וַיַּ֤רְא אֱלֹהִים֙ אֶת־כָּל־אֲשֶׁ֣ר עָשָׂ֔ה וְהִנֵּה־ט֖וֹב מְאֹ֑ד וַֽיְהִי־עֶ֥רֶב וַֽיְהִי־בֹ֖קֶר י֥וֹם הַשִּׁשִּֽׁי׃ (פ)
하나님이 그 지으신 모든 것을 보시니 보시기에 심히 좋았더라 저녁이 되며 아침이 되니 이는 여섯째 날이니라
Rashbam
בראשית ברא אלוקים, let the “intellectuals” realize that all the words of our sages and their interpretations are true and accurate. This is what the Talmud (Shabbat 63) had in mind when it quoted Rav Kahane saying that he had studied the Talmud until the age of 18 and had not yet appreciated that although the laws of the Torah are derived from the text, none of the interpretations are such that they can uproot the plain meaning of the text. They are based on anomalies in the text, not on the text itself wherever the law derived from the Torah appears to conflict with the plain meaning of the text. One example is Genesis 2,4 where the word בהבראם, a most unusual construction, used by the sages to declare that the world was created “for the sake of, or with the help of אברהם,” (Bereshit Rabbah 12,9) seeing that the letters in that word are the same as the ones in the name אברהם, [though in a different sequence. Ed.]
I shall list the explanations of earlier commentators of old, in order to demonstrate why I did not follow in their footsteps. Some scholars understand the first verse to mean that “at the beginning G’d created heaven and earth.” This is an erroneous explanation, seeing that water preceded the creation of heaven and earth as we know from verse 2 where “the spirit of G’d” is described as already “hovering over the surface of the water.” Moreover, the Torah did not write בראשונה, which would have been appropriate if it had wanted to tell us that heaven and earth preceded all other phenomena in the universe. The word בראשית is in a construct mode, as in Genesis 10,10 ותהי ראשית ממלכתו בבל “the mainstay of his kingdom was Babylon.” A construct mode like this cannot describe the commencement of something but refers to something already in existence. As to the scholars who understand the word as equivalent to the word תחלה in Hoseah 1,2 i.e. so that it would mean “at the beginning G’d created the heaven,” i.e. before He created heaven and earth there was chaos, darkness on the face of the water, etc., so that it emerges that water had been created first, this too is nonsense. How could the Torah refer to a state of the earth prior to creation of the heaven?
The plain meaning of the text is, as occurs many times, that something may be mentioned first in one instance although elsewhere this same phenomenon is mentioned as having occurred at a later stage. In Genesis 9,18 we are told about the three sons of Noach who left the ark after the deluge being Shem, Cham and Yephet, and the Torah adds that Cham was the father of Canaan. Although the information about Canaan is quite out of place at this juncture, the fact that later on the Torah tells us that Noach cursed Canaan, makes it necessary to mention him here, as otherwise we would not have known who this Canaan was whom Noachh cursed in verse 25 of the same chapter. We have a similar situation in Genesis 35,22 where, although Reuven’s conduct with Yaakov’s concubine Bilhah is mentioned, Yaakov’s reaction is not mentioned until shortly before his death when he explains why Reuven had not been viewed by him as suitable to occupy the position normally accorded to a firstborn (Genesis 49,3-4). In 35,22 the Torah already tells us that Yaakov had heard about what Reuven had done. Had the Torah not done so, the reader would have been taken aback at Yaakov’s remonstrating with Reuven at this late stage.
There are many such examples. Our entire paragraph here was written by Moses in order for us to understand what is written in the Ten Commandments concerning the reason why the Sabbath is holy, i.e. that it is a symbol reminding us of the fact that G’d created the universe in 6 days and rested on the seventh day. (Exodus 20,10) If anyone were to think that the universe as such had already existed then in the format that we see it now, the Torah corrects such thinking by continuing with
I shall list the explanations of earlier commentators of old, in order to demonstrate why I did not follow in their footsteps. Some scholars understand the first verse to mean that “at the beginning G’d created heaven and earth.” This is an erroneous explanation, seeing that water preceded the creation of heaven and earth as we know from verse 2 where “the spirit of G’d” is described as already “hovering over the surface of the water.” Moreover, the Torah did not write בראשונה, which would have been appropriate if it had wanted to tell us that heaven and earth preceded all other phenomena in the universe. The word בראשית is in a construct mode, as in Genesis 10,10 ותהי ראשית ממלכתו בבל “the mainstay of his kingdom was Babylon.” A construct mode like this cannot describe the commencement of something but refers to something already in existence. As to the scholars who understand the word as equivalent to the word תחלה in Hoseah 1,2 i.e. so that it would mean “at the beginning G’d created the heaven,” i.e. before He created heaven and earth there was chaos, darkness on the face of the water, etc., so that it emerges that water had been created first, this too is nonsense. How could the Torah refer to a state of the earth prior to creation of the heaven?
The plain meaning of the text is, as occurs many times, that something may be mentioned first in one instance although elsewhere this same phenomenon is mentioned as having occurred at a later stage. In Genesis 9,18 we are told about the three sons of Noach who left the ark after the deluge being Shem, Cham and Yephet, and the Torah adds that Cham was the father of Canaan. Although the information about Canaan is quite out of place at this juncture, the fact that later on the Torah tells us that Noach cursed Canaan, makes it necessary to mention him here, as otherwise we would not have known who this Canaan was whom Noachh cursed in verse 25 of the same chapter. We have a similar situation in Genesis 35,22 where, although Reuven’s conduct with Yaakov’s concubine Bilhah is mentioned, Yaakov’s reaction is not mentioned until shortly before his death when he explains why Reuven had not been viewed by him as suitable to occupy the position normally accorded to a firstborn (Genesis 49,3-4). In 35,22 the Torah already tells us that Yaakov had heard about what Reuven had done. Had the Torah not done so, the reader would have been taken aback at Yaakov’s remonstrating with Reuven at this late stage.
There are many such examples. Our entire paragraph here was written by Moses in order for us to understand what is written in the Ten Commandments concerning the reason why the Sabbath is holy, i.e. that it is a symbol reminding us of the fact that G’d created the universe in 6 days and rested on the seventh day. (Exodus 20,10) If anyone were to think that the universe as such had already existed then in the format that we see it now, the Torah corrects such thinking by continuing with
Kli Yakar
And it seems to resolve this version, according to what our Sages said (Shabbat 88a) that the extra “hei” [the] in the sixth day [in Genesis] is to teach that everything was contingent and suspended until the sixth day of Sivan — if Israel would accept the Torah, good, and if not, the world would return to chaos and void. Therefore, since we see today that the heavens and earth still exist and have not returned to chaos and void, this is conclusive proof that Israel accepted the Torah. And this is what it means when it says that He called the heavens and earth as witnesses, and what is the testimony they give? That they exist forever, for their continued existence provides reliable testimony from God that Israel has already accepted the Torah, because if not, they would not still be standing but would have already returned to chaos and void.
Malbim
The first kind of evil is that which is caused to man by the circumstance that he is subject to genesis and destruction, or that he possesses a body. It is on account of the body that some persons happen to have great deformities or paralysis of some of the organs. This evil may be part of the natural constitution of these persons, or may have developed subsequently in consequence of changes in the elements, e.g. through bad air, or thunderstorms or landslides. We have already shown that, in accordance with the divine wisdom, genesis can only take place through destruction, and without the destruction of the individual members of the species the species themselves would not exist permanently...He who thinks that he can have flesh and bones without being subject to any of the accidents of matter, unconsciously wishes to reconcile two opposites, viz., to be at the same time subject and not subject to change. If man were never subject to change there could be no generation; there would be one single being, but no individuals forming a species. Galen says correctly that it would be in vain to expect to see living beings formed from the blood of menstruous women and the semen virile, who will not die, will never feel pain, or will move perpetually, or shine like the sun. This dictum of Galen is part of the more general proposition:- Whatever is formed of any matter receives the most perfect form possible in that species of matter; in each individual case the defects are in accordance with the defects of that individual matter. The best and most perfect being that can be formed of the blood and the semen is the species of man... It is therefore impossible that man should be free from this species of evil. You will, nevertheless, find that the evils of the above kind which befall man are few and very rare.2Guide for the Perplexed. Part 3. Chapter 12. This same passage is quoted by Leibniz in his rejection of Pierre Bayle's argument that there is more bad than good in the world. Rosenbloom (p.168) suggests this might indicate that Malbim was familiar with Leibniz's Theodicy. Elsewhere, (glosses on Genesis 1:31) Malbim explains the origin of this dispute in epistemological terms:
Those who say that it [the world] is the best, do so on the basis of reason, for it is unimaginable that God would create other than the best...and God does not lack the wisdom to know what is the best nor the ability to make it...and so the world that He created is surely the very best that can be made...But those who say that the world is not the best possible, come to this conclusion by reason of sense perception and experience, seeing the defects in the world and the shortcomings and many evils to be found in it.
Those who say that it [the world] is the best, do so on the basis of reason, for it is unimaginable that God would create other than the best...and God does not lack the wisdom to know what is the best nor the ability to make it...and so the world that He created is surely the very best that can be made...But those who say that the world is not the best possible, come to this conclusion by reason of sense perception and experience, seeing the defects in the world and the shortcomings and many evils to be found in it.