OR HA CHAIM - PARASHA BERESHIT

 

PARASHA BERESHI – OR HACHAIM

1:1

With the help of the Creator of light, I will elucidate the explanation of the Torah, to unite His awesome name; Who made me from the beginning and advised and called upon me first, to work pleasantly first; I will begin to explain the Book of 'In the Beginning' (Genesis):

The heavens have open and I saw the vision of God, Creator of the ends of the earth, and I reflected upon that which I have been allowed to reflect upon in the unfolding of holy words; and my remark is from the East of (before) the Torah. His saying, "In the beginning of," [bears a] structure which is relational, as you would say 'the beginning of a thing, but here what ['the beginning of'] refers to is missing (beginning of what?). And who is like our God, who knows the thing (word), is the origin of the thing (word) not from Him?

He said it at the beginning of the order of the creation of the heavens; and the Rabbis, of blessed memory, explained that the word [shamayim (heavens)] is composed of two things esh (fire) and mayim (water); and from this, God forbid, it gives a hand to the sinners to say that [given that] this is the beginning of the creation, but [yet], God forbid, the Creator did not create the fire and water, since the verse itself informs us that the beginning of the creation was the heavens, and if the waters were created [and not pre-existing], it should have started with their creation. And the Sages, of blessed memory, (Chagigah) preempted these two observations and explained that the structure of the verse is as follows: In the beginning of the creation of the heavens and the earth, the earth was chaos, etc. - not that the heavens and earth was the beginning of the creations. But the words [of the Sages], of blessed memory's, were not enough to remove the [possibility of] error; since according to their words, why did scripture not inform us later of the creation of water and fire, and dirt and wind. And even though the verse (9) states, "and the waters gathered, etc. and the dry land appeared," it is not understood [from this] that it was created; and more justified is the understanding that it was pre-existing, but that [God] decreed upon it to be revealed when the water gathered.

There is what to be exact about, in that the verse wrote, "et hashamayim ve'et haarets" ("the heavens and the earth," which are both preceded by the Hebrew preposition, et which can either proceed a direct object or mean 'with,' and so, is often seen as indicating additional meaning); and what did the verse come to add with the two times it says et?

In fact, the intention of the verse is as follows; but first, 'I will rise with the sun' upon that which is placed in front of us from the greatness of the Creator - how great are his works! - since the Master, may He be blessed, can speak a word without it being understood by the creations. As they, of blessed memory, said (Mekhilta, Yitro) to explain the verse (Exodus 20:1), "And God spoke all of these words etc.," and this is what they said, "words that the mouth cannot speak;" and it [is a reference to] Him saying all of the ten commandments in one word, and [that] one word did not precede the other. ...

And with this, we will come to the explanation: and it is that the Master, may His name be exalted, created everything - all that He created in the world; places and all that exists, and the skies and the earth - in one word. And this is what it states, "Bereishit bara Elohim et hashamayim ve'et haarets" ("In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth"), and is exact to use the word et twice; to include all that is found in the world. And since the creations are numerous, as beyond the ten things that are recognizable and visible to everyone's eye - as were counted by the Sages, of blessed memory (Chagigah 12a), and this is what they said, "and ten things were created on the first day: heavens and earth, light, darkness, chaos and void, etc. water, wind" - besides these things, there are other creations that are hidden and absorbed by the powers of the foundational elements; some of them are recognized by way of dissection, some of the them by way of composition, some of them through the changing of time, some of them through the power of hyle, and [they] are too many to count. For this reason, the Creator grouped them into two large and enormous parts: in the havens and in the earth. And these are the two inclusions that were included in His saying "et hashamayim ve'et haarets," and in one proclamation did He, may He be exalted, create everything. And you will find that they, of blessed memory, said (Rosh Hashanah 32a), "[The word] 'In the beginning' [counts as a] proclamation [of creation], since with it were completed the ten proclamations with which the world was created (as there are only nine obvious proclamations of creation and this would be the tenth one)." Everything was created in the first of all [the proclamations] but it was not yet arranged, and all of the creations were there but they lacked order; and the Holy One, blessed be He, ordered them, each thing in its day: on the first day, He set up and separated the light from the darkness and the darkness acquired its place and the light acquired its place; and on the second day, etc.

And the trustworthy 'witness' to our explanation is that which the verse states (Genesis 2:3), "since upon it God rested from all of the work that He had created to make;" as this verse lacks understanding; and according to what we have explained, it comes 'like a precious chain,' as "since upon it He rested from all of the work that He had created" [refers to what He did] on the day of creation; "to make," [means] to refine, on the six days; like it states (Exodus 31:17), "since on six days, the Lord made, etc.," the explanation [of "made"] is refined; since the [actual] creation was created in one proclamation on the first day, except that everything was lacking refinement. To what is this thing similar? To someone who wants to build a palace and first prepares stones and wood and dirt and all of the building materials and afterwards builds the home; so [too] the Creator, may He be blessed, created all of the needs of the world with one proclamation, and He prepared it, and everything was laying piled up in a mixture; and afterwards, He started to organize each thing in its place and did His, may He be exalted, work.

And you will find that when He wanted to create the heavens, He said (verse 6), "let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters," [meaning] He set its place; but it was already created in the first proclamation. And so [too] with the earth (verse 9) "and the dry land appeared."

And [regarding] the fire, the refinement of which, God didn't mention at all, you should know that God did not reveal its source - like the revealing of the heavens and the earth and the water - because its source is strong; and from it, there [would be] destruction to the world if it had been found like the water and the earth; and the world would not be able to exist. For this [reason], the Holy One, blessed be He, left it in its place - where it was created by the first proclamation - absorbed in the flints; until man needed it and took out from them an amount [of fire] sufficient for him, as they, of blessed memory, said (Bereishit Rabbah 11), "therefore we make the blessing of 'who has created the lights of the fire' at the end of Shabbat." And by this, God also revealed the nature of the [primordial] mixture - that the sources and elements were mixed up at the time of their creation, before God set each one up, according to its station. For if [the concealment of fire in other objects] did not exist, man's mind would not be able to fathom the knowledge of how different substances could be mixed up; and all the more so, dirt and fire.

And it is true that the Creator could have included the ordering [of the various creations] in the first proclamation, but for many reason did He [not] do this; and the Rabbis, of blessed memory, revealed one of them, when they stated (Avot 5), "and is it not that He could have created [everything] in one proclamation, but He wanted to take payment [from sinners for a world created with ten statements rather than only one] etc. and to give payment to the righteous etc."

And let it not be difficult in your eyes, that they, of blessed memory, stated (Ibid.), "In ten proclamations was the world created" [and used the] word 'created;' since at the end of the day, anytime that [something] is missing refinement, it as if [it is not created]. For example, if the earth [did not emerge], there would be no place for the creations; and likewise with the other creations that were mixed up, like the light and the darkness. If so, all that is not refined is as if it is not created; for this reason [the various refinements reflected by the nine other proclamations] are also referred to as creation.

And let it not be difficult in your eyes, [as to] why the Torah wrote the main [narrative] of creation in this way, and did not explicitly write [that] God created the water and the dirt, and the fire and the wind, so that [by not doing the latter] 'the empty man would not be made wise.'

Know [that the answer is] that the Torah makes known and informs [us of] every hidden thing, and God wanted to make known 'the strength of his actions to his people' and make known to us the order of the creation and its manner, and that He - the Power, the Mighty, who is girded in strength - created everything that is and everything that exists, in one statement; and He wanted to make known to his close ones 'the strength of his deeds,' and did not prevent Himself from this good because of erring fools.

And there is also another reason which obligates the thing to be according to the discussed order, and it is that if the verse had [gone according] to the order desired by the silly ones, and that is that it would state that He created land and He created water, etc., it would have sounded as if He created them each, on its own; and according to the truth, it is not like that. And didn't you know that God has no desire for 'the speaker of lies and it cannot be established in front of His eyes.' And how could the 'beginning of His words,' God forbid, begin with words that are not correct? For this [reason], He spoke truth[fully about] the manner of the creation; as 'straight are the paths of God and the righteous will walk upon them' to thank and magnify the Creator, may He be blessed, and they will say to God, 'how awesome are your deeds.'

And He was exact to state 'In the beginning' and not to state 'At first' [in order to] 'tell the strength of His deeds to His people;' and that is, that according to what we wrote above - that He created everything with one statement - through that, we can deduce that One who can speak several statements all in one statement, also in one statement does not need to have one letter precede another. And from this, [we see] that when God said the word shamayim, He did not say the shin before the mem and not the first mem before the second mem; and also the letters of every single word, He did not have the beginning of the word precede its end; and also with each and every letter, He did not have its beginning [sound] precede its end.

And after God made known all of this to us, [we understand that] these are the things that God made known to us with the word, 'In the beginning,' the meaning [of which] is [that] everything is the beginning, since there was no later part of the creation, but [rather] everything was the beginning; and understand [this].

And the reason that the Master chose to create [the world] in this way [is that] - besides the reason that we stated, that He wanted to make known part of His, may He be blessed, great deeds - you will also find that when He, may He be blessed, speaks with strengths, which is the aspect that relates to the name Elohim, it is [appropriate] for the words to be spoken in this way (all together). And you will find that they, of blessed memory hinted to this (Makkot 24a) in their pleasant words, and this is what they said, "'I am' (the first commandment) and 'There shall not be' (the second commandment) were heard from the Strength;" [with this] they intended to say, in their sweet language, that the words that were heard in this aspect [of strength] - which is Elohim, which relates to strength - will speak like these words, many words together. And not specifically 'I am' and 'There shall not be,' but rather all of the Ten Commandments, [were spoken this way] as they have have stated in their words in another place (Mekhilta, Yitro); and behold, the creation from the creation story was created with the name Elohim for many reasons, and as a result He spoke in His way, may He be blessed, (according to this attribute) great and awesome words as we have written.

And in the way of midrashic (homiletic) interpretation, the word, 'In the beginning' is explained in the way of what the verse states (Psalms 33:6), "By the word of God, were the heavens made and by the breath of His mouth, all the hosts." And you should know that, may the name of our God be elevated, He did not create the angels until the second day in order that those in error should not err [and think] that they helped Him in the creation of the world. And as to the [Sages'] words (Bereishit Rabbah 1:3), of blessed memory, we need to elucidate how is it possible to say that the angels were created later; is it not that according to what the verse stated, "and by the breath of His mouth, all the hosts," that hosts of the sky were created from the breath that came from the mouth of the Highest, (as if it were possible [to say this]); if so, perforce, according to our [very] senses, the angels were created before the heavens and the earth; since the breath came out before the word [of God], and since the heavens and the earth were created from the word, behold the breath - from which the angels were created - already preceded it. And for this reason, the verse states, "In the beginning, created etc.;" the explanation [of which] is that God had the later - which is the speech - precede the breath; [which is] the opposite of what is known to us about the nature of speech. And he created the heavens first and reversed the order and made speech first to breath; for the reason stated in their words, of blessed memory (Ibid.), and that is that [people] should not say that the angels helped and stretched out the heavens with Him, etc. And the verse informs us that the Master, blessed be He, does not take His lessons from the creations, as the creations are not able to reverse the order implanted within them from the time of the creation; which is not the case with the Creator, blessed be He, [who] can speak in the manner that He wants. And for this reason, you will find that the verse was precise in stating, "By the word of God, were the heavens made," which has the creation of the heavens - which were created from the word - precede, and afterwards, it stated "and by the breath of His mouth, all its hosts."

And from here, the structure of the explanation of the word, "In the beginning" is as follows: given that there are two things [involved] in speech, breath and speech itself, and from each of them did God create a new creation and I [would] not know which one of the two was first, whether the breath or the speech; for this [reason], it states that first was the act of the heavens and the earth; and from the derivation of the matter, you know that the speech was first to the breath that came from the mouth of the Highest.

We must still understand the difference between the two verses; in this verse, it only says the name Elohim (God) and in another verse, it says (Genesis 2:4), "on the day the Lord, God, made the heavens and the earth," [thereby] mentioning two names. And [we] also [need to understand why] here 'heavens' precedes 'earth' and there, 'earth' precedes 'heavens.'

And it appears that these two questions answer each other. And this is according to the way that they, of blessed memory, explained (Sotah 31a) about two verses that are written about the reward of the righteous: one verse states (Exodus 20:6), "and does kindness to thousands" and another verse states (Deuteronomy 7:9), "to His loved ones and to those who keep His commandments, for a thousand generations." And they, of blessed memory, said that that which one verse stated "to thousands" is referring to "His loved ones" only, and does not also refer to "those who keep His commandments" - who are those that do it out of fear - because it is mentioned that they will be a thousand generations in another verse. Also the verse that states, "to His loved ones and to those who keep His commandments, for a thousand generations;" refers only to "those that keep His commandments" - which is adjacent to it - [when] it states, "for a thousand generations," and not to the word, "His loved ones," which precedes ["those who keep His commandments"]; since behold, their reward is with them in another verse, which is the one [that states] "for thousands." ...

We will also explain these two verses in this way: "In the beginning, Elohim (God) created the heavens;" this name of Elohim - the meaning of which is this attribute of [strict] justice - without the combination of the name of mercy (the Lord), this is only going on what is connected to the heavens, and does not refer to its stating [in the same verse], "the earth;" since He created the earth with the combination of the name of mercy; and [the Torah relied on a different verse [to convey this information]; and that was its stating, "on the day the Lord, God made... the earth;" since the world of people is not able to exist with exact justice, without the combination of mercy, given that they are physical, as is known; and its stating "and the heavens" does not go together with the earth, in this aspect of combination; and the way of its functions, are they not [already] written in the section on creation? And through this are both precise observations resolved, 'like a precious chain.' And as to the matter of knowing which came first, behold we have written above that all of the creation was created together, in His, may He be blessed, strength. ...

And let it not be difficult to you, what type of justice does God mete out to the 'children of power,' who dwell in the skies [the supernal angels], that justify using the name Elohim for them; do you not find that they, of blessed memory, stated (Chagigah 15a) in the story of Metatron, that they judged him in front of Elisha and struck him with sixty bolts of fire, and also Eliyahu, etc. (Bava Metzia 85b) and how many judgments are there of the ministers above! And even thought they do not have an [evil] impulse, nonetheless, mistakes are found among them; since sometimes they do not understand the truth and err. And go and learn from the story of the angel, Metatron and Eliyahu, since they erred; and so it happens that they err and God punishes them, even on unwitting sin, which He does not prosecute for the dwellers of the earth, and with this is confirmed what we wrote [above] and this is true.

And even if we have found that the Rabbis, of blessed memory, (Bereishit Rabbah 1) noticed these two [differences] in the verses and answered that the reason that in one verse the heavens is first and in one the earth is first is that it intends to [tell us] that both came out as one [together], and the reason that in one place it states Elohim (God) and in another place it combines it with the name of mercy (the Lord), [about this] they stated (Bereishit Rabbah 12:15) that in the beginning, it went up in His thought to create [the world] with the name Elohim and [when] He saw that the world would not be able to exist [that way], He combined, etc;

[nonetheless,] you should know that permission is given to explain the meaning of the verses by the ways of investigation and logic, even if the first [scholars of the Mishnaic period] came before us and made a different sense of it, since there are 'seventy faces to the Torah.' And we are not warned not to deviate from the words of the first ones, except with explanations that would result in a change in the law. And for this [reason], you will find that the Amoraim (scholars of the Talmudic period who came later) do not have the power to disagree with Tannaim (scholars of the Mishnaic period) concerning the 'statutes of God,' but concerning the sense and meaning of the verses, we have found that they explain [it] in a different way in several places.

[Yet] I looked again at [a] reasoned investigation of the verses [and found] that our words would also allow for the words of those that came before us, peace be upon them. But first, let us reason to [understand] how it is justified to [attribute to] the Master, may He be blessed, a beginning and end to His thought - that at first, He thought [to create the world] with justice and [then] went back to combine [it with mercy] - since the Master, may He be blessed, 'is not prevented from plotting' because of [too] little time; and in less than the wink of an eye, He knows everything, and plans correctly at first glance, as if it were possible [to say this about Him], may He be blessed and may His name be blessed. ...

Hence, know that the intent of [what is meant by] the combination of mercy bears two [possibilities]: the first is that sometimes God is merciful to whom He wants to be merciful to, without bringing him to justice, since this is the attribute of mercy - to excuse and to forgive - and the name, Elohim also [can be explained in this way, that it is applied] to someone whom He does not want to excuse, He brings to justice, and according to this, there will be a person who is not brought to justice; and the second way is that God never yields to any person in the world, and the whole world is judged - there is no escape, and you should know that they, of blessed memory, said (Bava Kamma 50a) and these are their words, "whoever says that the Holy One, blessed be He, is a yielder, [that person's] intestines will be yielded," but [rather] the earth will stand in judgment and no man will escape from justice.

And behold according to this, we have chosen the second way, and from here, [we see] that the way of the creation, according to their words, may their memory be a blessing, is as follows: at first, He created with the attribute of Elohim - which relates to justice - and this was the plan, that all should stand in justice, except that He saw that the world cannot [survive with] such justice, so He combined the trait of mercy with it, the explanation [of which] is not that He went back on his original thought, God forbid, but [rather] that He made judgment [operate] in a merciful fashion, as you would say 'that He not pay back a person all at once, and that He not give the person his punishment right away and immediately, without giving it time.' And a person never gets what he doesn't deserve in justice, and that is what they, of blessed memory, said (Yerushalmi, Shekalim 5:1), "He is patient, but collects what is His."

It comes out that you say that He did not go back from His [original] thought, since we didn't find that it was the first thought of God not to administer justice in this way, [meaning] that it be meted out with mercy. And, according to this, it is necessary for the verse to be stated in this order; since had the verse stated, "In the beginning, the Lord, God, created," there would have been reason to say that there is justice, and also that there is not justice [when there is] mercy, since God did not decide to institute justice only. But since He stated God (Elohim) by itself, behold, [it shows] that He decided that there is nothing that exists without justice. And even if the verse afterwards states, "the Lord, God," it will truthfully be explained as we have explained it; that justice will exist regardless but that it will be exacted mercifully. And the verse relied upon us, that we would be forced to understand it in this manner, [so] that it become something known and held in our hands that the knowledge of God is not something that reverses itself, as if it were possible.

And after we have explained the intention of our Rabbis, of blessed memory, there is a basis for our words even in their words: since this attribute of combination that God set up for the dwellers of the earth, to be slow of anger and to collect [His due] a little at a time; He did not administer [His justice] like this except with us but not with the higher ones, that dwell in the heavens; but [rather, with them,] He pays back the guilt of the guilty right away and immediately. Also regret and confession and repentance, as well as the claim of error is not effective for them. And go and learn form the story that is brought down in the Talmud (Chagigah 15a) about the four that went into the orchard, in which an angel who was sitting with permission of the King, may His name be exalted, may He be blessed, was punished for not getting up in front of [Rabbi] Elisha in order that [the latter] not make a mistake in his thinking. And this is [only] an error for the angel, and he was also not warned about it; and the Judge would not judge His people Israel like this, as is known from the statutes of His Torah, let it be exalted.

There is another hint in having the heavens precede the earth: to show that the way of the Holy One, blessed be He, is not like the way of flesh and blood. The way of flesh and blood is [to] build the house first and then the attic on top of it, but the Holy One, blessed be He, had the attic precede and afterwards [built] the house, to show that the heavens are suspended and standing by His word, may He be blessed.

And by way of hint, the Rabbis, of blessed memory, expounded (Bereishit Rabbah 1:4) [that by the] word bereishit (In the beginning), He, may He be blessed, intended to say, [that He created the world] for the sake of the Torah, which is called reishit; and the explanation of the [letter] bet (which is the first letter in bereishit) is that it is a bet [that indicates] causation. And from this [is implied that] anyone who merits [to know the] Torah, merits the whole world and anyone who does not merit [to know the] Torah should not benefit from this world - even for him to set foot on it - unless he provides assistance to those who toil in [the study of] Torah. And they also said (Vayikra Rabbah 36:4) [that He created the world] for the sake of Israel, which is called reishit, as it is written [about Israel] (Jeremiah 2:3), "reishit tevuato" ("the first of His produce"). And this statement does not contradict the first, since the very reason that Israel is called, first is from the angle that they accepted the Torah; and through this were they separated from the [other] nations for fame and praise. And they also said (Bereishit Rabbah 1:4), [that He created the world] for the sake of Avraham and (Vayikra Rabbah 36:4) for the sake of Ya'akov; and it all follows the first reason [for creating the world], 'because Avraham listened to my voice, etc.' They also said (Shabbat 36b) [that He created the world] for the sake of [the] awe [of God], which is called reishit, as it is written (Psalms 111:10), "reishit chocmah, yirat, etc." ("the beginning of wisdom is the awe of God, etc."); since it too is a fundamental principle of the Torah, since if there is no wisdom, there is no awe, and if there is no awe of God, there is no Torah, for [awe of God] is a beautiful storehouse for the Torah.

Bereishit is also explained by way of [the Bible's] stating (Proverbs 8:30), "and I was a nursling (amon) with Him," and the Rabbis, of blessed memory, expounded (Bereishit Rabbah 1:1); "Don't read it as amon (nursling), but as uman (artist);" and this is exactly what the verse is hinting at in the beginning of God's word: informing [us about] the creation of the world, it informed [us about] that with which He created it and stated that He created it with the Torah, since it is the artist. (This does not contradict the first explanation, since the Torah prepares the world to walk on straight paths.) And according to this, the level of its 'owners' is magnified, since they merit everything; and for this, it is correct that they should be called 'builders;' and this is what they, of blessed memory, said (Shabbat 114a), that Torah scholars are called builders, since what is in their mouths and in their hearts is the builder. And this is [the sense] of what it stated (Jeremiah 33:25), "and were it not for my covenant etc, the law of the heavens and the earth I would not have set."

The [letter] bet of bereishit [can] also be explained by way of [that which] they, of blessed memory, said (Tikunei HaZohar 5b), that there are two types of awe of God: the first is fear of punishment; and the second is awe [before] His loftiness and this is a more inner and loftier awe than the first [one]. And this is what the letter bet that is first (bet reishit) hints: since God established two types of awe for the survival of the world, and he hinted to the manner of them both; the first one was hinted by the word, Elohim, since it is the fear of judgment when He rises to [establish] justice; and the second one was hinted by its stating, "the heavens and the earth" - and that is by way of its stating (Psalms 8:4), "When I look at your heavens, etc," and they, of blessed memory, said [about this] (Zohar 1:1) that the awe of [His] loftiness enters the heart of an intelligent person when he meditatively glances at the work of the heavens and the earth, [and then proclaims,] 'how great are Your deeds, Lord,' [and] his soul becomes enthused and he is inawed by His greatness, may His name be blessed.

[Alternatively,] the two types of awe are hinted to [in the following way: one, in its stating "the heavens" here, is hinting to the awe of [His] loftiness, by way of its stating "When I look at your heavens, etc;" and the second awe, by stating "and the earth," which is the fear of punishment; and it is negatively attributed to the earth, since it is not from the angle of [His] loftiness, but rather from the angle of [man's] fear from the children of the world, by way of its stating (Job 20:27), "and the earth will rise against him."

Bereishit also hints, by way of [the Bible's] stating (Isaiah 33:6), "the awe of the Lord is His treasure;" the intention [of which] is that one who has the awe of God, [for him] it is a treasure for the hope of hearts, which is the clinging of His light, may He be blessed, to the soul of man, by way of its stating (Deuteronomy 4:4), "And you who cling, etc." And anyone who has the fear of Heaven is an abode for [His] Presence, as it states it (Psalms 78:60), "a tent which dwelt with Man." And it is hinted by the word, Bereishit, in the following way: the explanation of bet [which can also be read as bayit (house)] is that a house of repose for God is awe - which is hinted to by the word reishit - "God created" and set up His work.

Bereishit is also explained by way of the [Sages], may they be blessed, saying (Vayikra Rabbah 35:6), "And the book and the sword came down entwined, etc." and this is what it is saying, "Bereishit created Elohim," the meaning [of which] is that with the reishit - which is the Torah - He created Elohim, the meaning [of which] is [strict] justice, which hints to the sword.

It is also explained by way of that which the verse states (I Kings 18:39), "The Lord is God;" and the intention [of this] is that even if the name Elohim relates to [strict] justice, nonetheless it is [indicative of] mercy. And all of the names of the Holy One, blessed be He, intend, for the good, together to do good and to do kindness; but from the angle of the acts of the backward ones, judgment came out to chastise whoever is fitting to be chastised. And besides this, the attribute of the name, Elohim, is also to do good. And this is what it is saying, "In the beginning, created Elohim," since the name Elohim, did good and created the world to have grace and mercy and to do good to those that dwell in the heavens and the earth and there is no greater mercy than this. And this is what the verse states (Genesis 27:28), "And Elohim will give to you;" behold, that also the name Elohim does good to the good by way of a free gift; but evildoers cause Elohim to give them chastisement. And in the anticipated future, so will it be, [that] the Lord (the name associated with mercy) shall be one and His name shall be one.

The word, Bereishit, is also explained by way of the [Sages], may they be blessed, saying (Zohar, Introduction 2) that at the time of the creation of the world, the letters entered in front of the Creator; [the letter], tav entered and said in front of Him, "Master of the World, is it Your will to create the world [by beginning the Torah] with me, etc." and to all of [the letters], God answered that He did not want [to create the world/begin the Torah] with them, for the reason stated in their words for each and every one; until [the letter] bet entered and He accepted it and created the world with it, as it is written, Bereishit [which begins with bet; the letter] alef [which had not yet entered] was silent. [And] the Holy one, blessed be He, said to it, "Alef, why are you quiet, etc?" He said to it, "You will be the head of all the letters." Up to here [are the words of the Zohar]. Behold from the words of God [here], it appears that alef has [more of] a virtue than the letter bet. And from here [it follows] that had the letters gone up in front of Him properly, alef would have merited to have the world created with it. And lest [one ask], why didn't the alef go first, and [instead] He left it until the end, know that they, of blessed memory, said (Tikunei HaZohar, Introduction) that when the letters are in the proper order - in the following way: alef bet gimmel etc. - they are hinting to the attribute of mercy; and when they are backwards - in the following way: tav shin reish etc. - they are indicating the attribute of justice. And this is a sign for you [to remember this]: the month of Tishrei - [which] has the letters in backwards order, tav shin reish - is the great time of judgment, except that God, from the angle of His great mercy combined [with these letters] one letter from [His] name of mercy - and that is the yod - to bring mercy into the judgment (Zohar, Introduction 16a). And after this has been made known to us, we will explain [Bereishit] as bet reishit (bet is first); [that] you should know the reason that bet precedes alef is that the creation was with the attribute of Elohim (justice), and since it is thus, the letters went up in backwards order as is [the] rule, and for this reason bet precedes alef and acquired its place.

In its stating Bereishit, it also wants [to teach], by way of the [Sages], may they be blessed, saying (Zohar Chadash, Bereishit 2) that a thousand hidden worlds did God create; and they, of blessed memory, called them (Edra Zuta, Ha'azinu 288a) 'worlds of embarrassment;' and they are hinted to in the verse (Song of Songs 8:12), "there is a thousand to you, Shlomo." And from here, the verse began with bet, since alef had already acquired its place, since with it were created a thousand (elef which is spelled that same way as alef) worlds, according to its name, alef. And He started with bet to create this world, given that [its numerical value] is also the sum of the creation which is two, heavens and earth. And also for this reason, it did not state, "At first," since you would understand that this is the [absolute] beginning, and that is not the case; since He already created the 'beautiful worlds,' but regarding this detail of the heavens and the earth, it is stating its beginning.

The word, In the beginning (Bereishit), also hints, by way of the [Sages], may they be blessed, saying (Zohar 1:155a) that God created four worlds and they ascribed to them the names, Emanation, Creation, Formation and Action; and they are hinted to in the verse (Isaiah 43:7), "All that is called by My name and I have created for My honor, I have formed him and made him." And this is what is hinted here when it states, "In the beginning," [which] is the world of honor which is Emanation and it is called 'the beginning of all;' "created" [which] is the world of Creation; "Elohim" [which] hints to the world of Formation, since there are judgments there; "the heavens and the earth" [which] is the world of Action, since that is the heavens and the earth, as it is stated in their pleasant words.

It is also hinted, by way of [that which] they, of blessed memory, said (Pesachim 54a) that the Garden of Eden and Gehinnom (purgatory) were created before the world was created, since they are the reward and punishment for the Torah and the commandments, and this is hinted to in its saying bet (which has a numerical value of two) reishit (which is indicative of awe), since God created two things that were designated for awe, which were reward and punishment, [meaning] the Garden of Eden and Gehinnom: (Chagigah 15a) [If] one merits and fears from God, he takes his portion and the portion of his fellow in the Garden of Eden; [if] he does not merit [to do this], he takes his portion and the portion of his fellow in Gehinnom. And perhaps it is hinted that both of them were created together and that both of them are called reishit; since if one preceded the other, reishit would only refer to one [of them; instead], you have learned that they were created together in one statement.

It is also hinted that - since there are two worlds, this world and the next world, and man can acquire 'the good and life' by his involvement in Torah and good deeds - here the verse informs us that the reward for the [observance of] the Torah and the commandments will not be given to the righteous ones in this world, until [God] has [already] prepared a goodly storehouse, which is the essential [reward] to the spiritual side [of man]; and afterwards, if there is a surplus, he [is rewarded] in this world; since God will choose to first prepare for man a payment that is eternal. And this is what is hinted when it states, "In the beginning, God created the heavens;" which [signifies] the world of souls, and afterward "and the earth," which [signifies] the lowly world, if some of the good [coming to] him remains. Hence, you have learned that [reward] is not given to the righteous ones in this world until after they have merited their portion of light 'in the light of life.'

It is also hinted, according to what the Rabbis, of blessed memory, argued (Rosh Hashanah 10b): one says that the world was created in Tishrei and one says that the world was created in Nissan. And it appears to me that 'these and those are the words of the living God,' since you should know that they, of blessed memory, said (Bereishit Rabbah 1:4) that in the beginning God thought to create the world, and afterwards, God took His thought and put into action. And according to this, we can say that He thought [to create it] in Nissan and put it into action in Tishrei or the opposite, and the word, 'create,' refers to both of [these things]; whether what came into His thought, may He be blessed, is called a creation, whether when it went into action; and with this, the words of [both] of our Rabbis can exist together. And this is what is hinted by the bet (which has a numerical value of two) in the word Bereishit (In the beginning); since there were two beginnings, one in thought and one in action; only that we don't know if He thought in Nissan and acted in Tishrei or the opposite.

It also wanted [to teach], by way of the [Sages], may their memory be blessed, saying (Berakhot 6b), "Whoever has awe of the Heavens, his words will be heard;" and the reason [for this] is that the one who fears God will speak from the depths of his soul, and since that is the case, the soul of the listener will recognize [that] and accept the rebuking chastisement; but if the words came from the body, there is no resonance for the soul to listen to them, as the rabbis, of blessed memory, have hinted about what the verse stated (Deuteronomy 6:6), "And these words shall be etc. upon your heart" [and] then "and you shall review them with your children," which are the students. And this is what it said, "Bereishit," which is awe - as they, of blessed memory, have said - "God created the heavens," the explanation [of which] is that one should have awe of the Heavens, [and] then they will listen to his voice and 'he will teach knowledge to people' and that is what it states, "and the earth."

It also wanted [to teach] that, since there since God commanded many [observances] of awe in the world - awe of father and mother, as it is written (Leviticus 19:3), "A man, his mother and his father shall fear;" also from the king and the sages, also to fear people, that they should not be suspicious of him - one might say that the commandment of awe is the same in all the places that it is found, and it will come out from this that he will sometimes discount, God forbid, the commandments of God because of the honor of the king or the honor of his father or something like that; therefore, it hints here that the words of God are first, such that he puts the awe of "the Heavens" before anything [else] and afterwards "the earth," which are the individuals whom he is obligated to fear. And this is what the verse states (Numbers 32:22), "and you shall be clear before God" first; and afterwards, "and from Israel." And from here, [we see] that there is no place to observe any commandment of awe unless one does not transgress any commandment of the commandments of God.

It is also hinted that, through the Torah, God created two levels for man: either he be on the level of the heavens; and that is by way of it stating (Psalms 82:6), "I have said, 'you are powers'" (meaning, like angels); or if he does not keep [the Torah], his level sinks down to the earth. And this is [what it means] when it states, "Bereishit," the explanation [of which] is that through reishit [meaning, the Torah], "God created" these bet (two) preparations, "the heavens, etc."

The whole section also hints to the creation of man - who is the main goal of the creation - in the following way: In the beginning, when God created man, He created him from the source of spirituality, which is hinted by the word, heavens, and from the source of physicality, which is hinted by the word, earth. And you will find that our Rabbis, of blessed memory, hinted [to this by explaining] (Sanhedrin 91b), what the verse stated (Psalms 50:4), "He called to the heavens above" to be the spirit [and] "and upon the earth" to be the body, which is built from the earth. And His will in this, may He be blessed, is that through the actions of man, he will have the power to transform matter, which is the body, until it is considered to be form.

And behold, you will find (Shabbat 152b) that the righteous ones do not return to the dust, given that they purify their matter, until it becomes spiritual; as was written by Rabbi Y. Aramah, of blessed memory, and these are his words, "and it is the power of the perfect ones to change matter into form." And this is why they, of blessed memory, said (Berakhot 18a) that the righteous ones are called living even in their death, since the material side has become spiritual, which relates to life; and that the evil ones are called dead even in their lifetimes, from the angle that even the spirituality in them becomes material and [like] earth, which relates to the lifeless objects which are [therefore] dead.

And it hints to these two characteristics when it states "the heavens and the earth," in the following way: if they merit [it], behold, they raise up the material part of themselves which is hinted by "the earth" and they connect it and it becomes one entity with the "heavens." And if they do not merit [it], they transform the part of spirituality within them to the trait of "earth" and the form becomes matter. And this is what it is stating, "and the earth."

And its stating, "and the earth was chaos and void" here is hinting to what occurred in the times that the physical side overpowers which is the 'earth' and [the person] is emptied out of spirituality; as it is translated [by Onkelos into Aramaic], "desolate and empty;" "and darkness," which is the evil impulse that is called in their holy words (Zohar, Bereishit 63), [that which] darkens the face of the creatures; "was upon the depths" and it called the body, the depths, being that it is like [a pit] that constantly swallows [things up], and from the angle of the evil impulse [connected to it] that is darkness; "and the spirit of God" given into it "was hovering upon the waters," because the spirit 'did not find a place to rest the sole of its foot,' since the impulse drove it away and lifted it up from its resting place, and the darkness, which is the evil impulse, dwelt there and the [human] soul remains "hovering over the waters," that are the 'waters of iniquity,' which are the powers of impurity.

And in the Holy One's seeing, blessed be He, [that it was] like this, "And God said, 'let there be light;'" [meaning that He] sends man help against his impulse; and this is [that] when he reaches his fourteenth year, a holy and pure soul, from His holy chamber of Divine holy spirits, appears upon him. Or [light] hints to the Torah, since it is the pleasant light, and is called light, as it is written (Proverbs 6:23), "and the Torah is a light;" and the intention [of the two explanations] is one, since the aspect of the holy souls is the aspect of the light of the Torah, and a man of soul (ba'al nefesh) is a man of Torah. And that is what it states, "And God said, 'let there be light;'" which is the soul - the light of which is great, being that it is hewed from beneath His throne of glory, may He be blessed, [and] is 'a portion of God from above' - God sends it to shine on man, that he not wallow in the mud of the evil impulse; or also according to what we have said - that it is the Torah that shines on the soul of man; and then, "and there was light, and God saw the light" that He gave within man, "that it was good;" that through it, man will walk on the 'good and straight' path.

And you should not think that given that the soul is within man, or through involvement in Torah, with this he is still from the machinations of the impulse that brings him to sin and he [can] turn and walk [away from it]; because were it so, there would be no [room for] reward and punishment here. To this, it says that darkness is still in the world, but through [the light], man is helped to wage war with it, and to separate it from him, that it not fell him through its plots; and he will recognize that the aspect of doing evil is evil; and this is what it says, "and God separated between the light," which is the soul "and between the darkness," which is the evil impulse; and [about] this, the verse states (Ecclesiastes 10:2), "The heart of a wise man is to his right," which is the place of light, the place of the soul, "and the heart of a fool is to his left," which is the place of the evil impulse; "And He called light, day, and darkness, He called night;" and for this David prayed (Psalms 91:5), that He should save him from the fear of the 'nights.'

And its stating, "and there was, etc. one day" is because it is impossible to recognize the light of the soul except from the darkness of the evil impulse; since were it not so, [people] would not be different than the ministering angels, and there would not be [the possibility] of reward and punishment here; and for that reason, it states, "one day."

And it also intends to say "one day," by way of the [Sages], of blessed memory, saying (Avodah Zarah 35b) on the verse (Song of Songs 1:3), "therefore the maidens (alamot) have loved you," [that it is referring] to death (al mavet), the explanation [of which] is that even the 'bad' angel is forced to answer 'amen.' And for this reason, it states, "and it was evening and it was morning, one day," the explanation [of which] is that the attribute of evening and the attribute of morning, all of them, are in agreement for the good of the righteous one.

Or it is hinting that, through the help of the soul, the evening time - when 'his sun sets' to return to the upper world - is like the time of morning - the time when it came to the world; that the soul returns as brilliantly as the day it came, and this is by way of the [Sages], of blessed memory, saying (Shabbat 152b) [on the verse] (Ecclesiastes 13:7), "And the spirit returns to God who gave it;" and these are their words, "give it to Him like He gave it to you;" and in this the day of its coming and the day of its leaving will be equally like one.

The verse also intended to inform [us] that at the beginning of the creation, God set up His acts to be equal, [meaning] the heavens and the earth. And even though the heavens are the higher ones, nonetheless, the earth was in the category of purity. And go and learn [about] its virtue and merit; since man was created from it, 'dirt from the earth' and his form is like an 'angel of God;' and you will [also] find that God chose to dwell on earth with the creations, and He prepared a house [there] for his residence - as if it were possible [to say this] - and it is an obvious thing that the abode of God is perfect and 'holy is said about it.' And you will find that before man sinned, God was found among the lower [creatures] in the same way as he was found among the higher [creatures], and this is what it states, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth" in one category, in cleanliness and purity, and this is [like] the statement of the prophet (Isaiah 61:1), "So said the Lord, 'the heavens are my chair and the earth is my footstool,'" and they, of blessed memory, said (Chagigah 14a) that it is an ottoman. Behold, you have learned that is in the category of being fit for the abode of God; except that through the acts of the lower beings, "and the earth was chaos and void" and [it] became thick and its light became darkened from the angle of the acts of the evildoers. "And God said, 'let there be light'" which is the Torah, then the earth went back to how it was at the beginning, to brighten its light, and God resided on earth with His people and His inheritance, and that is what it states, "and there was light."

The verse can also be explained in this way; as it is well know that we have found that the Holy One, blessed be He, has chosen to dwell in the mist and [yet] prefers to live among us. And we have also found about Him (Taanit 5a) that He - as if it were possible - swore that he would not enter the 'heavenly Jerusalem' until He enters the earthly Jerusalem; behold this means that he prefers the earthly to the heavenly. Also, when we discern the reason for the creation of the entire world, we would know that the lower ones, which are His people and His inheritance, are the essence [of creation].

And according to this, the verse intended to give the order of creation in the format of 'not only [x which is of less importance] but also [y which is of more importance]' ('lo zo, af zo') in the way of preference [in the following way]: "In the beginning, God created the heavens and" he also created another creation that was more beloved to Him and more elevated and that is "the earth;" since - just the opposite - the heavens are dependent upon it, and all of this is by means of the Children of Israel, His holy people; since the existence of all the worlds - even the upper worlds - is dependent upon them, as is known to the experts of the chambers of true wisdom.

And in this way, its stating "and the earth was chaos and void" becomes explained: Here it is hinting about the times of the Jewish exiles, which is the reason for the prevention of His, may He be blessed, dwelling on earth. One (the first) exile is the exile of Egypt; they remained in it for four hundred and thirty years, like the numerical count [(gematria) of] chaos (tohu) - which is four hundred and eleven - and void (vebohu) - which is nineteen - behold four hundred and thirty. And the meaning of "and void" also hints to the exile after it, and that is the Babylonian exile: The Babylonian exile is called 'void' because the translation of void [according to Onkelos] is 'empty' and it is written in Jeremiah 51:34 about the Babylonian exile, "he has eaten me, he has crushed me, Nebuchadrezzar, the king of Babylonia, he has placed me like an empty vessel." And its stating, "and darkness was upon the depths" hints to the bitter exile that we are in, stuck in the depths, that has had no end for us for one thousand seven hundred and seventy one years. And [as if] the length of the exile [were] not enough, but also [do we suffer its] darkness, which hints to two things: the first is the subjugation of the nations [over the Jews] and the heavy yolk of taxes, to the point that darkness darkens their form, this one subjugates, and that one crushes - happy is the one who has not seen [this], and especially in our [home,] Morocco; and the second is concerning the evil impulse which has darkened the world - and as a result of our sins, there has been an increase in those that breach [the standards] of His people, Israel, and have permitted to themselves bad language and false oaths and evil gossip and theft and prevent themselves from repenting to return [from their ways]. And a person should not say, in seeing such a downfall for Israel for the entire time, that - God forbid, hope is lost for the 'children;' that is not so, but rather "And God said, 'let there be light,'" that is the light of the amazing future redemption. ...

And its stating, "and there was light," is by way of their saying in the Tikunei Hazohar 21, [that it means] "there was a secret," since the numerical value of light is [the equivalent] of secret. The intention [of this] is that God, may His name be elevated, decreed that this light of the king messiah not be revealed in the world and that it be a hidden secret with Him, as they say (there), "to My heart, I revealed, from the heart to the mouth, He did not reveal." And its stating, "And God saw the light that it was good," refers back to the light, in of itself, "that it was good" - 'happy is the eye that saw it' - and also refers back to what it hinted, that he will make it in [the form of] a hidden secret, [and also about that it is saying, "that it was good;" since so should it be - as they, of blessed memory, have said (Yoma 9) - for several reasons. And [about] its stating, "the spirit of God, etc.," they have said in the Midrash (Bereishit Rabbah 2:4), "this is the spirit of the messiah." "Hovering upon the face of the waters," there is no [other meaning to] waters besides Torah, by way of their saying, in the Zohar, Hashamatot 1:13, that Israel will not be redeemed except through the merit of the Torah, that is compared to water.

And behold, it is known that, because of our many sins, many sparks of light have been submerged in the husks and also much mixed multitude has infiltrated into holiness, as they have said in the holy book of Tikunei Hazohar 6, "mixed bad in good and good in bad." And for this [reason], He needs - as if it were possible - to separate the good from the bad and the light form the darkness that have gotten mixed up. And behold it is known that the life force of the husk is only from its feeding from holiness and without that, it has no life. And so, when God separates the light, which is the holiness, and the evil remains separated and has no source of life from which to feed, it is automatically annulled. And this is what it is stating (Zechariah 13:2), "and the spirit of impurity will I remove from the earth;" since it is similar to the cutting of a tree from the place of its sustenance, and its root from which it nurses, that it [then] dries up and no longer prospers; and nothing will remain besides the good light. And this is what [it meant when] it stated, "And God called the light, day;" the explanation of "and he called" (vayikra)" is [that it] is an expression of glory (yakar) and greatness, as the virtue of holiness is only recognizable with the felling of the husk, that is called darkness. And the verse informs [us] that on that day, that is known in front of Him above, God will call to the light in glory and greatness; and that will be on the day that is known to God, that on it God will be one.

And its stating, "and the darkness, he called night;" is an expression of an incident which is not pure; and for this reason, the verse does not rely on the word, "and he called" that it stated at the beginning [of the verse, and repeated it again specifically for darkness] - since there is no more glory and honor to darkness, but rather its incidence will only be in the night. And this is the secret of its stating (Deuteronomy 23:11), "an incident of the night." But when the night will pass, which is the time of the exile, as the verse states (Isaiah 21:11), "The burden of Dumah etc.; watchman, what will be of the night;" since the exile is similar to the night. And then at the dawn, there will no longer be darkness nor night, but [rather], "and there was evening and there was morning, one day;" since the aspect of evil is removed and is not; 'and the night will shine like the day,' 'and the light of the moon will be light the light of the sun.' And this is [why] it states, "one day;" and it is that the verse hints to its stating (Zechariah 14:9), "on that day the Lord will be one and His name will be one."

1:6

And God said, "let there be a firmament, etc.": The explanation [of firmament] is the firmament that God created on the first day; as I have explained on the verse [starting with] "In the beginning," that everything was created together with one statement, but that the work of each thing was not [yet] refined according to its character. Now God said that it should acquire its place in the waters and that this thing would serve to separate between the waters and the waters. And see [my commentary] to the verse after this one.

1:7

And God made the firmament: This verse should not have been stated; since the verse before this already stated, "And God said, etc." and it should have finished by stating, "and it was so." And I also saw that it was not justified to state "and it was so" after it stated, "And God made." Rather, after stating, "And God said," [such a phrase] would tell us that He said and it was.

And it appears that three tasks were done with the firmament: The first was the creation of its substance's existence in reality, and this is what was created on the first day in the first proclamation.

And the second is that that God said to it that it should make a firmament, the explanation [of which] is that it should stretch out and make a partition and God measured the [appropriate] size of its stretching, so that it would suffice to separate between the waters and the waters; and that is what is stated in the verse before this.

And the third is that, since the heavens are spherical and slanted, we cannot say that the firmament would be different than all [the rest of] the heavens, and in the statement that states, "let there be a firmament," He only said said that it should stretch out, but the order of its setup - whether it be stretched out like a straight partition or one slanted on its ends or whether it inclines to one of the four corners of the world - this is not understood from the statement of God, when He said, Let there be a firmament. For this reason, He went back and stated, "And He made;" the explanation [of which] is that he adjusted the order of its arrangement according to the order of the adjustment of the heavens, which are like an upside down bowl facing down and their back is upwards, for reasons that are known to the Creator of the world. And He went back and stated, "and He separated, etc." since the order of its formation to which the Creator set it up is the opposite of the adjacent statement, that "He separated between, etc," since an [object] arranged like this does not block out between these two waters. For this reason, it states that even if He made it in this arrangement, nonetheless, "and He separated between, etc." And about these two (the second and third) items, the verse stated, "And He made," [meaning] that he fixed it according to the order that was correct in His eyes, and that He created in it an invention that would be able [to accomplish His plan] even with this arrangement.

And He was precise in stating, "which were above, etc." to say that even though it was made in this arrangement, it separated [also] between the waters above it, a reality that would [normally] not be able to exist in the world. And after all this, He stated, "and it was so," [which] goes back on verse 1 and 2; since when He told it to spread, so was it, and when He told it to be a separation - even if its setup does not allow for it to separate in this manner, according to nature, as mentioned - "and it was so." Or it is possible that the reason it delayed stating, "and it was so" until the [end of the] verse [of] "And He made," was that He did not want to state, "and it was so," until He completed the act in all the details of [its] creation.

And after I wrote all this, I found that an explicit verse of the Bible testifies to our explanation, since it is written (Isaiah 42:5), "So said etc., Creator of the heavens and who unfolded them;" behold it mentioned two things, the creation by itself and the unfolding by itself. And this is what I explained about the first and second [tasks], since in the first day was the creation and in the second day was the unfolding, and within [that] was the unfolding and its manner, which are the two things that we hinted to.

And I saw the statement of our Rabbis, of blessed memory, in Bereishit Rabbah 4:6, and this is what they said, "'And God made the firmament;' this is one of the verses [about] which Ben Zoma shook the world, [asking] is it not that the heavens were made in one statement by the word of God?" And [yet] according to our approach, 'and the earth was quieted' from its shaking; and perhaps that which Ben Zoma shook the world was before he resolved the verses, but after the resolution of the verses, 'the earth was quieted' [and] calm.

Or one could say in the following way, according to what we have explained on the verse, "And God said, 'let the waters gather, etc.," that there are two [types of] water, one male and one female; and according to this, from the perspective that all the waters were mixed in the way that the light and darkness were mixed, 'a bit here and a bit there,' as they, of blessed memory, said (Bereishit Rabbah 3), "'And God separated between the light, etc.,' so too with the higher (elyonim) waters" - the explanation [of which] is the better (meulim) waters, and these are the male - "mixed with the lower waters" - lower in their status; and so God now said that the firmament should make two separations: the first one that it separate one from the other - according to what the Holy One, blessed be He, implanted in it, that it should separate one form the other; and the second one that these [waters] should always be divided by it, [such] that it would split between the two of them; and according to this, its stating, "let there be a firmament within the waters" here refers to the separation that separates between the two waters. And that is why it states "within the waters," since all of the waters were mixed. And afterwards, God arranged the firmament that it should be able to split the two of them perpetually; and that is the second separation, and about both of them the verse stated, "and it was so."

1:8

And He called: Here the verse informs us these are the [same heavens] that were mentioned in the verse, “In the beginning etc.” And [the reason] that the first verse ascribes the name, 'heavens' to them is to say that there is [here] a creation that will be called heavens in the future; but really God did not call it this name until the second day.

And according to the words of our rabbis, who said (Bereishit Rabbah 4:7) that the understanding of shamayim (heavens) is sa mayim (support the waters), the intention of [this] verse is according to the following way: “And God called to the heavens and said” to it, support the waters, so that there will be [space] to [make] room for the creatures, so that the creatures will be between the heavens and the earth; and without this, there [was] no place for the dwellers of the earth, until He called upon the heavens to support the waters that were laying upon [the earth]. And he told the lower waters to gather to one place on the third day and the dry land appeared with this, [such that] there was [now] a place for the dwellers of the earth. And this is not a contradiction to the words of our Rabbis, that say that the upper waters are held up miraculously; since even if it is the case that the heavens support them, nonetheless with regards to the set up nature of the skies and their order, they felt that they were supported by a miracle, as we have written on the verse, “And he made.”

1:9

And God said, "let gather:" It needs to be known whether these waters are the waters of the depths and [so] when He said, "let the waters be gathered to one place," behold no other waters remained - and this is the opposite of what the verse states (Exodus 20:4), "and in the waters below the earth;" and if [these] waters were others besides the [ones of] the depths, it needs to be known how these waters were different from the waters of the depths, that the verse should refer to them alone. Also, [this would be difficult to say, since] we did not see that the statement specifies to say, "let the 'x' waters gather," but rather just "let the waters gather;" all the waters of the world are [thereby] implied. Also [it needs to be known] why the appearance of the earth is dependent on the gathering of the waters. And also we need to be precise [and understand the use of] the word, appear, since it should have said and 'the dry land be' [substituting 'be' for 'appear'].

And regarding what I explained on the verse, "In the beginning," that all was created with one statement - except that it was mixed up until God set up each thing on its day; and according to that, from the words of God in this [section] we know that the dry land extended in the water over the expanse of the earth and there was water above and below it; and the firmament divided the waters above the dry land and it lifted half of them with its wings, as it is stated, "let the firmament be within" - and [the] unqualified [use of] within implies [in] the middle - and the remaining half covered the dry land. And it is to those waters that God said, "let the waters gather to one place;" which is the waters of the oceans. And the dry land appeared from the place that it was at the time of its creation - as it acquired its place [to be] there, except it was covered and He [now] decreed about it, that it should appear.

And maybe the word appear could include that it wasn't visible in the color of the dry lands and its color was like that of the water and there was no [clear] distinction between its border and the border of the sea. And also within the understanding of 'appear' (teraeh) is that it was [now] fitting (reouiah) to what the dry lands need to be fit for, for the needs of the world. ...

And it also wanted [to teach] by stating, "and appear," that all the time that the waters are below and above the earth, the natural state of the earth is not preserved, since the water will change its [state]. And go and learn from what Maimonides wrote at the beginning of the Laws of Character Traits (Laws of the Foundations of the Torah 4:5) that water transforms the core element of dirt to water; for this [reason], He said, "let the waters gather, etc." and with this "and the dry land appear;" and the explanation [of this] is that it will stay in its [state] to put in motion the reason for its creation. And really its creation already [happened] on the first day in the first statement as explained above. We also end up saying [according to this] that not all of the waters of the world were gathered into the oceans and there are [waters in the] depths below the earth.

And it is possible that there is no gap between the waters that were gathered and the [waters of the] depths - and [it is] about that portion that has no earth [covering it], that they, of blessed memory, said (Chagigah 12a) that God said to the land, "Enough" that it should not extend from one end [of the world] to the other end - and the waters remained connected to the lower waters.

After I wrote all that is written [above], a midrash from Pirkei Rebbe Eliezer 5 came to my hands and this is what it says, "On the third day, the earth was flat like a valley and the waters covered over the face of the whole earth and when the words, "let the waters gather, etc." went out from the mouth of the Holy One, blessed be He, the mountains and hills separated over the face of the whole earth and the innards of the earth arose and the waters rolled [back] and gathered, etc." Behold [from here, we see that] when the Holy One, blessed be He said, "let the waters gather," the land was already in existence and these are [in agreement with] our words. And [this is so] even if, according to the words of this [midrash], it appears that it explains [the phrase] "and the earth appear (teraeh)," [that its] explanation is that the dry land will be sand [as a] border for the sea, [so that] when the waters fear (yireh) the dry land, they acquire their [permanent] place - by way of its stating (Jeremiah 5, 22), "that I have placed the sand as a border for the sea," and made the fear of the dry land upon the sea - and [so] the explanation of teraeh (appear) is from the word yirah (fear), and that is what it states, "Do you not fear me?, etc., that I have placed the sand as a border for the sea;" and this is different than our explanation, [since] this is the way of derash (homily) and our way is the way of peshat (straightforward understanding) and the Scripture intends [it] all.

And Nachmanides, of blessed memory, explained it's stating "and the dry land appear;" that the dirt was mixed with water and God decreed that they should separate one from the other, [so] that the dirt will harden and become dry land. So far [his explanation]. And [the] explanation of [Nachmanides], of blessed memory, needs a guarantor; also the simple meaning of the verse doesn't say this. Also, according to [the] words of [Nachmanides], of blessed memory, there was no need for the waters to gather to one place, but rather that He should say to the dry land that it should appear according to the arrangement mentioned in the words of [Nachmainides] - that the dirt should separate from the water and float up, and that the waters should stay in their place. And it is also implied from the verse that all of the waters that were under the firmament which were adjacent to the earth were gathered to one place; and that is not what is implied according to the words of the master; and also the word, 'appear,' is not exact according to [the] approach of [Nachmanides], of blessed memory. And the correct [understanding] in my eyes is as I have explained: that the land was stretched out within the waters and [there was] water above and water below it; and the Ordainer ordained that the water above the land have the firmament be placed within it and carry up the higher waters on its wings; and the part remaining under the firmament would not remain under all of the firmament equally, but rather, gathered to one place, and this is what it says, "and the waters under the heavens gather to one place" and through this, "and the dry land appear" [is understood] according to its simple meaning.

And it appears that it can be said that the aspect of all the waters upon the earth - whether the upper one that are above the firmament [or whether] the ones that were gathered to one place - they are in the aspect of 'male waters.' And so, you will find that the germination of seeds is from the waters of the ocean, which are the gathered waters, as they, of blessed memory, said (Taanit 9a) that the rains come form the water of the oceans; and after God brings rain from them, corresponding [waters] come up from the depths, and that is like they, of blessed memory, have said (Taanit 25b), no drop comes down from above for which (two or three) corresponding drops do not come up from below. And the seeds do not grow from the rain waters and not from the waters of the depths [individually], since a male by itself or a female by itself will not give birth. And behold for you their words, of blessed memory, that they said (Pirkei Derabi Eliezer 25) that there are two waters, one male and one female and this is what they wrote [on the verse (Genesis 7:19)], "'and the waters grew very strong;' when the male waters joined with the female waters, they grew exceedingly."

1:10

And God called the dry land earth: And it is the one mentioned in the first verse, "In the beginning, etc." And its stating the word, "called" can be explained in two ways: either it is an expression of calling a name or it is an expression of yelling; He yelled at it that it should no longer spread out, as they, of blessed memory, said (Chagigah 12a), "He said to his world, 'enough!'" And when it listened and no longer spread out, He called it earth, as they, of blessed memory, stated (Bereishit Rabbah 5:8), as a result of being reconciled (nitratsit), it was called earth (erets).

And its stating, "He called seas," this is not the depths, which is spoken of in verse 2, since 'the depths' is said about the waters more generally; and the water under the earth as well as the gathered waters were all in the aspect of depths, [during the time] before the earth appeared, since they were all equally mixed with the waters that today are below the earth.

And its stating, "and God saw that it was good," refers also to the gathering of waters, since with it is there life and existence in the world; since the rains in the world are from it, as they, of blessed memory, say (Taanit 9b).

1:11

And God said, "let the grass be put forth, etc.": The rabbis, of blessed memory, said (Chullin 60a) that even if the Creator said "according to its specie" only to the trees, the grasses brought up an a fortiori argument (kal vechomer), etc. [that they too should spring forth according to their own specie]. And [this] is difficult, since in the order of the verse, God had His words to the grasses precede [those to the trees]; and, if so, why did they delay from coming out immediately [and] exactly adjacent to the statement of God, until [after] God finished saying to bring forth trees, from which they raised the a fortiori argument? And according to what I have explained on the verse, "In the beginning" - that in every place that He speaks of a matter of strength with the name Elohim, He speaks the whole statement in one word; if so - there was no precedence [of the words] to the grasses before the tree.

1:12

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

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

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

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

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

1:14

And God said, "let there be luminaries:" The reason for it saying, "let there be," in the singular form, about two [luminaries] is to hint with this that [only] one of them would shine during the day, and for this reason it did not use the plural form. And through God speaking in this way, it allowed for the thing that happened to result in the moon getting reduced - as they, of blessed memory, stated (Chullin 60b) - since if God had said at the beginning of His words, "let [them] be," the matter would have stood like that [with their size being equal] perforce, because the word of Our God stands forever.

It also appears, in its making a point of stating, "to separate between the day and between the night," [to be saying that] if the luminaries were equal and one of them serves during the day and one serves during the night, in what way could night be distinguishable from day, since night 'shines like the day?'

Indeed, the verse [also] wants [to teach] that - given that He preceded on the first day to create the light and you will find that it states [the word] light five times in the first section; and the Rabbis, of blessed memory, hinted (Bereishit Rabbah 3:6) that five lights were created and God separated them for His inheritance in the future, for the righteous ones, and then - now on the fourth day, He emanated from the lights a portion sufficient for the world and suspended it in the firmament of the skies; and that is [why] it states, let there be luminaries (meohrot, which can also be understood as 'from the lights'), the explanation of which is that it be one portion from the lights that were created on the first day. And He embedded that they should not be fixed but should rotate, such that through their rotation, night and day be distinguishable, and this He did as a sign for the recognition of the holy days, as it states it, "for signs and for appointed times etc. And when the luminary was emanated, two [different] parts were emanated and both of them were created to serve the purposes of day. And this is why you will find (Chullin 60b) that the moon claimed that it it impossible for two kings to use one crown, the explanation [of the 'one crown'] is at one time, and this is how it is brought in the words of our Rabbis; because if the boundary of the moon had been the night and that of the sun, the day, there is not [here] one crown for both of them, but [rather] each one has a boundary of its own. And so you will find that it states, "and they will be for luminaries in the firmament of the skies to shine on the earth," without [mention] of the setting of a time.

1:15

And they will be for luminaries: The meaning of the verse is to tell that God commanded the light of the luminaries to break through the heavens and also to illuminate the earth; the explanation [of which] is that the luminaries should illuminate the entire expanse of the heavens and that their lights should also reach down until the earth. Also, it means [to teach] that God set them up, such that the strength of their light is in the heavens, and from that light that spreads out in the heavens, the earth is illuminated; as the earth does not have the power to withstand the strength of the light of the luminaries. And that is why it is exact to say, "to the luminaries in the firmament of the skies," the explanation [of which] is that they illuminate there; and its stating, "to illuminate on the earth," the explanation [of which] is that from the clear light of the skies is the earth illuminated.

And according to [the] words of [the Sages] (Chagigah 12:), of blessed memory, that the luminaries are in the second firmament, the luminaries only break through the [first] sky and the second sky shines upon the earth. And what they, of blessed memory, stated (Yoma 28b), "A cloudy day is full of sun," is not a contradiction to our words; since, in any case, even if the place of the sun spreads the power of the sun to its sides, there is a difference between [that] and the place that the sun is fixed, where it is more powerful. And a cloudy day goes back and spreads the power of the sun that remains directed at the earth - according to what [the earth] can endure - and, because of the clouds, spreads it at the top of the skies, and that is [what is meant by] "it is full of sun."

1:16

And God made, etc.: And the reason that it did not suffice with that which it said earlier, "and it was so" upon all that is stated, is because the [act] here is a new act. Since, after the moon was reduced - as it is stated in their words (Chullin 60b) - God refined and fixed a new act [of creation]; since He fixed the rule of the moon by night - as it does not have rulership during the day in front of the light of the sun - and had the stars accompany it. And this is not in contradiction to that which God stated in the beginning of his words, since he already hinted to the end of [His] word at its beginning, as I [showed] by being precise, in its stating, "let there be" (in the singular to show that only one luminary would be great). And even if we explained it in a different way, [the text] supports two explanations.

1:17

And He placed them: It did not suffice to say "and it was so," since it wanted to inform us that God gave this thing as a free present, to shine upon the world, as they, of blessed memory, have stated in the Midrash (Bereishit Rabbah 6:5); see there. And the intention with this is that they informed [us] that [the luminaries] do not shine upon the [inhabitants of the] world because they are deserving of light; for if so, all the time that the luminaries would see that the inhabitants of the earth were corrupting their ways, they would refrain [from giving] their light. Also by way of another reason, they would want to refrain [from giving] their light, as they have stated in the Midrash (Introduction to Eicah Rabbati) that Moshe, our teacher, of blessed memory, said to the sun during the destruction of the Temple, why did you not darken your light when the enemy entered the Temple, etc. For this [reason], God said that they are placed to shine upon the earth, and from now [on], they are not in their own control and are required in their actions to shine upon the earth and no reason can prevent [it]. And through this, they enlightened our eyes, [regarding] why the verse repeated to say "and to rule over the day" a second time - was it not already stated, "the great luminary for the rulership of the day, etc.?" And our Rabbis, of blessed memory, expounded (Bereishit Rabbah 6:9) that the verse is hinting to the righteous - see their words there - but according to the simple understanding, there is no reason to repeat and state [it]. And according to our approach, there is a need to repeat it and state it, [since] it states, "and He placed" [which can also be understood as "and He gave"], since 'they, they are given, they are given;' [meaning that] from now, behold, they are not in their own control and the obligation of others is upon them; for this [reason], it goes back and states that their rulership stands in its place, except that specifically concerning this aspect of brightening [the earth] only, it is not in their hands to deviate, but concerning the other [aspects of] rulership that were designated for them over the day and over the night, [about these] they are [still] the rulers.

And the reason it repeats and again states, "and to separate," is that here He commanded them not to enter [past] the border of [the other] and each one is commanded not to trespass the border of the other, so that with this, day and night will be recognizable.

1:20

And God said, "let swarm, etc.": The explanation [of which] is that creatures should exist from the waters. And this thing is not constant, but [rather only] at the time of the proclamation of the creation, and those creatures that the waters swarmed stood forever - like the animal species which the earth brought forth [and] which it did not not bring forth except at the time of the proclamation [of their creation] and they stood forever - according to the commandment of God to them, that they should swarm and be fruitful and multiply. And its stating, "swarms of living souls;" these are the fish. And it used the expression, swarm, to distinguish between it and between [that] which flies, since [the fish] have no power except immediately adjacent to the earth, and [that] which flies, flies over the earth and does not need to be adjacent to it; and it is also [able to] climb up to the heavens, as it states, "upon the face of the firmament." And without this proclamation, the birds would not climb up to the heavens.

And its stating, "the firmament of the skies," the explanation [of which] is the firmament, that is called the skies. And there is no difficulty about [the] words of [the Sages], of blessed memory, who stated (Bereishit Rabbah 6:6), and these are their words, "Where are the sun and the moon? In the second firmament, as it is stated, 'And God placed them in the firmament of the skies.'...It is an explicit verse and the men of the Great Assembly have explained it (Nehemiah 9:6), 'You have made the skies and the skies of the skies and all of their hosts;' where are their hosts? In the second firmament;" [that one should ask,] according to [the] words of [the Sages], of blessed memory, what will they answer about this verse, "and let birds fly on the face of the skies of the firmament."

And it appears that according to the vowels, this verse becomes different than the verse of "And He placed them, etc;" since here, there is a kamats under the [letter] reish of rakia (firmament) and there, there is a shva under the [letter] reish of rakia. And behold, when it states, rakia with a shva, it is saying that is relational, [and] the explanation [of it] is the firmament of the skies, and when it states, rakia with a kamats, it is not relational to [the word,] skies, [and] its explanation is, 'the firmament and it is called the skies;' and with this, it is not difficult; and understand [it].

1:21

And God created, etc.: The explanation is that God added power to the two parts of creation that were created from the water. And that which it repeated to say, "and all the living souls, etc." and that the waters did not suffice to bring them out - which we did not find with what was done by the ground in the bringing forth of grasses and herbs, [whereby] the proclamation of God was sufficient for it - you should know that neither a grower nor a creator can create more that what is in the potential of its [own] growth, since how can a person give what he doesn't have; and behold, the water and the dirt lack living spirit, and from where would they have spirit to give to those they create. And even though the earth and the waters have a very fine life force, even if they give from it, they would not [be able] to give more than what is in them, and this would be insufficient for the fish and the birds; so therefore, their power was not enough and God had to create a living spirit and this is [what is meant] when it states, "And He created, etc. all the souls, etc." And if in His command to the waters, He said, "Let the waters swarm with swarms of living souls," the explanation is [that] the swarms be set up to receive living souls. Since you need to know that life force [requires] a setup and that is the intermediary between it and between matter, and the ability to create [such a set up] exists in the waters, since, as we have said, they have a fine spiritual power.

And in the great sea monsters, God made a change in their creation - as we have said - and He didn't state in [a more] general [fashion], "And He created the souls of the sea monsters and all the souls, etc.;" by which the verse revealed that they are different from everything [else] in the waters; since besides that God implanted a soul within them, also in the power of their creation itself, God created an extra power within them; since there is no power within the waters to make it, as we have said. And this is the amazing fish, it is the leviathan, and its matters are explained in [the] words of [the Sages], of blessed memory (Bava Batra 74b). And the reason it did not state about this creation, "and it was so," is that there is no place for it, since it is not needed to say "and it was so" except when only the proclamation of God is stated; [there] the Torah tells "and it was so," since He [had] said, "let there be;" which is not the case when it states, "And He created" - proclamation is included in it, execution is included in it.

1:22

And He blessed: The reason that God needed to bless that which swarmed from the waters - which He did not do with the creations that came out of the earth - and that, even among those that were born of the water themselves, He brought jealousy by not blessing the swarms of birds; it appears that this must come from an unavoidable reason, [and it] is according to that which I have explained, that that which God commanded the waters to swarm (with creatures) was only for that time and not for afterwards. [Hence,] for the survival of the specie, He commanded that they be fruitful and multiply, since, [had He] not [done] this, the specie would have ended. And given that according to nature, the reproductive facility of the creations that God created, [comes from] the element of fire; as the nature of cold - it is just the opposite - it destroys the reproductive facility. And go and learn form natural science; also from [the] words of [the Sages], of blessed memory, (Shabbat 156b) that God said to Avraham, "what is your thinking [about this], that Saturn lies etc., as it is written (Isaiah 41:2), 'who called righteousness to His feet'" (the Hebrew word, tsedek means both Saturn and righteousness); look there at their words. And according to this, fish do not have the composition that is set in nature for creatures to reproduce and so, therefore God went back with His glorious proclamation and blessed them. "Saying" the explanation [of which] is that the intention of the blessing with which He blessed them is to say that they would be able to reproduce, and that the coldness of the water would not prevent them [from doing so]; and that they would not need to go out of the water to become warmed by the earth, like the chickens (Beitzah 7a) that are [sometimes] fertilized by the ground, but rather they would give off their fruit in the water.

And this is [why] it states, "and fill the waters, in the seas;" [as] it is difficult, why is is it needed to state "in the seas" and not suffice with stating, "and fill the waters;" but rather the intention is that within the seas, there will they swarm, and that is the blessing of the Blesser, may He be blessed. And it finishes [by] stating, "and the birds will multiply in the earth," since it will increase in the way of all the earth and [this] is correct.

1:24

And God said, etc.: This too was only for that time, as we explained with the creation of the swarms of the waters. And the reason that He did not need to say to them to be fruitful [is that] He implanted in them the ability to reproduce, and they would reproduce on their own. But He did command them not to interbreed, one specie with a different specie; and this is what it states, "according to its specie."

1:25

And God made: The explanation is the creation of the life-giving soul, in the way that we explained it with the swarms of the water. And Rashi explained it in a different manner, 'and these and those are the words of the living God.'

1:26

And God said, "let us make man, etc.": The intention of this is that God did not create man like the creation of the swarms of the waters and the swarms of the earth, [meaning] that He spoke to the waters and they brought forth the swarms and he spoke to the earth and it put forth [creatures], but rather He, the Creator said that He would make man.

And He said, "let us make," since He is the source of humility; for this reason, He spoke in the plural form, since this is how a humble individual speaks. And He did not get concerned with giving room for error [that there are other powers besides God which helped in the creation of man], since He preceded [it] by stating, "And God said," [which is in the] singular: the Lord, He is God, He, Himself in His glory - as if it were possible - molded the dirt and blew the spirit of life into it. Its stating "let us make" in the plural form also wants [to teach] that the attributes of God are many; the thirteen attributes of mercy and the name, Elohim, which is the attribute of judgment, agreed together to create man.

And [about] its stating, "in our image, in our likeness," it is possible that the intention is to say that there should be a side of mercy and a side of judgment in [man], to implement the ways of judgment and the ways of mercy in what they set up; and understand [it]. And that is the secret in its stating (Genesis 2:7), "And the Lord, God formed, etc." And its stating, "and let them have dominion" is in agreement with our explanation: given that the creation resembles the Creator with respect to the attributes of mercy and judgment, it follows logically that [man] should rule [over] the creations, since he has the attribute of mercy for that which it is fitting and for those that require it, and the [capability] to kill those that are guilty in judgment. And He made him govern everything; and even if it does not mention governance over the waters, it is hinted by its stating, "over the fish of the sea" - behold, it mentions the sea among those governed.

And by way of hinting, its using the expression of descent (yeridah) [through the word vayirdu (let them have dominion)] hints by way of what they, of blessed memory, informed us (Zohar, Shemot 94b) that through the actions of man, he descends in his elevation, from the level of man to the level of fish to the level of birds to the level of animals to the level of swarming creatures. According to the severity of the sin, man goes down from the level of his elevation until he descends lower and lower - may God save us - and this is what is hinted here at the time of the creation: the different levels of descent by which he will receive his punishment and also, through which, He will return to his roots. And it began speaking [about] the descent of the soul of man to the level of the fish, since the descent that is designated for the high souls when they sin is that their souls should be reincarnated as fish. And for this reason, the verse attributed to them [that their death be by way of] gathering in their place, as they do not have to suffer the pain of slaughtering with the sword, but rather their being gathered permits them [to be eaten] (Chullin 27b). And afterwards, a descent that is lower than it, and that is the reincarnation of the soul as a bird, and this requires greater pain than fish, and God, may He be blessed, commanded it to be half slaughtered, like that which we learned (Ibid.), [the requirement to render it permissible to eat is the cutting of] the majority of one [of either the esophagus or the trachea] with birds. And afterwards, it stated the descent into animals, which is an aspect that is worse than it, and the pain of which is great, like that which we learned (Ibid.), [the requirement to render it permissible to eat is the cutting of] the majority of two (of both the esophagus and the trachea) with animals. And afterwards, it stated the descent into the inanimate and plants, and that is its stating, "and over all the earth:" the word, the earth, speaks about the inanimate and the word, over all, hints within it to the plants. And all of these descents of souls are those that have the hope of returning to their previous [state], since from the inanimate it goes up to the plant and from the plant it enters the dumb animal and from the dumb animal, it goes up to the animal that speaks (the human being). And there is a descent that is lower, and it is an end that has no hope after it, and it is the descent to the level of 'disgusting and crawling animals,' such that it has lost its hope; and this is the level of the evildoers that exchange their faith - the sinners of Israel that have acted unusually.

1:27

And God created man in His/his image: The explanation of "in his image" is that which is perceivable in man, and the intention is that He created his form and also his image, and afterwards, it states, "in the image of God;" by which it informs us that the image that He created him with is the image of God.

It also wants to tell [us] that He created man with two images: the first is the image that is recognizable in all men, and even in men that are empty of holiness, 'that they are not from the Children of Israel' - about them it states, "in his image," the explanation [of which] is [the image] of the creature; and the second is the level of the happy ones, the people of Israel, the inheritance of My field - corresponding to those, it states, "in the image of God" He created him. Behold, it comes to teach us that there are two images among the creations; the image that is recognizable [that he is a man] and the image of God, [which is] spiritual and hidden; and understand [this].

1:28

And He blessed them: The explanation is that He will not destroy the human specie. And he said, etc.: [by which] He commanded him to be fruitful and multiply; [such that] even if He blessed them that the human specie should continue, they should [still] not slack off from being fruitful and multiplying as a result of this. And I have seen faulty opinions among the creatures, from the children of our people, [that posit] that when there are three or four brothers, one or two of them should make efforts to be fruitful and multiply; and they say that this is [sufficient] for the perpetuation of the specie. And also with one man, when he has [already] perpetuated the specie, this logic comes [to suggest] that he should not put forth more efforts to be fruitful and multiply. For this [reason], God stated [at the beginning of His word, the pure commandment of God and stated, "be fruitful and multiply" and He did not make a limit to the commandment, and [that they are commanded] even if He blessed them that the human specie should not be destroyed from the world; and He finished and stated, "and fill the world." And it stated, "and conquer it" adjacent to "and fill" to say that by way of filling the earth, it will be conquered in front of them; as man does not govern over a deserted place, since from the angle of its desolation, it fills up with man's antagonists. It also wanted [to teach] by stating, "and He blessed them," that they would have the facility to reproduce and afterwards, He commanded them about the matter.

1:29

And God said to them, "behold I have given you, etc.": The structure of the verse is in the following way: Given that He already stated, "and fill the earth and conquer it and have dominion, etc,." by which He made man master and governor over all the creation, now He came to state the benefit of the giving, which is the eating; and with this He permitted them to eat from the plants. And from the derivation of the matter, you know that that which [God] gave them the fish of the sea and the birds of the skies and the animals is only to rule over them, not to eat them; since He specified one of the ruled [creatures] that it should be for eating, not all of them.

And all of the trees that have fruit of the tree: Here it negates [the inclusion] of the tree of knowledge, since it is not in this category of only making fruit, but [rather] it, itself, is fruit. And the structure of the verse is in the following way: "and all of the trees," but not all of the trees are included: [only] those "that have fruit of the tree," but not one that is fruit itself - which is the tree of knowledge, that he was commanded about afterwards explicitly. Or it is saying that even the tree of knowledge was included [in the permission to eat] and even though we find that he was commanded about [not eating] it, they, of blessed memory, have already stated (Bereishit Rabbah 21:7) that if [Adam] had waited until the eve of Shabbat, he would have sanctified with wine [of that fruit] - so far [their words]; and from their words, you learn that [this] prohibition was not [to be] forbidden forever.

1:30

And to all of the animals of the land, etc.: The verse placed "the animals of the earth adjacent to that which was stated proximately, "it shall be for you to eat, etc.," as it appears that He gives the food of people to animals in equal measure. And it finishes by stating, "to eat" a second time next to "green herbs" because it appears that the eating of the animals is only from the herbs of the field. The intention is that the only [thing] that God created for the animals and birds to eat was the herbs of the field. And lest you say, if there are no green herbs [available], then the animals will die, the verse comes to teach, "for you and for all of the animals of the earth to eat, etc." It comes out that we are saying that man will live from the fruit of the earth and from the fruit of the tree, and the animals and the birds from the herbs and vegetables, and if there is no sustenance from those, behold, their sustenance will come from the food of people. And there is a hint to this in its stating (Deuteronomy 11:15), "and I will give herbs in your field for your animal," and through this, "and you will eat and be satiated;" but without this, you will lack satiation, since the animals and the birds will eat it, since their food will be your food.

1:31

And God saw, etc.: The explanation is that through the creation of man, it could be seen that His entire creation was good; since if there is no man, what is the purpose of all the refinement and of all the creation and the plants of the ground; because the distinction of good is not recognized without the medium of man, as it is to him that good is recognized and distinguished, and he will thank the Bestower of good. And behold: That which it was not exact to state [this] on the [other] days, about which it stated, "it was good," is because [now] we find man that corrupted his actions and performed bad actions; for this reason it [now] was exact to state, "and behold," since what [existed] then, from the angle of the creations of God was very good; and afterwards, it was man that sought many calculations - from the angle of his having the choice in his hand to do evil or to do good - and negated the good and brought out with his actions the aspect of evil; but from the angle of God's creation, He only created that which was good.

And God created, etc: Here it hints that at the time of the creation of man, God looked at the righteous ones (Bereisht Rabbah 14:1) and that is what [is meant] by its stating, "and He saw, etc. and behold, good," which are the righteous ones. And in that He also saw the evil ones, He also made a solution for them, and that is what [is meant] by its stating, "very." And they, of blessed memory, have stated (Bereishit Rabbah 9:1), "very" - this is [referring] to the angel of death, through which the creatures that lean away from the path of reason are fixed. And for this [reason], corresponding to the aspect of the righteous ones, it stated, "and behold, it was good," the explanation [of which] is that behold they are the aspect of good, without any need for death; and corresponding to the those that lean to their crookedness, they too are in the aspect of good, through the auspices of "very."

Also hinted to here is the reason for the creation - according to that which we know that the essence of everything is man, and that because of him and for him did God create all of His creations; and from there comes the question, "why man?" And for this [reason], it stated "and behold, it was very good," the explanation [of which] is that even if the aspect of man's soul is from the aspect of good, nonetheless, God created him to rise up in levels of good more than he [already] is, and that is what [it means when] it states, "very:" through the actions of man, his soul becomes elevated from one level to another. 'Happy is the human that does this.'

2:1

ויכלו השמים והארץ. Heaven and earth were completed. We are not sure what this verse is meant to teach us. It appears that we must understand it in the context of the saying of our sages that G'd is the מקומו של עולם, G'd is the place of His universe (and not vice versa). We also find statements to the effect that G'd fills the universe, such as Isaiah 6,3: "The whole earth if full of His glory." G'd's light surrounds the entire globe and it fills the globe itself. We need to understand why G'd has arranged things in this manner. I have heard from Torah scholars (who were my teachers) that the reason G'd made the earth spherical is to enable its various parts to endure with equal ease. The rabbis meant that of all the desires, urges and feelings of love in the universe nothing matches in intensity the urge of the spirit which has recognised the light of G'd and its desire to cleave to G'd's light. Every living soul which has been fortunate enough to recognise even a small amount of that light longs to behold visions of the pleasantness that is G'd. Know that G'd has endowed each category of His creatures with a two-tiered intelligence. One tier is the power to perceive, the other tier is the power to analyse. Human beings, i.e. creatures who are endowed with the power of speech, as well as all lower forms of life or even the inert part of nature, all received a degree of intelligence commensurate with their status in the universe which enables them to recognise their Creator. By means of this intelligence we know that the globe continues to exist without faltering. G'd has revealed some of this secret to those who revere Him and by means of these explanations these facts became translated to our senses [as opposed to merely abstract intelligence. Ed.] The force holding up the globe is G'd's beautiful and all-embracing light which surrounds the globe in equal measure. Every section of the revolving earth derives additional strength from the power of the fiery urge that burns within it urging it to cling to the manifestations of G'd's spirit. This is why the globe remains in its position in the universe. [I have abbreviated the author's treatise on what he terms spiritual motivations for keeping "earth on track." I have no way of knowing if the author was familiar with Newton's theories about centrifugal forces, gravitation, etc. Even assuming that he had heard of them, the chances are he would have preferred to account for these movements as having been inspired at least also by spiritual considerations rather than as being merely laws of physics. According to the author the reason for the Torah telling us something at this stage which seemed obvious is to explain the fact that spherical earth which is not propped up by a visible force could remain in place throughout the millenia. We are dealing then with gravitation, etc. as a spiritual force. Ed.]

And it is possible that this is what our sages hinted at in Noam Amrei'hem (Chagigah 12a) when they said "and this is their language - that they are established but do not know on what they are established." The intention is that if the creatures were discerning this distinction and knew the exaltedness of the love for the Holy One and the yearning of the creatures for the hidden One, they would see how great is the hope and strengthening of this silence, which is the world that contracts in order to draw near and enjoy the light of the Mikveh, and does not act with weakness in any part of the revolving world. They will then take this lightly and know how much a person needs to do, for in it the discernment and intelligence increase. You should also know that since all creatures fill the entire world, wherever the vital spirit is, as our sages said (Yalkut Tehillim 159), "for no soul rests in its place, but rather it is to the side that it desires and yearns for the fullness of this world, so that the soul will not despise the flesh." And for this reason, the Lord illuminated His world from His glory, and His glory fills the entire world, and the world is found within the midst of its Creator, and the light of the Creator is within the entire world and revolves His world. And in this way, the world stood and was established through the yearning for existence, and this is what it means when it says "and the heaven and the earth were finished, and all their host." The meaning is that they were finished in the sense of yearning that is great until the part is completely exhausted into everything, and this is a great level of desire and yearning, and David hinted at it when he said "for it desires and also longs." This indicates that this level is greater than the preceding one, and through this level and its strengthening, the world exists. And this is the secret of the calling of "He who lives through the worlds" and "the Son," and this is the secret in the light of the King of Life's countenance.

2:2

ויכל אלוקים ביום השביעי. G'd completed on the seventh day. The plain meaning of the verse is to tell us that G'd did not engage in creational activities that the Torah has not mentioned after that date. The term כלה, completed, includes anything that had been in G'd's mind to do. It also means that G'd did not only desist from work on that Sabbath, but that He did not resume activity on the following six days.

We must pay close attention to the apparently superfluous words אשר עשה, "which He had done." We must also explore the meaning of the words ביום השביעי, "on the seventh day," which suggest that G'd did perform work on the seventh day but that "He completed it on that day." This was not so, but He had completed all His work already on the sixth day. Our sages already felt the need to correct the impression that G'd had still performed creational work on the seventh day. Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, quoted by Rashi and Bereshit Rabbah 10,9, says that human beings who do not know time accurately commence their Sabbath a few minutes early in order not to desecrate it. G'd who is aware of precisely when the Sabbath starts, can afford to do His work until the last second. Even allowing for Rabbi Shimon's comment, the word ביום in that verse is not adequately explained. This word creates the impression that G'd ceased work on the seventh day. Actually, according to our sages the word ביום is justified.

They claim that until the Sabbath the world was trembling and shaking until the advent of the Sabbath. On the seventh day G'd gave the earth מנוחה, tranquillity (compare Rashi's second comment on our verse). On the Sabbath G'd created the "soul" of the world, and that is the deeper meaning of the words וביום השביעי שבת וינפש, and on the seventh day He rested and retreated to His Essence. Although our sages have interpreted the word וינפש as a lament about the withdrawal of the additional soul G'd grants to the Jewish people on each Sabbath (Beytzah 17) this is merely homiletics. They base that on the unusual construction וינפש (passive or reflexive) instead of merely, ונפש (ordinary intransitive). The plain meaning is undoubtedly that שבת וינפש, because He rested on the Sabbath and with it the soul arrived. This means that all creatures were granted an abundance of vitality, something they had lacked previously.

We find a similar idea in the Zohar-Tazria (page 13 Sullam edition) as to why the rite of circumcision cannot be performed before the eighth day, and why an animal is not fit to serve as a sacrifice until the eighth day of its life. In either case one has to wait until at least one Sabbath has passed so that each has attained a נפש, a soul full of vitality. Our verse then describes G'd as putting the finishing touch to His creation by bringing on the Sabbath, not by creating on the Sabbath. The reason the Torah repeats once more מכל מלאכתו אשר עשה, from all His work which He had done, is to emphasise that this work had been done previously, i.e. before the onset of the Sabbath. The word ויכל therefore refers to activity carried out previously. All that had been lacking was something that would give permanence to this universe of ours. The seventh day, i.e. the Sabbath, completed the cycle that provides this permanence. We are therefore entitled to view the Sabbath as one of the seven days of creation. The proof that we are correct may be the very fact that we do not find the usual: "it was evening it was morning the seventh day," meaning there was no בריאה on that day.

וישבות ביום השביעי. He rested on the seventh day. Here too we must ask for the reason the Torah wrote these lines as they seem to contain the same message as the words immediately prior to them.

Perhaps we have to explain these words in connection with Pessachim 54 according to which there were phenomena which were created at dusk on Friday afternoon but which could not be completed before the arrival of the Sabbath. According to our sages some of these phenomena became destructive agents in the universe as a result. This is an amazig statement in view of the tradition that G'd is able to create whole worlds in the time it takes to blink an eyelid! How can one suggest that the Creator ran out of time and was unable to complete His work?! We have explained already at the beginning of the פרשה that G'd created every part of the universe simultaneously. The words מכל מלאכתו suggest that G'd did not complete even such work as was already in progress.

What our sages had in mind when they told us about these phenomena and the time they were created is that G'd wanted us to know something about the importance of the Sabbath and the way it is to be observed. Halachah distinguishes between the rules of what is allowed on Friday afternoon close to the Sabbath and what is not. If work has been under way and it awaits only completion there are certain categories of work which may be completed under such circumstances, especially if they are performed in honour of the Sabbath or if financial loss is suffered if one does not complete the work before the Sabbath. If such work has not even been commenced it may not be undertaken until after the Sabbath. In the example in Pessachim the sages taught us that G'd desisted from completing even work He had already begun while it was still the sixth day. This in spite of the fact that non-completion would result in grievous loss to the universe, a loss which was beyond retrieving. This is what the word וישבות alludes to after we had already heard ויכל, that G'd completed creating. Not only did G'd not undertake something new, He did not even complete something that was in the process of coming into being. The reason this word is repeated is also to tell us that it was not G'd's inability to complete an undertaking on time. One of the reasons G'd's activities on each day during the days of creation are always followed by the statement "it was evening, it was morning, etc.," is to mark the contrast with the Sabbath concerning which no such statement is recorded.

2:3

ויברך אלוקים את יום השביעי. G'd blessed the seventh day. We need to know the exact nature of this blessing which the Torah does not spell out in this instance. Our sages (Mechilta Exodus 20,3) suggested that the blessing was the fact that while the Jewish people were in the desert an extra portion of manna descended on Fridays and they did not have to pick it up on the Sabbath. Such allusions are, of course, not the plain meaning of the verse. The plain meaning of the verse has nothing to do with isolated events two and half millenia in the future.

The fact is that this present world can function only on the basis of an adequate supply of life-sustaining food and drink. All man's physical needs are attained only through toil and a great deal of effort on his part. Such activities are of a very mundane nature. Inasmuch as G'd wanted to sanctify the Sabbath, He first bestowed a blessing on that day so that it should not be devoid of anything. Although the amenities of this "lower" world are not normally attained through asceticism, withdrawal into the four walls of the Torah academy, etc., but through preocccupation with the profane and the mundane, G'd provided His blessing so that not only would there be no lack of the physical comforts but an abundance. This abundance is expressed by the halachah requiring us to have two whole loaves of bread when reciting the benediction over the Sabbath meal, to eat at least three meals on that day, and to enjoy delicacies not eaten on the days of the week. One might have expected the blessing to be of a purely spiritual nature. By not mentioning a spiritual kind of blessing, the Torah alludes to the Sabbath having been endowed by G'd with blessings of a physical nature. This is also what the Zohar meant when it speaks about the abundance of all the six days of creation being channelled into the Sabbath.

כי בו שבת, for on it He rested, etc. Here too we must explore exactly what the Torah had in mind. We fall back on what we wrote earlier, that the world had lacked the ingredients which assured it of permanence until the Sabbath came into existence. Assuming that this was so, we must ask what had enabled the world to continue up until the Sabbath? Since the world obviously was able to carry on without the נפש it received on the Sabbath, why would its continued existence have been endangered only then?

We find that G'd has revealed the answer to this question in the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20,11) where the Torah writes: כי ששת ימים עשה השם את השמים ואת הארץ This means that at the time G'd created the universe He invested it with only enough power to endure six days for reasons known only to Himself and some kabbalists. G'd created one day which would be able to invest the world with staying power for another six days. If G'd had not created the Sabbath, the Tohu Vavohu preceding those six days would have returned and G'd would have had to start the process of creation ex nihilo all over again. Due to the infusion of the "soul" of the Sabbath the universe was placed on a more permanent basis, enabled to renew its batteries, so to speak. The words ובו שבת, mean that by means of this special day, the Sabbath, He was able to rest from all His work. The work referred to is that which only G'd could perform namely to create ex nihilo, something out of nothing. Had it not been for the Sabbath and its נפש, G'd would have had to repeat the process of בריאה, creation. The word עשה refers only to תיקון, improvement, repair. G'd rested from both aspects of creative activity.

When viewed in this light we can understand the statement of our sages that by reciting the benediction over wine on the Sabbath one becomes a partner to G'd in His creation of the universe (Shabbat 119). At first glance these words appear very forced. Who has ever heard of man becoming a retroactive partner in G'd's handiwork, something that He had long since completed? Besides, the act of reciting this paragraph from the Torah does not appear to be such a world-shaking effort that it would qualify us to become G'd's "partners!" What is the source of the statement in the Talmud? If the sages meant that the reward for reciting Kiddush is so great, should it not be awarded in public such as longevity, wealth, and physical prowess being granted to Sabbath-observers?

When we keep in mind my explanation thus far, it will be seen that the Talmud's statement is indeed most appropriate. In view of the fact that the Sabbath provides a secure existence for the six days following it after which another Sabbath repeats the same function, it follows that the very existence of the Sabbath equates with the existence of the universe. Unless there are people who observe the Sabbath there is no Sabbath, i.e. its existence has lost its meaning. Our rabbis have legislated that when one's life is in danger unless one desecrates a law of the Sabbath, one should desecrate a single Sabbath in order to remain alive and observe many subsequent Sabbaths. Assuming that there were no other Sabbath-observers at the time, what good would it do for the person whose life was in to skip the one Sabbath? The world would disintegrate before he would have a chance to observe another Sabbath! It follows that only Sabbath-observers keep the universe going. Therefore the Sabbath-observers have become G'd's "partners" by ensuring that G'd's universe survives for another six days. Observing the Sabbath means to preserve its holiness according to all its laws and customs. Ever since the creation of man the world did not lack at least one person who observed the Sabbath. Adam did so, his son Sheth, and many righteous people after him. Whenever one righteous person died, G'd had already arranged for another righteous person to be born. This chain of individual Sabbath-observers continued through Methusela, Noach, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, etc., until the Jewish people introduced collective Sabbath-observance. According to our sages, The Israelites observed the Sabbath even while in exile in Egypt (Shemot Rabbah 1,32). The word בהבראם, when they were created, is the reminder that whatever the earth or the waters produced was possible only due to the act of creation G'd performed on the day they were created themselves.

When we wrote earlier (2,1) that the spherical world is kept in balance and thus in existence due to the desire of the respective creatures to cleave to the light which surrounds this sphere provided by the Creator, this does not contradict what we have written. Were it not for the Sabbath, no creature would have had sufficient intelligence and desire to want to cleave to the Creator. On that day they were provided with the potential to produce what they produced subsequently.

2:4

2.4. אלה תולדות השמים והארץ. These are the developments of the heavens and the earth. Our sages have already explained this verse homiletically. However, the plain meaning of the verse is not known.

It appears to me that the key lies in the fact that G'd had previously instructed the creatures i.e. heaven and earth respectively to also produce "offspring." The waters had been told to divide, to produce fish, etc, whereas the earth had been instructed to produce vegetation, mammals, etc. The Torah reiterates that what earth and heaven produce daily are only derivatives, תולדות, that there is nothing original about these phenomena so that we should not err and believe that both the waters and the earth possessed independent creative powers. Such an error would lead to heretic thoughts.

The reason that the Torah mentions only heaven and earth in this connection and not the waters is simply because the waters are part of שמים.

The word בהבראם may also be understood as בהם בראם, G'd created all these תולדות by employing heaven and earth as His agents.

2:5

וכל שיח השדה טרם יהיה בארץ. None of the plants of the fields existed as yet. This stresses again that until the Creator irrigated the earth by bringing on rain, none of the vegetation produced by earth was able to function, to grow. The verse also tells us that the living creatures on earth were G'd's creation as indicated by 2,19, that "G'd formed all the beasts of the field." Earth's contribution was to provide the golem-like body pending G'd's infusing these bodies with a breath of life. The same applied to the swarms of "living" creatures produced by the waters as well as the birds. Our sages have already stated that the birds are the result of co-operation by water and earth, i.e. swamps (Eyruvin 28). This is why the Torah described the birds as עוף השמים, birds of the heavens, in 2,19, although the directive had been issued to the waters in 1,20.

Why did the Torah mention here that there was as yet no human being on earth who would work the land, and why is there a second report about the creation of man in the next verse, i.e. וייצר השם אלוקים את האדם? If the Torah only wanted to inform us that the raw material man is made of was the dust of the earth, it could have done so in 1,27 where man's creation by G'd is reported instead of repeating the whole story about man being created.

I believe the answer lies in what our sages alluded to when they described אדם הראשון, original man, as the חלת העולם, earth's gift to G'd, i.e. a concept parallel to the priest's share of the dough (Eyruvin 18). Our sages therefore believed that just as the principle of donating the first of the dough to the priest in his capacity of G'd's representative on earth is a duty, creation itself is morally bound to "donate" to its Creator something similiar. We find the following passage in the tractate חלה 2,5: "If someone sets aside the quantity of חלה that he is obliged to set aside in the form of flour (instead of as part of the dough), it (this quantity of flour) is not considered sacred." In 3,1 of the same tractate we are told that until the dough (of wheat) has developed so that the meal and the water form one body, a non-priest may still eat of it on an ad hoc basis, even if חלה has not yet been set aside from it. If one eats from such dough subsequently (knowingly) one is guilty of the death penalty. The descent of rain on the vegetation of the earth is akin to the mixing (kneading) of a dough from which to make bread. This is why consumption of the proceeds of grain i.e. bread or cake, is prohibited until חלה has been set aside. It is equivalent to what the Mishnah Challah 3,1 called גלגול העיסה. Earth was unable to produce viable vegetation without G'd contributing the rain. It follows that it is prohibited to eat or otherwise enjoy any of earth's fruit until an appropriate gift to G'd has been set aside. The creation of man [from raw material made of all parts of the earth Ed.] was that gift, i.e. that חלה. Prior to man's creation the earth was טבל, untithed produce, forbidden, out of bounds to man. This is what our verse wanted to convey. Although earth produced the plants on the third day, G'd had not provided the rain at that time, not until immediately before He formed the human being. Creation of man, i.e. the חלה of the universe, enabled all the creatures to enjoy it henceforth. The Torah mentions that the entire surface of the earth was irrigated because if G'd had irrigated only parts of the earth, such an incomplete "dough" would not have freed the remainder from the requirement to contribute further amounts of חלה.

It is important to realise that G'd took "dust from the earth" to create man, as opposed to soil from גן עדן. This point is repeated again in 3,24 when Adam is expelled from גן עדן "to till the soil he had been taken from." There was no need to give חלה from any of the trees of גן עדן seeing it was totally holy already. This is why the Torah says (2,8) "G'd had planted a garden in Eden already previously (מקדם)," i.e. prior to the creation of man. He had prepared this holy region for Adam who was holy, being the חלה of the universe.

2:8

ויטע השם אלוקים. The Lord G'd planted. The reason the Torah interrupts the sequence of G'd's planting all kinds of trees in that garden (verses 8 and 9 respectively) by mentioning that G'd placed Adam in גן עדן, is to make it clear that גן עדן had been created specifically in Adam's honour, in order to place him there. After having given us this information the Torah continues and tells us that G'd made all kinds of trees grow from the soil, that these trees looked attractive and were good as food, that G'd made rivers and the function of those rivers which emanated from גן עדן. The Torah then resumes its narrative about man in verse 15, telling us that G'd placed Adam there and assigned a function to him. The Torah repeats that G'd placed man in גן עדן only to confirm that the first time this was mentioned it was only to tell us that G'd had planted גן עדן in man's honour. Had this fact been mentioned only once we would have thought that G'd intended this garden also for other creatures, such as His angels, and that man was placed there temporarily. We would have thought that after man's expulsion, the garden would have remained as be a home for other creatures and for holy spirits. The Torah therefore is at pains to make us understand that the garden was planted exclusively for man's sake and awaits man's return at a suitable time in the future and that no other creature inhabits it in the meantime.

2:15

ויקח השם אלוקים….לעבדה ולשמרה. G'd took man…to work it and to guard it. The plain meaning of the verse appears to be that the garden was in need of someone to work it and to guard it, whereas the truth is that this was not the case. Why would it need a guard? Who was there to steal from it? Also, if the garden needed someone to work it, who has done this chore during the almost 6000 years that the garden has been unattended? What exactly was the nature of the work which had to be performed?

Know therefore that the entire description of the גן עדן is to serve as an example of a spiritual environment. The Torah wanted to illustrate that just as a physical environment such as earth requires a) toil, planting, irrigation, etc. in order to produce man's food supply, and b) protection against harmful substances that damage the plants, the same applies to an environment described as גן עדן. Nowadays גן עדן is the "soil," i.e. the environment for disembodied souls, seeing the bodies have been expelled. Even as such it requires both work and protection against negative influences. The specific work required in גן עדן consists of Torah study. The Torah demonstrates the validity of such illustrative figures of speech when Moses described his speech in Deut. 32,2 in these words: "May my discourse come down as the rain, my speech distil as the dew, like showers on young growth and like droplets on the grass." The "young growth" is a simile for the positive commandments. The author cites a number of examples where G'd is described as "planting" man's good deeds. The protective activity the Torah describes as לשמרה, refers to the observance of the negative commandments. Non-observance of the negative commandments of the Torah is apt to destroy the fabric of the spiritual environment represented by גן עדן. Our sages in Sotah 2 already tell us that sin, i.e. transgression of a negative commandment, extinguishes מצות though it does not extinguish the Torah. This latter statement does not mean that it is not within the power of such a sin to harm Torah at all, it only means that a single עבירה cannot accomplish that. Sustained sinful activity could certainly undermine the Torah absolutely.

At any rate the use of such terms as "to work it and to protect it" in connection with גן עדן is perfectly justified. At the time when G'd placed Adam in גן עדן, Adam was able to see how his positive actions contributed to the well-being of the garden. Once he had been expelled he was denied the ability to see the results of his activities. His spiritual part, however, was not denied the chance to accumulate good deeds and to eventually "see" the results in the Hereafter.

2:16

ויצו השם אלוקים על האדם. The Lord G'd commanded Adam. The Torah added the word לאמור, to say, and repeated the word for "to eat," by saying אכול תאכל. The Torah also repeated that violating the command would result in death by saying: i.e. מות תמות, instead of merely תמות. The reason is 1) that Adam should command Eve not to eat from the tree of knowledge either; b) that the penalty would apply to her just as much as to Adam himself (who had heard the commandment from G'd directly). The repetition of these words also constitutes both a warning and a spelling out of the penalty, something that halachah demands when capital punishment is involved.

ומצאתי שאמרו ז"ל (ש"ר פכ"ח) וז"ל א"ר תחליפא אמר הקב"ה אם נקדים לאנשים כמו שהקדמתי לאדם הראשון ואחר כך נצטוית חוה ועמדה וקלקלה וכו' ע"כ, דקדק לומר נצטוית ולא אמר צויתי לחוה לרמוז דברינו כי לאדם צוה לאמר לה:

Another meaning of the repetition of the words מות תמות may be simply to give notice to Adam that should he eat from that tree he would cause his own mortality as well as the mortality of all those who would be descended from him in the future. This is, of course, what happened, and as a result we are all mortal until the day in the future when the pollution of the original serpent will have dissipated completely and G'd will banish death from earth (Isaiah 25,8).

וטעם אומרו ויצו ה' אלהים ולא הספיק באומרו ויצו ה' או ויצו אלהים, כאן רמז רחמים ודין אם יטיב יקיפהו ברחמים ואם לא משפט למולו:

2:18

ויאמר השם אלוקים לא טוב. The Lord G'd said: "It is not good for man to be alone, etc." This is difficult since G'd had mentioned already on the day He created man that the species had been created male and female (1,27). Another problem in the text is the expression אעשה, "I shall make for him a helpmate." The Torah then immediately proceeds to describe that the mammals and the birds were formed, i.e. ויצר השם אלוקים (2,19). This gives the impression that G'd intended one of these animals to be man's helpmate. Such a thought is not only extremely strange, but if true it would also result in one of those animals being deprived of its own mate! Besides, why did G'd have to put Adam to sleep and to remove part of his body? Could He not have formed woman as dust from the earth as He had formed man himself, especially since He formed Eve on the very same day He formed Adam (5,2) זכר ונקבה בראם? Our sages have given many homiletical explanations in answer to these questions, but they have not provided us with פשט, straightforward answers that justify the text as it stands.

We may have to fall back on the opinions expressed in Berachot 61 that originally man was created with two faces in one body. The Talmud there offers two opinions as to what was removed from Adam, a tail or a face, respectively. This is a reasonable explanation because it justifies G'd's blessing or command to Adam to be fruitful and to multiply (1,28) at a time when woman had not yet been reported as a separate entity.

It is in keeping with G'd's propensity for preparing everything good ahead of time, and providing many more opportunities for man to do good than evil. However, we must ask why He separated the two bodies enabling Eve to fall victim to the temptation by the serpent? This leads us to examine the cause of Adam's (Eve) sin, what happened to him and all of mankind as a result. We have found that woman became the cause of all that the world lost because the serpent prevailed over her in a match of wits. This occurred because Adam was not at her side at the time of Eve's encounter with the serpent. He was asleep as a result of having had marital relations with his wife (Bereshit Rabbah 19,3). Another version in the Midrash there suggests that G'd had taken him on a tour of the earth. As a result the serpent encountered Eve on her own and succeeded in seducing her. If the Torah had reported man's creation and the subsequent separation of Eve's body sequentially, without interposing Adam's experiences on earth in the interval, many people would have argued that what happened was all G'd's fault. They would have said that if G'd had not separated her body from that of her husband, thereby making a drastic change in what He had created originally, the serpent would never have had a chance to seduce Eve. In order to forestall such an argument the Torah tells us first the reason that G'd separated Eve's body from Adam's, i.e. in answer to Adam's own request. His observations of how the animals lived, male and female as separate bodies, had made him desirous of a similar arrangement. G'd had only the best of intentions, as usual. This is also the reason the Torah told us already at the outset that man was equipped to procreate from the moment he was created. Being one and the same body obviously had some of the same disadvantages as being a Siamese twin. G'd therefore decided it would be better for man's helpmate to be כנגדו, an appropriate complement, rather than the other half of his body. In this way she could be a help to him at all times instead of being a hindrance on occasion. Eve's being a separate body was not dictated by Adam's need to procreate. Seeing that the separation of her body served only to please Adam we must ask why none of the other creatures could have been trained to perform that task for Adam while leaving Eve in the state she had been created. The Torah therefore describes in verses 19 and 20 that Adam did indeed search for a suitable helpmate amongst all the other creatures but did not find one that was acceptable to him. Naming the animals, i.e. identifying their essence, was part of that search for a suitable helpmate. Eve's existence as a separate body from Adam had therefore become mandatory from Adam's point of view. It is totally incorrect to blame G'd for subsequent developments, such as Eve finding herself temporarily alone, facing an evil influence whose existence she had been quite unaware of. The Torah's report about both Adam's and Eve's innocence, i.e. their lack of shame at being nude, are all facts the Torah supplies to enable us to better understand the causes that led to the sin. Human relationships are based on people facing each other, i.e. כנגדו. The Torah describes Adam's profound joy when he finally beheld the partner who up until then had been hidden from him, i.e. had faced backwards. From G'd's point of view the original arrangement was perfectly acceptable, He had not created an imperfect human species. Any change was entirely in response to Adam's frame of mind, to accomodate him. Our sages have supplied us with numerous reasons why G'd did not create an entirely new human being to serve as Adam's helpmate. When Solomon told us in Kohelet (4,9) טובים השנים מן האחד, that two are better than one, that they can help each other, this has nothing to do with G'd having created man's form in such a way that he could have impregnated the wife which was part of him but facing backwards.

Perhaps the objective reason G'd had created the human species as a pair in a single body was to distinguish between the functions of the bodies of the animals and the functions of the human body. Animals mate indiscriminately, i.e. a male will mate with any female available to him, the act of mating being merely a response to biological urges. The fact that the Torah on occasion stresses the זכר ונקבה element when mentioning animals as pairs such as when they entered Noach's ark, does not mean that they have exclusive partners. The average animal does not recognise a female of its species as specifically "his" female. This is not the way G'd wanted man to relate to the subject of mating. It would have been impossible for Adam to describe his wife as בשר מבשרי, flesh of my own, were it not for the fact that Eve had been part of his own body previously. The whole idea that man's זווג is arranged in heaven would have been impossible to understand but for the fact that the female of the species is considered man's "other half." This consideration may also be the reason that when the Torah legislated forbidden sexual relations (Leviticus 18) the subject is always the male. It is forbidden to engage in sexual intercourse with certain women as they could not possibly be your missing "half."

2:25

ויהיו שניהם ערומים האדם ואשתו ולא יתבששו. Man and his wife were both nude and did not experience a feeling of shame. Before the sin the upper "face" and the lower "face" were equally holy. The element of evil which attached itself to man after the sin concentrates on the lower part of his body. This is the reason that the holy covenant between man and G'd, i.e. circumcision, has to be performed on his sexual organ. The foreskin, ערלה, is the symbol of what kabbalists call the קליפה, the shell or peel which makes penetration to the holy essence difficult. This is why G'd commanded its removal. Inasmuch as all adulterers are victims of the sexual urges burning within them, G'd ordered that this part of man, the source of these abominations, be hidden from view, be covered. Our sages have added the prohibition not to touch that part of one's body (unnecessarily). אורח חיים ,ב,א even tells us to avoid having to look at these parts of our body when we get up and get dressed. The Talmud Shabbat 108 coined the phrase יד לאמה תיקצץ, that the hand which touches the male organ deserves to be cut off. This is because the touch of the hand on the male organ causes sexual arousal, or אש זרה in the language of our sages, something that was not the case before the sin. Henceforth man would expose himself to the danger of that alien fire consuming him if he touched those parts. Let us look for a moment at what Abraham commanded Eliezer before he sent him on the mission to find a wife for Isaac (Genesis 24,2). He instructed his servant: שים נא ידך תחת ירכי, "place your hand under my thigh." At first glance the instruction for Eliezer to place his hand on Abraham's male organ seems incompatible with what we have just explained. Our sages explain that Abraham was not comparable to his peers in this respect. The touch of a hand on this part of his body did not cause arousal. The act of circumcision he had performed on himself on that organ at an advanced age had made him far more resistant to the evil urge than others. His whole body could be considered as almost pure. The same applies to our verse, that prior to the sin the body was not subject to this אש זרה, the burning passion of sexual arousal. Another meaning is based on the use of the future tense by the Torah. We would have expected ולא נתביישו, "they were not ashamed," instead of "they will not be ashamed." The Torah teaches us then that notwithstanding the fact that Adam and Eve were both nude they had no reason to become ashamed as a result. The Torah mentioned this so that we would know who caused the subsequent division between man's upper and lower body respectively.

3:1

והנחש היה ערום. The serpent was sly. First we must understand why the Torah told us that the serpent was so sly.

I have also tried to find what precise slyness the serpent demonstrated in this episode and have only been able to find elements of רשעות, wickedness.

The matter becomes clearer, however, when one examines what the serpent intended to achieve with the words אף כי אמר אלוקים לא תאכלו מכל עץ הגן, "even though G'd said not to eat from any of the trees of the garden." Since we know that these words were totally untrue, we would have considered the serpent as feeble-minded. The Torah therefore has to preface the account by pointing out that these words were carefully calculated, that the serpent was exceedingly sly. Any creature which is not exceedingly sly would most certainly not have succeeded in seducing a G'd-fearing woman such as Eve.

The serpent concentrated on three subjects and by combining them achieved its purpose.

1) The serpent told Eve that by not eating from the tree of knowledge she would remain for all intents and purposes as if she had not eaten either from any of the other trees. The serpent indicated that the fruits of the other trees were totally inferior when compared to the fruit of the tree of knowledge. The word אף was to indicate that Eve was to view the situation as if G'd had also forbidden all the other trees. The serpent's intent was to heighten Eve's desire to taste the fruit of the tree of knowledge. The more its virtues were extolled, the more intense the curiosity to test that statement. At the same time the serpent hoped to diminish Eve's interest in the other trees. It is characteristic of the workings of the evil urge to exaggerate one's expectations of the forbidden and to denigrate the value of that which is permitted.

2) The serpent pretended to teach Eve a halachah, thus creating the impression that it was very knowledgeable and on G'd's wavelength. It told Eve that G'd had first planted the tree of knowledge and had then used its shoots to plant all the other trees in the garden. This was part of the seduction. Once the original tree is out of bounds the other trees are automatically forbidden inasmuch as they are "earthed" branches of the original tree (compare Orlah chapter 1,5 where it is taught that such a branch is considered as a new plant for the purpose of calculating the three years of the ערלה prohibition). The serpent's argument therefore was that though G'd had specifically prohibited only the fruit of the tree of knowledge, the fruit of the other trees were out of bounds by reason of the laws governing "earthed" branches. [The author supplies additional halachic sources, which I do not feel are relevant. Ed.] At any rate the meaning of אף כי אמר אלוקים would have to be translated as though G'd said: "if you accept that commandment" you must automatically also accept its extension as far as the other trees are concerned because the three years required until the new trees are considered as no longer drawing on the original tree have not yet expired.

3) The word אף referred to the fact that G'd had not commanded Eve anything directly, He had only commanded her husband. The serpent said that it was a witness to the fact that G'd had indeed forbidden the eating of the fruit of any of the trees. The serpent had two things in mind by making that statement. A) If Eve were to believe it, the serpent could then point to the illogical nature of such a prohibition which would deny man everything to be found in the garden. The way for rebellion against G'd would then have been paved. B) To provoke a confrontation with Adam who had told Eve that G'd had only forbidden the fruit of the tree of knowledge. The serpent wanted that Adam's testimony be considered as having been refuted. We find an interesting statement by the school of Shammai in Ediyot 4,11. When two pairs of witnesses testify against an individual, the first pair claiming he had made a vow comprising two periods of abstention from wine, etc, whereas the other pair testfied that the vow involved five such periods, the school of Shammai considers this as an example of conflicting testimony. As a result the individual would not be held liable for anything on the basis of this testimony. The school of Hillel holds that inasmuch as both pairs of witnesses are agreed concerning at least two periods of נזירות, abstention from wine, etc., the person testified against is guilty if he failed to honour that part of his vow. A similar disagreement is discussed in the Talmud Sanhedrin except that there only one pair of witnesses testified, one of them testifying to a vow concerning two periods, the other claiming that the vow comprised five periods. The serpent reasoned that since there were only two witnesses, i.e. Adam and the serpent, Adam having testified to a single tree being forbidden whereas the serpent testified that all trees were forbidden the halachah should be based on the school of Shammai, i.e. the testimony was void, and as a result Eve could not be held culpable for eating from the tree of knowledge. After having written this down, I found that the author of Tikkuney HaZohar section 59 agrees with me. The author states that the serpent violated the commandment not to testify falsely by saying that G'd had forbidden all the fruit of all the trees in the garden. It is characteristic of Satan to plant lies in the minds of people, thus creating false images and beliefs in their hearts. Sometimes Satan convinces man that the sin he is planning is inevitable so that he might as well not feel badly about committing it. This is the slyest way of all to seduce people into committing a sin.

The reason that G'd created such a seducer in this world seeing He has our best interests at heart is to increase the reward we will qualify for if we made a successful effort to resist all forms of temptation.

ויאמר אל האשה, he said to Eve, etc. The serpent spoke in the kind of hissing that is characteristic of its species. The Torah does not mean to give the impression that the serpent was able to speak like humans do. Prior to the sin, man was able to comprehend the language of the animals, even the conversation carried on by the inert parts of nature. Every creature G'd created was equipped with a means of expressing itself to enable it to praise its Creator. Our sages base this on Proverbs 16,6: כל פעל השם למענהו, "G'd has made everything for His sake." Some of our sages have composed books in which they translate the songs of the animals and birds. Some of our greatest scholars were able to to understand the various sounds made by the animals, especially a man such as Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai. If the latter was able to understand the parables of the foxes (compare Sukkah 25), Adam, who was a direct creation of G'd, was certainly able to.

3:2

ותאמר האשה. Eve said, etc. Eve answered the serpent very intelligently, addressing all the three points which we described the serpent as having made. Concerning the first argument that all the trees were forbidden, Eve said that this was not so, that only the tree in the centre of the garden was prohibited. Concerning the argument that all the other trees were really earthed branches of the tree of knowledge she argued that this was quite irrelevant. It might have been relevant if G'd had not specifically permitted the fruit of all the other trees. There was therefore absolutely no sense in denying oneself something G'd had specifically permitted. She refused to accept the testimony of the serpent because it contradicted the testimony of her own husband. She argued along the lines of the school of Hillel, i.e. the common denominator between what the serpent had declared as out of bounds and what her husband had declared as out of bounds was only the tree of knowledge. Therefore, that tree and its fruit was forbidden; the other trees were permitted since no valid testimony existed that would deny them to her.

As to the argument that the tree was so far superior to all the other trees etc., Eve said she thought differently. The tree was inferior; G'd had forbidden it because eating from it would bring on death, the clearest proof that it was inferior to the other trees. Eve told the serpent that all of G'd's commandments were intended for man's benefit, not in order to cause him harm or damage. All the many fruit trees in the garden were proof that G'd had laboured to present man with a beautiful and enjoyable universe. As far as the forbidden tree of knowledge was concerned, G'd had only forbidden its harmful part, i.e. its fruit. Eve argued correctly. This is the meaning of her words: "from the trees of the garden we may eat. She claimed that this was proof that G'd has our best interests at heart. She reasoned that this in turn proved that G'd was concerned to protect man against harmful influences. Eve added that G'd said: "do not touch it," although G'd is not on record as having said this. She considered the prohibition to touch the tree a logical extension of G'd's concern that His creatures should not come to any harm. It is also possible that at the time Adam had told her not to eat from that tree he had added the warning not to touch it as an additional safeguard because he realised that its fruit contained a deadly poison.

She told the serpent further that even if it were true that the tree of knowledge was the most superior of all the trees, the fact remained that G'd had said not to eat from it on pain of death. How could one ignore such a warning?! Perhaps she added that the tree was not to be touched for fear that some oil on the outside of the fruit would serve as nutrient for her skin if it came into contact with it. Such bodily contact might be just as forbidden as oiling one's skin is prohibited on the Day of Atonement as part of denying oneself food and drink (based on Pessachim 21). Eve tried to point out that the advantages the tree seemed to offer were outweighed by its disadvantages. As a result the tree was actually the most inferior of all the trees in the garden.

At this point Eve completely rejected the serpent's attempt to convince her to eat from the fruit of that tree. She decided that it was her and her husband's duty to keep their distance from that tree.

3:4

ויאמר הנחש…לא מות תמותון. The serpent said: "You will most certainly not die." The reason the serpent repeated the reference to death was to counter Eve's fears that the tree itself was lethal, or that even if it were not harmful at all, G'd would punish them with death for disobeyimg Him. The serpent claimed that neither natural nor judicial death would result from contact with the tree or its fruit. Assuming that the serpent was right, this in turn raises the question of why G'd had forbidden the fruit of that tree? The serpent had to make such a prohibition sound plausible. This is why it continued that G'd was aware that as soon as man ate from that tree he would become a real competitor to G'd, i.e. knowing what is good and what is harmful. This argument was pure blasphemy. The only reason that the wicked serpent was able to employ such an argument was that its creation had preceded that of man. The serpent was able to use its senior status in the history of creation to claim that it was privy to matters that Adam and Eve could not have been privy to. He also argued that the reason he (the serpent) had been denied entry to גן עדן was that entry had been permitted only to those who were not privy to the secret of the tree of knowledge and what it represented. It claimed that by preventing the serpent from entering the garden G'd had wanted to preserve the secret of the power that tree would impart to those who ate from it. According to the serpent, once Eve would eat from that tree she would no longer be afraid of G'd, and G'd would no longer exercise any control over her. The use of such an argument was idolatrous. According to our halachah idolatry is punishable even when it is merely an intellectual conviction (Berachot 12).

According to Bereshit Rabbah 19,3 there is another reason that the serpent used the expression מות תמות. The serpent pushed Eve against the tree and "proved" that touching the tree was not lethal- as Eve had claimed. It argued that just as touching the tree had not resulted in death, neither would eating from its fruit. We must examine this so-called "proof." If we accept that Eve had convinced herself that contact with the tree would have fatal consequences because of its very nature, the fact that her contact with the tree had proved harmless should have convinced her of the tree's harmlessness. There was therefore no reason to be afraid to eat from it. Alternatively, if Eve's fear of touching the tree were based on her belief that G'd had outlawed both eating from the tree and touching it, she now had "proof" that this was not so because nothing had happened to her after she had touched the tree. We do not consider this in the nature of any "proof," seeing that G'd's punishment did not have to be meted out immediately. We therefore prefer the explanation we offered previously that the serpent wanted to "prove" to Eve that the tree itself was quite harmless.

If you were to ask why G'd would have created a tree that was poisonous at all, the answer is -as in many such instances- that the greater the physical and spiritual effort to overcome such potential impediments to our faith, the greater the reward which is stored up in heaven for such acts of faith, a reward to be consumed by us in the Hereafter. This concept is phrased in Avot 5,26: לפום צערא אגרא, as "the reward is commensurate with the effort expended." Had G'd imposed strict limits on the power of the seducer to entice us, overcoming him would not have amounted to much. The Zohar illustrates this principle by the example of a father who wanted to test his son's moral fibre and who instructed a beautiful harlot to use all her wiles to seduce him. At the same time he had instructed the son to keep his distance from the harlot in question.

3:6

ותרא האשה כי טוב העץ. Eve saw that the tree was good. The first problem is how could one judge what is good to eat by merely looking at it? Another question is why the Torah describes a feeling of the mouth before describing the effect on the eye? The verse should have read: "she saw that the tree was a beautiful sight and that it was good as food," in that order. Furthermore, whence did Eve know that the tree was apt to add to her perceptive powers, i.e. להשכיל? If the Torah merely intended to tell us that the serpents's description of the tree had been accurate, why describe the woman as seeing something that she did not see? Also why did the Torah add two superfluous words הוא, and העץ a second time? If the repetition of the word is justified, why did the Torah not also write the word העץ after the word תאוה?

The verse describes the way in which Eve was snared, and how she eventually became willing to listen to her seducer. When you examine Eve's earlier words, you will find that she said: "and from the fruit of the tree in the center of the garden, G'd' said "do not eat." She had expressed her conviction that only the fruit of the tree was forbidden, that the trunk, the branches, etc., were permitted. She may have arrived at that conviction for one of two reasons. 1) Adam had commanded her in those very words. 2) Though Adam had mentioned only the tree without specifying its fruit, etc., she reasoned that there would have been no point in forbidding something that anyways was not food, such as the trunk, the branches, and the leaves. We have pointed out earlier that whereas the other trees did not taste similar to their fruit, the tree of knowledge was the exception, its trunk, etc. being just as edible as its fruit. We must therefore assume that Eve had already tasted the tree itself, not having considered it as forbidden. She also applied the prohibition to touch it as applicable only to its fruit, not to the trunk, etc. At any rate, Eve had already experienced the taste of the tree's trunk and nothing had happened. Alternatively, she may have discounted the prohibition to touch the tree knowing that this was not a direct command from G'd Himself and would not lead to death.

Having tasted from the tree itself, and having experienced that its nature was different from all the other trees, she decided to take a closer look at the fruit of that tree. It was then that she discovered that the fruit exerted a powerful visual attraction; the word הוא refers back to the word פרי, fruit. It could not refer to the word העץ, the tree, as this would be unnecessary. It would have sufficed to say וכי תאוה לעינים, if it were merely a reference to the tree. The word העץ is needed in the sequence ונחמד העץ לעינים because the subject matter had changed from the fruit to the tree. The knowledge of the nature of the tree had been based on her sense of taste, whereas her perception of the nature of the fruit was based only on her sense of sight. The Torah explains that Eve's purpose in eating of the fruit was to broaden her powers of perception. At this point Eve believed that the serpent had spoken truthfully when it claimed that as a result of eating from the fruit of that tree she would gain greater insights, and that G'd had forbidden the fruit only in order to prevent her from gaining the insight which would make her equal to G'd. The Torah emphasises that "she took from its fruit," as she had already tasted the trunk. We have now completed answering the various questions we raised about this verse. Eve gave to her husband from this fruit out of her love for him; she wanted him to share her new insights so that he too would become G'd-like.

I have seen it said in defence of Eve that her sin was not so serious as she could not imagine that G'd had created a being whose sole purpose it was to test man's love for G'd by having Satan masquerade within it to try and mislead man. If such a thought had even occurred to Eve she would never have engaged in a dialogue with the serpent. She would have acted just like the righteous nowadays who do not listen to or engage in disputes with tempters however slick-tongued they may be in making something sinful look desirable. The righteous of our time are not so naive; this is why they can withstand the wiles of Satan. Poor innocent Eve did not have their advantage and that is why she fell victim to the seductive tactics of the serpent (Satan). She had furthermore been mislead by the taste of the tree itself, something she thought of as permitted. She also did not possess as analytical a mind as that of a man, else she would have been able to resist the lure to eat from the fruit of that tree. Had she not first erred in believing that the tree itself was pemitted to eat from, she never would have considered eating from the fruit as well.

Another reason that may have accounted for Eve falling an easy victim to Satan's lure was that she considered it to have been a mistake to accept the prohibition not to eat from the tree. When she accepted the commandment she had not thought that it would be so difficult to observe. Originally the tree had not appeared to her as sufficiently desirable to pose a threat to her obedience to G'd's command. We find a parallel to such considerations when we consider how many covenants G'd concluded with the Jewish people to ensure that they would not go back on their commitment to observe the Torah. G'd did not consider it sufficient to just give the commandments to the Jewish people without creating a legal device to make the commitment irrevocable. Our sages (Shabbat 85 based on Exodus 19,17) tell us that at Mount Sinai G'd had threatened to kill the Jewish people unless they embraced the Torah. He subsequently reinforced the validity of their acceptance by making them swear an oath. Our rabbis go so far as to describe the renewed acceptance by the Jewish people of the Torah at the time of Mordechai as the only free acceptance of G'd's laws, describing the original acceptance as having occcurred under conditions of duress and therefore legally not valid (Shabbat 88). Inasmuch as Eve had not been sworn to observe the commandment not to eat from the tree she was not really obligated to do so. Even though she had orally accepted the commandment and such acceptance is comparable to the uttering of a vow, it is in the category of a vow erroneously entered into, something that can be annulled retroactively (compare Nedarim 66). The exact text in the Talmud is as follows: If someone undertakes not to drink wine because the wine is bad for his digestion, and he is informed that aged wine is good for his digestion, his vow is annulled and he may drink any kind of wine. We face a similar situation here. When Eve had accepted G'd's commandment prior to having become conscious of the powerful attraction exerted on her by this tree she had been quite sincere. However, once she noticed the powerful pull which the fruit of that tree exerted on her she regretted having undertaken to honour the commandment not to eat from it.

We therefore have two causes that helped to mislead Eve. The reason she may have thought that only the fruit of the tree was forbidden was because her husband had not given her precise instructions. Had her husband told her that G'd had said: "You may eat from all the trees of the garden, but from the tree of knowledge in the centre of the garden you must not eat," she would never have considered the trunk as permissible, and the fact that neither eating from it nor touching it had resulted in any harm to her would not have served as a verification of the serpent's argument. Eve's not having been aware of the attractive nature of the tree was also Adam's fault. He had not told her that G'd had described the tree as the tree of knowledge of good and evil. He had only told her not to eat from the tree in the middle of the garden, without a reference to its special nature. Had Eve been aware that the tree was of such special significance the serpent could not have tricked her, and she herself would have been unable to invoke her lack of knowledge as a reason to revoke her acceptance of G'd's command not to eat from it.

None of the causes of the sin can be attributed to G'd, all were due to man's inadequacy, i.e. both Adam's and Eve's.

For all we know, Adam may not have been aware that the trunk of the tree of knowledge was edible. He had only tasted the other trees and found invariably that their trunks were not edible. He did not realise that the earth had conformed with G'd's instructions to the letter when it produced the tree of knowledge. The manner in which the Torah describes Eve's realisation of the tree's properties suggests that she did not have an inkling previously that this tree had such special features.

3:7

ותפקחנה עיני שניהם. The eyes of both of them were opened. We have explained on 2,25 that sin caused man to become aware of his nudity, and that the awareness in turn results in a feeling of shame. This is what this verse is all about. Each of them was ashamed, one of the other. The use of the words ותפקחנה עיני…reflects the teaching of our sages that "one does not commit a sin unless one's mental eyes had first been blinded." Isaiah 42, 18 speaks about והעורים הביטו לראות, "blind ones, look up and see!" Surely the prophet must have referred to the wicked whose mental eyes had been blinded. Once the temporary mental blindness caused by the decision to sin had passed and the seducer had departed, they became aware of their nudity. Satan is also referred to as personifying darkness, someone who blinds people's eyes. The nudity referred to here is not merely lack of ordinary clothing, but the removal of an aura of holiness which had served them thus far in lieu of clothing in the accepted sense of the word. It is characteristic of a wicked person that after he has committed an abominable act he becomes aware that what he did was an abomination.

3:8

וישמעו את קול השם They heard the voice of G'd. The reason the Torah describes the direction G'd's voice took, i.e. לרוח היום, was to enable them to find a place to "hide" from G'd. In this instance G'd's voice travelled westwards, parallel to the sun, whereas Adam and Eve were in the centre of the garden.

3:9

ויאמר לו איכה? He said to him: "Where are you?" The meaning is: Why do you hide yourself and do not appear before Me? Adam replied that he was afraid because he considered himself naked, and as it is forbidden to stand naked in front of a Torah scroll it certainly is unseemly to appear before G'd in such a state. According to our exegesis, he meant they had become aware of their reduced stature. Their sin had made them aware of the loss of their aura of holiness, hence their nakedness. They could not have referred to actual nudity as the Torah already reported that they sewed together fig-leaves to serve as clothing.

3:11

ויאמר מי הגיד לך כי עירום אתה, He said: "Who has told you that you are naked?" G'd meant: "what is different now? You stood before Me previously without feeling naked?" The new knowledge you display cannot have originated within you. It must have been provided by an external source. G'd therefore wanted to know: "Who has told you?" According to our exegesis that the feeling was generated internally, i.e. a result of the sin and the loss of the aura of holiness, we must understand the question as merely rhetorical. G'd did not want to shame man too much, therefore He Himself supplied the answer that Adam might have eaten from the forbidden tree, and the act of eating revealed this knowledge to him.

By the reference to the tree as opposed to the fruit, the verse once more stresses that the trunk too was forbidden.

3:12

ויאמר האדם האשה אשר נתת עמדי. Adam said: "The woman You put with me." The manner of Adam's reply was so unseemly that one would not expect him to use it vis-a-vis the least important human being, certainly not when addressing the King of Kings. Besides, when Adam said: "she gave me from the tree, and I ate," why did he add the unnecessary words "from the tree?" We would all have understood that he referred to said tree without his repeating this. Eve did not bother to say that it was the tree she ate from.

Apparently Adam did not know exactly what happened except that Eve had placed something before him and he had eaten without examining it. He had not felt the need to ask her what it was she had placed before him seeing that the whole earth was his to enjoy. He added "which You put with me" in justification for not having enquired where the fruit had come from. It was as if he had said to G'd that since G'd had supplied the woman, he, Adam, had no reason to be suspicious about her motives. After all, nothing evil originates in Heaven! Our sages have said: אין בודקין מן המזבח ולמעלה, "once something (a slaughtered animal) has arrived on the altar (having passed several stages of inspection on the way) there is no need to again check its suitability as a sacrifice." Adam argued that if the חזקה, the presumption of fitness of such an animal, is acceptable, then surely a woman supplied by G'd Himself need not be examined for blemishes.

When Adam said: "from the tree," he referred to a tree planted within the garden seeing all those trees had been planted by G'd Himself (2,8-9). When Adam spoke of "the tree," he did not refer to the tree of knowledge which G'd had referred to. He described his situation before he had eaten from the fruit Eve gave him. At that time he thought the fruit was from any of a number of trees. It was only after he had tasted the fruit that he became aware that this fruit must have been from the tree of knowledge. Adam's argument then was not nearly as outrageous as it appears at first glance. Although one might even argue that Adam said he ate merely from the tree and not from its fruit, and that eating from the tree had not been forbidden, such an argument is not tenable for a number of reasons.

As a result, Adam was merely a שוגג, an unintentional sinner. One might go further and claim that he was an innocent victim and thus not guilty at all. This would explain why G'd' did not curse Adam but only the earth. The truth is, however, that Adam acted carelessly in not accurately repeating G'd's command to Eve. He had mentioned only the fruit of the tree to Eve, not the prohibition of the tree itself. This inaccuracy paved the way for all the subsequent events.

3:13

ויאמר השם אלוקים אל האשה. The Lord G'd said to the woman. The only reason G'd asked Eve what she had done was to give her an opportunity to confess her sin against G'd. The confession would act as the cure for her newly contracted sickness. When she said that the serpent had seduced her this was both a confession and an explanation that her sin had not been intentional. I have explained earlier that Eve had been under the impression that it was permitted to eat from the trunk of the tree. She had also not realised that the serpent was a seducer. She confessed her error to her Creator.

3:14

ויאמר השם אלוקים אל הנחש. The Lord G'd said to the serpent. The serpent had caused three kinds of harm by its words. 1) It caused the withdrawal of the glory of G'd's light which had hovered over Adam and Eve as we explained previously. This is the real meaning of the כתנות אור, the garments of light. [this spelling is reported to have been found in the Torah scroll of Rabbi Meir. Ed.]. 2) It resulted in Adam and Eve both becoming mortal, losing their immortality in this world. This was the punishment G'd had threatened would result from eating of the tree of knowledge. 3) The serpent caused even man's limited life on this earth to be of an inferior quality, outside the confines of גן עדן.

G'd therefore punished the serpent separately concerning each one of these losses it had caused man. 1) G'd cursed the serpent because it deprived man of his blessing, i.e. the presence of G'd's glorious light. 2) G'd deprived the serpent of the legs it used to walk on because the serpent had deprived man of eternal life on earth. Prior to the sin the serpent possessed the kind of stature that enabled it to share all the advantages of the world with Adam. It would have been an honoured houseguest at Adam's all its life. As a result of its sin, co-existence of man and the serpent in this world became almost impossible. 3) The serpent was condemned to eat dust for having deprived Adam and Eve of the enjoyment of life in גן עדן. Our sages explain this to mean that the serpent does not enjoy any of its food, just as one does not enjoy eating dust (Yuma 75). G'd's words: כי עשית זאת, "because you have done this," which introduces the serpent's punishment, are a reminder that the serpent's words were considered its deeds.

3:15

ואיבה אשית בינך ובין האשה. And l shall place hatred between you and the woman. G'd applied the principle of גואל הדם, a relative avenging a killing who is permitted to kill the slayer without trial. This is so because the serpent's deed brought death to all of Eve's descendants. The nature of the revenge matches what the serpent had done. Humans will strike at the head of the serpents, seeing that the original serpent had initiated man's downfall and the head is the beginning of life, it is the area which is smitten by the angel of death. Whenever it attacks man, the serpent will aim at the heel because man in the end trailed, i.e. followed the advice of the serpent when sinning. The word "heel" may also simply be an allusion to the serpent's having lost its legs, being forced to move on its belly.

You may well ask how could the Torah in the same breath as allowing man to avenge himself on the serpent permit it to attack man's heel? What kind of penalty is it for the serpent to be allowed to continue harassing man? The answer is simply that the serpent could have retorted that no one forced Eve to listen to its advice. Our sages (Kidushin 42) have formulated this by asking rhetorically: "When the instructions of the teacher conflict with those of the disciple, whose instructions is one to follow?" If Eve had followed this simple piece of logic there would not have been any unfortunate developments as a result of the serpent's argument. The serpent therefore felt aggrieved that Eve's lack of logic had caused it permanent harm. There is an allusion as to how long this condition of enmity between man and the serpent will continue. As long as man, i.e. Israel, is ראש, deserving of the title "head" by performing G'd's commandments, it will prevail over the tempter called serpent and smash it. On the other hand, when Israel ignores G'd's commandments, the serpent will bite it because Israel has itself become like a heel instead of like a head.

3:16

אל האשה אמר. He (G'd) had said to the woman. G'd intended to make it clear that Eve would suffer three curses as retribution for the three features of the tree of knowledge she had wanted to enjoy. She had seen that the tree a) was good as food; b) a temptation for the eyes; and c) desirable to make one perceptive. G'd decreed that instead of enjoying the fruit of the tree she would suffer pains when producing her own fruit, i.e. her children. Regarding the temptation for her eyes Eve wanted to enjoy, G'd decreed that she would henceforth pine for her husband as a passive partner, her husband deciding if and when to indulge her desire. Her husband would always derive satisfaction from the mating process without a guarantee that her desire would be satisfied during union with her husband. Finally, instead of satisfying her desire to be G'd-like, she would be dominated not only by G'd but also by her husband.

3:17

ולאדם אמר. And G'd had said to Adam. We need to understand why G'd mentioned Adam's "listening to the voice of his wife;" It would have sufficed to say: "because you ate from the tree, etc.;" Besides, why did the Torah add the word "to the voice?" Could the Torah not simply have said "because you listened to your wife, etc.?" Having in mind that we explained that Adam had not been aware at the time he ate that the fruit he ate was from the tree of knowledge, it would not have been appropriate for the Torah to simply say: "because you ate from the tree, etc." since in fact he did not eat from the tree knowingly but inadvertently. The Torah therefore had to spell out that Adam's sin was accepting the words of his wife without checking them. As a result of his failure to investigate his wife's words more closely, he "ate from the tree." The reason the Torah refers to the "voice" of Adam's wife is to alert us to the fact that Adam was satisfied that it was his wife talking; he did not bother to analyse what she was saying. When she told him: "take and eat," this is what he did. He did not ask where the fruit came from. The Torah alludes once more to Adam's error in not giving Eve precise instructions when it says: "from the tree which I told you not to eat from." Adam had only told Eve not to eat from the fruit of the tree. The lack of adequate information at the time Adam relayed G'd's command to Eve was a major cause of the tragedy.

The reason G'd cursed both the earth and Eve but not Adam is due to the earth's failure on the third day of creation to produce trees exactly as G'd had commanded. Had the earth produced only trees whose trunk were edible, or only trees whose trunks were not edible, Eve could not have made the error she made. It was only because the tree of knowledge was different in this respect that made Adam's failure to warn her not to eat from this tree result in tragic consequences. G'd therefore cursed the earth as the cause of all that had happened. Since G'd expelled Adam from the garden and made him toil the unresponsive earth, Adam was punished for having accepted his wife's urgings without checking. He had greedily indulged his desire, and as a result he would forever more remain in a state of sadness that he could not earn his livelihood without hard work. He would now eat grass of the field in lieu of the fruit of the trees of the garden for which he did not have to toil. In future when he would have to labour to secure his food supply he would know exactly where it came from.

3:19

עד שובך אל האדמה, Until you will return to the soil, etc. The Torah gives two reasons why man would have to die. It would not have sufficed to explain the need for man to die, i.e. return to the folds of the earth merely because that had been his origin. After all, he had originated from earth before the sin and was not bound to return to it. Since man is made of dust, i.e. earth, he is part of it, or rather, he has made himself part of it through his sin. Had he not sinned, the holiness acquired by triumphing over temptation would have guaranteed that he did not have to return to his lowly origin. His body would have become so refined that it no longer would have been considered as part of the earth. Now, even the part of Adam that was spiritual had been severely tainted through his sin. G'd explained to Adam that although it is normal for things to return to their origin; he, Adam, had forfeited his opportunity to defy that norm through non-observance of G'd's commandment.

3:20

ויקרא אדם שם אשתו חוה. Adam called the name of his wife Chavah. We must understand why Adam had not named his wife immediately after he met her, before any of the happenings described by the Torah.

Know therefore that G'd had already given the woman a name reflecting her distinction when He named both the man and the woman ADAM. We know from Ezekiel 34,31 that the name ADAM is a great distinction. The prophet proclaims: אדם אתם, "you are Adam" (referring to Israel). Our sages (Yevamot 61) have stated about Israel: "you have been called ADAM, whereas the Gentiles have not been called ADAM." There was therefore no reason for Adam to have named Eve previously. Now that his wife had been seduced by the serpent she had suffered a spiritual decline and no longer qualified for the name ADAM. In fact it is generally accepted that when a person violates G'd's law knowingly he forfeits his original name. This is what Solomon (Proverbs 10,7) meant when he said: ושם רשעים ירקב, that the "name" i.e. the original name of the wicked, will rot. Adam now had to give his wife a name which reflected her function in life, namely that she became the "mother" of all human beings. True, Adam had sinned too, but his sin had been unintentional as already pointed out. He did not forfeit his name on that account.

As a matter of fact Adam too experienced a diminution of status as expressed by his name. The Torah here calls him suddenly האדם, three or four times instead of אדם as previously. You must appreciate that the category of person called האדם is inferior to the one called אדם without the letter ה. Sifri 143 quotes Rabbi Yirmiyah on Leviticus 18,5: אשר יעשה אותם האדם וחי בהם, that האדם should perform these commandments in order to live by them, as including Gentiles. This is so because whenever the letter ה before the word אדם does not signify a definite article it refers to the human species as such. [I have condensed the proof presented by the author. Ed.] Although Adam declined in spiritual stature and forfeited the full extent of his name, this was a temporary phenomenon. The Torah again accords him his full name when it describes that he became the father of Sheth (4,25). He regained his stature having only sinned inadvertently.

There is another reason for the name חוה. First we must understand why "life" is attributed to Eve and not to Adam. After all, Adam was the "father" of all human beings! Besides, if the reason we have given for Adam calling חוה is that she is the "mother" of all human beings, he should have called her חיה, not חוה! Her name was to reflect two new developments. 1) She had listened to the urgings of the seducer. Adam called her by the name of the seducer, the word חוה being the same as חויא the aramaic for serpent. This is the reason given in the Zohar. The second new development was that she was condemned to bear children in pain. She alone deserved to be called "mother" of all human beings because it was only she who had to endure pain in connection with procreation. The Torah did not want to spell out the other reason, seeing that it is already alluded to in the name חוה.

3:22

ויאמר השם אלוקים, The Lord G'd said: "Here man has become like one of Us, etc." We need to understand why G'd had not commanded Adam and Eve not to eat from the tree of life before He forbade them to eat from the tree of knowledge. Had they eaten from it first they would have lived forever!

Another peculiarity in our verse is the word היה. G'd was afraid that Adam might live forever, not that he had already achieved that status. The word therefore should have been עוד לא היה, or something to that effect. Furthermore, why would the ability to distinguish between good and evil elevate man to the status of G'd? How can we justify the expression ממנו, "like one of Us?" This would give the impression that there are physical beings in the heavens!

In view of the fact that G'd had warned man not to eat from the tree of knowledge He was not worried about his eating from the tree of life. He did not think man would be motivated to do so either of his own volition or as a result of seduction by the serpent. The seducer only urges man to taste what is forbidden; Satan never urges you to do what is perfectly permissible. Man on his own had no desire to eat from that tree in order to secure permanent life, something that was his birthright anyways. It was only after he had forfeited his birthright that he would seek to find an alternative for what he had lost. If G'd had forbidden the tree of life immediately, the serpent might have succeeded to entice even Adam himself into eating from it. Therefore G'd was wise in not including the tree of life in the prohibition immediately. After having eaten from the tree of knowledge with its fateful consequences, Adam's priorities had changed, and G'd now had to be concerned lest man eat from that tree in order to neutralize the mortality that had been decreed on him.

The meaning of the word היה then is: "up until now man was alone unto himself," i.e. he was immortal," however, now that he has lost his immortality, he might want to eat from the tree of life. The word אחד ממנו, would refer to the uniqueness of man on earth. He alone of all the creatures on earth was immortal. The knowledge man acquired due to having eaten from the tree of knowledge might prompt him to want to eat from the tree of life to recapture the uniqueness of his former stature of ruling over the creatures of earth. I have found a proof for my interpretation of the word ממנו in Onkelos. Onkelos translates the word as מניה, "from him," i.e. כאחד ממנו, "like the only one of its kind"

There is another way to solve the problems we have raised. On the day G'd commanded Adam not to eat from the tree of knowledge He gave two commandments. G'd actually allowed for the possibility that Adam would violate His command by saying: "should you eat from it, your only way to rehabilitate yourself will be through death, through mortality of the body." In halachah we would consider the second commandment, i.e. the need to die as a לאו הניתק לעשה, a negative commandment tied to a positive commandment. The positive commandment is viewed as the תיקון, reparation of the negative commandment that has been violated. We have mentioned earlier that had it not been for the sin, Adam would have become so refined that he would have been considered as at home in the world of the permanent beings, just as the prophet Elijah who departed this world, body intact. It was only due to the sin that Adam's body forfeited the chance to rise with him to such lofty heights. Once deprived of the opportunity to refine his body in the manner described, the very act of separation of the soul from the body becomes the symbol of the inability to achieve the elevation of the body to eternal life. Under such circumstances man would not eat from the tree of life of his own accord. He would be afraid that as a result of eating from it he would forever forfeit potential rehabilitation should he violate the command not to eat from the tree of knowledge. Only death could afford him that chance, and once he had eaten from the tree of life he would not die. The matter was different, however, once he had eaten from the tree of knowledge without having eaten as yet from the tree of life. If he had eaten deliberately from the tree of knowledge, man would certainly be careful not to eat from the tree of life as that would condemn him eternally to a physical existence only. However, as we explained, man's sin had been inadvertent, meaning that he thought he was not bound to die in order to rehabilitate himself. If so, there was no powerful incentive for him to stay clear of the tree of life. Actually, Adam erred; even though his sin was inadvertent it could only be completely atoned for through death of his body at some stage. The principal reason that G'd had commanded man not to eat from the tree of knowledge was to prevent knowledge of evil becoming an integral part of his perceptions. His perceptions were meant to concentrate only on what is good. This is what Solomon meant (Kohelet 7,29) when he said that ישר עשה האלוקים את האדם, that "G'd made man perfectly upright." Evil did not figure as part of man's imagination and fantasies. All of this changed after he ate from the tree of knowledge. The fact that man felt naked and ashamed is proof that his fantasies now included things that were evil. Once man had undergone such a drastic change and the purpose of the prohibition to eat from the tree of knowledge had been irreversibly thwarted, he would no longer consider not eating from the tree of life as his insurance should he need to recapture his original status. He had already lost that status irretrievably. With the incentive not to eat from the tree of life gone, G'd had to forbid man to eat from that tree. In view of the fact that man had ignored a previous command, G'd deemed it safer to place the tree of life out of Adam's reach by expelling him from the garden.

Having said all this we can now understand a difficult passage in Bereshit Rabbah 21,6. Commenting on the words: "and now, lest he reach out and take also from the tree of life and eat thereof and live forever," Rabbi Aba bar Kahane says that the word ועתה, "and now" in this verse teaches that G'd encouraged Adam to repent. This word is used by the Torah to introduce the process of repentance. For instance, we have Deut. 10 where Moses described the sin of the golden calf and his endeavours to obtain forgiveness for the Jewish people. Verse 12 there commences with the words: ועתה ישראל, and goes on to describe what it is that G'd asks of the Jewish people so that they can rehabilitate themselves. The expression פן, always means "not or no." G'd said: "lest he stretch out his hand and take also from the tree of life and and eat of it and live forever." Thus far Rabbi Aba bar Kahane. This Midrash is extremely puzzling. How could G'd justify encouraging man to do repentance by saying to him "NO!?" Why did G'd only start to worry that Adam would eat from the tree of life after He had said to him "No?" It appears as if G'd would not have been concerned about Adam living forever if he had done תשובה! This cannot be since man had already become mortal on the day he ate from the tree of knowledge!

Actually, keeping in mind our exegesis, the words of Rabbi Ada bar Kahane make sense. G'd wanted Adam to realise that he had sinned by eating from the tree of knowledge. He did this by telling him to repent. Adam answered this invitation to do תשובה by saying that he had not sinned in a manner that required him to repent. He argued that he had been unaware of committing a sin when he ate from the tree. When G'd heard that Adam thought that an inadvertently committed sin does not require repentance, He began to worry that now there was no impediment to Adam eating from the tree of life. This is why G'd had to expel him from the garden to prevent this from happening. Later on Adam did repent and spent 130 years immersing himself in the waters of the river גיחון to atone for his sin [compare Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer 20. Ed.].

Although G'd had said that Adam would die "on the day" he would eat from the tree of knowledge, the word "day" could have one of two connotations. It could mean a period of 24 hours, i.e. a day in human terms, or it could refer to a day in G'd's terms, i.e. 1000 years. If it is the latter, the meaning of the warning was that Adam would die before he reached the age of 1000 years. The respective connotation of the word depends on the severity of the sin and the feeling the sinner had at the time he committed the sin. If the sinner intended to anger G'd at the time he sinned, the meaning of the word "day" would be the minimum. The sinner would have to die before that period of 24 hours expired. If, however, the sin was not committed intentionally and the sinner had made it plain that he had not intended to sin, he would be given the maximum period possible, i.e. he would live up to but not including 1000 years.