창세기 1:32의 Halakhah

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.

And when I explained to you the requirement for three meals on Shabbat and informed you of its reward, I revealed it to you only partially, leaving some of it secret. Now I shall explain to you further the topic of panim hadashot –“a new face.” ²⁷⁵Hadashot panim – a “new face,” a term taken from the marriage custom of the Sheva’ Berakhot, when friends of the bride and groom host them for seven meals on the seven days following their wedding. At these meals they recite a special birkat ha-mazoncontaining the traditional Seven Wedding Blessings – the Sheva Berakhot. But they only recite this special birkat ha-mazon with the seven blessings on the second through seventh days following the wedding if there are at least 10 adults, and at least one “new face” – panim hadashot – a person who wasn’t there on the previous day. This custom and the words for the sheva Berakhot are introduced in b. Ketubah 7b-8a. This refers to the virtue particularly associated with Malkhut, about which Scripture remarked when it said, “Let us make human being in Our image and according to Our likeness,”²⁷⁶Gen 1:26. and when it is the great Shabbat, for indeed when Shabbat comes, a “new face” comes. And for this reason you will find in the discussion of the Sheva Berakhot, which is connected to a “new face,” as we maintain in the Gemara, “On the first day [after the wedding] one says all seven blessings. From then on, if there is a new face (panim hadashot), one recites them, but if not one doesn’t.”²⁷⁷B. Ketubot 8a. And Shabbat itself is like a new face.²⁷⁸In other words, even if there is not a new guest, if it is Shabbat, one can still recite the Sheva Berakhot in birkat ha-mazon. So Tosafot to b. Ketubot 7b. By analogy, this principle was also applied to other holidays which occur uring the week of Sheva Berakhot. But all the words of our rabbis z”l are built upon the wisdom of kabbalah, and it is the great foundation upon which all of their words depend. Happy is the one who meditates upon them and looks at their shining mirror. And at this point I do not need to expand upon the explanation of the topic of marriage in the lower formation of the world involving male and female, because of what I hinted at in my discussion of zakhor ve-shamor “remember and observe.” From this little hint you should be able to understand much more.

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.

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.

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.

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.

One should not engage in conversation after the cup of blessing, and one should not say the blessing over a “cup of tribulations.” What is a “cup of tribulations”? A second cup. The reason for this is that pairs are bad luck. As they taught in a baraita, “Whoever drinks double – that is, a pair of cups – should not say the blessing, because of the verse “Be proper to meet your God, O Israel.”³²³Am 4:12: “Prepare to meet your God, O Israel!” (JSB), but this midrashic use of the verse picks up on the connotation of nakhon – being proper or correct – from the root of the imperative verb hikon “prepare.” And the reason for prohibiting pairs is because of witchcraft and beings composed of two who rule over anyone who eats and drinking something in pairs. And another reason to distance oneself from “twos” is that that are separated from the power of One, for pairs come from the power of “twos.” So in order to fix one’s heart on unity and distance oneself from dualistic faith, like what is alluded to in Scripture, “Do not mix with shonim,”³²⁴Pr 24:21: “Do not mix with dissenters” (JSB). However, R. Bahya is clearly playing on the connection between “shonim” – literally, “those who differ” and shnayim – “two. In other words, he reads the verse as, “Do not mix with dualists.” The Talmudic prohibitions on pairs probably had something to do with their Babylonian cultural context, i.e., the dualistic Zoroastrianism of the Sassanid Persian empire. those who believe in twos or more. Therefore they prohibited pairs even for things eaten and drunk, for it is appropriate for natural matters to be a sign and symbol of appropriate practices and beliefs,³²⁵Literally, “appropriate matters.” But some mss. of R. Bahya’s text read “intellectual and spiritual matters,” making his point clearer. in that you already knew that true beliefs thus require actions. And you see that in the story of Creation, it was not said, “that it was good” on the second day.³²⁶That expression ki tov, which appears after the descriptions of what was created on the other five days in Genesis 1, is conspicuously absent at the end of the account of day two. For we follow what they said in Genesis Rabbah, that on it dissent and Gehennah were created, and without a doubt, with things like these created on it, it is a dangerous day, on which it is prohibited to begin any work, as our rabbis z”l said, “One does not begin things on the second day, because whoever adds something to one, there’s no good in him [or it], and thus it was called yom sheni – “day two,” which is from the expression shinui – “change.” For in One there is no change, which is what is written: “For I am the Lord, I have not changed.”³²⁷Mal 3:6. But the second day was the beginning of change, and from then on, change in what was created is desirable, and on the rest of the days after it we have found basis for an accusation against all of them, e.g., on the third day God said, “Let the earth bring forth fruit trees,” but it actually brought forth only “trees bearing fruit.”³²⁸Gen 1:11,12. R. Bahya picks up on the slightly different phrasing: “fruit tree bearing fruit” (1:11) vs. “tree bearing, to imply that the earth did not do exactly as God commanded. Similarly on the fourth day the moon made an accusation saying, “It isn’t fair for two kings to use one crown.”³²⁹B. Hullin 60b. This is the midrash told there:
And God made the two great lights? but later it says: “the great light and the small light”! The moon said before the Holy One: Master of the world, is it possible for two kings to use one crown? God said to her: Go and diminish yourself! She said before God: Because I asked a good question, I should diminish myself? God said: Go and rule both in day and in night. She said: What advantage is that? A candle in the daylight is useless. God said: Go and let Israel count their days and years by you. She said: They use the daylight [of the sun] to count seasonal cycles as well…Seeing that she was not appeased, the Holy One said: Bring a (sacrificial) atonement for me that I diminished the moon! This is what R. Shimon ben Lakish said: What is different about the ram of the new moon that it is offered “for God” (And one ram of the flock for a sin offering for God…Numbers 28:14). Said the Holy One: This ram shall be an atonement for me that I diminished the moon. And likewise on the fifth day, God killed the male Leviathan,³³⁰Though in his commentary to the Torah on Gen 1:4, R. Bahya uses the version of this midrash found in b. Bava Batra 74b: God castrated the male Leviathan and killed the female Leviathan. For had they mated with one another, they would have destroyed the world. which can be interpreted as He hid the heavenly light. And likewise on the sixth day, Adam sinned and changed the will of Ha-Shem, and about this it is said, “altering his face, you sent him out.”³³¹Job 14:20, which R. Bahya interprets as “you (Adam)– changed God’s face, and so ‘made” Him (God) send you out of the Garden of Eden.” See how the second day is the cause behind all of this, because all of these things come from its power and follow it. To the extent it said “Prepare to meet your God, O Israel,”³³²Am 4:12. who is one, and it added “O Israel,” who is the one singular nation of the one God, as it is said, “And who is like Your people, one nation on earth,”³³³I Chr 17:21. you should prepare and direct yourself to meet the One. So you should not eat or drink things in pairs, so that you will not think dualistic things in your heart.

One should not engage in conversation after the cup of blessing, and one should not say the blessing over a “cup of tribulations.” What is a “cup of tribulations”? A second cup. The reason for this is that pairs are bad luck. As they taught in a baraita, “Whoever drinks double – that is, a pair of cups – should not say the blessing, because of the verse “Be proper to meet your God, O Israel.”³²³Am 4:12: “Prepare to meet your God, O Israel!” (JSB), but this midrashic use of the verse picks up on the connotation of nakhon – being proper or correct – from the root of the imperative verb hikon “prepare.” And the reason for prohibiting pairs is because of witchcraft and beings composed of two who rule over anyone who eats and drinking something in pairs. And another reason to distance oneself from “twos” is that that are separated from the power of One, for pairs come from the power of “twos.” So in order to fix one’s heart on unity and distance oneself from dualistic faith, like what is alluded to in Scripture, “Do not mix with shonim,”³²⁴Pr 24:21: “Do not mix with dissenters” (JSB). However, R. Bahya is clearly playing on the connection between “shonim” – literally, “those who differ” and shnayim – “two. In other words, he reads the verse as, “Do not mix with dualists.” The Talmudic prohibitions on pairs probably had something to do with their Babylonian cultural context, i.e., the dualistic Zoroastrianism of the Sassanid Persian empire. those who believe in twos or more. Therefore they prohibited pairs even for things eaten and drunk, for it is appropriate for natural matters to be a sign and symbol of appropriate practices and beliefs,³²⁵Literally, “appropriate matters.” But some mss. of R. Bahya’s text read “intellectual and spiritual matters,” making his point clearer. in that you already knew that true beliefs thus require actions. And you see that in the story of Creation, it was not said, “that it was good” on the second day.³²⁶That expression ki tov, which appears after the descriptions of what was created on the other five days in Genesis 1, is conspicuously absent at the end of the account of day two. For we follow what they said in Genesis Rabbah, that on it dissent and Gehennah were created, and without a doubt, with things like these created on it, it is a dangerous day, on which it is prohibited to begin any work, as our rabbis z”l said, “One does not begin things on the second day, because whoever adds something to one, there’s no good in him [or it], and thus it was called yom sheni – “day two,” which is from the expression shinui – “change.” For in One there is no change, which is what is written: “For I am the Lord, I have not changed.”³²⁷Mal 3:6. But the second day was the beginning of change, and from then on, change in what was created is desirable, and on the rest of the days after it we have found basis for an accusation against all of them, e.g., on the third day God said, “Let the earth bring forth fruit trees,” but it actually brought forth only “trees bearing fruit.”³²⁸Gen 1:11,12. R. Bahya picks up on the slightly different phrasing: “fruit tree bearing fruit” (1:11) vs. “tree bearing, to imply that the earth did not do exactly as God commanded. Similarly on the fourth day the moon made an accusation saying, “It isn’t fair for two kings to use one crown.”³²⁹B. Hullin 60b. This is the midrash told there:
And God made the two great lights? but later it says: “the great light and the small light”! The moon said before the Holy One: Master of the world, is it possible for two kings to use one crown? God said to her: Go and diminish yourself! She said before God: Because I asked a good question, I should diminish myself? God said: Go and rule both in day and in night. She said: What advantage is that? A candle in the daylight is useless. God said: Go and let Israel count their days and years by you. She said: They use the daylight [of the sun] to count seasonal cycles as well…Seeing that she was not appeased, the Holy One said: Bring a (sacrificial) atonement for me that I diminished the moon! This is what R. Shimon ben Lakish said: What is different about the ram of the new moon that it is offered “for God” (And one ram of the flock for a sin offering for God…Numbers 28:14). Said the Holy One: This ram shall be an atonement for me that I diminished the moon. And likewise on the fifth day, God killed the male Leviathan,³³⁰Though in his commentary to the Torah on Gen 1:4, R. Bahya uses the version of this midrash found in b. Bava Batra 74b: God castrated the male Leviathan and killed the female Leviathan. For had they mated with one another, they would have destroyed the world. which can be interpreted as He hid the heavenly light. And likewise on the sixth day, Adam sinned and changed the will of Ha-Shem, and about this it is said, “altering his face, you sent him out.”³³¹Job 14:20, which R. Bahya interprets as “you (Adam)– changed God’s face, and so ‘made” Him (God) send you out of the Garden of Eden.” See how the second day is the cause behind all of this, because all of these things come from its power and follow it. To the extent it said “Prepare to meet your God, O Israel,”³³²Am 4:12. who is one, and it added “O Israel,” who is the one singular nation of the one God, as it is said, “And who is like Your people, one nation on earth,”³³³I Chr 17:21. you should prepare and direct yourself to meet the One. So you should not eat or drink things in pairs, so that you will not think dualistic things in your heart.

And of these five senses, two are physical, three are spiritual. We have found them in the Holy One Blessed be He: “And the Lord saw;” “and the Lord heard;” and “the Lord smelled;”³⁷⁹Gen 5:5, Nu 11:1; Gen 8:21, respectively.but not so the other two. We were given five senses to correspond to the five books of the Torah, and to the five references to “light” in the first chapter of Genesis,³⁸⁰Gen 1:3 (2x), 4 (2x), 5. and the five names of the soul.³⁸¹According to Bereshit Rabbah 14:11, they are nefesh, ruah, neshamah, yehidah(“unity”), and hayah (“animal”). Indeed they are the body’s perfection because they are the palace of the soul, and the soul reveals its actions through them. And the natural scientists said that it was from the wisdom of the design of nature that human beings were created with five fingers on each hand to serve the five senses. Each and every finger has its own sense to serve. The biggest (the thumb) is for wiping the mouth, the index finger for the nostrils, the middle finger for the sense of touch to feel all the parts of the body because it is the longest of all (and can reach everywhere), the ring finger to wipe the eye, and the pinky, which is the smallest of all, to clean the ear. So it is from the wisdom of nature that each and every finger goes to its proper sense organ instinctively and unconsciously. About the order of the fingers our sages z”l said:³⁸²B. Ketubot 5b.”This pinky [is for…], this ring finger [is for…], this middle finger [is for…], this pointer [is for…], this thumb [is for…].” And they already explained at the beginning of tractate Ketubot that each of these five fingers had their own mitzvah: This pinky for measuring the hoshen – the High Priest’s breastplate; this ring finger for the priest’s meal-offering, this index finger [amah –‘the cubit measure’] for building and tools; this index finger [ha-‘etzba’] for sprinkling (the blood of the sin offering)– “he shall sprinkle it with his finger [be-‘etzba’o],”³⁸³Lev 16:14.and this ‘biggest’ which is the widest of all of them, namely, the thumb of Aaron’s hand for purifying someone stricken with skin rot.³⁸⁴These explanations of the purpose of each finger are not the ones the Gemara brings, but are brought by Rashi in his commentary to this passage in b. Ketubot (Chavel). So you find yourself learning that the five fingers on the human body meet the needs of both the individual and of God. And you will find among the wonders of human being’s design that the ability to feel is extended throughout the whole body, and the sense of smell is extended outside the body, and that the sense of hearing is extended even further than smell to the extent that humans need it more, and that the sense of sight is extended even further than hearing because humans need it more. So behold how great a matter this is to all who look into it, for it instructs us about the perfection of human beings with their five senses, for “these are the work of God!”³⁸⁵An allusion to Ex 32:16, referring there to the tablets of the covenant, and hence hinting at R. Bahya’s previous association of the five senses with the five books of the Torah.

Therefore the reverent person ought to have his intention connected to the higher things, and have his eating be to sustain his body alone and not to be drawn to physical pleasures, for being drawn to physical pleasures is the cause for the loss of both body and soul, and the cause for forgetting the point, for out of eating and drinking he will become full of himself [lit., lift up his heart] and stumble into great pitfalls and sins, and do things which should not be done. See how Joseph’s brothers sold him only in the middle of eating and drinking, as it is said, “They sat down to a meal, and looking up…”²²Gen 37:28. While eating the brothers looked up and saw the Ishmaelites to who they sold Joseph. R. Bahya expands upon this more fully in his commentary to the Torah on this verse. And for this reason the Torah said not to eat on Yom Kippur, which is the day of judgment for criminal cases involving people, because one’s eating might cause his soul to sin. And they even said in civil cases dealing with monetary compensation: “akhal ve-shatah al yorah” – “Don’t instruct right after eating and drinking!”²³A rhyming proverb in the Hebrew. Yorah, which means to instruct or teach, is the same verb used in the Biblical passage from Lev. 10:11 that R. Bahya cites. It is from the same Hebrew root as the word Torah. R. Bahya subtly makes another point here besides the obvious one that people are inclined to make bad judgments right after they’ve eaten and drunk. Namely, with this wordplay and the analogy to the Biblical priests, he’s reiterating his general contention that engaging in torah is a sacramental priest-likeactivity, even when done by non-priests – i.e., rabbinical torah scholars, or even ordinary Jews fasting on Yom Kippur. Why is this so? From what is written, “Drink no wine or other intoxicant, you or your sons,”²⁴Lev 10:9, addressed to Aaron and his sons, that is, the priests. and connected to it, “to instruct [le-horot] the Israelites.”²⁵Ibid., 10:11. When they were commanded to instruct [le-horot], they were warned to avoid wine, because wine confuses the mind, and it does not distinguish between the holy and the profane, which is why it is written “to distinguish.”²⁶Ibid., 10:10. All this is proof that eating and drinking causes human beings to move themselves away off the track of Torah and worship, and to cast aside all the statutes of Ha-Shem, may He be Blessed. All this is caused when one has eaten and is satisfied, and therefore the Torah commanded, “And you shall eat and be satisfied, and you shall bless” (Deut 8:10). That is to say, after you will have eaten and have been satisfied, and you are close to throwing off the yoke of the commandments, “You shall bless YHWH your God” at the very moment you need to bless Him, so that you will take upon yourself the yoke of His rule and bless His name. And this in my opinion is the meaning of the Scripture, “In all your ways, know Him;”²⁷Prov 3:6. it means even at the time of eating when you are close to forgetting Him and to severing your reason from your mind, at that very moment, “know Him” and cleave to Him. And if you do this, “He will straighten your paths,”²⁸Prov 3:6. He will straighten your ways on the paths of life, namely, the soul’s successful attainment of the world to come. If so, then a person ought to eat only for the sustenance of his body alone, and it is forbidden for him to pursue any sort of pleasure unless it is to make his body healthy and make the eyes of his intellect clear-sighted. In order for his body to be healthy and strong, he should pursue what pleases [his intellect] and his Creator, for his organs are combined and possess the capacity exactly in the measure that enables him to bear the yoke of the Torah and its commandments, which is the point of the verse written about the tribe of Issachar, “he bent his shoulder to bear the burden” (Gen 49:15), which is the same language used to refer to the giving of the Torah, “He [God] bent the sky and came down” (2 Sam 22:10). And anyone whose intention is this, is an angel of the Lord of Hosts, but whoever does not direct their intention to this end, is “likened to the beasts that perish.” (Ps 49:13,21). “You can see for yourself”²⁹1 Sam 24:12: Re-eh gam re-eh – “you can see for yourself” (JSB). Joseph the righteous, who was noted for his quality of reverence [yir’ah], from what is written, “I am a God-fearing man”³⁰Gen 42:18. and “Am I a substitute for God?”³¹Ibid. 50:19. hinted at this point when he said, “take something for the hunger of your houses and be off.”³²Ibid. 42:33. He comes to instruct and to teach people to know that they should only eat to break their hunger, not to fill their belly and be drawn by the taste, which is base and to be scorned, because that is a disgrace to us, utter waste, and a thing which has no point to it. And do not say that this because it was a time of famine, because when Joseph was “a prince and commander of peoples,”³³Is 55:4.and the treasuries of the king were under his control, he had the power to supply bread and food to his father and brothers, as in the other the years of plenty. However, instead he made it known to us that this is the way of Torah and fear of Ha-Shem (may He be blessed!), that a person should only eat, satisfy himself, and fill his belly to satisfy his soul.

And it is necessary that you consider well that human beings’ food should have been only plants from the earth, such as grain produce and fruit, not animals. For animals have a soul of that gives them independent movement, which is similar in some of its activities to the soul of intellectual beings, and this is kinship which motivates us to keep away from what is harmful. Accordingly, a soul that can move itself ought not to be a food for the human soul. Therefore, Adam was originally commanded that his food and sustenance be grain produce and fruits, the point of what was written: “Behold I have given to you every grass and seed-producing plant…”⁷⁰Gen 1:29. But at the time when all flesh went bad, and all animals deserved annihilation and would not have been saved were it not for the merit of Noah, it was permitted to eat them [the meat of animals], just as the greens and grasses had been before. At that time the souls that could move themselves were permitted to wait upon the intellectual soul, who waited upon the Creator. And if so, this is not to demean the soul that can move itself, but rather a mark of respect, status, and merit, and accordingly our sages taught, it is forbidden for an am-ha-aretz to eat meat, as it is written, ‘This is the Torah of the beast and fowl.’⁷¹Lev. 11:46. All who engage in Torah are permitted to eat the meat of beasts and fowl, and all who do not engage in Torah are forbidden to eat beast and fowl. The explanation of this among the enlightened is – when we set aside a soul for a soul, this is nothing other than the soul that can move itself that we annihilate for the sake of intellectual soul. But because one is an am ha-aretz and has no intellectual soul, you have it that he is forbidden to eat meat, since [in him] we have nothing to set aside and annihilate the soul that can move itself, since he is someone who has no intellectual soul, and understand this.

So the annual seasons are dependent on the sun; similarly the daily seasons.²⁰ The day is divided into quarters just as the year is. See the beginning of Gate 3. The truth is that the planets do not have the ability to affect the sun’s actions, only to add or diminish heat or cold. For the sun’s action is equivalent to the actions of all the others, since it is the largest created body,²¹ Scholars then believed that the sun was the largest created body in the universe. it is closest to the earth,²² There was discussion among medieval astronomers regarding the relative distances of the sun, Mercury, and Venus from the earth. Here Ibn Ezra accepts the view that, besides the moon, the sun is closer to earth than all other planets and stars. and it rules over daytime.

For so the King ordered how we are to live because of the first sin on the day the smooth talker deceived our first father.⁹I.e., the serpent. On the day Adam was ensnared by his enemy, it was decreed for him that he would earn his bread only by the sweat of his brow,¹⁰Gen 3:19. and that man be humbled and brought low.¹¹Is. 2:9. He traded pleasure [‘oneg] for plague [nega’], got hard work instead of rest. His wisdom spoiled and his stature was diminished. It caused him weakness instead of strength; instead of wheat, thorns came forth. Instead of eternal life, death; instead of light, the shadow of death. With all this the Lord raised the power of the upper beings, and worsened the power of the lower beings. For the upper beings were fed without toiling, while the lower ones had to make do with pain and suffering. He gave the upper beings on high eternal life for all their generations, but to the lower ones short lives, days flying swifter than a runner.¹²Job 9:25. This is the striking parable that our rabbis brought in Bereshit Rabba on the verse: “the earth was unformed and void[tohu ve-bohu].”¹³Gen 1:1.

Rav Judah stated in the name of Rav, "Adam was not permitted meat for purposes of eating as it is written, 'for you shall it be for food and to all beasts of the earth' (Genesis 1:29), but not beasts of the earth for you. But when the sons of Noah came [He] permitted them [the beasts of the earth] as it is said, 'as the green grass have I given to you everything' (Genesis 9:3)."

It is like a king who acquired two slaves, both with one and the same contract and price. He decreed that one would eat from the king’s stock for free, and that the other would have to work for his food. So the latter sat wondering and confused [toheh ve-boheh].¹⁴A pun on the Hebrew tohu ve-bohu – “unformed and void” – in Gen. 1:1. He said, ‘Both of us were acquired by one and the same price and contract, yet that one is fed from the treasury. But I, if I don’t work, I don’t eat. I am astonished! Likewise the earth sat wondering and confused.¹⁵Ber. R. 2:2.

Rashi (Bereishit 1:1) notes that God’s name “Elokim” appears alone in the first chapter of Bereishit, whereas the tetragrammaton (“YKVK”) appears next to “Elokim” in the second chapter. Rashi explains that God intended to create the world “with strict justice” (midat hadin, the attribute associated with “Elokim”), but when He saw that the world could not exist this way, He presented “the Divine attribute of mercy” (midat harachamim, the attribute associated with the tetragrammaton) and coupled it with midat hadin. We are obligated by the verse “Vehalachta bidrachav” (Devarim 13:5 and 28:9; see Sotah 14a) to follow in His footsteps, so must therefore combine our own sense of rigid justice with our sense of compassion. Indeed, the Rambam (Hilchot Yesodei Hatorah 5:11) writes that a Torah scholar should always act lifnim mishurat hadin. If we follow only strict law, the world cannot exist.

Chazal question why Yiftach did not seek out the beit din of Pinchas, whom Chazal record as the leading Torah figure of the time, in order to annul his vow. The beit din easily could have released Yiftach from his vow with the approach that Yiftach never would have made this vow had he known that his daughter would be the first to emerge from his home. They explain that Yiftach did not go to Pinchas because he insisted that Pinchas come to him in order to convene the beit din, since he was the political leader. Pinchas, in turn, insisted that Yiftach come to him for the procedure, since he was the religious leader.⁵⁷Chazal note that both Yiftach and Pinchas were punished for their intransigence. Chazal (cited by Rashi to Breishit 1:16) refer to this predicament with the aphorism, “Two kings cannot share the same crown.”

In point of fact, this talmudic dictum is simply a terse statement of the relevant law prior to the time of Noah but is silent with regard to any validating rationale. While the statement in question may well be compatible with a vegetarian ideal, it may quite readily be comprehended as reflecting entirely different considerations. Indeed, the classic biblical commentators found entirely different explanations for the change which occurred with regard to dietary regulations. Thus, for example, R. Jacob ben Asher, renowned as the author of the Tur Shulḥan Arukh, in his commentary on Genesis 1:29, explains that, prior to partaking of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, Adam lacked any desire for meat; only subsequent to eating of the forbidden fruit did man acquire a carnivorous nature. Hence the dispensation granted to Noah to eat the flesh of animals simply reflects man's transformed biological needs. R. Meir Leibush Malbim, in his commentary on Genesis 9:3, remarks that Adam was endowed with a "strong" constitution and that the produce available in the Garden of Eden was nutritionally optimal in nature. Under such circumstances, Adam's dietary needs could be satisfied without recourse to meat. Only as mankind degenerated physically as well as spiritually, became geographically dispersed and hence subject to the vagaries of climate, and as the quality of available produce became nutritionally inferior, did it become necessary for man, in his "weakened" state, to supplement his diet with animal products in order to assure the availability of the nutrients required for his biological needs.

(Vav) And see that which our teacher Rabbi Moshe Almosnino (Greece, 16th century) [writes] in his commentary on the Book of Ecclesiastes (on Ecclesiastes 10:1), “Dead flies turn the perfumer’s ointment fetid and putrid; so a little folly outweighs massive wisdom.” As he writes that those that have straight minds are not so incisive; as incisiveness comes as a result of confusion. [And] since those whose minds are not straight have limitations on their [thinking], when [they are therefore required to] push their minds, it brings great incisiveness. [This is] as we see with the burning of a fire – when a little water is poured upon it, the fire grows and has bigger flames; with ‘greater height and greater power’ [coming] from the bonfire than before, without the water. So is this thing: If the mind has a little bit opposing it – which is “the little folly” – then the mind will push against it and the mind will become more incisive. See there. And with this it appears that [we can] explain the statement of the Sages, may their memory be blessed, “‘And behold, it was very good’ (Gen. 1:31) – ‘good,’ that is the good impulse; ‘very good,’ that is the evil impulse” (Bereishit Rabbah 9:7). And that is because the evil impulse is called a fool and the good impulse is called a wise man.²⁷Kohelet Rabbah 4:13. Therefore when there is opposition from the side of folly, which is the evil impulse, against the approach of wisdom, which is the good impulse; the mind, which is the good impulse, pushes against the folly and rises to much [higher] levels than it was before. [And this] would not be the case if there was no evil impulse opposing it – there would [then] not have been this overcoming. And [so] it would have only been good from the angle of itself, but not “very [good].” However through the opposing evil impulse, the good impulse pushes and becomes “very good.” And this appears to be the intention of the statement of the Sages, may their memory be blessed, “‘Happy is the man who fears the Lord’ (Ps. 112:1) – happy is the man, but not the woman? Rav Amram said that Rav said, ‘Happy is he if he repents when he is [still a] man’” (Avodah Zarah 19a). [This is] meaning, that [when he is still young enough], he has opposition from the side of the evil impulse and overcomes it. For then he will very much desire His commandments. (Hence, this is “very good.”) But if he is old and his desires have withered and his impulse has become weak – even though he desires the commandments, it will not be [in a state of “very”], as mentioned above.

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.

Rav Dov Brisman (a prominent Rav and Dayan in Philadelphia) presents quite a compelling defense of this practice in Teshuvot Shalmei Chovah (Y.D. 63). Rav Brisman notes other areas in which we seem not to treat pesukim as Chazal would prefer. The issue he focuses on is the common practice to recite fragments of pesukim, such as “Vayehi erev vayehi voker yom hashishi” (Bereishit 1:31) at the start of Friday night kiddush and “Al kein beirach Hashem et yom hashabbat vayekashsheihu” (Shemot 20:10) at the start of Shabbat morning kiddush, despite the Gemara's apparent injunction against splitting a pasuk which Moshe Rabbeinu did not split in the Torah (Taanit 27b). While many, such as Mishnah Berurah (289:2) and Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik (Nefesh HaRav p.159), adopt a strict practice not to recite fragments of pesukim, common practice is to be lenient, as noted by the Mishnah Berurah.

(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.

(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.

I will now examine Creation, and I will begin to respond to the one who says that the night follows the day. If this were so, why did Scripture not state explicitly “from dawn to dawn is one day?” Or “from light to dawn?” Why did it interrupt with “it was dusk” (Genesis 1:5)? From the verse “it was dusk and it was dawn” it seems that from dusk until dawn is one day, contrary to what is stated earlier, “God called light ‘day’” (ibid.).

What brought this commentator to this difficulty was because many treated the verse “In the beginning God created (bara)” (ibid. 1:1) as if it was written “At the beginning of God’s creating (bero) the heavens and the earth, the earth was empty (tohu) and void (vohu)” – it did not exist, meaning there was no earth. Similarly, “darkness” is the absence of light, meaning there was none.¹⁰ According to this interpretation nothing existed prior to the creation of light. So the first created condition was light, followed by darkness at night. Thus a 24-hour day consists of light followed by darkness – day followed by night. But this interpretation is completely incorrect. Because why did he need to mention the heavens since it did not state that they were nonexistent like the earth? Also, from a grammatical point of view, why is there an added vav (“and”) to the word “veha’arez”? This is not the same as the extra vav found in verbs, as in “On the third day Abraham lifted (vayisa) his eyes” (ibid. 22:4), “he abandoned (vaya’azov) his servants” (Exodus 9:21). They are like the weak fe in Arabic, for Arabic forms are similar to those of the Holy Tongue (Hebrew). However, no vav is added to nouns. Also, according to this interpretation the wind and the water were not created,¹¹ No mention is made of the creation of air and water, even though they are referred to in verse 2. yet it is written in the book of Psalms with regard to both of these “for He commanded and they came to be” (148:5).¹² The verses in Psalms are: “Praise Him, heavens of heavens (the sphere of fire), and waters that are above the heavens. They should praise the name of God, for he commanded and they were created” (148:4–5). Even darkness was created, as it is written “who forms light and creates darkness” (Isaiah 45:7).

What brought this commentator to this difficulty was because many treated the verse “In the beginning God created (bara)” (ibid. 1:1) as if it was written “At the beginning of God’s creating (bero) the heavens and the earth, the earth was empty (tohu) and void (vohu)” – it did not exist, meaning there was no earth. Similarly, “darkness” is the absence of light, meaning there was none.¹⁰ According to this interpretation nothing existed prior to the creation of light. So the first created condition was light, followed by darkness at night. Thus a 24-hour day consists of light followed by darkness – day followed by night. But this interpretation is completely incorrect. Because why did he need to mention the heavens since it did not state that they were nonexistent like the earth? Also, from a grammatical point of view, why is there an added vav (“and”) to the word “veha’arez”? This is not the same as the extra vav found in verbs, as in “On the third day Abraham lifted (vayisa) his eyes” (ibid. 22:4), “he abandoned (vaya’azov) his servants” (Exodus 9:21). They are like the weak fe in Arabic, for Arabic forms are similar to those of the Holy Tongue (Hebrew). However, no vav is added to nouns. Also, according to this interpretation the wind and the water were not created,¹¹ No mention is made of the creation of air and water, even though they are referred to in verse 2. yet it is written in the book of Psalms with regard to both of these “for He commanded and they came to be” (148:5).¹² The verses in Psalms are: “Praise Him, heavens of heavens (the sphere of fire), and waters that are above the heavens. They should praise the name of God, for he commanded and they were created” (148:4–5). Even darkness was created, as it is written “who forms light and creates darkness” (Isaiah 45:7).

The truth is that Scripture mentions the heavens and the earth because they form one globe, with the heavens like the circumference and the earth like the point at the center.¹³ Ibn Ezra is of the opinion that the “heavens” spoken of in Genesis refer to the lower sky, the atmosphere that is immediately above the earth. Genesis does not speak of the spheres of planets and stars that encompass the earth. See Ibn Ezra’s commentary to Genesis 1:1–2. Now the earth was covered with water from all sides, as it is written “they will not return to cover the earth” (Psalms 104:9), and the wind surrounds the waters.¹⁴ Thus the lower world consists of four spheres, each one encompassing those below it. Their order from innermost to outermost is: earth, water, air, and fire. The ancients believed that everything in the lower world, the world below the moon’s sphere, is composed of four elements – fire, air, water, and earth. This lower world is the subject of Creation in the book of Genesis. These are the four elements, namely, the heavens, earth, wind and water, for the heavens correspond to fire. Similarly we find “To make a weight for the wind and He counted the waters by measure” (Job 28:25), “For He gazes to the edges of the earth, under all the heavens He sees” (ibid. 28:24). Similarly, “Who measured the waters with his fist and counted the heavens with a span, and all the dust of the earth in a measure… who counted the wind of God” (Isaiah 40:12–13). Again, “Who ascended to the heavens and descended” (Proverbs 30:4), and the other three follow the word “heavens.”¹⁵ The verse reads: “Who ascended to the heavens and descended, who gathered wind in his fists, who bound the waters in a garment, who erected the ends of earth” (Proverbs 30:4). Here again, the four basic elements are enumerated. Also, “The sun shines” (Ecclesiastes 1:5) corresponds to the heavens, “and the earth remains forever” (ibid. 1:4), “round and round goes the wind” (ibid. 1:6), “all the rivers go to the sea” (ibid. 1:7). Since the circumference, which is the heavens, and the center, which is the earth, were created, so too all that is between them was created.

The meaning of “was empty and void” (“tohu vavohu”) (Genesis 1:2) is that it contained neither man nor animal. As Jeremiah explains, “I saw the land and it was empty and void (tohu vavohu)” (4:23), for which he explains the meaning afterward by saying, “I saw and there was no man” (ibid. 4:25) nor “animal” (ibid. 9:9). Similarly, “like the light of the seven days” (Isaiah 30:26) is an explanation of “sevenfold” (ibid.). Also, “that which I will be” (Exodus 3:14) explains “I will be” (ibid.). I have already explained the mystery of “sevenfold.”¹⁶ In his Alternative Commentary to Genesis (1:14), Ibn Ezra explains that the light increasingly intensified over the seven days of Creation, hence “sevenfold” means that there were seven stages to the light. Our Rabbis hinted at this when they said that on the fourth day the luminaries were hung (Hagiga 12a). How admirable to the intelligent is the choice of the word “hung.”¹⁷ The description of Creation in the book of Genesis deals only with creation of the lower world, the world of generation and decay, and it does not expound on the creation of the heavenly bodies. So all Scripture tells us about the heavenly bodies is that they were “hung” and visible to the lower world. Thus the words of Jeremiah disprove those who say that “tohu vavohu” means that there was no earth.

The meaning of “was empty and void” (“tohu vavohu”) (Genesis 1:2) is that it contained neither man nor animal. As Jeremiah explains, “I saw the land and it was empty and void (tohu vavohu)” (4:23), for which he explains the meaning afterward by saying, “I saw and there was no man” (ibid. 4:25) nor “animal” (ibid. 9:9). Similarly, “like the light of the seven days” (Isaiah 30:26) is an explanation of “sevenfold” (ibid.). Also, “that which I will be” (Exodus 3:14) explains “I will be” (ibid.). I have already explained the mystery of “sevenfold.”¹⁶ In his Alternative Commentary to Genesis (1:14), Ibn Ezra explains that the light increasingly intensified over the seven days of Creation, hence “sevenfold” means that there were seven stages to the light. Our Rabbis hinted at this when they said that on the fourth day the luminaries were hung (Hagiga 12a). How admirable to the intelligent is the choice of the word “hung.”¹⁷ The description of Creation in the book of Genesis deals only with creation of the lower world, the world of generation and decay, and it does not expound on the creation of the heavenly bodies. So all Scripture tells us about the heavenly bodies is that they were “hung” and visible to the lower world. Thus the words of Jeremiah disprove those who say that “tohu vavohu” means that there was no earth.

The meaning of “was empty and void” (“tohu vavohu”) (Genesis 1:2) is that it contained neither man nor animal. As Jeremiah explains, “I saw the land and it was empty and void (tohu vavohu)” (4:23), for which he explains the meaning afterward by saying, “I saw and there was no man” (ibid. 4:25) nor “animal” (ibid. 9:9). Similarly, “like the light of the seven days” (Isaiah 30:26) is an explanation of “sevenfold” (ibid.). Also, “that which I will be” (Exodus 3:14) explains “I will be” (ibid.). I have already explained the mystery of “sevenfold.”¹⁶ In his Alternative Commentary to Genesis (1:14), Ibn Ezra explains that the light increasingly intensified over the seven days of Creation, hence “sevenfold” means that there were seven stages to the light. Our Rabbis hinted at this when they said that on the fourth day the luminaries were hung (Hagiga 12a). How admirable to the intelligent is the choice of the word “hung.”¹⁷ The description of Creation in the book of Genesis deals only with creation of the lower world, the world of generation and decay, and it does not expound on the creation of the heavenly bodies. So all Scripture tells us about the heavenly bodies is that they were “hung” and visible to the lower world. Thus the words of Jeremiah disprove those who say that “tohu vavohu” means that there was no earth.

Now the darkness proceeded the light, as it is written (Genesis 1:2). The great movement (diurnal movement) includes the time of darkness and light, and that is called “yom” (day), that is, a complete day of twenty-four hours.¹⁸ Thus “day” includes a period of darkness and a period of light, in that order. This does not conflict with the fact that Scripture first mentioned “God called the light ‘day’” (Genesis 1:5) before the night, for this is common with the Hebrew language, namely, when someone mentions two things he should begin with the latter.¹⁹ Verses 3 and 4 refer to the light, therefore verse 5 begins by calling the light “day.” For example, “I gave Jacob and Esau to Isaac, and I gave to Esau…” (Joshua 24:4). In the same way, “Your’s is the day also the night” (Psalms 74:16), and he mentions the minor luminary (the moon) that governs the night before the greater luminary (the sun), although the latter is more important than the former. Also, do not be perplexed when Scripture says “He formed the light and created darkness” (Isaiah 40:12). Scripture puts the light first because it has advantages over darkness, even though darkness came before the light. Similarly, in the verse “His sons Isaac and Ishmael” (Genesis 25:9).²⁰ Isaac is mentioned first, even though he was the younger son. Also, “There they buried Abraham and Sarah his wife” (ibid. 49:31), although he buried her.²¹ Abraham is mentioned first although Sarah was buried first.

Now the darkness proceeded the light, as it is written (Genesis 1:2). The great movement (diurnal movement) includes the time of darkness and light, and that is called “yom” (day), that is, a complete day of twenty-four hours.¹⁸ Thus “day” includes a period of darkness and a period of light, in that order. This does not conflict with the fact that Scripture first mentioned “God called the light ‘day’” (Genesis 1:5) before the night, for this is common with the Hebrew language, namely, when someone mentions two things he should begin with the latter.¹⁹ Verses 3 and 4 refer to the light, therefore verse 5 begins by calling the light “day.” For example, “I gave Jacob and Esau to Isaac, and I gave to Esau…” (Joshua 24:4). In the same way, “Your’s is the day also the night” (Psalms 74:16), and he mentions the minor luminary (the moon) that governs the night before the greater luminary (the sun), although the latter is more important than the former. Also, do not be perplexed when Scripture says “He formed the light and created darkness” (Isaiah 40:12). Scripture puts the light first because it has advantages over darkness, even though darkness came before the light. Similarly, in the verse “His sons Isaac and Ishmael” (Genesis 25:9).²⁰ Isaac is mentioned first, even though he was the younger son. Also, “There they buried Abraham and Sarah his wife” (ibid. 49:31), although he buried her.²¹ Abraham is mentioned first although Sarah was buried first.

(Nun) “We hold that a lion does not pounce upon two people. But [how is it that] we see that it [actually] pounces? [That only happens when they appear to the lion to be like beasts], as it is stated, ‘[But man does not abide in honor], he is like the beasts that perish’ (Ps. 49:13).”⁴⁹Shabbat 151b. And it appears to me that this is according to that which is written in the Zohar, Parashat:⁵⁰Zohar 1:13b.
The ninth commandment is to give to the poor, etc., as it is written (Gen 1:26), “Let Us make man in Our image, in Our likeness” – “Let Us make man,” a partnership that includes male and female (attributes); “in Our image,” wealthy, and from the side of the female, poor, etc. So must man below be rich and poor in one association, etc. It is a secret. As so do we see in the book of King Shlomo, that anyone who has pity on the poor with his heart’s desire never has his image transformed from being the image of man. And since the image of man is imprinted upon [such a man], he rules over every creature. This is what is written (Gen. 9:2), “The fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon all the beasts of the earth, etc.” From where do we [know this]? From Nevukhadnetsar – the whole time that he fed the poor, he was not punished, even though he dreamt that dream.⁵¹See Dan. 2. And when he became liable [for punishment], what is written? “The word was still in the mouth of the king, etc.” (Dan. 4:28). Immediately, his image changed, etc. [See there].
And this is [the understanding of] “a lion does not pounce upon two people” – its explanation is that if a man includes⁵²Kallul. Some editions have ballul (mixed) instead, but the two parallel passages in this paragraph read kallul in all editions, indicating that it should be so here as well. both male and female – poor and rich – together, [then] the face of man is in front of him and he will rule over every creature. But the questioner [in the Talmud] did not understand [this]. And for this reason, he asked, “But [how is it that] we see that it does pounce?” And it answers, “That is when he appears to it as a beast,” meaning that male and female are not included in him. [In that case], even a hundred of them are like a beast to them. But “two people” in one association (within one man) – in image and likeness – fulfills [the requirement for] “The fear of you, etc.” And this is the intention of the singer of the Psalms: “Man walks about only as an image; mere futility is his hustle and bustle, amassing and not knowing who will gather in” (Ps. 39:7). Its explanation is that if a man only walks about with the image; but the likeness – which is the side of the female, the destitute – is not included; then “mere futility is his hustle and bustle, amassing and not knowing who will gather in.” And [so] he has no permanence in him.

Because Scripture mentioned “God called the light ‘yom’ (day)”, it needed to tell us how one should count a day of the Torah. For the word “yom” has two meanings (a period of daylight, 12 hours, and a 24-hour period). Therefore it says that these two beginnings, namely dusk and dawn, encompass the Torah’s day. For ‘erev (dusk) refers to the time when shapes merge and are not distinguishable to the eye, as in the verse “They intermingled (vayit’arvu) among the nations” (Psalms 106:35). Boker (dawn) is the time when the forms are distinguishable and are recognizable and examinable, as in the verses “the priest need not examine (yevaqqer)” (Leviticus 13:36), “As a shepherd (vaqqarat) tends his flock” (Ezekiel 34:12). The term yom (day) encompasses both these times, for a single motion includes both. Similarly we find “He created male and female…and called their name ‘Adam’” (Genesis 5:2), while it is also written “And [the Lord, God,] made for Adam and his wife garments of hide and He dressed them” (ibid. 3:21).²² We see that the name “Adam” has a double meaning, sometimes referring to the entire human species, both male and female, and sometimes only to the male (or a specific male). Again it is clear from the description of Creation that a day is from evening to evening.

I awoke with my spirit pounding within me and my soul very troubled. I arose and my anger burned within me. I dressed, washed my hands, and took the books outside to the moonlight. There was written the following interpretation for the verse “there was evening and there was morning” (Genesis 1:5): “With dawn of the second day one full day ended, for nighttime follows daytime.”⁸ According to this interpretation, a 24-hour day extends from dawn of one day until dawn of the follow day. So the Sabbath would begin at dawn of the seventh day and conclude with the following dawn. I almost tore my garment and also that commentary, saying: “It is better to violate one Sabbath so that Israel will not violate many Sabbaths,⁹ “The Torah teaches us that it is better for one to violate a single Sabbath in order that he may observe many Sabbaths” (Yoma 85b). if they should see this evil interpretation. We would also all be a mockery and a scorn in the eyes of the uncircumcised (Christians).” However, due to the honor of the Sabbath I restrained myself.

R. Isaac Abarbanel encapsulates this insight in a brief but insightful comment on the verse that declares, "God beheld the universe and it was good" (Genesis 1:18). If one may be so bold as to employ anthropomorphic language in paraphrasing Abarbanel: God looked at His handiwork and exclaimed "Eureka! It works!" Everything in creation fits together like the pieces of a cosmic jigsaw puzzle. If those components did not fit together precisely in the way they do, there would not be a universe. Thus, Judaism's fixation upon celestial matters, as I called it, is actually a fixation upon God as the bore olam—as the Creator of the universe.

Perhaps the most widely cited source with regard to Sabbath observance at the North Pole is a note authored by the nineteenth-century authority R. Israel Lipschutz and published in his classic commentary on the Mishnah, Tiferet Yisra'el, as an addendum to his commentary on the first chapter of Berakhot. Tiferet Yisra'el carefully distinguishes between places such as his own city of Danzig, as well as Copenhagen and Stockholm, in which there is always at least a brief period of dusk, and places further north in which "there is no night at all but only daylight during the months of June and July." He also expresses concern with regard to people who sail close to the North Pole in order to catch "whalefish" because in that locale there are a number of months during the summer in which there is only daylight. Tiferet Yisra'el does not cite Mor u-Kezi'ah but adopts a position that is remarkably similar to that of R. Jacob Emden in one salient aspect. As did his predecessor, Tiferet Yisra'el rules that each twenty-four hour period constitutes a day. In support of that conclusion he draws upon the fact that the sun can be observed as completing a full circle above the horizon each twenty-four hour period. However, his position is fundamentally different from that of Mor u-Kezi'ah in that Tiferet Yisra'el maintains that the day is determined objectively rather than individually by each traveler. Thus throughout the year Shabbat occurs at the North Pole the same day as it does on the rest of the globe and is objectively determined by the "revolutions" of the sun in the sky. In the polar regions the sun is observed as moving in a circular pattern and completes a full circuit in the overhead sky every twenty-four hours. Each of those twenty-four hour circuits, maintains Tiferet Yisra'el, represents a single day.¹²R. Kalman Kahana, Ha-Ish ve-Ḥazono (Tel Aviv, 5724), p. 100, quotes an unpublished section of the manuscript of Ḥazon Ish’s “Kuntres Yod-Ḥet Sha’ot” in which Ḥazon Ish similarly declares that, in the polar regions, the sun’s completion of a twenty-four hour circuit represents a full day and the seventh circuit is the Sabbath day. A similar opinion is also espoused by R. Yechiel Michal Tucatzinsky, Bein ha-Shemashot, p. 55, who cites that view as earlier expressed by R. Jehoseph Schwartz, Teshuvot Divrei Yosef (Jerusalem, 5621), no. 8. [See also Teshuvot Even Yekarah, no. 11, who also addresses the problem of the biblical reference to “days” prior to the creation of the sun and comments that the biblical “day” is to be defined as the length of time required for the earth to make a complete revolution on the axis, i.e., twenty-four hours.] However, neither Rabbi Tucatzinsky nor Ḥazon Ish offer a clue with regard to the point in the sky which, when traversed by the sun, marks the beginning and the end of Shabbat. See infra, note 13. R. David Spira, Teshuvot Bnei Ẓion, III, Kuntres Midat ha-Yom, sec. 21, states that, during the polar winter, days are demarcated by the circuit of the stars in the overhead sky. Teshuvot Divrei Yaẓiv, Oraḥ Ḥayyim, no. 108, sec. 11, suggests that the day’s beginning and end should be regarded as congruent with the beginning and end of the day in the Land of Israel. Cf., infra, note 15.
R. Yechiel Michal Gold, Me’asef le-Khol ha-Maḥanot, Oraḥ Ḥayyim 18:25, finds what he terms “clear evidence” for the underlying assumption that the “day” may be defined in terms of the revolution of celestial bodies rather than by the appearance of the sun in the comments of Rabbenu Baḥya, Genesis 1:13. Rabbenu Baḥya questions the cogency of the verse that declares “and it was evening, and it was morning” with reference to the first three days of creation, i.e., before the creation of the sun. Rabbenu Baḥya explains that the reference is not to “the light” but to “the sphere in which it revolves for, with regard to every portion of the sky, when it ascends that is its morning and when it sinks [below the horizon] that is its evening.” See also Ramban, Commentary on the Bible, Genesis 1:5. However, although Rabbenu Baḥya’s comments may provide support for the notion that demarcation of successive days may be determined on the basis of the rising and setting of celestial bodies other than the sun, those comments have no bearing upon the question of whether completion of a 360 degree rotation in the overhead sky has a similar import. See, however, R. Eliezer Ashkenazi, Ma‘asei ha-Shem (Venice, 5343), Genesis 1:5, who asserts that the first day of creation was determined by circuitous movement of the heavens whose return to the point of creation marked the completion of a day. Ma‘asei ha-Shem expressly applies that concept to the polar area in declaring, “There is no doubt that even one [for whom] the pole is above his head is obligated to observe Shabbat on the seventh circuit even though there was no darkness there at all.” However, Tiferet Yisra'el fails to identify a phenomenon that might serve to demarcate successive days during the polar night when the sun is entirely concealed.¹³In a note appended to Mo‘adim u-Zemanim, II, no. 155, R. Moshe Sternbuch opines that “the day changes at precisely the moment that the sun reaches its most distant point and begins to draw closer.” The “most distant point” to which Mo‘adim u-Zemanim refers is presumably the point most distant in the sky from the point at which the sun makes its first appearance at the beginning of the polar spring. Mo‘adim u-Zemanim declares that “night” in such areas is no more than a split second in duration. See also Teshuvot ve-Hanhagot, I, no. 315. See as well Me’assef le-Khol ha-Mahanot, Oraḥ Ḥayyim 18:25, s.v. ve-hineh mah she-katav mori, who also states that the Sabbath must be observed only for the amount of time that it takes the sun to complete a single circuit.
It may be noted that at the North Pole the sun neither rises nor declines in the course of its daily circuit. Rather, the sun is observed as circling the horizon once each day in a constant orbit that is a bit higher over the horizon each day until it reaches a height of approximately 23.5° at the time of the summer solstice. However, as one proceeds some distance south of the Pole, the sun, although it does not descend below the horizon during that period, may nevertheless be observed during the course of its daily circuitous movement above the horizon. In those areas—and only in those areas—it might be contended that day and night begin and end when the sun is at its lowest point above the horizon. See R. Eliyahu Baruch Kepetsch, Koveẓ Bet Aharon ve-Yisra’el, Tishri-Ḥeshvan, 5757, p. 150 and cf., R. David Heber, “When Does One Pray When There Is No Day?” Kashrus Kurrents, Autumn, 2002, pp. 17f.
Adopting a somewhat different position, R. Jehoseph Schwartz, Teshuvot Divrei Yosef (Jerusalem, 5622), no. 8 and idem, Divrei Yosef, Tevu’ot Shemesh (Jerusalem, 5603), Derekh Mevo ha-Shemesh, p. 61b, states that the point in the sky occupied by the sun at its first appearance in the polar region in the spring represents the beginning of each “day” and the point at which the sun is last seen before it sets in the fall represents the beginning of each “night.” Accordingly, “day” and “night” commence when the sun reaches those points in the sky during the course of each twenty-four hour circuit. Divrei Yosef, p. 62a, asserts that during the winter months a similar determination is made on the basis of the position of the “two stars of the Little Bear, [which are in the] vicinity of the star of the Pole (the North Star),” i.e., the position of their first sighting in the fall marks the beginning of the “night,” and “day” begins when those stars have moved 180 degrees across the sky.
Divrei Yosef’s description of the astronomical phenomena during the polar winter is both imprecise and inadequate as a basis for resolution of the problem. Pherkad, a third magnitude star, and Kochab, a second magnitude star, are known as the “Guardians of the Pole” because they circle Polaris (the North Star). All three stars are part of Ursa Minor (the Little Bear). The first two stars of Ursa Minor to become visible are Kochab and Polaris (the North Star). Both are second magnitude stars. However, the first celestial bodies to become visible are the planets Venus and Jupiter. Those planets do not become clearly visible until close to the end of civil twilight, i.e., when the sun drops six degrees below the horizon. At the North Pole civil twilight does not end until October 8. The first star to become visible north of the celestial equator is the zero magnitude star Arcturus in the constellation Bootes and is followed closely by the slightly smaller star Vega in Lyra and then by Capella in Auriga. However, even the largest star is not visible to the naked eye until the sun has declined approximately nine degrees below the horizon. At the North Pole, the sun disappears a little after the time of the autumn equinox but does not reach a declension of nine degrees until October 16, a little more than three weeks later. During that intervening period neither the sun nor any star is visible. The same is true during the period immediately prior to the spring equinox when the sun is not visible but is less than nine degrees below the horizon. Thus, for more than six weeks each year neither the sun nor any star is visible. During those periods, days cannot be demarcated by means of the circular rotation of stars in the overhead sky. Even if Venus and Jupiter are used for this purpose, there are four weeks in the year during the polar twilight in which those planets are not visible. I am indebted to Mr. Joe Rao of the Hayden Planetarium for making this information available to me.

Perhaps the most widely cited source with regard to Sabbath observance at the North Pole is a note authored by the nineteenth-century authority R. Israel Lipschutz and published in his classic commentary on the Mishnah, Tiferet Yisra'el, as an addendum to his commentary on the first chapter of Berakhot. Tiferet Yisra'el carefully distinguishes between places such as his own city of Danzig, as well as Copenhagen and Stockholm, in which there is always at least a brief period of dusk, and places further north in which "there is no night at all but only daylight during the months of June and July." He also expresses concern with regard to people who sail close to the North Pole in order to catch "whalefish" because in that locale there are a number of months during the summer in which there is only daylight. Tiferet Yisra'el does not cite Mor u-Kezi'ah but adopts a position that is remarkably similar to that of R. Jacob Emden in one salient aspect. As did his predecessor, Tiferet Yisra'el rules that each twenty-four hour period constitutes a day. In support of that conclusion he draws upon the fact that the sun can be observed as completing a full circle above the horizon each twenty-four hour period. However, his position is fundamentally different from that of Mor u-Kezi'ah in that Tiferet Yisra'el maintains that the day is determined objectively rather than individually by each traveler. Thus throughout the year Shabbat occurs at the North Pole the same day as it does on the rest of the globe and is objectively determined by the "revolutions" of the sun in the sky. In the polar regions the sun is observed as moving in a circular pattern and completes a full circuit in the overhead sky every twenty-four hours. Each of those twenty-four hour circuits, maintains Tiferet Yisra'el, represents a single day.¹²R. Kalman Kahana, Ha-Ish ve-Ḥazono (Tel Aviv, 5724), p. 100, quotes an unpublished section of the manuscript of Ḥazon Ish’s “Kuntres Yod-Ḥet Sha’ot” in which Ḥazon Ish similarly declares that, in the polar regions, the sun’s completion of a twenty-four hour circuit represents a full day and the seventh circuit is the Sabbath day. A similar opinion is also espoused by R. Yechiel Michal Tucatzinsky, Bein ha-Shemashot, p. 55, who cites that view as earlier expressed by R. Jehoseph Schwartz, Teshuvot Divrei Yosef (Jerusalem, 5621), no. 8. [See also Teshuvot Even Yekarah, no. 11, who also addresses the problem of the biblical reference to “days” prior to the creation of the sun and comments that the biblical “day” is to be defined as the length of time required for the earth to make a complete revolution on the axis, i.e., twenty-four hours.] However, neither Rabbi Tucatzinsky nor Ḥazon Ish offer a clue with regard to the point in the sky which, when traversed by the sun, marks the beginning and the end of Shabbat. See infra, note 13. R. David Spira, Teshuvot Bnei Ẓion, III, Kuntres Midat ha-Yom, sec. 21, states that, during the polar winter, days are demarcated by the circuit of the stars in the overhead sky. Teshuvot Divrei Yaẓiv, Oraḥ Ḥayyim, no. 108, sec. 11, suggests that the day’s beginning and end should be regarded as congruent with the beginning and end of the day in the Land of Israel. Cf., infra, note 15.
R. Yechiel Michal Gold, Me’asef le-Khol ha-Maḥanot, Oraḥ Ḥayyim 18:25, finds what he terms “clear evidence” for the underlying assumption that the “day” may be defined in terms of the revolution of celestial bodies rather than by the appearance of the sun in the comments of Rabbenu Baḥya, Genesis 1:13. Rabbenu Baḥya questions the cogency of the verse that declares “and it was evening, and it was morning” with reference to the first three days of creation, i.e., before the creation of the sun. Rabbenu Baḥya explains that the reference is not to “the light” but to “the sphere in which it revolves for, with regard to every portion of the sky, when it ascends that is its morning and when it sinks [below the horizon] that is its evening.” See also Ramban, Commentary on the Bible, Genesis 1:5. However, although Rabbenu Baḥya’s comments may provide support for the notion that demarcation of successive days may be determined on the basis of the rising and setting of celestial bodies other than the sun, those comments have no bearing upon the question of whether completion of a 360 degree rotation in the overhead sky has a similar import. See, however, R. Eliezer Ashkenazi, Ma‘asei ha-Shem (Venice, 5343), Genesis 1:5, who asserts that the first day of creation was determined by circuitous movement of the heavens whose return to the point of creation marked the completion of a day. Ma‘asei ha-Shem expressly applies that concept to the polar area in declaring, “There is no doubt that even one [for whom] the pole is above his head is obligated to observe Shabbat on the seventh circuit even though there was no darkness there at all.” However, Tiferet Yisra'el fails to identify a phenomenon that might serve to demarcate successive days during the polar night when the sun is entirely concealed.¹³In a note appended to Mo‘adim u-Zemanim, II, no. 155, R. Moshe Sternbuch opines that “the day changes at precisely the moment that the sun reaches its most distant point and begins to draw closer.” The “most distant point” to which Mo‘adim u-Zemanim refers is presumably the point most distant in the sky from the point at which the sun makes its first appearance at the beginning of the polar spring. Mo‘adim u-Zemanim declares that “night” in such areas is no more than a split second in duration. See also Teshuvot ve-Hanhagot, I, no. 315. See as well Me’assef le-Khol ha-Mahanot, Oraḥ Ḥayyim 18:25, s.v. ve-hineh mah she-katav mori, who also states that the Sabbath must be observed only for the amount of time that it takes the sun to complete a single circuit.
It may be noted that at the North Pole the sun neither rises nor declines in the course of its daily circuit. Rather, the sun is observed as circling the horizon once each day in a constant orbit that is a bit higher over the horizon each day until it reaches a height of approximately 23.5° at the time of the summer solstice. However, as one proceeds some distance south of the Pole, the sun, although it does not descend below the horizon during that period, may nevertheless be observed during the course of its daily circuitous movement above the horizon. In those areas—and only in those areas—it might be contended that day and night begin and end when the sun is at its lowest point above the horizon. See R. Eliyahu Baruch Kepetsch, Koveẓ Bet Aharon ve-Yisra’el, Tishri-Ḥeshvan, 5757, p. 150 and cf., R. David Heber, “When Does One Pray When There Is No Day?” Kashrus Kurrents, Autumn, 2002, pp. 17f.
Adopting a somewhat different position, R. Jehoseph Schwartz, Teshuvot Divrei Yosef (Jerusalem, 5622), no. 8 and idem, Divrei Yosef, Tevu’ot Shemesh (Jerusalem, 5603), Derekh Mevo ha-Shemesh, p. 61b, states that the point in the sky occupied by the sun at its first appearance in the polar region in the spring represents the beginning of each “day” and the point at which the sun is last seen before it sets in the fall represents the beginning of each “night.” Accordingly, “day” and “night” commence when the sun reaches those points in the sky during the course of each twenty-four hour circuit. Divrei Yosef, p. 62a, asserts that during the winter months a similar determination is made on the basis of the position of the “two stars of the Little Bear, [which are in the] vicinity of the star of the Pole (the North Star),” i.e., the position of their first sighting in the fall marks the beginning of the “night,” and “day” begins when those stars have moved 180 degrees across the sky.
Divrei Yosef’s description of the astronomical phenomena during the polar winter is both imprecise and inadequate as a basis for resolution of the problem. Pherkad, a third magnitude star, and Kochab, a second magnitude star, are known as the “Guardians of the Pole” because they circle Polaris (the North Star). All three stars are part of Ursa Minor (the Little Bear). The first two stars of Ursa Minor to become visible are Kochab and Polaris (the North Star). Both are second magnitude stars. However, the first celestial bodies to become visible are the planets Venus and Jupiter. Those planets do not become clearly visible until close to the end of civil twilight, i.e., when the sun drops six degrees below the horizon. At the North Pole civil twilight does not end until October 8. The first star to become visible north of the celestial equator is the zero magnitude star Arcturus in the constellation Bootes and is followed closely by the slightly smaller star Vega in Lyra and then by Capella in Auriga. However, even the largest star is not visible to the naked eye until the sun has declined approximately nine degrees below the horizon. At the North Pole, the sun disappears a little after the time of the autumn equinox but does not reach a declension of nine degrees until October 16, a little more than three weeks later. During that intervening period neither the sun nor any star is visible. The same is true during the period immediately prior to the spring equinox when the sun is not visible but is less than nine degrees below the horizon. Thus, for more than six weeks each year neither the sun nor any star is visible. During those periods, days cannot be demarcated by means of the circular rotation of stars in the overhead sky. Even if Venus and Jupiter are used for this purpose, there are four weeks in the year during the polar twilight in which those planets are not visible. I am indebted to Mr. Joe Rao of the Hayden Planetarium for making this information available to me.

As it is required for the house of Israel to read from the scrolls, and to teach in the Torah, and to conclude with the prophets, on each day according to its subject matter — laws of Pesaḥ on Pesaḥ, laws of Shavuot on Shavuot, laws of Sukkot on Sukkot, as it is written "And Moses spoke the appointed-times of haShem to the children of Israel" (Leviticus 23:44), and it is commanded to read every matter at its time and extrapolate on the subject of the day, as taught, "Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says:¹In our manuscripts, it says "The Rabbis taught" here. Moses ordained for Israel that they would investigate and extrapolate on the matter of the day — laws of Pesaḥ on Pesaḥ, laws of Shavuot on Shavuot, laws of Sukkot on Sukkot" (Megillah 32a:17). On Ḥanukkah we read the princes (Numbers 7). On Purim we read "And Amalek came" (Exodus 17:8—16). When Rosh Ḥodesh Adar falls on Shabbat we read the portion of the sheqalim (Exodus 30:11—16). "And Rabbi Yitzḥaq Nappaḥa said: when Rosh Ḥodesh Adar falls on Shabbat, bring three Torah scrolls, and read one for the matter of the day, and one for the new moon, and one from Ki Tissa. And Rabbi Yitzḥaq Nappaḥa said: when Rosh Ḥodesh Tevet falls on Shabbat, bring three Torah scrolls, and read one for the matter of the day, and one for Rosh Ḥodesh, and one for Ḥanukkah" (Megillah 29b:22). On Ḥanukkah and on Purim three people read, on Rosh Ḥodesh and on Ḥol ha-Moed four people read — since there is Musaf, we add [mosifin] a person. When Rosh Ḥodesh Adar falls on Shabbat, we read the portion of the sheqalim (Exodus 30:11—16). When it falls on another day of the week, we advance the reading of the portion of the sheqalim, and interrupt the special readings. On the second² Shabbat of the month we read 'Remember' (Deuteronomy 25:17—17). On the third, the red heifer (Numbers 19:1—22). On the fourth, 'This month' (Exodus 12:1—20). If it falls on the sixth, then 'This month' is on the fifth. After that they return to the regular order. And everyone interrupts the order for Rosh Hodesh, Ḥanukah, Purim, fast days, festival days, and Yom Kippur (Mishnah Megillah 3:5). On Pesaḥ they read the portion of the festivals. And a mnemonic is: "during the bull, sanctify with money, cut in the desert, send the firstborn." On Shavuot, "On the third day" (Exodus 19:1–20:23), and on the second day, "Every firstborn" (Deuteronomy 15:19—16:37). On Rosh Hashanah, "And haShem remembered Sarah" (Genesis 21:1–34) and on the second day, "And God tested Abraham" (Genesis 22:1—24). On Yom Kippur, "after the death" (Leviticus 16:1—34). On Sukkot, the offerings for Sukkot (Numbers 29:12—34). On Ḥanukkah, the princes (Numbers 7). On Purim, "And Amalek came" (Exodus 17:8—16). On Rosh Hodesh, "And on your new months" (Numbers 28:1–15). On the watches, the matter of creation (Genesis 1:1—2:3). On fast days, "And Moses petitioned" (Exodus 32:11—14, Exodus 34:1–10). On Mondays and Thursdays and on Shabbat in the afternoon they read according to the order, but they are not counted in the order. As it is said, "And Moses spoke the appointed-times of haShem to the children of Israel" (Leviticus 23:44) — it's commanded that they read each and every one at its time.

(Alef) The Psalmist said in Ps. 50:18, 20, “When you see a thief, you fall in with him, and throw in your lot with adulterers. You are busy maligning your brother, defaming the son of your mother.” It appears to me [that this can be explained] according to that which is written in Netsach Israel, chapter 25:⁶⁸Maharal, Netsach Yisrael, pp. 126-127 in London edition.
We were asked, “How is it that Israelites are constantly yearning to [do] bad, etc.? As he seeks evil for the one who is his compatriot in Torah and in the commandments. And [yet] the Torah states (Lev. 19:18), ‘and you shall love your neighbor as yourself.’” And I answered him, etc. However this trait is not in Israel from the angle of ‘an evil soul desires evil.’ As from the angle of their essence, this holy people is deserving of all the importance and status, etc. And the one who is important based on his own nature will [naturally] seek status (and this is what causes the Jews to hurt each other). As you will not find a villager jealous of a great minister, but rather a sage of another sage, a wealthy man of a wealthy man and a strong man of a strong man, etc. Rather this thing comes from [their appropriate] sense of importance. And the proof to this is that it is perfectly obvious that when one of them is in distress, all of them step forward like ‘a brother for adversity.’ And that is because Israel is one nation, etc. And it is not like the traits of licentiousness, etc., as that thing would show great lowliness, etc. And they are stiff-necked from repenting, etc. Because they are far from physicality, they are not [easily] impacted, but rather hold on to their traits, etc. [See there.]
And for this reason, he said, “When you see a thief, you fall in with him, and throw in your lot with adulterers” – and that is from the side of crass physicality and it is lowliness. But, “You are busy maligning your brother, etc.,” is from the side of an elevated form, and as is written in Netsach Yisrael. And they are two opposites of one issue. And ‘there should not be [lowliness] like this in Israel’ – the holy people that comes from a good nature. And that which is in Parashat Netzaivm (Deut. 29:21-26) is elucidated by this:
And later generations will ask—the children who succeed you, and foreigners who come from distant lands and see the plagues and diseases that the Lord has inflicted upon that land. All its soil burnt by sulfur and salt, etc. And all the nations will say, “Why did the Lord do thus to this land; wherefore that awful wrath?” And they will be told, “Because they forsook the covenant that the Lord, etc. And they turned to the service of other gods and worshiped them – gods whom they had not known and whom He had not allotted to them. So the Lord was incensed at that land, etc.”
And Rashi explained [the phrase], “whom they had not known,” [as] they had not known the strength of divinity in them. And Onkelos translated [it as, these gods] did not do good to them – as the one they selected for a god did not give them any inheritance or portion. See there. And at first glance, [this needs] precision – as had it given them an inheritance and a portion, the ‘prohibition [against worshiping it] would still stand in its place. [It is] as we expound in the Gemara,⁶⁹See Bamidbar Rabbah 20:9. “He exalts (masgi, which can also be read as fools) nations, then destroys them” (Job 12:23); such that it appears to them that they are healed by idolatry, etc. And see that with the generation of the flood it is written (Gen. 6:13), “and behold I will destroy them with the earth.” And the Rabbis, may their memory be blessed, expounded [it as] (Bereishit Rabbah 31:7), “with the land” – three handbreadths of the depth of a plow were despoiled. And the sin of the land was that the Lord said (Gen. 1:11) that the land should give forth “trees of fruit” – that the taste of the tree be like the fruit; but it made “trees that made fruit” (Gen. 1:12).⁷⁰Bereishit Rabbah 5:9. [It did this] because [its] material was coarse; and this caused man to incline towards physicality. And [so] the Lord said (Gen. 3:17), “Cursed is the earth for the sake of man” – as the damage was evident in man. And for this reason, [people] in the generation of the flood also sinned in physicality – violent theft, sexual immorality and murder; and this was because of the sin of the land. And therefore it was punished. And in the Guide⁷¹Guide for the Perplexed 1:36., [Rambam] wrote that we only find [the terms], awful wrath and jealousy [attributed to God] with idolatry, [since it is understandable that] the Lord has awful wrath about this. See there. But the sin of idolatry is from the angle of the form (the spiritual side) – and that it is the loss of the intellect, as it is written in Gur Aryeh.⁷²Perhaps the reference is to Gur Aryeh on Exodus 22:30. That is why the verse stated, “And all the nations will say, ‘Why did the Lord do thus to this land’” – since if their sin was from the spiritual side, the land did not sin. But if we say that the sin was from the side of physicality; you would still ask, “‘wherefore that awful wrath,’” as this is only with idolatry – as is written in the Guide – and that is from the angle of the intellect. “And they will be told, ‘Because they forsook, etc. and worshiped other gods’” – and the awful wrath was for that. And “whom they had not known and whom He had not allotted to them” – meaning that they did not apportion them any good and they did not know them [to be] with divine powers, and this was not from a confused intellect, such that ‘He fools the nations.’ Rather it was from the side of crass physicality that [such] anarchy was pleasing to them. And that was the sin of the land, and hence, “all its soil was burnt.” However, if people do righteous deeds, ‘the desolate land will be worked.’

(Alef) The Psalmist said in Ps. 50:18, 20, “When you see a thief, you fall in with him, and throw in your lot with adulterers. You are busy maligning your brother, defaming the son of your mother.” It appears to me [that this can be explained] according to that which is written in Netsach Israel, chapter 25:⁶⁸Maharal, Netsach Yisrael, pp. 126-127 in London edition.
We were asked, “How is it that Israelites are constantly yearning to [do] bad, etc.? As he seeks evil for the one who is his compatriot in Torah and in the commandments. And [yet] the Torah states (Lev. 19:18), ‘and you shall love your neighbor as yourself.’” And I answered him, etc. However this trait is not in Israel from the angle of ‘an evil soul desires evil.’ As from the angle of their essence, this holy people is deserving of all the importance and status, etc. And the one who is important based on his own nature will [naturally] seek status (and this is what causes the Jews to hurt each other). As you will not find a villager jealous of a great minister, but rather a sage of another sage, a wealthy man of a wealthy man and a strong man of a strong man, etc. Rather this thing comes from [their appropriate] sense of importance. And the proof to this is that it is perfectly obvious that when one of them is in distress, all of them step forward like ‘a brother for adversity.’ And that is because Israel is one nation, etc. And it is not like the traits of licentiousness, etc., as that thing would show great lowliness, etc. And they are stiff-necked from repenting, etc. Because they are far from physicality, they are not [easily] impacted, but rather hold on to their traits, etc. [See there.]
And for this reason, he said, “When you see a thief, you fall in with him, and throw in your lot with adulterers” – and that is from the side of crass physicality and it is lowliness. But, “You are busy maligning your brother, etc.,” is from the side of an elevated form, and as is written in Netsach Yisrael. And they are two opposites of one issue. And ‘there should not be [lowliness] like this in Israel’ – the holy people that comes from a good nature. And that which is in Parashat Netzaivm (Deut. 29:21-26) is elucidated by this:
And later generations will ask—the children who succeed you, and foreigners who come from distant lands and see the plagues and diseases that the Lord has inflicted upon that land. All its soil burnt by sulfur and salt, etc. And all the nations will say, “Why did the Lord do thus to this land; wherefore that awful wrath?” And they will be told, “Because they forsook the covenant that the Lord, etc. And they turned to the service of other gods and worshiped them – gods whom they had not known and whom He had not allotted to them. So the Lord was incensed at that land, etc.”
And Rashi explained [the phrase], “whom they had not known,” [as] they had not known the strength of divinity in them. And Onkelos translated [it as, these gods] did not do good to them – as the one they selected for a god did not give them any inheritance or portion. See there. And at first glance, [this needs] precision – as had it given them an inheritance and a portion, the ‘prohibition [against worshiping it] would still stand in its place. [It is] as we expound in the Gemara,⁶⁹See Bamidbar Rabbah 20:9. “He exalts (masgi, which can also be read as fools) nations, then destroys them” (Job 12:23); such that it appears to them that they are healed by idolatry, etc. And see that with the generation of the flood it is written (Gen. 6:13), “and behold I will destroy them with the earth.” And the Rabbis, may their memory be blessed, expounded [it as] (Bereishit Rabbah 31:7), “with the land” – three handbreadths of the depth of a plow were despoiled. And the sin of the land was that the Lord said (Gen. 1:11) that the land should give forth “trees of fruit” – that the taste of the tree be like the fruit; but it made “trees that made fruit” (Gen. 1:12).⁷⁰Bereishit Rabbah 5:9. [It did this] because [its] material was coarse; and this caused man to incline towards physicality. And [so] the Lord said (Gen. 3:17), “Cursed is the earth for the sake of man” – as the damage was evident in man. And for this reason, [people] in the generation of the flood also sinned in physicality – violent theft, sexual immorality and murder; and this was because of the sin of the land. And therefore it was punished. And in the Guide⁷¹Guide for the Perplexed 1:36., [Rambam] wrote that we only find [the terms], awful wrath and jealousy [attributed to God] with idolatry, [since it is understandable that] the Lord has awful wrath about this. See there. But the sin of idolatry is from the angle of the form (the spiritual side) – and that it is the loss of the intellect, as it is written in Gur Aryeh.⁷²Perhaps the reference is to Gur Aryeh on Exodus 22:30. That is why the verse stated, “And all the nations will say, ‘Why did the Lord do thus to this land’” – since if their sin was from the spiritual side, the land did not sin. But if we say that the sin was from the side of physicality; you would still ask, “‘wherefore that awful wrath,’” as this is only with idolatry – as is written in the Guide – and that is from the angle of the intellect. “And they will be told, ‘Because they forsook, etc. and worshiped other gods’” – and the awful wrath was for that. And “whom they had not known and whom He had not allotted to them” – meaning that they did not apportion them any good and they did not know them [to be] with divine powers, and this was not from a confused intellect, such that ‘He fools the nations.’ Rather it was from the side of crass physicality that [such] anarchy was pleasing to them. And that was the sin of the land, and hence, “all its soil was burnt.” However, if people do righteous deeds, ‘the desolate land will be worked.’

I find it illuminating that neither Rav Moshe nor Rav Breisch shares Rav Waldenberg’s fundamental theological concerns about cosmetic surgery. Arguably, cosmetic surgery does not insult the work of the “Craftsman” because He also revealed to mankind the knowledge and ability to perform cosmetic surgery. Perhaps Rav Moshe and Rav Breisch view such surgery as part of our role as “junior partners” with Hashem in the ongoing creation of the world (see Shabbat 10a and Ramban to Bereishit 1:28).¹¹Rav Gidon Weitzman suggested to me that Rav Waldenberg might respond that we are considered partners with Hashem only when improving the world, such as when creating a child (see Niddah 31a) or when turning wheat into cake (see Tanchuma, Parashat Tazria, parashah 5). Rav Waldenberg could argue that because cosmetic surgery does not constitute a real “improvement” in the world, we are not considered partners with Hashem when performing such a procedure. As such, we are declaring Hashem’s work to be inferior when we attempt to alter it without any real improvement.

Rambam, Guide, Book III, chapter 26, makes it clear that the concern evidenced in the prescription of the mode of slaughter is identical with the consideration underlying the admonition concerning za'ar ba'alei ḥayyim. Both the prescriptions concerning ritual slaughter and the prohibition against za'ar ba'alei ḥayyim are regarded by Rambam as having been imposed "with a view to purifying the people," i.e., in order to prevent internalization of cruelty as a character trait and to promote the development of compassion.¹⁸See also Ramban, Commentary on the Bible, Deuteronomy 22:6, and R. Joseph Albo, Book of Principles, Book III, chapter 15 as well as Ramban, Commentary on the Bible, Genesis 1:29, and Teshuvot Ḥatam Sofer, Oraḥ Ḥayyim, no. 54, s.v. u-mah. An identical view is expressed by Philo, De Virtutibus, 141.

Tiferet Yisra'el cites no evidence in support of his view. The phenomenon of the sun's circular movement over the horizon each day is certainly not a demonstration that each twenty-four hour period in which such a revolution takes place constitutes a halakhic day. Quite to the contrary, Scripture records "and it was evening, and it was morning, one day" (Genesis 1:5). Read literally, the day is defined in terms of alternating periods of light and darkness, not in terms of a revolution of the earth upon its axis or of the circuitous movement of the overhead sun. How this might have occurred prior to the creation of the sun on the third day is a matter that has engaged the attention of numerous biblical commentators, most particularly, Rambam and Seforno, Genesis 1:5; Rabbenu Baḥya, Genesis 1:13; Rashbam, Genesis 1:4 and 1:14; R. Isaac Arama, Akeidat Yizḥak, sha'ar shlishi; and Malbim, Genesis 1:5.

Tiferet Yisra'el cites no evidence in support of his view. The phenomenon of the sun's circular movement over the horizon each day is certainly not a demonstration that each twenty-four hour period in which such a revolution takes place constitutes a halakhic day. Quite to the contrary, Scripture records "and it was evening, and it was morning, one day" (Genesis 1:5). Read literally, the day is defined in terms of alternating periods of light and darkness, not in terms of a revolution of the earth upon its axis or of the circuitous movement of the overhead sun. How this might have occurred prior to the creation of the sun on the third day is a matter that has engaged the attention of numerous biblical commentators, most particularly, Rambam and Seforno, Genesis 1:5; Rabbenu Baḥya, Genesis 1:13; Rashbam, Genesis 1:4 and 1:14; R. Isaac Arama, Akeidat Yizḥak, sha'ar shlishi; and Malbim, Genesis 1:5.

Tiferet Yisra'el cites no evidence in support of his view. The phenomenon of the sun's circular movement over the horizon each day is certainly not a demonstration that each twenty-four hour period in which such a revolution takes place constitutes a halakhic day. Quite to the contrary, Scripture records "and it was evening, and it was morning, one day" (Genesis 1:5). Read literally, the day is defined in terms of alternating periods of light and darkness, not in terms of a revolution of the earth upon its axis or of the circuitous movement of the overhead sun. How this might have occurred prior to the creation of the sun on the third day is a matter that has engaged the attention of numerous biblical commentators, most particularly, Rambam and Seforno, Genesis 1:5; Rabbenu Baḥya, Genesis 1:13; Rashbam, Genesis 1:4 and 1:14; R. Isaac Arama, Akeidat Yizḥak, sha'ar shlishi; and Malbim, Genesis 1:5.

Not to make the form of a man, even for decoration: Not to make the form of a man from any object - whether from metals, whether from wood, or stone, or anything else - and even for decoration, as it is stated (Exodus 20:20), "Do not make with me (eeti)." And they, may their memory be blessed, expounded (Rosh Hashanah 24b), "Do not make Me (oti," which can be spelled with the same letters as eeti), meaning to say, do not make a replica of that form - being the body of man - about which I wrote in My Torah (Genesis 1:26), "Let us make man in Our image." And the intention of the verse is from the angle of the intellect that He gave in him. And that which it stated, "in Our image," about the intellectual side of man is because all intellect is in Him, blessed be He. But there is no other comparison between Him, Blessed be he, and any creature (that preceded its matter) of His creatures, God forbid. And the negative commandment of "You shall not make a statue" is that we not make any form that will be worshiped, [whereas] this prohibition is specifically about the form of a man - that we should not make it at all, even for decoration. And this is to distance idolatry.

Birkat ha-Hammah is a blessing praising God, "who makes the work of creation" and is recited on the occasion of the return of the sun to the position in the heavens which it occupied at the moment of its original creation when that event occurs on the day of the week and at the hour of the day which correspond to the day and hour of the creation of the sun. Genesis 1:14-19 records that the sun was created on the fourth day of the week. According to rabbinic tradition the sun was created at the very beginning of the day and was affixed in the sky in the position occupied at Tekufat Nisan, i.e., the vernal equinox. Thus Birkat ha-Hammah is recited whenever the vernal equinox occurs at the very beginning of the fourth day of the week. At the time of the equinox day and night are equal in duration, each being twelve hours in length. Since in the Jewish calendar each day begins with nightfall the beginning of the fourth day is 6:00 P.M. Tuesday evening.

Terumat ha-Deshen, Pesakim u-Ketavim, no. 105, regards the permissibility of causing suffering to animals for the benefit of mankind to be inherent in the biblical dispensation granting man the right to use animals for his needs.⁴⁰This concept is echoed in Psalms 8:7-9 which says of man: “Thou hast made him to have dominion over the works of Thy hands; Thou hast put all things under his feet. Sheep and oxen, all of them, yea, and the beasts of the field. The fowl of the air, and the fish of the sea; whatsoever passeth through the paths of the seas.”
As evidenced by numerous biblical verses, it is clear that man is granted license to utilize animals as beasts of burden, for agricultural purposes, as a means of transportation and the like. Judaism also accepts the view that animals were created for the benefit of mankind. Thus, the Gemara, Berakhot 6b, reports: R. Eleazar said, “The Holy One, blessed be He, declared, ‘The whole world in its entirety was not created other than on behalf of this [human species].’ ” Even more explicit is the statement of R. Simeon ben Eleazar, Kiddushin 82b, declaring, “… they [animals] were not created other than to serve me.” This view is not contradicted by the position espoused by Rambam in a celebrated dispute with Sa‘adia Ga’on in which Rambam denies the homocentric nature of the universe. The Book of Beliefs and Opinions, Treatise IV, introduction, asserts that man is the intended and ultimate purpose of creation; Rambam, Guide, Book III, chapter 13, challenges this view, pointing out that the human species has no need for a great part of the cosmos. Rambam maintains that all parts of the world are equally intended by the divine will but acknowledges that certain beings were created for the service of others. Thus, in Rambam’s view, there is no contradiction in acknowledging that service to other species is the instrumental purpose of some creatures while yet affirming their own existence as the final cause of those creatures. R. Moses Sofer, Hagahot Hatam Sofer, Baba Mezi'a 32b,⁴¹See also Teshuvot Ḥatam Sofer, Ḥoshen Mishpat, no. 185, s.v. ma she-katavata me-Rabad; cf., however, Teshuvot Ḥatam Sofer, Yoreh De‘ah, no. 314 s.v. omnam; and Teshuvot Imrei Shefer, no. 34, sec. 2. cites the divine declaration to Adam and Eve, "… and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that creepeth upon the earth" (Genesis 1:28),⁴²Terumat ha-Deshen rules that, as a matter of law, it is permissible to cause pain to animals even for the esthetic pleasure of man, and, accordingly, permits clipping the ears and tail of a dog “in order to beautify it.” Cf., however, Sefer Ḥasidim (ed. Mekiẓei Nirdamim), no. 589, who forbids any attempt to effect a “change” in correcting a congenital anomaly in a limb or organ of an animal on grounds that such a procedure constitutes a violation of the prohibition against ẓa‘ar ba‘alei ḥayyim. In an even more general statement, Da‘at Kedoshim, Yoreh De‘ah 24:12, declares that acts which cause discomfort to animals are permissible in order to satisfy “any desire of man even if his desire in this regard is not in accordance with the weighing of need or benefit but only a desire without a proper reason.” The same authority permits such procedures even if there is only the mere possibility that the need or desire may be satisfied thereby. See also Da‘at Kedoshim, Yoreh De‘ah 23:28. A similar view is expressed by Ezer mi-Kodesh, Even ha-Ezer 5:14. Cf., however, below, note 67. as establishing man's absolute and unlimited mastery over the animal kingdom.⁴³Cf., however, Sefer Ḥasidim (ed. Reuben Margulies), no. 666, who applies Genesis 1:28 in a radically different manner. Sefer Ḥasidim remarks that Adam was forbidden to eat the flesh of animals but was granted dominion over them, whereas the sons of Noah were permitted to eat the flesh of animals but were not granted dominion over them. According to Sefer Ḥasidim, it is because the sons of Noah were not granted dominion over animals that the angel chastised Balaam in demanding, “Wherefore has thou smitten thine ass these three times?” (Numbers 22:32). As pointed out by R. Reuben Margulies in his commentary on Sefer Ḥasidim, Mekor Ḥesed 666:7, Sefer Ḥasidim obviously maintains that Noachides are forbidden to engage in acts involving ẓa‘ar ba‘alei ḥayyim. As indicated earlier, Rambam also cites Numbers 22:32 as the source of the prohibition against ẓa‘ar ba‘alei ḥayyim. Hence there is some reason to assume that Rambam also maintains that ẓa‘ar ba‘alei ḥayyim is prohibited to Noachides. Teshuvot Imrei Shefer, no. 34, sec. 2 and sec. 8, also suggests that Noachides may be bound by strictures concerning ẓa‘ar ba‘alei ḥayyim which, in his opinion, may be encompassed in the prohibition contained in the Noachide Code concerning the eating of a limb torn from a living animal. See, however, Pri Megadim, Oraḥ Ḥayyim, Mishbeẓot Zahav 467:2 and R. Shalom Mordecai Schwadron, Teshuvot Maharsham, II, no. 364, who apparently maintain that non-Jews are not bound by strictures concerning ẓa‘ar ba‘alei ḥayyim. See also Toldot Ya‘akov, Yoreh De‘ah, no. 33. R. Judah Leib Graubart, Havalim ba-Ne'imim, I, no. 43, sec. 3, advances an identical argument on the basis of Genesis 9:1-2: "And God blessed Noah and his sons…. And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, and upon all wherewith the ground teemeth, and upon all the fishes of the sea: into your hand are they delivered."

From the roots of the commandment are that it is known that magic is a very bad thing and causes many mishaps to people. I do not have to write at length about it, as the things are well-known. And therefore we were commanded to put away from the world someone who makes efforts with this, as he is coming against the will of God, as He desires [the world's] settlement and that everything should be administered in a natural way. As nature was at the beginning of creation and this one wants to change everything. And according to my opinion, the matter of magic is that at the beginning of creation, God, blessed be He, placed for each and every thing in the world a nature [through which] to accomplish its action well and straight, for the good of the creatures of the world that He created; and He commanded each one to act according to its species, as it is written about all the creatures, in Parshat Bereshit (Genesis 1:12), “according to its species.” And He also made a higher force govern each and every one from above, to compel it to perform its action; as they, may their memory be blessed, said (Bereshit Rabbah 1), “There is no [blade of] grass below that does not have a constellation above that tells it, 'Grow!'”And besides the action that each and every one does according to its nature, there is another action that they have, by mixing one specie with another. And in the craft of this mixing there are some angles that were not permitted for people to utilize, because God knows that the end result that will come out for people from these angles will be bad for them. And on account of this, He prevented them from them. And this is what they, may their memory be blessed, said more generally (Shabbat 67b), “Anything that has healing in it does not have the 'ways of the Amorite' in it”; meaning to say, it should not be forbidden from the perspective of magic – since there is a benefit to it that is found from true experience, it is not from the forbidden angles, as they are only forbidden because of the perspective of their damage. And there is another matter in these forbidden angles of mixture and machinations for which they were forbidden. [It is] because the power of this mixture is so strong that it negates the power of the constellations that are assigned upon the two species. And the illustration of this is that it is just like that which you see with the grafting of one specie with a different one, that a new third specie is created. It comes out that the grafting negates the power of both of them. And so we have been prevented from bringing up to our minds to switch the perfect acts of God, even if something that appears to be pleasing comes out in our hand.

And about the reason that water purifies everything impure, I would think on the side of the simple understanding that it is in order that a man see himself with the immersion as if he is created at that time, [just] like the whole world was water before man was upon it - as it is written (Genesis 1:2), "and the spirit of God floated upon the face of the waters." And through this comparison, he place upon his heart that [just] like he is renewed in his body, he also renew his actions for the good, fix his actions and be exacting in the way of God, blessed be He. And therefore the Sages said that the purification is not fit with water that is in a vessel, but rather only with living water - or collected [water], which is on the ground and, in any case, not in a vessel - in order to place in his heart the thought as if the world was entirely water, and [that] he is renewed with his emerging from them, as we said. But if the water was in a vessel - or even if it passed through a vessel - this matter that we said would not be set in the thought of the one immersing. As there is a limit to all that is in a vessel, which is the creation of the hands of man. And therefore when he immerses in a vessel, he will not think as if the whole world is water like at the beginning [of Creation], and that he is renewed at that time. 'And the one who accepts, will accept; and the one who refrains will refrain.'

It is from the roots of the commandment that God, blessed be He, created His world with wisdom, with understanding and with knowledge, and [so] He made and formed all of the forms according to that which it was fitting for its matter to be, to be designed [according to] the design of the world - and blessed is He that knows [this]. And this is what is stated about the story of creation (Genesis 1:31), "And God saw everything that He had done, and behold, it was very good." And His seeing, blessed be He, is His knowledge and contemplation about things; as He, blessed be He, does not need seeing things with the eye after the act, due to His great level; since everything is revealed and known and apparent in front of Him before the act, [just] like after the act. But the Torah speaks to people with words directed to them, and it calls things by the name of things that are aimed at them, as it only possible to speak with a creature with what is known to him - as who can understand what he does not have the power to understand? And about what is similar to this, they, may their memory be blessed, said (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 19:18:2), [it is] in order to break [to assuage] the ear to that which it can hear. And in that God knew that everything He made was designed perfectly for its matter that it needed in His world, He commanded to each and every specie to make its 'fruit' for its specie - as it is written in the Order of Bereshit - and that the species not mix, lest it will take away from their perfection and He [therefore] not command His blessing upon them. And according to what it seems in our thoughts, it is from this root that we were prevented from mating beasts [in a] forbidden mixture. And likewise from this reason were we warned about this, combined with another reason that we already wrote about species of seeds and trees (Sefer HaChinukh 62).

2 Masekhet Soferim has different definitions: a petuha is anything which does not start at the head of the line. A setuma is anything that stops in the middle of the line. How much must be left at the beginning of the line for it to be called a petuha? Enough to write a word of three letters. How much must be left in the middle of the line for it to be called a setuma? Enough to write a word of three letters. [End Masekhet Soferim quote.] Suppose he finished a paragraph at the edge of the page and started a new line, and left enough space at the beginning of that line to write three letters, and then started to write? Come and learn from the two sources; the baraita gives the essence of the issue. The baraita reasons that the beginning of the line is what determines a petuha, not the end of the line [so the example case is a petuha according to the baraita]; if one leaves a gap at the beginning and also at the end of the line, it is still a petuha. But the old siddur reasons that it is the end of the line that determines a petuha, not the beginning of the line [so the example case is a setuma according to the baraita]. [To avoid ambiguity, therefore...] if he makes a petuha with space both at the end of the line and at the beginning of the line it is good for both of them. This is correct. There is also another order of petuhot and setumot which seems entirely unconvincing. And these are the tagin of a sefer Torah and the petuhot and setumot according to the masoretic tradition. ביה שמו: the following words should be placed at the beginning of a line and the top of a column: Bereshit (Gen. 1:1); Yehudah ata yodukha (Gen. 49:8); Haba-im ahareihem bayam (Ex. 14:28); Shemor ve-shamarta (Deut. 12:28); Motza sefateikha (Deut. 23:24); Ve-a'ida bam (Deut. 31:28).

2. At Shacharit, we take out three Torah scrolls. From the first, we read from "And this is the blessing" [Deuteronomy 33:1] until the end of the Torah. From the second, we read "In the beginning" [Genesis 1:1] until "that God made" [2:3]. In the third we read "On Shmini Atzeret" [Numbers 29:35]. The haftarah is "And after Moses died" [Joshua 1:1]. In places where they do two days of Yom Tov, they only take two Torah scrolls out on the first day, reading five sections from Re'eh from the first from "every firstborn" [Deuteronomy 15:1]. If it is Shabbat, they read seven and start at "You should tithe" [14:22]. The maftir reads from the second Torah "On Shmini Atzeret." The haftarah is from Kings, "When Solomon finished..." [Kings I 8:1]. The Torah scrolls are returned. We say Kaddish and then announce [the addition of] "who makes the wind blow and the rain fall."

The Order of Simchat Torah: In places where they do two days of Yom Tov, Kiddush on the ninth night includes Shehecheyanu. The next day, we take out three Torah scrolls. From the first, we read "And this is the blessing" [Deuteronomy 33:1] until the end of the Torah. From the second, we read from "In the beginning" [Genesis 1:1] until "that God made" [2:3]. From the third, the maftir reads the same as the previous day. The haftarah is "After Moses died" [Joshua 1:1]. Rem"a: The last day of Yom Tov is called "Simchat Torah" because we rejoice on it, making a festive meal in honor of the finishing of the Torah. It is customary for the person who finishes the Torah and the one who starts Genesis to make a donation and invite everybody to a party (Tur). It is customary in these countries to take all of the Torahs out of the Ark on Simchat Torah at night and in the morning and to sing songs and praises. Every place should follow its customs. It is also the custom to circle the synagogue's Bimah with the Torah scrolls just like we circle with the lulav. This is all done out of joy. It is also the custom to have many readers from the Torah. We read the same section many times, and this is not forbidden (Minhagim, Rivas"h 84). It is also the custom to call up all of the children to the Torah and to read "the angel who has redeemed me..." [Genesis 48:6]. In the evening, we read the special sections from the Torah that are normally auctioned off, every place according to its custom. It is also the custom that even a child can finish off the Torah, even though there are those who say that specifically a scholar should finish it (Mordechai's small notes). Nowadays when the chazzan does the actual reading, there is no issue (his own opinion). In a place with only two Torah scrolls, we read "And this is the blessing" from the first, "In the beginning" from the second, and then we go back and reuse the first for the section associated with the day. This is done whenever three Torahs are needed but there are only two (found written somewhere).