively, in all land based living creatures as opposed to the creatures whose habitat is the water, whose predominant raw material is the water. In the case of the birds, air is the quantitatively predominant raw material. This fact enables the birds to fly in the air. Mention of the raw material עפר means that this raw material distinguishes man, is the most visible, the result of G’d’s directive to earth to bring forth a lifeless human being beautifully shaped, functional, awaiting only the soul G’d would insert to turn it into a living creature. מן האדמה, the prefix ה was used here to let us know that only the choicest earth was employed in constructing this golem. Man’s body is superior to the bodies of the other mammals that had also been produced by primarily using earth as their raw material. Proof that this claim is correct is the fact that man alone of all the mammals on earth walks upright. The scholar Rabbi Yoseph ben Tzadik (in a book called olam hakatan) writes that we can understand this by comparing pure oil and impure oil respectively supplying a wick with its fuel. When pure oil is used, the flame rises perpendicularly, not flickering from one side to another, whereas when impure, insufficiently refined oil is used, the flame does not rise in an uninterrupted upward motion. Similarly, the fact that man walks upright is a reflection of the purity of the raw material used in his composition. An additional reason why man is able to walk upright is the fact that he contains the soul whose origin is in heaven. This fact would reflect that whatever grows reflects its origin in the manner in which it grows. Seeing that man’s head is his most important part, it being higher than the rest of his body, it is no more than natural that he would walk in a manner which illustrates the superior importance of his head, i.e. walking upright, head held high. By holding his head high, he symbolically points toward heaven, his origin.

Two creations. One creation for this world, and one creation for when the dead will be resurrected. This apparently means that Hashem now gives man the vitality to come back to life after death, as Hashem wills it. (Nachalas Yaakov)

וייצר ד׳א׳ ועו׳. In diesem Satze ist das ganze Geheimnis des Menschenwesens niedergelegt, und an den hier geoffenbarten Tatsachen hängt das ganze Bewusstsein der Menschenwürde und des Menschenberufs. Es ist vielfach aufgefallen, dass hier die ganze Würde des Menschen darin zusammengedrängt erscheint, dass er נפש חיה geworden, ein Charakter, den ja auch die ganze übrige lebendige Welt bis zum kleinsten Insekt hinab trägt. Allein der Schwerpunkt dieses Satzes liegt nicht in נפש חיה, sondern in dem ויהי האדם לנ׳ח׳, so ward der Mensch zum נפש היה. Nicht dass der Mensch zu einem lebendigen Individunm geworden, sondern wie er es geworden, darin liegt die ganze Höhe, die ihn von allen übrigen lebendigen Wesen auf Erden scheidet. יצר. Was יסר für den Geist und das Gemüth ist, das ist יצר für den Stoff. Beides heißt: den geistigen oder leiblichen Stoff innerhalb einer bestimmten Richtung für ein bestimmtes Ziel umschränken; jenes ist das Geschäft der geistigen und sittlichen Erziehung und Bildung, dieses der stofflichen Gestaltung und Formgebung. Beides ist wiederum mit ישר (lautverwandt mit גשר ,קשר ,כשר) verwandt, das ja auch die kürzeste und direkteste Richtung auf ein Ziel, die gerade Linie bedeutet. — Ob עפר (verwandt mit חפר) seine Bedeutung in dem lautverwandten עבר, (Die Außenseite, die man sofort antrifft, sobald man den Durchmesser des Gegenstandes zurückgelegt hat, woher auch חבר, sich dem Andern zur Seite anfügen) und עור, (Die Außenseite des lebendigen Organismus, vergl. übrigens Seite 9), findet und also die lose, lockere Außenseite des Erdkörpers bedeutet, die selbst als feinster Staub unverlierbar zu ihr gehört und immer wieder ihr zurückfällt, stellen wir als Vermuthung hin.

. וייצר ה' אלוקים את האדם, “G-d shaped the human being;” seeing that the Torah wished to write that G-d placed man inside the garden, it repeated part of the process by which man was created, [showing that G-d was active in his creation beyond the initial stages. Ed.] The words: ויטע, “He planted,” and ויצמח, “He made grow,” were written in order to lead up to the story of the tree of knowledge, and the commandment forbidding man to eat from that tree.

עפר מן האדמה DUST OF THE EARTH — He gathered his dust (i. e. that from which he was made) from the entire earth — from its four corners — in order that wherever he might die, it should receive him for burial (Midrash Tanchuma, Pekudei 3). Another explanation: He took his dust from that spot on which the Holy Temple with the altar of atonement was in later times to be built of which it is said, (Exodus 20:24) “An altar of earth thou shalt make for Me” saying, “Would that this sacred earth may be an expiation for him so that he may be able to endure” (Genesis Rabbah 14:8).

ויפח באפיו נשמת חיים, G’d personally blew a soul of life into man, a life force which had been readied to absorb what was previously called צלם אלוקים, “the image of G’d.” This has been attested to in Job 32,8 ונשמת שדי תבינם,”by means of the breath of the attribute of Shaddai You endowed them with understanding.” At any rate, ויהי האדם לנפש חיה, man had remained a living creature (similar to the animals) until You equipped him with a divine-like tzelem and demut.

ויפח באפיו נשמת חיים, G’d blew into man some of the spirit prevailing in the highest regions on earth. Whereas the life force of the animals is described as נפש חיים, something abstract but originating in physical earth, man’s life force is called here נשמה, to alert us to the fact that the origin of this life force is not physical, has not been supplied by earth, in fact could not have been supplied by earth. Our verse illustrates what G’d had meant when He had announced that man would be בצלמנו כדמותנו, “in Our image, Our likeness.” (1,24). This is so in spite of the fact that sometimes man is equipped additionally with רוח and נפש. The expression נשמה is reserved exclusively for describing man, whereas the other two expressions, describing non-tangible animalistic forms of energy called “life-force,” are shared by man and beast. You may argue that the Torah describes all of the living creatures by invoking the term נשמה in Genesis 7,22. We are told there: כל אשר נשמת רוח חיים באפיו וגו', “every creature which had the soul and spirit of life in its nostrils… died.” We must understand that verse as meaning that man who possessed both a נשמה as well as רוח חיים, died.”

The breath (or “soul”) of life. Chayim — “life” — is in the plural to indicate that the soul possesses numerous faculties, such as growth, sensation and intellect. Alternatively, it indicates that the soul lives forever.

He gathered dust... [Rashi knows this] because if not, why does it say, “Dust from the ground?” One term is sufficient! But this explanation raises a difficulty: It should say, “From all the earth.” Thus Rashi offers the other explanation. And the other explanation also raises a difficulty: It should say: “מֵאדמה”. Why the word מִן? Thus Rashi offered the first explanation, “From all four corners.” (Maharshal)

Wir lesen hier also: "Da formte ׳ד׳ א, der Weltschöpfer und Ordner, der aber mit dem Menschen eine fernere, höhere Entwickelung der von ihm geschaffenen Erdwelt einleiten will, den Menschen, Staub von dem Menschen-Boden, und hauchte in sein Antlitz Odem des Lebens, da ward der Mensch zu einem lebendigen Wesen". Bei der Schöpfung der übrigen lebendigen Wesen hieß es: תוצא הארץ נפש חיה es bringe die Erde lebende Wesen hervor. Wie bei den Pflanzen war auch bei der Schöpfung der Tiere die Erde thätig, und ihr entsprang nicht nur der Tierleib, sondern mit dem Leib zugleich das Tierleben. Das lebendige Individuum brachte die Erde hervor. Nicht so beim Menschen. Bei der Schöpfung des Menschen, auch bei der Schöpfung seines Leibes, war die Erde passiv. Ihre Tätigkeit für die Bildung des Menschen liegt vor der Schöpfung desselben. Seitdem sie geworden, hatte sie alle Tage hindurch sich zu tränken, um den Stoff für das edelste Geschöpf vorzubereiten. Mit dieser Vorbereitung des edelsten Stoffes hatte sie ihre höchste Tat vollendet. Der Stoff zum Menschenleib war ihr letztes und edelstes Produkt. Von da ab war sie bei der Schöpfung des Menschenleibes untätig. Es ist ׳ד׳ א, der den Menschenleib bildet. Es tritt hier wiederum die besondere Dignität auch des Menschenleibes hervor, die schon oben I. 26. 27. gewürdigt worden. Allein auch nach der Bildung des Leibes von der Erde war er noch עפר. Es heißt nicht: Gott bildete den Menschen מן עפר, aus Staub der Erde, sondern: ויצר ד׳ א׳ את האדם עפר מן האדמה er bildete ihn Staub von der Erde. Was Gott von der Erde zum Menschen bildete, war nur das, was עפר, irden an ihm ist, von der Erde stammt, irden ist, und wie der Staub der Erde wieder verfällt. Das Menschen- leben, das Lebendige im Menschen entnahm Gott nicht der Erde. Leblos, עפר, lag der für den künftigen Menschen geformte Leib da, da hauchte ׳ד׳ א in sein Antlitz den Odem des Lebens und so ward der Mensch zu einem lebendigen Wesen. Was den Menschen von dem Tiere scheidet? Beim Tiere haftet die lebendige Individualität an dem irdischen Stoff; wie der Leib, so ist auch die Seele der Erde entsprossen. Beim Menschen ist nur der todte Stoff der Erde entnommen, und erst der Hauch von Gott macht ihn zum lebendigen Individuum. Darin liegt die Freiheit, die Un- sterblichkeit, die ganze Größe des Menschen. Das das Tier zum Individuum machende Leben stammt von der Erde und verfällt der Erde. Nicht so das Lebendige im Menschen. Nicht nur der Geist, auch die Lebenskraft ist beim Menschen etwas Höheres als beim Tier. Auch sie ist nicht an den Leib, sondern an den Geist geknüpft. Mit dem Geist erhielt er das Leben, in dem Geist haftet seine Seele. Scheidet der Geist, so wird das Lebendige nicht mit eingesargt; denn es haftet an dem Geist. Deshalb ist auch seine irdische, sinnliche Erhaltung, seine Gesundheit nicht blos vom Leibe abhängig. Was das Tier tötet, tötet darum noch nicht immer den Menschen, und das Leben des Menschen ist kein so zu berechnender Moment, wie das des Tieres. אדם יש לו מזל, es giebt im Menschen ein sich aller Berechnung Entziehendes, er kann, wenn auch alles Andere bereits geschwunden scheint, durch den Geist noch lebendig bleiben; denn der Geist trägt auch das Leben. Wer will berechnen, wie lange ein vollkommener Menschengeist auch den Leib dem Leben erhalten kann. So sind im Menschen zwei ihrer Natur nach völlig verschiedene Wesen vereinigt. Das eine ist der Erde angehörig. Allein wie der Mensch nicht der Erde angehört, sondern die Erde dem Menschen zur Herrschaft übergeben ist, אדמה ist, also ist auch das Bißchen עפר מן האדמה, das den Menschenleib bildet, dem Menschen unterthan. Sein eigentliches geistiges und lebendiges Wesen haftet nicht daran, und auch während ihrer sinnlichen Vereinigung kann der Mensch und soll er, was irdisch an ihm ist, beherrschen. Was עפר, irdisch an ihm ist, kann sich als solches dem Gebiete der Unfreiheit nicht entziehen und erliegt den Einflüssen irdischer Elemente. Allein was ihn zum Menschen macht, die נשמת חיים, die ihm ׳ד׳ א mit seinem Hauche gegeben, macht ihn der Natur dieses ihres Ursprungs teilhaftig, hebt ihn über alle zwingende Notwendigkeit, macht ihn frei und hebt auch den Leib mit hinein in das Bereich der Freiheit.

ויפח באפיו נשמת חימם, “He blew into his nostrils a living soul.” G-d personally blew the breath of life into the human being, something He had not done for any of His other creatures. Why was all this necessary? This was in order to enable man to have the wisdom, i.e. holy spirit, to enable him when viewing all the animals to name them correctly after having discerned how each was different from the other.

ויפח באפיו AND BREATHED INTO HIS NOSTRILS — He made him of both, of earthly and of heavenly matter: the body of the earthly, and the soul of the heavenly. For on the first day were created heaven and earth, on the second, He created the firmament for the heavenly beings, on the third He said, “Let the dry land appear” — for the earthly beings, on the fourth He created the lights for the heavenly beings, on the fifth He said, “Let the waters swarm…” — for the earthly beings. Consequently on the sixth there had to be created a being composed of both, of heavenly and of earthly matter, for otherwise there would have been envy (lack of harmony) among the works of Creation, in that there would have been devoted to one class of them one day more of the Creation than to the others (Genesis Rabbah 12:8).

באפיו, all land-based living creatures, man as well as mammals, need the nose to breathe, i.e. to stay alive. It is the organ through which cold air enters man from the outside and blows on the heart. It is also the organ through which the air exits after it has performed its task. The air exiting through the nostrils is the one left over after digestion, having previously nestled around the warmth of the heart. It (the heart’s task) is divided into three parts as the biologists and anthropologists have told us. It comprises growth potential, sensitivity i.e. ability to move, and the ability to think.

A living soul. This alludes to the unique human capacity for free choice. The word nefesh — “soul” — indicates desire, as in Devarim 21:14. The implication is that only human beings were created to exercise their free will.

Will receive him for burial. This raises a difficulty: Animals are received for burial, although their dust was never gathered! Rather, Rashi is saying that the earth receives and guards man’s body within it until the dead will be resurrected (Devek Tov).

Bedeutungsvoll ist es ferner, wenn es hier heißt: Gott hat dem Menschen die Seele des Lebens ins Antlitz eingehaucht. Es heißt nicht בפניו, sondern באפיו. Die Wurzel von אף und אפים dürfte nicht אנף, sondern אפף sein, אפף aber: schnaufen, mit Gier etwas in sich aufnehmen wollen, bedeuten. Daher die Partikel אף: auch, wenn etwas Vorangehendes oder vorangehend Gedachtes so stark ist, dass es etwas Nachfolgendes mit in sein Bereich zieht. (Vgl. גם von גמא und מגמת פניהם, und die Gegensätze אך abschlagend, רק leerend, mindernd.) Verwandt mit אבב :אפף, das gierige Trinken der Halme aus dem Boden, daher אב und אביב, ogl. גמא von אפים .גמא daher: die Öffnung am Körper, wodurch der Mensch den zu seiner Erhaltung notwendigen Strom des Lebens begierig in sich aufnimmt — Nase, und auch allgemein: das strebende, wollende, verlangende Antlitz, daher ארך אפים Geduld, קצר אפים Ungeduld, und אף das unbefriedigte Verlangen, der Zorn. פנים aber allgemein: das sich irgend einer Richtung zuwendende Angesicht. Daher auch vorzugsweise השתחוה אפים ארצה, sich mit seinem ganzen Streben und Wollen jemandem unterwerfen. Und בזעת אפיך תאכל לחם, nicht אפים .פניך, das Streben, die Welt in sich aufzunehmen, ein Stückchen Universum sich zu gewinnen, ist Ziel jeder Arbeit. In der ursprünglichen Stellung im גן עדן kam die Welt diesem Streben freudig und freundlich entgegen. Seitdem die Pforten des Paradieses hinter dem Menschen zugefallen, kann er auch das Notwendigste nur im Schweiße der Mühe gewinnen. — Hier also lag schwer wie ein Toter der Leib des Menschen am Boden, geöffnet war ihm das Antlitz, um wie das Tier aufzunehmen die Bedingung des individuellen Lebens; in dies Antlitz hauchte ihm Gott den Odem des Lebens. Indem hier die Bedingung des Lebens dem Menschen ins Haupt, ins Antlitz, gehaucht ward, ward der Mensch auch in seiner äußeren Erscheinung über alle Geschöpfe der Erdwelt gehoben. Er bildet dadurch den völligen Gegensatz zur Pflanze. Die Pflanze hat die Bedingung ihres Daseins unten, aus der Erde; bei dem Tiere liegt die Quelle des Lebens in der Mitte, im Herzen; beim Menschen im Haupte, in der Krone; sein Leben ist an den Geist geknüpft. Der Mensch blickt nach Oben, hat alle seine Kraft von Oben, wenn er hofft, wenn er wünscht, wenn er denkt; das in sein Antlitz eingehauchte Leben trägt den Menschen, hält ihn aufrecht — mit dem Schwinden des Bewusstseins fällt er.

נשמת חיים, “an immortal soul,” surviving the death of the body it inhabits.

לנפש חיה A LIVING SOUL — Also cattle and beasts are called נפש חיה (1:20, 22, 24), but the נפש of man is the most highly developed of all of them, because to him was granted understanding and speech.

If this were not so, there would be jealousy... This is from Vayikra Rabba. One might ask: Rest on Shabbos was created for earthly matter. Why then is there no jealousy in Creation? The answer: Rest is mainly for man, who is created from heavenly and earthly matter. Thus there is no jealousy. (Nachalas Yaakov)

Die Weisen machen noch aufmerksam auf die Schreibart des וייצר, mit doppeltem י. Es ist dies das einzige Mal, in welchem das; der racl hervortritt. Sie sind unerschöpflich in Deutung dieses doppelten י, in welchem ihnen die ב׳ יצירות, die Doppelbildung des Menschen bezeichnet liegt. Er vereinigt nämlich Ewiges und Vergängliches, Irdisches und Himmlisches, vereinigt in sich יצר טוב und יצר הרע er ist für עה"ז und ע׳הבא geschaffen. וייצר — das eine י, die eine יצירה, ist hörbar, das andere quiesziert — die Erscheinung des Menschen ist immer eine doppelte Erscheinung. Eine Bildung ist immer im Menschen vorherrschend; allein sie verdrängt die andere nicht, die andere ist immer durchschimmernd. Der höchste Mensch gehört noch der Erde an, in dem Gesunkensten schimmert noch das Menschliche hindurch. Auch die höchste Tat des יצר טוב wird noch den Kampf, die Trophäen über den יצר הרע nicht verleugnen, und auch umgekehrt. Hoher Dank gebührt ihnen, dass sie uns aufmerksam machen, wie der Mensch von vorn herein für beide Richtungen gebildet worden. Ist ja auch יצר הרע die Sinnlichkeit, an sich nicht רע. Jede Richtung, sobald sie מיוסר vom יוצר ist, ist rein und heilig. ,derselbe, der die Eine Richtung, hat auch die Andere geschaffen. Der Mensch ,וייצר das "Rothe" ist nicht der weiße Strahl, er ist das gebrochene, mit dem ,אדם Irdischen vermählte göttliche Licht; ist nicht מלאך, sondern אדם; hat zunächst nicht in dieser sinnlichen Welt, mit seiner sinnlichen Natur seine ,בעה״ז sondern ,בע"הבא göttlich sittliche Aufgabe zu lösen. Nicht dem Satan ist diese sinnliche Welt und diese sinnliche Natur des Menschen verfallen, wie sie nicht von einem Satan stammt. Es ist dies eine Mißgeburt, die zum Fluche der Menschheit ersonnen worden. Der jüdischen Lehre erscheint der Mensch in seiner Doppelbildung aus Gottes Händen; denn eben in dem Menschen soll sich das Himmlische mit dem Irdischen, das Ewige mit dem Vergänglichen vermählen.

ויהי האדם לנפש חיה, man now appeared similar to other living creatures that move on their feet, propelled by the נפש, life-force which becomes active as soon as the baby leaves the mother’s womb. Original man is described here as fully mature, not like subsequent human beings who were born by woman, and who could not walk, etc., as soon as they were born. The reason why he could walk immediately was because he was created as a grown up, did not have to grow from being an infant first. The weakness of human beings at birth, and therefore their inability to walk from birth, etc., stems from the fact that while in the womb, the nourishment provided by the mother’s menstrual blood is impure, unlike the animal young who had shared the same food as their respective mothers while inside the womb. This is why these animals are practically able to fend for themselves soon after they have been born. [mobility, i.e. the ability of moving about on its own is considered a crucial part of the definition נפש חיה being a living creature. Ed.] Both Adam and Chavah resembled the animals in that respect, never having been fed polluted food. This is the reason why our verse uses the term לנפש חיה, to alert the reader that the first pair of human beings was different from subsequent humans in that they were fully developed as soon as they could breathe.
As to Onkelos’ translation of נפש חיה, as רוח ממללא, “talking spirit,” a well known commentary, perhaps the way we have to understand his commentary is that only after G’d blew the נשמה into Adam’s nostrils did he become a creature that could express his feelings and thoughts in words. It is also possible to interpret the expressionויהי האדם לנפש חיה, as man now becoming capable to possess eternal life by being directly connected to the source of eternal life. The words לנפש חיה are to be contrasted to נפש מתה, a life force which is mortal, i.e. which dies as soon as its body dies.

מקדם EASTWARD — In the east of Eden He planted the garden. Should you say, however, it is already written, (1:27) “and He created the man etc.”, then I say that I have seen the Baraitha of R. Eliezer the son of R. José the Galilean, dealing with the thirty two rules of interpretation according to which the Torah (Agada) can be interpreted, and the following is one of them: when a general statement of an action is followed by a detailed account of it, the latter is a particularisation of the former: — “And He created the man” is a general statement, but it does not explicitly state whence he was created and what God did unto him. Now it repeats it and explains these things: “And the Lord God formed man”, “and He made to grow for him the garden of Eden”, and He caused a deep sleep to fall upon him.” He who hears this might think that it is a different account entirely, whereas it is nothing else but the details of the former general statement. Similarly with reference to the cattle the creation of which has been mentioned above (1:27). it resumes and writes, (2:19) “and out of the ground the Lord [God] formed every beast of the field etc.”, for the purpose of explaining “and He brought them unto the man to give them names”, and also to state that the fowls were created from the swamps.

AND THE ETERNAL G-D PLANTED A GARDEN ‘MIKEDEM’ (EASTWARD) IN EDEN. Rashi explained that “in the east of Eden He planted the garden.” But Onkelos translated mikedem to mean “previously,” [that is, before man was created]. And so have the Rabbis said in Bereshith Rabbah,³¹⁰15:4. and this is the correct explanation.
The meaning of vayita (and He planted) is not that He brought the trees from another place and planted them here for it was from that place that He caused them to grow, just as it is said, And out of the ground the Eternal G-d caused to grow every tree.³¹¹Verse 9. But the purport of the expression, and the Eternal G-d planted, is to state that it was the planting of the Eternal,³¹²Isaiah 61:3. for before He decreed upon the earth, Let the earth put forth grass,³¹³Above, 1:11. He had already decreed that in that place there be a garden, and He further said: “Here shall be this tree, and here that tree,” like the rows of planters. It was unlike the rest of the places on the earth concerning which He said, Let the earth put forth grass… and fruit-tree,³¹³Above, 1:11. and it then grew without order. Now concerning the trees of the garden of Eden He decreed that they grow branches and bear fruit forever, the root thereof was never to wax old in the earth, and the stock thereof was never to die in the ground.³¹⁴See Job 14:8. These trees were not to need any one to tend and prune them. For if they were in need of cultivation, who tended them after man was driven therefrom? This also is the meaning of the expression, And the Eternal G-d planted, that they were His plantings, the work of His hands,³¹⁵See Isaiah 60:21. and existing forever, even as it is said, Its leaf shall not wither, neither shall the fruit thereof fail … because the waters thereof issue out of the sanctuary.³¹⁶Ezekiel 47:12. If so, what then is the meaning of the verse: And He put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate it and to keep it?³¹⁷Further, Verse 15. He put him [man] there so that he should sow for himself wheat and all kinds of produce, and every herb bearing seed, and rows of spices, reaping and plucking and eating at his will. This also is the meaning of to cultivate it and to keep it³¹⁷Further, Verse 15. — to cultivate the ground of the garden by the rows he [man] would make there, for the part of the garden where the trees were was not to be cultivated.
It is possible that [in the words le’ovdah uleshomrah — literally, to cultivate her and to keep her,] He refers to the garden in the feminine gender, just as in the verses: And as the garden causeth the things that are sown in her to spring forth;³¹⁸Isaiah 61:11. And plant gardens.³¹⁹Jeremiah 29:5. Ganoth (gardens) is here in the feminine gender. Our Rabbis noted this use of the feminine gender, saying in Bereshith Rabbah:³²⁰16:8. “Le’ovdah uleshomrah (to cultivate her and to keep her) — these words refer to the sacrifices, as it is said, ‘Ta’avdun’ (Ye shall serve) G-d upon this mountain.³²¹Exodus 3:12. It is this which Scripture says, ‘Tishm’ru’ (Ye shall keep) to offer unto Me in its appointed season.”³²²Numbers 28:2. The intent of the Rabbis in this interpretation is that plants and all living beings are in need of primary forces from which they derive the power of growth and that through the sacrifices there is an extension of the blessing to the higher powers. From them it flows to the plants of the garden of Eden, and from them it comes and exists in the world in the form of “rain of goodwill and blessing,”³²³Taanith 19a. through which they will grow. This conforms to what the Rabbis have said:³²⁴Bereshith Rabbah 15:1. “The trees of the Eternal have their fill, the cedars of Lebanon, which He hath planted.³²⁵Psalms 104:16. Rabbi Chanina said: Their life shall have its fill; their waters shall have their fill; their plantings shall have their fill.” “Their life” refers to their higher foundations; “their waters” refer to His good treasure³²⁶Deuteronomy 28:12. which brings down the rain; and “their plantings” refer to their force in heaven, just as the Rabbis have said:³²⁷Bereshith Rabbah 10:7. This text is also quoted above 1:11 (Notes 135-6). “There is not a single blade of grass below that does not have a constellation in heaven that smites it and says to it, ‘Grow.’ It is this which Scripture says, Knowest thou the ordinances of the heavens? Canst thou establish ‘mishtara’ (the dominion thereof) in the earth — [mishtara being derived from the root] shoter (executive officer).”

אשר יצר, after G’d had created man in a manner appropriate to his superior status on earth, He placed him in Gan Eden, a location which was suitable to equip him with the צלם אלוקים, the divine image, enabling him to also fulfill the intellectual tasks involving the air and food in the garden.

ויטע השם אלוקים. The Lord G'd planted. The reason the Torah interrupts the sequence of G'd's planting all kinds of trees in that garden (verses 8 and 9 respectively) by mentioning that G'd placed Adam in גן עדן, is to make it clear that גן עדן had been created specifically in Adam's honour, in order to place him there. After having given us this information the Torah continues and tells us that G'd made all kinds of trees grow from the soil, that these trees looked attractive and were good as food, that G'd made rivers and the function of those rivers which emanated from גן עדן. The Torah then resumes its narrative about man in verse 15, telling us that G'd placed Adam there and assigned a function to him. The Torah repeats that G'd placed man in גן עדן only to confirm that the first time this was mentioned it was only to tell us that G'd had planted גן עדן in man's honour. Had this fact been mentioned only once we would have thought that G'd intended this garden also for other creatures, such as His angels, and that man was placed there temporarily. We would have thought that after man's expulsion, the garden would have remained as be a home for other creatures and for holy spirits. The Torah therefore is at pains to make us understand that the garden was planted exclusively for man's sake and awaits man's return at a suitable time in the future and that no other creature inhabits it in the meantime.

ויטע, the planting of Gan Eden is reported with the same verb ויטע as has been used by David in Psalms 104,16 for describing G’d as planting the cedar trees in Lebanon. At that point David described what G’d had done on the third day of creation; here too the Torah describes a garden whose origin G’d had planted already on the third day of creation. The distinction of Gan Eden is clear from the fact that no other region on earth was deemed worthy of being singled out as warranting G’d’s personal involvement.

ויטע ה' אלוקים גן בעדן מקדם, “The Lord G’d planted a garden in Eden, in the east.” He planted the garden to the east of an area known as Eden. Some commentators believe that the country was called “Eden,” as in Kings II Onkelos understands the word מקדם as מלקדמין, as of ancient times, which Nachmanides equates with G’d not transplanting the trees in that garden from another location, but making them grow from the very roots, as indicated by the words ויצמח ה' אלוקים, the Lord G’d made grow, etc.” In other words, the directive for these trees to grow was given long before G’d instructed the earth on the third day to produce vegetation. G’d had decreed already at that early stage of creation that this spot would become the site of גן עדן. He had even selected the precise spot for each tree in that garden, personally. The earth had not had any leeway in the matter as it had elsewhere on the globe. As to the Torah writing that G’d placed Adam in that garden in order to work it and preserve it, this means that Adam was to sow and make additional rows of trees, etc. If the trees of the original garden had required tending, who would have done this after Adam had been expelled?

East of Eden. This explanation is contrary to Targum Onkelos who translates מקדם as “previously.” [Rashi rejects this] because a simple reading of the verse implies that vegetation and trees did not sprout in Gan Eden, or anywhere else, before man’s creation. Rashi added the extra words “where He planted the Garden” so we will not mistakenly explain the verse as: “To the east He placed the man He had formed.”

Nicht א׳, sondern ד׳א׳, die menschenerziehende Gottes-Fürsorge pflanzte den Garten. גן von גנן, schützen, wahren: ein eingefriedigter, für Menschenzwecke eingehegter Ort. (Auch im Deutschen und in anderen Sprachen hat der Garten, garden, jardin, seinen Namen von gard, schützen, wahren.) עדן bezeichnet die höchste Befriedigung meistens der sinnlichen Anforderungen des Menschen. Verwandt mit אדן, dem Säulenfuß, der Basis, scheint der Grundbegriff die Behaglichkeit zu sein, die ein Zustand unsern Sinnen gewährt, etwas worauf oder worin wir gerne unsere Sinne ruhen lassen. Es ist hier durchaus an einen irdischen, räumlichen Ort zu denken, der ja im Verfolg topographisch genau bestimmt wird. — וישם שם ist nicht blos ein räumliches Versetzen, sondern ein Einsetzen, Stellung anweisen. Was hier zuerst allgemein, כלל, erzählt wird, wird im folgenden spezieller ausgeführt. Der Garten wird beschrieben, und uns auch mitgeteilt, dass die Einsetzung in den Garten nicht bedingungslos geschehen. Wir erfahren aber schon hier, und es wird Raw Hirsch on Genesis 2: 15 nochmals wiederholt, dass der Mensch außerhalb des Paradieses geschaffen und die Bestimmung erhielt, schon hienieden in einem Paradiese zu leben. Dieses irdische Paradies ist schon diesseits die Bestimmung des Menschen und der Erde. Es ist uns gezeigt, was wir würden, wie wir lebten, wie die irdische Welt sich uns zum Paradiese gestaltete, wenn wir wären, was wir sein sollten. Eine solche Belehrung wiederholt sich in verjüngtem Maßstabe für eine verjüngte Musterauswahl aus der Menschheit in ארץ ישראל, das auch für das Volk des göttlichen Gesetzes ein גן עדן sein, und in dessen segensreichem Gedeihen sich zum zweiten Male zeigen sollte, welch eine Fülle des Segens und des Heiles schon auf Erden erreichbar sei, wenn der göttliche Wille als alleiniger Maßstab für die Gestaltung aller menschlichen Verhältnisse zur Geltung komme.

וישם שם את האדם, “He placed Adam inside it.” When Adam had been created he did not find himself in the garden, for if he had been created in the garden he would have thought that the entire earth is such a garden. G-d deliberately created him outside the garden in order to show him that the rest of the earth was overgrown with thorns and thistles. His transfer to the garden, it was hoped, would make him grateful for having been placed in such a superior environment.

בעדן, a location so named because it was extremely fertile, its vegetation affording man’s body extreme pleasure when merely contemplating its beauty with his eyes, and even his invisible soul enjoyed its hidden beauty.

Should you ask. Although the question’s proper place is earlier (v. 7), on “Adonoy Elohim then formed the man,” Rashi waited to ask it until after he explained that Hashem “planted a garden in Eden מקדם, to the east.” Thus this verse describes one of the details of man’s creation, and thereby in accordance with Rashi’s answer to the above question, in which he says, “Hashem... caused the Garden of Eden to sprout for man’s benefit.” But if מקדם means “previously” [as Onkelos said,] then the Garden’s sprouting was not for man — and is not a detail of his creation. This would raise the question: Why does our verse interrupt [the story of man’s creation] to say, “Hashem planted a garden,” since He had planted it previously? Perforce, מקדם means “to the east,” as Rashi said. (Re’m) Alternatively, we can explain it the opposite way: If מקדם means “previously,” as Targum Onkelos says, then it is understandable that there it is written, “Hashem planted a garden [for him,]” right next to “Hashem formed man.” For this is in accordance with the Midrash: “וייצר with two yuds referring to two creations: One creation for this world and one creation for the World to Come.” I.e., man was created for the pleasures of the World to Come and for the pleasures of this world. Without the Midrash a difficulty arises: Why did He plant a garden in Eden previously, if not for man’s pleasures? But now that Rashi explains מקדם means “to the east,” it teaches only about the location of man’s residence, not about the pleasures of this world. And we could say the opposite, Heaven forbid, that He created man [only] to enjoy the pleasures of this world. And the question arises: Why is “Hashem planted a garden” written next to “Hashem formed man,” and not next to the earlier verse (1:27) “Hashem created man”? To answer this question, Rashi explains: “I saw in the B’rayso of R. Eliezer...”

ויטע, this has to be understood as “He had planted.” The same applies to the statement: ויצמח, “He had made it grow.” The plants had preceded the creation of man (Rabbi Shmuel son of Nachmeni, in B’reshit Rabbah, 15,3) is on record as saying that if we thought Gan Eden had preceded the creation of the universe this is an error. It only preceded the creation of Adam. [This is a reference to the word: מקדם, “previously;” Ed] When the Talmud stated in Pessachim 54 that one of the phenomena that were created before “the world,” was גן עדן, the meaning is: “before the universe had been completed, i.e. on the third “day”.

מקדם, in an easterly direction. Our sages (Bereshit Rabbah 15,3) understand the word מקדם as describing a time frame preceding the creation of man, i.e. whereas man was created on the sixth “day,” the garden was created on the third “day.” Other scholars quoted in Bereshit Rabbah there believe that the word מקדם is a reference to a “date” prior to the creation of the universe. This explanation is based on the Kabbalah. The great scholar Avraham Ibn Ezra (verse 11) writes: “we know that the location of Gan Eden was on the equator, a region in which day and night are of equal duration all year round.

וישם שם את האדם אשר יצר, Now that the Torah told us this we know that originally, man had not been created in Gan Eden. Perhaps he had been created in a region nearby, and G’d told Adam to take up residence in Gan Eden. Our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 14,8 state that man had been formed from the earth on Mount Moriah, and that from there G’d had transplanted him to Gan Eden. In Pirkey de Rabbi Eliezer chapter 31 we are told that Adam offered a sacrifice to G’d on Mount Moriah already. Also Adam’s sons, as well as Noach sacrificed to G’d on that mountain. The reason why when the Torah tells us about Avraham building המזבח “the” altar instead of simply ויבן אברהם מזבח, “Avraham built an altar,” is that this altar had already existed, had been known since Noach’s sacrifice. Adam had prophetic inspiration telling him of the significance of that location for offering a sacrifice. Still, G’d brought Adam to Gan Eden in order for him to appreciate the excellence of its fruit and eating of it without having to toil, deriving great satisfaction both for his body and his soul.

וישם, the choice of this word suggests that G’d appointed Adam as the gardener for this garden, to prevent wild beasts as well as domesticated beasts from entering there and from eating of its fruit. The fruit of the trees of that garden were reserved for man and his offspring, provided they would be found worthy to do so. אשר יצר, the reason why the Torah wrote these words, seeing we all know that G’d had formed man, is to tell us that man’s habitat, Gan Eden, had been a prime objective of G’d when He created man. (based on the Kabbalists) The letter ה which precedes the word אדם is necessary to help describe, define him, seeing he had no other individual name as yet. The word אדם is both an adjective, a derivative of the noun אדמה, describing a creature formed out of earth, as well as a noun in its own right. This noun has comprehensive meaning, similar to such nouns as חמה, sun, לבנה, moon, זכוכית, glass, etc. The fact is that most of man’s raw material has been directly derived from earth, even though he also contains material from the other three basic elements.
The bones making up man’s skeleton, supporting man’s body are formed out of earth, being cold and dry just as the earth itself. Seeing that they are an integral part of the earth they remain more or less intact for many years after the rest of man’s body has long rotted away and dissolved. The scholar Avraham Ibn Ezra wrote on verse 8 that the letter ה in the word האדם in our verse contains a hidden element. I believe that what he had in mind is that the letter ה indicates that the word אדם in this verse is a reference to “man” as the name of the human species. We find that among our sages (Bereshit Rabbah 15,2) there surface disagreements as to the meaning of the whole concept of Gan Eden. Rabbi Yehudah understands the meaning of the term as a great garden originating in a place called Eden. He quotes Ezekiel 31,9 in support of his view. We read there: ויקנאהו כל עצי עדן אשר בגן האלוקים, “all the trees in G’d’s garden envied it” (the cedar described by the prophet in the verses leading up to this one) In other words, Rabbi Yehudah understands the prophet Ezekiel as viewing this garden as having been located in a region known as Eden. His view is buttressed by Ezekiel 28,13 בעדן, גן האלוקים היית, “in Eden, the garden of G’d, you have been.”
Rabbi Yossi views עדן as something bigger than a גן, basing himself on the letter ב in the expression גן בעדן, i.e. “a garden within the area known as Eden.” Also, the verse (2,10) ונהר יצא מעדן להשקות את הגן, “a river originated in Eden in order to irrigate the garden, supports his view. [Actually, in the Yalkut another verse supporting the view of Rabbi Yehudah is quoted (בעדן גן האלוקים, in Eden the garden of G’d, which proves that the garden was bigger than the location described as Eden. Ezekiel 28,13) According to the view of Rabbi Yossi the amount of water squeezed from an area of 30 sa-ah בית כורת can adequately irrigate a half sa-ah. (Taaanit 10) The fountain of that river was within the garden, in the center, so that the vegetation all around it would be irrigated by its waters. According to Targum Yerushalmi, Exodus 15,27 which speaks of the 12 wells in an oasis encountered by the Israelites on their journey, the meaning of the expression מעיינות מים is פיגין דמיין, “springs of water.” At any rate Rabbi Yehudah has two verses supporting his view, whereas Rabbi Yossi could find only one verse supporting him. Rabbi Chanin of Tzippori had an inspiration supporting the view of Rabbi Yossi, and found another verse relevant to our subject in Isaiah 51,3 מדברה כעדן וערבתה כגן ה', “a desert like Eden, and a wilderness like a garden of the Lord.”

ויצמח AND HE CAUSED TO GROW — The verse speaks here only with reference to the garden (Genesis Rabbah 13:1)

AND THE TREE OF LIFE IN THE MIDST OF THE GARDEN AND THE TREE OF KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL. Since Scripture says, And the tree of life in the midst of the garden, and does not say “in the garden,” and, moreover, since it says, But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, G-d hath said: ‘Ye shall not eat of it,’³²⁸Genesis 3:3. and does not mention it or refer to it by another name, we must say, according to the simple meaning of Scripture, that it was a known place in the garden which was “in the midst” thereof. This is why Onkelos translated: “in the middle of the garden.” Thus according to Onkelos the tree of life and the tree of knowledge were both in the middle of the garden. And if so, we must say that in the middle of the garden there was the likeness of an enclosed garden-bed made which contained these two trees. This “middle” means near its middle for with respect to the exact middle, they have already said³²⁹If Ramban is stating a specific mathematical principle, its source is unknown to me. His intent may, however, be general. If so, the source may be found in Berachoth 3b, where it is stated that the exact point of midnight is known only to G-d. that no one knows the true central point except G-d alone.
And the tree of life. This was a tree the fruit of which gave those who ate it long life.
And the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The commentators³³⁰Mentioned in R’dak in the name of the “commentators.” have said that the fruit thereof caused those who ate it to have a desire for sexual intercourse, and therefore Adam and Eve covered their nakedness after they ate of it [the fruit]. They quote a similar expression [where “good and evil” refers to such desire], the saying of Barzilai the Gileadite: Can I distinguish between good and bad?³³¹II Samuel 19:36. — meaning that this sexual desire was already removed from him. But in my opinion this interpretation is not correct since the serpent said, And ye shall be as ‘Elohim,’ knowing good and evil.³³²The Elohim here means angels, who have no such desire (R’dak). And if you will say that the serpent lied to her, now [Scripture itself attests to the truth of his statement in the verse], And the Eternal G-d said, ‘Behold man has become like one of us knowing good and evil.’³³³Genesis 3:22. And the Rabbis have already said:³³⁴In Pirka D’Rabbeinu Hakadosh, Section 3. See my Hebrew commentary, p. 36, Note 84, for variants. “Three stated the truth and perished from the world, and these are: the serpent, the spies,³³⁵Numbers, Chapters 13-14. Sanhedrin 108a. and Doeg the Edomite.³³⁶I Samuel 22:9-10. Sanhedrin 90a. The Hebrew text here also contains an additional word, “the Beerothite.” See II Samuel, Chapter 4. Ramban’s general thought is clear: the saying of the Rabbis proves that the serpent spoke the truth. Hence the serpent’s statement, And ye shall be as ‘Elohim,’ knowing good and evil, was true. Now since sexual desire is not spoken of in connection with the angels, the expression knowing good and evil cannot refer to such desire.
The proper interpretation appears to me to be that man’s original nature was such that he did whatever was proper for him to do naturally, just as the heavens and all their hosts do, “faithful workers³³⁷Who do not veer from their prescribed course (Rashi, Sanhedrin 42 a). See, however, Tosafoth there which mentions a variant reading, “A faithful Worker,” which refers to G-d. Our version of this benediction in the Prayer Book is based on this reading. whose work is truth, and who do not change from their prescribed course,”³³⁸The source of this expression, in connection with the blessing for the new moon, is found in Sanhedrin 42a. and in whose deeds there is no love or hatred. Now it was the fruit of this tree that gave rise to will and desire, that those who ate it should choose a thing or its opposite, for good or for evil. This is why it was called ‘etz hada’ath’ (the tree of the knowledge) of good and evil, for da’ath in our language is used to express will. Thus in the language of the Rabbis: “They have taught this only with regards to one sheda’ato (whose will) is to return;”³³⁹Pesachim 6a. If his will (or wish) is to return to his house during the days of Passover, then he must search his house for leaven before leaving his house even if he leaves more than 30 days before Passover. and “his will is to clear” [the produce in the store-room in his house before Passover].³⁴⁰Ibid., In that case too he must search for leaven which lies under the produce even more than 30 days before Passover. And in the language of Scripture, Eternal, what is man ‘vateida’ehu,’³⁴¹Psalms 144:3. meaning that “Thou shouldst desire and want him;” yedaticha beshem,³⁴²Exodus 33:12. Literally, I know thee by name. meaning “I have chosen thee of all people.” Similarly, Barzilai’s expression, Ha’eda (Can I distinguish) between good and bad,³³¹II Samuel 19:36. means that he lost the power of thought, no longer choosing a thing or loathing it, and he would eat without feeling taste and hear singing without enjoying it.
Now at that time sexual intercourse between Adam and his wife was not a matter of desire; instead, at the time of begetting offspring they came together and propagated. Therefore all the limbs were, in their eyes, as the face and hands, and they were not ashamed of them. But after he ate of the fruit of the tree of knowledge, he possessed the power of choice; he could now willingly do evil or good to himself or to others. This, on the one hand, is a godlike attribute; but as far as man is concerned, it is bad because through it, he has a will and desire. It is possible that Scripture intended to allude to this matter when it said, That G-d made man upright, but they have sought out many inventions.³⁴³Ecclesiastes 7:29. The “uprightness” is that man should keep to one right path, and the “seeking out of many inventions” is man’s search for deeds which change according to his choice. Now when the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded Adam concerning the tree, that he should not eat of its fruit, He did not inform him that it has this quality. He told him without any qualification, But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden,³²⁸Genesis 3:3. that is to say, the one that is known by its central position, thou shalt not eat thereof. And this was what the woman said to the serpent. And the verse which states, But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it,³⁴⁴Further, Verse 17. mentions it to us by its true name.

The Tree of Life. Hashem did not command Adam to refrain from eating of this tree because it bore no seductive fruit. Rather it was the tree itself that granted immortality. By contrast the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge was extremely tempting and after they had eaten of it they understood the benefit to be had by partaking of the Tree of Life as well.

ויצמח, G‘d made the food necessary for Adam sprout forth. The verse illustrates with what ease Adam could secure his requirements in Gan Eden.

ויצמח, after having mentioned the existence of the garden in the previous verse, it is clear that the words מן האדמה at the beginning of the verse, refer to the soil of Gan Eden. Our verse informs us inter alia that G’d had not planted any non fruit-bearing trees in Gan Eden. All of them were distinguished from the trees in other parts of the earth by their excellence. This is why the Torah added the words נחמד למראה וטוב למאכל, the fruit of every tree in this garden was delicious. The word למראה, refers to the external appearance of the trees, whereas the words טוב למאכל refer to the quality of their fruit. Seeing that Adam did not have much time to enjoy any of this, unless he ate some between the time he repented and was expelled (3,24), Adam’s sons did not get to taste the fruit of the garden at all, and Gan Eden in its entirety has been stored up by G’d for use by the Jewish people in the times after the Mashiach has come. At that time, everyone will be able to experience at first hand what Adam had lost by having eaten from the tree of knowledge. At that time they will all know G’d and the reason why they have been created. This is what the sages had in mind when they spoke of the יין המשומר בענביו מששת ימי בראשית, that in those days we will taste “the wine which has been stored up within its grapes ever since the six days of creation.” This represents the most enjoyable product of Gan Eden. We must not forget that such stories as the one of Gan Eden have meaning both as literal peshat, but also have a hidden meaning which is subject to understanding by people probing the text of the Torah more deeply ועץ החיים בתוך הגן ועץ הדעת טוב ורע, the word בתוך, normally translated as “within,” or “among,” here means literally “in the middle.” (Targum Onkelos) The reason it was dead in the center is that if you want to protect something carefully you place it in the center where it is surrounded, i.e. protected, from all sides equally. Man’s heart, lung, liver, his most precious organs, are surrounded by all manner of protective bone, flesh, and other tissue. These all act like a wall protecting the interior organs from injury.
The explanation of the words “ועץ החיים,” is: “G’d had also made a tree of life grow in the center of the garden.” The normal function of this tree, i.e. its fruit, is to reinforce the vital organs and parts of the human being. Anyone eating from the fruit of this tree regularly would enjoy very long life. According to the aggadah, which deals with the hidden meaning of this text, (compare Genesis 3,22, פירוש הנסתר) anyone eating of this tree would live forever. According to Bereshit Rabbah 15,6 Rabbi Yehudah bar IIai is quoted as saying that this tree travels a distance of 500 years, and all the waters dating back to the days of creation split beneath it when it approaches. [this distance of 500 “years” is a standard expression in the Midrash for the length and breadth of the earth, i.e. this tree’s roots spanned the entire globe. It is therefore a euphemism for one’s whole lifetime, also meaning that every living creature anywhere on earth benefits from this tree. Ed.]
Rabbi Yitzchok, in the name of Rabbi Yehudah bar Ilai, adds that not only the trunk and the roots influence all creatures on earth, but also the branches and foliage of that tree. According to this Midrash, the middle of the garden, i.e. the two trees named, could effect man’s life both spiritually and physically in an extraordinary degree. It is possible to understand the verse as meaning that these two trees stood very close to one another. It is also possible to understand the word הדעת, as not being in a construct mode, [as opposed to הדעה which is definitely not in the construct mode, Ed.] so that the Torah meant that the knowledge to be gained from this tree by eating its fruit could be both beneficial and harmful.

ועץ החיים בתוך הגן. “and the tree of life in the center of the garden.” The meaning of the words: “the tree of life was in the center of the garden,” is that the location and function of this tree was known. This is why the Torah describes it as “at the center” of the garden and not simply as ”in the garden.” Onkelos also translates the word בתוך as meaning “at the center.” This is also what Chavah answered the serpent when she said: “G’d has said not to eat from the tree in the center of the garden,” without mentioning the name of that tree. Seeing that she had mentioned the location of the tree, it was as if she had identified it by name. Seeing that this was so, it is difficult to understand how both the tree of life and the tree of knowledge were in the center of the garden? Nachmanides explains that this is no problem. There was an ערוגה, “furrow,” in the center of the garden and both these trees grew out of this furrow. The entire furrow is described by the Torah as “the center, אמצע, of the garden. [although the Torah never used this word, only בתוך, which does not have to mean precisely the center. Ed.] There are still other commentators who state that the tree of life was precisely at the center of the garden, whereas the tree of knowledge surrounded it with its foliage. In this manner both trees were located in the center of the garden, the tree of life in the more narrow sense of the word. This would also explain why G’d was not concerned that man would eat from the fruit of the tree of life immediately before he would eat from the tree of knowledge having already assured himself of eternal life. Seeing that the tree of life was difficult to get at due to it being surrounded by the branches of the tree of knowledge, it did not present a challenge until man had become mortal. Rabbi Joseph Kimchi explains that the tree of knowledge and the tree of life were one and the same tree. As to the Torah once speaking of the “tree of life,” and once of the “tree of knowledge,” this is no different from our describing a certain person once as very intelligent, and once as being righteous. These two characteristics are not mutually exclusive. The tree in question also possessed several characteristics. This is also plausible when we consider the woman’s answer to the serpent when she said (in the same breath) “from the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat whereas G’d said not to eat from the tree in the centre of the garden.” According to Chavah only a single tree had been placed out of bounds to man. I cannot understand what Rabbi Joseph Kimchi does with verse 23 in chapter 3 where G’d expresses His concern about man now wanting to eat from the tree of life. According to the worthy Rabbi they had already eaten from that tree!

ויצמח ה' אלוקים מן האדמה, “The Lord G-d made grow from the earth, etc.” According to the plain meaning of the text these words prove that there is such a thing as Paradise on earth and that it contains a tree of knowledge as well as a tree of life. The fruit of the tree of life causes those who eat it to enjoy long life, whereas the fruit of the tree of knowledge instills in those who consume it willpower and freedom of choice. to do either good or evil both in matters physical as well as in matters spiritual. Our sages in Pessachim 6 said concerning this “לא שנו אלא שדעתו לחזור, the ruling applies only to someone who had resolved to return to his home during the festival of Passover.” [The author uses the word דעתו in the Talmud where it refers to someone making a voluntary decision as proof that here in our verse too the term עץ הדעת, does not mean “the tree of knowledge,” but means ‘the tree permitting man a choice.” Ed.]
We find support for this meaning of the word דעת in Psalms 144,3 מה אדם ותדעהו, “what is man that You should have granted him grace?” In other words: “why have You extended Your goodwill, Your love to man?” The meaning of the term עץ הדעת then is the tree which causes G-d to relate to man with either favour or disfavour.” Originally, G-d had withheld this kind of choice from Adam as he had been ‘programmed” in his deeds prior to his sin. This does not mean that he was not free to sin but that his actions were guided exclusively by his intellect thus practically excluding sin as he had not been subject to temptation from within.
Once man had sinned, i.e. had eaten from the fruit of that tree, he became possessed of an independent will, i.e. obedience to G-d’s will was no longer automatic, dictated by his intellect. The new-found “independent will” meant that he had acquired an attribute reserved for G-d, an attribute that he could handle only at great potential cost to himself.

This verse relates to the Garden. [Rashi knows this] because if it relates to the entire earth, why did Hashem not initially command the earth to bring forth “every tree that is pleasant... and good”?

Nicht unbemerkt dürfte bleiben, wie hier in der Ausstattung des Gartens für die sinnlichen Bedürfnisse des Menschen, das נחמד למראה, die Befriedigung des Schönheitsinnes, dem טוב למאכל, demjenigen des Geschmacksinnes und des Nahrungsbedürfnisses vorangeht. Es erhält hier das Ästhetische, der Schönheitssinn, seine Berechtigung und Weihe, und dürfte auch hier sich die höhere Stufe des Menschen bekunden. Die Fülle der Schönheitsformen, die wir an den Geschöpfen unserer Erde gewahren, und die Tatsache, dass — so weit unser Bewusstsein reicht — der Mensch das einzige mit der Fähigkeit für den Schönheitsgenuss ausgestattete Geschöpf ist, bewahrheitet, welchen Wert der Schöpfer auf diesen Sinn für die geistig-sittliche Bestimmung des Menschen gelegt hat. In der Tat sind diese über die Schöpfung ausgestreuten Schönheitsformen und der Sinn des Menschen, sich ihrer zu freuen, das erste Mittel, den Menschen vor gänzlicher Vertiefung zu schützen. Die Freude an der schönen Natur und den Schönheitsformen, die Gott namentlich der Pflanzenwelt aufgeprägt, ist eine Brücke zu der Freude an dem sittlich Schönen. In einer Umgebung, wo auf das Harmonische, auf das Schöne keine Rücksicht genommen, wächst auch der Mensch leicht verwildert heran. Das Gefühl, das dem Menschen Freude an Harmonie und Ordnung gewährt, ist verwandt mit dem Gefühle für die Ordnung und Harmonie im Gebiete des Sittlichen, so verwandt, dass uns das Schlechte als רע, als das Gebrochene, als die gestörte Harmonie erscheint, wo nicht mehr ein einheitlicher Gedanke das Ganze beherrscht. עץ החיים. Wenn wir am Schlusse der Katastrophe lesen, dass der Mensch in seiner Entartung nicht durch den Genuß der Früchte dieses Baumes ewiges Leben erlangen sollte, so erkennen wir daraus, dass diese Früchte die Fähigkeit besessen haben müssen, die Kräfte des Menschen stets neu zu regenerieren. ועץ, und noch ein Baum stand in der Mitte, von dessen Früchten uns aber nichts Näheres gesagt wird, der aber die nähere Bezeichnung erhält: הדעת טוב ורע. Die Annahme, dass der Genuss seiner Früchte erst dem Menschen die Erkenntnis des Guten und Bösen gewährt habe, dass er vorher gar nicht die Fähigkeit gehabt habe, Gutes und Böses zu unterscheiden, dass er, wie manche unserer philosophischen Schriften lehren, bis dahin nur auf der Stufe theoretischer Unterscheidung des Wahren und Falschen gestanden, ihm aber die Begriffe "gut und bös", die der praktischen Vernunft angehören, völlig gefehlt, dürfte schwerlich die richtige sein. So gewiss die Willensfreiheit den spezifischen Grundcharakter des Menschlichen im Menschen bildet, so gewiss konnte er nicht Mensch sein, ohne Begriff des Guten und dessen Gegenteils. Hätte dem Menschen der ganze Begriff des sittlich Guten und Bösen gefehlt, es hätte Gott ihm gar kein Verbot erteilen und wegen Übertretung desselben ihn nicht zur Rechenschaft und Strafe ziehen können. Beides setzt bei dem, welchem das Verbot erteilt wird, das Bewusstsein der Pflicht, des Pflichtgemäßen und Pflichtwidrigen voraus; das ist ja aber eben nichts anderes als die Erkenntnis von Gut und Bös, eine Erkenntnis, die ja der praktischen und nicht der theoretischen Vernunft angehört. Vielmehr dürfte der Baum, der Baum הדעת טוב ורע, wie so oft על שם סופו, von vornherein nach dem Endergebnis, als der Baum bezeichnet sein, an welchem sich die Erkenntnis des Guten und Bösen entschied, an welchem es sich entschied, was der Mensch für sich als gut oder bös erkennen wollte. Es gibt nur eine Bedingung, die die Erde uns zum Paradiese gestalten kann, und das ist die, dass wir nur das gut nennen, was Gott, und das nur böse, was Er als solches stempelt; nicht aber, dass wir die Entscheidung von gut und bös unserer Sinnlichkeit überlassen. Stellen wir uns unter das Diktat unserer Sinnlichkeit, so fallen uns die Pforten des Paradieses zu, und erst auf weiten Umwegen gelangt die Menschheit wieder dahin. Ja es dürfte der Baum von vornherein der Baum der Erkenntnis des Guten und Bösen genannt sein, indem er dem Menschen vergegenwärtigen sollte, was für ihn gut oder bös sei, was er für gut oder bös erkennen soll. Es war, wie wir später erfahren, der Baum mit allen Reizen für den Geschmack, für die Phantasie und den betrachtenden Verstand ausgestattet; Geschmack, Phantasie und Verstand zogen zu ihm hin, sprachen seinem Genuß das Wort, und doch war der Genuss von Gott verboten, war somit für den Menschen als bös bezeichnet. Der Baum vergegenwärtigte somit dem Menschen stets die Lehre, von deren Beachtung die ganze Reinheit und Hoheit seiner sittlichen Bestimmung bedingt ist: es kann etwas nach dem Urteil der leiblichen Sinne, der Phantasie und des Verstandes durchaus gut, ja als ein höchstes Gut erscheinen und doch dem höheren Berufe des Menschen zuwider, doch von Gott als ein todeswürdiges Verbrechen verurteilt sein; somit die Lehre: dass der Mensch in Beurteilung des Guten und Bösen nicht seine Sinne, nicht seine Phantasie, nicht seinen sinnlichen Verstand, sondern den ihm offenbar gewordenen Gotteswillen vernehmen und dieser Vernunft als seinem einzigen Leitstern folgen müsse, wenn er auf Erden seine Bestimmung erfüllen und würdig bleiben wolle, dass sich ihm die Erde zum Paradiese gestalte.

בתוך הגן IN THE MIDST OF THE GARDEN — means in the very centre of the garden.

נחמד למראה, looking at these trees resulted In the viewer experiencing intellectual stimulation both of his heart and his brain. He would thus be capable of “digesting” the additional intellectual insights granted him by G’d. Compare Kings II 3,15 ותהי עליו יד ה', “Elisha had now been endowed by G’d’s generosity.” [a reference to the additional spiritual insights he had asked from his mentor Elijah prior to the latter ascending to heaven. Ed.]

In the center of the Garden. [Rashi knows this] because otherwise, why is it written “בתוך הגן”? It is already written: “Hashem made grow out of the soil every tree,” which refers to the Garden.

ועץ הדעת, a tree whose fruit results in those who eat from it gaining greater understanding of the relationship of good and evil. The word דעת, which appears here for the first time, helps us understand Genesis 4,1 והאדם ידע את חוה אשתו. Without this verse we would have been puzzled by the Torah telling us something that was so obvious. Who does not “know” his wife, especially when he had described her as “bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh!” (2,23) In our verse we are told that the words ידע, דעת do not primarily refer to factual knowledge but to conceptual knowledge. This also helps us to understand why relatives, as in Ruth 2,1 are referred to as מודע לאישה, “someone whom her late husband had been intimate with, had been related to by blood.” It is normal for blood relations to be concerned with the physical and emotional needs of their kin. (compare Proverbs 17,17.)

"and the tree of knowledge of good and bad:" as its (Onkelos) translation (explains) - the tree which the one who eats it(s fruit) knows good and bad.

טוב ורע, to choose that which appeared as appealing to the senses even though it would prove harmful, and to despise anything which did not appeal to his senses although he knew it to be useful to him.

ונהר יוצא מעדן, the Torah explains that Adam’s work did not entail anything strenuous, such as carrying pails of water, or such as getting wet in the rain.

ונהר יוצא מעדן להשקות את הגן, Adam, who had been placed in the garden, had also been instructed to tend it and protect it from intruders, and without water he could not perform the work he had been instructed to perform. However, the Torah attests that Adam did not also have to irrigate the soil; this was accomplished by an external; source of water originating in Eden and flowing through the garden.

- 14. Man hat diese vier Ströme vielfach gesucht und sind sie zum Teil bekannt, wie insbesondere חדקל und פרה, die man entschieden für den Tigris und Euphrat hält. (Der Tigris fließt übrigens im Westen von Assyrien.) Man hat an dieser geographischen Beschreibung Anstand genommen, weil man sie als die eines, in vier Arme sich teilenden Stromes verstanden und einen solchen nicht gefunden. Man hat aber vielleicht übersehen, dass ראשים nicht Arme, sondern ganz geteilte Anfänge bedeutet. Es ist ursprünglich ein Strom. Außerhalb Edens aber, nachdem er den Garten getränkt, verliert er sich in die Erde und bricht an vier verschiedenen Stellen als vier getrennte Flüsse wieder vor. Innerhalb des Paradieses ist er Eine Quelle. Außerhalb erscheint er als vier gesonderte Quellen. Die Beschreibung weist übrigens auf zur Zeit der Übergabe der תורה völlig bekannte Flüsse und Gegenden hin. Es scheinen vier Gegenden genannt zu sein, die in ihrer Art die reichsten Produkte lieferten. Aller Reichtum und alle Fülle, die in diesen Ländern auseinander gelegt sind, fanden sich im Paradiese vereint. V 15. ויניחהו ist nicht einfach: hinsetzen, es liegt ihm immer der Begriff des Loslassens, Zulassens, Freigebens zu Grunde. Gott hatte ihn gebildet, und nachdem er gebildet, war er noch in Gottes Händen; Gott ließ ihn los, frei, vertraute ihn zum ersten Male sich selber an, und gab ihm das ג"ע zu bearbeiten und zu schützen. Auch wenn sich dem Menschen die Erde zum Paradiese gestaltet, soll er dies nur seiner treuen pflichtgemäßen Tätigkeit verdanken; nur dass in diesem Paradiese dieser Thätigkeit von reichstem, ungetrübtem Segen begegnet wird. Es ist jedoch zu bemerken, dass mit einer einzigen Ausnahme גן sonst immer maskulinum ist und so das Suffix femininum auffallen dürfte. Es findet sich jedoch eine Analogie dafür im Hohel. 4, 16 הפיחי גני. Vielleicht aber wäre dieses Suffix auf עדן zu beziehen, das als abstraktes Substantivum sehr wohl weiblichen Geschlechtes sein kann. Gott versetzte ihn in einen Garten der Wonne, der Glückseligkeit, dieser Glückseligkeit zu dienen und sie zu bewahren, durch treue Lösung seiner Aufgabe diesen glücklichen Zustand immer mehr zu erhöhen und zu erhalten. Würde ja auch ohnehin die עבודה und שמירה nicht nur die direlte Bearbeitung und Pflege des Bodens, sondern das ganze sittliche Verhalten des Menschen in pflichtgetreuem Erfüllen und Unterlassen mit umfassen, da ja, wie bereits früher angedeutet, in diesem sittlichen Verhalten des Menschen, in der pflichtgetreuen Verwendung des von der Natur Gespendeten, diese Natur selbst so die Förderung zu ihrer Bestimmung wie die Bedingung der Fortdauer ihres Gedeihens, — עבודה ושמירה — findet. So beziehen auch die Weisen diese Begriffe hier auf תורה ומצות somit auf die Gesamtaufgabe des Menschen.

ומשם יפרד, having flown through the garden and irrigated its plants, this river would exit and its course would break up into four main streams. Each of its new river beds would still have enough water to qualify for even the tributaries to be called “stream,” נהר. [the word “tributary” as I have used it, is the reverse of its usual meaning, as it is normally applied to smaller rivers joining a larger stream. Ed.]

ראשים, this means “parts, offshoots.” Each “tributary” would be an independent stream, eventually branching out into minor rivers.

פישון PISHON — This is the Nile, the River of Egypt. Because its waters grow plentiful and rise and water the land, it is called Pishon, the name being of the same root as the verb in (Habakkuk 1:8) ופשו פרשיו “and their horsemen increased”; another interpretation of the name Pishon is: it is so called because it grows flax (פשתן) (Genesis Rabbah 16:2) for it is said with reference to Egypt (Isaiah 19:9) “Moreover they that work in combed flax, shall be ashamed.”

THE LAND OF HAVILAH, WHERE THERE IS GOLD. This is to explain that it is not the Havilah of Egypt, concerning which it is said, And they dwelt from Havilah unto Shur, that is before Egypt,³⁴⁵Genesis 25:18. for this one [referred to here] is in the extreme east. The verse mentions also, There is the bdellium,³⁴⁶Verse 12. in praise of the river, that in the sand that is in it and on its bank there is found that good gold, the bdellium and the onyx stone. For these things are found in rivers; in some, silver can be found. Similarly, the bdellium and precious stones are found mostly in rivers.
In the opinion of former scholars,³⁴⁷Rabbeinu Saadia Gaon and Rashi. Pishon is the Nile of Egypt; it compasses this entire land of Havilah, and comes from there and passes the whole land of Egypt until it falls into the great sea at Alexandria in Egypt.

שם אחד פישון, [The Torah] informed us of the praise of the river that irrigates the garden that is not known to us by informing us of the rivers that branch off from it that are known by their praised size and the goodness of their water and the goodness of their fruit.

שם האחד, it appears from the Torah’s report that the land called חוילה was situated in the immediate vicinity of Gan Eden, and that this is the reason that it is a land superior to other parts of the earth. Just as Gan Eden is superior to other parts of the globe due to its superior trees and their fruit, so this land חוילה has other advantages, as the Torah enumerates, i.e. that this is where gold is found. The reason the Torah prefaced the word זהב with the letter ה, as if speaking of a special kind of gold, is that although gold can be found in other countries also, it is more abundant in this land known as ארץ החוילה. The Torah itself states that the gold found there “is good,” suggesting that instead of quartz containing gold being found there, gold nuggets who are pure gold were there in abundance. Perhaps, being so close to Gan Eden was the reason why gold was found there in abundance and the Torah suggests that the Gan Eden which has been lost to mankind, did indeed exist, to wit that even a land only bordering on it, shows that it is superior to other countries on our globe. The shoham “jewels,” [type of gemstone, which according to Rabbeinu Bachya possessed therapeutic qualities for its wearer and was used later in the garment (ephod) of the High Priest, could also be found there. [Exodus page 1293 this editor’s translation of Rabbeinu Bachya’s commentary]

Because its waters are bountiful. Rashi is answering the question: Since it is the Nile, why is it not called by its wellknown name, the river of Egypt? We could erroneously think it is another river, and a land other than Egypt! Rashi answers: “Because its waters are bountiful... it is called Pishon.” I.e., it is called Pishon because this name conveys the river’s praise. And this raises the question: Why does the Torah tell us of this river’s greatness more than it tells of the other rivers’ greatness through their names? Thus Rashi explains that also the other rivers’ praise is conveyed by their names: “Gichon is so called because it flows and roars...” This explains why Rashi first comments on the names of [all] the rivers, and only then comments on, “To the east of Ashur,” which is not according to the order appearing in the Torah.

אשר שם הזהב The word: חוילה, occurs in the Torah twice more, once in Genesis 10,7, and once in verse 29 of that chapter. Therefore the Torah wished to indicate that the gold mentioned here is that which used to be brought from Ophir.

והבדולח, Rabbi Saadyah gaon, as well as Ibn Ezra say that it is a small spherical white gemstone. This is supported by the reference to כעין הבדולח in Numbers 11,7 where the Torah describes the appearance of the manna. The same scholars believe that this stone is formed by what were originally small drops of dew which had descended on that river. This is the reason why this “stone” is round, just as a drop of dew. Seeing that each individual such stone is so small that it is useless as an effective tool in commerce and industry, this is the reason why the word אבן is not mentioned in connection with בדולח, as opposed to the שהם gemstone which is specifically described as a “stone.” The latter is a large stone, and many different kinds of vessels are made out of its material. Due to its cost, these vessels are found only in the homes of kings and wealthy individuals. The shoham stones on the epaulets of the High Priest had the names of the twelve tribes etched into them. (Exodus 28,9) This gemstone was chosen in preference to others as it is more precious than most, and is found in an almost pure form, not containing any flaws due to discolouration.
This river flows in an easterly direction and does not continue through the ארץ חוילה, but flows around it and then enters the sea on its eastern shores. The reason most people called this river Pishon is because its waters help seeds irrigated by them to expand and produce substantial crops. Etymologically, the word פישון, is a derivative of the word פוש found in Jeremiah 50,11 כי תפושו כעגלה דשה, “when you stamped like a heifer treading grain.” Onkelos renders the word פרו, “be fruitful” as פושו in Genesis 1,28.

וזהב הארץ ההיא טוב, “and the gold originating from that area is good.” What is meant is that it lends itself to amalgamation with copper, without losing its appearance as gold. Actually, this is no more than logical; if the gold found in the rivers emanating from Gan Eden was “good,” the gold inside the garden surely must be good.

גיחון GICHON — It is so called because it flows on with a roar, its roaring being very noisy,—similar in meaning to (Exodus 21:28) וכי יגח “And if an [ox] gore” — for when it gores it rushes on roaring (Berakhot 59b.).

ושם הנהר השני גיחון, this river flows in a southerly direction flowing around the whole land of Kush from which it enters Sarnediv known as the great sea, (Mediterranean) according to the experts in geography. After the Torah used the expression הסובב when describing the manner in which the first two rivers wended their way on the surface of the earth, it switches to the verb הלך in describing the flow of the rivers Euphrates and Tigris. It appears that these first two rivers did not cross a certain country diagonally but detoured around it. גיחון, this name appears to reflect the manner in which this river splits up into many smaller rivers. [again we appear to face the concept of “tributaries” as being reversed, the main river creating something like a delta, i.e. breaking up into smaller distributaries. Ed.] The word means “exit” We find it appearing in this context in Job 40,23 כי יגיח ירדן אל פיהו, or in Ezekiel 32,2 ותגח בנהרותיך, as well as in similar instances. Incidentally, the שילוח is also called גיחון, seeing it splits into so many different rivulets in order to irrigate the gardens in Jerusalem.

חדקל TIGRIS — It is called חדקל because its waters are pungent in taste (חד) and light in weight (קל) (Berakhot 59b).

ושם הנהר השלישי...קדמת אשור, it flows more or less in a continuous direction to the eastern region of what was the land of Ashur at the time the Torah was given. It does not circumvent that country but flows in a northerly direction, seeing that both Babylon and Ashur are situated north of Gan Eden. [In order to make even partial sense of all this, it helps to understand such definitions as “northerly, southerly, easterly,” as relative to the location of Eretz Yisrael, not as relative to the north and south poles of our globe. Rashi already found it necessary to describe the river Nile as running underground for a considerable distance in order to make the Biblical report compatible with the facts as known in his time, much earlier than Kimchi. Ed.] חידקל, this river is so called because its waters are clear and flow rapidly (Berachot 59).

But the Torah writes [these names]... Why did Rashi not say about Pishon, regarding which it is written (v. 11), “It surrounds all the land of Chavilah,” [that the name Chavilah is based on the future]? For a man named Chavilah is mentioned [twice] in Parshas Noach (10:7, 29). The answer is: Here, Chavilah is simply the name of a territory, not named after a person. [Rashi knows this] because Pishon flows in the land of Egypt, so how could it be named after the man Chavilah [who was from a different place]? Furthermore, since it is written ארץ החוילה, with a modifying ה it must merely be the name of a territory. And this answers the question that people ask: How does Rashi know that Kush and Ashur are based on the future? Perhaps they are simply names of territories, just like Chavilah. The answer is: If so, when they are mentioned, their names should begin with a ה, like החוילה is written.

קדמת אשור, the letter ת at the end of the word: קדמת is in lieu of the letter ה, as in קדמה. Sometimes the Torah also uses the letter ה as a suffix instead of the letter ל as a prefix as in למזרח אשור “east of Ashur.”

פרת EUPHRATES — It is called פרת because its waters grow (פרה) and increase and make men healthy (Berakhot 59b). כוש ואשור CUSH AND ASHUR did not then exist as countries, but Scripture writes with reference to the names which those districts would bear in the future (Ketubot 10b; Genesis Rabbah 16).

והנהר הרביעי הוא פרת, our sages have divergent views on the identity of this river. According to Rabbi Yehudah it is the river Euphrates, whereas according to Rav Hunna it is the river כבר, also in Babylonia, the river where the prophet Ezekiel received prophetic revelations and instructions. (Ezekiel 1,1) The reason it is called פרת, according to Rabbi Yehudah, is that its waters keep increasing until it becomes a navigable stream, and it cannot be crossed on foot or raft, but must be crossed by ferry. Also, the word פרת alludes to these waters continuously increasing (due to its tributaries). According to Rav Hunna the rivers פרת and כבר are not 2 names for the same river, but refer to two entirely different rivers. Rabbi Yehoshua from Sakkinin, speaking in the name of Rabbi Levi, says that when people ask the river פרת why it does not make any sound, the river replies that it does not need to advertise its existence by being noisy, but that its deeds, i.e. the contribution it makes to the people living alongside it are sufficient to make it well known. It could say of itself that if someone plants a tree near its banks it will grow within 30 days, whereas if he plants seeds of vegetables it will sprout within three days.
הוא פרת, this river is known by this name in the land of Israel. This is why the Torah did not need to add more details about the region in which this river flows. The river is further west than other countries which have been mentioned. Once this river has reached Eretz Yisrael, it ends up in the ים האחרון, the gulf of Basra. [the reader is reminded that the reference to the Euphrates reaching the land of Israel is most likely the author’s definition of the land of Israel consisting of the lands of 10 nations, not 7, i.e. as promised to Avraham Genesis 15,18. Ed.] The 4 rivers mentioned symbolise that the four directions on earth are all supplied with fresh water by these rivers. Seeing that the land of Israel is considered as in the center of the civilised world, all these rivers touch the land of Israel at one point or another The reason why all this was recorded here is to show how Moses, at his time, was able to provide all these details having been imbued with holy spirit. Otherwise, how would Moses have known all this, seeing that he had not been a world traveler but had spent almost all the 40 years that he was a leader in a narrow desert. Seeing that all these stories recorded in the Book of Genesis do not contain commandments either between G’d and man or between man and man, it is clear that unless G’d had endowed Moses with the requisite knowledge he could not have recorded all these details. G’d’s purpose was clearly, to implant in man knowledge of how the early years of man on earth had begun, after G’d had created the world and had placed Adam in Gan Eden. Our sages, looking for deeper allusions to man’s history in all this, also saw in the 4 rivers mentioned a reference to the four exiles the Jewish people would endure before being redeemed. (Bereshit Rabbah 16,4) There are more explanations about these 4 rivers (on verse 10) in the kabbalistic writings of our sages.

On the eastern side of Ashur. Rashi is saying that קדמת is like קדמה (to the east), since we often find a ת is written in place of a ה. But here it is written קדמת because it is connected to the word [following] אשור. And since it really means קדמה, it has the same meaning as if it had written לקדם, for the Torah places a ה at the end of a word that would otherwise take a ל at the beginning. Thus it has the same meaning as if it would have been written, “to the east of Ashur.”

הוא פרת, “known to the Israelites at the time when the Torah was given as the river Euphrates.” It borders the larger land of Israel, as in G-d’s promise to Avraham in Genesis 15,18. Seeing that this river was well known, the Torah only needed to write “הוא פרת,” the one known as Euphrates. More details had to be given about the other three rivers as the reader would not have known which rivers were meant.

קדמת אשור means AT THE EAST OF ASHUR.

The most important... Rashi derived this from the fact that it is written הוא פרת. Although the word הוא is written about all the rivers, [for example] הוא הסובב, nevertheless, only for P’ras is the word הוא written next to the river’s name. (Regarding P’ras, the Torah does not say “it surrounds” or give any identifying sign. Why is P’ras different, that it needs no sign? Because of the importance of the Land of Israel!)

הוא פרת IS THE EUPHRATES — the most important of all, being mentioned in connection with the Land of Israel (Genesis Rabbah 16:3).

ויקח AND HE TOOK — He took him with kind words and induced him to enter (Genesis Rabbah 16:5).

לעבדה, a reference to perfecting his own personality, that which was supplied by G’d in an as yet unrefined state, the one called נשמת חיים. [the author searched to justify the use of the feminine mode in the word לעבדה and related it to נשמה, soul, a noun which is feminine and requires further refinement, just like שיר and שירה which both mean song, the latter, in the feminine mode being unrefined when compared to the former. Compare its use in the haggadah shel Pessach. Ed.]

ויקח השם אלוקים….לעבדה ולשמרה. G'd took man…to work it and to guard it. The plain meaning of the verse appears to be that the garden was in need of someone to work it and to guard it, whereas the truth is that this was not the case. Why would it need a guard? Who was there to steal from it? Also, if the garden needed someone to work it, who has done this chore during the almost 6000 years that the garden has been unattended? What exactly was the nature of the work which had to be performed?

ויקח ה' אלוקים, even though we have been told already in verse 8 that G’d placed Adam in Gan Eden, the Torah repeats this by stating that “G’d took man etc.,” because at this point the Torah wanted to inform us of the commandment which accompanied Adam’s taking up residence in that idyllic place. Our verse also spells out something that had not been mentioned previously, i.e. that Adam was not to treat Gan Eden as a retreat, but that he was made responsible for maintaining it in good order.

He “took” him with kind words. Rashi is answering the question: The word לקיחה implies [an act of acquisition,] that before the taking it was not in the taker’s possession. But everything is in Hashem’s possession!

לעבדה, “to irrigate it;”

ולשמרה, eating the fruit of the garden would ensure that man’s natural juices would not dry up. Man is equipped with natural heat, and if not supplied with the proper kind of nourishment he may dehydrate. The excellent fruit of the trees of the garden would replenish loss of moisture through evaporation on the skin in the heat of the sun.

לעבדה ולשמרה, to work it and to preserve it intact. The verse makes plain that G’d removed Adam from a nearby location where he had been created, depositing him in Gan Eden The question is why G’d had not created Adam in Gan Eden in the first place, seeing He was going to transfer him there anyway? The reason is that He wanted him to appreciate the quality of that garden. Had he been created there, he would not have had any means of comparing it to another region on earth, and would not have cherished its excellence. By transferring him to Gan Eden, G’d demonstrated to Adam that He had his best interests at heart. The word ויקח may be understood as similar to G’d saying about Avraham ואקח את אביכם את אברהם מעבר הנהר, “I took your father Avraham from beyond the river Euphrates.” (Joshua 24,3)
לעבדה ולשמרה, although the noun גן is masculine, the Torah treats it here as if it were in the feminine mode. The reason is that the work would be performed on the soil, אדמה of the garden, and the word אדמה is a feminine noun. Alternatively, the word “garden” appears in the Bible both in a masculine mode, גן and in a feminine mode גנה, when the letter ה is added at the end. An example of this is found in Isaiah 61,11 וכגנה זרעויה תצמיח, “and its seeds will sprout like those in a garden.” The word לעבדה refers to constructive labour, furthering the growth and fruit-bearing capability of the trees, whereas the word ולשמרה refers to the taking of preventive measures to counter invasion of the garden by predators, and other measures to prevent its deterioration. Our sages, reading into this expression also a moral/ethical teaching, understand the word לעבדה as the dedication to study of G’d’s commandments, whereas the expression לשמרה refers to the carrying out of these commandments in practice. (Sifri Eykev 21)

And persuaded him to enter. Why did Rashi not explain this earlier (v. 8), on: “And there He placed (וישם) the man?” It seems the answer is: [The import of the earlier verse] is closer to the simple meaning of its words, “placed (וישם),” [thus no difficulty arises]. But the term “took” (לקיחה), in our verse, is a term that relates only to inanimate objects or animals who naturally do not possess any intellect, whereas man’s essence is his knowledge and intellect, not his physical self. “Took” cannot be applied to knowledge, because it is not a physical object. Thus [Rashi was forced here to say that it means] inducing — i.e., inducing the mind to a different thought, similar to physically “taking” and moving an object from one location to another. (Nachalas Yaakov)

Know therefore that the entire description of the גן עדן is to serve as an example of a spiritual environment. The Torah wanted to illustrate that just as a physical environment such as earth requires a) toil, planting, irrigation, etc. in order to produce man's food supply, and b) protection against harmful substances that damage the plants, the same applies to an environment described as גן עדן. Nowadays גן עדן is the "soil," i.e. the environment for disembodied souls, seeing the bodies have been expelled. Even as such it requires both work and protection against negative influences. The specific work required in גן עדן consists of Torah study. The Torah demonstrates the validity of such illustrative figures of speech when Moses described his speech in Deut. 32,2 in these words: "May my discourse come down as the rain, my speech distil as the dew, like showers on young growth and like droplets on the grass." The "young growth" is a simile for the positive commandments. The author cites a number of examples where G'd is described as "planting" man's good deeds. The protective activity the Torah describes as לשמרה, refers to the observance of the negative commandments. Non-observance of the negative commandments of the Torah is apt to destroy the fabric of the spiritual environment represented by גן עדן. Our sages in Sotah 2 already tell us that sin, i.e. transgression of a negative commandment, extinguishes מצות though it does not extinguish the Torah. This latter statement does not mean that it is not within the power of such a sin to harm Torah at all, it only means that a single עבירה cannot accomplish that. Sustained sinful activity could certainly undermine the Torah absolutely.

ולשמרה, “and to protect it against animals that would trample it.” The Torah speaks of a period prior to when the angels with drawn swords would prevent entry into Gan Eden. An alternate exegesis of these two words: the word לעבדה, is to be understood as in Exodus 20,8, i.e. ששת ימים תעבוד, “during the six days you are to work, etc;” and the word: לשמרה, is to be understood as in Deuteronomy 5,12: שמור את יום השבת, “observe the Sabbath,” in other words, G-d commanded Adam already at that time to observe the seventh day of the week as we observe the Sabbath after the Torah had been given, by not performing work on it.

At any rate the use of such terms as "to work it and to protect it" in connection with גן עדן is perfectly justified. At the time when G'd placed Adam in גן עדן, Adam was able to see how his positive actions contributed to the well-being of the garden. Once he had been expelled he was denied the ability to see the results of his activities. His spiritual part, however, was not denied the chance to accumulate good deeds and to eventually "see" the results in the Hereafter.

מכל עץ הגן, depending on which tree’s fruit was in season. Each season required nutrients appropriate to the prevailing climate, and the fruit ripening during the various seasons would provide man with these nutrients. The prophet Ezekiel 74,12 expresses this thought in the words לחדשיו יבכר “in its appropriate month it will yield new fruit.”

ויצו השם אלוקים על האדם. The Lord G'd commanded Adam. The Torah added the word לאמור, to say, and repeated the word for "to eat," by saying אכול תאכל. The Torah also repeated that violating the command would result in death by saying: i.e. מות תמות, instead of merely תמות. The reason is 1) that Adam should command Eve not to eat from the tree of knowledge either; b) that the penalty would apply to her just as much as to Adam himself (who had heard the commandment from G'd directly). The repetition of these words also constitutes both a warning and a spelling out of the penalty, something that halachah demands when capital punishment is involved.

ויצו ה' אלוקים, the commandment mentioned here may either apply only to the specific fruit Adam was not to eat, or it is a dual commandment, the positive commandment being to eat the other fruit in order to keep healthy, and to shun the fruit of the tree of knowledge precisely for the same reason, as it would prove extremely harmful. G’d emphasised the importance of eating in order to keep alive and healthy by repeating and saying אכול תאכל, meaning: “be sure to eat!” Such repetitions are always used in the Torah when the Torah wants to underscore a point. A well known example is Deuteronomy 11,22 שמור תשמרון, where the Jewish people are warned insistently not to become guilty of violating the preceding commandments by ignoring them. A similar repetition is found a few verses earlier (11,13) when the performance is urged with the words שמוע תשמעו, “be sure to listen (and carry out).”
Our sages (Bereshit Rabbah 15,6) claim that Adam had been commanded 6 commandments. This verse was written where it was to illustrate that chronologically, this was immediately after he had received these commandments.
They said furthermore that the word ויצו referred to the prohibition to commit idolatry. This word has again been used to describe such a prohibition in Hoseah 5,11 כי הואיל הלך אחרי צו. “because he followed the path of idolatry.” The word Hashem in that verse refers to the law prohibiting cursing G’d by invoking His name. (compare Leviticus 24,16) The word אלוקים in the same verse refers to the need to deal with offenders of the law by legal means (compare Exodus 22,27) The words על האדם in our verse refer to the prohibition to shed human blood, something spelled out in greater detail in Genesis 9,6. The word לאמור alludes to illicit sexual relations including incest. The prophet Jeremiah 3,1 refers to widespread non-observance of this legislation even among the Jewish people. The seventh law was spelled out in detail, i.e. not to eat flesh while the animal from which it stems is still alive. This law was not applicable before Noach had thanked G’d for his deliverance, as all flesh had been forbidden as food until that time.

מכל עץ הגן אכל תאכל. “You may eat from all the trees of the garden.” Bereshit Rabbah 16,6 sees in these words a warning not to eat even a minute amount of live tissue from any animal. This seems hard to understand in view of meat having remained forbidden to man until after the deluge. (Genesis 9,3-4) Rabbeinu Nissim explains that the prohibition to eat meat concerned only the killing of an animal in order to eat its meat. The meat of animals which died of natural causes had not been forbidden at all. Living tissue, even if it had fallen off the animal, was prohibited, however.

Mit diesem Verbote beginnt die Erziehung des Menschen für seinen sittlich hohen, göttlichen Beruf. Es ist der Anfang der Menschengeschichte und erleuchtet allen Folgegeschlechtern den Pfad, den sie zu wandeln haben. Es ist ein Verbot, und es ist kein sogenanntes Vernunftverbot, keine מצוה שכלית; vielmehr sprechen alle dem Menschen verliehenen Erkenntnismittel, Geschmack, Phantasie, Verstand, gegen dies Verbot, das der Mensch nimmer aus eigner Einsicht gefunden hätte, ja, für welches er, auch nachdem es ihm erteilt war, keinen anderen Grund als den absoluten Gotteswillen aufzufinden vermochte, es ist somit ein חוק in optima korma. Es ist ferner ein Speise- verbot, und es gelangte endlich demjenigen, der es beachten sollte, nur auf dem Wege mündlicher Überlieferung zum Bewusstsein. Adam war es gegeben und Eva, so wie die Nachkommen, hatten es zu befolgen. Also: מאכלות ,חוק ,מצות לא תעשה alle Seiten des künftigen jüdischen Gesetzes, an welchen nach ,תורה שבעל פה ,אסורות dem Ausdruck der Weisen יצר הרע und אומות העולם, der sinnliche Verstand und die nichtjüdische Welt von jeher Anstoss genommen, alle diese Seiten waren in dem Verbote vereinigt, welches Gott an den Anfang der Menschenentwickelung dahin gestellt, לדעת auf dass daran erkannt werde, was der Mensch gut heißen und was er als טוב ורע bös verwerfen solle. Als Bedingung aller Sittlichkeit ist damit die Unterwerfung unserer sinnlichen Natur unter den ausgesprochenen Gotteswillen dahin gestellt, eine Bedingung, die von der sittlich hohen Stellung und Bestimmung des Menschen unzertrennlich ist. Die sittliche Freiheit, dieses Grundpalladium der Menschengröße, ist selbst nicht denkbar ohne Fähigkeit zu sündigen, und die Sündenfähigkeit setzt unabweisbar voraus, dass das Schlechte einen Reiz für unsere Sinnlichkeit habe und das Gute ein Widerstreben in ihr finde. Sonst wäre die Wahl des Guten und das Meiden des Bösen auch beim Menschen nur instinktiv, und der Mensch wäre eben nicht Mensch. In dieser Meisterschaft über sinnliche Reize, in dieser Unterwerfung der sinnlichen Natur unter Gottes Willen ersteht der Mensch zum Menschen, und in dieser Übung liegt das erste Problem der Menschenerziehung, die eben mit diesem ersten Gebot von dem Erzieher der Menschheit ihren ersten Grundsatz erhielt. Noch heute steht bei jeder Anforderung des göttlichen Sittengesetzes ein jeder von uns wie das erste Menschenpaar am Baume dieser Erkenntnis und hat sich zu entscheiden, ob er der Stimme der leiblichen Sinnlichkeit, der Phantaste des sinnlichen Verstandes und der Weisheit des instinktiven Tierlebens — oder, seines höheren Berufes bewußt, der Stimme seines Gottes folgen wolle. Und auch heute ist keinem von uns diese Stimme Gottes unmittelbar, sondern ebenso nur durch Überlieferung offenbar, wie Gott sein erstes Gebot an den Menschen der Überlieferung anvertraute. Nach der Lehre der Weisen ruht der allgemeine Kodex des Sittengesetzes für die Menschheit, die sieben noachidischen Pflichten, ebenfalls auf göttlicher Offenbarung, die ר׳ יוחנן (Sanhedrin 56, b) sofort in diesem ersten Musterverbote angedeutet findet: ויצו אלו הדינין ,דיזו ברכת השם ,אלקי׳ זו עבודה זרה, על האדם, זו שפיכת דמים ,לאמר זו גלוי עריות ,מכל עץ הגן ולא גזל ,אכל תאכל ולא אבר מן החי. Eine näher eingehende Betrachtung dieses ersten göttlichen Gesetzausspruches dürfte vielleicht diese Erläuterung 1־׳ יוחנן׳s nicht so fern liegend erkennen lassen und zeigen, wie in der Tat in diesem ersten Mustergebote bereits das ganze noachidische Sittengesetz in seinen Grundzügen angedeutet liegen dürfte.

ויצו ה' אלוקים על האדם; “the Lord G-d issued a command to Adam, etc.” This is not to be considered as a test which G-d wanted to subject Adam to, seeing that He knows all that was, is, and will be. He commanded Adam not to eat from the tree in order to demonstrate to the angels who had appealed for G-d’s mercy on his behalf, that this Adam to whom they had looked with that much respect and almost awe, did not even have the power to resist the only temptation to which G-d had subjected him. Our sages in Sanhedrin 60 derive from this verse that G-d issued the seven universal commandments for mankind at this time. Each of them is hinted at in the words of this verse.

צוה .דינין - ויצו haben wir bereits in seiner Verwandtschaft mit צבא und צוה in der Bedeutung "auf einen Posten stellen" erkannt. So sehen die Weisen auch überall in צווי nicht blos ein einfaches Gebieten, sondern זירוז מיד ולדורות, sondern ein Anspornen zum Eifer für die Erfüllung des Gebotenen in der Gegenwart und in aller Zukunft. (ספרי נשא). Es liegt somit in צווי nicht nur die Verpflichtung zur Selbsterfüllung des Gebotenen, sondern die Aufgabe, darüber zu wachen, dass es überhaupt erfüllt werde. Der erste Gesetzempfänger war somit zugleich zum Gesetzwächter bestellt, und so jeder Mensch; das ist aber nichts anderes als die erste noachidische Verpflichtung: דינין, die Rechtspflege, die Sorge für die Erfüllung des Sittengesetzes im Reiche der Menschen überhaupt. (In Parenthese sei bemerkt, wie hierdurch der Staat eine viel tiefere sittliche Bedeutung erhält, als durch irgend welche Fiktion eines aus Not oder Klugheit hervorgegangenen Gontrat social).

ויצו, a reference to establishing courts and judges to deal with disputes and violations of G-d’s commandments. The Torah refers to this again in Genesis 18,19 when explaining why G-d discusses the imminent destruction of the Sodomites with Avraham.

Another meaning of the repetition of the words מות תמות may be simply to give notice to Adam that should he eat from that tree he would cause his own mortality as well as the mortality of all those who would be descended from him in the future. This is, of course, what happened, and as a result we are all mortal until the day in the future when the pollution of the original serpent will have dissipated completely and G'd will banish death from earth (Isaiah 25,8).

ברכת ד׳ - ד׳. Das Gesetz für den Menschen ist ihm im Namen ד׳, im Namen der mit dem Menschen in besonderer Beziehung stehenden, ihn zu seinem sittlichen Heile erziehenden Gottesliebe gegeben. Auf dem Bewusstsein und der ungetrübten Heilighaltung dieser besonderen Beziehung des Menschen zu Gott ruht aber das ganze PflichtBewusstsein des Menschen, und mit der Ankündigung der Menschenpflicht kraft dieses Gottesnamens ist somit auch sofort die Verpflichtung zur Heilighaltung dieses Namens, das Verbot der Gotteslästerung gegeben: ׳ברכת ד

'ה, a reference to G-d’s “honour,” i.e. a hint that blasphemers must be punished. (Compare Leviticus 24,16)

ע"ז — אלק׳. Indem aber sofort ד׳ als אלקים, der Gesetzgeber der Menschen als derjenige zu begreifen gegeben ist, der auch die alle übrigen Wesen beherrschenden Gesetze und Anordnungen gegeben und festgestellt, dem somit auch alle übrigen Wesen gehorchen und — in welcher Kraft- und Machtfülle sie auch erscheinen — nur als Geschöpfe und Diener unterstehen, ist damit zugleich die Vergötterung irgend eines anderen Wesens verneint und verboten: ע"ז.

אלוקים, a hint not to practice paganism, as spelled out in Exodus 20,3, “you must not have other deities.”

צוה .שפיכת דמים - על הארם ist nicht häufig mit על konstruiert. Gewöhnlich bezieht sich dann dieses על nicht auf die Person, der, sondern auf den Gegenstand, hinsichtlich dessen ihr ein Gebot erteilt wird. So ועל פעל ידי תצוני ,ויצו עליו פרעה אנשים. Wo es sich auf die Person bezieht, welcher ein Gebot gegeben wird, wie כי מרדכי צוה עליה und ja auch hier, da ist es, wie schon längst bemerkt, in der Regel ein Verbot. Es hat dies jedoch auch Ausnahmen, wie והן אצוה על חגב לאכול Chron. II. 7,13. Diese Eigentümlichkeit scheint darin zu liegen, dass, wenn על sich auf die Person bezieht, welcher ein Befehl erteilt wird, dann diese Person selbst zugleich der Gegenstand wird, hinsichtlich dessen ihr eine Verpflichtung erteilt wird. Sie wird verpflichtet, über sich selbst zu wachen, dass sie das Verbotene nicht übe. Es ist dies derselbe Begriff des השמר, der Selbstüberwachung, unter welcher Form immer ein Verbot austritt. Indem somit auch hier der Mensch zugleich der Gegenstand ist, über den und die Persönlichkeit, welcher das Gesetz gegeben wird, indem dieses zugleich Beschränkung seiner Willkür im leiblichen Genuss ist, somit selbst der eigene Leib und sogar schon hinsichtlich der Stoffe, die er ihm zuführen möchte, seiner Willkür entzogen ist, so ist damit sofort der Schluss gegeben: wenn selbst mein eigener Leib nicht mein, sondern Gottes Eigentum ist, und ich Ihm selbst für den kleinsten Stoff verantwortlich bin, den ich ihm zu seiner Ergänzung zuführe, geschweige, dass dann der ganze Leib eines andern Menschen und mein eigener Gottes heiliges Eigentum und meiner zerstörenden Willkür entzogen bleiben muß: שפיכת רמים.

על האדם, a hint forbidding the shedding of human blood, (murder). This has been spelled out in greater detail in Genesis 9,6.

לאמר .גלוי עריות - לאמר beim Gesetze ist überall die Aufgabe, den genauen Inhalt weiter zu tradieren. S. Sifra 1. Gott gab also dem Menschen sein Gebot, es weiter zu tradieren von Geschlecht zu Geschlecht. Dies ist aber nur möglich, wenn die jungen Menschen Vater und Mutter finden, die ihnen das Gesetz überliefern und sie für dasselbe erziehen. Darum auch die Weisen auf die Frage, warum Gott sich Israel zu Trägern seines Gesetzes erwählt hat, in allererster Linie immer die Antwort haben, weil ihr Familienleben in geschlechtlicher Sittenreinheit erblüht sei, und auf die wiederholten Zählungen des Volkes למשפחותם לבית אבותם hinweisen. Die Forterhaltung des göttlichen Gesetzes setzt somit geschlechtlich reine Familien voraus, und לאמר verbietet: גלוי עריות.

ולא מן הגול - מכל עץ הגן, nur von dem für ihn eingefriedigten Garten sollte der Mensch essen, aber nicht מן הגזל.

לאמור, this is a hint not to commit incest and other forbidden forms of gratifying one’s libido. It is spelled out clearly in Jeremiah 3,1, where the prophet condemns legal maneuvers by “divorcing” a wife so she can legally sleep with another partner, all the while intending to take her back.

מכל עץ הגן, an allusion to not commit robbery, i.e. unless we have permission from the Creator to enjoy what He placed on earth for that person it is considered as if we had robbed Him.

אכל) ,אכל תאכל ,ולא אבר מן חחי - אכל תאכל wie schon oben bemerkt כלה mit vorgesetztem א) was wir genießen soll אכילה sein, es soll der zu verzehrende Stoff fähig sein, sich mit unserer Persönlichkeit zu vereinigen, Teil der göttlichen Hülle des göttlichen Geistes zu werden. Darum sofort: ולא אבר מן החי; es kann wohl בשר בהמה zu בשר assimilieren. Es נפש אדם mit נפש בהמה erhoben werden, nimmer aber kann sich אדם muß erst durch Tötung die נפש בהמה vom בשר entfernt sein, ehe der Tierleib in den Menschenleib aufgehen darf, darum: אכל תאכל und nicht אבר מן החי. (Siehe תוספי Sanhedrin 56, b. (.ד׳ה אכל תאכל

אכל תאכל, a hint not to eat flesh from an animal that is still alive. During Avraham’s time G-d added another command (for his descendants only) circumcision of the males. During Yaakov’s lifetime another prohibition was added, (by him?) namely, not to eat the גיד הנשה, the thigh muscle near the hip. During the lifetime of Yaakov’ son Yehudah, the law for a surviving brother, under certain circumstances to marry the widow of his deceased brother, was added. This law is known as yibbum. The Israelites added the commandment to honour father and mother. This commandment preceded the Ten Commandments, and was apparently introduced as part of the commandments mentioned when the people were encamped around a place called marah where the bitter waters had been made sweet. (Exodus 15,25).

על האדם, the commandment applied not only to the first human being, but to all subsequent generations; this is implied in the prefix ה, as it would be unnecessary otherwise; after all there was as yet only one human being. Or, if the command applied only to this first human being, the Torah should have written: את האדם, instead of על האדם, an expression that includes the entire human species.

מכל עץ הגן אכל תאכל, “you are encouraged to eat of the fruit of every tree in the garden;” if that were literally so, we might think that man was allowed to eat also of the tree of life? You would be wrong. The tree of life did not present a challenge to Adam as he was as yet immortal, and could not understand the purpose of such a tree. Moreover, according to tradition, Adam spent an entire 3 hours of his life in that garden. (Compare Sanhedrin 38) If you were to say that during those three hours Adam had indeed eaten from the fruit of that tree, so how could death have been decreed for him after that? If that were so the tree of knowledge would have been misnamed and should have been named the “tree of death,” as its fruit brought about man’s mortality. Alternately, it is possible that eating from the tree of life would serve as an antidote for people who had eaten from the tree of knowledge. This would explain why G-d became concerned about Adam eating from the tree of life only after he had eaten from the tree of knowledge, Alternately, if he were to eat from the tree of life a second time, he might become immortal as a result. Another exegesis of the whole verse: The words: “you may surely eat from all the trees of the garden,” did not include eating from the tree of life, as G-d forbade eating from the tree in the middle of the garden (3,3 and 3,9) Onkelos also translates 2,9 that the tree of knowledge was located in the center of the garden; it may well be that both the tree of life and the tree of knowledge were in fact in the middle of the garden, the tree of knowledge surrounding the tree of life from all sides. This is why the warning had to be issued only concerning the tree of knowledge. As long as man had not eaten from that tree, the tree beyond had not even been a challenge. It was only after they had become aware of the difference between good and evil that eating from the tree of life had become of special interest. Anyone who is immortal by definition was not interested in eating from a tree of life which promised no more than what he already possessed. Seeing that the concept of sinning, i.e. deliberately disobeying G-d’s instruction, came into existence only after he had eaten from the tree of knowledge, the most that could have happened would have been that he had inadvertently eaten from the fruit of the tree of life, something that hardly qualified for a penalty. After having eaten from the tree of knowledge, eating from the tree of life became a deliberate sin, and would bring in its wake the appropriate punishment. It was therefore preferable for man to have eaten from the tree of knowledge to his having eaten from the tree of life, as the penalty for eating from the latter would have been harsher.

THOU SHALT NOT EAT OF IT. He admonishes him against eating the fruit, for the tree itself is not edible. And so it says further on: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden.³²⁸Genesis 3:3. Similarly, And eat ye every one of his vine, and every one of his fig tree³⁴⁸II Kings 18:31. [means “of the fruit of his vine and of the fruit of his fig-tree].” Likewise, In toil shalt thou eat it³⁴⁹Genesis 3:17. means “eat its fruit.”

ומעץ הדעת, the tree in the middle of the garden, in close proximity to the tree of life mentioned previously (verse 9) The meaning of חיים in connection with that tree is equivalent to the meaning of the words in Deuteronomy 30:19 החיים והמות נתתי לפניך, “I have placed life and death (to choose) before you.” [we may understand this to mean that the tree of life, if its fruit were eaten, would result in life of infinite duration, whereas eating from the tree next to it would result in life being shortened. Ed.]

ומעץ הדעת טוב ורע, one of the operative, though apparently superfluous, words in this verse is the word ממנו, “from it.” Seeing that the verse had already commenced with the words ומעץ, “and from the tree,” this word appears redundant. It may therefore have been inserted in order to emphasise the severity of the effects of ignoring this warning. Alternately, the word refers to the fruit, seeing the fruit of the tree had not been mentioned at all previously. Interestingly, G’d had not forbidden Adam to eat from the fruit of the tree of life, but, on the contrary, the fruit of this tree was included in the instruction to eat “from all the trees of the garden you shall surely eat.” This subject is dealt with at greater length in the kabbalistic writings of our sages.

לא תאכל ממנו, “you must not eat thereof.” A reference to the fruit of the tree, as the trunk itself was inedible and man therefore had not been cautioned against eating it.

Am Tage, an welchem du von ihm issest, mußt du sterben. Wohl nur: verfällst du dem Tode; denn sie starben ja in der That nicht sogleich; vielmehr ward infolge der Nichtachtung des göttlichen Verbotes der Tod über sie verhängt. Ist doch der Tod anerkannt auch heute ein noch ungelöstes Problem der Physiologie. Soll doch auch einst, wenn die Menschheit sich erst zur vollen Rückkehr zu Gott durchgearbeitet hat, auch der Tod von der Erde verschwinden (Jesaias 25, 8), und hätte diese Periode für Israel nach der Lehre der Weisen schon mit מתן תורה begonnen, wenn es das göttliche Gesetz mit voller Hingebung erfüllt hätte (5a עיז). — Möglich aber, dass der Aus- pruch מות תמות auch sofort in Erfüllung gegangen. Wir finden ja auch sonst, dass an die Stelle der Todesstrafe Verbannung von der Heimat tritt, so beim Kain und dem unvorsätzlichen Totschläger. Verbannung aus der Heimat ist verjüngter Tod, der ja auch nicht eine Vernichtung des Daseins, sondern des Hierseins ist. Und so dürfte die Verbannung des Menschen aus dem Paradiese ein Tod in verjüngtem, gemildertem Maße sein. Wir haben ja keine Vorstellung von dem Leben im ג"ע. Zwischen ihm und der gewöhnlichen Erdwelt mag eine solche Kluft gewesen sein, dass der Übergang aus jenem in diese unserem Scheiden aus dieser Welt nicht unähnlich gewesen sein mag.

כי ביום אכלך ממנו מות תמות, “for on the day youwould eat from it you would surely become mortal.” Man had not been created as a mortal body, but after having sinned he was punished by becoming mortal. G-d’s warning did not mean that he would die immediately. He only had warned him that he would lose his entitlement to infinite life. At some time in the future he would not be able to escape the need to die. This is why he had to be separated from proximity to the tree of life, so that he could not regain the immortality that he had now lost.

IN THE DAY THOU EATEST THEREOF THOU SHALT SURELY DIE. At the time you eat of it, you will be condemned to die. Similarly, we find: On the day thou goest out, and walkest abroad any whither, thou shalt surely die.³⁵⁰I Kings 2:42. Said by Solomon to Shimi, that on the day he goes outside of the limits of Jerusalem he shall surely die. This does not mean that he [Shimi] is to die immediately on that day; nor does it refer to his mere knowledge thereof, namely that he is to know that he will die eventually for all the living know that they shall die.³⁵¹Ecclesiastes 9:5. But it does mean that at the time he [Shimi] goes forth from Jerusalem, he is liable to death at the hand of the king, and he will slay him when he pleases. [Similarly, in the verses:] But they shall not go in to see the holy things as they are being covered, lest they die;³⁵²Numbers 4:20. And they shall not bear sin for it, and die thereby.³⁵³Leviticus 22:9. Their intent is [not that those who transgress against these prohibitions will die immediately], but only that they will be liable to death and will die on account of this sin of theirs.
Now in the opinion of men versed in the sciences of nature, man was destined to die from the beginning of his formation, on account of his being a composite [of the four elements, and everything that is composite must revert to its original components]. But now He decreed that if he will sin he will die on account of his sin, like those who are liable to death at the hands of Heaven for such sins as a non-priest eating the Heave-offering, or a priest who has drunk wine or who does not wear the [required number of priestly] garments when performing the Service in the Sanctuary, and other cases. There the intent is that they will die prematurely on account of their sin. This is why in stating the punishment [after Adam ate of the fruit of the tree of knowledge] He said, Till thou return to the ground; for out of it wast thou taken; for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return,³⁵⁴Genesis 3:19. by your nature. In the beginning before he sinned, Adam also ate of the fruit of the tree and of the seeds of the earth; and if so, there was bound to be depletion in his body, and he was subject to the cause of existence and destruction. [Thus the opinion of the men of science.]
But in the opinion of our Rabbis,³⁵⁵Shabbath 58b. if Adam had not sinned he would have never died, since the higher soul bestows life forever, and the Will of G-d which is in him at the time of his formation would always cleave to him and he would exist forever, as I have explained in the verse, And G-d saw that it was good.³⁵⁶Above, 1:10.
Know that composition indicates destruction only in the opinion of those wanting in faith, who hold that creation came by necessity. But in the opinion of men of faith who say that the world was created by the simple Will of G-d, its existence will also continue forever as long as it is His desire. This is clear truth. That being so, In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die means that then you will be condemned to die since you will no longer exist forever by My Will. And the matter of eating [from the other trees] was to Adam at first only a source of enjoyment.³⁵⁷Ramban is aiming to answer the question: If Adam was destined at first to exist forever on account of his superior soul, what purpose did his eating serve? Ramban answers that, according to this theory, he ate not out of necessity but for enjoyment. And it is possible that the fruits of the garden of Eden were absorbed in his limbs as the Manna, and they sustain those that eat them. But when He decreed upon him, And thou shalt eat the herb of the field³⁵⁸Genesis 3:18. and with the sweat of his face he shall eat bread of the earth,³⁵⁹Ibid., Verse 19. this [the food] became a cause for decomposition since he is dust, and dust he eats, and unto dust he shall return.

מות תמות, mortality will be decreed for you as something occurring far sooner than would have been the case otherwise. Our sages (Bereshit Rabbah 19,8) explain that the word ביום does not refer to a day of our lives, i.e. a period of 24 hours, but refers to a “day” in G’d’s calendar, i.e. 1000 years in terms of our lives. Man was henceforth not to reach the age of 1000 years. Adam, who had been slated to live for 1000 years, actually lived only 930 years, having bequeathed the other 70 years to his descendants. They base this on Psalms 90,10 ימי שנותנו בהם שבעים שנה, “the number of years of our lives is 70.” [according to Rabbi David Luriah the words לבניו in this Midrash refer specifically to David. Ed.] According to the above we must conclude that the sages of the Midrash consider death per se as a curse, based on Deuteronomy 30,15 כי הרע הוא המות והטוב הוא החיים, “for life is good and death is evil.”
As to “knowledge of good and evil,” there are a number of explanations of these words. (Ibn Ezra) It may refer to the intimacy experienced between man and his wife when engaging in marital intercourse. The fruit of that tree created the mating instinct in man. The word טוב refers to copulation that is permitted and the word רע would refer to copulation which is forbidden. Adam was full of knowledge, and it is preposterous to assume that he had no concept of what is good and what is evil before he ate from that tree. However, he had lacked the biological urge to engage in marital intercourse. This is proved by the fact that after both he and his wife had eaten from the tree of knowledge they are quoted as saying that “their eyes were opened and they realised that they were naked,” in the sense that they lacked something which they had not been aware of needing. (Genesis 3,7). The meaning of the words והייתם כאלוקים, (3,5) is “you will be like the angels.” The common denominator between Adam and the angels at that stage was that both the angels and man had no inkling of the mating instinct. It is true that merely by observing the animals’ behaviour they realised that the males and females engaged in such activities, however they had no understanding of how such a process of creating progeny applied to themselves.
Alternatively, we may understand the serpent as not having the slightest idea of what the concepts טוב ורע, “good and evil” represented. Even though Chavah is not quoted in the text of having used these words, it is quite impossible to assume that the entire dialogue between the serpent and Chavah has been recorded here. Unless there had been some discussion between them before the words recorded in the text, whence did the serpent know that G’d had forbidden the fruit of the trees, as it had claimed to know? She must have learned such details from the words of the woman. Furthermore, the very opening remark of the serpent, אף, suggests that this is a continuation of the preceding parts of the dialogue which the Torah did not consider worth reporting. Nowhere else is the word אף used as the opening remark in a dialogue. (Ibn Ezra)

כי ביום אכלך ממנו מות תמות, “for on the day you eat from it you will surely become mortal.” This is not a warning of immediate death [as it would have been equivalent to the dying out of the human species. Ed.] but a warning not to forfeit eternal life on earth. There are some commentators who hold that prior to eating from the fruit of the tree of knowledge even other sins would not have resulted in a death penalty, seeing man would have lacked the knowledge of good and evil which he had only acquired as a result of eating from the fruit of that tree. The meaning of מות תמות then would be that after eating from the tree of knowledge and acquiring the knowledge of good and evil, any subsequent sins were liable to be considered capital sins, with death as their punishment. Nachmanides wrote that according to the scientists of his time, man was a mortal creature already before he ate from the tree of knowledge due to the fact that he was composed of a number of different (4) raw materials and all these amalgams ultimately disintegrate. What then was the difference that occurred after Adam ate from the tree? Had he not eaten from the tree, death, when it would eventually occur, would not be as a form of punishment for a sin committed. His death would be of the same category as that of people who knowingly ate תרומה, although not being priests or members of a priest’s household, and similar examples of what are known as מיתה בידי שמים, execution at the hands of heavenly forces. Our sages, ignoring the opinion of scientists, hold that thanks to his divine soul, man would have lived on indefinitely, his soul counteracting the inherent weakness of any creature consisting of four raw materials. His sin neutralized the power of his soul to protect him from death. Actually, the belief in the mortality (eventual metamorphosis) of all phenomena which consist of more than one raw material, is held only by people who lack in true faith and believe that the existence of the universe is not due to G’d’s free will, but was the result of an immutable law of nature, long preceding the existence of any G’d. For true believers who know in their deepest heart that the universe is the result of the will of a totally free Creator, the continued existence of anything this Creator has initiated, does not pose a problem. The only thing that would put an end to the absolute life expectancy of man was the fact that he violated the commandment and ignored the warning of what would follow. It is possible that all the fruit of the various trees of the גן עדן, barring those of the tree of knowledge, were completely assimilated by the human body, as was the manna later on, and therefore did not represent a foreign body, something that undermined man’s health, resulting in his eventual death. Having eaten from the forbidden fruit, Adam once more became –in the words of his Creator- “dust you are, and to dust you must return.”

'לא טוב היות וגו IT IS NOT GOOD etc. — I shall make an help meet for him in order that people may not say that there are two Deities, the Holy One, blessed be He, the only One among the celestial Beings without a mate, and this one (Adam), the only one among the terrestrial beings, without a mate (Pirkei D'Rabbi Eliezer 12).

IT IS NOT GOOD THAT THE MAN SHOULD BE ALONE. It does not appear likely that man was created to be alone in the world and not beget children since all created beings — male and female of all flesh — were created to raise seed. The herb and trees also have their seed in them. But it is possible to say that it was in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbi who says:³⁶⁰Berachoth 61a. The name of the Rabbi is Yirmeyahu the son of Rabbi Elazar. “Adam was created with two faces [i.e., male and female persons combined],” and they were so made that there should be in them an impulse causing the organs of generation to produce a generative force from male to female, or you may say “seed,” in accordance with the known controversy concerning pregnancy,³⁶¹See Ramban, beginning of Seder Thazria concerning the opinion of the doctors and the Greek philosophers. and the second face was a help to the first in the procreative process. And the Holy One, blessed be He, saw that it is good that “the help” stand facing him, and that he should see and be separated from it or joined to it at his will. This is the meaning of what He said in the verse, I will make him a helper opposite him.
The meaning of the expression, it is not good, is that it cannot be said of man that “it is good” when he is alone for he will not be able to so exist. In the work of creation, “the good” means existence, as I have explained on the text, And G-d saw that it was good.³⁶²Above, 1:10.

לא טוב היות האדם לבדו, the purpose of the human species on earth will not be achieved while man who is supposed to reflect the divine image will be left to personally carry out all the menial tasks of daily life on earth by being solitary.

ויאמר השם אלוקים לא טוב. The Lord G'd said: "It is not good for man to be alone, etc." This is difficult since G'd had mentioned already on the day He created man that the species had been created male and female (1,27). Another problem in the text is the expression אעשה, "I shall make for him a helpmate." The Torah then immediately proceeds to describe that the mammals and the birds were formed, i.e. ויצר השם אלוקים (2,19). This gives the impression that G'd intended one of these animals to be man's helpmate. Such a thought is not only extremely strange, but if true it would also result in one of those animals being deprived of its own mate! Besides, why did G'd have to put Adam to sleep and to remove part of his body? Could He not have formed woman as dust from the earth as He had formed man himself, especially since He formed Eve on the very same day He formed Adam (5,2) זכר ונקבה בראם? Our sages have given many homiletical explanations in answer to these questions, but they have not provided us with פשט, straightforward answers that justify the text as it stands.

ויאמר ה' אלוקים, G’d did not utter these words audibly, as is the meaning of the word when applied to human beings, but He “spoke” to Himself. Alternatively, G’d did utter words to that effect without directly addressing Adam, but Adam happened to hear these words. When the Torah speaks of “G’d speaking,” we must understand this as a sound created especially for that particular occasion. Seeing that Adam overheard the words אעשה לו עזר כנגדו, “I shall make for him a suitable companion,” he had entertained the hope that when all the animals paraded before him that he would encounter among them the helpmate, companion, G’d had spoken of. This is how we must understand the words in verse 20 ולאדם לא מצא עזר כנגדו, that he had not found a suitable helpmate when reviewing all the animals and naming them.
The Torah inserted these words between reporting on the commandment not to eat from the tree of knowledge and the sin, in order to make plain that man’s sin was due to the influence of the woman, as he had not eaten from this tree before she had been formed and been given to him as a mate, companion. Clearly, also when G’d gave Adam the commandments and forbade him to eat from that tree, seeing that the woman had not been created yet, she could not have heard this commandment from the mouth of G’d, but only from the mouth of her husband. The woman was clever enough to know that G’d had created both her husband and her. She presumed that communication from G’d took place by means of both her and her husband’s intellect, seeing that they were the only creatures who had been endowed with superior intellect.

לא טוב היות האדם לבדו, “it is not good for man to remain solitary.” Clearly it had not been G’d’s intention already at the time He created Adam that he should remain single, seeing that all other creatures were created in pairs, male and female specimen. Even trees and herbs contain seed to enable them to “mate” and to reproduce their kind. However, it is possible to argue that man was created with two faces and that between them (within a single body) they possessed the ingredients necessary to reproduce so that the second “face” enabled Adam to help him to reproduce. G’d saw, however, that it would be better that man’s עזר, assistant, should stand independently, facing him, so that he could see her having the choice to separate from her or to closely associate with her in accordance with his wishes. This is the meaning of the words: עזר כנגדו.

If he is not worthy, then opposite him. Rashi is answering the question: At first it is written “a helper.” Why then is it written כנגדו, implying she is against him, to fight him?

Gerade so wie die Schöpfung harrte, und ihrer Vollendung wartete, ehe der Mensch geschaffen wurde, und Gott ihr diese Krone seiner Schöpfung ankündigte, so auch hier vor der Schöpfung des Weibes. Der Mensch war da und um ihn blühte alles in Paradiesesschöne, und doch sprach Gott noch nicht sein: "!טוב" Es heißt nicht: לא טוב לאדם היותו לברו es ist für den Menschen nicht gut, dass er allein sei, sondern: so lange er allein steht, ist es überhaupt noch nicht gut; das Ziel der Vollkommenheit, das die Erdwelt durch ihn erreichen soll, wird nicht vollkommen erreicht, so lange er allein steht. Die Vollendung des Guten war nicht der Mann, war das Weib, und ward erst durch das Weib dem Menschen und dem Universum zugebracht. Und das ist so in den Geist unserer "Orientalen!" der "Rabbinen" aufgegangen, dass sie uns lehren: erst durch sein Weib wird der Mensch ein Mensch, erst Mann und Weib zusammen sind: "Adam". Die für einen zu große Aufgabe muss geteilt werden, und eben für die volle Lösung der Menschenaufgabe schuf Gott zum Manne das Weib. Und dieses Weib soll עזר כנגדו sein. Auch ganz oberflächlich betrachtet, spricht sich in dieser Bestimmung die ganze Dignität des Weibes aus. Auch nicht die leiseste Andeutung auf eine geschlechtliche Beziehung ist da enthalten; nur in das Gebiet des Wirkens des Mannes wird das Weib gesetzt, dort fehlt sie, sie soll עזר כנגדו sein. Und עזר כנגדו spricht eben so wenig eine Unterordnung aus, vielmehr ist damit eine völlige Gleichheit und paritätische Selbständigkeit ausgesprochen. Das Weib steht dem Manne כנגדו, parallel, auf einer Linie, zur Seite.

לא טוב היות האדם לבדו, “it is not good for Adam to remain solitary;” this was not a new idea that G-d had; He had planned for it all the time; He did not want to impose a partner on Adam, and that is why He gave him a chance to name the animals and to find that all of them had suitable mates, something that he now felt he lacked. G-d therefore responded to a wish of Adam that he had not even voiced as yet. If the mate was provided in response to his longing he would appreciate his wife more.

עזר כנגדו A HELP MEET FOR HIM — (כנגדו literally, opposite, opposed to him) If he is worthy she shall be a help to him; if he is unworthy she shall be opposed to him, to fight him (Yevamot 63a).

עזר כנגדו, a helpmate who will be equal to him, also reflecting the divine image. This is essential for him if he is to know what precisely his needs are and so that he can meet them in time. The reason why the Torah added the word כנגדו is that whenever one confronts someone of equal power, moral and ethical weight, such a confrontation is termed נגד. It is a head-on collision of will. When the two parties disagreeing are not of equal power, or moral/ethical weight, the confrontation is termed as one being עולה or יורד one of the adversaries either prevailing or losing in such an encounter. It is in this sense that we have to understand such statements as משה שקול כנגד כל ישראל, “that Moses was the equal of the entire Jewish people.” (Mechilta Yitro 1) However, the Torah did not mean for woman to be 100% equal to man, else how could the man expect her to perform household chores for him, etc.? Hence the letter כ at the beginning of the word כנגדו somewhat tones down this equality.

לא טוב היות האדם לבדו, it is not good that he has no partner seeing that among the beasts he cannot find a partner, as none of them is on a par with him.

We may have to fall back on the opinions expressed in Berachot 61 that originally man was created with two faces in one body. The Talmud there offers two opinions as to what was removed from Adam, a tail or a face, respectively. This is a reasonable explanation because it justifies G'd's blessing or command to Adam to be fruitful and to multiply (1,28) at a time when woman had not yet been reported as a separate entity.

עזר: helfen, beistehen. In seinen verwandten Wurzeln betrachtet, treten eigentümliche Begriffe entgegen, die alle in den Begriff des Beschränkens, Umschränkens zusammen gehen: עצר ,אצר ,אסר ,אזר, und doch: עזר: helfen. עזר bezeichnet somit diejenige Hülfe, die dem andern einen Teil seiner Obliegenheit abnimmt, ihm damit gestattet, seine Kräfte auf einen geringeren Kreis von Zwecken zu konzentrieren, und dadurch das ihm noch zur Vollführung Bleibende tüchtiger und vollkommener zu lösen. Es ist ein Beistand durch Konzentrierung. Während עצר die gewaltsame (צ) Beschränkung bedeutet, ist עזר die willkommene Beschränkung, um in dem so beschränkten Gebiete seine Tätigkeit desto kräftiger zu üben. So heißt עזרה der Hülfsraum. Statt dass sonst die קרבנות im היכל geschehen müssten, verbleibt durch die עזרה der היכל der höchsten כפרה, und im "Hülfsraum" geschehen alle die Wege, die zur כפרה führen. So soll auch durch das Weib ein Teil der Obliegenheiten, die die große Menschenaufgabe umfasst, dem Manne abgenommen, und ihm dadurch die vollkommenere Lösung des ihm noch Bleibenden ermöglicht werden. Dieses ist aber nur möglich, wenn das Wesen, das ihm עזר sein soll, כנגדו, nicht עמו, nicht an demselben mit ihm arbeitet, sondern ihm gegenüber an einer andern, allein auf gleicher Linie ihm gegenüber befindlichen Stelle wirkt. Wäre dies Wesen ein Mann, so trüge es selbst wieder die ganze Obliegenheit und be- dürste selber wieder des "Beistandes". Darum ist es ein Weib, eine השא, eine "Männin", die nicht mit ihm, nicht unter ihm, sondern neben ihm steht, נגדו auf einer Linie an einem andern Punkte wirkt, so dass sie jeder ein besonderes Gebiet erfüllen, sie gegenseitig sich ergänzen. Raw Hirsch on Genesis 2: 19. ויצר, nach den Weisen in ב"ר nicht: bilden; denn die Schöpfung und Bildung der Tiere war ja bereits vor dem Menschen geschehen; sondern in der Bedeutung 1,כבוש zwingen, wie תצור אל עיר. Obgleich תצור von צרר so ist ja auch von יצר die Grundbedeutung, wie bereits bemerkt, beschränken, einengen. Alles Bilden ist selbst ein Beschränken des Stoffes in den von der beabsichtigten Form gestatteten Umfang. צר selbst kommt auch in der Bedeutung: Enge, Beschränkung vor, ויצר לו מן המיצר usw. Für diese Auffassung spricht hier auch, dass בהמה fehlt, und nur חית השדה und עוף genannt wird, während Raw Hirsch on Genesis 2: 20 בהמה ausdrücklich genannt ist. בהמה brauchten nicht erst gezwungen zum Menschen gebracht zu werden, sie hatten sich ihrer Natur nach untergeordnet und bildeten freiwillig seine Umgebung. — Die Stellung des נפש חיה zu הארם lässt dies nur als Apposition zu האדם erkennen: der Mensch gibt den Dingen Namen, nicht als Gott, der dem Wesen der Dinge auf den Grund schaut, sondern von seinem individuellen Standpunkt aus, als נפש, als Individuum, חיה das aufzunehmende und abzustoßende Eindrücke von den Dingen um sich empfängt. Nach diesen Eindrücken nennt er die Wesen, in diesem Namen spricht er die Eindrücke aus, die seine von den Dingen erhaltene Vorstellung bilden, und damit weist er ihnen ihr שם, (daher שם), ihren Ort an, reiht sie in die entsprechende Gattung, Art, Spezies usw. ein. All unser Wissen von den Dingen ist nichts als eine solche Namengebung. Dieses Wissen ist aber nur subjektiv, ist nur das אשר יקרא לו הארם נפש חיה, wie sich der Mensch die Dinge von seinem subjektiven Standpunkt aus nennt, was er von ihnen, nach den von ihnen erhaltenen Eindrücken, begreift, was sie ihm sind. Das Wesen der Dinge an sich schaut kein sterblicher Geist. Während damit aber die Bedeutung der Summe des menschlichen Wissens auf ihr bescheidenes Maß zurückgeführt wird, ist doch zugleich dem Skeptizismus entgegengetreten durch die Versicherung: הוא שמו dass das von uns durch die Eindrücke auf uns Erkannte, wenn auch nicht die ganze Wahrheit der Dinge, doch Wahrheit sei. Gott, der den Menschen und die Dinge geschaffen, und seine geschaffenen Wesen dem Menschen zugeführt, damit er sie sich nach den von ihnen empfangenen Eindrücken nenne, ist auch dem Menschen Bürge dafür, dass das ihm verliehene Maß von Erkenntnis der Dinge keine Täuschung sei, dass auch dieses Bruchstück von Wahrheit wahr, dass es die Wahrheit von den Dingen sei, deren der Mensch für die Lösung seiner Aufgabe in Mitte der Wesen bedarf, und der er getrost sich anvertrauen darf. So bildet der Glaube an Gott, der die Menschen und die Dinge geschaffen, eine wesentliche Grundlage auch der theoretischen Erkenntnis des Menschen. Ohne diesen Glauben kann sich auch die theoretische Wissenschaft nicht des trostlosen Skeptizismus erwehren, hat sie keine Gewähr, dass sie nicht Traum aus Traum folgere und Traum mit Traum beweise.

אעשה לו עזר, an assistant when the need should arise. Solomon, in Kohelet 4,9, paraphrased this when he wrote: טובים השנים מן האחד, “two are better than one alone.” Furthermore, woman was a necessity if man was to leave offspring behind to insure the continuity of his species.

It is in keeping with G'd's propensity for preparing everything good ahead of time, and providing many more opportunities for man to do good than evil. However, we must ask why He separated the two bodies enabling Eve to fall victim to the temptation by the serpent? This leads us to examine the cause of Adam's (Eve) sin, what happened to him and all of mankind as a result. We have found that woman became the cause of all that the world lost because the serpent prevailed over her in a match of wits. This occurred because Adam was not at her side at the time of Eve's encounter with the serpent. He was asleep as a result of having had marital relations with his wife (Bereshit Rabbah 19,3). Another version in the Midrash there suggests that G'd had taken him on a tour of the earth. As a result the serpent encountered Eve on her own and succeeded in seducing her. If the Torah had reported man's creation and the subsequent separation of Eve's body sequentially, without interposing Adam's experiences on earth in the interval, many people would have argued that what happened was all G'd's fault. They would have said that if G'd had not separated her body from that of her husband, thereby making a drastic change in what He had created originally, the serpent would never have had a chance to seduce Eve. In order to forestall such an argument the Torah tells us first the reason that G'd separated Eve's body from Adam's, i.e. in answer to Adam's own request. His observations of how the animals lived, male and female as separate bodies, had made him desirous of a similar arrangement. G'd had only the best of intentions, as usual. This is also the reason the Torah told us already at the outset that man was equipped to procreate from the moment he was created. Being one and the same body obviously had some of the same disadvantages as being a Siamese twin. G'd therefore decided it would be better for man's helpmate to be כנגדו, an appropriate complement, rather than the other half of his body. In this way she could be a help to him at all times instead of being a hindrance on occasion. Eve's being a separate body was not dictated by Adam's need to procreate. Seeing that the separation of her body served only to please Adam we must ask why none of the other creatures could have been trained to perform that task for Adam while leaving Eve in the state she had been created. The Torah therefore describes in verses 19 and 20 that Adam did indeed search for a suitable helpmate amongst all the other creatures but did not find one that was acceptable to him. Naming the animals, i.e. identifying their essence, was part of that search for a suitable helpmate. Eve's existence as a separate body from Adam had therefore become mandatory from Adam's point of view. It is totally incorrect to blame G'd for subsequent developments, such as Eve finding herself temporarily alone, facing an evil influence whose existence she had been quite unaware of. The Torah's report about both Adam's and Eve's innocence, i.e. their lack of shame at being nude, are all facts the Torah supplies to enable us to better understand the causes that led to the sin. Human relationships are based on people facing each other, i.e. כנגדו. The Torah describes Adam's profound joy when he finally beheld the partner who up until then had been hidden from him, i.e. had faced backwards. From G'd's point of view the original arrangement was perfectly acceptable, He had not created an imperfect human species. Any change was entirely in response to Adam's frame of mind, to accomodate him. Our sages have supplied us with numerous reasons why G'd did not create an entirely new human being to serve as Adam's helpmate. When Solomon told us in Kohelet (4,9) טובים השנים מן האחד, that two are better than one, that they can help each other, this has nothing to do with G'd having created man's form in such a way that he could have impregnated the wife which was part of him but facing backwards.

Dass dieses Namengeben auf einer, wenn gleich nur subjektiven, Erkenntnis des Wesens der Dinge beruht, ist hier evident, indem Gott dem Menschen die lebendigen Wesen alle zuführte, damit er erkenne, dass unter allen diesen lebenden Wesen keines geeignet sei, ihm als die ihm fehlende Hülfe zur Seite zu treten, wie dies der Schluss des folgenden Verses: לאדם לא מצא עזר כנגדו, beweist. Die Prüfung der Wesen für diesen Zweck heißt: לראות מה יקרא לו האדם. Mögen wir es nun übersetzen, zu sehen, wie er es sich, oder wie er es nennen, oder was er sich, d. h. für sich berufen werde: immer ist durch das וכל אשר יקרא לו וגו׳ הוא שמו klar, dass der Name das Ergebnis der subjektiven Prüfung des Wesens der Dinge sei. קרא heißt rufen, d. i. einen Gegenstand auffordern in unsere Richtung zu treten, (wovon auch לקראת, wörtlich: dem Rufe des Andern zu, d. h. der Richtung zu, die durch die Stellung des Andern bestimmt wird.) Daher auch: nennen. Indem ich einen Namen nenne, rufe ich mir den Gegenstand vor, vergegenwärtige ich ihn mir. Vielleicht ist auch damit ירא verwandt, das daher auch, obgleich einen intransitiven Zustand bezeichnend, doch mit dem Akkusativ את konstruiert wird. Es hieße demnach: sich einen Gegenstand im Innern immer gegenwärtig halten. Dies ist ja auch in der Tat z. B. die einzige wahrhaftige ׳שויתי ד׳ לנגדי תמיד :יראת ד.

כנגדו, she should be constantly present to attend to his needs; the prefix letter כ is to be understood as in Samuel I 9,13 כהיום, and as in Numbers 11,1 כמתאוננים, and as in Hoseah 5,10 כמסיגי גבול, in all of which instances the letter כ serves to emphasise what follows. (compare Genesis 25,31 where Yaakov insists that the sale of the birthright be effective immediately with the words כיום, “as of today”) Other explanations of the word כנגדו are that if and when her husband would embark on a sinful path of action, it would be woman’s task to prevent him from doing so by opposing it; these are familiar to all my readers, I am sure. The basic difference between man the species and woman his mate who were not initially created as two separate individuals as opposed to all the other living creatures, is to distinguish him favourably from all those other creatures. It draws attention to the fact that man is made from superior raw materials, and that as opposed to the other creatures among whom the male does not enjoy an advantage over the female, man, i.e. the male of the human species, does enjoy such an advantage. The male of the human species enjoys a position of authority vis a vis his female counterpart. The reason that he enjoys this right is the fact that woman is –after all- one of his own original limbs, and a person does have control over the various parts of his body. Seeing that the male of the human species had been the principal creation, woman became an adjunct to him, so that it is logical that man possesses superior strength to woman, and that also the power of his intellect is more manifest than that of his female counterpart.

Perhaps the objective reason G'd had created the human species as a pair in a single body was to distinguish between the functions of the bodies of the animals and the functions of the human body. Animals mate indiscriminately, i.e. a male will mate with any female available to him, the act of mating being merely a response to biological urges. The fact that the Torah on occasion stresses the זכר ונקבה element when mentioning animals as pairs such as when they entered Noach's ark, does not mean that they have exclusive partners. The average animal does not recognise a female of its species as specifically "his" female. This is not the way G'd wanted man to relate to the subject of mating. It would have been impossible for Adam to describe his wife as בשר מבשרי, flesh of my own, were it not for the fact that Eve had been part of his own body previously. The whole idea that man's זווג is arranged in heaven would have been impossible to understand but for the fact that the female of the species is considered man's "other half." This consideration may also be the reason that when the Torah legislated forbidden sexual relations (Leviticus 18) the subject is always the male. It is forbidden to engage in sexual intercourse with certain women as they could not possibly be your missing "half."

ויצר מן האדמה NOW OUT OF THE GROUND THE ETERNAL GOD HAD FORMED — The formation spoken of here is the creation mentioned above (1:25) “And God made the beast of the earth etc.” and this statement comes (is repeated) here to point out that the fowls were created from the swamps; for above it is said that they were created from the waters and here it states that they were created from the earth. Furthermore it teaches you here that when they were created, immediately — on the very same day — He brought them to Adam to give them names (Chullin 27b); and in the statement of the Agada (Genesis Rabbah 17:4) we are told that this expression יצירה means domination and subjugation, like (Deuteronomy 20:19) כי תצור אל עיר “when thou shalt besiege a city", for He subjugated them under the power of Adam.

AND WHATSOEVER ‘YIKRA LO HA’ADAM NEFESH CHAYAH’ (THE MAN WOULD CALL EVERY LIVING CREATURE). Rashi comments: “Invert [the phrasing of the sentence] and explain it thus: and every living creature to which Adam would give a name, that should remain its name forever.” And Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra said that the letter lamed of the phrase, that the man called ‘lo’ (it), is carried forward [to the word nefesh, making it lenefesh (to the creature), thus]: and whatever the man called to every living creature, that was to be its name.
It is possible that the phrase be explained in connection with the matter of “the help” that G-d gave to Adam, and the meaning is that ha’adam nefesh chayah (man is a living soul), as it is said, And man became a living soul,³⁶³Above, Verse 7. and it is as I have explained it there. And He brought before him all species so that every one of them unto which Adam would give a name and say that it is a living soul like himself, that would remain its name and be a help to him. So Adam gave names to all, but as for himself he found no help which he would be able to call “a living soul” like his own name.

ויצר ה' אלוקים מן האדמה כל חית השדה, G’d now provided these creatures with their final shape, putting the “finishing touches” on them, so to speak. At that stage of the earth’s condition, the original product which the earth had produced, not based on seed which contains all the genetic material in microscopic form, was not adequate to produce the final product without input by G’d, personally.

ויצר, this time the word is spelled with only a single letter י, not as in verse 7. In other words, a letter י' which is part of the root of the verb יצר has been omitted from the written text of the Torah. The meaning of the line is: “seeing that G’d had already formed from the earth all the living creatures and all the fowl of the sky, etc.” The expression חית השדה in our verse includes also all the domesticated mammals. This is clear from verse 20, where Adam is portrayed as naming all of them. All of these creatures had been created before Adam had been created. G’d told Adam that he would have authority over all these creatures. He was challenged to name them in accordance with the special qualities each animal possessed; their characteristics should be alluded to in their names.

וייצר ה' אלוקים מן האדמה, “the Lord G’d fashioned out of the earth, etc. Rabbi Joseph Kimchi explains the word וייצר, as meaning: “He gathered together.” This word appears in a similar meaning as יוצר גובאי where it means gathering. [I have not found the source. Ed.]

Also, it teaches you... This explanation [“On the day they were created...”] seems to apply only to the animals and beasts, which were created on the sixth day, [like man was]. But it does not apply to fowl which was created on the fifth day. Thus Rashi brought also the first explanation, “That the fowl were created from the swamps.” And the second explanation is to teach about the animals and beasts.

וייצר ה' אלוקים, “The Lord G-d fashioned, etc.” In one verse we have read that G-d created the birds from the water (1,21), here it states that the birds were the product that G-d fashioned from the earth. How are we to understand this? We have to consider that some birds make their habitat in water, (geese, ducks, swans) and whereas others are unable to survive in water, for instance, chicken and turkeys, to name only a few.

וכל אשר יקרא לו האדם נפש חיה וגו — Invert it (the phrases of the sentence) and then explain it thus: every living creature to which Adam should give a name — that should remain its name forever.

ויבא אל האדם, in order for man to realise there was a need for an additional phenomenon, seeing that amongst the existing ones none met his need for a partner.

לראות, G’d did not need to see how clever Adam was. The exercise was designed to show his descendants what a brilliant forbear they had had, someone who had at one glance been able to determine the essence of each of these creatures. Adam was clever enough to divine the nature of the birds which, though described in 1,20 as having been produced by the waters, are treated in our verse here as if they had been products of the earth (or even of the sky). The Talmud, which describes the origin of the birds as being puddles of water, i.e. combination of water and earth, did not tell us anything Adam had not known already and taken into consideration when naming the birds. (Chulin 26) Alternately, the reason the Torah speaks of G’d having fashioned all the categories of creatures listed in our verse as stemming מן האדמה, is that G’d brought all of these creatures to Adam from the earth, seeing that this was the habitat on which all these creatures developed to their maturity. Proof is the fact that even the birds which fly in the sky are described not as flying in the sky, in the atmosphere, but as flying over the ארץ, emphasising that they too are an integral part of “earth” as opposed to the fish whose habitat is not “earth” but the waters. When fish leave that habitat they die. Seeing that this is so, G’d could not parade them in front of Adam who was on land and could not determine the nature of the various water-based creatures from his present vantage point. As a result, the names of fish actually vary, depending in which ocean they are found, and in what climates they make their habitat.

You must transpose [the words]... Rashi not only inverted the verse but also added “a name” after “Adam” and “forever” after “its name.” For without the addition of “a name,” the verse would not mean that Adam called them names. Rather it would mean “he called to it,” as in (Shemos 2:20): “Call him, and let him eat bread.” Then, the phrase of “that is its name” would not be understandable, for it cannot say “that is its name” before Adam gives it a name — since he was the one who named them. And without inverting the verse, it would seem as if Adam gave the name “living creature” to everything. That is untrue, for even without him giving it this name it was already called a “living creature.” This is because the term “living creature” includes animals, beasts and fowl. Furthermore, how could it say (v. 20): “And man gave names to every animal,” when there is only the name of “living creature”? (R’em)

ויבא אל האדם, “He brought to Adam;” G-d did not bring the fish as they are water bound and cannot survive on dry land. As a result of this, man does not enjoy authority over the fish. He did not bring domesticated mammals to him either, as Adam was already familiar with them. G-d did not have to bring them.

לראות מה יקרא לו, so that he would see which name would be appropriate for each creature, based on the specific tasks they performed in the universe.

וכל אשר יקרא לו האדם נפש חיה, the meaning of this line is as if the Torah had written: וכל נפש חיה אשר יקרא לו האדם שם, “and any living creature whom Adam assigned a name, etc.” הוא שמו, that remained its name. We find something analogous in Ezekiel 39,11 מקום שם קבר, which is the same as if the prophet had written מקום קבר שם, “a place as a grave there.” There are numerous other examples of what we might consider at first glance as an unusual syntax. The name Adam assigned to each creature described the body, contours of the animal in question. The expression נפש חיה in our verse includes every creature that moves. This expression is the Torah’s way of telling us that Adam realised that no creature is really a “living” creature unless it consists of a male and a female of its species, ensuring that they can reproduce and keep the species alive. This brought home to him the full meaning of his having no female partner. He realised that G’d had done this in his own interest, to show the world that he was not on the same level as all the other creatures.

לראות מה יקרא לו, “to find out how he would name it;” (the species). G-d wanted to find out how Adam reacted to the living soul He had blown into his nostrils i.e. if he would be able to correctly name the various species that fitted their nature. This is what is meant when the Torah wrote: הוא שמו “which is its appropriate name.” [The name G-d would have given these creatures if Adam had not named them. Ed.]

נפש חיה הוא שמו, its name would provide all of us with a clue as to its function in G’d’s scheme of things. The essence of each animal, נפש, would be revealed by its activity on earth.

'וכל אשר יקרא לו וגו, “and whatever name Adam would give that species, etc.” The reason that Adam named each species was so that whenever he needed one of them he knew how to call for it, i.e. by its name. If G-d Himself had named each species and Adam would have had to ask Him for its name, it would have been a cumbersome procedure. This way he himself remembered the name of each species.

ולאדם לא מצא עזר… ויפל ה' אלהים תרדמה FOR THE MAN HE HAD NOT FOUND A HELP MEET FOR HIM … AND THE ETERNAL GOD CAUSED AN OVERPOWERING SLEEP TO FALL — When He brought them, He brought them before him male and female of each and every kind. Thereupon he said: all these have a mate, but I have no mate! Immediately He caused to fall [an overpowering sleep upon him] (Genesis Rabbah 17:4).

BUT FOR ADAM THERE WAS NOT FOUND A HELP MEET FOR HIM. Rashi comments: “When He brought them, He brought them before him as male and female. Thereupon Adam said, ‘All of them have a mate, and I have no mate!’ Immediately, the Eternal G-d caused a deep sleep to fall upon him.” Rashi explained it well for by Scripture’s bringing the verses concerning “the calling of names” into the matter of “the help” that G-d gave Adam, it proves that this interpretation mentioned above is correct.
“The calling of names,” in the opinion of the commentators,³⁶⁴Rashi and R’dak. is to be understood in its plain sense, namely, that everyone should have a name for himself so that they be known and recognized in their progeny by the names Adam would call them, names which would be valid forever. Now when the Holy One, blessed be He, wanted to make “the help” for Adam He brought all species before him since He had to bring them before him in pairs so that he should also give a name to the females of the species; for in some [species, both male and female] are called by one name, and in others they differ, such as bull and cow, tayish (he-goat) and eiz (she-goat), sheep and ewe, and others. When Adam saw them mating with each other, he had a desire for them, but as he found among them no help for himself, he was saddened and fell asleep. G-d then caused a deep sleep to fall upon him so that he should not feel the removal of a rib from his body.
In my opinion, however, “the calling of the names” is identical with “the help” [as I explained in the above verse], and the purport thereof is as follows: the Holy One, blessed be He, brought before Adam all the beasts of the field and all the fowl of the heavens, and he, recognizing their nature, called them names, that is, names appropriate to them. By the names it was made clear who is fit to be the help for another, meaning, fit to procreate with one another. Even if we are to believe that names are merely a matter of consensus and not of nature, [i.e., that they do not reflect the essence of the object bearing the name], we can say that “the calling of the names” means the division of the species as — male and female — they passed before Adam and he contemplated their nature as to which of them would be a help to each other in procreation so that they should beget offspring. Thus he called the large creatures by one name and the beasts by another so they would not beget offspring from one another, and so on for all species. And among them all he did not find a natural help for himself so that it could be called by his name for “the calling of the names” signifies the division of the species and the separation of their powers from each other, as I have explained above. Now it does not mean that it was in Adam’s power to find a help for himself among them since they were all created with natures [different from that of man]. But it means that if Adam was to find satisfaction with one of the species and he would choose it for his help, the Holy One, blessed be He, would adapt its nature to him, as He did with the rib, and He would not have found it necessary to build “a new structure.”³⁶⁵“A new structure” is a reference to the explanation of the Rabbis: “Vayiven (And He built… the rib) — this teaches us that He built Eve after the fashion of a store-house.” (Eruvin 18a.) This is the meaning of the verse, And whatsoever the man would call every living creature, that was its name;³⁶⁶Verse 19. that is to say, that was to be its name, for the Holy One, blessed be He, would so preserve it along the lines which I have explained.
In my opinion it is correct to say that it was His will, blessed be He, not to take Adam’s rib from him to make him a wife until he himself would know that among the created beings there is no help suitable for him and until he would crave to have a help suitable for him like her. This was why it was necessary to take one of his ribs from him. This is the meaning of the verse, But for Adam there was not found a help meet for him; that is to say, but for the name Adam (man), he found no help suited to be opposite him and to be called by his name so that he should beget children from that “help”. We need not resort here, therefore, to the words of the commentators³⁶⁷Ibn Ezra and R’dak. who say that the name “Adam” comes here in place of the reflexive pronoun [“himself.” The verse would thus read: “But for himself] he found no help meet for him,” just as, Ye wives of Lemech,³⁶⁸Genesis 4:23. [which should read, “my wives”]; And Jephthah, and Samuel,³⁶⁹I Samuel 12:11. The words were spoken by Samuel. [which should read, “and Jephthah and myself”]. This is the meaning of Adam’s saying: This is now bone of my bones;³⁷⁰Further Verse 23. that is to say, “This time I have found a help for me which I did not find till now among the other species, for she is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh,³⁷⁰Further Verse 23. and is fit to be actually called by my name for we shall propagate together.”
In the word zoth (this, this time) there is a secret; it will be made known from our words in the section Vezoth habracha,³⁷¹See Ramban, Deuteronomy 33:1, in the commentary beginning, “the man of G-d.” if my Rock will bless me, enabling me reach thereto. This is why Adam repeats, because ‘zoth’ (this) was taken out of man.³⁷⁰Further Verse 23. [Delve into it] and understand.

ויקרא האדם...ולאדם לא מצא עזר כנגדו, he saw all these creatures parading before him as males partnered by a female, whereas there was no such partner available for him. We find a similar construction in Exodus 24,1 of the Torah writing ואל משה אמר עלה אל ה', or in Genesis 4,23 נשי למך or in Samuel I 12,11 ואת יפתח ואת שמואל. According to Tur, quoting Rabbi Joseph Kimchi, our author’s father, what gave rise to our author supplying other examples of such a strange syntax is the fact that Adam is portrayed as if viewing himself from the outside, as a third party.
The names Adam gave the animals were all in Hebrew, seeing that this is the language he spoke. This is also the language in which G’d addressed him. G’d had called him אדם since he was a product of אדמה. Similarly, Adam called his wife חוה, to reflect the fact that she was the mother of the human race, i.e. אם כל חי. Chavah in turn called her son קין, describing him as an acquisition קנין of an איש, a man, paralleling G’d Who up until then had been the Only One who had acquired an איש, meaning her own husband Adam. (Genesis 4,1). Similarly, when Lemech named his son נח, he mentioned that the name symbolised the hope that his son would provide comfort for man, זה ינחמנו, (Genesis 5,29). The way these names reflect words in the Hebrew language closely related to such names, all prove that Hebrew was the language spoken at that time. The fact that we do not know the meaning of all the other names mentioned in the Torah for people of that era only proves our ignorance, knowing neither enough Hebrew nor being endowed with the level of wisdom possessed by our forefathers. We will have to await the end of our exile to once again qualify for the command of Hebrew at the disposal of our ancestors.

ולאדם לא מצא עזר כנגדו, ”and for Adam he had not found a suitable helpmate.” Rabbi Joseph Kimchi views Adam as the subject in this verse, i.e. Adam had been unable to find a suitable helpmate for himself. This was because the Lord had not presented him with such a choice, had not introduced a candidate to him. G’d knew that none of the existing creatures would be a suitable helpmate for Adam. The word ולאדם is therefore to be understood as a metaphor, a pronoun, the line meaning: “and for himself, personally, He had not found a suitable helpmate.” We find a similar construction in Genesis 4,23 when Lemech addresses his wives Adah and Tzilah, saying: שמען קולי נשי למך וגו' “listen to what I have to say, oh wives of Lemech.” [who else had he been speaking to that he had to insert his own name? Ed.] Nachmanides explains the words וכל אשר יקרא לו נפש חיה הוא שמו, as applying to the subject of a suitable helpmate for himself. Rashi had already stated that the verse is truncated, and the correct sequence should have been וכל נפש חיה אשר יקרא לו האדם הוא שמו, “and whatever name Adam bestowed on any of the living creatures became its permanent name.” Seeing that Adam himself had been described at the very beginning of his existence as נפש חיה, Adam in his quest for a mate, proceeded to screen all the other creatures known as נפש חיה. As soon as he had bestowed the title נפש חיה on any of them, a title which remained permanent, he hoped that such an animal would qualify as his own helpmate, only to find himself disappointed again and again. Also, in recognizing the distinct characteristics of the animals he classified them into groups such as בהמה גסה and בהמה דקה, large cattle and small cattle. The word עזר is used in a wider sense, including the ability to mate with one another and produce offspring. The common denominator of small cattle, such as sheep and goats, is that they are able to mate with one another and produce offspring, whereas the common denominator of large cattle is that they cannot mate with one another successfully. Clearly, it had not been within the power of Adam to change the natural characteristics of any of these animals which had been created with their specific tendencies. However, if Adam had found among any of the beasts any that appealed to him in an extraordinary manner, he would have prayed to G’d to adapt the characteristics of such an animal so that it would be suitable as his mate. However, in the event, he found none that even remotely interested him in this regard. We do find that G’d reassigned the functions and appearance of one of Adam’s “ribs” in order to provide him with a more suitable mate. The meaning of the words הוא שמו, is that G’d agreed with the name, i.e. characterization Adam had given to each animal, and He henceforth referred to such creature by the name Adam had given them. The truth is that G’d had not wanted to remove a “rib” from Adam until the latter had asked for an as yet non existent creature to become his helpmate, his partner. When, finally, he found such a partner after awakening from his sleep, he named this partner suitably, i.e. אישה as she represented the same components as איש, i.e. himself. Some commentators feel that the emphasis in this verse is on the words זאת הפעם, “(only) on this occasion.” Henceforth, woman as well as man would not be direct creations by their Creator, but they would be born by woman, similar to the procreative process common to all mammals. This is another aspect of the wordsאשר ברא אלוקים לעשות, in 2,3 at the end of the report about the creation. Up until then, G’d had practiced the art of בריאה, creation, in the literal sense. Henceforth new phenomena would only be reproductions of existing phenomena, hence לעשות, to complete, to ensure that what had been created originally would not be lost.

Der Mensch prüfte also alle lebenden Geschöpfe in ihrer Eigentümlichkeit und wies einem jeden darnach seinen geistigen Ort an. Er prüfte so die ihm am nächsten Stehenden (בהמ), die seinem Wesen am fernsten Stehenden (חיה), die sich ihm am wenigsten Anschmiegenden (עוף), und die in der Mitte Stehenden (חיה), aber für einen "Adam", (es heißt nicht ולאדם), für einen gottebenbildlichen Statthalter Gottes auf Erden, fand er nichts, das ihm parallel sei, mit ihm seine große Obliegenheit teilen könne.

ולאדם לא מצא עזר, “but Adam had not found a suitable partner for himself;” why did G-d not create Chavah at the same time as He had created Adam? G-d had known that the time would come when her husband would blame her for his own sin. (3,12) This is why He delayed creating her until Adam had expressed a wish for her explicitly. (Compare B’reshit Rabbah 17,4) As soon as Adam had expressed his wish for a suitable partner, G-d put him to sleep and proceeded to fashion Chavah from him.

כנגדו, from raw material which matched that which had had been made of both in substance and in appearance. (See Targum Yerushalmi). This is why when the mammals had been paraded before him, the Torah had written that he had not found עזר כנגדו “a mate that would match him.” He had found numerous animals that could have served him as helpers for one purpose or another, but none that would have been suitable all round.

מצלעותיו OF HIS RIBS — The word means of his sides, similar to (Exodus 26:20) ולצלע המשכן “and for the second side of the tabernacle”; this has a bearing upon what they (the Sages) say, (Eruvin 18a): They were created with two faces (sides).

ויפל, the word תרדמה describes a sleep far deeper than ordinary sleep every night,שינה , and שינה itself is a deeper sleep than תנומה. The reason why G’d made Adam fall into such a deep sleep was to ensure that he would not feel the surgery being performed on his body. Although, if G’d had wanted to, He could have performed painless surgery while Adam was awake and watching the proceedings, we must always remember that G’d does not perform miracles unless they are absolutely necessary. When there is a solution to a problem within the parameters of well known laws of nature, G’d makes use of them. Putting Adam into a deep sleep known as תרדמה was not something miraculous, seeing that such deep sleep does occur quite frequently in some people’s lives.
Our sages (Sanhedrin 39) state (surmise) that if G’d had removed this part of Adam’s body (skeleton) from him while he had been aware of it, he might subsequently have detested Chavah, remembering how she looked before she was fit to be presented to him. [The Talmud there illustrates the manner in which Rabban Gamliel’s daughter explained to the Roman Emperor who had claimed that G’d had stolen a rib from Adam, why it had been necessary to do this in a clandestine fashion. She invited the Emperor to watch her prepare a piece of raw meat and to observe every step before this piece of meat was fit to be served on the table. Having watched this, the Emperor lost his craving for the meat in question. Rabban Gamliel’s daughter told the Emperor to imagine what Adam would have felt like if he had had to watch how his mate was produced step by step. Ed.] Not having watched any part of the process, but being presented with a beautiful female all of a sudden, Adam was bound to be overjoyed and grateful to G’d not only for having taken care of his problem, but for the manner in which G’d had taken care of it. He realised, of course, that men in the future would not have their wives “manufactured” in the same way. We already explained on verse 18 why the other females of the species were not literally created through removing part of the male’s body and building it up with externally secured tissue made from earth. Having described Adam as in a state of תרדמה, the kind of sleep induced by an anesthesia, why did the Torah add the words ויישן, “he slept?” The Torah wanted us to know that the deep sleep lasted only until the operation had been performed and the wound had been closed up. After that Adam only slept the kind of sleep which is a form of quiet relaxation. It is possible that the sleep referred to in our verse as ויישן, was actually Adam’s first experience of sleep since he had been created. We must not forget that all the details we heard about man occurred in the second half of the sixth “day” of creation. This day was so full of activities that it did not end until the children Kayin and Hevel had been born (Sanhedrin 38).

ויסגר בשר תחתנה, “He filled in flesh in its place.” With reference to the letter ס in the word ויסגר, Bereshit Rabbah 17,6 writes that as soon as Chavah was created Satan was created alongside her. We did not find the letter ס which symbolises Satan [the סיטרא אחרא, “the spiritually negative section of the emanations in kabbalistic language, Ed.] until we came to this word in the Torah. If you were to point out that the letter ס already appeared in 2,13 where the Torah speaks of the rivers flowing around the whole land of Cush, סובב את כל הארץ כוש, the letter was used there only in connection with the rivers, not in connection with the creation of either man or woman and their fates.

From his sides. מסטריו means from his sides.

רדם .תרדמה, verwandt mit רהם. Dies kommt als Verbum einmal vor: רתם המרכבה (Micha 1), wo es anspannen, festbinden heißt. Möglich daher, dass רדם festbinden heißt und הֵרָדֵם den völlig gebundenen Zustand bedeutet, in welchem der Mensch jegliche Bewegung verliert, völlig unselbständig ist, also etwa: Betäubung. Dieser Grad der Kraft- und Machtlosigkeit liegt nicht in ישן, dem Ausdruck des gewöhnlichen Schlafes. ישן, Grundbedeutung: alt, auch schwarz, dunkel, wovon אישן לילה und אישון בת עין, das Dunkel der Nacht und das Schwarze im Auge. (Vergl. אגרוף.) Also: dunkel, glanzlos, lichtlos sein und altern, somit: Glanz, Kraft, Frische verlieren, und ישן als Schlaf, ist der Zustand des Schlaffseins, Mattseins, während תרדמה den ganz gefesselten Zustand bedeutet. Vielleicht war auch der Baum, unter welchem Elija, Kön. 1. 19, einschlief, ein Baum, dem eine betäubende Kraft innewohnt und der deshalb ר heißt. — צלע kommt sonst in תנ"ך nirgends als Rippe, sondern stets als Seite vor, weshalb ja auch צלוע nach einer Seite geneigt gehen, hinken heißt. — סגר verwandt mit סכר ,שכר, verstopfen, wo eine Lücke war schließen, wovon auch שכר, Ersatz, Lohn. — בשר, verwandt mit בַשֵר, verkünden, drückt die tiefe Bedeutung des reinen menschlichen Leibes aus: Herold des Geistes an die Welt und der Welt an den Geist zu sein. בשר Fleisch, umfasst alles, was nicht Blut und nicht Knochen ist, somit: Haut, Muskel und Nerv, also das, wodurch die Vermittlung zwischen Geist und Welt stattfindet; ohne בשר kein Bewusstsein von der Welt und keine Wirkung auf die Welt. Daher Gegensatz zu אבן :בשר (Jechesk. 36, 26). — בנה ,ויבן kommt auch sonst als gestalten vor, davon תבנית. — Also nicht wie beim Manne ward zum Leib des Weibes der Stoff von der Erde genommen. Eine Seite des Mannes bildete Gott zum Weibe, es ward der Mann gleichsam geteilt und der eine Teil zum Weibe ge- staltet, nicht עשה יצר ,ברא, sondern: בנה, nur ausgebaut, eingerichtet zum Weibe, also, dass das früher eine Geschöpf, nun in zweien dastand, und damit die völlige Gleichheit des Weibes für immer besiegelt. — Die Weisen stellen auch alle Eigentümlichkeiten der weiblichen Stimme, des weiblichen Charakters und Temperaments, sowie auch die frühere geistige Reife des Weibes in Zusammenhang mit dieser Bildung des Weibes aus bereits fühlendem, empfindendem, belebtem Menschenleib, im Gegensatz zum Manne, dessen Leib aus Erde geschaffen worden.

.ויפל תרדמה על האדם, according to the plain meaning of the text, the meaning of this phrase is that “G-d cast a deep sleep over Adam;” this was so that the surgery He performed on him should not cause him any pain. He made him unconscious.

ויסגור AND HE CLOSED UP the place where it was cut (Berakhot 61b).

ויקח אחד מצלעותיו, concerning the precise meaning of these words we find a disagreement among the sages (Bereshit Rabbah 17,6). Some scholars believed that when G’d created Adam he had two faces –seeing that the Torah reports G’d as having created אותם, “them,” not “him.” They understand man’s original appearance to have been something like the Siamese twins, and the word צלע meaning the same as when used in connection with the “sides” of the Tabernacle (Exodus 26,20) Other scholars understand the word צלע literally, as referring to one of Adam’s ribs. This is also the way Onkelos translates it. תחתנה, as if the Torah had written תחתיה,”in its stead.”

This [coincides with what] we said that they were created with two faces. I.e., this is true if we explain צלעותיו as “his sides.” But according to the simple meaning of the verse, צלעותיו are ribs.

וישן ויקח אחת מצלעותיו, “and while he was asleep, He took one of his ribs;” Samuel, in Breshit Rabbah 17,6 says that He took one rib from between other ribs, and that this justifies the word תחתנה, which is in the plural mode.

ויישן ויקח AND HE SLEPT AND then HE TOOK in order that he should not see the piece of flesh out of which she was created, for she might be despised by him (Sanhedrin 39a).

The place of the cut. Re’m writes: This follows the opinion (Eiruvin 18a) that Chavah was made from Adam’s tail. Thus nothing was missing from his body [and only the place of the cut needed to be closed]. Whereas according to the opinion that they were first created with two faces, ויסגר בשר תחתנה follows its simple meaning: Hashem filled in the missing flesh. But I would say that even according to the opinion that they were created with two faces, nothing was missing from Adam’s body. Adam and Chavah were two faces with [full] bodies, attached at the side, and only the place of the cut was missing. One might object that the above Gemara implies that ויסגר בשר תחתנה follows its simple meaning according to the opinion that they were created with two faces. Only according to the opinion that Chavah was made from Adam’s tail, does it mean “the place of the cut.” The answer is: Even according to the opinion that they were created with two faces, they were slightly fastened, [so a little flesh needed to be filled in]. (Maharshal) The verse reads simply according to the opinion that they were created with two faces, for Adam was left without a back and his whole body cavity was open. Thus it says that Hashem “closed,” as one closes an open house or an open chest. But according to the opinion that Chavah was created from Adam’s tail, the verse reads with more difficulty — thus Rashi continued to explain that according to this opinion, it means “the place of the cut.” (Nachalas Yaakov)

ויסגר בשר תחתנה, “He closed up that spot with flesh.” The Torah did not write: תחתה which would have meant that He replaced the area of the incision with flesh instead;

So that he not see. This is from Bereishis Rabba 17:6 and Sanhedrin 39a, where Rashi explains [that “And he slept . . . and He took” was in order] that Adam should not see the piece of flesh before it was perfected. And there it is clear that this explanation follows the opinion that Chavah was made from Adam’s tail. Thus, [contrary to the order of the verse,] Rashi on this verse first explains “the place of the cut” — which also follows the opinion that Chavah was created from Adam’s tail. This was to convey that also his comment of, “So that he not see the piece of flesh” is according to the opinion that Chavah was created from Adam’s tail. Re’m, too, offered this explanation. (Nachalas Yaakov)

ויסגור בשר; until the creation of woman the letter ס had not appeared in the Torah; this is to teach us that Satan had not found an entrance into the world until woman had been created. A different exegesis: the appearance of the letter ס is to remind us that a wife is always close to her husband. Concerning the query raised in B’reshit Rabbah that the letter ס had already appeared in the word: הסובב in verse 11 of our chapter, we must answer that the subjects in that verse are two rivers, not a human being.

בשר תחתנה, a reference to the flesh of man’s buttocks. (Compare B’reshit Rabbah 17,6.)

ויבן AND HE FORMED (literally, He built) — as a structure, wide below and narrower above for bearing the child, just as a wheat-store is wide below and narrower above so that its weight should not strain the walls (Berakhot 61a).

ויבן ה' אלוקים את הצלע לאשה, it was someone possessing the features of a human being, much like those of a man. She would be different from man only in some external physical features. She would possess the same ability to perfect her personality as did man.

ויבן ה' אלוקים את הצלע, the word צלע here has to be pronounced on the last syllable. The Torah says, in effect, that G’d “integrated” this צלע to be an integral indistinguishable part of Chavah’s other limbs and organs. She became basically a creature similar in all respects to Adam himself, except for her specifically female features.

So that it should become a woman. Rashi is answering the question: Does ויבן את הצלע לאשה not imply that He built the rib for the woman, to be used for something, rather than implying that He formed the woman from the rib? Thus Rashi explains [that the ל of לאשה means] “to become a woman.” Similarly in the verse Rashi cites, “And Gidon made it to an ephod” (Shoftim 8:27), it does not mean that Gidon made the material into something to be used for the ephod. Rather, he made the material into an ephod.

ויביאה אל האדם; “He brought her to Adam.” Where did He bring her from? After all she had been part of her husband’s ribs before, i.e. right next to him? The Torah here describes how her sudden appearance next to him was viewed by Adam when he awoke from his deep sleep. He thought that G-d had brought her to him, just as He had brought the animals to him to be named. It was only after he noticed that now one of his ribs was missing, that he realised that she had formerly been part of his own flesh; this is why he exclaimed: “bone from my own bones, etc.” If we were to look for a similar formulation in the Holy Scriptures, we can find it in Joshua 2,7: והאנשים רדפו אחריהם, “and the men had chased after them” (the spies). Actually, they were only under the impression that they pursued them, as they never found them. Some commentators claim that our verse means that Adam thought that G-d had performed the operation beyond the borders of the garden, and this is why the Torah wrote: “He brought her to Adam.”

ויבן את הצלע לאשה AND HE MADE THE RIB INTO A WOMAN — לאשה means that is should become a woman, like (Judges 8:21) “and Gideon made it לאפוד ” i. e., that it should become an ephod.

ויביאה אל האדם, after Adam had woken up G’d brought Chavah to him to be his mate. In other words, when Adam awoke he saw her standing upright facing him.

זאת הפעם THIS NOW — This teaches that Adam endeavoured to find a companion among all cattle and beasts, but found no satisfaction except in Eve (Yevamot 63a).

זאת הפעם עצם מעצמי, “only this time will man’s wife be made of his own bone and flesh; in the future things will be reversed, a male will come forth from a female, not as this time.”

זאת, this female

ויאמר..זאת, for on the first occasion when G’d brought the domesticated animals, the free roaming beasts and the birds to be inspected by Adam, he had not seen among them one that would qualify as his mate. The reason was that none of them matched him in physical features even, not to speak of intellectual compatibility. However, this time, finally, when G’d brought Chavah to him, he recognised immediately that he had found a truly compatible mate. He did not only realise this by comparing her visible features, but he became aware that part of his body, or at least one of his ribs, had been removed, which confirmed his impression that Chavah must indeed be his other half.

This teaches. בא אדם על כל בהמה וחיה does not mean intimate relations, for this expression is only a hint, while the matter itself is expressed in (4:1): “The man knew his wife, Chavah.” (Maharam) Another answer: It means that Adam grasped with his intellect the nature of each animal and beast, for if he did not know their nature he could not have named them. Some commentators, [understanding Rashi literally,] ask: How could Adam have intimate relations with the animals? He was commanded against illicit relations, and that includes relations with animals! However, this question is asked by the ill-informed. In Sanhedrin 38b it says that at the seventh hour Chavah was given to Adam as a mate, and at the ninth hour were they were commanded by Hashem. Thus, the command was given after pairing Chavah [with Adam]. (Divrei Dovid) Another proof that Adam sought a mate amongst the animals is that it says: “This at last is bone of my bones,” implying that in previous times it was not “bone of my bones.” Rashi explains quite similarly in Yevamos 63a. (Nachalas Yaakov)

הפעם selbst heißt schon: diesmal, nun, endlich, wie: ,אמותה הפעם הפעם יזבלני אישי. Es heißt also entweder: diese endlich ist es! dafür spricht der Akzent auf הפעם; oder: diese endlich ist Bein von meinen Gebeinen usw. Es drückt dies הפעם das endliche Erreichen eines bisher vergeblich Erstrebten aus. "Gesucht habe ich unter allen Wesen, habe aber keins gefunden, das mir einen Teil meiner Aufgabe abnehme und ihn mir parallel trage; jetzt habe ichs gefunden." כי מאיש לקחה זאת; der Name אשה bezeichnet somit nicht die Abhängigkeit des Weibes vom Mann, sondern vielmehr die Gleichheit, die Zusammengehörigkeit Beider, die Teilung der einen einheitlichen Menschenaufgabe auf beide Geschlechter.

זאת הפעם, “this time;” he meant that this time the male’s partner was made of his own flesh. But he realised that this was a one time occurrence and would not repeat itself. Henceforth, instead of woman emanating from man, man would emanate from woman. (her womb).

לזאת יקרא אשה כי מאיש וגו THIS SHALL BE CALLED WOMAN, BECAUSE THIS WAS TAKEN OUT OF MAN — Here we have a kind of play upon words (the words אשה and איש sounding similar): hence we may learn that the language used at the time of the Creation was the Holy Tongue (Hebrew) (Genesis Rabbah 18:4).

הפעם הזאת, finally, this time עצם מעצמי ובשר מבשרי, only this time, seeing that all females of the future will not be fashioned by the male undergoing such type of surgery.

לזאת יקרא אשה כי מאיש לוקחה זאת, note that he did not say לזאת יקרא אדמה, “this one must be called אדמה, (as the feminine form of אדם). The reason he did not call here this was that she, as opposed to him, had not been formed directly from earth, but from refined matter, i.e. his own rib. Even though subsequent human beings who are born by woman and from sperm supplied by the male, are still referred to as אדם, although they do not originate in the אדמה, the custom is justified just as is the fact that the Jewish people whose ancestor was Yisrael, are called בני ישראל, “Children of Yisrael” though their genetic connection to the original Yisrael is extremely tenuous.

From this [we derive]... The proof is that איש and אשה have the same root. In no other language is there an etymological reason for her being called אשה. This is because only in the Holy Tongue is the word for woman derived from the word for man.

זאת הפעם עצם מעצמי; Rashi claims that Adam had already attempted carnal relations with each female of the species and had found such mating unsatisfactory. (The source appears to be the Talmud in Yevamot 63, as well as Rabbi Saadyah, Gaon) We would have to assume that each of these species had become pregnant from such relations before Adam had had relations with them. If we were not to assume this they would have become sterile after mating with a human being. (Compare Avodah Zarah,22).

לזאת יקרא אשה, all other female human beings in the future will be known as אשה,

The word איש is a general term for man, also sometimes used to refer to a specific human being. This is why sometimes the word is used as describing people in general, such as ואיש לא נעדר, and “no one was missing,” (Isaiah 40,26) or גדעון איש ישראל, “or איש ואשתו, “male and his mate” (Genesis 7,2). Seeing that the man is the predominant partner and the woman’s husband, seeing she is as if literally one of his organs, he is often referred to as אדון, “master.” In Judges 8,23 we read ויאמרו איש ישראל אל גדעון וגו'. The meaning is not that a particular Jewish man said something to Gideon, but that the Jewish people at that time suggested to Gideon that be become their ruler on an ongoing basis, even his children having a claim to succeed him. The reason why Adam did not refer to Chavah as אישה, as the feminine form of איש, was to avoid confusion with the word אישה when it means “her husband.”

עצם מעצמי, “bone from my bone;” Adam realised that this new creature was basically different from all the others that he had become familiar with, so that he concluded it could only be due to the fact that she shared the same raw material with him. The reason why G-d may have arranged this so was in order for the human being to be encouraged to set up a home only with its own species when leaving their parents’ home. This would encourage them in the words of the Torah: והיו לבשר אחד “to become one flesh.” (a body composed of uniform human raw material) None of the other creatures pursue females in order to set up “house” with them. The reason is that they do not miss the “missing rib” which G-d had taken from Adam and had given it to his wife.

even though they will not, like this time, be literally part of the flesh of their husbands.

לוקחה זאת, the letter ל is pronounced as a long syllable, whereas the vowel kametz is shortened into a chataf kametz. When Adam referred to Chavah merely as זאת, “this one,” as if she were merely some chattel, he did so because he did not refer to her alone but to her entire species, i.e. the female of the human species. `

לזאת יקרא אשה, “this person must be called “אשה,” as it had been taken from “איש.” Compare the words: נער and נערה, for “boy” and “girl,” and ילד and ילדה. The author was troubled why the Torah uses the expression: נערה בתולה, instead of אשה בתולה, for an adult virgin

כי מאיש לוקחה זאת, “this one,” the first woman ever.

כי מאיש לקחה, “for she emanated from the human species.” He meant that the female of the human species is reserved for a single male partner, as distinct from the beasts. Seeing that the females of the various animals did not originate from their male counterparts, the names they are known by reflect this. Example: תישים for male goats, as opposed to עזים, for the female of the species. [What about פר and פרה, for the male and the female of the species respectively? Ed.]

When the Torah writes in verse 24: ודבק באשתו, that there is a special bond between man and his wife, Rabbi Akiva in Sotah 17, explains this as follows: when a man and his wife are loyal to one another, forsaking the temptation to commit adultery, G-d Himself will be a constant companion of them, seeing that each of them has a letter of His name in their respective names, i.e. the letter י in the word איש, and the letter ה in the word אשה. If they conduct themselves in an unworthy manner, giving in to the temptation to engage in forbidden carnal relationships, G-d withdraws from them leaving only the letters אש, “fire,” burning lust, in their respective names. This fire will consume them. This “fire” will burn more fiercely in woman than in man, so that she will experience its destructive effect sooner than her erstwhile loyal partner, as the letter of G-d’s name was only a suffix in the word אשה, where in the name איש it is central to that word.

על כן יעזב איש THEREFORE A MAN LEAVETH — The Divine Spirit says this, thus prohibiting immoral relationship to the “Sons of Noah” also (Sanhedrin 57b).

THEREFORE SHALL A MAN LEAVE HIS FATHER AND HIS MOTHER, AND SHALL CLEAVE TO HIS WIFE. The Divine Spirit says this, thus prohibiting immoral relationships to “the sons of Noah.”³⁷²See above, Note 222.

על כן, seeing that on this first occasion G’d had aimed to make Adam’s wife as much part of him as possible, so that he even used Adam’s personal body as Chavah’s basic skeleton,

על כן יעזב איש, some commentators believe that these words were spoken by Moses, not by Adam. The correct interpretation is that they were spoken by Adam, seeing that he was aware that he would father children, for this was why he had been created, in order to populate earth and ensure that his species would be perpetuated on earth, just as all the other species of living creatures. The plain meaning of our verse is close to the words of Targum Onkelos: על כן ישבוק גבר בית משכבי אבוהי ואמיה, “for this purpose a man will leave the house of his father and mother, etc.” The point of all this is that the Torah did not give permission for man to leave, move away from his parents, in order to devote himself to his wife instead, but in order to fulfill the commandment to found his own family, have children. Man is supposed to live in a separate dwelling, separate from that of his parents, in order to have and raise his children.

.ודבק באשתו והיו לבשר אחד, “he will cleave to his wife so that they will unite to become one flesh.” This is not a commandment, but means that man will be inherently designed to cleave to his wife for the purpose of founding a family, etc. It does not mean that he has been programmed.

The Divine Spirit. Rashi knows this because Adam could not have said it. Adam had no father, mother or children at that time, so what brought him to say it?

על כן. Darum, also weil, so lange der Mann allein war, es noch nicht .על כן gut war, und weil nach der Teilung es gar nicht mehr möglich ist, dass der Mann seine Bestimmung allein erfülle, weil vielmehr das Weib עזר כנגדו sein soll, er sich ohne Weib nur halb, und nur in Vereinigung mit seinem Weibe als ganzer Mensch fühlt: darum verlässt der Mann Vater und Mutter und vereinigt sich mit seinem Weibe, und sie werden zu einem Leib. Wie ursprünglich ungeteilt der Menschenleib einem Geiste, einem göttlichen Willen sich unterordnete, so auch nach der Wiedervereinigung werden Mann und Weib ein Leib. Das können sie aber nur werden, wenn sie zu gleicher Zeit ein Geist, ein Herz, eine Seele werden, und dies ist wiederum nur möglich, wenn sie alle ihre Kräfte und Bestrebungen, all ihr Denken und Wollen dem einen höheren Willen in Erfüllung seines Dienstes unterordnen. — Hiermit ist aber auch der tiefe Unterschied des geschlechtlichen Lebens aller übrigen lebendigen Wesen von der menschlichen Ehe gegeben. Auch die übrige lebendige Welt ist geschlechtlich geteilt. Allein beide Geschlechter entsprangen gleichzeitig selbständig der Erde. Sie bedürfen für die Erfüllung ihrer Lebensbestimmung nicht einander, und nur für den Gattungszweck und für die von diesem in Anspruch genommene Zeit finden sie sich einander. Das Menschenweib aber ist ein Teil des Menschenmannes, ist עזר כנגדו. Der Mann ist hülflos und unselbständig ohne sein Weib. Beide zusammen sind erst Mensch. Das Leben in seiner ganzen Bedeutung fordert ihre Vereinigung. Nur vom Menschen heißt es: ורבק באשתו. Nur der Mensch hat eine Ehe.

.והיו לבשר אחד, “they will each have marital relations only with their legal partner.”

לבשר אחד ONE FLESH — Both parents are united in the child.

יעזוב איש את אביו ואת אמו ודבק באשתו, it is appropriate that a man leave the home of his parents in order to acquire a wife who is compatible with him, and who is a suitable mate for him to live with on a permanent basis. The Torah teaches here also that the expression דיבוק, “cleaving,” being in a state of true union, is not possible between two people who are not alike in their common purpose in life. Parents and children do not have the same tasks and challenges. Man and his wife do have to master the same challenges, hence the word “union” can be applied to their union, whereas the same word would be inappropriate for describing the relationship between father and son, or mother and son. By living together they will become of one mind on how to deal with their lives’ challenges.

והיו לבשר אחד, this means that they are to be as if they were made of the same flesh. It is a reminder to man that the wife of the first male was indeed made of the same flesh as his own. When the two joined in marital intercourse, they did indeed become once more one flesh. In the future, when engaging in the act of procreation, they would relive the experience Adam and Chavah had when their separate bodies joined for the first time after Chavah had become a person in her own right. Our sages (Sanhedrin 58) explained this verse as words uttered by Adam with holy spirit, i.e. prophetic vision. The words were meant as a warning to the descendants of Noach not to engage in incestuous sexual relations with one another. The reason the Torah mentioned this as a warning to mankind in general is because mankind in general is responsible for the survival of the human race, having come so close to being wiped out altogether because of promiscuous sexual practices. The line does not mean that this prohibition commenced only as something applicable at a later stage in history, it applied to Adam himself and his direct offspring. All the seven “Noachide” laws applied to Adam already, with the exception of the prohibition of consuming flesh or tissue from animals that were still alive. This law did not have to be promulgated until after the deluge, seeing that consumption of any kind of meat was forbidden until then.
The same folio (58) in the Talmud understands the word ודבק in our verse literally, meaning a prohibition of engaging in homosexuality. Only embracing one’s wife in an intimate sexual embrace is permitted, not embracing any other human being in such fashion. Even embracing one’s fellow’s wife in such an intimate embrace, though something heterosexual, is prohibited, this is why the Torah added the pronoun “his” when referring to “his wife, באשתו.”

Prohibiting to the “sons of Noach.” As it says, “He shall cling to his wife,” and not to his fellow’s wife. The prohibition on illicit relations is derived from this verse, as if it said: “Therefore, a man shall leave his father’s wife and his mother and he may not have relations with them.” (Re’m) You might ask: What difference does it make that the Divine Spirit said it? [The answer is:] So you will not think that the verse is stating that this is the nature of things [and it is not a commandment]. For if so, it should say עוזב (“leaves”) rather than יעזוב (“shall leave”). (Maharshal) The implication of “therefore” could be explained as follows: Since I did a great kindness for Adam by forming the woman for him, [it is only right that I may make] a condition: that Adam refrain from engaging in forbidden relations. Similarly, Hashem says to Israel (Shemos 20:2): “I, Who brought you out of the land of Egypt,” implying that I brought you out on condition: that you fulfill the mitzvos. (Nachalas Yaakov)

AND THEY SHALL BE ONE FLESH. The child is created by both parents, and there in the child, their flesh is united into one. Thus the words of Rashi. But there is no point to this since in beast and cattle too, their flesh is united into one in their offspring.
The correct interpretation appears to me to be that in cattle and beast the males have no attachment to their females. Rather, the male mates with any female he finds, and then they go their separate ways. It is for this reason that Scripture states that because the female of man was bone of his bones and flesh of his flesh, he therefore cleaves to her and she nestles in his bosom as his own flesh, and he desires to be with her always. And just as it was with Adam, so was his nature transmitted to his offspring, that the males among them should cleave to their women, leaving their fathers and their mothers, and considering their wives as if they are one flesh with them. A similar sense is found in the verses: For he is our brother, our flesh;³⁷³Genesis 37:27. to any that is near of his flesh.³⁷⁴Leviticus 18:6. Those who are close members of the family are called sh’eir basar (near of flesh). Thus man will leave “the flesh” of his father and his mother and their kin and will see that his wife is nearer to him than they.

Die Weisen finden (Sanhedrin 56 f.) in diesem Satze zugleich bereits den Anfang der עריות-Gesetze für בני נח. Indem es heißt: darum verlasse der Mann seinen Vater und seine Mutter und vereinige sich mit seinem Weibe, erkennen sie darin zugleich die Bestimmung, dass bei der Wahl seines Weibes der Mann sich von Vater und Mutter entfernen soll, somit in nicht allzu naher Verwandtschaft sein Weib zu suchen habe. Fassen wir dies in dem ganzen mit על כן eingeleiteten ursächlichen Zusammenhang auf, so dürste damit vielleicht einiges Dämmerlicht auf das so dunkle Gebiet der עריות-Gesetze fallen. Weil das Weib עזר des Mannes sein soll, muß es כנגדו sein; weil es ihn ergänzen soll, muß es andere Eigentümlichkeiten haben. In allzunaher Verwandtschaft haben sie beide vielleicht dieselben Tugenden, aber auch vielleicht dieselben Fehler, dieselben Vollkommenheiten, aber auch dieselben Mängel; ihre Vereinigung würde beider Eigentümlichkeiten im Guten und Bösen nur verstärken, nicht ergänzen. Nur in entfernten Graden dürften die heilsamen Verschiedenheiten vorhanden sein, die beide vereinigt zu einem vollkommenen Wesen gestalten, vollkommen geeignet בשר אחד zu werden und die eine große Menschenaufgabe reiner und voller zu lösen. Dieses Motio dürfte vielleicht für עריות בני נח ausreichen. Für Israel, wo z. B. bereits mit קידושין verbotene Grade eintreten, muß das Motiv noch höher liegen. — Uber die Etymologie von אב und אם, s. Jeschurun VIII. S. 58 u. ff. u. S. 570.

The child is formed. In other words, the verse prohibits relations with animals, who do not form a child after relations with humans. (Re’m) It seems that according to Rashi, the verse is giving a reason for the forbidden relations: so that there be no illicit children. True, such relations are forbidden even with women too young or old to give birth, and with animals who do not conceive from humans. Nevertheless, the prohibition becomes more noticeable and visible when it produces an illicit child, a wrong that cannot be corrected.

והיו לבשר אחד, they are to work together in such close union as if there were in fact only one of them. (This had been the idea behind creating man as both male and female in the first place.)

ולא יתבוששו AND THEY WERE NOT ASHAMED — for they did not know what modestly meant, so as to distinguish between good and evil. Although he (Adam) had been endowed with knowledge to give names to all creatures, yet the evil inclination did not become an active principle in him until he had eaten of the tree, when it entered into him and he became aware of the difference between good and evil.

And they were not ashamed. They used their limbs solely for the service of their Maker, not the pursuit of base pleasures. Therefore they considered marital relations no different than eating and drinking and their reproductive organs no different than their mouth or hands.

ויהיו שניהם ערומים האדם ואשתו ולא יתבששו. Man and his wife were both nude and did not experience a feeling of shame. Before the sin the upper "face" and the lower "face" were equally holy. The element of evil which attached itself to man after the sin concentrates on the lower part of his body. This is the reason that the holy covenant between man and G'd, i.e. circumcision, has to be performed on his sexual organ. The foreskin, ערלה, is the symbol of what kabbalists call the קליפה, the shell or peel which makes penetration to the holy essence difficult. This is why G'd commanded its removal. Inasmuch as all adulterers are victims of the sexual urges burning within them, G'd ordered that this part of man, the source of these abominations, be hidden from view, be covered. Our sages have added the prohibition not to touch that part of one's body (unnecessarily). אורח חיים ,ב,א even tells us to avoid having to look at these parts of our body when we get up and get dressed. The Talmud Shabbat 108 coined the phrase יד לאמה תיקצץ, that the hand which touches the male organ deserves to be cut off. This is because the touch of the hand on the male organ causes sexual arousal, or אש זרה in the language of our sages, something that was not the case before the sin. Henceforth man would expose himself to the danger of that alien fire consuming him if he touched those parts. Let us look for a moment at what Abraham commanded Eliezer before he sent him on the mission to find a wife for Isaac (Genesis 24,2). He instructed his servant: שים נא ידך תחת ירכי, "place your hand under my thigh." At first glance the instruction for Eliezer to place his hand on Abraham's male organ seems incompatible with what we have just explained. Our sages explain that Abraham was not comparable to his peers in this respect. The touch of a hand on this part of his body did not cause arousal. The act of circumcision he had performed on himself on that organ at an advanced age had made him far more resistant to the evil urge than others. His whole body could be considered as almost pure. The same applies to our verse, that prior to the sin the body was not subject to this אש זרה, the burning passion of sexual arousal. Another meaning is based on the use of the future tense by the Torah. We would have expected ולא נתביישו, "they were not ashamed," instead of "they will not be ashamed." The Torah teaches us then that notwithstanding the fact that Adam and Eve were both nude they had no reason to become ashamed as a result. The Torah mentioned this so that we would know who caused the subsequent division between man's upper and lower body respectively.

ויהיו ערומים, with a dagesh in the letter ו

They did not... It means that they did not know of modest conduct at all. Not from lack of wisdom, but because they did not need to know, for they had no evil inclination. (Tzeidah L’Derech)

Die Etymologie des Wortes ערום nackt, bietet große Schwierigkeiten. Die Wurzel ערם findet sich sonst in den beiden Bedeutungen: listig, verschlagen, wie sogleich im nächsten Vers, und ערמה: Getreidehaufen. Die Zusammengehörigkeit dieser beiden Begriffe lässt sich leicht finden. Analogie dafür bietet תחבולה von הבל, Schnur, womit Dinge miteinander verbunden, oder Strick, womit Dinge herangezogen werden. Der Strick selbst besteht aus einzelnen dünnen, an sich schwachen, mit einander verbundenen Fäden. Jeder klug angelegte Plan ist eine Verbindung von einzelnen Veranstaltungen, um einen fernliegenden Zweck herbeizuführen. Ohnehin wird der Begriff: denken im Hebräischen durch den Begriff: verbinden ausgedrückt; so: חשב denken, und חשב האפור, die Latze, der Gurt des Ephod. In ähnlicher Weise wäre auch der Begriff Klugheit, List, aus dem Begriff des Haufens abzuleiten. ערמה ist eine ערמה: eine Anhäufung von Gedankenkörnern, die zuletzt in eine Spitze ausgeht. Der Verschlagene übt lauter Dinge, die man nicht beachtet; das einzelne Körnchen ist unbedeutend, allein zusammen machen sie den Haufen. (Mit ערם, Haufen, ist ארם die Wurzel von ארמון, ein hochaufgeführtes Gebäude, und mit ערם, List, חֵרֶם, das aus einzelnen Maschen zum Fange verbundene Netz, verwandt). Schwierig aber bliebe es, wenn von ערם, nackt, die Wurzel ערם wäre, diese Verwandtschaft mit den obigen Begriffen einzusehen. — Vielleicht daher ist von ערום, nackt, die Wurzel עור, auch ja nackt, הביט אל מעוריהם ,עורה פשוטה und sonst. Tritt ja das נח deutlich in עירמים, Kap.3,7 hervor. Für den Übergang des ָ in: mit den Suffixen, obgleich in ihm das נח der rad. ruht, böte, z. B. זָדון von זוד eine Analogie, das im stat. Constr . זדון heißt , obgleich im Plur. das נח in זֵרונים markiert hervortritt. Ebenso יְמֵי יָמים ,יום. Das ם wäre Suffix der subst. Form wie פִדיום. Der Satz ואת עֵרום ועריה spricht ohnehin dafür, wie schon רדק in שרשים bemerkt, dass es Substantiv sei. Es kann also die Wurzel עור sein, und wir hätten עור: nackt, wach, und Haut, Grundbedeutung: für äußere Eindrücke empfänglich sein. Je tiefer der Schlaf, desto weniger kann die äußere Welt auf uns einwirken. So wie wir wach werden, tritt Wahrnehmung ein. Nun ist das allgemeinste Sensorium die Haut, das Organ des Tastsinnes. Durch sie nimmt der ganze Mensch Eindrücke auf. Im Schlaf tritt die Seele des Menschen gleichsam von der Peripherie in das Innere zurück; wie der Mensch wach wird, so tritt sie gewissermaßen wieder hinaus auf ihre Vorposten, bis in die Haut. Dieser Gedanke ist im Hebräischen so geläufig, dass ohnmächtig werden התעטף רוח heißt: der Geist verhüllt sich, tritt zurück. Im wachenden Menschen ist der Geist bis in den Fingerspitzen. Derjenige Mensch, der eigentlich nur auf den Tastsinn angewiesen ist, zu dem die sichtbare Welt nur durch den Tastsinn Zutritt hat, heißt עִוֵר, der Hautmensch, blind.

ולא יתבוששו, this verse tells us that until after they had eaten from the tree of knowledge they had not experienced a feeling of shame due to the fact that their entire bodies were fully exposed. Seeing that they had not yet engaged in sexual intercourse due to their not having experienced a desire for copulation, their sexual organs did not appear to them as any different from all their other organs. They had no reason to be ashamed of them.

בוש, sich schämen; im Piel בושש, iausbleiben, erwartet werden und nicht kommen. בושש, eine Aktivform, heißt also: eine Erwartung täuschen, und בוש im Kal, intransitiv: sich in seiner Erwartung getäuscht fühlen. Das ist aber im tiefen Grunde: die Scham. Sie ist das Gefühl dessen, der sich in seinen Erwartungen von sich selbst getäuscht fühlt. Wenn jemand das, was er sein sollte, nicht erreicht, findet, dass er nicht so ist, wie er sein sollte: dann schämt er sich. Es ist das höchste Gnadengeschenk Gottes an den Menschen, von dem er wohl wußte, dass er auch oft seiner Bestimmung nicht entsprechen werde, dass er ihm dies Gefühl eingepflanzt, das ihn sofort mit dem Bewusstwerden seiner bisherigen Unzulänglichkeit überkommt. Damit wird er sein eigener Vormund und Wächter. Auch das damit verwandte Gefühl der Schüchternheit und Bescheidenheit — hebräisch: auch ja סימן טוב באדם כשהוא בישן ,בוש — ist ja auch nichts anderes als das Bewusstsein, dass man noch wenig dem Ziele entspricht, das man von sich in der eigenen Brust trägt. So hat Gott den Menschen sich selber anvertraut, jedem das Ideal mitgegeben, wonach er sich selber zu beurteilen hat. Das Bewusstsein von diesem Ideal ist das Gewissen, und das verurteilende Urteil des Gewissens: die Scham.

Der ursprüngliche Zustand des ersten Menschenpaars wird uns also in dem kurzen Satze geschildert: sie waren beide, der Mann und sein Weib, nackt und schämten sich nicht; vielleicht — da es nicht: ולא התבוששו, sondern ולא יתבוששו heißt — sie hatten sich nicht zu schämen, sollten sich nicht schämen. So lange nämlich Mann und Weib, beide אדם waren, בשר אחד, Ein Leib, einem einzigen Geist dienend, dem Einen Gotte untergeordnet, so lange sie mit Geist und Leib dem gottebenbildlichen Menschenideal entsprachen: so lange war ihr Leib wie ihr Geist rein und heilig, das Geistige wie das Sinnliche, beides von Gott gegeben, mit beiden ihre Menschenbestimmung zu erfüllen. Es mag der Mensch in seinen geistigen oder sinnlichen Bestrebungen sich bewegen, so lange er mit beiden in den von Gott geweihten Schranken bleibt und mit beiden die von Gott gesetzten Bestimmungen löst, hat er sich weder des einen noch des andern zu schämen. Der reine Menschenleib, das sittlich Sinnliche, ist mit nichten weniger heilig als der Geist. Die von dem göttlichen Gesetze geforderte sittliche Menschengröße basiert vor allem auf dieser Heiligung des leiblichen Menschen, dass wir auch mit der Befriedigung unserer sinnlichsten Triebe innerhalb des gottheiligen Kreises verharren, und uns dann unseres tierischen Leibes, unserer Blöße, nicht zu schämen hätten. Sobald aber der Mensch seiner Sinnlichkeit die Zügel überlässt, nicht sein Sinnliches mit sittlicher Energie in den Kreis des Göttlichen erhebt, sondern umgekehrt durch seine Sinnlichkeit sein Göttliches selbst unfrei in den Kreis des Sinnlichen hinabgezogen wird, alsobald hat er sich seiner sinnlichen Blöße zu schämen, und dieses Schamgefühl ist der mahnende Wächter der Sittlichkeit, ist die Gottesstimme an den aus seiner sittlich reinen Höhe gewichenen Menschen, Meister dieses sinnlichen Leibes zu werden, Meister dieses sinnlichen Leibes zu bleiben, und durch diese unterordnende Beherrschung sich in sittlicher Freiheit zur Höhe seines göttlichen Berufes mit Geist und Leib emporzuschwingen. So lange die leibliche Sinnlichkeit den Menschen noch nicht aus dieser reinen, freien Höhe herabgelockt hatte, durften sie beide nackt sein und hatten sich ihrer Blöße nicht zu schämen.

Höchst bedeutsam ist die ausdrückliche Wiederholung, האדם ואשתו, sie waren beide, der Mann und sein Weib, nackt, und hatten sich nicht zu schämen. Es ist da die tiefe Wahrheit niedergelegt, dass nicht nur in geistiger, sondern auch in leiblicher Beziehung beide, Mann und Weib, gleich rein, gleich sittlich, gleich heilig sein sollen. So lange krankt das Geschlecht, so lange nicht von beiden Geschlechtern die erste Grundtugend des Lebens mit gleichem Ernste erstrebt wird, so lange Jünglinge und Männer glauben, es gehöre mit zur Jugend, mit zur Männlichkeit, dass sich Jünglinge und Männer manches erlauben dürften, was der Jungfrau, was dem Weibe nicht zu gestatten wäre. Nicht umsonst trägt der jüdische Mann an seinem Leibe mit dem Wahrzeichen die Mahnung: התהלך לפני והיה תמים, die Mahnung, dass Gott von ihm die gleiche Unschuld, die gleiche Sittenreinheit wie vom Weibe erwartet.

אדם, another one of the species referred to as נפש חיה, one known as אדם. This is why we read in Genesis 2,7 ויהי האדם לנפש חיה, “Adam became one of the species known as נפש חיה.”

And that is that He commanded us to redeem the firstborn man, that we should give the money to the priest. And that is His saying, "you shall give me your firstborn sons" (Exodus 22:28). And He explained to us how this giving should be: And it is that we redeem him from the priest; and it is as if [the priest] already acquired him, and we purchase him from him for five sela - and that is His saying, "but surely redeem the firstborn man" (Numbers 18:15). And this commandment is the commandment of redeeming the son. And women are not obligated in it - indeed it is one of the commandments of the son that is upon the father, as it is explained in Kiddushin (Kiddushin 29a). And all of the laws of this commandment have already been explained in Bekhorot. However Levites are not obligated in it. (See Parashat Mishpatim; Mishneh Torah, Firstlings.)

That is that He commanded us that a nazarite should grow his hair. And that is His, may He be blessed, saying, "he shall let grow untrimmed, the hair of his head " (Numbers 6:5). And the language of the Mekhilta is, "'He shall be holy' - its growth is to be in holiness; 'and he shall let grow untrimmed' - is a positive commandment. And from where [do we know that it is also] a negative commandment? [Hence] we learn to say, 'no razor shall touch his head.'" And it is said there, "This is what I have given as a positive commandment [only] - one who scrubs [his scalp] with earth and one who places herbs" - meaning when a nazarite puts them on his head to remove the hair, he would then not be transgressing the negative commandment. For he did not remove it in the manner of a razor. He did however transgress the positive commandment, which is, "he shall let grow untrimmed" - and this one did not grow [it]. As a negative commandment derived from a positive commandment is a positive commandment - that is a principle with us. And the laws of this commandment have already been explained in Tractate Nazir. (See Parashat Nasso; Mishneh Torah, Nazariteship 1.)