Halakhah sur La Genèse 1:27

And thus one needs to say words of Torah over the table, because even though one has said all the blessings he is required to say, and will eventually conclude with birkat ha-mazon, saying birkat ha-mazon will not exempt him from his requirement unless he speaks words of Torah. And so our rabbis said: “Every table over which they ate and said words of Torah, it is as if they ate from the table of God [Makom], as it is said, ‘He said to me, This is the table before the Lord,’”¹³⁹M. Avot 3:3, quoting Ez 41:22. that is to say, when they spoke over it words of Torah, then “this table is before the Lord.”¹⁴⁰Ez. 41:22. “And every table over which they ate and did not say over it words of Torah, it is as if they ate from the sacrifices of the dead. As it is said, ‘For all tables were full of vomit, no place [bli Makom] without excrement,”¹⁴¹M. Avot 3:3, quoting Is 28:8. that is to say, the words of Makom, i.e., God, are not mentioned there.¹⁴²R. Bahya, following M. Avot’s midrashic interpretation, also creatively attributes the use of the later rabbinic term for God – Ha-Makom – “The Place” to Isaiah’s Biblical Hebrew “bli makom,” i.e., “without God.” And all this is to instruct you that humankind [adam] was not created for eating and drink, but rather to engage in Torah. For this is what Scripture meant when it said, “for man [adam] was born for toil [‘amal].”¹⁴³Job 5:7. Our sages interpreted this in a midrash:¹⁴⁴B. Sanhedrin 99b. “’For man was born for toil’ – I don’t know if this is toil by mouth, or if it’s toiling in the Torah. When Scripture says, “The appetite of a toiler [‘amel] toils [‘amlah] for him, because his mouth craves it,”¹⁴⁵Prov 16:26. toil by the mouth is being spoken about. But this is exactly how I fulfill “For man was born for toil” when it refers to toiling in Torah, so I say it means “for toiling in Torah he was born.”¹⁴⁶In other words, R. Bahya has it both ways, since you use your mouth to “toil in Torah,” that is, by speaking words of Torah. And so they said in another midrash: Just as in the Creation, He created domestic and wild animals, birds, reptiles and swarming things, and after that created Adam, as it is said, “And God created Adam in his image,”¹⁴⁷Gen 1:27. so it was written in the Torah “This you shall eat” and “this you shall not eat,”¹⁴⁸Lev 11:9,4. and after that Adam was born. This is why Scripture connects this parashah (“Shemini”) with the next one that begins “When a woman at childbirth bears a male,”¹⁴⁹Lev 12:2. to say it is for toil in Torah he was born. And thus right after that it is written, “On the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised,”¹⁵⁰Ibid. 12:3. teaching that even before he was formed the Torah and commandments encircled him, and afterwards he was born. This is what it meant when it said, “When a woman at childbirth bears a male”¹⁵¹Lev 12:2. – that The Holy One Blessed be He imposed commandments before him and after him, and he is in the middle.¹⁵²In other words, even the syntax of the vv. 12:2-3 in Leviticus “sandwiches” the birth of a man between two commandments, one directed to his mother giving birth to him, the second, after he’s born, that he himself be circumcised. In other words, the man’s birth is literally surrounded by Torah and commandments. Circumscribed (and circumcised) by the Torah from his birth – of course that “proves” that’s what he was born for!This is what it meant when it said, “For man was born for toil”¹⁵³Job 5:7.– that for toil in Torah he was born.

One needs to base all three of these meals over wine, and to break two loaves of bread, whether it is for Shabbat or for the other holidays. Some say that it is possible to serve fruit and not bread at the third meal, and bring for proof what is said in tractate Sukkah: “We say, ‘If one made up for a meal in the sukkah that he missed with kinds of desserts, he has fulfilled his obligation.”²⁷³B. Sukkah 27a. One is required to eat fourteen meals in the sukkah, two on each of the seven days of Sukkot. But according to this opinion, you can “make up” a missed meal just by adding dessert to another meal in the sukkah, rather than having another whole meal. But this is not our view, for we hold that fruit does not need to be eaten in a sukkah, and if he made up his missed meal with fruits, he has not fulfilled his obligation, but rather, bread is certainly required at the third meal as it is for the first two.²⁷⁴Hence R. Bahya rejects the argument that this saying from b. Sukkot proves one doesn’t need to eat bread at the third Shabbat meal. R. Bahya does not accept the view that dessert can count as a “make-up” meal, because if the dessert is just fruit, which the halakhah permits one to eat as a snack outside the sukkah, it is not sufficient to meet one’s obligation to eat 14 meals in the sukkah. Only an additional course that includes something that halakhah requires being eaten in the sukkah, like bread or other grain products can count as a meal “make-up.” The analogy between the sukkah meal and the third Shabbat meal proves the opposite of what those who brought it contended. Thus R. Bahya infers that for something to count as a meal per se, whether in the sukkah or the third Shabbat meal, it must include bread.

Now that I have explained to you the topic of Kiddush, I will explain the topic of Havdalah, so that nothing will be missing from your table whether it is an ordinary day or Shabbat, for indeed Havdalah is a way of honoring Shabbat, to remember the day of Shabbat both when it comes and goes, as our rabbis z”l taught in a midrash, “’Remember the Sabbath day’²⁷⁹Ex 20:8. – remember it both at its entrance and its departure.”²⁸⁰Maimonides, Sefer Ha-Mitzvot, M”A 155, and in Hilkhot Shabbat 29a. And know that Havdalah with its four blessings is hinted at in the first parshah of Genesis: the first blessing – borei pri ha-gafen – “who creates the fruit of the vine” – is hinted at in the first verse in the word ha-aretz – “the land”²⁸¹Gen 1:1. – which is the garden and the vine in the garden, and this is the wine preserved in its grapes from the six days of creation.²⁸²B. Berakhot 34b. The wine that will be served at the messianic banquet at the end of time comes has been preserved in the grapes of the first vine God created in the six days of creation.The second blessing: “atzei besamim”– “spices from a tree”²⁸³Technically, one needs to specify in the blessing the type of spice: atzei besamim – “spices from a tree,” such as cinnamon or nutmeg; esvei besamim, “spices from grasses,” such as mint or tarragon. However, taking into account that not everybody knows how to tell the difference between types of spices, the more inclusive formulation minei besamim– “different kinds of spices” was instituted, to avoid having people say the wrong blessing (Chavel). is hinted in the expression, “a wind [ru’ah] from God sweeping over the water,”²⁸⁴Gen 1:1. because smell – re’ah – is sensed by means of the wind – ru’ah. The third blessing: bore’ me’orei ha-esh – “who creates the lights of fire,” is what is written in “Yehi ‘or” – “Let there be light!”²⁸⁵Gen 1:3: “’Or” and “me’orei” are from the same Hebrew root that means “light.” The fourth blessing – Ha-mavdil – “Who separates” is what is written in “and God separated [va-yavdel] the light.”²⁸⁶Gen 1:4. And just as we found the act of separation – Havdalah – in the Holy One Blessed be He at the beginning of His rule with the creation of the world and its renewal, so we found in Him the sanctification – kiddush²⁸⁷Its root, kadosh, in its adjectival and verbal forms means literally to “be set apart” or “to set apart.” – of the day of Shabbat on which work is forbidden, which is written: “God blessed the seventh day and declared it holy [va-yikadesh ‘oto].”²⁸⁸Gen 2:3. What follows is more or less a quotation from Genesis Rabbah Parshah 11, with some omissions. He “blessed” it providing an extra portion of the manna for it and “declared it holy” by prohibiting the gathering of manna on it.

Rashi and Ramban differ in their recounting of the parable in one salient detail. Rashi uses the term "Israelite" in association with dishonor of the body while Ramban fails to use that qualifying term and thereby implies that the prohibition encompasses the desecration of any human corpse. Tosafot Tom Tov, Avot 3:14, explains at length that all human beings, gentiles as well as Jews, are created in the image of God. That matter is not at all a point of dispute as evidenced by the fact that it is Adam— who was not a Jew—who is described in Genesis 1:27 as having been created "in the image of God." The controversy between Rashi and Ramban is limited to the ambit of a specific biblical prohibition, i.e., whether it is the spark of the divine universally present in all of mankind that triggers the prohibition against desecration of a corpse or whether it is the particular sanctity of a body hallowed by participation in Sinaitic revelation that evokes comparison with the Deity.

(Tet) [But even] ‘before they called,’ their disgrace was revealed, as it is written, (Num. 11:10), “And [Moshe] heard the people weeping, each family apart” – meaning, about the sexual prohibitions [of blood-relatives] that had been forbidden to them. And behold in Gur Aryeh on Parashat Vayigash,³⁹Gur Aryeh on Genesis 46:10. [its author] asks that since Israel had the status of converts with the receiving of the Torah – as it is found in Yevamot 46a-46b, that they required circumcision, sprinkling and immersing like the law for converts – and it is established for us that a convert [may] marry his sister, since “a convert that converts is like a newly born infant”;⁴⁰Yevamot 22a. if so, it should have been appropriate to permit sexual relations between relatives in that generation. And he answers that we only say “a convert that converts is like a newly born infant” about a convert who converted on his own, from his own will – then he is as a newly born infant. But at the time of the giving of the Torah when they were forced to receive it – in that He overturned the mountain above them like a tub – they were accordingly not as a newly born infant. See there. Therefore “they cried for their families,” because of the affairs of the sexual prohibitions [of blood-relatives], since the manna had forced them to accept the Torah [and not have the leniency of the convert in this regard] – as I wrote in Paragraph Chet. Hence they were forbidden with their relatives. However if it had not been by force – but rather from [their own] will and from [their] choice – they would have been permitted with their relatives, as we elucidated. Yet behold in Yevamot 62b, Rabbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish disagree about a gentile who had children and [then] converted – as Rabbi Yochanan reasons that he fulfilled [the commandment of] “Be fruitful and multiply” (Gen. 1:28), as behold he has children; whereas Resh Lakish reasons that “a convert who converts is like a newly born infant,” and he [still] needs to fulfill “Be fruitful and multiply.” And at first glance you could ask [the following] difficulty: [In] that which they say there in the Talmud (Yevamot 61b-62a) in the argument between the School of Shammai and the School of Hillel, the School of Shammai reasons [that the requirement is] two male [offspring], and the School of Hillel reasons [that it is] a male and a female. And the reason of the School of Shammai there is that they learn from Moshe, as he had two sons and [then] separated from [his] wife; whereas the School of Hillel learns from the creation of the world, “male and female” (Gen. 1:27). And [the Talmud asks], “Let the School of Hillel learn from Moshe”; and answers, “Moshe separated on his own [and was not commanded by God], and [only afterward] did the Holy One, blessed be He, agree with him.” See there. But if so, according to the School of Shammai that learns from Moshe – granted that he fulfilled “Be fruitful and multiply” with two males; but behold, at the time of the giving of the Torah, they had the status of converts! And [though this is not a problem for Rabbi Yochanan], for Resh Lakish, [Moshe would still have] needed to fulfill “Be fruitful and multiply,” as he was like a newly born infant. However according to what is written in Gur Aryeh – that [when the conversion] is by force, the convert is not as a newly born infant – it is fine, even according to Resh Lakish. And with this, the question of Tosafot (at the beginning of Paragraph Chet) is resolved: As Aharon and Miriam did not speak against Moshe until after [they had been at] Kivrot-Hataavah; since before then, they had reasoned that [the principle of] “a convert that converts is like a newly born infant” [applied to them] – and [so Moshe] needed to fulfill, “Be fruitful and multiply,” even if he had sons from before. And if so, Moshe certainly would not have negated the commandment [by separating from his wife] on his own; and so it was the Holy One, blessed be He, who commanded him. However when they saw that sexual prohibitions [with blood-relatives] were forbidden to them at Kivrot-Hataavah – and that is from the reason that a forced convert is not as a newly born infant, as it is written in Gur Aryeh; and Moshe [accordingly] fulfilled “Be fruitful and multiply” with his earlier children – they found an opening to suspect [the correctness of his decision]. As he separated on his own, since he was not negating a commandment with this – as he fulfilled “Be fruitful and multiply’ with [his] two sons, even according to the School of Hillel, who only add that it is even sufficient with one male and one female according to the opinion of the Talmud Yerushalmi Yevamot 6:6, 7c. And hence they quarreled (Num. 12:2), “Has He not spoken through us as well?” [This was] until the Holy One, blessed be He, answered them (Num. 12:8), “I speak to him mouth to mouth” – I agreed to his words.