창세기 1:12의 주석

ותוצא הארץ וגו AND THE EARTH BROUGHT FORTH etc. — Although the expression למינהו according to its kind, was not used when the various kinds of herbage were bidden to come forth, they heard that the trees were so commanded and they applied to themselves the argument à fortiore (ק"ו), as it is explained in an Aggadic passage in (Chullin 60a).

And the earth brought forth, etc.: Also in this verse, the author of the cantillation marks distanced the word "lemineihu" (of its species) from the words, "that has seed in it," and 'moved' it above; which is [as if] to say "And the earth brought forth trees of its species, and it makes fruit and its seed is also in it." And so [too] did he distance "of its species" from "that bears seed" and 'moved' it to [refer to] "grass" and to "herbs."

AND G-D SAW THAT IT WAS GOOD. This affirms the existence of the various kinds forever.
There was no special day assigned for this command for vegetation alone, since it is not a unique work. The earth, whether it brings forth anything or is salt land, is one.

Mazria zera lemineihu (that gives off seed according to its species): forms the acronym, mazal ('constellation'); as there is no grass that does not have a 'constellation' above [governing] it.

And the earth brought forth, etc.: Since Scripture stated "and it was so," the whole [rest of] this verse was not needed, but rather the reason [for it] is to make us understand two novel things, one with the grasses and one with trees. The one with the grasses is that they made an a fortiori argument (kal vechomer) and came out according to their specie. And we need to know for what reason the verse needed to inform us that they didn't come out mixed up. And maybe it comes to inform us that we should not graft grasses one onto another, as Ravina asks in Tractate Chullin 60b, and these are their words, "If he grafts grasses one onto another, according to Rabbi Chaninah ben Papa, what is [the law]? Since it is not written about them, [the Divine decree of] 'according to their species' etc. or maybe since God agreed with them, it is similar to it being written, 'according to their species?' It stands [and is not resolved]" And Rashi explains (s.v. to Rabbi Chaninah) and these are his words, "who said that, from their own volition did they come out according to their species, and they weren't commanded about it." It is implied from his words, that the Talmud's [default] position is that it is likely that they were [also] commanded about this; and even if it is not mentioned explicitly adjacent to the grasses, when the verse states, "to its specie" at the end, it refers back to the trees and the grasses. And behold, according to the words of Rabbi Chaninah bar Papa, that God did not say, "according to their species" except to the trees, and [that] the grasses made an a fortiori argument, the verse, when it goes back to say "and the earth brought forth," comes to let us hear that the grasses made an a fortiori argument. And according to the Talmud's [default] position - if it weren't for the words of Rabbi Chaninah bar Papa - that its stating, "according to its specie" [in the previous verse] refers back also to the grasses, it appears that it comes to let us hear that the grasses understood the words of the verse correctly - [meaning] that what it stated, "according to its specie" [in the previous verse] is stated also about the grasses; and this was not understood to us from the first verse [before this one]. And even if it stated in the first verse "and it was so," nonetheless, it is not clear if its stating "according to its specie" refers back to everything mentioned in the verse. And the second verse comes and determines that its stating "according to its specie" refers back to everything mentioned in the verse. And from here you learn that in every place where God speaks in the order of the words that are spoken in this matter, that the understanding of his words is like that which the grasses did.

ותוצא הארץ, had the Torah written [in verbatim response to G’d’s directive]ותדשא הארץ , I would not have known that it was only one, as we explained on verse 11. The Torah wanted to make sure that we did not get the impression that the earth suddenly proliferated with a carpet of herbs. The remarkable thing was that although the earth produced only a single herb, ויהי כן, it endured, i.e. survived until it had many others added after the sun had become strong on the fourth day.
Alternatively, the meaning of this formulation is that from this moment on the earth always produced all these kinds of plants in their unadulterated form, each true to its species. There never was an occasion when nature suddenly produced a tree combining the properties of two different species. This only happened when man deliberately introduced an additional species through grafting it onto a tree. This is the reason why G’d commanded man not to crossbreed plants or animals. Both Adam and Noach were commanded this as our sages (Sanhedrin 60) state in conjunction with the verseאת חקותי תשמרו בהמתך לא ים, שדך לא תזרע כלאים, “do not crossbreed animals, nor seed your field with a mixture of more than one seed (trees).” (Leviticus 19,19). This referred to statutes G’d had already promulgated prior to the revelation at Mount Sinai. Concerning the mixing of seeds of herbs, no such prohibition exists for gentiles. Concerning the uprooting of such hybrids gentiles are not commanded to do this, and even Israelites are only obliged to do this in the Land of Israel. The entire subject revolves around deliberately upsetting the way in which G’d created His universe.[in the Sefer Hachinuch the applicability of part of this legislation to gentiles is described as מפי הקבלה, “based on tradition.” Ed.]
This is also why a scholar questioned what the halachah is according to Rabbi Chanina bar Pappa who had quoted the herbs arriving at the conclusion that they must maintain the purity of their species although the Torah had not written anything about למינו in connection with the herbs. The scholar wanted to know what the situation would be if someone had deliberately crossbred two species of herbs. According to the opinion of Ravina one could not hold such a person culpable for such an innovation. Alternatively, the question it that seeing that the herbs had voluntarily taken it upon themselves to maintain the same standards as did the trees and plants which carried their seed in them, would anyone violating that standard be held responsible for violating a law of nature which G’d had approved even though it was instigated by nature itself? The question was left open.

And trees that make fruit: Since there are trees that, even though they exist from year to year, nonetheless the [leaves of the] tree do not exist in the winter; and the root in the ground is only [acting upon] the trunk. And the beauty/variety of these species is like with the fruit of the ground, [in that] the leaves wither with the completion of the fruit. For this reason, [the verse] repeats the sprouting forth [with the trees also]. And it is worth knowing that [the phrase,] "according to its specie," includes many more sub-species than [the phrase,] "according to its species," as I have written in the Book of Leviticus 11:12, see there.

ועץ עושה פרי, and fruit-bearing trees.” The earth violated the Creator’s commandment as it had been commanded to produce also edible trunks. It was afraid that if its trunk would taste as good as its fruit, both man and beast would eat both trunk and fruit and the species would die out.

Though למינהו was not said... they applied a קל וחומר. [Their קל וחומר was:] Trees are large, with many large branches, and cannot stand close together. And even if they were to intermingle, their species are distinguishable from one another. Nevertheless, they must come forth each according to their kind. All the more should we herbs come forth each according to our kind. For we are small; and if we were to intermingle we would be indistinguishable from one another!

And the earth brought forth grass, etc. according to its species: In Tractate Chullin 60a, it interprets midrashically, "that the grasses raised an a fortiori argument (kal ve'chomer) about themselves, etc., [and] the minister of the world opened and said, 'may the honor of God be forever.'" And it is difficult according to the opinion that holds that Chanoch is [the same as] Metatron and that Metatron is [the same as] the minister of the world, since behold, at that time, Chanoch had not yet been created. And some explain, that there were [actually] two ministers of the world [and that here it is the other one, not Chanoch]. And we can also answer that [the understanding that the minister of the world reacted to the grasses here] is not like the opinion that holds that Chanoch is Metatron. And nonetheless, even according to [that opinion,] we can say, that it is true that [Chanoch] was not created, but his soul or 'constellation' was nonetheless created, [and] it said [what it did] about this verse; as we find (Avodah Zarah 5a) concerning 'the Book of the Generations (descendants) of man,' that we interpret midrashically, that [the mention of such a book in Genesis 5:1] teaches that the Holy One, blessed be He, showed [Adam] each generation and its wise men - even though those generations were not [yet] created, nonetheless, He showed him their souls and their 'constellations.'

ועץ עושה פרי, “and fruit bearing trees.” If you were to argue that there are many trees that do not bear fruit, the answer is that what the Torah really meant was that the fruit that the trees mentioned, were to be fruit matching its species, i.e. למינהו. Seeing that this definition would not apply to non fruit bearing trees, it is clear that the Torah did not mean that aj] trees were to be of the fruitbearing kind.

וירא אלוקים כי טוב, even though there are herbs which generate heat, they too are included in what is described here as “good,” seeing that they have therapeutic value and by being applied as bandages to injuries serve to cure such injuries.

And the verse let us know that in the actions of the tree, the earth did not fulfill the proclamation of the Creator, since He said to it, "fruit-tree;" that the taste of the tree itself should have a taste like the taste of the fruit, and it brought out a "tree that makes fruit," and the tree was not like [the fruit].

כי טוב, “that it was good.” The reason why this word “good” appears twice in the report of G-d’s creative activity on the third “day,” is that on that day the garden in Eden was created (see pessikta zutrata 593)

And about this I [wonder], how can the earth rebel against the 'Rider of the earth?' And especially since it is has no evil instinct; as the Sages (Berakhot 61a) did not prove that it has an evil instinct, but rather only animals [are shown to an evil instinct], since they kick, etc. and we have explained this in its place (in the book, Chafets Hashem): from the angle that [an animal] requires the impetus of the impulse to mate, the Holy One, blessed be He, made for it an impulse that heats [it up]; but [regarding] the earth, we have not found that it has an evil impulse to incite it to rebel [and] transgress against the mouth of God.

Also to be investigated is that we do not find mentioned in the creation, that God said that the earth should bring forth fruitless trees for the use of their wood; and we see that this type of tree has grown [to the point that] there is no end to them in the world and they have outnumbered the fruit trees. To this, it is possible to say that before the curse of the earth - which God cursed - all the trees produced fruit; but after God cursed the earth, its strength was reduced, and not all of the trees would produce fruit, but rather 'thorns and brambles.'

In fact, the explanation of [these] things is that the earth was exacting about the wisdom of God with which He founded it, as it is written (Proverbs 3:19), "with wisdom did He found the earth." It was exact about the proclamation of God to it, that it should bring forth "a fruit tree, that makes fruit," [since] it can [be understood] in two different ways: the first is that the taste of the tree be like the taste of the fruit, hence the intention would be that the tree should be fruit and also make fruit. But from its stating, "that makes fruit," [the earth] explained it in a different way; that the intention would be in the following manner; 'the fruit tree' would be one thing and 'that makes fruit' would be another thing, the explanation [of which is] a tree that makes fruit that are different than the [tree] and they are two separate [things]; and the reason it did not state, "and that makes fruit" with a [conjunctive letter] vav, is so as not be understood that the tree itself be a fruit, as well as making fruit. There are also two ways of understanding fruit tree: the first is that the tree itself is a fruit; and the second is that it is fitting to make fruit but does not [actually] make fruit. And due to its great alacrity, the ground attempted to be wise and put out three [different] types [of tree] that can be understood from the words of God: the first are trees that make fruit and the taste of its tree is not like the taste of its fruit; the second are [trees] that make fruit and the taste of its tree is like the taste of its fruit, and that is the tree of knowledge of good and evil, about which they, of blessed memory, said (Bereishit Rabbah 15:7) that the taste of its tree was like the taste of its fruit; and the third is a tree that is similar to a fruit tree, and these are the fruitless trees. And behold, [the earth] responded with alacrity to do everything that [could be] understood [from the words of the verse]. And that is [why] the verse states, "And the earth brought forth grasses, etc. and a tree that makes fruit;" it was exact to state "and a tree" with the addition of a [conjunctive letter] vav for no [apparent] reason, which is how the adjacent verse [about the] words of God is expressed [without the vav] and did not [find a] need to state, "and a tree" with the addition of a vav. The verse intended to say that besides the other trees that it brought forth, it also brought forth another tree that makes fruit, and [with this] it included the fruit-tree, as they, of blessed memory said, that the taste of the tree of knowledge was like the taste of its fruit. And it is possible that it also included trees that do not make fruit that exist in the world, if we will say that they [existed] before the curse of the ground. And I will explain in its place, with the help of Heaven, the reason that God cursed the ground, according to the opinion that it was because it deviated [from His command].