גַּם־זֹ֕את מֵעִ֛ם יְהוָ֥ה צְבָא֖וֹת יָצָ֑אָה הִפְלִ֣יא עֵצָ֔ה הִגְדִּ֖יל תּוּשִׁיָּֽה׃ (ס)
이도 만군의 여호와께로서 난 것이라 그의 모략은 기묘하며 지혜는 광대하니라
Haamek Sheilah
BECAUSE OF THE DIVINE NATURE OF THE PROPHETS AND HAGIOGRAPHA, THEY HAD TO BE WRITTEN IN A PARTICULAR STYLE
THE EXPLANATION GIVEN above, however, is still not clear. Can it be that because God burdens [the people of Israel] with the twenty-four Books of the Prophets and the Hagiographa, [this prevents] them from sinning? Further, what kind of burden is this? [The burden of learning the twenty-four books] is unlike the toiling that is described in Tractate Betzah 25b, which we previously discussed [in the last chapter]. It was because of [the stubborn nature of the people of Israel] that they were commanded to toil in the study of Torah day and night, even beyond that which was needed to know how to practice, for this would weaken1Literally, “pluck the strength [of their evil inclination].” the strength [of their evil inclination] and soften their heart of stone. The Oral Law is called Tushiyah2Prov 3:21, 8:14, etc. Though this word is usually translated as “counsel” or “understanding,” it is linked here to the word mateshes – “weakens” (the body or the evil inclination). See Tractate Sanhedrin 26b, “[Pertaining to the verse (Isa. 28:29), ‘Wonderful is His tushiyyah, His counsel, great is His wisdom.’ R. Hanan said, Why is the Torah called tushiyyah? Because it weakens the strength of man.’” On Prov. 2:7, the Gaon of Vilna says that it weakens the evil inclination. because the light it contains [causes one] to return to the right [path]. However, by [merely] increasing the quantity of the Written Torah, no additional burden would be imposed [to occupy the Jewish people so as to prevent them from sinning].3The Netziv argues that the Prophets and Hagiographa do not require the kind of intense study necessary in learning the Oral Law. Another problem is that the wording of R. Hunia’s statement in Koheles Rabbah does not read well. What connection is there between toiling in the study of the Prophets and Hagiographa and the performance of precepts and righteous acts?4Also “charitable acts.”
THE EXPLANATION GIVEN above, however, is still not clear. Can it be that because God burdens [the people of Israel] with the twenty-four Books of the Prophets and the Hagiographa, [this prevents] them from sinning? Further, what kind of burden is this? [The burden of learning the twenty-four books] is unlike the toiling that is described in Tractate Betzah 25b, which we previously discussed [in the last chapter]. It was because of [the stubborn nature of the people of Israel] that they were commanded to toil in the study of Torah day and night, even beyond that which was needed to know how to practice, for this would weaken1Literally, “pluck the strength [of their evil inclination].” the strength [of their evil inclination] and soften their heart of stone. The Oral Law is called Tushiyah2Prov 3:21, 8:14, etc. Though this word is usually translated as “counsel” or “understanding,” it is linked here to the word mateshes – “weakens” (the body or the evil inclination). See Tractate Sanhedrin 26b, “[Pertaining to the verse (Isa. 28:29), ‘Wonderful is His tushiyyah, His counsel, great is His wisdom.’ R. Hanan said, Why is the Torah called tushiyyah? Because it weakens the strength of man.’” On Prov. 2:7, the Gaon of Vilna says that it weakens the evil inclination. because the light it contains [causes one] to return to the right [path]. However, by [merely] increasing the quantity of the Written Torah, no additional burden would be imposed [to occupy the Jewish people so as to prevent them from sinning].3The Netziv argues that the Prophets and Hagiographa do not require the kind of intense study necessary in learning the Oral Law. Another problem is that the wording of R. Hunia’s statement in Koheles Rabbah does not read well. What connection is there between toiling in the study of the Prophets and Hagiographa and the performance of precepts and righteous acts?4Also “charitable acts.”
Pat Lechem
Two forms of strain are needed in the study of [torah] wisdom. One, that a person is required to be imprisoned in the prison of the study halls of wisdom, to be constantly entrenched at the feet of the sages, as the talmud says: "it (the torah) is not to be found among merchants and dealers" (Eruvin 55a), and likewise in Shabbos (120a) on the verse "I will not be a chovesh (binder up)" [the talmud expounds:] "I will not be of those who shut themselves up in the Beit Hamidrash (house of torah study)". Two, the strain of the learning itself, as the talmud says (Sanhedrin 26b): "why is the torah called tushia (in Isaiah 28:29)? Because it weakens the strength of man [through constant study]".
Tosafot Yom Tov
TEN THINGS WERE CREATED AT THE DUSK OF THE SABBATH, AND THEY ARE: THE MOUTH OF THE EARTH, ETC. Rambam: the Sages do not believe that G-d’s will is renewed every moment. Rather, when He first created things he made their natures such that whatever should happen to them will happen, whether that should be something constant, which we call natural, or some unusual thing that happens infrequently, which we call miraculous. They therefore said that on the sixth day He put it into the nature of the earth that Korach and his followers should be swallowed up by it, into the nature of the well that it should give forth water, into the nature of the donkey that she should speak, and so on. One might object that if all miracles were implanted into the nature of things during the six days of creation, why does the mishna single out these ten things? You should know, in answer to this, that they did not single them out because no miracles other than these were implanted into the nature of things. They meant simply that these were the only things that were put in during dusk, whereas the other miracles were put into the nature of things from the very beginning, at the moment they were made. They would say, for example, that when the waters were divided on the second day, it was made part of their nature that the Red Sea should part for Moses, and the Jordan for Joshua and Elisha. And when the sun was created on the fourth day, it was made part of its nature that it should stop in its orbit at a given time when spoken to by Joshua. This is so for all other miracles aside from these ten, which were put into the nature of those things during dusk.
He clarifies this further in his book the Guide for the Perplexed, 2:29. There, after quoting the midrash that says G-d stipulated with the sea that it should split for Israel and with all of what was created during the six days similarly (Bereshit Rabbah 5:5), he concludes: when G-d has a prophet perform a sign he tells him the moment at which what he is saying will come to pass, and it happens in accordance with the nature that was implanted into the thing.
But there is great difficulty with this position, for Moses said to Pharaoh, “for what time should I entreat for you… to excise the frogs” (Exodus 8:5), and Isaiah said, “request a sign from Hashem, your G-d, request it in the depths or high above” (Isaiah 7:11). And Gideon’s request of the sign with the wool involved two opposing possibilities (Judges 6:36). Midrash Shmuel writes in the name of Meiri that the Sages do not believe that these stipulations the midrash refers to were made in the permanent nature of the thing that was acted upon; they were undoubtedly speaking from the perspective of the Actor and His will. They mean to say that there was no change in His will, G-d forbid, for at the moment that He created the heavens and the earth and all that is within them His knowledge encompassed and included all of the things that would happen in the future; He knew that there would come a point at which He would change the nature of a particular created thing, and He created it with that in mind. The act of the miracle, therefore, was not a change in His knowledge or a new element in His will, etc.
This means that all the signs were created and done at that particular moment in time, and were not implanted into nature such that they should come into existence and be done at that moment. And although His knowledge already encompassed them we have already noted above on the mishna of “all is seen”, 3:15, that His knowledge does not turn the possible into the necessary. As such, all miracles depend on what a person chooses from among the things that are possible, as they are all done for people.
And I say that, just as Rambam resolves the paradox of “all is seen, but permission is given” using the verse “for My thoughts are not your thoughts” (Isaiah 55:8), as I wrote on the mishna at 3:15, I will likewise answer that the end of that verse itself is the resolution of the great paradox inherent in the subject of miracles. For there is no change in His will, which is the meaning of the end of the verse, “and your ways are not My ways” (ibid.). His “ways” are His actions, as Moses said, “make Your ways known to me” (Exodus 33:13), which are His actions and administration of the world. When Isaiah says “your ways are not My ways” he means that you should not understand My ways in terms of your ways, and then this great paradox will not arise. Rambam himself writes in the Guide for the Perplexed at the end of 3:20: the terms supervision, knowledge, and intent when said of G-d are not the same as when said of us. When these different kinds of supervision, knowledge, and intent are conflated and treated as though they are the same, the abovementioned paradoxes arise. But when it becomes clear that whatever is said of us differs from what is said of Him, the truth becomes clear. And the prophet told us of the difference between the things said of Him and of us when he said “and your ways are not My ways.”
It also seems from his language in the above-quoted segment from Guide for the Perplexed 2:29210There, Rambam calls the words of the midrash “strange,” though a better translation might be “extroardinary.” that although he explains the opinion of the Sages that way, it is not his own. It suffices for us that we have rescued Rambam, at least as far as his own opinion, even if we cannot rescue him regarding the opinion he attributes to the Sages.
But I say that the opinion of Meiri is that of the Sages as well and is not foreign to them, G-d forbid—it emerges clearly from explicit verses in the Tanach which every elementary schooler knows. When they say these things were created at the dusk of the Sabbath they are speaking only of His knowledge, like the mishna of “all is seen”, as Meiri says. As for their saying that G-d stipulated with the sea during the six days of creation that it should split, I feel that this is not at all about refuting the notion of a change in His will. Rather, this dictum is of the same tenor as the one on the verse “on the sixth day” that I quoted earlier in my commentary to 2:8, which says that G-d stipulated with all of creation that it only continue if the Jewish people accept the five books of the Torah. This has nothing to do with the nature of the created things, and speaks rather about the purpose of the creation of the world, which was only created for the Jewish people to receive the Torah; should they not accept it, the world will return to “formlessness and void”, for it was only created for this purpose. All of the conditions mentioned in the midrash were said in the same vein, using language that emphasized the merit and great importance of Israel. G-d stipulated with the sea during creation that it part for Israel, as it is for that purpose that He created the sea; and with the sun that is stand still for Joshua, as it is for that purpose that it was created.
They thus conveyed to us one of the fundamentals of faith: that everything was created solely for Israel, which accords with the midrash that says “ ‘In the beginning’—for the sake of Israel, who are called ‘the beginning’ “ (Vayikra Rabbah 36:4) and numerous other dicta that speak the praises and merits of Israel. Now we do not deny that, in saying this, they also meant that He knows the conclusions of things at their beginnings and sees the end of something from the very first moment, but only insofar as this is the nature of His knowledge, as in “all is seen”. But it was not their primary intent to rid us of the mistaken notion that His will and knowledge are subject to change, for they never entertained these ideas to begin with, as Isaiah the prophet already removed the confusion surrounding this by saying “My thoughts are not your thoughts, and your ways are not My ways,” meaning that they are not to be compared at all, which will prevent us from falling into the paradox. And in using the language “G-d stipulated” they meant the same thing as the midrash on “the sixth day”.
Our master Maharal offers “wondrous counsel and great wisdom” (cf. Isaiah 28:29) in Derech Chaim to negate this question altogether. He says that “knowledge” and “ability” and such are all actions of G-d, just as “and G-d knew” (Exodus 2:25) was an action of G-d. Just as the other actions attributed to Him do not necessitate a change or plurality within Him, neither do these, and in these matters we rely on the Kabbalah. See there.
He clarifies this further in his book the Guide for the Perplexed, 2:29. There, after quoting the midrash that says G-d stipulated with the sea that it should split for Israel and with all of what was created during the six days similarly (Bereshit Rabbah 5:5), he concludes: when G-d has a prophet perform a sign he tells him the moment at which what he is saying will come to pass, and it happens in accordance with the nature that was implanted into the thing.
But there is great difficulty with this position, for Moses said to Pharaoh, “for what time should I entreat for you… to excise the frogs” (Exodus 8:5), and Isaiah said, “request a sign from Hashem, your G-d, request it in the depths or high above” (Isaiah 7:11). And Gideon’s request of the sign with the wool involved two opposing possibilities (Judges 6:36). Midrash Shmuel writes in the name of Meiri that the Sages do not believe that these stipulations the midrash refers to were made in the permanent nature of the thing that was acted upon; they were undoubtedly speaking from the perspective of the Actor and His will. They mean to say that there was no change in His will, G-d forbid, for at the moment that He created the heavens and the earth and all that is within them His knowledge encompassed and included all of the things that would happen in the future; He knew that there would come a point at which He would change the nature of a particular created thing, and He created it with that in mind. The act of the miracle, therefore, was not a change in His knowledge or a new element in His will, etc.
This means that all the signs were created and done at that particular moment in time, and were not implanted into nature such that they should come into existence and be done at that moment. And although His knowledge already encompassed them we have already noted above on the mishna of “all is seen”, 3:15, that His knowledge does not turn the possible into the necessary. As such, all miracles depend on what a person chooses from among the things that are possible, as they are all done for people.
And I say that, just as Rambam resolves the paradox of “all is seen, but permission is given” using the verse “for My thoughts are not your thoughts” (Isaiah 55:8), as I wrote on the mishna at 3:15, I will likewise answer that the end of that verse itself is the resolution of the great paradox inherent in the subject of miracles. For there is no change in His will, which is the meaning of the end of the verse, “and your ways are not My ways” (ibid.). His “ways” are His actions, as Moses said, “make Your ways known to me” (Exodus 33:13), which are His actions and administration of the world. When Isaiah says “your ways are not My ways” he means that you should not understand My ways in terms of your ways, and then this great paradox will not arise. Rambam himself writes in the Guide for the Perplexed at the end of 3:20: the terms supervision, knowledge, and intent when said of G-d are not the same as when said of us. When these different kinds of supervision, knowledge, and intent are conflated and treated as though they are the same, the abovementioned paradoxes arise. But when it becomes clear that whatever is said of us differs from what is said of Him, the truth becomes clear. And the prophet told us of the difference between the things said of Him and of us when he said “and your ways are not My ways.”
It also seems from his language in the above-quoted segment from Guide for the Perplexed 2:29210There, Rambam calls the words of the midrash “strange,” though a better translation might be “extroardinary.” that although he explains the opinion of the Sages that way, it is not his own. It suffices for us that we have rescued Rambam, at least as far as his own opinion, even if we cannot rescue him regarding the opinion he attributes to the Sages.
But I say that the opinion of Meiri is that of the Sages as well and is not foreign to them, G-d forbid—it emerges clearly from explicit verses in the Tanach which every elementary schooler knows. When they say these things were created at the dusk of the Sabbath they are speaking only of His knowledge, like the mishna of “all is seen”, as Meiri says. As for their saying that G-d stipulated with the sea during the six days of creation that it should split, I feel that this is not at all about refuting the notion of a change in His will. Rather, this dictum is of the same tenor as the one on the verse “on the sixth day” that I quoted earlier in my commentary to 2:8, which says that G-d stipulated with all of creation that it only continue if the Jewish people accept the five books of the Torah. This has nothing to do with the nature of the created things, and speaks rather about the purpose of the creation of the world, which was only created for the Jewish people to receive the Torah; should they not accept it, the world will return to “formlessness and void”, for it was only created for this purpose. All of the conditions mentioned in the midrash were said in the same vein, using language that emphasized the merit and great importance of Israel. G-d stipulated with the sea during creation that it part for Israel, as it is for that purpose that He created the sea; and with the sun that is stand still for Joshua, as it is for that purpose that it was created.
They thus conveyed to us one of the fundamentals of faith: that everything was created solely for Israel, which accords with the midrash that says “ ‘In the beginning’—for the sake of Israel, who are called ‘the beginning’ “ (Vayikra Rabbah 36:4) and numerous other dicta that speak the praises and merits of Israel. Now we do not deny that, in saying this, they also meant that He knows the conclusions of things at their beginnings and sees the end of something from the very first moment, but only insofar as this is the nature of His knowledge, as in “all is seen”. But it was not their primary intent to rid us of the mistaken notion that His will and knowledge are subject to change, for they never entertained these ideas to begin with, as Isaiah the prophet already removed the confusion surrounding this by saying “My thoughts are not your thoughts, and your ways are not My ways,” meaning that they are not to be compared at all, which will prevent us from falling into the paradox. And in using the language “G-d stipulated” they meant the same thing as the midrash on “the sixth day”.
Our master Maharal offers “wondrous counsel and great wisdom” (cf. Isaiah 28:29) in Derech Chaim to negate this question altogether. He says that “knowledge” and “ability” and such are all actions of G-d, just as “and G-d knew” (Exodus 2:25) was an action of G-d. Just as the other actions attributed to Him do not necessitate a change or plurality within Him, neither do these, and in these matters we rely on the Kabbalah. See there.