.

,,
,, ,

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. (Bereishis 1:1)
, , , ][ ,, ] [ ) ( : :
,
In the beginning: Said Rabbi Yitzchak: It was not necessary to begin the Torah except from This month is to you, (Shemos 12:2) which is the
first commandment that the Israelites were commanded. Now for what reason did He commence with In the beginning? Because (Rashi,
Bereishis 1:1)

Figures at top of stele "fingernail"

above Hammurabi's code of laws.
[Wikipedia, source]
To offer an alternative answer, the Torah begins with the why instead of the what. While the mitzvossurely are important, if the Torah had
started with the first commandment given to the Jewish nation, they (the audience back then) and we (the audience today) would not know
why we should listen to that commandment. For all we know, this could be the Code of Hammurabi, an ancient Mesopotamian law code. It could
be the laws of Eshnuna. It could be the laws of a cult of Molech worshipers. What is the nature of the Giver of these laws? What is the ethical
nature of these laws? Why should we feel in any way bound by them?
Parashas Bereishis establishes Hashem as the Creator. He creates the world. Then He creates Adam and Chava, places them in a wonderful
garden, and then gives them the first commandment.
Sefer Bereishis outlaying the early history of the world, showing how He was concerned with humanity behaving in a moral manner, interceding
when necessary, in the Dispersal, the Flood, and in Sedom. Sefer Bereishis also explains the special relationship Hashem developed with the
forebears of the Jewish nation, and how He took a wandering Aramean, Avraham, and transformed him first into a great family and then, from a
great family into a great nation. The beginning of Sefer Shemos, prior to that first commandment, explains how Hashem redeemed the Jewish
nation from servitude in Egypt. Indeed, we see this role of Creator or Redeemer as a basis for the laws of Shabbos (see Shemos 20:7-10 and
Devarim 5:11-14).
We rely on zechus avos, the merits of our forebears, for Hashems continued kindness to us. But, in parallel, one big reason for our continued
relationship with Hashem is gratitude for how he treated our forebears.
A tangential, related thought, about mirrored kindness and zechus. We read in Sefer Yirmeyahu:
. ,


--

,'
, ,



,




Go, and cry in the ears of Jerusalem, saying: Thus saith the LORD: I remember for thee the affection of thy youth, the love of thine espousals; how
thou wentest after Me in the wilderness, in a land that was not sown. (Yirmeyahu 2:2)
What is this
this affection of thy youth? The standard explanation, given by Rashi, is that this is the kindness that the Israelites
,
showed to Hashem:
, " ", , , , , , , .
. , , ,?
I remember to you: Were you to return to Me, I would desire to have mercy on you for I remember the loving kindness of your youth and the love
of the nuptials of your wedding canopy, when I brought you into the wedding canopy, and this ( ) is an expression of bringing in. Your nuptials
(Noces in O.F.).Now what was the loving kindness of your youth? Your following My messengers, Moses and Aaron, from an inhabited
land to the desert without provisions for the way since you believed in Me. (Rashi, Yirmeyahu 2:2)
An alternative explanation can be found in the commentary of Mahari Kara on the same pasuk:
, , , , ,) (
.

I remember to you: You have forgotten the kindness I have done for you from your youth. For I have redeemed you from under the burdens of
Egypt and have taken you through the wilderness, and provided for your needs in the wilderness for forty years. And I am now reminding you of the
kindness I performed from you from your youth, when you went after me.
Sof davar, as we begin sefer Bereishis, we should consider this possible purpose. We dont start out with the dry laws the what. Rather, we
begin with the role of Hashem, as Creator, as Redeemer from Egypt, and as Developer of the Jewish nation. In this way, we can appreciate why
we should perform the mitzvos.
Thus,
-- in the beginning,
, we should know and appreciate that Hashem created the heaven and the earth.
---------Sources:
[1] Bereishis 1:1
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0101.htm
[2] Rashi, Bereishis 1:1
http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/8165#showrashi=true
[3] Yirmeyahu 2:2, zacharti lach chesed ne'urayich
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt1102.htm
[4] Rashi, Yirmeyahu 2:2
Hebrew:
http://daat.ac.il/daat/olam_hatanah/mefaresh.asp?book=13&perek=2&mefaresh=rashi
English:
http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/15999#showrashi=true
[5] Mahari Kara, Yirmeyahu 2:2
http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=34540&st=&pgnum=7
[6] Shemos 20:7-10, commandment of Shabbos
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0220.htm
[7] Devarim 5:11-14, commandment of Shabbos
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0505.htm
Did Hashem finish Creation on the sixth or the seventh?
Chazal noted the anomaly in Hashem finishing Creation on the seventh day, when there was no described work performed on that day. As
Rashi writes, channeling Bereishit Rabba:
And God completed on the seventh day His work that He did, and He abstained on the
seventh day from all His work that He did.

,




, , .
:

And God completed on the seventh day: Rabbi Shimon said: [A human being of]
flesh and blood, who cannot [exactly] know his times and his moments, must add from
the profane to the holy [i.e., he must add some time to the Sabbath.] The Holy One,
blessed be He, Who knows His times and His moments [exactly], entered it [the
Sabbath] within a hairbreadth, and it therefore appeared as if He completed it [His
work] on that day. Another explanation: What was the world lacking? Rest. The
Sabbath came, and so came rest. The work was completed and finished. [from Gen.
Rabbah 10:9]

, :
" ,
.,
, , , ,
:

That is a midrashic take on the textual anomaly. A peshat explanation might be something along the lines of that the work, and the world, was
declared finished on that day, since there was no more to be created on that day. (This is something like Rashi's second explanation.) Or it is a
pluperfect, or past perfect, that it had been completed. (Simple perfect: he walked. Pluperfect: he had walked.) Or else has some alternate
sense of stoppage.
In Vetus Testamentum, we find that the Samaritans have an interesting variant text for Bereishit 2:2. The Masoretic text is on the right, and
differences in the Samaritan text are on the left:

Thus, the Samaritans state that Elokim finished on the sixth day the work that he did, and rested on the seventh day.
The same appears in the Septuagint:

2 , ,
, .
2 And God finished on the sixth day his works which he made, and he ceased on the seventh day from all his works which he made.
In the sectarian work, the pseudepigraphic Book of Jubilees, 2:16, we see a similar idea expressed:
1. And He finished all his work on the sixth day - all that is in the heavens and on the earth, and in the seas and in the abysses, and in
the light and in the darkness, and in everything.
[Update: HT AryehS.
Also, the Peshitta, a Syriac translation, has the sixth day:

]
However, we should treat this variant with caution, because it is just too perfect. Rabbi Shmuel David Luzzatto (Shadal), in his commentary on
this verse, schools us in the idea oflectio difficilior, the rule of the more difficult word being the more likely original, particularly as it pertains
to the Samaritan text. (The idea, as I would explain it, is that if a word choice is in truth justifiable, but it seems difficult to the average
reader, then that is the more likely original reading, because a scribe will illegitimately emend the text towards the easier reading. When and
where to apply this rule requires a careful, judicious approach.)
Shadal writes:

", -- This is connected with the end of the pasuk -- since on the seventh day all His work had already finished (kila), therefore He rested
on the seventh day.
And behold, is a past tense verb that was already completed [=pluperfect, see above], and there are many like it.

And in the Targum attributed to the 70 [Jewish] elders [the Septuagint], and so too in the sefer Torah of the Cutheans [Samaritans] it is written
'on the sixth day'. And Clericus already saw that this is nothing but an emendation and a scribal 'fixing', and this is as they said in the Talmud
(Megillah 9a) [regarding the idea that the 70 elders made 'fixes' to the text so that the non-Jewish reader would not get confused]. For behold,
if it was such that it was written initially 'and God [had] completed on the sixth day', there is no reason it would enter a person's mind to emend
[the text to read] . And conversely, if it was initially written , it it quite understandable that this language would be difficult to
the masses, and they [the authors of Septuagint, and perhaps he intends Samaritans as well] arose and emended it to . And this is an
important principle about the matter of variants which are found in the book of the Cutheans [Samaritans], that all the emendations which their
scholars emended was due to the smallness and lightness of their understanding and thoughts. And this is as the scholar [Wilhelm] Gesenius
explained, with good discernment and knowledge, in his book De Pentateuchi Samaritani origine et indole et auctoritate, Halae 1815. Also the
scholar [Johannes Bernardus / Giovanni Battista de Rossi] De-Rossi, though at times is seduced towards the Samaritan nusach, and he doesn't
understand all that Gesenius understood, still already wrote, as a general matter, like these words, saying:
Quaelibet lingua et aetas suas habet anomalias et enallages; nec omnes nec semper grammatice scripserunt sacri auctores. Unde non temere
rejicienda lectio anomala. Immo anomala lectio plerumque verior. Facillimum namque est anomalis analoga a scribis substitui, analogis anamola
difficillimum (Variae lectiones, Vol I. Proleg. par II, 38, 39).
[Josh: My rough translation:] Every age has its own language and anomalies and alteration; nor are all nor is it always the scholar who wrote, of
the sacred authors. Hence one should not rashly reject an anomalous reading. Indeed, the anomalous choice is generally truer. It is very easy for
scribes to replace an anomalous reading [with an easier one], but substituting an anomalous reading is more difficult."
End quote from Shadal.
(The page from De Rossi's work, Variae Lectiones Veteris Testamenti: Ex Immensa Mss. Editorumque, here:

)
I will, however, present a counterargument. It is true that, as a matter of deliberate scribal emendation, because the scribe (falsely) believed
there was an error in the text in need of correction, or because the scribe saw his role as "improving" the clarity of the text, this application
of lectio difficilior makes sense.
However, we might also consider the possibility of accidental scribal emendation. Recall that and begin with the same two letters,
. So if we were to posit that were original, a scribe might have been copying and lost track after writing . Then,
"dittography" comes into play. This is the accidental repetition of a letter, syllable, word, or phrase. Realize that occurs legitimately
two times following, first at the end of this pasuk,

, and next, without the leading in the next pasuk,

. If
so, perhaps the scribe accidentally duplicated here, and that error served as the basis for our masoretic text. (Though note one could
argue in the opposite direction, that this is dittography due to of the two pesukim earlier.)
Despite this vector of accidental scribal emendation, the fact that the Samaritan text has it makes me strongly suspect that this is a deliberate
scribal emendation to make the text read more cleanly. This is indeed characteristic of the Samaritan text. And then, just as we see some
midrashim relying on the "easier" Samaritan text of certain pesukim, presumably spread in vulgar (non-checked) texts, this Hebrew version of
the pasuk stood as the basis for the Greek translation in the Septuagint.
[Update: Regarding the Peshitta, here is what Rabbi Chaim Heller has to say:

"Footnote 1) See what I wrote in this in my essay on the Targum Yerushlami on the Torah (page 13). Yet it is quite possible that the basis of this
variant came about via error, that the copying scribe erred and switched the word with the word which was written above, close by,
and he copied it here. See the introduction, note 3. "
In that introduction, note 3, where he discusses transcription error and transferring text from related matters close by.
In his sefer, Al HaTargum Hayerushalmi LaTorah, Rabbi Heller writes as follows:

Did Saadia Gaon have a masorah on shafan as al-wabr?

According to Ibn Ezra, Saadia Gaon sometimes made things up, for the honor of Torah.
To quote Jewish Encyclopedia on Ibn Ezra's allegation:
Nor was Saadia without influence outside Jewish circles. Abraham ibn Ezra, writing on Gen. ii. 11, states, probably on good authority, that Saadia
planned his translation of the Bible for Mohammedans as well as for Jews, and that he used Arabic script for this reason; and Ibn Ezra accordingly
explains the fact that Saadia translated even those expressions whose meaning was not known through tradition, as being due to a desire that the
Mohammedan reader might not think the Bible contains words which are unintelligible.

I wrote about this Ibn Ezra a few years back (and even mentioned al-wabr), about whether
Saadia Gaon dreamed that the Pishon was the Nile. That is, on Bereishit 2:11, which begins shem ha'echad pishon, it Rav Saadia Gaon's Tafsir, it
is the Nile River. Al-Nil.
Rashi agrees and gives a derivation, but Ibn Ezra disagrees in a long and harsh comment. And he ends that comment by saying:

, , ., . , , ,
, ,, , , " , .
And there is no proof regarding the Pishon that it is the Nile {which does not share a single source with these, or flow in this manner}. Rather, he
{=Rav Saadia Gaon} translated HaChavilah {the country it surrounds} as he needed, for he had no tradition. And so did he do by the families and
countries, and the animals, birds, and stones. Perhaps he saw them in a dream. And he already erred in a few of them, as I will explain in each
place. If so, we shall not rely upon his dreams; perhaps he did this for the honor of Hashem, for he translated {in the Tafsir} the Torah into the
Arabic language, and in their script, so that they should not say that there are words in the Torah which we do not know.
That is, it would be an embarassment before the Muslims to leave a word untranslated, saying in effect that we don't know what the word is.
And so Saadia Gaon made things up, or else tried to figure it out based on other pesukim.
This is more than a simple argument between a Rishon and a Gaon, each perhaps with a masorah or perhaps not.
However, there are a number of points to make about this.
1) This is just Ibn Ezra talking, and alleging this. It does not necessarily mean that it is so, that Saadia Gaon did not make use of a masorah. It
might mean that Ibn Ezra is trying to justify his arguing with a Gaon.
2) Along the same lines, it is Ibn Ezra saying this. And some 'frummies' are triumphantly citing this Ibn Ezra as halacha leMoshe miSinai, when
they would likely not cite other Ibn Ezras in such matters. For one random example, as to what peshat is in the prohibition to shave with a
razor.
3) Ibn Ezra also does not mean that in every case, Saadia Gaon operated without a masorah. For example, surely Saadia Gaon knows what
a parah is. But Ibn Ezra says:
And he already erred in a few of them, as I will explain in each place
Ibn Ezra does not argue with Saadia Gaon in his commentary in Shemini, about shafan. He is silent, which means that he does not argue. It might
still mean that Saadia was operating without a masorah, but Ibn Ezra still thinks he got it right.
4) Given that the hyrax was an animal local to Eretz Yisrael and its vicinity, and was one of the few animals with a distinctive and readily
recognizable sign, of apparent rumination while not possessing split hooves, it stands to reason that this would not be one of the animals for
which there was no masorah. That is, if the shafan is indeed the hyrax, then it would make sense for there to have been a masorah for it, unlike
for random non-kosher animals and birds, for which the masorah was lost.
5) Last but not least, the same folks suggesting that Saadia lacked a masorah aresimultaneously suggesting that the Spanish Rishonim may have
had a masorah as to the identity of the shafan. Which is more likely, that Saadia had a masorah, or that the Spanish Rishonim had a masorah?
Ish and Isha
I'll solve this problem with just a dash of kefirah!
According to Torah (Bereishit 2:23), the word is derived from . Thus:
23 And the man said: 'This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.'

;

, , ,
.-

,

This is strange anyway because he was an and already would be the natural feminine form of the word , so positing that it is because
she was taking out of seems unnecessary. Like and , where the was not taken out of the cow. Is this the very first feminine noun?
But a bigger problem seems that is a cognate of , and the feminine form of , with the dagesh in the representing the assimilated
nun. As discussed on the Balashon blog at length (and see the entire post, it is good), quoting Horowitz in How the Hebrew Language Grew:

Strange and unbelievable as it seems the word has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the word . In in the first place a nun has
fallen out; the word is really ( insha). The plural , gives some hint of that. The really important fact, though, is that the shin of is really
a tav. In Aramaic the word for woman is either or more commonly .
We could posit all sorts of answers, such as that the etymology was based on assonance, and that is therefore OK. Or that this etymology in the
Torah is fanciful. Or that Adam HaRishon didn't learn dikduk in Yeshiva Shem veEiver, because that was considered to secular a subject.
But here, I will handily solve the problem by asking a pointed question or two about the Biblical text. Where in the world did that yud come
from in the word ? Yud was a consonantal letter, and only later adopted as one of the imot hakeriah (matres lectiones).
And where in the world did that dagesh come from in the word ?The orthography of those points were only introduced post-Talmudically,
just like nikkud and trup. Sure, it might well have reflected something about the pronunciation at the time the Masoretes wrote down
that dagesh, but that pronunciation does not necessarily go all the way back to the time of the Sinai.
The dagesh, when it was written, reflected a gemination of the sound, a doubling of the letter, which indeed reflects the assimilation of
the nun and relatedly the closing of the short vowel chirik which preceded it, since a short-voweled unstressed syllable needs closing. But why
not put in a yud into and remove the dagesh from the shin?
All of a sudden, the Biblical etymology works!
So, you are making an etymology of based on later insertions into the text and based on assumptions of the pronunciation and spelling of the
words, and then asking about the veracity of the text? That won't work.
Running commentary on parashat Bereishit, part i
Sefer Bereishit begins:
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

. ,

, ,

-- In the beginning of everything -- in the beginning of our religion, in the beginning of the Torah, the fundamental belief is that Hashem
created the heaven and the earth. Rashi brings up the question why we do not start with the first commandment given to the Jewish people, of
Hachodesh Hazeh Lachem, about Nissan. But reishit chochma yirat Hashem, and the heart of our religion stands an orthodoxy, not an
orthopraxy. Even if one could argue (incorrectly) that technically, nowhere in Judaism is any sort of belief required, such a religiosity is stupid.

-- is in the construct form, it would seem. The absolute form, "in the beginning", would be berishonah. The construct form means "in the
beginning of". But in the beginning of what?
1.
We could say that this is just a fancy was of saying berishonah, and that this is not exclusively a construct form. Use of this fancy form
is appropriate for beginning asefer.
2.

bereishit hakol, in the beginning of everything, with hakol as implicit

3.
bereishit of Bara elokim et Hashamayim veEt haAretz. That is (as Rashi explains), the first pasuk does not logically end at haaretz,
but continues on, until the end ofpasuk 3.
To run with option #3, this seems correct because of the vav hachibbur (connecting vav) in in pasuk 2. The role of such a is to
introduce a parenthetical note about the state of affairs at the time. Thus, the is properly rendered "when".
Thus, it should be read roughly as "In the beginning of Hashem's creation of Heaven and Earth, when earth was formless and void and darkness
was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God hovered over the face of the waters, Hashem said 'Let there be light' and there was light."
Thus, Hashem's first creative act was creating light, not creating heaven and earth. And this creating of light was part and parcel of Hashem's
overarching creation of heaven and earth, ,
.
There are two slight problems with option #3, however. First, it says , which is a verb ("created"), not , ("the creation of"). Secondly,
the trup is against it, since it ends the pasuk at the close of pasuk 1, not at the end of pasuk 3.
To this I would answer that Rabbi Shmuel David Luzzato notes that many classic Rishonim give a peshat in a pasuk against the trup (including
sentence boundaries) and nikkud. He takes this as evidence that they held that trup and nikkud were not miSinai, and (at least in orthography,
the graphic signs, but also more generally) were post-Talmudic. The trup andnikkud are thus not dispositive, such that one can argue against it,
and revocalize it atbro and parse the pesukim with different trup.
I don't know that all those Rishonim knew (in every instance) that they were arguing againstnikkud or trup. Sometimes, the parse given by
the trup is quite nuanced. Admittedly, some Rishonim do talk about the author of the teamim. But aside from all this, a pasuk might be
ambiguous and open to be interpreted in multiple ways, simultaneously. (And some sources say this explicitly.) The trup and nikkud represent a
single chosen parse and grammatical form, but the text in a sefer Torah possesses neither, and perhaps many interpretations can be read into,
or out of, the consonantal text.
While I am most convinced by option #3, at the same time, the Torah begins with words indicating that Hashem was the one who did the act of
creating the heavens and the earth. And this (option #1 or #2) deserves emphasis; and so it is altogether proper that this stress be implemented
by a silluq on and the nikkud of .
Indeed, William Wickes, in his treatise on the accentuation of the twenty-one prose books of the Old Testament (that is, on trup of Tanach with
the exclusion of Iyov, Mishlei and Tehillim, which have their own trup system) notes that the trup within this first pasuk is not in line with a
simplistic general logical / and syntactic system of dichotomy. The major break in the pasuk is with the etnachta on Elokim. Thus, on page 32,
he writes:

Thus, there is a purpose in this first pasuk, of emphasizing that Hashem created.
-- does this mean creation ex nihilo, yesh me'ayin? See Ibn Ezra on this:
, , - .
. , .' :.
,, .
: " , , , , " . :
, , , : , : . ,.
Especially if we parse like Rashi, as in option #3, then the items in pasuk two were already present at the time of this briah. That does not
preclude an earlier creation of those materials yesh ma'ayin, of course, entirely before the Torah starts speaking.
-- Chazal describe the difference between Elokim, as HaKadosh Baruch Hu acting with middat hadin (an attribute of justice), and YKVK, as
HaKadosh Baruch Hu acting withmiddat harachamim (an attribute of mercy).
The Documentary Hypothesis divides the Biblical text into three (or more) authors, such as J (characterized by YKVK as the Divine Name), E
(with Elokim as the Divine Name), and P (Priestly concerns, often also with Elokim). Given differences between the "first" creation narrative, in
Bereishit perek 1, and the "second" creation narrative, in Bereishit perek 2, with Elokim in perek 1 and YKVK Elokim in perek 2, they can get an
early start. And the Documentary Hypothesis solves many apparent difficulties in the Biblical text. Of course, divide any text into multiple
streams and you will resolve many difficulties, simply by saying that text X with statement X is from the first stream and text Y with
contradictory statement Y is from the second stream. On the other hand, there are linguistic similarities within the different texts placed
together as a stream, and at the same time, the details within the stream of consistent; and what emerges appears to often be parallel
descriptions of the same events.
Rav Herschel Schachter notes that of course there are multiple streams in the Torah. The Torah tells us that the Torah was given to Bnei Yisrael
three times: at Har Sinai, in the Ohel Moed, and in Arvot Moav. Thus, in Bemidbar 1:1:
-- ,

: ,

- .
and Vayikra 25:1:
,
- .
and it was given again in Arvot Moav:

-
-

.
Each time, from a different perspective and a different voice.
To leap in here, without arguing for multiple authorship, there are different concerns and perspectives in the Torah. Sometimes the narrative
takes place on the cosmic, macro-scale, and deals with e.g. the creation of the Universe and Existence, or the progression of generations. This
is where we find Elokim as the Divine Name. Sometimes the narrative zooms in and takes place on the micro-scale, with the life events of the
individual. This is where we experience the personal God, who interacts with the Avos -- YKVK. This macro / micro shift is obvious when you look
for it, and accounts for certain otherwise chronologically out of order events (ain mukdam emeuchar baTorah). For instance, on the macrolevel, we are told of the generations leading up to Avraham, and so are told as part of that genealogical segment of Terach's death. Then, the
following micro-level zooms into details of Avraham's life, and these events occur well before Terach's death.

When Moshe returns from his first seemingly unsuccessful mission to Pharaoh, Hashem tells him something about His name:
. ,;
-

2 And God spoke unto Moses, and said unto him: 'I am the LORD;
3 and I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, as God Almighty,
but by My name YKWK I made Me not known to them.
4 And I have also established My covenant with them, to give them the land of
Canaan, the land of their sojournings, wherein they sojourned.

,
; -- - - - ,
.
-- - , -
. -
,

Yet we see the name YKVK throughout sefer Bereishit, and indeed, Avraham calls the place YKVK Yireh, and see Bereishit 16:7.
7 And He said unto him: 'I am the LORD that brought thee out of Ur of the
Chaldees, to give thee this land to inherit it.'

- --

, : ,
.
,

8 And he said: 'O Lord GOD, whereby shall I know that I

.
, :

Rashi distinguishes between and . And indeed those names carry specific implications of the way in which God interacts with
humanity. See what I wrote here. Thus the name Ehkeh in Shemot 3:13-15. See inside there for other various resolutions to this difficulty,
especially a wonderful reparse by Targum Yonasan.
Another such resolution is that this is a retrojection of the later known name YKVK, where Moshe wrote this name earlier in the Torah.
-- is singular. The best evidence is that the verb is singular. Elohim can sometimes mean plural deities. But here is refers to the singular
God. The reason for the plural form is that adnus, mastery, appears in plural. For example, in the laws of responsibility for damages, in Shemot
21:34:
34 the owner of the pit shall make it good; he shall give money unto the owner of them,
and the dead beast shall be his. {S}

.- , ;
,

{}

The word baalev means the beast's singular owner, but baal takes the plural form.

-- what is the difference between with atzeiri and
with a segol? Nothing, in terms of actual meaning. This is a phonological phenomenon, having to do with sound transformations. If the
word stands alone, as its own word, then it receives its own stress, and the tzeiri remains a tzeirei. However, if it is joined to the next word
by a makkef, a hyphen, then it does not receive its own stress. A phonological rule of Biblical Hebrew is that when the stress shift, the vowel
often changes. And so it becomes the word . Thus, if you are leining, if the et has its own trup symbol, it will be with a tzeirei and if it is
joined to the next word, then it is a segol.
Why is the word so often joined to the following word? For English speakers, it is difficult to fathom its function. It is the object marker.
Nouns in a sentence might be the actor or the object. For instance, "The bear caught the fish." Both the bear and the fish are nouns, but it is
the bear who is the actor, who does the action of catching and the fish who is the object, who is caught. We know which is which based on
placement in the sentence. But, if we wanted to explicitly mark the object, we could say (though this would not be grammatical English) "The
bear caught et- the fish." Once we mark objects in the manner, the subject verb object order is not strictly necessary. "et- the fish, the bear
caught" would be just as clear. For example, Yosef says to his brothers, et-HaElokim ani yarei, "I fear God."
Quite often, the word et is used to include something akin to what is stated explicitly in the pasuk. This is technically justified (if derash indeed
needs justification) because also functions as with. Regarding Noach, we are told et haElokim hithalech Noach, "with God walked Noach". And
Chava states (Bereishit 4:1):
1 And the man knew Eve his wife; and she conceived and bore
Cain, and said: 'I have gotten a man with the help of the LORD.'

. - , , - ,;
- ,

She has gotten a man with the Lord, not that the child she has given birth to is the Lord! Think also of the word iti, "with me". Thus, at least
as derash, it is fair to take each as an invitation to consider what else is included. On a peshat level, though, do not try to assert that this is a
difficulty in the text that requires explanation, such that derash is magically now peshat. It is perfectly normal and expected for a language to
have an object marker.
Note also that it was by no means certain that every should be darshened. Shimon HaAmsuni tried to darshen every single et, and when he
found one that could not bedarshened a from a theological perspective, he took this as a refutation of the entire system. True, Rabbi Akiva
rescued it, but still, it was possible that, even on a midrashic level, theet was not there to be darshened.
An example of such a derasha in our own pasuk, Bereishit 1:1, is found in Bereshit Rabba 1:14:
, . , , , , , :
et-the heavens to include the Sun, Moon, stars and constellations; ve-et the earth, to include the trees, plants, and Gan Eden, and these include
all the creations possessing a body.
One need not appeal to the word et to argue that all creations are described in this macro-macro-scale act of Creation (whether we parse like
option #1/#2, or like option #3).
See though how Ramban interprets this midrash, and the use of the word et:
:
, , , ,, , , . .
" ,," :
,( ) , , .
, , ,( , ) , ' :
, , . , "" . , , , ,
.( ) ,

See the Rosh, who says that the reason the direct object marker et was explicitly employed here in the first pasuk was to make it clear that it
was Hashem who created heaven and earth, and not, chas veshalom, earth and heaven who created Hashem.

-- Here, we wonder whether shamayim means the abode of the angels and the Throne of Glory, or the physical heavens, where
the stars and moon reside. Perhaps both simultaneously, and perhaps in the mind of the recipients of the Torah, they are the same place. To
cite Berachot 48a, and perhaps against the Rambam, who holds that God is not localized:
The law, however, is not as laid down in all these statements, but as in this statement of R. Nahman: A boy who knows to whom the benediction
is addressed may be counted for zimmun. Abaye and Raba [when boys] were once sitting in the presence of Rabbah. Said Rabbah to them: To
whom do we address the benedictions? They replied: To the All-Merciful. And where does the All-Merciful abide? Raba pointed to the roof; Abaye
went outside and pointed to the sky. Said Rabbah to them: Both of you will become Rabbis. This accords with the popular saying: Every pumpkin
can be told from its stalk.1
Of course, these Amoraim are children (and children who have not listened to Uncle Moishe)! Yet they are praised for something.
If we take this et hashamayim ve'et haaretz as referring to the ensuing acts of creation, then just Hashem creates items on the ground, such as
the dry land, plants, etc., so does He create Sun, Moon, and stars. And no explicit (peshat) mention is made of creating anything on the spiritual
plane.
to be continued...
What's your take on: Talmud Chaggiga 13b-14a states that there were 974 generations before God created Adam.

Is evolution / and old earth mentioned in Chagiga 13-14?

I don't think so.

In a comment on a recent parshablog post, SPACE wrote the following:
What's your take on: Talmud Chaggiga 13b-14a states that there were 974 generations before God created Adam.
My take on this is that I probably do not understand that cryptic gemara, but that I think that those who take it as Talmudic support for
evolution or an old earth are quite possibly mistaken and overeager. As a sample, here :
A small minority of classical rabbis believed that the world is older, and that life as we know it today did not always exist. Rabbis who had this
view based their conclusions on verses in the Talmud the midrash. For example:

Talmud Chaggiga 13b-14a states that there were 974 generations before God created Adam.
Some midrashim state that the "first week" of Creation lasted for extremely long periods of time. See Anafim on Rabbenu Bachya's
Sefer Ikkarim 2:18; Midrash Bereshit Rabbah 9.
And this:
Around 974 generations before Adam, or some 25,000 years ago, man developed all the physical and mental capabilities that we possess today"
(Kaplan 187). The difference between Adam, and his human ancestors, was that Adam was given a "divine soul."
The gemara in question:
( , )
"
"Who pressed forward before their time, whose foundation was poured out as a stream. (Iyov 22:16)" It is taught: R. Simeon the Pious said:
These are the nine hundred and seventy four generations who pressed themselves forward to be created before the world was created, but were
not created: the Holy One, blessed be He, arose and planted them in every generation, and it is they who are the insolent of each generation.
It sounds mystical and kabbalistic, and I'm sure the kabbalists have interpreted this to good end. Here is what Soncino has to say, and I think it is
pretty convincing:
According to the Rabbinic interpretation of Ps. CV, 8, the Divine Plan originally envisaged the creation of a thousand generations prior to the
giving of the Torah, but foreseeing their wickedness, God held back nine hundred and seventy-four generations, and gave the Torah at the end of
twenty-six generations from Adam (cf. Gen. V, XI, Ex. VI, 16-20, and Seder Olam Ch. 1). The translation here follows the text of MS. M. 2 (v.
D.S. a.I. n. 20) viz. ( pi'el), , curr. edd.: ( pu'al)
According to this, there were no predecessors to humankind in 974 generations. There was some initial plan for 1000 generations, which was
held back from coming into being. Therefore, there is no real indication from this gemara that the world is much older than would be indicated
by a simple reading of Bereishit, or that there was an evolution of the species.
Unfortunately, oftentimes sources like this are cryptic, and cryptic sources are great for proving whatever it is one wants to prove.
Posted by joshwaxman at 7:46 PM

BlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to Facebook

Labels: belief, bereishit, science

6 comments:

Jr said...
If you are accepting random questions, can I ask you your take on the upper waters above the rakia?
I saw what shadal said by your provided link, but would like to hear your perspective.
Sunday, October 14, 2012 2:27:00 AM

SPACE said...
No, I don't support evolution. I simply thought, that this tohu va bohu, chaos, appears more often. Humans needs answers now
and here, religion gives most of them. Science says: wait, we will answer this question after 20 years.
Also Holy Writ describes universe in mystic symbols. Give Bible to 1000 people, you will have 1000 opinions.
You maybe right, to everyone his own opinion.
Sunday, October 14, 2012 10:23:00 AM

joshwaxman said...
personally, i support evolution, even though i remain fairly unconvinced that this is what the Chumash or Chazal meant. what one
does with such tension is another story.
Sunday, October 14, 2012 11:56:00 AM

SPACE said...
I doubt, that in modern days is possible to find truth. Look, what chazals have to say about themselves: R. Zera said in Raba b.
Zimuna's name: If the earlier [scholars] were sons of angels, we are sons of men; and if the earlier [scholars] were sons of men,
we are like asses, and not [even] like asses of R.Hanina b. Dosa and R. Phinehas b. Jair,[who performed miracles] but like other
asses. Shabbath 112b
Sunday, October 14, 2012 5:36:00 PM

joshwaxman said...
but look what Chazal say about themselves, in terms of knowledge (rather than piety):
Said R. Papa to Abaye: How is it that for the former generations miracles were performed and for us miracles are not performed?
It cannot be because of their [superiority in] study, because in the years of Rab Judah the whole of their studies was confined to
Nezikin, and we study all six Orders, and when Rab Judah came in [the tractate] 'Ukzin [to the law], 'If a woman presses
vegetables in a pot'3 (or, according to others, 'olives pressed with their leaves are clean'),4 he used to say, I see all the difficulties
of Rab and Samuel here.5 and we have thirteen versions of Ukzin.6
Berachot 20a.

All the king's horse(s)

Summary: Considering the singular, and how Rashi deviates from the midrash.
Post: In parashat Beshalach, we have the following pasuk {Shemot 14}:
9. The Egyptians chased after them and overtook them encamped by the
sea every horse of Pharaoh's chariots, his horsemen, and his force
beside Pi hahiroth, in front of Ba'al Zephon.

, , ,

,
.

,
:

Rashi says nothing about this. A bit later, we have the following pasuk, :
23. The Egyptians pursued and came after them all Pharaoh s horses,
his chariots, and his horsemen, into the midst of the sea.
Every horse of Pharaoh: Now did he have but a single horse? Rather
this informs that all of them were only reckoned before the Omnipresent
as one horse.

,
.

,
:,

, :
: ,

Then, in the shirat haYam, perek 15, again sus appears with nary a comment from Rashi:
1. Then Moses and the children of Israel sang this song to the Lord, and
they spoke, saying, I will sing to the Lord, for very exalted is He; a horse
and its rider He cast into the sea.

.






:,

Yet, Rashi often draws his comments from midrash, and this is not the exception. On the pasuk in perek 15, the Mechilta had:
?
' .
: .
: .
: ,, , .
:!? ' '
' ,, , , .
: .
? ' '
,
Unless Rashi has some midrashic source which has since disappeared, it seems that Rashi has moved the midrash from one location to the other.
Instead of being commentary on theshirah, it is commentary of a pasuk in an earlier perek.
Rashi does do this sort of thing on occasion. In this case, I would say that the midrash itself allows for it. For this is not the only application
of sus as one. Look at how they say
:
Thus, they are clearly open to saying this wherever one encounters sus varechev in the apparent singular. And, especially in the context of
prevailing in war, which is shared in both cases. The pasuk to which Rashi moved this midrash has kol sus Par'oh and even follows it with richbo.
If Rashi moved the midrash, I would posit that he did this for thematic purposes. In pasuk 9, the first potential place he could list it, the
Egyptians were encamped, but they hadn't begun their attack. In pasuk 23, where Rashi places this midrash, they actively pursue the Israelites
in order to smite them, and the consequence is Hashem casting confusion amongst them, sticking their wheels, and finally drowning them. Read
these pesukim with Rashi:
23. The Egyptians pursued and came after them all Pharaoh s horses,
his chariots, and his horsemen, into the midst of the sea.

,
.

,
:,

24. It came about in the morning watch that the Lord looked down over
the Egyptian camp through a pillar of fire and cloud, and He threw the
Egyptian camp into confusion.

,

.



:,
,

25. And He removed the wheels of their chariots, and He led them with
heaviness, and the Egyptians said, Let me run away from the Israelites
because the Lord is fighting for them against the Egyptians

,



.


:,
,

26. Thereupon, the Lord said to Moses, Stretch out your hand over the
sea, and let the water return upon the Egyptians, upon their chariots, and
upon their horsemen

.
,

:
,
,

27. So Moses stretched out his hand over the sea, and toward morning
the sea returned to its strength, as the Egyptians were fleeing toward it,
and the Lord stirred the Egyptians into the sea.

,
,
.

,

,

,
:,

28. And the waters returned and covered the chariots and the horsemen,
the entire force of Pharaoh coming after them into the sea; not even one
of them survived.

,

,
.
: ,


,
, ,

Thematically, then, this is the perfect place to introduce the midrash. The midrash makes the point of the seeming might of the Egyptians being
as if nothing -- one horse, and one chariot -- to Hashem, and this is where they attack and Hashem crushes them like a bug. Not so earlier, on
pasuk 9.
There are good reasons to place it in the next perek, by the Shirah, where the pasuk talks about how exalted Hashem is -- '

,
. Hashem is exalted, so much so that it was as if casting one horse and rider into the sea. Even so, Rashi's selection is a good
place for it. Further, Rashi cites a different midrash on that pasuk, in a nice running commentary on the Song, and so perhaps it is good not to
overwhelm the reader:

, , :
: , , ,

To give a sample of how some meforshei Rashi might handle it, let us consider the Taz:

"All horse of Pharaoh -- Now did he have but a single horse?" Earlier, {in pasuk 9,} "and overtook them encamped by the sea, all horse of
Pharaoh", he {=Rashi} did not ask this. For there there is to say this it is coming to tell us something extra, that each and every horse by itself
overtook Israel and saw them, which is not so over here. However, it is difficult, for perhaps upon the species of horse it is speaking, upon which
the plural is fitting, as is written at the end of Yeshaya (60:7),
-, "All the flocks of Kedar shall be gathered together unto thee."
And there is to say this it is difficult {to Rashi and thus demanding an explanation} for behold it {=that pasuk, 23} finishes with
,
which is
plural language, and does not use singular language. Rather, there is a reason for this, that it states sus in singular language."
This is straight out of the Mah Kasheh LeRashi school. Rashi always is saying peshat. After all, he told us so, that he is only coming to tell us
the peshat -- vaani lo bati elah lpeshuto shel mikrah... If so, there must be a peshat motivation for saying this. Something is botheringRashi,
to borrow a phrase. And so, the Taz wants to know why this didn't bother Rashi on the earlier pasuk, and so answers that one can readily say, in
this first instance, that it is coming for the sake of a ribusa. And then, this is the first opportunity. But, one could ask -- again, on a peshat level
-- that it could simply be a reference to the species, or a collective noun. And one can give other instances of collective nouns in Tanach,
although one might find problems with the specific example. This is a challenge which needs to be answered, for there must be
a peshat problem. And so, point to
,
which is plural in form as well. Therefore, something is wrong, and Rashi saves the day, on
a peshat level, with this.
From my perspective, even though Rashi to Bereishit 3:8 says "" , people
overapply it. I am not at all convinced he meant it as people take it. How precisely to take it is another story, but it doesNOT mean that Rashi
always imagines that he is saying peshat. I've heard some Rashi scholars say that he only meant it in that instance. I would say that he is
rejecting a specific type of midrash. The full pasuk, and Rashi, there, is:
8. And they heard the voice of the Lord God going in the garden to the
direction of the sun, and the man and his wife hid from before the Lord
God in the midst of the trees of the garden.

,
.



,
,

,
:
, , :
) ( ,

:

" , :
:

 , :
: , , ,

If we look at these specific midrashim that Rashi is declining to bring, we see that they involve the voice walking, or better -reading such that the trees are speaking, or that the angels were talking. Instead, he explains that they heard Hashem who was walking
in the garden. This, then, might be a rejection of a specific type of midrash.
Yet, Rashi brings plenty of midrashim. I would estimate that more that 80% of Rashi is citations from midrash. Which is not surprising, since he
does not rule out midrash, writing that he will bring .
So, nothing was bothering Rashi. That question that he led off with, "now does Pharaoh only have one horse?" Recall that that was in the midrash
itself. So Rashi wasn't bothered by that question, but was citing the midrash in full, as much as was applicable.
Why didn't he bring it earlier, in pasuk 9? Not because it didn't bother him there. Rather, because he was already moving it, and he was moving
it to the place it worked best for himthematically, such that it would best be .
What about the fact that we could identify a difficulty? Of course we can! Midrashim arealways prompted by some textual irregularity, which
Chazal latch on to. If you disagree, the likelihood is that it is because you are not as proficient in Hebrew grammar, and midrash as I am. (And
Dr. Richard Steiner, a prominent Semitic philologist, agrees with me on this; or rather, I agree with him.)
Does Rashi need the

to make it back into a difficulty? No, because it does not have to be a difficulty. It is certainly an irregularity, but it
is one Ibn Ezra would surely tell you -- and Rashi would immediately agree -- is resolvable on a peshat level, as a collective noun. But paying
careful attention to language, and selection of terms, is either a midrashic, or apeshat/midrash-level pursuit.
The Or Hachaim, that we no longer have ruach hakodesh
While the Divrei Chaim said someone was an apikores for saying that the Or HaChayim did not write with ruach kakodesh, and dismisses reports
of Gedolim who say there is no ruach hakodesh nowadays, this is what Or Hachaim himself says. (Credit to David Guttman atBelieving is
Knowing, who credits in turn Professor David Assaf.)
In parshat Bereishit, the pasuk (6:3) states:
3 And the LORD said: 'My spirit shall not abide in man for ever, for that he also is
flesh; therefore shall his days be a hundred and twenty years.'
The Or HaChaim comments:

;
, - ,
,
.
,

"This verse requires one to explain it. And Chazal darshened in it many derashot. But thepeshat in the verse is not known. And it appears that its
intent is to say that Hashem will conduct Himself with his creations to contend with them and engage in judgement with them, overtly -- 'and
Hashem said to the snake; and to the woman He said... and to the man he said, ... and Hashem said to Kayin, why..., and Hashem said where is
Hevel...' And as they increased their straying, Hashem said that he would not abide further to have his spirit in mankind, face to face, to engage
in judgement directly with him. And the explanation of ruchi is his blessed Divine Presence, for man would no longer be considered on that
stature.
And you will find that in accordance with his actions, his stature goes lower and lower. For initially, Hashem rebuked man face to face, and all
creations were of the status of prophets. And {two pesukim earlier, , ; - , -- -
-}, with meaning becoming
profane, becoming chullin {rather than 'beginning'} they were separated from the stature of prophets. And with the length of time, the sparks
were seen on the earth -- these are the righteous who returned the crown to its former glory. and when the Fortress {=the Temple} was
destroyed, vision was closed off, and there was ruach hakodesh left. And when the eyes of Israel were blinded, there is not among us any who
attain reach hakodesh {the smell, the slightest amount}, and one need not say ruach hakodesh. And this is the suffering of the house of Israel, of
which there is none greater, who wish to smell the smell of our Father in Heaven such that our spirits may live.
And the beginning of this curse started in from the generation of the Flood, and Hashem gave a reasopn for this matter, that they are also flesh.
The meaning it that since they increase their diversion, they decay with the sin of adultery, which is the aforementioned basaar, as is stated in
the matter that Hashem detests sima, and it is disgusting to talk to him."
I have a suspicion that the Divrei Chaim might have been aware of this. As he writes:
But the truth upon its path is that even in our generation, there are to the chachmei haEmet, who do not incline after the chomer, they
possess ruach hakodesh, and as is spelled out in the Moreh Nevuchim [there, perek 36] and in the Ramban, za'l, explicitly.
Compare that to the very next paragraph in the Ohr HaChaim, which speaks about chomerbeing transformed to tzura and vice versa. But maybe
not.
Still, he is really arguing with the Or HaChaim. I don't think he is taking the position that the Or HaChaim is an apikores; after all, he is only
saying that one who mocks Chazal bydisagreeing with them is an apikores. And this is not arguing with Chazal. Chazal said that there is ruach
hakodesh post-Churban, and that was true in their days. But, according to the Or HaChaim, due to yeridas hadoros it is no longer the case. The
Divrei Chaim denies that anyone, any gadol, says this, but it is unclear whether these Gedolim he denies were speaking about further yeridas
hadoros or using the gemara as a prooftext.
Bli neder, more to come.
The Divrei Chaim about the Or HaChaim's Ruach Hakodesh
Shu"t Divrei Chaim, Yoreh Deah, Chelek II, Siman 105:

"A question about a certain melamed who insulted the honor of the Or HaChaim za"l and said that his did not make his sefer with ruach
hakodesh:
Answer: I have received your letter and behold I don't know what doubt you have whether ruach hakodesh is manifest even nowadays on one
who is fitting, even though prophecy has been nullified from the prophets. Is it not stated explicitly in the first perek of Bava Batra (12a), and
this is the language of the Shas:

R. Abdimi from Haifa said: Since the day when the Temple was destroyed, prophecy
has been taken from the prophets and given to the wise. Is then a wise man not also a prophet? 12 What he meant was this: Although it has
been taken from the prophets, it has not been taken from the wise. Amemar said: A wise man is even superior to a prophet, as it says, And a
prophet has a heart of wisdom.13 Who is compared with whom? Is not the smaller compared with the greater? 14 Abaye said: The proof [that
prophecy has not been taken from the wise] is that a great man makes a statement, and the same is then reported in the name of another great
man.15 Said Raba: What is there strange in this? Perhaps both were born under one star.16 No, said Raba; the proof is this, that a great man
makes a statement and then the same is reported in the name of R. Akiba b. Joseph.1 Said R. Ashi: What is there strange in this? perhaps in this
matter he was born under the same star. No, said R. Ashi; the proof is that a great man makes a statement and then it is found that the same
rule was a halachah communicated to Moses at Mount Sinai. But perhaps the wise man was no better than a blind man groping his way through a
window?2 And does he not give reasons [for his opinions]? 3
Thus, you have it that even after the Destruction of the Temple, the spirit of prophecy manifests upon those who are fit to it; this is ruach
hakodesh of wisdom. For prophecy is one thing, and ruach hakodesh of wisdom is another thing, as is explained in the Moreh Nevuchim, volume
II [chapter 38].

And according to his words, it is not difficult the question of the Ramban [in his answer] on Rashi za'l {dibbur hamatchil hachi kaamar}. And
there is to say that the intent of the Ramban, za"l. as well was so. And so it appears from the Ritva who wrote so in the name of the Rambam,
za"l, brought down here in Bava Batra in Ein Yaakov, and these are his words:
'And the Ramban, za"l, asked on the commentary of Rashi, etc., and my mind does not so incline. Rather, this is what it means to say. Even
though prophecy was taken from the prophets, which is the sight and visions, the prophecy of the chachamim which is by path of wisdom was
not taken. Rather, they know the truth via ruach hakodesh which is within them. And also the Ritva, za'l, wrote in his explanation of this
statement, as follows: "And it was given to the Chachamim: its meaning is that they attain via their intellent many things which are not in the
power of the natural intellect to attain, and a chacham is greater than a prophet -- to explain, than that prophet who has a power to see the
future but does not possess the paths of prophecy which are by aspect of wisdom, that the Divine Presence rests upon him. And this as as the
Rambam explained in his known sefer, that prophecy only rests upon a chacham. End quote.
End quote, see there. Behold, you have explicitly in Shas and Rishonim that ruach hakodesh of wisdom is not nullified from the chachamim.

And so is it explicitly in Gittin [6b], regarding R' Evyatar, and this is the language of the Shasthere:
Nay more, R. Abiathar is the authority whose view was confirmed by his Master,8
{About Pilegesh BeGiveah.} And Rashi comments there, as follows:
to reveal to him a secret, to match hidden matters to their truth.
Thus you have that ruach hakodesh and the agreement of Hashem was not nullified from Sages who are fit to it. And so is implied in
the maamar of Rabbi Pinchas ben Yair [Avodah Zarah 20b], see there.
And more than that is explained in Midrash Rabba, parashat Naso [9, 20] regarding a certain woman, who stayed a long time in the teaching of
Rabbi Meir, and her husband told her that she was not permitted to ended her house until she spits in Rabbi Meir's face three times. Rabbi Meir
saw via ruach hakodesh, etc., see there. Thus you have that he saw via ruach hakodesh. And so too Rabbi, who said prophecy on the day of his
death, in Kiddushin 72a, even after he was taken.
And in truth, it is so that from this is implied not like the Rambam in Moreh Nevuchim [there, perek 37], for there is is implied that without
prophecy of the imaginative faculties, thechacham is only called a great of the delvers, but not that he says things which go out of the realm of
the intellect, rather they are only compared to things like prophecy. It will be as it will be; all the world admits that ruach hakodesh has not left
from the Sages.

And that which they said [Sotah 48b] that from the days of the prophets, ruach hakodesh had been taken, this is the spirit of prophecy, but
the ruach hakodesh of wisdom, and to match with his intellect with thehalacha leMoshe miSinai, or like R' Evyatar, this was not nullified, and
onlyapikorsim deny this.
And that which you wrote, teshuvot from the Gedolim of of generation, that ruach hakodesh has been nullified entirely, I do not believe that
this left the mouths of our Rabbis. And who known what this misleading scoundrel wrote to them. But the truth upon its path is that even in our
generation, there are to thechachmei haEmet, who do not incline after the chomer, they possess ruach hakodesh, and as is spelled out in the

Moreh Nevuchim [there, perek 36] and in the Ramban, za'l, explicitly.

And therefore, the author of the Or Hachaim certain composed his sefer with ruach hakodesh. But not he alone. Rather, every author in our
generation, if he is fit for it, composed his sefer with ruach hakodesh, that is to say that he matched with his wisdom to the truth of the Torah,
just as they said in the Shas regarding R' Evyatar. And so wrote the Tumim to practical law [in Kitzur 420 {?}, siman 123 and 124] that one may
not say 'I will establish against the Shulchan Aruch', for they wrote their words with ruach hakodesh, see there.
And therefore, the melamed who denies theruach hakodesh of the Or Hachaim is an apikores, who does not believe in the Gedolei HaDor, who
testified about his that he was fit for ruach hakodesh. And this melamed denies the fundamental of ruach hakodesh and mocks the
aforementioned words of the Shas in Bava Basra. And you have done well to not abandon your children in his hand, and yasher koach in this.
However, the pay for teaching, I cannot sever when it is not before the litigant, without seeing his conduct. For perhaps he is simply erring in
this. And in this, you are able to rely upon the posek in your community, and it should be peace."
The talking snake vs. the talking donkey
f I discussed this Abarbanel in this earlier post on parshas Bereishis. (And so did Rabbi Balk in an earlier shiur.) Just looking at the question, I
intuited the answer that, it seems, Abarbanel explicitly states. But R' Balk develops this into a lesson on the boundaries of legitimate
interpretation.
Here is the straightforward answer. In Bereishit, the Torah gives no indication that the snake talking is in any way out of the ordinary. Not only
does Chava not react with shock, but there is no indication in the narrative itself that anything is strange. This seems problematic on
atextual level, especially to a rationalist. However, the text itself in Balak notes that the donkey speaking is a strange occurrence. Thus,
in Bemidbar 22:18:
28. The Lord opened the mouth of the she-donkey, and she said to
Balaam, "What have I done to you that you have struck me these three
times?"

,

.

:,

Thus, it is clear that absent God's opening the donkey's mouth, she would not have spoken. There is then not so much of a textual impetus, but
rather just a rationalist impetus. This even though Bilaam does not react with shock at the talking donkey. That might be a result of his anger, or
some aspect of the story left out.
Besides this, rationalists are not averse to accepting miracles, especially explicitly stated miracles. Thus, for example, even though Rabbi Yosef
Ibn Caspi takes this all as a dream vision, following Rambam in Moreh Nevuchim in this, he is not averse to accepting it as literal truth if need
be:
'Chai Hashem, I believe in all that is written in the Torah, and therefore I believe in the verse { in parashat Balak}, and in the verse
."
Adnei HaSadeh and Earth Mouse in parashat Bereishit

Summary: According to Rav Chaim Kanievsky, one can make adiyuk in two pesukim in parashat Bereishit to refer to the creation of the adnei
hasadeh and the earth-mouse. The adnei hasadeh is a humanoid creature connected by an umbilical cord to the ground, and the earth mouth is
one that is in the process of spontaneously generating, and so is still half made of earth.
Post: Thus, in the first perek of sefer Bereishit:

25. And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kind and the
cattle according to their kind, and all the creeping things of the ground
according to their kind, and God saw that it was good.

, .

: ,

Rav Chaim Kanievsky writes in Taama de-Kra:

"

-- and by the cattle {beheimah} it is not written 'the cattle of the earth'. Perhaps this is a hint with this that

there is a beast {chaya} which is connected to the earth, as we learn in the Mishnah in the eighth perek of Kelaim, adnei hasadeh is a chaya, see
there. And based on this, one can say that this which is written ,

, and by the is not writteneretz,
as well as

as is written on the very next pasuk,

26. And God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness,
and they shall rule over the fish of the sea and over the fowl of the
heaven and over the animals and over all the earth and over all the
creeping things that creep upon the earth."

,
.
,

,
,
:

Perhaps it comes to hint that there is a creeping thing which is made from the earth, as we learn in a Mishna in Chullin (126b), about a mouse
which is half flesh earth and half earth, and therefore it states

, creeping thing of the ground."
Of course, neither of these two creatures exist. Chazal indeed thought that they existed, and there may have good reason to believe that they
existed. But it is different for people to believe in their existence nowadays, and to innovate new derashot to describe their existence. (I won't
rehash the arguments pro and con here.)
Of course, to each his own. How to approach the existence or non-existence of these creatures is a dispute between rationalists and nonrationalists, as well as betweenchareidim and more Modern Orthodox.
See also a discussion of adnei hasadeh here, with claims as to its existence. Also, related, another drasha from Rav Kanievsky,
, of lerabbos mermaids.
Centuries ago, new reports of a strange and ferocious creature reached rabbinic leaders and scholars. This creature, called the
adnei hasadeh (literally: man of the field), was described as a man-like creature that was connected to the ground through its
navel by an umbilical cord. Its movement was limited to the cord that tied it to the ground, and anything that entered the adnei
hasadehs domain was immediately killed. Upon hearing this description, the rabbis were faced with a predicament: Under Jewish
law, was this creature considered to be a wild beast or a human being? This distinction would have practical ramifications, for if
the adnei hasadeh was to be classified as a human being, it would have the ability to impart spiritual impurity. A mishnah in

Tractate Kilayim (8:5) relates that the adnei hasadeh was considered to be a wild animal. Rabbi Yose disagrees and maintains
that, under Jewish law, it should be treated as a human being. In the Talmud Yerushalmi, Kilayim (8:4), Yose Arkei describes the
adnei hasadeh as a mountain-man who was sustained through its navel. Years later, other scholars attempted to further explain
the adnei hasadeh. According to Rabbi Ovadia MiBartenura, the famous 15th century commentator, the adnei hasadeh was an
animal that grew from the ground and remained attached to the ground through an umbilical cord. When hunters would find such
an animal, they would shoot arrows at its cord until it broke, causing it to die instantly. Interestingly, the Vilna Gaon, a revered
18th century scholar, used the corded version of the adnei hasadeh to better explain the plague of wild animals that befell the
Egyptians when the Jews were slaves in Egypt. The verse states that as punishment, the Egyptians would be attacked by wild
animals and the ground upon which they are. The Vilna Gaon comments that one of the wild animals brought to attack the
Egyptians were the adnei hasadeh, who came with the ground to which they were attached [1]. A 19th century rabbi, Rabbi
Yisrael Lipschutz, questions whether such a creature that lived through a cord connected to the ground was even viable. He
defines the adnei hasadeh as entirely different creatures, maintaining that they were, in fact, orangutans. Rabbi Lipschutz states
that the adnei hasadeh were similar to people in build and could be trained to dress and eat like humans. In regards to the adnei
hasadeh, Maimonides also notes that those who bring news from the world state that it speaks many things which cannot be
understood, and its speech is similar to that of a human being. This depiction seems to accurately describe the great apes. The
term adnei hasadeh may not only include orangutans, but all other apes, too [1]. Scholars who doubt the biological viability of the
adnei hasadeh as described by Rabbi Ovadia MiBartenura have pondered the origin of this idea of a creature attached to the
ground by an umbilical Mythical Creatures in Rabbinic Literature: The Adnei Hasadeh and the Mud-Mice Michal Schechter cord. A
possible answer may be found in the Talmud Yerushalmi in Tractate Kilayim (8:4), where Yose Arkei states that the adnei hasadeh
was a man of the Tor [literally mountain] and lived from his umbilical cord. If the umbilical cord was severed, it could not
continue to live. Dr. Daniel Sperber, a professor of Talmud at BarIlan University, argues that Yose Arkei was prompted to provide
a translation of the term adnei hasadeh due to the problematic nature of the title, which caused halachic discord over its status
as part human being, part wild animal. Yose Arkei provided a literal translation for adnei hasadeh, using his local Galilean Aramaic
to translate the term as man of the field/mountain [2]. The word Tor, meaning mountain, is usually spelled with the Hebrew
letter vav in the middle. Later on, this expression was misread and erroneously interpreted as Tavor, meaning navel, which is
spelled with the letters vav and bet in the middle.7 This led scholarly commentators from the medieval time period to
mistakenly read Yose Arkeis translation as navel-man and then proceeded to associate various medieval traditions with the
new translation. These glossators added what they thought was a more accurate description to Yose Arkeis translation and wrote
in the Talmud Yerushalmi, Kilayim (8:4) that the adnei hasadeh was a creature that lived by its umbilical cord and would die if the
connection between it and the earth was severed [2]. Professor Sperber additionally comments that in medieval times, beasts
and primitive men were often confused with each other, leading these creatures to develop legendary characteristics [2].
Primitive societies continue to exist today, without contact by the developed world. In total, they number several thousand
people and are separated into many different tribes. Each tribe has its own social code and normally views outsiders as a threat,
leading tribesmen to often behave violently upon meeting strangers [3]. It is quite probable that the witnesses who came across
these indigenous tribes thought that they were observing wild beasts, when in reality they had come across primitive men. These
isolated peoples may in fact be the modern day version of adnei hasadeh. The Jewish sages also received other reports of
mysterious and strange beings. Witnesses reported seeing a creature that initially grew from the earth and then developed into a
mouse. This mudmouse eventually morphed into a full mouse. A mishnah in Tractate Chullin (9:10) states that, A mouse which is
half flesh and half earth, if someone touches the flesh part, he is spiritually impure, if someone touches the earth part, he is
spiritually pure. The mudmouse was also mentioned in Tractate Sanhedrin (91a) as a proof for the resurrection of the dead: A
certain sectarian said to Rabbi Ami: You say that the dead will live again-but they become dust, 1. It is possible that some editions
of the Talmud Yerushalmi spelled Tor as having two vavs in the middle, and in the Yerushalmi, the letter bet is frequently
interchangeable with two vavs.
and can dust come alive? He repliedGo out to the field and see the rodent that is one day half flesh and half earth, and on the
next day it has transformed into a creeping creature and has become entirely flesh [1]. Maimonides discusses the mud-mouse
and writes, This is a wellknown matter; there is no end to the number of people who have told me that they have seen it. This is
despite the fact that the existence of such a creature is astonishing, and I do not know of any explanation for it. In his
commentary to Maimonides writings, Rabbi Yosef Kappach maintains that Maimonides did not believe that such a creature
existed, as his comments noted doubt as to whether the mud-mouse was biologically viable. Many witnesses, claiming to have
observed these creatures, told Rabbi Kappach that these mice appeared in the fields after rainy periods. Rabbi Kapach relates
that he personally searched the fields for these mud-mice, and, while he did find mice that looked like they were partly made of
earth, after handling them he notes, It became clear that their hindquarters are covered with mud and they are really just mice
like all other mice. Rabbi Kappach concludes that the mud-mice do not exist by stating that they remain fictional like our
master [Maimonides] implied [1]. In contrast to his approach to the adnei hasadeh, Rabbi Yisrael Lipschutz argues in favor of the
existence of the mud-mouse and writes that it is the heretics who mock the possibility that such a creature existed. It is
peculiar that while Rabbi Lipschutz questions the biological viability of the adnei hasadeh and even suggests that it may actually
be an orangutan, whereas he strongly defends the existence of the mud-mouse and states that those who do not believe in it are
heretics. It is important to remember the context in which he wrote. In reference to the mud-mouse, Rabbi Lipschutz argues
against the heretics, as possibly they were using the example of the mud-mice to ridicule the whole Torah. This led him to reject
any other possible explanations of such a creature in order to repudiate the heretics [1]. Rabbi Yehoshua Heller of Telz
maintains that if the Sages mentioned and described any creature, it must exist. Rabbi Natan Slifkin, widely known as the zoo
rabbi, contends that denying the existence of these mysterious creatures does not make someone a heretic. He writes that the
suggestion that the Jewish Sages believed in the incorrect scientific data of their time does not necessarily belittle or degrade the
Sages. This concept is far from a new and revolutionary idea, as Maimonides also did not believe that the Sages descriptions of
animals were always meant to be taken literally. Maimonides spoke disparagingly of the people who believed that every scientific
idea stated by the Sages must be absolutely true, and stated that this is the group of the intellectually weak. One should
bemoan their foolishness; for they think that they are honoring and elevating the Sages, but in fact they are degrading them with
the ultimate degradation, yet they do not realize this [1]. Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch writes in his letter entitled Trusting the
Torahs Sages that the Sages rulings on these mythical creatures were not meant to give credence to their existence. Rabbi
Hirsch maintains that if a renowned scholar nowadays traveled to a distant country and, upon his return, would report that: In
some distant land there is a humanoid creature growing from the ground or that he had found mice that had been generated
from the soil and had in fact seen a mouse that was half earth and half flesh and his report was accepted by the world as true,
wouldnt we expect the Sages to discuss the Torah aspects that apply to these instances? What laws of defilement and
decontamination apply to these creatures? Or would we expect them to go on long journeys to find out whether what the world
has accepted is really true? And if, as we see things today, these instances are considered fiction, can the Sages be blamed for
ideas that were accepted by the naturalists of their times? Rabbi Hirsch argues that the Sages were simply presented with reports
of these strange creatures and proceeds to make various rulings in reference to them. The actual existence of these cases does
not reflect the credibility of the Sages [1]. While the Sages had good reason to believe that the creatures they received reports
about existed, we can be certain today that neither of these mythical creatures is real. Acknowledgements: I would like to express
my appreciation to Dr. Babich, both for his assistance in preparing this document article and for his constant insight and advice. I
would also like to thank my parents for their support and encouragement in completing this manuscript. References: [1] Slifkin,

N., 2003, Mysterious Creatures. Targum, Southfield, MI [2] Sperber, D., 1994, Magic and Folklore in Rabbinic Literature.
Cambridge UK, [3] Metro News, 2013, Uncontacted Tribe Appears in Peru and Violent Confrontation Only Narrowly Avoided. Aug.
20

The Wild Men

The United States of America has some of the most efficient public transportation systems in the world. New York has a spectacularly complex
subway system, with the A, B, C, N, R, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 trains. Washington's network is more luxurious and also very slightly more imaginatively
named - the lines are called the Red line, the Blue line, the Green line, and so on. But my favorite is the O-line, which is short for the Orang-line
(that's "Orang," not "Orange"). It runs thirty feet above the ground and does not carry any trains at all. The O-line consists of two thick ropes, about
four feet apart, stretched along tall posts. It is designed not for humans, but for orangutans, and it runs across the width of the magnificent National
Zoo. Wherever it crosses the public walkway there is a sign that reads "O-LINE: BE
CAREFUL, ORANG XING."
Orangutans, for the benefit of the unaware, are large red apes from Borneo and Sumatra. The
O-line links their enclosure in the zoo to a building called the Think-Tank. There, the
orangutans can engage in a host of mentally stimulating activities. For the public, it presents a
chance to see the extraordinary intelligence of these large, human-like primates.
The human-like primates are being treated as more and more human-like all the time.
Chimpanzee tea parties may be a thing of the past, but there are now more serious moves to narrow the gap between apes and men. Chimpanzees
and gorillas have been taught rudimentary sign language. The New York Times Weekly Review (August 22, 1999) ran an article about a growing
group of lawyers and legal academics who are plotting strategies to bring a Great Ape Suit to court. It voiced the following prediction:
"A great ape will appear in the courtroom. A lawsuit, perhaps protesting the ape's life behind bars, will have been filed in the animal's name. The ape
will then testify in sign language or using a voice synthesizer to support the claim that, contrary to centuries of law, it has legal rights, including a
fundamental right to liberty." The New York Times continued to say that "in essence, the lawyers want to challenge the status quo by asking the
courts to look closely at great apes, large and intelligent creatures like gorillas, chimpanzees and orangutans that resemble humans genetically."
Despite the concept appearing utterly ridiculous, many will find it unnerving. Whether the suit will succeed or not, it is bound to raise considerable
controversy. Darwinian evolutionists and religious people alike think that discussions of similarities between apes and men, and especially
discussions of ape-men, threaten religion. Thus, evolutionists have proudly spoken of the tests that have shown 99% genetic similarity between
humans and chimpanzees, while religious people exorcise Neanderthal man from the textbooks.
Now prepare yourself for a shock.
Without getting into the issue of whether or not we are actually descended from apes, Judaism has been discussing the similarities for a very long
time indeed. Orangutans in particular have been the subject of debate in Jewish Law for over two thousand years. Remarkably, there is discussion
as to whether they share certain laws with humans! Well before O-Lines and Think-Tanks were constructed, Jewish law had perceived the
humanlike qualities of great apes and was debating just how humanlike their legal situation should be.
The Mishnah (Kilayim 8:5) states: "Adnei ha-sadeh is rated as an animal. Rabbi Yosi says: It causes spiritual impurity (when dead) in a
building, like a human being."
What is the adnei ha-sadeh? The Talmud (Talmud Yerushalmi, Kilayim 8:4) elaborates: "Adnei ha-sadeh, the yaysi-araki, is the mountain-man."
Curiouser and curiouser. What is the mysterious mountain-man? The answer isn't entirely clear, but Rabbi Yisrael Lifshitz, a nineteenth-century
commentary on the Mishnah, provides the following explanation:
"It seems to me that it means the 'wildman' which is called 'orangutang.' This is a type of large ape, genuinely
similar to a person in form and build, except that its arms are long, reaching to its knees. It can be taught to chop
wood, to draw water, and also to wear clothes, just like a human being; and also to sit at a table and eat with a knife,
fork and spoon. In our times, it is only found in the great jungles of Africa; however, it appears that it may formerly
have been found also in the vicinity of the Land of Israel, in the mountains of Lebanon, where even in our day there
are great forests, of the 'cedars of Lebanon' fame; and therefore it was called 'the mountain-man'." (Tiferet Yisrael
ad loc.)
The term adnei hasadeh, explained to mean "men of the field" (see Encyclopedia Talmudit), may well also include
other great apes. The Malbim (Vayikra 11:27) states that it refers to chimpanzees as well as orangutans. Rambam
notes that "those who bring news from the world state that it speaks many things which cannot be understood, and
its speech is similar to that of a human being." This description would be adequately accurate for all of the great
apes. Of course, it may refer to a different creature. The Torah prohibition against eating blood is said by the
Midrash not to include two-legged creatures. The use of this term, as opposed to it simply saying "man," is taken to
include the adnei ha-sadeh, described as walking on two legs like a man. Does this refer to the great apes, which occasionally walk in this posture,
or to some other creature? Was there some form of Neanderthal man extant in those days? Or does it refer to a creature unknown to modern
science, such as Bigfoot, the yeti, or the sasquatch? For the time being, the best we have to go on is Rabbi Lifshitz's definition of the orangutan.

Remarkably, then, we have a two thousand year old discussion in Jewish law concerning the similarities between orangutans and humans. The
debate in the Mishnah as to whether it is rated as an animal or as a human has several ramifications in Jewish law. One, whether their corpses
cause tum'ah (spiritual impurity), is mentioned in the Mishnah. Another ramification, mentioned by Rambam, concerns a person who sells "all of his
animals." If the adnei ha-sadeh are rated as humans, then they are not included in such a sale. (Such a matter could be highly relevant to those
zoos in Israel which sell of their animals to a Kohen, such that they can eat the terumah produce which the zoos receive free from the local
Religious Council.)
We see here very clearly that it's not ridiculous to group apes with men for certain aspects. This should also be a lesson to us not to make any
assumptions about what the Torah perspective on various issues actually is. Nevertheless, it is incorrect (although perhaps not utterly ridiculous) to
group apes together with humans for matters such as legal rights. There would seem to be no Torah basis for that, and the very line of thought is
based on a misconception. The New York Times writes that "modest cases, some animal-rights lawyers, say, could set the stage for ambitious suits
like a great ape case. Some legal scholars, for example, are considering whether the legal system can justify common but arguably cruel farming
practices, like the close confinement of animals raised for slaughter." This line of thinking is seriously flawed from a Torah perspective. It is true that
many farming practices are cruel and wrong. However, they are wrong not because they impinge on any animal rights, but rather because they are
inconsistent with human obligations. Solving the mistreatment of animals is not to be achieved through granting rights to animals, but rather through
reinforcing moral obligations of people.
Let's hope that equal rights for apes remains a fantasy. Still, if your daughter comes home one day and tells you that she's met the guy of her
dreams, and she adds that he's dark and strong and is involved in medical research, you might want to prepare for the fact that he might not be a
Jewish doctor.
Is it


in the very second verse of the Torah?
Summary: Already in the second pasuk of Bereshit, Shadal notes and endorses a girsological variant in Onkelos.
Post: The second pasuk in Bereishit, together with Onkelos, reads:

.
, ; , , ,

. - , ; - ,
, , ,

According to Shadal, in Ohev Ger, there is a compelling variant text of Onkelos which has . He writes:

Thus, he ascribes this girsa with to Savyonita, Gimel Targumim, and Ch"g. Though in some printings they omit this word (whose meaning is
to stretch out). And his mind inclines to preserving it, for had Onkelos not added it (according to the rules of the Aramaic language), the scribes
would not have added it on their own, since there is nothing like it in the Hebrew.
Here is an image of the Chumash from Savyonita, 1557. I underlined the word in red.

It is a strong point, and the only possible counter I could come up with is the repeated ( X 2) word and ( X 1) in close proximity. But that is fairly
weak.
Introducing Absolut Genesis, 2009 Edition

From the same anonymous folks who brought you theAbsolut

Haggadah, here isAbsolut Genesis.
Written in an engaging style and punctuated with relevant jokes and comics, this 27-page book discusses the first threeperakim of Sefer Bereishis,
which is the Biblical cosmogony, the creation of man, and the events in the Garden of Eden. They analyze text, form, and structure and come out
with a nice running perspective on the Biblical text. And it is free.
It is the results of the discussions of an anonymous chaburah which has met over the past few years, focused on learning peshat in sefer Bereishit.
I know they have discussed a whole lot more than the first three perakim -- they have gotten at the least past all the events involving Yitzchak -- and
so I don't know what their long term plans are.

I agree with a lot of the ideas in here, though some of it is too philosophical for my own personal preferences. But I can analyze and post more
about things I disagree with. So don't take my disagreement here as a condemnation of the entire work. Here is an excerpt from the book, to give
you a taste:
The second account of creation can be divided into two sections of 22 verses each. The first section 2:4-25 speaks of Gods creation of man, the
physical characteristics of the garden and the command. The second section 2:25-3:2 1 speaks of mans choices in the garden. Both sections share
the central verse which serves as both the end of the story of creation and the beginning of human history. This second section starts with And
Adam and his wife were naked and ends with and God made garments of skin and clothed them. What is so significant about nakedness and
clothing? We are also told in 3:7 that Adam and his wife already sewed clothing for themselves and yet the clothed Adam, when explaining why he
is hiding says (3:10) I was afraid because I was naked.
Later, in verse 3:21, we find out that God also makes leather garments for the couple.
Why two sets of clothing? Was the woman reading Vogue?
The two sets tell us that man and woman destroyed two relationships when they violated Gods command; two trusts were broken. The first set of
clothing is because now man and woman have placed distance between them. They must critically evaluate the others words and deeds. They are
no longer one flesh, one organism. Man blames his wife for his problems, (what else is new), and now sees his wife as the other. Man must find a
name for his wife since she is no longer an extension of his being.
The second relationship that was broken was the one between man and God. Before they ate from the forbidden tree, man had nothing to hide.
Now man now is ashamed and must cover up his guilt and hide his breach of trust. Man is not hiding from God because he is physically naked. At
this point he already has clothing. Rather, man is hiding from God because he has ruined his relationship with his creator. God provides man with a
second set of clothing to allow their relationship to continue.
Whether I agree with the particular conclusions, I do think that the different (and sometimes somewhat conflicting) accounts do serve two different
purposes, having to do with the relationship of God to the universe, God to man, man to God, and man to universe. And that the dual Creation in the
first and second perek serve different purposes.
Still, though there are two incidents of man getting clothing, I don't think that these are necessarily complementary, or that they serve parallel roles
("two trusts were broken" -- between man and man, and between man and God).
Rather, even in terms of the world of the narrative, both sets of clothing are needed. The clothing within the garden is indicative of man's loss of
innocent. Originally there were naked (, )and did not know it, unlike the crafty (, )snake who would know this. After eating from the tree of
Knowledge, they knew it, and so had to modify their behavior. They made lousy clothing out of fig-leaves -- loincloths. But this is indicative of their
change from innocence to maturity.
Yet they hid themselves from Hashem's presence, because they are ashamed of what they did, or else because they are naked. And Adam gives
either the excuse or the reason for his hiding, that he is naked. This might well be a contradiction of the likes of Bereishit I and Bereishit II, as
the Absolut Genesis hints at (We are also told in 3:7 that Adam and his wife already sewed clothing for themselves and yet the clothed Adam, when
explaining why he is hiding says (3:10) I was afraid because I was naked) but might do better to make more explicit.
It is understandable that mere girdles or loincloths are not necessarily sufficient for standing before the Melech Malchei Hamelachim, Hakadosh
Baruch Hu! Indeed, over Simchas Torah I was reading through Orach Chaim siman 91, and about how besides not having the heart see the erva,
there may well be addition requirements for Shemoneh Esrei of more clothing because of . (I have a post planned.)
While their leaf-clothing is indicative of their loss of innocence, Hashem's giving them this clothing may reflect Hashem's changed attitude towards
them, and His recognition of their changed status.
More than that, within the story, leaf-girdles may be sufficient for the pleasant climate in the Garden of Eden, but Hashem is about to drive them out
of there. If so, clothing made of animal skin would be much better suited for the colder climate.
And allegorically, this is placed just before He drives them out of Gan Eden, and right after He curses them. One shouldn't think that Hashem has
entirely distanced himself from man. This doesn't show man's distance from God; it shows man's closeness to God! Despite driving him out,
Hashem still cares for Adam and Chava. (Indeed, see Rabbi Meir's sefer Torah where was spelled with an aleph.)
Taking a quasi-Documentary Hypothesis approach here, just like we have Bereishit I and Bereishit II (and Adam I and Adam II from Lonely Man of
Faith), we have two interwoven stories. (We see these often as the macro-level and micro-level of Hashem's interaction with the world.) And the
"contradiction" is not just that two sets of clothing are given, but two names are given to Chava. True, one is the name of her kind and the other is a
personal name, but still, two names are assigned.
If we try to separate out the threads of the two stories, we might conclude that Hashem's giving them clothes has nothing to do with the so-called
Fall of Man. That is, if I were to divide the stories, I might divide it as such:
The "sin" eating from the Etz HaDaas. From perek 2:
16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying: 'Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat;

, - : - ,
.

17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou eatest
thereof thou shalt surely die.'

, : , -- , -
. --

Then, the creation of woman, and the Naming of all the Animals in one strand. From perek 2:
18 And the LORD God said: 'It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a help meet
for him.'

, -
; - , -
.

19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and
brought them unto the man to see what he would call them; and whatsoever the man would call every
living creature, that was to be the name thereof.

-
- , - -
-

; -

- , - ,
. ,

20 And the man gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for
Adam there was not found a help meet for him.
21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; and He took one of his
ribs, and closed up the place with flesh instead thereof.

, ,
- ,

. - ,;

, ;
, -
. ,
,

22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from the man, made He a woman, and brought her unto
the man.
23 And the man said: 'This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman,
because she was taken out of Man.'
24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall
be one flesh.

;
, - -
-
. - ,
;

, , ,
.-

,
,
; - , - , - , -
.

Then, back to the first strand, the separate story of the "sin" of eating from the Etz HaDaat. Despite it being the very last pasuk of perek 2, I would
say that it resumes the story:
25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

.
,;
,

This strand continues through their entire sin, and the curses, up until the naming of Chava:
20 And the man called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.

. - , : ,

Then, back to the other strand, of Hashem having created Adam and Chava, and their being of one flesh. Hashem continues to take care of them:
21 And the LORD God made for Adam and for his wife garments of skins, and clothed them. {P}

{ }.
-- ,

Then, back to the other strand, of them being driven out of the garden of Eden.
These stories do not necessarily contradict one another, but they serve entirely different purposes. And they would be put together based on the
requirements of maintaining a chronological order.
(Of course, this is my own division, based on themes that appear to me.)
But if so, then Hashem clothed them with clothes made of animal skins, right after Adam has shown mastery of the animals by giving them names,
and recognizing that Woman is like him, and distinct from the animals. And if so, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the fall of man due to eating
from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Rather, it has everything to do with Hashem's providing for mankind, and Hashem's recognition of
man as a distinct entity from the animals -- indeed, He shows how man is to use animals for his own needs.
And if so, focus on the giving of both sets of clothing as a reaction to Adam and Chava's sin, and thus on creating distances, might not be the
correct approach here.
Of course, these are my own theories, and their theories are nice and have merit as well. And the rest of the book is nice as well.
Anyhow, check out the e-book, and give them feedback, either in the comment section here, or by emailing them at AbsolutHaggadah@gmail.com.
The Torah begins with the letter Bet
The first pasuk in the Torah:
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

. ,

, ,

Why does the Torah begin with a bet, and not with an aleph? Simple. Because the pasuk wouldn't make any sense if the first word were ); !
Seriously, though, this is a question addressed in Bereishit Rabba 1:10, where it is phrased as why the world was created with a bet (rather than
an aleph):
' :
'? ,
, , , , , , , ' .
:
. ( ,)
, , .
(, ), , , .
:
:
'? ,
.. " ", ,
:
'?
.
"?
.
:
? "
, ,!?
, .
:
?'

 , ' .
' ,?
: .
?
' : .
' :
" ,.
" :!?
) ( ' : , , :' ".
) ( ' : , .
:
? "
( , ) : , , :
Within that list was the letter beis was a lashon of beracha, while aleph was a lashon of arira:
:
'?
.
"?
.
In his Hakdama to his commentary on Torah, Ibn Ezra attacks all the other approaches before

setting out his own. While doing this, he attacks this midrash, writing: "There is also a derash which is good for others, and directs in a way of
contemplation the children. For there is a bird which does not see in the day the brightly lit; and in the night it sees, because its eyes are dim;
like the derash that the world was created with a bet because of Blessing. And if the matter were so, behold, {Yeshaya 24}
, '

He makes the earth empty and waste..."

He proceeds to give many other examples of negative words which begin with the letter beis; and then all sorts of other derashot which one can
free-associate and create if one so-wishes. (And see Mechokekei Yehuda on it.)
This attack on a midrash Chazal naturally bothers his frum super-commentator, Avi Ezer. And he has good ammunition in this case, because Ibn
Ezra appears to contradict himself. Avi Ezerwrites:

"Behold, the Rav, in his introduction to the Torah contradicts the midrash whichdarshens the beginning of the Torah with a bet to place blessing
in the creation of Heaven, etc.
Yet, in sefer Tzachot is explained the opposite, for he writes regarding the form of the letters and their meaning, and these are his words: "The
Kuf is the opposite of the Truth, and {the word} Kelalah is as witness, etc."
Therefore, I believe the words of many, and complete people, who have decreed and said about many of the words written in the sefer that
they are not from him mouth. Rather, strangers have come and profaned it, and erring students have written in his name in order to profane his
holy words. And see Michlol,nikud gimel, he writen that what the Rav writes in Mishlei, on like , an erring student wrote it. See there.
However, what the author of Ohel Yosef {I don't see it here; perhaps elsewhere?} wishes to make the student correct when he says that one of
his students took his words from the first nusach which Ibn Ezra wrote, for all the authors wrote two nuschaot, and he took the latter and left
off the former. End quote.
And I don't think so. Rather, in matters which don't touch upon, and oppose, the words of our Sages, but are merely a contradiction in the words
of the Rav himself, I will believe the words of the author of Ohel Yosef. However, in matters which contradict our Sages, za"l, as well as in other
matter which are not in accordance with religion, I say that an erring and suspect student wrote them in order to render impure his holy words,
as is written {Tehillim 52:5}:
5 Thou lovest evil more than good; falsehood rather than speaking righteousness. Selah

. , ;

For the entire trend of the scoffers is to show deviation from a good man, in order that their words be believed by the general public. For the
words of the Rav are full of fear {of Heaven} of wisdom, and intelligent instruction."
This does not seem to me to be a very auspicious way of beginning his commentary. While certainly it can sometimes be true, he claims here
that he will apply it in the way most convenient to his frum biases! Where the conflict is merely between Ibn Ezra and Ibn Ezra, he will say it
was first vs. second nusach; but where it conflicts (additionally?) with what Chazal say, or what Avi Ezer deems frum thought, he will assert that
a talmid toeh wrote it.
I am reminded of the reaction of a certain rav in my neighborhood, when my father showed him some introduction of Rambam, about the
importance of studying secular subjects. He did not know what to do with it for several minutes, but then, he finally figured it out, and declared
that it must be a ziyuf, a forgery! Because the holy Rambam would obviously not say this. And so everything was once again right with the
world.
And we see the same thing nowadays, with some rabbis arguing with Rabbi Slifkin. The writings of Rav Shamshon ben Refael Hirsch must be
a ziyuf! The writings of Rabbenu Avraham son of the Rambam must be a ziyuf!
There are indeed times where the evidence leads one to the conclusion that something is a forgery. But if it is your natural biases leading you in
this direction, and if you previously did not want the source to say X, then one should take caution. Which is why I say this makes for an
inauspicious start to the perush.
But Avi Ezer does make a good point. If Ibn Ezra, in his sefer Tzachot be-Dikduk, indeed practices what he decries in this lengthy hakdamah,
then we have a contradiction between Ibn Ezra and Ibn Ezra that asks for resolution. And the resolution could be that he simply changed his
mind. Or it could be that he didn't write one of the two conflicting texts, but that an erring student wrote it.
But having examined Ibn Ezra's Tzachot beDikduk in detail, I am not convinced that there is a contradiction.
First, let us understand what he says in Tzachot, and then we can contrast it with what he says in his hakdama. In Tzachot, on the letter Kuf,
he writes:

Letter Kuf: No letter descends from the line of the writing except Kuf. And behold, it is like an inverted Lamed, and so is its form. And its
meaning is the opposite of the truth and the upper matter, and behold is as evidence. And behold, its name is like "ivory and apes" (I Kings
10:24), for its {=the ape's} actions are imaginary {?}, and there is no trust in them. And there is no complaint from the five doubled letters
{where the final letter descends} which are long, for they go out my matter of happenstance, and I have already mentioned their secret
according to my opinion.

And see the lengthy perush on this provided by Rav Gavriel

Hirsch Lippman, on the same page. For example, in saying that Kuf was the opposite of the Truth, this is because the Truth is the uppermost
thing upon all the thoughts of man, and the Kuf brings it down, for it goes below the baseline; and the word Kelalah is as testimony and
evidence upon this, because Kelalah is the opposite of Berachah, which is founded upon Truth and Faith, which is uppermost of anything,
while Kelalah brings it down to a lowly state; and behold the wordKelalah begins with the letter Kuf. And furthermore the import of the word
for monkey, etc.
If so, it would indeed seem that Ibn Ezra makes use, as evidence, of the very mechanisms he disparages in his Hakdamah. And so we have
conflict.
However, we should also look at letter Lamed, where Ibn Ezra writes something related.

Letter Lamed... And behold I will reveal to you my position. Behold we see that there is no letter in this writing system in our hands which rises
above except for the Lamed. And behold its meaning it the Cause of every matter and its Inducement. And there is no wisdom above it;
therefore it is called Lamed {teaching}. And once we discover that there is no letter which {phonologically speaking} lifts the tongue somewhat
except for the Lamed alone, this is a sign that our writing system is on the way of the Toldot {"after nature"}, except that we do not know the
basis of all the letters appropriately because of the deficiency of our knowledge.
Now, from some simple browsing, Ibn Ezra does not do this for other letters, such as Aleph, or Bet, or Gimel. Just in terms of Lamed, and by
extension, Kuf. Not because he maintains that there is nothing encoded in the form, phonology, and meaning of the other letters, but because
there is deficiency in his and our knowledge.
But now, if we expand upon Ibn Ezra's idea here, we might realize a major distinction between what Ibn Ezra criticizes in his hakdama and what
he strives to do in this one place in Tzachot.

To Ibn Ezra's mind, Bet is for Bracha and Aleph is for Arira is entirely arbitrary. It is the same as saying C is for Cookie. There are plenty of other
words which start with C, such as Cabbage and Carnival. They didn't establish that there is a connection between C and Cookie. And Chazal
seemed to arbitrarily take two words, Bracha and Arira, which opposed each other, and started with these letters. But not that the letter Beis
was somehow deeply linked with the concept of Bracha. And to this end, Ibn Ezra showed plenty of other candidates, of negative words starting
with Bet.
In sefer Tzachot, that wasn't even his goal at all. He began with the form of the letter, associated with its meaning. After developing it for the
ascending letter Lamed, which stood for all things positive and uppermost because its head ascended, and because of its phonology, he
developed the opposite idea based on the form of the descending letter Kuf, which was an inverted Lamed; and on the basis of the parallel to
apes.
That Kuf started a negative word with the meaning he was trying to develop was somehow evidence to him. Perhaps not as simply a negative
word starting with that letter, like "C is for Cookie", but as a concrete example of the letter Kuf playing out the role he had designated for it
already given the other evidence. Thus, as a practical example showing the correctness of his theory, rather than the basis.
I would also point out that in the word , it is not just a Kuf but a Kuf followed by two Lameds. And since he had already established the
meaning of Lamed and of Kuf, which was the bringing down of that which was already up, we should see this word as the Kuf doing this to
the Lameds as he describes, in a way that matches well to the meaning of the word.
This is a far cry from an arbitrary choosing of a positive and negative word, respectively, which start with the letters under consideration.
To sum up, I don't think that there really is a contradiction between Ibn Ezra in his hakdamaand Ibn Ezra in Tzachot. And if I have not already
removed entirely the contradiction by clearly elucidating Ibn Ezra's precise meaning, I believe I presented enough evidence to raise a reasonable
doubt, such that it is extremely credible that were Ibn Ezra here to give full account, he could resolve any apparent contradictions arising from
his various works. And I don't know of any manuscript evidence to support the assertion that this was inserted into his work. The contradiction is
likely only in the minds of his supercommentators, who should not be in such a hurry to attribute his "heretical" words to the hand of an erring
student.
Is the second Peru Urevu a blessing or a command?
Two blessings in the first perek of Bereishit. First,
21 And God created the great sea-monsters, and every living creature that creepeth, wherewith the

- ; - ,
waters swarmed, after its kind, and every winged fowl after its kind; and God saw that it was good.
.- , , - ,
22 And God blessed them, saying: 'Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let
fowl multiply in the earth.'

, , - , : ,

.

This has to be a blessing rather than a tzivuy, a command. And Ibn Ezra explains it so:
,]
. ,.
:
, .
That is, it is not a tzivui, but rather a blessing that it shall be so that you will be fruitful and multiply. And his proof is from the tail-end of
Haazinu, pasuk 50:
48 And the LORD spoke unto Moses that selfsame day, saying:

. ,
-

49 'Get thee up into this mountain of Abarim, unto mount Nebo, which is in the land of Moab, that is
over against Jericho; and behold the land of Canaan, which I give unto the children of Israel for a
possession;

,
,
,- -


, - ; -
.

50 and die in the mount whither thou goest up, and be gathered unto thy people; as Aaron thy brother
died in mount Hor, and was gathered unto his people.

-
: - , ,
,
. - , , ,

Obviously, it is not in Moshe's koach to die, but in Hashem's to cause him to die. Rather, despite being in the form of an imperative verb, it
means that this will happen that you will do X. And having established the meaning to the form there in Haazinu, we can apply it locally to
parshat Bereshit as well.
(As a side-point, while I agree with the meaning Ibn Ezra assigns it here in Bereishit, I think there may be a teshuva to his prooftext from
Haazinu. After all, it starts with a command to ascend to the mountain, which appears to be a tzivuy and within Moshe's power. And Moshe
knows he is going to his death, and that he will die there. And this is what Moshe does in veZot Habracha. In fact, the command is not just to
die, but to die there, in the mount. He accomplishes this by going up the mountain and staying there at his date and time of expiration until he
indeed expires. So one can readily say that in Haazinu it is an imperative, and one which in large measure in Moshe's power to carry out.)
The "problem" is that later in the same first perek of Bereishis we see the same precise language in a blessing to man:
28 And God blessed them; and God said unto them: 'Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth,
and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every
living thing that creepeth upon the earth.'

, ,

, - ,
,;
,-
.-

In that instance, will we also say that it is only a blessing, and not a tzivuy? For we already established earlier on a grammatical basis that it
being in the form of the imperative is not necessarily an indication that it is a command; and in the earlier parallel case is also could notreally
be a command to the animals!

But Sefer Hachinuch, following Chazal's lead, lists it as the first of the Mitzvos in the Torah.
Even so, Ibn Ezra follows his previously established position and writes:
" , ., , , .
That is, the phrase regarding Pirya veRivya is a blessing here, just as by the creation of the water. But it is a commandment which those who
preceded us, za"l established, and they placed this verse as a hint to the matter.
It seems that he is saying the the mitvah is deRabbanan, or miDivrei Soferim, and that this is not a command being given here. Rather, they just
used the pasuk as an asmachta!

As we might expect, Avi Ezer is upset by Ibn Ezra's suggestion. On

the first Pru Urevu, where Ibn Ezra first establishes that the meaning is not a command, Avi Ezer writes:
"And later on I argue on the
words of the Rav who presses himself to say that Pru Urevu is not a command but a blessing. And in truth, it is one of the 613 commandments.
And therefore, we say that if she remained {for a span of years} and she did give birth, it is amitzvah to divorce her."
Though Ibn Ezra would simply say that it is not one of the 613, if indeed there must be precisely 613 in the count; and he would admit that this
was the established halacha, but on the basis of a mitzvah which Chazal established and merely tied in to this pasuk as a zecher ledavar. So Avi
Ezer's disproof here is not very strong; and I wonder at his claim that Ibn Ezra was . But he elaborates as to what he means elsewhere, as
he notes.

Avi Ezer makes a stronger argument later on. He writes:

"The position of the Rav here is that this is called a verb which is neither intransitive or transitive, such as death and old age; such that the
language of command is not relevant to it. And I {=Avi Ezer} say that is is literally a command, just as 'and die on the mountain' which is a
command to prepare himself, as the Rav writes there. And so too here it is a command to prepare, just as the owner of the vineyard can
command to water the garden. And therefore, if he stays with her for ten years, it is a command {he seems to mean Biblically} to divorce her,
for he has not yet fulfilled his command until he carries out Peru Urevu. And if, then, Hashem withholds from him the fruit of the womb, he has
still fulfilled the requirements of his command. It is also hinted at in this command to warn the evildoers of the generation who were in the days
of Noach, who gave her {=the wife} to drink from the cup of infertility so that her beauty was not marred. And for this reason, Hakadosh Baruch
Hu commanded Peru Urevu. And so too by Amalek, it is stated "do not forget," which is to put marks and signs that you should not forget. And
therefore, Rashi explained well in parshat Noach that Peru Urevu is a mitzvah."
In terms of Rashi, he is referring to the second Peru URevu of Bereishit 9:
7. And you, be fruitful and multiply; swarm upon the earth and multiply thereon."

:
,
.

And you, be fruitful and multiply: According to its simple meaning: the first [mention
of this expression] (verse 1) was a blessing, and this [mention] is a commandment.
According to its midrashic interpretation, [it is written here] to compare one who does
not engage in propagation to one who sheds blood. [from Yev. 63b]

. , :
:,

Thus, Avi Ezer was making a stronger point. Ibn Ezra was not merely saying the Peru Urevucould be taken as blessing rather than instruction,
with evidence of the possibility of this from uMus, but was saying that this had to be what it meant. Because dying was not in Moshe's power,
and being fruitful is not in a creation's power. And so Avi Ezer shows that within the parameters of the mitzvah is preparations for the being
fruitful, such as a mitzvah legarsha if infertile. And so Ibn Ezra cannot say that it is not possible for it to be a tzivuy.
I can see how one can read this in Ibn Ezra's words, though I don't see that it must be read into his words. But I would ask just how Avi Ezer
regards the first Peru Urevu of each of these instances, where even Rashi and Chazal agree that it is a blessing? He would not say it is a
command, for what preparation should the sea-creatures take? And would he argue with Rashi, who he approved of, to say that the first Pru
Urvu in parshat Noach is also a command?
Rather, he certainly admits that sometimes, it does not need to be a command. If so, he cannot really argue with Ibn Ezra on location in the
first P'ru U'rvu of B'rayshis, where he likens it to U'mus.
And once Ibn Ezra has that foothold, IMHO, he has the argument of consistency of meaning in two things which are designated as blessings. This
is a good thing when trying to arrive atpeshat. Thus, Ibn Ezra is certainly not forced, and Avi Ezer's argument is certainly not strong enough to
disprove Ibn Ezra's assertion.
I would add one point, and differ with Ibn Ezra slightly. Divine Fiat -- "Let it be" is enough of a command. Since Hashem's blessings have power
and impact on the structure of Creation, His 'blessing' is really placing positive blessed features into the fabric of Creation. So though
words, vayevarech via Pru Urevu is the same as Yehi Or. And man is not obeying by his own will, but rather nature responds to Hashem's will. And
so Ibn Ezra need not make this some weird grammatical form. It is indeed Tzivuy, but not in the sense of a commandment. The consistency with
the earlier brachah demonstrates that.
Let us assume for a moment that Ibn Ezra is correct as a matter of peshat. What then? Well, it could be earth shattering... or not so much.
Earth-shattering, because he is asserting that we are wrong about one of the 613 commandments, and that this is really a deRabbanan. And not
so much?
Well, we can say as follows:
1) Even if it is entirely Rabbinic and not at all Biblical, we still follow the dinim deRabbanan. And we trust the hashkafot of Chazal such that we
agree that it is a good thing to be fruitful and multiply. Indeed, the Biblical text considers being fruitful and multiplying to be a blessing, and
thus a good thing.
2) Even if it is not the meaning of the text on a peshat level, who says that every Biblical commandment, every mitzvah deOraysa, needs to be
evident on the peshat level? Indeed, there are 613 explicit mitzvos. But there are hundreds or thousands of others, which we typically
consider deOraysa, which don't make the count by Rambam because they are not explicit in the peshat level of the text. And if we are Pharisees
and believe in the force ofhalachic derash to bring out another true layer of meaning in the Biblical text, who cares if it is the literal meaning?
3) Depending on one's theory of the Oral Law (and there are several), Chazal might have the power to introduce a mitvah which has the status
of din deOrayta via their derashot. We can agree entirely with Ibn Ezra, and yet state that this is what Chazal did, and so this is still adeorayta.
Di chava talk with the serpent
How could she have understood the serpent? And how could she have spoken to it, unless she was aParselmouth? This all assumes that we
understand this literally and not metaphorically. How can man talk the animals? Understandably, this is something that would bother medieval
rationalists.
Ibn Ezra asks this question, though without the gratuitous Harry Potter references, and gives various answers. Thus, he writes:

,]
:
. .
:
,!?
,!?
. , ,.
:
, . , , , .
:
, , , , .
, , . , , , , , , , .
To translate:
"And the snake" -- Some say that the woman understood and knew the language of the animals. And they explain 'and the snake said' as {not
actual human speech} but with hinting.

And others say that he was the Satan. And how did they not see the end of the parsha? For how would the Satan go on its belly and how would it
eat dust? And what is the meaning of "he will trod on your head?!"
And many mixed themselves up to delve into why the Snake was cursed, and if he had a full intelligence, or if it was commanded not to tempt
the Woman.
And Rav Saadia Gaon said: After it is made clear to us that there is no speech or intelligence except in humankind, we are compelled to say that
the snake, as well as the she-ass {of Bilaam} did not speak. Rather, an angel spoke on their behalf.
And Rav Shmuel ben Chofni {Gaon} answered him. {Based on Yahel Ohr, That behold, it says Vayomer Hanachash!}
And behold Rabbi Shlomo the Sefardi, the author of the metered poetry and a great scholar he was, as he answered upon Rav Shmuel {ben
Chofni Gaon}. {That if the donkey was able to speak, why didn't she speak before this?}
And what is correct in my eyes is that the matters are as in their simple implication, and that the snake spoke, and that it walked erect, and the
one who placed intelligence in Man placed it in him {as well}. And behold the verse testifies that he was cleverer that all the animals of the
field, but not like Adam."
Abarbanel also asks this question. In his 28th question on the story of the incident in Gan Eden, he writes:
The 28th question is in what the Scripture states that the Snake spoke, seduced, and tempted Chava. And this is an extremely astonishing
thing! For the snake was not one possessing a nefesh, nor did it speak. If so, how did it seduce and tempt? For seducing and tempting is only the
giving of advice and suggestion in the tempting matter, with theories and proofs giving seduction to the tempted. And behold, advice and
suggestion are drawn from the Intellectual power, as the Philosopher in Sefer HaMidot explains.

And one cannot answer that the Snake in the

beginning of its creation
possessed Intellect, and that the one {=Hashem} who placed it in Adam placed it in him {=the snake}, asIbn Ezra writes, to accord due publicity.
{See above.} For behold, Scripture encompassed it under the category of that which did not speak, when it said "And the Snake was more clever
than all the animals of the field," thereby grouping them all in one category.
And furthermore, if the Snake possessed Intellect and spoke, and with its sin its Intelligence and Speech were taken away from it and it became
mute, the Scripture should have mentioned this within its curses, for this in truth would be the greatest {curse} of them.
One should also not maintain like that which the Gaon, Rabbenu Saadia wrote, and there were drawn after him the scholars of the nations, that
the Satan spoke and not the Snake, and that so was the matter by the she-donkey of Bilam, that she did not speak of her own accord, but rather
the angel of Hashem spoke within her mouth. For if the matter were so, the Snake would not have sinned and should not have been punished.
And the situation of the Satan speaking within the mouth of the Snake is in truth something unimaginable. Rather, it is nonsense, the result of
delusion.
One also cannot say that the Snake's speech was by way of miracle, for Hashem would not make miracles and a wondrous way for an evil
purpose. And also, because the Scriptures does not say in the matter of the Snake "And God opened the mouth of the Snake" as it states by the
she-ass of Bilaam, because it was a wondrous occurrence.
That was Abarbanel, in his question. In his subsequent discussion, he mentions various midrashic explanations, which he labels derash and
allegory and not peshat. This gives him room to differ and offer his own explanation. He distinguishes between dreams and visions, on the one
hand, which can and should have an allegorical explanation, and a straightforward narrative on the other hand, which is then faithful testimony
of Hashem that this was or that this was done. And in such an instance, we cannot say lo haya velo nivra, but that it is only allegory. Certain
people try to focus on the "pnimiyus" interpretation and think that the outside meaning is worthless, but our Torah is not so. The external

meaning is true and extremely valuable, but there is additionally a deep and important pnimiyus interpretation. And he cites Rambam to this
effect as well.
Eventually, he addresses the question directly. And he writes:

The man was naked, ... and they fashioned for themselves girdles: There are three
positions which are too fabulous for me in the matter of the narrative of the Snake and its speaking.
There is the position of those who say that at the beginning of the creation the Snake was a creature which possessed Intellect and Speech, and
walked erect; and that when it sinned, its Intellect and Speech were taken away from it, and its legs were cut off. For this is entirely a denial of
the natural order of things and the way they come to be; and this is not mentioned within its curses, where it is indeed the most grievous of
them.
And there is the position of the one who says that the speaking Snake was the Satan, which was created for Man in the form of the Snake, as the
Gaon Rav Saadia writes, and those along with him. For these are in truth thoughts of wickedness {see Mishlei 6:18}, which does not have in it
substance.
And the third position is that of the Rav {=Rambam} of the Moreh {Nevuchim} and those who hold of his covenant that the plain peshat meaning
of this this Biblical text is nothing at all, but it is only hint {remez} of the natural and spiritual sciences. For I have already informed you that it
is not fitting to deny one narrative entirely which the simple straightforward meaning of the verses of the Torah testify to. {See above link,
where he discusses this position and rejects it.}
And therefore, my position in the matter of the Snake and the meaning of this narrative I will relate to you here, for it is the foundation of
this parsha and its truth.
And this is that the Snake did not speak at all to the woman, nor the woman to it. For it {=the Snake} is not a man of words, and therefore the
Biblical text does not say in its matter "And Hashem opened the mouth of the Snake" as it says by the she-ass of Bilaam. For there, because it
was because the she-ass spoke, in the plain sense {of the word "spoke"}, and it was a wondrous thing, it is stated "And Hashem opened the
mouth of the she-ass." But by the snake it does not say that He opened its mouth, because it did not speak at all, not in a natural way nor via a
miracle.
Rather, the matter was that she saw the snake climb the Etz HaDaas and eat of its fruits, time after time, and did not die nor suffer harm in any
fashion. And the woman thought regarding this and considered within herself, as if she were speaking with the Snake. And so it was, when it
climbed the tree when it ate from its fruit, it was "saying" to her "you will not die." As it was also in her thought-process, it refers to her speech
about this. {?} And this is along the lines of Iyov 35:11:
11 Who teacheth us more than the beasts of the earth, and maketh us wiser than the fowls of heaven?'

.
; , -

For she made her thought processes and inquiries from the actions of the Snake; and these are the very things that the Biblical text attributes to
him.
And do not ask me from what the Biblical text states "and he said to the woman," for behold, this matter of this "speech" is what it informed via
its actions, and what she thought as a result of it. And it is along the language of {Iyov 12:7}:
7 But ask now the beasts, and they shall teach thee; and the fowls of the air, and they shall tell thee;
8 Or speak to the earth, and it shall teach thee; and the fishes of the sea shall declare unto thee;

.
; ---

- ,
. , ;

And so it says in another place {Iyov 28:14},

14 The deep saith: 'It is not in me'; and the
sea saith: 'It is not with me.'

; - , -
. ,

{and a bit later in the same perek}:

22 Destruction and Death say: 'We have heard
a rumor thereof with our ears.'

; ,
. ,

And David said {Tehillim 148:7}:

7 Praise the LORD from the earth, ye seamonsters, and all deeps;

--- ,'-
. - ,

And it is known that these things do not possess Intellect, nor do they talk, speak, relate, or praise. Rather, out of their actions, when people
contemplate them, they "speak", "relate", and "praise", as if these items told over and related those sayings and praises.
And that is why it said in the beginning of this story "And the Snake was more clever than all the animals of the field." And its cleverness was not
Knowledge and Intellect and overwhelming arguments, but rather it was that it climbed the tree to eat to its satiation, which none of the other
animals of the field did. And therefore it did not mention the fowl, but only the animals of the field. And because of this, it is not stated as well
{cleverer} "than Man", since its cleverness was not in Intellect and Speech like him, but rather that it sought its food more than any other animal
of the field.
And it said "{cleverer than any beast of the field} which Hashem Elokim made," to inform us that God made the Snake in this extremely clever,
via Hashkacha Peratit {directed individual Divine Providence}, in order to test thereby the Woman and the Man, as will be explained. For when it
climbed up there and ate from the fruit of the Tree, the Woman contemplated it and it tempted her, and placed within her as if the Snake had
said to her all that was mentioned. Behold, if this is so, and it is true that the Snake caused all this evil, and that the mishap came via it. But
not that it actively spoke at all.
And it said:
1 Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the LORD
God had made. And he said unto the woman:'Yea, hath God said: Ye shall not
eat of any tree of the garden?'

-- ,
- , ;

, ,
,
. ,-

Rashi says that the word is used here to mean "perhaps." He said "perhaps God said to you that you should not eat from any of the trees of the
garden." And in this he has difficulty in explaining the word .
And Ibn Ezra wrote that this was the end of the statement, for it said words, and in the end it said "all the more so, that Hashem said 'you
should not eat."
{This is Ibn Ezra inside:
,
,, , . , , , , ", ,
:
}

And the main point, if so, is deficient from the book. And according to their approach that the Snake spoke, it is more fitting to explain that his
intent was do say "even if God said not to eat from all of the trees of the Garden lest you die, you would not die, for God knows..." And the
woman entered within his words {not as he intended} as is the rule of daughters, in the way of women, and she said to him when she heard his
words

that he said "you should not eat from any of the trees of the Garden," that the matter
was not so, for from the fruit of the tree we may eat, but from the fruit of the tree which is within {the center} of the tree, God said "you shall
not eat from it, nor touch it, lest you die." And then, the Snake finished his words, for his intent was to say "You shall not die."
1.

However, according to what I{=Abarbanel} explained in the matter of the Snake and the thoughts of the Woman, it appears
to me to explain this verse in one of two ways. The first is that the intent of the claim of the Snake, or {rather} the Woman
in his name, was to say "from the fruit of the Trees of the Garden we may eat." And the Biblical text relates the beginning of
the words of the Snake "Even if the God said 'Do not eat from any of the Trees of the Garden.'" And immediately as well the
Biblical text related the beginning of what the woman responded ion this, when it said "And the woman said to the Snake..."
And it wrote it to make clear what was the primary claim of the snake, and the answer of the Snake when it said {though we
find this in the words of the woman} "of the fruit of the trees of the Garden we may eat," it was as if the Scriptures were
saying "eventhough the fruit of this {particular} tree was forbidden upon you, we, the snakes, serpents and scorpions do not
pay heed to it, for from {all} the fruit of the tree of the Garden we eat."
And it is as if she replied to him, "And how can you do this, you snake { ?}? Do you not know that God said that we should
not eat nor touch this tree lest we die? And how are you making your life liable when you eat from it? The evil will attach to
you and you will die!"
And this is the first explanation.

2.

And the second explanation is that in this pasuk, it is that it is a Scriptual decree {gezeirat hakatuv} that one should not eat
from any tree of the garden. And its import with "even if Hashem said" is to say that that which He said "behold you should
not eat from any fruit of the Garden." And he intended with this what is stated in it in the beginning of the Creation
{inBereishit 1}:

,
-

--
-
-- ,-
, : ,-
.
3.

29 And God said: 'Behold, I have given

you every herb yielding seed, which is
upon the face of all the earth, and every
tree, in which is the fruit of a tree yielding
seed--to you it shall be for food;

That with all that had come to you then as permitted to eat from the fruit of the trees, behold the fruit of the trees of
the Garden He did not permit to you, and they are not encompassed within what He said "to you it shall be to eat." And her
response upon this was that also the fruit of the tree was permitted to them, except for the fruit of a particular tree which
was in {the center of} the garden. For Hashem Yisbarach said to them not to eat from it for their own benefit, such that they
not die.
And I have already explained all of this was the arguments of the Woman which she made in the name of the Snake and in
her own name, according to what she saw from him, as he climbed the tree and ate from its fruit.

And it is resolved with what I have explained in this in the 24th question, that the Snake did not speak, nor did it know

of the word of Hashem and His command to Man, but rather the Woman made the arguments from what she saw in its climbing and eating.
However, in terms of why, if so, the Snake was punished and ruined, behold its reason will be explained after this. And behold, the woman
added in her statement "and do not touch it," which was not said to Adam, and not commanded to him, because she contemplated that Adam
did not come close to her or couple with her any day, and she thought in her foolishness that Hakadosh Baruch Hu forbade the Etz HaDaas which
brings forth the desire for intercourse not with eating, which would bring one to unbridled niuf, nor touching which would bring to something
milder and more pleasant. And therefore it said "do not eat from it nor touch it."
And once she saw the Snake, time after time, climb and eat from it, and live always, she made in her thoughts as if the Snake in her thoughts
answered her "you will not die, for Elokim knows..." And the explanation of this statement is that it is forbidden for a Man to eat this, one
cannot escape. Either it is said that Hashem commanded him for the sake of Man, that this fruit should not damage him with is harmful
properties and cause him to die. Or we say that it was forbidden upon him because God did not want that Man would make use of this honored
food. However, for the sake of Man and saving him from death, it is not possible, since the Snake ate from it and did not die. If so, the second of
the two alternatives remains, and this was that the command was for the benefit of God, since this tree gives the power to give birth to sons
and daughters, and to bring forth things which were not in existence heretofore in the world. And this is a great virtue, and is unique to Him
Yisbarach, who Created and brought forth the world after it did not {initially} exist.
I don't find this explanation by Abarbanel particularly convincing, though he does develop a while system of questions and an integrated picture
in which these solutions are answered. I think there is a difference between clearly poetic language involving things which have no ability to
produce a sound, on the one hand, and an animal on the other. Animals possess some measure of thinking ability and communicating ability,
though not on the level of humans. And we see speaking animals in Disney films all the time. Which does not prove that animals talk, but does
prove that humans can envision animals talking. If so, any author should expect that a talking animal will be taken indeed as a talking animal,
rather than poetic way of talking. I find Abarbanel's explanation forced, and note how everyone else assumes the animal produced a voice,
showing common reader expectation at the least.
In fact, I personally think that it is indeed metaphorical, and that Ibn Ezra's questions dismissing the metaphor can be readily answered. To
repeat, Ibn Ezra stated:
And others say that he was the Satan. And how did they not see the end of the parsha? For how would the Satan go on its belly and how would it
eat dust? And what is the meaning of "he will trod on your head?!"
I would say by Satan, what is meant is that which tests man, and thus represents the Yetzer Hara. In this narrative, to make the point come
across better, the Snake personified the Yetzer Hara. The "punishments" at the end of the parsha are not punishments, but the way the world
works, because man has, and should have a Yetzer Hara, thus allowing him bechira. And so Man's "punishments" were not punishments; and
Woman's "punishments" were not punishments; and to answer Ibn Ezra, the Snake's "punishments" were not punishments.
The Yetzer Hara goes on its belly, as it is led by its hunger. Yet it eats dust and never really fully enjoys what it eats. And there is enmity placed
between the Yetzer Hara and Man, as man is to struggle with his inner nature. The Snake will try to bite at Man's heels, but in this combat, Man's
goal is to crush the Yetzer Hara. Of course, we observe much of this in the real world, with real snakes. This is why these particular examples
were given. But the metaphor was intended.
Meanwhile, Shadal unfairly summarizes and dismisses Abarbanel. He writes:
, , , , , , :,[
, , , . , ,, ,
, ,; , : )' "( , ,;
' ",
The commentators are confounded in this matter of this Snake. And Don Yitzchak {Abarbanel} writes that the Snake did not speak but rather the
woman saw him eating without dying, and there was awakened within her to also it. And {now Shadal's argument} according to this, there is no
place to inform that the Snake was clever, and furthermore it is not fitting that he be cursed.

And in the book of the faith of Zoroaster it is found written that Ahriman, who was the evil deity, cloaked himself in the form of a snake and
tempted the first man and woman to sin. And a few of the Sages of Israel thought that the first snake was the Satan, and the author of
Chochmat Shlomo (2:24) wrote "via the jealousy of the Satan, death came to the world." And others said that the Satan made use of the snake in
order to tempt Chava, and see below, pasuk 24.
But of course, Abarbanel explicitly addressed both these points. He considers the snake to be clever in its means of getting food, and that it was
only clever than the beasts of the field. And he notes the problem of why the snake should deserve the punishment, and addresses it a bit later
on. Whether or not his answers are persuasive is another story.
A quick glance below in Shadal's commentary reveals a nice metaphorical interpretation. But I like the interpretation I gave above.
The unfinished North, like the letter Beis
As Yirmeyahu prophesies (first perek of Yirmeyahu):
14 Then the LORD said unto me: 'Out of the north the evil shall break forth upon all the inhabitants of the
land.

.
- , : ,' -

I saw an interesting idea in Chizkuni, on the first pasuk of Bereishit:

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

. ,

, ,

Chizkuni writes that the reason Hashem started the Torah with the
letter Beis and not aleph, despite aleph being first of the letters, was to teach that just as the Bet has borders on 3 sides, the east, west, and
south, but is left open on the northern side, so did Hashem create the world with borders on these three sides and open to the north; and from
there come the harmfulruchot raot {either evil winds or else evil spirits} to the world.
And he continues on along this interpretation for a bit.

How is a open to the North, though? If you asked me, I would say it is open to the West!
The answer is that our choice of North as up is somewhat arbitrary. We could just as easily choose South for up on our maps. And it seems like at
that time, East was understood to be up. If so, rotate your compass so that East is up, and North will be left.
To expand a bit on this idea, I cite Jewish Magic and Superstition, by Joshua Trachtenberg:
A special connection exists also between the storm-winds, tempests, whirlwinds, and the evil spirits. The home of all is in the north, which indeed is the source of
all evil.26 One writer even domiciled the demons in Norway, which to him was the farthest edge of the north.27
And he explains in footnote 26:
26. Cf. Lauterbach, HUCA, II (1925), 369, n. 31, where the Talmudic and Midrashic sources are cited; also ochmat HaNefesh, 31c; Orot adikim, 95b. Torat
HaOlah, II, 25, contains the view that certain sacrifices were slaughtered in the north of the temple area because they served to protect Israel from the demons
who dwell in the north. According to Raziel, 15a, the north, which is the point of origin of cold and hail and sleet and tempests, was, like the demons, left
uncompleted in the work of creation.
While I think it makes sense that cold winds come from the North, it would not be because the world was left uncompleted at that side.
I also wonder how this accords with a view of the shape of the world. If the world were a sphere, how would the North be left "open"? It seems
more to accord with a belief in a flat earth.

We see a similar interpretation of the shape of the bet as a reason for it being the first letter in Kli Yakar -- how throughout sefer Kohelet the
Torah is compared to the Sun, whose path is only in the three directions but not the North.
And Midrash Rabba has a lengthy section on why the Torah starts withbeis and has one answer (almost certainly homiletical) based on theshape
of the letter:
:
?'
, ' .
' ,?
: .

?
' : .
Was Rashi's father an Am HaAretz?

The very first Rashi, Rabbi Shlomo Yizchaki, on Chumash cites a Rabbi Yitzchak:
1 In the beginning God
created the heaven and the
earth.

, ,

. ,

In the beginning: Said Rabbi Isaac: It was not necessary to begin the Torah except
from This month is to you, (Exod. 12:2) which is the first commandment that the
Israelites were commanded, (for the main purpose of the Torah is its commandments,
and although several commandments are found in Genesis, e.g., circumcision and the
prohibition of eating the thigh sinew, they could have been included together with the
other commandments). Now for what reason did He commence with In the beginning?
Because of [the verse] The strength of His works He related to His people, to give them
the inheritance of the nations (Ps. 111:6). For if the nations of the world should say to
Israel, You are robbers, for you conquered by force the lands of the seven nations [of
Canaan], they will reply, "The entire earth belongs to the Holy One, blessed be He; He
created it (this we learn from the story of the Creation) and gave it to whomever He
deemed proper When He wished, He gave it to them, and when He wished, He took it
away from them and gave it to us.

] [ :
[ ],,) (
( , ) , , , ,
, , ,, ,
, , ,, , ,, ,
, " ,
: , , ,

Th
e Taz, in Divrei David, his supercommentary on Rashi, writes that
"In my youth, I saw a rather old written supercommentary on Rashi in which was written that this statement in the name of Rabbi Yitzchak is not
mentioned in any midrash or Talmud. Rather, that which he wrote, , , etc., {in the aforementioned Rashi} is a midrash, but not
the words of Rabbi Yitzchak. For this Rabbi Yitzchak was the father of Rashi, and he was no great lamdan. And Rashi wished to honor his father
and to mention him in the beginning of his work. And so he said to him, "ask me any question and I will write it in your name." And so he asked him
plainly, "why does the Torah begin with Berayshis, etc.?" And that is why it is not difficult why it asks it twice (lo haya tzarich and umah taam}, for
the first question is only for the honor of his father. So I saw there.
But that which he {=that supercommentary} wrote that Rabbi Yitzchak, the father of Rashi, was not a great lamdan, this is not so. For in the last
perek of Avodah Zarah (daf 75), Rashi brings down an explanation to the gemara, and these are his words: The language of my father, my
teacher, menuchato kavod{like za"l}, and it appears correct in my eyes, etc."
See that Rashi here.
Rabbi Yitzchak is cited as saying this question (or perhaps statement) in Yalkut Shimoni on Bo. Of course, Yalkut Shimoni is after Rashi.

Berliner, in his Likutim at the end, does a bang-up job in

demonstrating that this is indeed entirely a citation from midrash Tanchuma, from a Rabbi Yitzchak who can be counted among Chazal.
And so not only is there no evidence that Rashi's father was an am haaretz, and indeed, counter-evidence, it also seems fairly clear that this
beginning question was not from Rashi's father.
What could motivate such a suggestion? I would suggest that one possible motivation (among many) was a feeling that this "question" was not
really very good, or scholarly. Is it really that troublesome that the Torah begins with the creation of the world? What was bothering Rashi? And
would Rashi really ask such a silly question at the beginning of his perush? Only an ignoramus would do this! The solution is that indeed an
ignoramus asked the question, and Rashi was only bringing this silly question down in the beginning to honor his father. Thus, we should respect
Rashi more, rather than less. He is a talmid chacham and a mensch!
So while the theory about Rashi's father has been debunked, and while the question why the Torah starts with Genesis has been answered, a
much better question comes to the fore: Why did Rashi choose to start his commentary on Chumash with this midrash from Rabbi Yitzchak?
And I would answer that while many other medieval commentators have an introduction, Rashi does not. And so his first comment serves as a
sort of introduction to the entire sefer. Rashi is not bothered by Rabbi Yitzchak's question. Rather, he has his own motivations in citing this

particular midrash in this particular place. That purpose is to explain the structure and order of Chumash, and to lay out the purpose of telling
us all these narratives.
I would put it as follows, though admittedly with my own spin: What is the purpose of starting with the Creation of the world? If the Torah is
meant to be about the relationship of Hashem with His nation, then start with the beginning of Jewish history, when the Israelites came out of
Egypt as a people, and received their first commandment. The answer is that Hashem is also creator and master of the entire world. The
relationship with the nation Israel is a smaller, and special, part of it. And so we first establish Hashem as Creator, interacting with and directing
the world, and only later show how he chose Israel from among all those nations. The land is part of that special relationship.
How are the days of man 120 years?
An interesting read of Chumash, which has always been in the meforshim, but which I think we tend to overlook because of our biases. At
the start of parshas Noach, we have a declaration by Hashem:
, - --
- , -
.- ,
;

13 And God said unto Noah: 'The end of all flesh is come before Me; for the earth is filled with
violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

What is this ketz? What seems simplest to me is that because of this misbehavior, Hashem has decided that it is the end of all flesh. But Aharon
ben Yosef the Karaite declares that the ketzis the end of a declared period of time. And that ketz is the aforementioned 120 years where
Hashem said he would wait to see if they improved.
Where did Hashem declare such a ketz? At the end of parshas Beraishis:
3 And the LORD said: 'My spirit shall not abide in man for ever, for that he also is flesh; therefore shall
his days be a hundred and twenty years.'

;
, - ,'
,
.
,

Rashi says on this pasuk:

and his days shall be: Until a hundred and twenty years I will delay My wrath towards
them, but if they do not repent, I will bring a flood upon them. Now if you ask: from the
time that Japheth was born until the Flood are only a hundred years, [I will answer that]
there is no [sequence of] earlier and later events in the Torah. This decree had already
been issued twenty years before Noah begot children, and so we find in Seder Olam
(ch. 28). There are many Aggadic midrashim on the words , but this is its clear,
simple explanation.

, , , :'
, . ,
, , ,
), , , ,
: , , .(

Or as Onkelos puts it:

, ;
, ,
,
.

,;
, - , ,
,
.

This is not at all the way I would have understood the pasuk. I would see 120 years, and see Hashem shortening lifespans. After all, in the
previous perek, we read of all these antediluvian generations in which people lived 1000 years, something we do see today. And we see a
reduction in the lifespans of later generations. Furthermore, we have Moshe who lived 120 years, and we say ad meah veEsrim shana, with the
belief that 120 makes for a complete lifespan.
Ibn Ezra considers both explanations:
:
, , , , , . , , , ,
, ,, , .
- , - , , ,, , , .
, , : , .
, , , , ' : :
Some say that the lifespan of mankind is this, approximately, and it is speaking of the majority of cases. But Ibn Ezra rejects this because Shem,
who was the son of Noach, lived 600 years, and all the generations after him also lives for many years. And in the days of Peleg the years
reduced, and from the days of David until this day, 70 or 80 years.
In terms of the latter, he is citing reality as well as the pasuk
10 The days of our years are threescore years and ten, or even by reason of strength fourscore years;{N}
yet is their pride but travail and vanity; {N}
for it is speedily gone, and we fly away.

-- , -
-
: ,
. , -

Rather, Ibn Ezra agrees with Onkelos. The problem with this is one of dating, because Noach was 500 when he had Shem, Cham and Yefes
(Bereishit 5:32), and the mabul started when he was 600 years old (7:6); yet this period of 120 years of forbearance is mentioned after this he
was 500 years old (6:3). And that would mean that the pasuk would talk of a time when Noach was 500, then when he was 480, and then when
he was 600. Ibn Ezra's answer is ain mukdam umeuchar baTorah. And he gives a parallel to Terach.
And I say that Ibn Ezra is certainly right here, in terms of ain mukdam. In both this instance and in the instance of Terach, we are dealing with a
genealogical section (giving a frame) put against a narrative section (zooming in on details), and this is a fairly regular feature in whichain
mukdam is surely true.
Even so, I am not so convinced that 120 does not mean a man's lifespan. It certainly is a normal if lengthy lifespan from our perspective, living in
the 21th century. Of course, diet has impact. But some of us don't really know what to do with these extremely long lifetimes in B'raishis. We

grapple with it, as I do over here, when I seriously suggest that shana means a shorter span, basing myself in part of the Sumerian king list. And
some suggest that there are deeper meanings, or that it refers to families / dynasties, etc.
We do see normal spans, from Terach and on, approaching 120 years, and we can readily take these as intended as factual. Add to that that
we could be talking about the descendants of angelic creatures whose lifetimes are being shortened to human lifespans. As I discuss in
thecomment section of this post, in context, we read:
1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth,
and daughters were born unto them,

. , ; - , -

2 that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they
took them wives, whomsoever they chose.

.

,
; , - -

3 And the LORD said: 'My spirit shall not abide in man for ever, for that he
also is flesh; therefore shall his days be a hundred and twenty years.'

.
, - ,
,
,;

and we can say that these Benei Elohim are angels, the nefilim of the context which follows. And since the descendants are also flesh, and not
just spiritual beings, they shall have a similar lifespan as that of man, namely 120. Someone who is adam cannot have Hashem's spirit abide in
them forever, and therefore they are mortal.
Or alternatively, because of their sinning, their lifespan has been reduced. I still think it is plausible, and don't consider the explicit
contradiction we find immediately after, in that Shem and company lived much longer, to be an unassailable contradiction.
The Torah is not a science book!

Last week, on parshas Bereishis, we addressed the question of just how the snake and Chava could have communicated with one another. And
various "famous" people thought that it was a good question -- Saadia Gaon, Shmuel ben Chofni Gaon, Ibn Ezra, Rambam, Abarbanel, and Shadal.
And they may have given different answers, but regardless they treated the question as a serious question. Some say that it was via anes; some
say that it was via an angel speaking in its mouth, some say that it did not speak but she argued within herself as a result of seeing the actions
of the snake, and some say that it was entirely allegorical.
But when arguing this out with one another, they do not seem to assume that such a question -- we don't see snakes speak -- is by its very nature
heretical. Rather, such questions, and grappling with various features of the text, is talmud torah, and is what they are obligated to engage in.
A more "modern" approach is presented by Rav Aharon Schachter in his speech about Rabbi Slifkin and his books, in which he argues that
regardless of the truth of creation, and regardless of empirical evidence, the plain understanding of the pesukim as put forth by Chazal is what
the Torah, and thus Hashem, wants us to believe. And so it is quite improperto reread the pesukim nowadays to make them accord with what
we know to be true about the universe.
I agree more with the meforshim cited above, who argued about ideas and pesukim in order to discover the pasuk's meaning, and who were
willing to present their own novel interpretations of peshat, even if at odds with the traditional explanation and the explanation of Chazal. And
nowadays we should not be overly pious in order to draw a distinction between ourselves and medieval commentators. We have an obligation to
eat from that Etz HaDaas, and not simply act naive, unaware that we are naked.
On the other hand, if the true intent of the pesukim is something outside the bounds of our ken, then such interpretations may take us farther
from the truth. For example, if a certain narrative is allegory, or else polemic commentary on competing stories in the ancient world, then
perhaps the simple peshat in the mashal that we have is appropriate, and we should then take that and find the allegorical interpretation. But if
instead we reread details of a creation story to match our knowledge of the universe, then forget the nimshal -- even themashal is being
misinterpreted!

Shadal makes an interesting point in the opening to his commentary on Chumash. Namely, that the Torah is not a science book. And therefore, in
his view, one should not reinterpret certain pesukim to accord with physical reality; and one should not reject Torah for failing to accord with
physical reality. And I think he makes a good point:
, , , , , , ,[
, ,; ) ( , , , ,
", ) ( ,( ' ' , ' '; , ,,) '
, , , , , , . ,) ' '(
,, ,, ; , , , , ,,
, , , , , , ,
, , , , , ,
.' , , , ( ,; ' )
, , , , , ; , , '
) ) "( , , , , , , , , ,
; , , , , , , , ,(
, , , ( , ) ,.
The discerning should realize that the intent of the Torah is not to inform about the natural sciences, and that the Torah was not given except to
keep people straight on the path of righteousness and justice, and to establish in their hearts the faith in the Oneness {?} and Providence. For the
Torah was not only given to Sages, but to the entire nation. And just as the matter of Providence and Reward {and Punishment} is not explained
(and is not fitting to be explained) in the Torah in a philosophical manner, but rather the Torah speaks about it in the language of people (such as
"the anger of the Lord shall be kindled against you" {Devarim 7:4}; "and it grieved Him at His heart" {Bereishit 6:6} and many like these), so too the
matter of Creation is not told over (and is not fitting to be told over) in the Torah in a philosophical manner. And this is as Chazal said (Midrash
Hagadol to Bereishit 1:1): "To relate the power of the act of Creation to flesh and blood is not possible."
Therefore, it is not fitting for a religious person to take the verses out of their simple meaning in order to harmonize them with the natural sciences; it
is also not fitting for a researcher to deny Torah from heaven if he finds in its account things which do not agree with scientific research.
Rather, this and this is fitting to them, that they contemplate the internals of the hearts of people, and in the ways of wisdom that nature works in
them, when it speaks in the heart of each and every one of them -- to the child according to his way, and to the lad in another way, and to the elderly
in another way; and to the strong in a unique way, and to the weak in a unique way, and to the wealthy in one way, and to the pauper in another
way; and so too to every group of people, nature speaks in their hearts in a particular way which is fitting for members of that group; and does not
reveal the nature to any one of the groups as the naked truth without veil and without clothing. So too, the Giver of the Torah, Yisbarach (for the God
who created nature and the God who gave us the Torah is one God) when he spoke to people, he needed to speak in accordance with their level,
and not in accordance with His level, Yisbarach.
And behold, Hashem wanted to inform people of the unity of the world and the unity of the human species. For the error in these two matters
caused in days of old great evils. For from lack of knowledge of the unity of the world, it was caused that people believed in particular gods who had
lacks and inferior traits, and therefore they {=the people} performed evil acts in order to find favor before them. (See what I {=Shadal} wrote in
parashat Yitro (Shemot 23) on the pasuk lo yihyeh lecha.) And from lack of knowledge of the unity of the human race, it came about that people of
one nation hated and despised the people of another nation, and conducted themselves against them with force, rather than with justice and
righteousness. And these two principles (the unity of the world and the unity of the human race) compose the general intent of the narrative of the
act of Creation, and the details ofsefer (narrative?) encompass other intents, as will be explained.
His journey(s) -- when the masorah opposes the Zohar
In Lecha Lecha, we have a few instances in which rather old Rabbinic texts indicate something about a pasuk that goes against the masoretic
notes as well as all our sefarim. In one instance, it is Zohar against the masorah; in another, the gemara; and in a third, Rashi.
This is interesting in and of itself, but what is also interesting is the way that the mosereticcommentators handle this. In this first post, a
contradiction between Zohar's version of a pasuk and our own.
In Bereishit 13:3:
3 And he went on his journeys from the South even to Beth-el, unto the place where his tent had
been at the beginning, between Beth-el and Ai;

-
, ---- - , , ,

. ,- ,

Now, Zohar on this parsha has:

164. Rabbi Shimon said, Come and behold: The verse, "And he went on
his journeys... (Heb. lemasa'av)" (Beresheet 13:3) MEANS that he went to visit his place and his grade. In this verse, lemasa'av IS
SPELLED WITHOUT THE LETTER YUD, INDICATING THE SINGULAR FORM. SO HE ASKS: Which journey? AND HE ANSWERS: This is
the first grade that was revealed to him. Here, it is written: "masa'av (his journey)"; and in another place thither (Heb. masa): "was built of
stone made ready before it was brought" (I Melachim 6:7). As we have already explained, assuredly it was "stone made ready (Heb.
shlemah)" WHICH MEANS THAT THE STONE, WHICH IS MALCHUT, BELONGS TO THE KING TO WHOM THE PEACE (HEB. SHALOM)
BELONGS. AND KING SOLOMON (HEB. SHLOMO) ALLUDES TO THE KING TO WHOM PEACE BELONGS, NAMELY ZEIR ANPIN. SO BY
ANALOGY, IN THE FORMER VERSE AS WELL IT REFERS TO THE NUKVA OF ZEIR ANPIN. "Masa" has already been explained.
Thus, a derasha based on the ketiv being lemasao, but we don't have such a kerei / ketiv on this pasuk, in either new or old sefarim.

Minchas Shai takes note of this: that in new and old sefarim, it
ismalei, and has malei. And not only that, but in Zoharitself, on Bereishit, it presents a contradictory account of the pasuk.
For Zohar on parshat Bereishit states:

223. Rabbi Shimon then opened a discourse by saying, "And he went on his journeys from the Negev" (Beresheet 13:3). It says
"journeys" IN THE PLURAL, where it should have said "journey," IN THE SINGULAR. Why did the scripture say "journeys" IN THE
PLURAL? Because there were two journeys, one his own, and the second that of the Shechinah. The dual journey indicates that everyone
should be male and female, so that his faith may be strong and the Shechinah may never depart from him.
Thus, the assumption is that that same pasuk is written malei yud -- unless, I would add, what was meant in the derasha in Bereishit is the krei.
And Meiri, and Rama have it as maleiyud. Finally, Minchas Shai notes that Ohr Torah strives (tarach) to harmonize the two, but he leaves it as
a tzarich iyun, implying that he is not really convinced by this.

Or Torah writes about this contradiction between two Zohars.

But it is not so, but rather {as I was mechaven} even there Zohar agrees as to how it is written, but is worries about pronunciation, and
the kametz under theyud rather than making the vav into a cholam.
But then he considers that it contradicts all the manuscript evidence we have of the pasuk, as well as masoretic commenters, we find that it
is malei, and this is indeed how we resolve. If so, what do we make of the Zohar?
He suggests as a possibility that the Zohar actually also maintains that it is malei. And since in Raya Mehemna on Pinchas, the idea is introduced
that even though it is written malei,kalot Mosheh, we will darshen it as if it were chaser. And so too, there is a derasha here as if it
were chaser.
The reason that this is extremely farfetched is that the example given is a difference in revocalizing a word, as if it were spelled without
the imot hakeriah. In terms of anotherderasha, we have , thus changing even a letter which is not an em keria.
That is quite different from claiming that the vav isn't there and then making a separatederasha based on its weird absence, as if its absence is
meaningful; rather than inspecting the meaning of the word were is spelled and thus revocalized differently. One is classic midrash; the other
seems just silliness.
Some suspect that the Zohar was not written by Rav Moshe de Leon by himself, but by a group of mystics led by Rav Moshe de Leon. If so, it
might be easier to account for the apparent internal contradiction.
I don't know how to resolve this, but this does not concern me overmuch. After all, that a particular medieval work makes reference to a
various girsa in a pasuk, and makes a derashaon it, is not entirely surprising. And this is certainly not the only instance of a difference
inmalei / chaser between our masorah and Zohar. In this particular instance we follow Zohar, which is good.
More troubling is a seeming dispute between an instruction found in Bavli, and our masorah, regarding Kedarlaomer. Perhaps the next post.
The World Was Created In Ten Statements
Somewhat off the cuff:
In Pirkei Avot, we read that the world was created in 10 statements:
, , : , ; : ,
,
but what were these ten "maamarot?" Kabbalists connect them with the 10 sefirot, but on apeshat level, they refer to statements Hashem made
in the beginning of sefer Bereishit. And this is clear in the gemara Rosh haShana as well. Rosh haShana Daf 32a:

] [

 ) (

'

'
) ( '
Thus, they are the vayomers in Bereishit. But, the (setema de-) gemara objects, there are only 9! The answer is that the first pasuk reads
,
.
, ,

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

and we know from Tehillim that this act of creation was also accomplished with a statement, for in Tehillim, it states ' .
I would note a few objections to this resolution.
Firstly, how do we know that this "shamayim" refers to the creation of "shamayim" in pasuk 1? It can easily refer to "shamayim" created in pasuk
6, namely the "rakia" which He later calls "shamayim" in pasuk 8:
, ,
6 And God said: 'Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide
,
.
the waters from the waters.'

, - ,
- ;
, .

7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the
firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so.

,
- - ; ,

{ }.

8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And there was evening and there was
morning, a second day. {P}

Secondly, according to Rashi, on a peshat level, that first pasuk is not a separate act of creation, but rather is a set-up for the first act of
creation - that of light. As we might translate, in accordance with Rashi:
"In the beginning of God's creation of heaven and earth, when the earth was formless and void... God said 'let there be light' and there was
light."
Finally, this question and answer appears to be the handiwork of the setma digmara, rather than direct reporting from the mouth of Rabbi
Yochanan. So we do not really know how hewould count them.
Therefore, I feel somewhat free to count up the 10 statements using an alternate scheme. Specifically, Hashem's blessings are also statements,
and even use the word leimor. And they set up the mechanations of the world, and how it is to continue, so these are valid creative acts. The
problem is that there are then 11 statements. But I would discard the last one, which sets up man's initial diet -- something which is an
instruction, rather than a creative pronouncement, and one which is later superseded when man's diet changed.
Thus, I would count:
1)
- ; , .

3 And God said: 'Let there be light.' And there was light.

2)
, ,
,
.

6 And God said: 'Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide
the waters from the waters.'

3)
, -
,
-;
, .

9 And God said: 'Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place,
and let the dry land appear.' And it was so.

4)
,
, -


-; - -
,
.

11 And God said: 'Let the earth put forth grass, herb yielding seed, and fruit-tree
bearing fruit after its kind, wherein is the seed thereof, upon the earth.' And it was so.

5)
, ,
, -

, ; .

14 And God said: 'Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the
day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and
years;

-; - ,
.

15 and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the
earth.' And it was so.

6)
; ,
--

- ,-.

20 And God said: 'Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let fowl
fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.'

7) This is one I count that the gemara does not. Note the word leimor. Hashem says this.
- , : ,

, , .
8)
, ,
- ; , - .
9)
;
,
,- ,

- ,-.

22 And God blessed them, saying: 'Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the
seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.'
24 And God said: 'Let the earth bring forth the living creature after its kind, cattle, and
creeping thing, and beast of the earth after its kind.' And it was so.

26 And God said: 'Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have
dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over
all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.'

10) This instance of blessing I think the setama digmara counted, because of the wordvayomer which follows. But in truth, it is the same as
number 7.
, ,
28 And God blessed them; and God said unto them: 'Be fruitful, and multiply, and

,;
replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over
,-
-
the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that creepeth upon the earth.'
.
, - ,

?11) Do they count this one

29 And God said: 'Behold, I have given you every herb yielding seed, which is

, --
- - , :
upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in which is the fruit of a tree yielding - - ,--
. ,
;seed--to you it shall be for food
This is not really a creative act. I think they do not. And indeed, later, Noach gets a different diet. And this does not really set up the
machinations of the world.
So what do they count when they count up 9? I would guess they take this list of eleven, and subtract items 11 and 7. Or alternatively, numbers
7 and 10. I would only remove item 11, and keep both blessings which involved speech. And then we have no need to go to sefer Tehillim, or to
interpret the first pasuk in this way.
)(Perhaps the earlier step in the gemara which counts 10 based on vayomers does so by including item #11 and omitting item #7.
Update: Shmuel points out different countings in Bereishit Rabba and in the Pesikta. Given that Bereishit Rabbati is the aggadic material of the
Amoraim of Eretz Yisrael, and given that Rabbi Yochanan was an Amora of Eretz Yisrael, it seems likely that he was familiar with this accounting:
- ' - -
:-
: ,
; -
; -
;- - --
;- - -- -
;- - - -
;- -
;- - --
;- - - -
;- -
.- -
: --
. , - ' - -
: - - -
:
These names are admittedly unfamiliar to me. But Rabbi Yaakov ben Korshai we know to be a Tanna, and a teacher of Rabbi Yehuda haNasi at
that. For we see in Yerushalmi Pesachim, perek 10 halacha 1:
' ' ' ' ' . '
.
And Menachem bar Yossi also appears to be a Tanna, as we see in Bavli Megillah 26a:
' " '
:
"So the whole thing is Tannaitic, and thus part of that original "taninan.
I would also note that there appears to first be a tradition that there are 10, andsubsequently different traditions at how to arrive at that ten.
) ); (I still like my reckoning.
Perhaps I will have opportunity later to track down that Pesikta.
The World Created In Ten Statements, pt ii
Where we left off last time, Shmuel, a commenter, noted a relevant Bereishit Rabba:
- ' - -
:-
: ,
; -
; -
;- - --
;- - -- -
;- - - -
;- -
;- - --
;- - - -
;- -
.- -
: --
. , - ' - -
: - - -

It would certainly seem that in Rosh haShana Daf 32a:

] [

) (

'

'
) ( '

which has 9 vayomers + 1 Bereishit, the counting is in accordance with that of Menachem bar Yossi. So this is likely what the setama
digmara had in mind. (Even if I would prefer a different counting.)
Thus, even though the Tannaitic statement in Bereishit Rabba makes no reference to the pasuk in Tehillim 33, that ' , it is likely
that this pasuk influenced the decision to reckon bereishit as a separate statement. And so indeed do Etz Yosef and Maharzu say in explaining
this in Bereishit Rabbati.
What about this advancing of as a separate maamar, according to Rabbi Yaakov ben Korshai? If we look to Etz Yosef, we see an
interesting explanation. The one who holds it is a maamar by itself -- that is why it is written . And according to Menachem bar Yossi,
this is the ruach of Adam haRishon and Melech HaMashiach, and we already have a maamar specifically for the creation of Adam. (In
parentheses, ".)
Yet within the text itself we see no real hint to this apparently kabbalistically oriented dispute, or that ruach elokim refers to the ruach of Adam
haRishon and Melech haMashiach or not.
Furthermore, while the text does not refer explicitly to it, for bereishit, we have the pasuk in Tehillim that ' , which shows that
creation of "shamayim" was done with a special "dibbur." But it would appear that we have no such pasuk to endorse the idea that "ruach Elokim"
was created with a special dibbur. If so, how can Rabbi Yaakov ben Korshai advance this idea? Is such a prooftext really necessary, or is it just
something the setama digmara felt necessary?
The following is just exploration. I believe that there actually is a prooftext, and would suggest that it is the same prooftext. That is, the full
pasuk in Tehillim 33 is:
, ; ,
-.

6 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the
breath of His mouth.

The first part of the pasuk tells us to treat Bereishit as a separate maamar, for this is equal to the devar Hashem. But we are dealing with
Biblical poetry here, which exhibits parallelism in the first and second part of the verse. Thus, the second part states that "with the breath of
His mouth" -- which comes out of the mouth of Hashem, something akin to "the word of the Lord" in the first part -- were all the host of the
heavens made. Perhaps this can be treated as angels.
Knowing this, when we turn back to sefer Bereishit, and see , we can say this is the same ruach. Thus, this ruach is the equivalent
of dibbur. If so, it is not the ruachwhich is being created, but rather the ruach which is the maamar which does the creating.
The dispute, then, would be whether in this Biblical parallelism, two things were being created, or just one. It could well be
that shamayim together with all its hosts were created, and the first part is indeed the same as the second part. So there was only one maamar.
On the other hand, we could say that the ruach was assigned to be its own maamar.
I do not know if this is correct, or persuasive. We would need to read it into .
parshat Bereishit: The Snake's Punishment
I have previously explained the metaphorical meaning of much of the story in Gan Eden. Still, some will contest that there is no cause to assume
that this is metaphorical rather than historical (and then will proceed to reject it on historical/scientific grounds). But the analysis of literature,
and such determinations, are in the realm of art rather than mathematics or science. It is difficult to bring concrete proofs as to the shift in
theme and tone, such that I do not have real hope of convincing such people, if they do not see it.
Regardless, I want to expand here on the snake's "punishment." Just as by Adam and Chava, its punishment seems to set up its status, its role in
life, and its physical condition. The story reminds me of a children's story I read when I was much younger, about how the giraffe got its long
neck, a story with many variants. The one I read had an alligator grab the head of the giraffe and the giraffe pulled away to escape, stretching
its neck. So too here, the snake originally had arms and legs, but because of tempting Eve, he was condemned to crawl on his belly and eat dirt.
It seems like an origin myth of the same sort.
However, reading the story as metaphor, the snake plays the role of tempter, the yetzer hara, which is full of guile.
From Bereishit 3:
;
- ,
-
,
,
,.

13 And the LORD God said unto the woman: 'What is this thou hast done?' And
the woman said: 'The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.'

,
, - -
-;
, -
- ,
.

14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent: 'Because thou hast done this, cursed
art thou from among all cattle, and from among all beasts of the field; upon thy
belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life.

, ,

,
{ }. , :

15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and
her seed; they shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise their heel.' {S}

Is there some metaphorical way we can read the serpent's "punishment." Indeed, I believe there is.
1) Originally, the serpent was more intelligent, more subtle, than all the beasts of the field. We are to think that sinning, and diverting from the
path of Hashem, is clever and sublime. From the first pasuk in this perek:
, ;

, ,
,
, - ,
-.

1 Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field
which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman:
'Yea, hath God said: Ye shall not eat of any tree of the garden?'

He was more subtle than any beast of the field, stressing which Hashem Elokim had made. Pervert those abilities to divert from the proper
path, and this is what you get. It is instead, it is clearly a cursed path, and so the snake is now cursed of all beasts, because he has done this -
, - .
2) This temptation to sin means being directed by one's desires. Thus, one travels based on his belly --
-.
3) Will this desire ever be satisfied? You have 100 zuz, you want 200. You have 200, you want 400. You eat the lowest of the low. Or, you move on
your belly to fulfill your desires, but it tastes like dirt, in that you do not really enjoy it such that you are satisfied. Thus, ,
-
-

4) Humanity's role on earth is to say "No" to the serpent. Eve failed in this job, but over and over, every day, her descendants must struggle with
their yetzer, the part of them that tempts them to sin. Eve's children must wage war with this yetzer. Thus, , ,

,
.
5) This eternal struggle is spelled out in the rest of the verse. Man tries to crush the desire underfoot, but the desire tries to cause him to
stumble, to bite him on the heel. Thus, , .
I further put forth that the above is not merely homiletics. Rather, if it is a parable, the explanation of the parable is actually pashut peshat.
Bereishit, Noach: Gilgamesh, UtanPishtim and Gan Eden
Many people refer to Gilgamesh for its parallels to the story of Noach, but there is far more there. Here is one such gem, from tablet 11 of
the Gilgamesh epic. Gilgamesh is seeking eternal life, and asked Utanpishtim how he attained his eternal life. Utanpishtim tells him the flood
story, and how he and his wife survived the flood.
At the end of this episode, after surviving the flood, Enlil, the deity primarily responsible for the flood deals with them.
Enlil went up inside the boat
and, grasping my hand, made me go up.
He had my wife go up and kneel by my side.
He touched our forehead and, standing between us, he
blessed us:
'Previously Utanapishtim was a human being.
But now let Utanapishtim and his wife become like us,
the gods!
Let Utanapishtim reside far away, at the Mouth of the Rivers.'
They took us far away and settled us at the Mouth of the Rivers."
"Now then, who will convene the gods on your behalf,
that you may find the life that you are seeking!
This blessing of Utanpishtim and his wife accords with what happens to Noach, in Bereishit 9:
- , ; - - ,
.

1 And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them: 'Be
fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth.

but also importantly to the blessing of man and his wife by Adam and Chava, in Bereishit 1:
, ,

,;
,-
-
.
, - ,

28 And God blessed them; and God said unto them: 'Be fruitful, and multiply, and
replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over
the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that creepeth upon the earth.'

A parallel to Adam and Chava is apt. After all, initially it seems that they were supposed to live forever in Gan Eden, but eating from the tree of
knowledge of Good and Evil brought death to humanity.
The opposite happens to Utanpishtim. They used to be like humans but now they are to be like gods:
'Previously Utanapishtim was a human being.
But now let Utanapishtim and his wife become like us,
the gods!
Compare to Adam and Chava. In Bereishit 3, Hashem tried to prevent them from becoming like the gods.
,- :
4 And the serpent said unto the woman: 'Ye shall not surely die;
- , .
;
5 for God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened,
, , ,
, , , .
and ye shall be as God, knowing good and evil.'
This knowledge will make them like the gods, or like God, at least if we are to trust the snake on this point.
And another way Hashem tries to prevent this is by subsequently ensuring they do not get eternal life. In the same perek:
, , ,
, , ,
- ;
.

22 And the LORD God said: 'Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know
good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life,
and eat, and live for ever.'

, - , -- - ,


,
.

23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the
ground from whence he was taken.

Yet what Enlil wants to do here is grant Utanpishtim eternal life.

There is this dynamic though, in that while Hashem does not intend for man, or mankind to be like a god, He does wish to make man God-like,
in His own image, and with aspects of rulership:
In Bereishit 1:
;
,
,

- ,- ,-.

26 And God said: 'Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have
dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and
over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.'

More along the lines of contrast between Utanpishtim and Adam, the way Enlil accomplishes granting Utanpishtim eternal life is by sending
Utanpishtim into Gan Eden, rather than casting him out of it. Thus,
Let Utanapishtim reside far away, at the Mouth of the Rivers.'
They took us far away and settled us at the Mouth of the Rivers."
The Mouth of the Rivers, of course, is Gan Eden. We see this explicitly in Bereishit 2, where Gan Eden is the mouth of the four rivers:
,
;
-- - ,

-.

8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward, in Eden; and there He put the man
whom He had formed.

- , - ,
, ,
, -- ,
.

9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the
sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of
the knowledge of good and evil.

, ,
; -
, -

, .

10 And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and
became four heads.

 - , -- , -
, -

, .

11 The name of the first is Pishon; that is it which compasseth the whole land of
Havilah, where there is gold;

, ; , -. 12 and the gold of that land is good; there is bdellium and the onyx stone.
, -- ,
-
-
-.

13 And the name of the second river is Gihon; the same is it that compasseth the whole
land of Cush.

-

,

,; .

14 And the name of the third river is Tigris; that is it which goeth toward the east of
Asshur. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.

In fact, midrash later follows this partial apotheosis, granting various Biblical characters and post-Biblical characters eternal life by having them
enter Gan Eden alive. For example, Serach bat Asher.
The contrast is of course that Utanpishtim and his wife are just two people, while Adam and Eve are prototypes for all humanity, which
is intended to be mortal.
In the epic of Gilgamesh, we also have a parallel to the snake and to the tree of Life. To cite the same tablet:
Gilgamesh spoke to Urshanabi, the ferryman, saying:
"Urshanabi, this plant is a plant against decay(!)
by which a man can attain his survival(!).
I will bring it to Uruk-Haven,
and have an old man eat the plant to test it.
The plant's name is 'The Old Man Becomes a Young Man.'"
Then I will eat it and return to the condition of my youth."
At twenty leagues they broke for some food,
at thirty leagues they stopped for the night.
Seeing a spring and how cool its waters were,
Gilgamesh went down and was bathing in the water.
A snake smelled the fragrance of the plant,
silently came up and carried off the plant.
While going back it sloughed off its casing.'
Thus, the plant is a plant of eternal life, because it returns the old to young. By continuously eating of this plant, one can live forever. He gets
the plant but a snake takes it away from him. Just as in Bereishit the snake brings death to mankind. And as the snake is associated with a plant,
though a different plant.
Note also the physical fulfillment of eternal life, in the snake in Gilgamesh. "While going back it sloughed off its casing." That it, a snake
shedding its skin is a fulfillment of returning old to new. In Bereishit, we also have physical repercussions for the snake.
We also have a parallel to the sleep that overtakes Adam, and a mention of a wife in this regard. From the same tablet:
Utanapishtim said to his wife:
"Mankind is deceptive, and will deceive you.
Come, bake leaves for him and keep setting them by his head
and draw on the wall each day that he lay down."
She baked his leaves and placed them by his head
and marked on the wall the day that he lay down.
The first loaf was dessicated,
the second stale, the third moist(?), the fourth turned white,
its ...,
the fifth sprouted gray (mold), the sixth is still fresh.
the seventh--suddenly he touched him and the man awoke.
Gilgamesh said to Utanapishtim:
"The very moment sleep was pouring over me
you touched me and alerted me!"
Utanapishtim spoke to Gilgamesh, saying:
"Look over here, Gilgamesh, count your loaves!
You should be aware of what is marked on the wall!
Your first loaf is dessicated,
the second stale, the third moist, your fourth turned white,
its ...
the fifth sprouted gray (mold), the sixth is still fresh.
The seventh--suddenly he touched him and the man awoke.
Gilgamesh said to Utanapishtim:
"The very moment sleep was pouring over me
you touched me and alerted me!"
Utanapishtim spoke to Gilgamesh, saying:
"Look over here, Gilgamesh, count your leaves!
You should be aware of what is marked on the wall!
Your first loaf is dessicated,
the second stale, the third moist, your fourth turned white,
its ...
the fifth sprouted gray (mold), the sixth is still fresh.
The seventh--at that instant you awoke!"
Thus, he slept, and lost out of eternal life that would possibly had been granted had he stayed awake and convened with the gods.
The idea of old rotting bread as evidence of passage of time, by the way, is also found in sefer Yehoshua, perek 9, in interactions with the
Gibeonites.
--


,
.

3 But when the inhabitants of Gibeon heard what Joshua had done unto Jericho and
to Ai,


; , -
, , , .

4 they also did work wilily, and went and made as if they had been ambassadors,
and took old sacks upon their asses, and wine skins, worn and rent and patched up;

,

, ; .

5 and worn shoes and clouted upon their feet, and worn garments upon them; and
all the bread of their provision was dry and was become crumbs.

; , -
-
- , , ,
-
.

6 And they went to Joshua unto the camp at Gilgal, and said unto him, and to the
men of Israel: 'We are come from a far country; now therefore make ye a covenant
with us.'

, : - ,
- )(
( - ) - ,
.
,

7 And the men of Israel said unto the Hivites: 'Peradventure ye dwell among us;
and how shall we make a covenant with you?'

; ,
-
, .

8 And they said unto Joshua: 'We are thy servants.' And Joshua said unto them:
'Who are ye? and from whence come ye?'

,
, ,

:
- , -
.

9 And they said unto him: 'From a very far country thy servants are come because
of the name of the LORD thy God; for we have heard the fame of Him, and all that
He did in Egypt,

,

,
,
- -

-


,
--

10 and all that He did to the two kings of the Amorites, that were beyond the
Jordan, to Sihon king of Heshbon, and to Og king of Bashan, who was at
Ashtaroth.

,
- -
;
, ,

- , .

11 And our elders and all the inhabitants of our country spoke to us, saying: Take
provision in your hand for the journey, and go to meet them, and say unto them:
We are your servants; and now make ye a covenant with us.

, , , -

, ; .

12 This our bread we took hot for our provision out of our houses on the day we
came forth to go unto you; but now, behold, it is dry, and is become crumbs.

Some translations have nikudim to mean moldy rather than crumbs.

One final point in terms of parshat Bereishit, but it is somewhat rated. As such, you might wish to skip the end of this post.
One reading of the sin of the eating the forbidden fruit was that they engaged in sexual intercourse. I think this is all likelihood an incorrect
reading. For example, the fact that they were naked is to show that they were simple, without cunning, as opposed to the cunning snake. Thus
the / play on words. But some do read it that way.
We might find support for this reading from the epic of Gilgamesh is that primitive man was originally a brute, and only became an intelligent
being as a result of repeated sexual intercourse with Shamhat:
Then he, Enkidu, offspring of the mountains,
who eats grasses with the gazelles,
came to drink at the watering hole with the animals,
with the wild beasts he slaked his thirst with water.
Then Shamhat saw him--a primitive,
a savage fellow from the depths of the wilderness!
"That is he, Shamhat! Release your clenched arms,
expose your sex so he can take in your voluptuousness.
Do not be restrained--take his energy!
When he sees you he will draw near to you.
Spread out your robe so he can lie upon you,
and perform for this primitive the task of womankind!
His animals, who grew up in his wilderness, will become alien to him,
and his lust will groan over you."
Shamhat unclutched her bosom, exposed her sex, and he took in her voluptuousness.
She was not restrained, but took his energy.
She spread out her robe and he lay upon her,
she performed for the primitive the task of womankind.
His lust groaned over her;
for six days and seven nights Enkidu stayed aroused,
and had intercourse with the harlot
until he was sated with her charms.
But when he turned his attention to his animals,
the gazelles saw Enkidu and darted off,
the wild animals distanced themselves from his body.
Enkidu ... his utterly depleted(?) body,
his knees that wanted to go off with his animals went rigid;
Enkidu was diminished, his running was not as before.
But then he drew himself up, for his understanding had broadened.
Thus his body was utterly depleted, but his understanding had broadened.
This increased knowledge made him God-like, just as in the beginning of Bereishit:
The harlot said to Enkidu:
"You are beautiful," Enkidu, you are become like a god.
Why do you gallop around the wilderness with the wild beasts?
Come, let me bring you into Uruk-Haven,
to the Holy Temple, the residence of Anu and Ishtar,
the place of Gilgamesh, who is wise to perfection,
but who struts his power over the people like a wild bull."
There is so much more, but this will have to suffice for now.
parshat Bereishit: Was Chava Named For A Snake?

I doubt it. DovBear has a short post about it. He cites Robert Alter, who notes an ancient

Mesopotamian (Alter said Canaanite) myth of a primordial

serpent.
DovBear also cited Zohar which gives a snake connection of Chivya, and DovBear then asks the good question of how Adam knew Aramaic, if the
first, holy language is purportedly Hebrew.
It is a good setup, and I will take the bait.
First, in terms of the Aramaic. I am personally comfortable with the first language being conceived of as Proto-Canaanite, which had Hebrew and
Aramaic elements. (And just as Pharaoh spoke Egyptian but it was recorded in the Torah as Hebrew, so may the language used in Bereishit match
the Hebrew language at the time of Moshe.) But let us say that you wish to insist it is Hebrew. Who says that Hebrew cannot have Aramaic
cognates. Especially archaic Hebrew makes use of words which we are only otherwise familiar with from Aramaic. For example, in parshat veZot
haBeracha, we said:
2 And he said: The LORD came from Sinai, and rose from Seir unto them; He shined
--
,
forth from mount Paran, and He came from the myriads holy, at His right hand was a
) ( , ; , .
fiery law unto them.
The word veAta, "and He came," is Aramaic. But it is not Aramaic, but rather an Aramaic cognate. And all the times midrash, or medieval or
commentators, refer to Arabic cognates, the intent is not that this is an Arabic word being used in Torah, but rather that we have little
knowledge of the full Hebrew vocabulary, and since Arabic is a related Semitic languages, we might intuit what it means here as well.
So too here, we might say that chivya is an archaic Hebrew word for snake, alongsidenachash. As such, we uproot the entire question.
However, Alter's assertion is predicated on the common scholarly assumption that name etiologies in Tanach are fanciful, as a result of sound
similarity. But is not sound similarity a plausible etiology? For example, my sister-in-law is named Avigail, named after a grandfather named
Avraham. Scholars do the same for Moshe. Moshe would mean "drawer out," rather than "drawn out." (Actually, in the archaic kal-passive, it
could well mean "drawn-out," but ignore that.) And how could an Egyptian princess know Hebrew. (Never mind that she was able to talk to the
Egyptian slaves, and hired a Hebrew nursemaid, such that she could have consulted them.) No, it must be an Egyptian half-name, Mose, from
Thut-mose and Ra-mses, even though a different letter is used for the S of Ramses (samech) and Moshe (shin/sin).
Yet they decide to ignore that once you discard the etymology explicitly offered, why do you feel bound by the narrative at all? "Moshe" means
various things in other Semitic languages, so why favor an awkward Egyptian etymology once we assume that the entirety is fanciful? Who says
he was named by an Egyptian princess in the first place?
So too here, Alter discards the explicit etymology of the verse, but then wishes to connect it to the narrative anyway. Since there is a serpent in
the story, connect her name to the serpent. But who is to say there was any connection to the story at all? For example, connect it to , to
express, to state, to experience.
He actually gives two snake explanations. The first connects it to the story, to her "wily interlocutor." The second connects it to the primordial
serpent, and thus to the reason given explicitly in the verse - em kol chai.
I would choose to distance Chava from any snake allusions. My quasi-heretical [ ;) ] basis for this is that, in my reading of Bereishit, there is no
connection between the snake narrative and Chava's name.
There are two "threads," if you will, within the Gan Eden narrative. The first thread is the naming of all the animals. The second thread is the
eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. They stand side by side, and then are interwoven. They have knowledge of one another, but
conceptually stand apart.
I believe that the naming of Chava belongs to the naming the animals thread. The snake belongs to the Etz HaDaat thread.
I would separate them as follows:
1) The Tree thread, approximately:
Bereishit 2:
, - ; - ,

.

15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and
to keep it.

, - : - ,
.

16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying: 'Of every tree of the garden thou
mayest freely eat;

, : , -- , -
-- .

17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day
that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.'

then:

,;
, .

25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

Then, in Bereishit 3:
, ;

, ,
,
, - ,
-.

1 Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field
which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman:
'Yea, hath God said: Ye shall not eat of any tree of the garden?'

, - : - ,
.

2 And the woman said unto the serpent: 'Of the fruit of the trees of
the garden we may eat;

: , -- -
,

- .

3 but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden,
God hath said: Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest
ye die.'

,- :
- , .

4 And the serpent said unto the woman: 'Ye shall not surely die;

, , , ;
, , ,
.

5 for God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes
shall be opened, and ye shall be as God, knowing good and evil.'

,

, -
,
- ; , .

6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and
that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired
to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat; and she
gave also unto her husband with her, and he did eat.

, ; , , ,
.

7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they
were naked; and they sewed fig-leaves together, and made
themselves girdles.

,
; --

, -
,
, .

8 And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the
garden toward the cool of the day; and the man and his wife hid
themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees
of the garden.

, ; - ,
.

9 And the LORD God called unto the man, and said unto him:
'Where art thou?'

, - ; - , -.

10 And he said: 'I heard Thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid,
because I was naked; and I hid myself.'

,- ; , -- -
-- -.

11 And He said: 'Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou
eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest
not eat?'

- - ,
: , -.

12 And the man said: 'The woman whom Thou gavest to be with
me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.'

,
,
- ,
, ;
-
.

13 And the LORD God said unto the woman: 'What is this thou
hast done?' And the woman said: 'The serpent beguiled me, and I
did eat.'

, - ,
, - -
- ,
.
-;

14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent: 'Because thou hast
done this, cursed art thou from among all cattle, and from among
all beasts of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt
thou eat all the days of thy life.

, : , ,

,
{ }.

15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and
between thy seed and her seed; they shall bruise thy head, and thou
shalt bruise their heel.' {S}

,
- ; , --
-

,
{ }.
, ,
-

16 Unto the woman He said: 'I will greatly multiply thy pain and
thy travail; in pain thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire
shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.' {S}

, -
,- ,
-
, , , -- .

17 And unto Adam He said: 'Because thou hast hearkened unto the
voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I
commanded thee, saying: Thou shalt not eat of it; cursed is the
ground for thy sake; in toil shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy
life.

- ,;
, -.

18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou
shalt eat the herb of the field.

, - : , - , , -
-.

19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto
the ground; for out of it wast thou taken; for dust thou art, and unto
dust shalt thou return.'

and finally:
, , ,
, , ,
- ;
.

22 And the LORD God said: 'Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good
and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat,
and live for ever.'

, - , -- - ,

, .

23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the
ground from whence he was taken.

, - -
; - ,

{ }.
,
- ,

24 So He drove out the man; and He placed at the east of the garden of Eden the
cherubim, and the flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way to the tree
of life. {S}

2) The animal naming narrative:

Bereishit 2:
; - , -

18 And the LORD God said: 'It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make

 , -
.

him a help meet for him.'

- , - -
;-
-
- , - ,
, -
.

19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every
fowl of the air; and brought them unto the man to see what he would call them; and
whatsoever the man would call every living creature, that was to be the name thereof.

, ,
- ,

- ,;
.

20 And the man gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of
the field; but for Adam there was not found a help meet for him.

, ;
, -
,
, .

21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; and He
took one of his ribs, and closed up the place with flesh instead thereof.

, - -
-
- ,;
.

22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from the man, made He a woman, and
brought her unto the man.

;

, , ,
-
.
,

23 And the man said: 'This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be
called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.'

,
; - , - , - , - 24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife,

and they shall be one flesh.
.
and then, in Bereishit 3:
- , : ,

.

20 And the man called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.

-- ,

{ }.

21 And the LORD God made for Adam and for his wife garments of skins, and
clothed them. {P}

Thus, I would juxtapose the naming of Chava with the other names, for Adam has this role of namer of all creatures.
Don't complain to me that Adam is giving Chava two different names in a single thread -- Isha and Chava. Rather, the first is the name of the
kind -- "woman," and then he gives a name tohis woman, ishto, fit just for her, for she is the progenitor of all living {people}.
Bereishit/Vayeshev: The Appropriately Named Er and Onan
As I've covered before on this blog, Hevel, Er and Onan, and Machlon and Kilyon all seem quite appropriately named. Now, a peshat-based
explanation of this phenomenon -- that this was not in fact their names, but they were called this after their death.
This is what Shadal cited about Hevel:
, : [
Thus, Clericus asserts that this was not Hevel's name when Hevel was alive, but rather that he was called this after death, for he came to
naught.
There is an unspoken, non-explicit impetus for this explanation. Besides that it is quite "lucky" for one named Hevel to come to this end -- and
the same for Machlon and Kilyon, Er and Onan -- the unspoken impetus may be found in the pesukim, in Bereishit 4:
- , , - ,;
- , .

1 And the man knew Eve his wife; and she conceived and bore
Cain, and said: 'I have gotten a man with the help of the LORD.'

, , , -; - - , .

2 And again she bore his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of
sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.

Thus, Kayin gets an etymology for his name, but Hevel, in the next pasuk, does not. Later, in the same perek, we have:
: -

- , 25 And Adam knew his wife again; and she bore a son, and called his name Seth:
, ,
, -- , - .
'for God hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel; for Cain slew him.'
Thus, even the next brother gets an etymology for his name, but Hevel does not. This all fits well with the idea that Hevel is not the real name,
but was ascribed after death.
And indeed, Hevel, Machlon, Kilyon, Er, and Onan all died without having children.
Also, perhaps we can say that the etyomology is Hevel is given in the aforementioned pasuk, in 25: .
The problem with saying this with Er and Onan is that mother and father named them. As we have in Bereishit 38:
,-

; , .

3 And she conceived, and bore a son; and he called his name Er.

,-

; , .

4 And she conceived again, and bore a son; and she called his name Onan.

, ; -

,
.

5 And she yet again bore a son, and called his name Shelah; and he was at Chezib,
when she bore him.

which is presumably why Shadal does not suggest the same over here.

It might be readable into Machlon and Kilyon in the first perek of Rut.
Adam and Eve as Metaphor
This post is divided into three parts.
[A. Motivations] claims that assigning Scripture a metaphorical role where it contradicts modern scientific beliefs is a sign of lack of faith - in
which case the claim of metaphor is a means of rendering the text impotent without seeming a heretic; or abundance of faith - in which case
one is sure both science and Torah are absolutely true, but this forces one to claim the Torah speaks metaphorically. Either approach is unfair to
the text. An example of genesis on the basis of the four elements is given, as is an example of a midrash switching around the order of a verse
about rotting manna to accomodate a scientific belief in spontaneous generation. (Before turning for this last, I offer a defense of this midrash.)
It is fair to label a text metaphorical if there are features internal to the text that suggest it is metaphor.
[B. Three Distinct Issues] puts forth that there are three issues that should not be conflated - age of the universe, age of the earth, and age of
civilization. It is the last that is really under discussion. Age of the universe is no issue since a proper reading of the first three verses in
Genesis, as well as comparison to other creation stories, implies a creation from primordial matter, rather than ex nihilo. The creation ex
nihilo may still exist for the primordial matter. Creation and placement of celestial bodies on the fourth day should be understood in the context
of the entire described creation, which is a different matter. The solution might lie in the pluperfect, or better, since the creation in 6-days is
Earth-centered and the celestial bodies are explicitly placed there to mark time - day, night, years, and seasons - perhaps we might interpret
this as the placing of the earth in relation to these celestial bodies - at a certain distance from the Sun, at a certain revolution about it, and at a
specific axis and speed of rotation. Age of the Earth is also not necessarily truly an issue. The purpose of retelling the cosmogony, even if

absolutely literal, is to show God's relationship with His creation. Thus, for example, He creates and keeps as pets the sea monsters, which in
other cultures were the enemies of the pantheon of the gods. Also, actions of the unfathomable God are described, so they must be metaphor
on at least some level - God has no arm, but has a zeroa netuya. Similarly, "days" are a tool to allow the human mind to wrap around whatever
epoch or grouping (perhaps not even chronological) of God's creative acts. This may be separated by some time from Adam, especially if Adam is
metaphor. Age of Civilization is no problem if the tale of the garden is metaphor, and if the genealogical lists with thousand-year old people,
like that of the Sumerian king lists, is not meant to record historical fact but serves another purpose. Also, a curiosity about carbon dating and
question if a 6000 year dating for civilization is truly problematic.
[C. Adam and Eve as Metaphor] gets to the meat of the issue. What features of the story suggest it is metaphor. I propose how each story
details the relationship of man to God or the world. Thus, Man as created in God's image, Man as dominating nature, man's relation to woman,
and man's place in the world, as distinct from that of angels.
I give reasons why the story seems metaphor. The Man and the Woman are given type names, and referred to with the definite article. Talking
snakes and magic trees are not in the normal range of human experience. Disagreement between details of creation in this story vs. that of
chapter 1 (accounted for since details of a metaphor may clash with reality or that of another metaphor). Consumption of the fruit changes
mankinds nature. The punishment is not personal but establishes the very nature of Man and the natural order.
I discuss the meaning of the metaphor. Man's eating from the tree was inevitable, and reflects his ability to choose between Good and Evil, a
capacity angels lack. The serpent represented Man's yetzer, and the act of diverting from God's will, rather than something intristic in the fruit,
actualized Man's ability to choose. This ability is a Good Thing (TM), for it makes choosing Good more valuable, and so there is no fall from
Grace but rather a description of how Man is on a higher level than angels. The punishment is no punishment but rather a description of how the
world must be to accomodate Man's special nature - life must be finite, rewards must be earned through hard work and pain, and there must be
a struggle to overcome and crush the head of temptation. Other metaphors are surely present but this represents a major one.
parshat Bereishit: Adam and Eve as Metaphor
Some preliminaries: In this post I discuss the story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden as metaphor. I believe a strong case can be made for
the story as metaphor. However, how one comes to the conclusion that it is metaphor is, I believe, important.
A. Motivations
I dislike the notion of coming to the conclusion that the beginning of Bereishit is metaphorpurely on the basis of its clash with modern science's
Creation Myth. I think this reaction stems from either lack of faith or abundance of faith.
Lack of faith: If there is a clash between currently held scientific theories and that which is described in the Torah, the former must be more
correct, and the latter inaccurate as a description of real events. The easiest was to render the Torah's narrative impotent while minimizing
chances of being labelled a heretic (or to persuade people who do not wish to listen to or accept heresy) is to claim that the Torah did not really
mean it. In this way, one appears to possess the courage to be modern and Orthodox, while really only having the courage to be modern.
Abundance of faith: If there is a clash between science and Torah, both must be 100% correct. Torah I know to be true, but I won't ignore my
own eyes, and science is also true. Yet how could they both be true. It must be that I do not understand what the Torah is saying, and that it is
to be understood on a deeper level, or else is describing events in a way I do not and perhaps cannot understand, and so I will label the Torah's
account as metaphor and leave it at that. Or I will try to find correlations between the Torah's account of creation and that of contemporary
science.
I feel that both approaches are in some respect unfair to the text.
This is especially true if the science is wrong, but there have of course been attempts to explain the text on the basis of contemporary science.
Two examples: a Ramban-like attempt to explain maaseh Bereishit on the basis of the four elements. And one of my favorites: the spoiling of
the manna in Shemot 16:20:

-.
- - , : ,

19 And Moses said unto them: 'Let no man leave of it till the morning.'

,
,
20 Notwithstanding they hearkened not unto Moses; but some of them left of it until the

- -
-

morning, and it bred worms, and rotted; and Moses was wroth with them.
,
; , .
This verse states that the manna first bred worms and then rotted. For Chazal, their contemporary science held that worms came about via
spontaneous generation, and were the result of rotting, so the rotting should come first. Thus, the Mechilta puts forth that this is a mikra
mesuras, a verse out of order, and of course the rotting happened before the breeding of worms! Obviously, we would no longer be troubled by
the verse being "out of order."
It is unfair to the derasha to leave it at that, and so: It is not so clear that the Mechilta is wrong. I claim no knowledge of the state of science
that was contemporary to the ancient Israelites who were the original recipients of this description, but let us say they were advanced to the
point that they, too, believed in spontaneous generation of worms from rotting food. One might say that the diversion of the order is
highlighting the miraculous nature of the food spoilage - it developed worms even before rotting! Or else, one could claim it is a mikra mesuras.
In modern terms, they would not claim the verse is out of order. They would claim that is a type of hendiadys, two phrases
juxtaposed to convey a single idea. (Think Tohu vaVohu in parshat Bereishit, of which modern scholars claim the same thing.) The order of these
two phrases is unimportant and was not chosen to convey any type of chronological precedence of one over the other. (And note, any issues you
may have with obeisance to inaccurate contemporary science I would dismiss via an appeal to dibra Torah kilshon benei Adam.)
In general, though, I hope this illustrates why I believe reinterpretations to accomodate contemporary science can be unfair to the text.
The same to motivations can be founds among those who would label an explanation by Chazal as intended as a derasha when it conflicts with
scientific or archaeological evidence. Besides being unfair to their interpretation as an entity in and of itself, it is unfair to the very concept
of derash. (And being a fan of derash I can find myself taking offense.)
Therefore, I feel that any attempt to label the text metaphorical should be, at least in part, driven by concerns and features which are internal
to the text. Such concerns and features are certainly present, and I hope to list some of them.
B. Three Distinct Issues
We should immediately distinguish between the three clashes between Torah and contemporary science:
1.
The Age of the Universe
2.

The Age of the Earth

3.

The Age of Civilization

These are separate issues, and should not be conflated. Now, the title of my post is Adam and Eve as metaphor, and that corresponds with #3,
and so I do not intend to discuss #1 or #2 in any great detail, let alone resolve them.

However, to briefly touch on those issues:

The Age of the Universe:
Let us say that contemporary science puts the age of the universe at somewhere between 11.2 and 20 billion years. (I'm not up on the latest
science, and a few billions here and there don't really matter.) Meanwhile, the Torah dates the beginning of the universe to about 6000 years
ago.
Or does it? People who know the science do not necessarily know the intricacies of Hebrew Grammar or of parallel Ancient Creation Myths.
Bereishit begins:
,
.
, ,

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

- , ; - ,
, ,
.

2 Now the earth was unformed and void, and darkness was upon
the face of the deep; and the spirit of God hovered over the face of
the waters.

- ; , .

3 And God said: 'Let there be light.' And there was light.

Quick quiz: What was created on the first day?

The simplest answer would be: heaven and earth = reality, which contained the earth (eretz), water (mayim), and the deep (tehom). Perhaps
we could add to this a mighty wind blowing on the face of the water (ruach elohim, with elohim meaning mighty as it does in other instances).
Plus, of course, light.
However, one must ask some questions.
is the construct form - what is it attached to? In other words, it should say "the beginning of the
creation of X." Otherwise, it should sayberishona. (Alternatively, it means bereishit hakol, the beginning of everthing -- and Rashi gives some
other examples of omission of words in verses.)
Rashi says as much:
In the beginning of Gods creation ofHeb.
. This verse calls for a midrashic interpretation [because according to its simple
interpretation, the vowelization of the word , should be different, as Rashi explains further]
...
But if you wish to explain it according to its simple meaning, explain it thus: At the beginning of the creation of heaven and earth, the earth
was astonishing with emptiness, and darknessand God said, Let there be light. But Scripture did not come to teach the sequence of the
Creation, to say that these came first, for if it came to teach this, it should have written:At first ( ) He created the heavens and the
earth, for there is no
in Scripture that is not connected to the following word, [i.e., in the construct state]
...
Furthermore, the vav hachibur rather than vav hahipuch is used in the second verse (verather than va), which strongly suggests that the second
verse is parenthetical, and describes the state of the world when Creation began.
What this means is that only light was created on the first day. To restate the first three verses: In the beginning of God's creation of heaven and
earth, when the earth was unformed and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep, and the spirit of God hovered over the face of the
waters, God said "Let there be light" and there was light.
In other words, the first day of Creation is not to be described as Creation yesh me`ayin, that is ex nihilo, from nothing, but rather from some
primordial matter. Before the first day, there was an eretz (land), a tehom (deep / watery depths), mayim (water), perhaps a mighty wind
(ruach elohim) and of course God. Perhaps this earlier existence was also created by God - an interpretation or derash of the
first pasuk standing alone would read it as describing God's Creation of that initial state of affairs.
Creation myths of other cultures should also perhaps be taken into account, since they would be known to the ancient Israelite reader. In
the Enuma Elish account of creation, Marduk slays the female Tiamat (roughly parallel to tehom, primordial matter mentioned in verse 2) and
from her body, creates heaven and earth. Thus, existence and primordial matter before creation.
If so, the creation of the universe did not happen in six days, but could have taken 11.2 to 20 billion years. Attempts to use the theory of
relativity to collapse 20 billion years into 6 days is unnecessary and quite possibly against the simple meaning of the text even taken nonmetaphorically. Simply put, there is no real conflict - the 20 billion years could have happened before the 6 days of creation.
Now, one might easily object that the fourth day has the creation and establishment of sun, moon and stars, and the stars would thus need to be
6000 years old, or at least about equal to the age of the earth, which it is not. This is really to be taken within a discussion of the Creation
account which Genesis does give, but two quick possible answers among many: 1) the judicious application of the pluperfect can have the
creation of these taking place before, and only the establishing of their relation with earth described. 2) the Creation of everthing here is Earth
centered, and the placing them in the sky for days, nights, seasons, etc. is certainlt Earth-centered. Perhaps
, ,
, -

, ; .

14 And God said: 'Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide
the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days
and years;

-; - ,
.

15 and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon
the earth.' And it was so.

, - : -
,
,
- ,
.

16 And God made the two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the
lesser light to rule the night; and the stars.

- , ,
, -.

17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

;
, , , -
- , .

18 and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the
darkness; and God saw that it was good.

describes the placement and establishment of the Earth in its orbit, with a "good" proximity to the sun, the creation of the moon, and the
setting of Earth's rate and angle of rotation.
And of course, there is the question of what anythinh in the 6-day creation account really means.

The Age of the Earth

Even if taken absolutely literally, there is the question of why tell us these details. Of what use is the order of creation of creeping creatures vs.
fish significant to an Israelite, ritually or spiritually? If it is of no significance, why waste all these words. (In part, this is what Rashi attempts to
address in his first statement of why start with Genesis rather than the first commandment, though his question encompasses the entire world
and Israelite history up to the Exodus.)
As with any cosmogony, the purpose of the relating the Biblical cosmogony, even if entirely true, is to teach something about God's relationship
with the world and his creations. (Just as the Enuma Elish account has the creation of man as an attempt to provide for the gods.)
We see god create the natural order, and He could subvert it - this as opposed to other cultures which made all subject to a natural order. We
see God create the host of heavenly bodies - sun, moon, and stars, in order to keep time for his creations - and they are thus not things to be
worshipped of their own. We see Hashem create the fish - but not just the fish, but also great sea-monsters:
; ,
--

- ,- .

20 And God said: 'Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures,
and let fowl fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.'

- ; - ,
- ,


- , , .

21 And God created the great sea-monsters, and every living creature that
creepeth, wherewith the waters swarmed, after its kind, and every winged
fowl after its kind; and God saw that it was good.

Why mention the creation of great sea monsters, taninim? The sea monsters were the foes of the ancient gods, who battled with them. Here the
Torah transforms them into another of God's creations, and thus not another force in the universe opposed to God.
Compare the Leviathan, a sea monster, whose creation is mentioned in Tehillim 104:26:
-- , :
- , ; ,- .

25 Yonder sea, great and wide, {N}

therein are creeping things innumerable, living creatures, both small and great.

-
- , ; , .

26 There go the ships; there is leviathan, whom Thou hast formed to sport therein.

Thus, God plays with his pet, the Leviathan, in his spare time. He is no opposing force to God.
Note also the nice parallel made between the 1's and 4th (light and luminaries), 2nd and 5th, and 3rd and 6th day in terms of what is created.
Further, what is described in the 6-day account of Creation are the actions of God. God is Unfathomable, and so the reality and exact mechanics
of Creation could well be beyond Man's comprehension. Even if Creation is actually being described, it would of course be metaphorical in some
respect. Just as we do not think that the God has an arm because of the use of the term zeroa netuya. Along this line of reasoning, within a
metaphorical reference, 6 "days" may well refer to eras, or to a conceptual group of related acts of Creation, and are used because the human
mind could wrap around the term.
But enough for this issue. Separate from the 6 days is the issue of the age of about 6000 years. This time reference is from Adam, and we should
not perforce relate this to the age of the Earth, or the age of dinosaurs, or even the age of early human-like creatures. If Adam and Eve in the
garden is metaphor, then much time may elapse from the "six days" to the 6000.
The Age of Civilization
The issue of 6000 years really is a problem in terms of dating civilization. Counting years from Adam, based on genealogical lists throughout
Tanach, the time since Adam is less than 6000 years.
First, to attack the science :)
Now, carbon dating is based on extrapolation rather than being directly observed. They look at the half-life of carbon today, and assume that
that was its half-life in the past. This may be true, or it may be not. And none of this is testable. To cite a Wired article, which I
citedearlier when on a nishtaneh hateva series:
Scientists led by a team at the University of Chicago developed carbon dating in the 1950s. The technique dates a piece of dead organic material
by measuring the rate of decay of a radioactive isotope known as carbon-14. The problem: The level of carbon in the atmosphere -- and
ultimately in living things -- varies over time. Scientists needed to calibrate their numbers, but that turned out to be a challenge because
nuclear weapons used in testing and warfare changed the level of radioactivity in Earth's atmosphere in the 1950s and 1960s.
...
Could other events have had an effect on the level of radioactivity in Earth's atmosphere in the past, such that the numbers would need to be
recalibrated? Is there any way of knowing? Try calibrating with ancient trees, since they figure a specific rate of growth for the trees...
Another interesting tidbit, from the same article:
At first, scientists could only date materials to about 5,600 years ago, the half-life of carbon-14. After a while, newer technology expanded the
reliability, but only so far because tree rings don't go back more than 12,400 years ago, said Paula J. Reimer, co-author of the new Radiocarbon
report and director of the Center for Climate, the Environment & Chronology at Queen's University Belfast.
This is a curious number. That is, at first, carbon dating did not contradict the Biblical account, but with newer technology, and further
assumptions about the past, it began to.
But enough with the science. I am not sufficiently scientifically trained to be able to attack the science. In other words, I most likely have no
idea what I am talking about. Let us turn to the text. If the garden of Eden is Biblical metaphor, and the geneological lists with people living for
about a thousand years is not taken literally (compare ancient Sumerian king lists in whichs kings ruled for tens of thousands of years), the
dating may well be off. If the events in the garden of Eden is Biblical metaphor, then while Adam may have existed historically, he is not
necessarily the very first human, but other humans and civilizations could have preceded.
With this (lengthy) introduction out of the way, let us consider the merits of Adam and Eve as metaphor.
C. Adam and Eve as Metaphor
There are many different parts to the story of Adam and Chava (=Eve). There is (in chapter 2) Adam's creation, the naming of the animals,
Chava's creation, and (in chapter 3) the sin of eating of the fruit of the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.
If the first chapter, the Biblical cosmogony, is there to tell of the relationship of God to the World and his creations, the second and third
chapters tell of the relationship of man to God and the world. Specifically, the creation of Adam in the image of God (tzelem ilu) shows

Mankind's (here man and woman) relation to God and role on the earth. The naming of the animals shows Man's dominion of the natural world.
Chava's creation shows the proper relationship between man and woman in married life, in a monogamous relationship, and one unit, with
independence from parents. The sin of eating of the fruit of the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil is a lesson about the nature and place of
man in this world, and how he is distinct from the angels. It is this last tale, of the Tree of Knowledge, that I wish to focus on.
What are some text-internal reasons we would label the story about the garden of Eden , and paericularly the tree of Knowledge, metaphorical?
1.
Adam = Man and Isha = Woman (she is not named Chava yet) are names of types, and thus connote humanity. Add the consistent use of
the definite article which depersonalizes them.
2.
Forget modern science. Talking snakes and a paradise in which nature provides for man, and in which man lives eternally, is not within
the perceived reality of any Israelite throughout history. (Of course, the change in the nature of reality is explained at the end in the
punishment.) Nor are trees that grant knowledge or eternal life.
3.
Disagreement between chapter 1 and chapters 2 and 3 in the description of the creation of various creatures, including Man. If one or
both is metaphor, we can account for the differences.
4.

Consumption of the fruit changes the nature of Mankind.

5.

The "punishments" are not truly personal punishments but rather changes to the very nature of Man and the natural order.

The tale of the eating from the Tree of Knowledge is not a tale of Man's Fall From Grace. Man was not worse off after the "sin" than before. His
eating of the fruit of the Tree is inevitable, and it improved him.
Within the text we see that this is an improvement. Thus the serpent says (third chapter):
4. ,- :
- , And the serpent said unto the woman: 'Ye shall not surely die; , ;
, , ,
5. , , for God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as God, knowing good and
evil.' and God repeats this, so we know it to be true:
22. , , ,
- ; , , , And the LORD God said: 'Behold, the man is become
as one of us, to know good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever.' Man is
different from angels. The angels cannot help but do God's will, for they are so constructed. They lack free will. As we read in the first perek,
Man was created - deliberately, in God's image. This image of God is the same as that we read in verse 22, above - the knowledge of good and
evil, and the ability to choose between them.
In the story, yetzer - temptation and the ability to choose contrary to God's wishes - is personified by the snake. The fruit is not what gives Man
the ability to know Good and Evil, and to act against God's will - it is the act of eating it. Eating the fruit was set up as being against God's will,
so by eating it, Man turned his ability to choose between Good and Evil from potential to actual.
No reality of Adam and Chava eating the fruit was necessary - the story is a way of highlighting this feature of man in a metaphorical way - but
man was created with this ability.
Man is also created with a mission. He is given the ability to know and choose between Good and Evil, between what is God's Will and what is
against His Will, and his mission is to choose Good. Thus, Devarim 30:19:

19 . , --- , ;
- ---
- , - I call heaven and earth to witness against you
, - -
this day, that I have set before thee life and death, the blessing and the curse; therefore choose life, that thou mayest live, thou and thy
seed; ,

-
--
, -
, :-
20 to love the LORD thy God, to hearken to His voice, and to cleave unto Him; for that is thy life, and the length of thy days; that thou mayest
dwell in the land which the LORD swore unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give them. If an angel must follow God and do
Good, what greatness is there in doing so. Man after the "sin" is on a higher level than angels, since he can actually choose Good.
The "punishments," which are cast as punishments in the story, are not really punishments, but declarations of reality as it must be given man's
nature.
Since man's calling is to work on himself and be faced with difficult choices as they exist in the "real world," he cannot live in a paradise, for this
would be a waste of his potential. He must struggle to bring forth the fruits of his labor, as must Chava. The serpent, who in the tale represents
temptation, is now the all-time enemy of man, and man must struggle with the snake - his nature - and man must crush the snake in order to
fulfil his mission. Man is not to live forever, but has a path of development, and a set time to choose Good before he returns to the earth, and so
man differs from angel. This was the reality from the beginning, but is shown as a reaction to man's nature because they stem from Man's
nature.
Man's exile from the Garden (and the other punishments delineated there) is therefore not the unjust action of a Jealous God who guards His
Power and fears rivals, or an overreaction to what was seems a minor sin.
There is surely more to to the metaphor, and perhaps other layers of metaphor (e.g. regarding man's relationship to woman), but it seems that a
good argument can be made for it being metaphor, arguing on the basis of the text itself.
Vayikra #1: Moshe's name
Parshat Vaykira begins with Hashem calling to Moshe. (Vayikra 1:1)
,;
- ,
.

1 The LORD called unto Moses, and spoke unto

him out of the tent of meeting, saying:

The Midrash interprets this as: of all the numerous names Moshe had (and the Midrash interprets various psukim to demonstrate Moshe's other
names, Hashem chose to call him only the name that Pharaoh's daughter gave him. Thus,
- ,
, "and He called untoMoshe."
Moshe's name is not a trivial matter. I already posted once about it, but wish to elaborate a bit more.
The first thing to know about Biblical etymologies is that they do not always work out linguistically. This is not a bug, it is a feature. (If it were a
bug, it would be entomology, not etymology :) That is, it is quite common that the name does not resolve according to grammar to bear the
exact meaning, or turn out to be the same root, as one might expect from the impetus described in the verse. Other factors besides linguistic
derivation play a role is determining a name - a name might be motivated by assonance or sound symbolism, for example.

Let us consider some examples. First, Noach: In Bereishit 5:29:

,
: , -



, - , .

29 And he called his name Noah, saying: 'This same shall comfort us in our
work and in the toil of our hands, which cometh from the ground which the
LORD hath cursed.'

Speiser, in Anchor Bible Genesis, writes:

That is, the Masoretic text (MT) gives , meaning "shall comfort us." This is slightly difficult because the root of that is nh.m, while the name
Noach has nwh. at its root. As Speiser says, it is not so difficult, in that many biblical etymologies are not guided by linguistic considerations.
Here, sounds similar to Noach, and thus, via assonance, it is an appropriate source for the name, at least as a biblical etymology.
By the way, Speiser starts by noting that the Septuagint, the LXX, might, but need not reflect yanuach. That is, the Greek translation might, but
might not, be based on an alternate Hebrew text which had at the root of the etymology nwh., matching Noach's name better. The thing is, you
cannot really tell based on the Greek translation, because it could have about as easily have at its base the Hebrew , as we have in our
Masoretic texts. And even if it did reflect a variant reading, the Masoretic text would be better, since it is a more difficult reading. That is,
under the principle of lectio difficilior, the rule of the difficult word, under certain situations, the more difficult word choice is more likely the
original, since one is prone to emend the text to make it easier {in this case, to "fix" the etymology}, rather than in the opposite direction,
making the text harder. (See my post Megilla and lectio difficilior.)
At any rate, this is an example, among many, of Biblical etyomologies that do not break down lingustically. Here, it is assonance at play, or else
sound symbolism that considers Noach and Nachem to be related because of their similar sounds. (An idea not so farfetched in fact, in certain
instances Hebrew, though I would not necessarily take it as far and comprehensive as, say, Rav Shamshon ben Refael Hirsch.)
Another good example is Kayin. We read in Bereishit 4:1
, , - ,;
- ,
- .
Speiser, in Anchor Bible Genesis, writes:

1 And the man knew Eve his wife; and she conceived and
bore Cain, and said: 'I have gotten a man with the help of
the LORD.'

Verse 22 is:
,-- - ,-
, - ;
-.

22 And Zillah, she also bore Tubal-cain, the forger of every cutting
instrument of brass and iron; and the sister of Tubal-cain was
Naamah.

Once again, the etymology is not linguistically based, and Speiser explains it is sound symbolism. Why? For the roots do not exactly work out.
However, since they sound similar,kaniti is the etymology given for Kayin.
Another example is Shet: In Berseishit 4:25:

- ,
, ,
-- , - : -

, .

25 And Adam knew his wife again; and she bore a son, and called his
name Seth: 'for God hathappointed me another seed instead of Abel; for
Cain slew him.'

That is, shat (granted) sounds similar to Shet, and is thus the basis of the name Shet. This is not the same as saying that Shet means granted.
One last example, to make things more difficult:
In Bereishit 2:23:
;

, , ,
-
.
,

23 And the man said: 'This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she
shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.'

Speiser notes:

Here is possibly another example of assonance. The claim Speiser makes reference to here is that isha comes from the root `nsh. That is, if you
look at the word isha,
, you will note that there is a strong dagesh in the letter shin. This reflects a letter nun that has been assimilated into
the shin, such that the word is * `insha --> ish:a. Thus, the masculine form would be `enosh, rather than `ish.
Ibn Ezra promotes the Biblical etymology, saying that
does in fact come from . The yud quiesces, compelled by the fact that otherwise
people might confuse it with
, "her husband." Thus, the strong dagesh causing gemination of the shin is the result of the assimilation of

the yud, not a nun.

{We can look at it another way. With the elision of the yud, the vowel transforms from a fullchirik, which is a long vowel, to a
deficient chirik, which is a short vowel. Long (vowelled) unstressed syllables may be open syllables, but unstressed syllables with short vowels
must be closed. Thus, the gemination via strong dagesh of the shin, such that it closes the syllable`ish and begins the syllable shah. }
Both and
use the root , `nsh, to form their plurals. For men, it is , and for women, . According to the claim that
also
comes from , then three out of four come from this single root.
Assuming we say that does come from , then this etymology of
by assonance is more problematic than the other cases. Here, it seems
te the etymology of the word, in which case it should reflect the actual linguistic basis. I would point out, though, that the word
was
already used in the preceding pasuk, such that this might not be the creation of the noun. True, it is possible that, just as the animals are being
named a few psukim back, so too woman is named here. On the other hand, perhaps this is a Proper Noun, and is her name, changed later, after
the sin, to Chava because she is the mother of all living. As her name, it could be he chose this because of its assonance to . Even as a regular
noun, it could be that
was chosen by Adam from a list of other names for woman as a counterpart of ( as it is used throughout Torah)
because of the assonance. Or, one could say, he had the option of calling her a name designating a completely different species, but chose ,
from , to designate her as the same species, and justified it with a poetic statement such as we often find by the giving of names, such that
there is assonance in play.
So much for this digression. Back to the matter at hand, which is that it is quite common for a Biblical etymology to be not based on grammar,
but by other considerations, such as assonance.
There are, then, two possible attitudes to take about such etymologies.
The first is that if the grammar does not work out, then the etymology is false. That is, there was some true etymology, long forgotten, and the
Biblical etymology is made up by someone who did not know or did not care for grammar, or else is an imaginative explanation of the name
designed for the enjoyment of the audience.
The second is that through the generations, people did not always give names to their children and others such that the impetus behind the
name is an exact linguistic match. They believed in sound symbolism, or used assonance in choosing names. The names themselves might mean
something, if we examine it using Hebrew, or Akkadian grammar, but the names were chosen because of assonance of other considerations.
Further, not everyone was a Hebrew grammarian.
I would argue for the validity of the second attitude - I know someone named Avigayil after her grandfather Avraham.
Now, with the understanding that it is not an exception but rather almost a rule that Biblical names do not always conform 100% grammatically
to the impetus given in the pasuk, we can turn to Moshe's name. His name may or may not conform exactly to the Biblical etymology,
grammatically speaking, but even if it does not, it would not be earth-shattering.
Let us see what William Propp writes in Achor Bible Exodus. First, look at the citation of Ibn Ezra, in the second paragraph, third and fourth line
from the end of the paragraph:

1) Ibn Ezra does indeed state that grammatically speaking, it should have been mashuy rather than Moshe, but he would have taken offense at
the way his opinion is being characterized here. What Ibn Ezra actually said was that you should not be bewildered by the fact that given the
reasoning behind the name, it should have been mashuy, for in general, many Biblical names do not follow the dictates of grammar.
This is why I offered these examples of assonance in Biblical names - to show that it is in fact a common practice.
Thus, even if it would mean "Drawer from the water," this should be absolutely no problem in terms of it being the true etymology of Moshe's

name -- assuming one adopts attitude number two. Instead, we see attitude number one - that the etymology is spurious, and that there was a
true etymology which is not known by the author.
1.5) I would add: Pharaoh's daughter is not a Semitic grammarian such that she would choose a name that works out grammatically.
2) It is also possible that Moshe's name would be grammatically correct, assuming it is the Qal passive participle (usually, we have a different
form than Qal, namely Nif'al, functioning as the passive), as suggested by David Noel Freedman. Propp notes this possibility, but also notes that
it is rare, this seeming to be a reason to reject it. In fact, the qal passive participle may be more common than we think, since it is a matter of
vowelization - many Puals might be interpreted as Qal passive particles. Also, rare forms are often really non-rare archaic forms, where the
grammar has moved on since the time it was usual. Often these forms appear in Biblical poetry since archaic forms are poetic. But, as I
suggested in a previous post, names also do not change as quickly as the grammar, so this form may not have been rare at all when Moshe was
named, or else was chosen because its archaic nature made the name poetic.
3) He points out that an Egyptian princess is giving him a Hebrew name, an unlikely occurrence, and one that hints at dim familiarity with the
"true" Egyptian origin of the name.
But we must remember that this is an Egyptian princess who, upon seeing the boy, exclaimed "From the Hebrew children is this one!" She is the
one who sought a Hebrew nursemaid for the infant. Moshe knew he was a Hebrew, such that when he grew up, he went out to see how the
Egyptian taskmasters were treating his bretheren. Pharaoh's daughter was able to converse with Miriam and Yocheved, so either they spoke
Egyptian or she spoke Hebrew. Also, if you look at the psukim, Moshe was not named immediately, but after he grew up a bit. Pharaoh's daighter
had plenty of time to consult with Yocheved, Miriam, or some Hebrew speaking advisor who could tell her an appropriate Hebrew name for the
boy she is raising in the palace as a Hebrew.
Thus, the fact that she chooses a Hebrew name is not surprising at all.
It can be evidence of spurious imaginitive etymology if you really want to use it for this, but one need not be compelled by this to think that the
etymology must be made up.
4) Even assuming the Biblical etymology is false, other Hebrew etymologies are possible. One possibility is "Drawer Out." Once we discard the
etymology as fictional, we may as well also discard the Egyptian princess giving the name as fictional. If so, why go for an Egyptian etymology?
To cite Propp: "The likelihood of Hurrian, Kassite, or Sumerian derivation is surely low. If Moses' name is not Hebrew, what could it be but
Egyptian?"
But how does he know it is not Hebrew? He rejected a specific Hebrew etymology, but not any possible Hebrew etymology. Especially once you
discard the narrative, which opens up an entire
field of possibilities.
5) The Egyptian etymology is not as good as the Hebrew one. That is, it is only part of a name. It was thus something like Thutmose with the
Thut dropped off. He says Mose can stand on its own. We do in fact see this in Hebrew theophoric {lit. "carrying god"} names, such that Azaryahu
becomes Azzur. But while Mose {"Son"} is theoretically possible, do we actually have concrete instances of this name? (I don't know - he uses the
words "can stand alone.")
Further, some voice reservations. Why? Because Moshe should be Mose. That is, it should then be , not . The sh and s are different phones
(sounds). Plus, we know that the is used for these Egyptian "Mose" names. Consider Ramses, , which is supposedly the same - it is Ra' +
MSS = Son of Ra. If is being used to denote this phone, it should be .
He defends it by saying that it is admittedly difficult, but do you have a better suggestion?! It is not likely Sumerian, Kassite or Hurrian.
Meanwhile, the Hebrew works out perfectly phonetically.
6) There are other suggestions he mentions and rejects, which might have merit, but you can see them in the clip I provided above.
7) Meanwhile, some people regard this Egyptian etymology as gospel (pardon the expression), many probably because they do not know the
details behind it, but just know that "that is what scholars say." That is what some (probably most) Biblical scholars say. Others suggest other
things.
Because the Egyptian etymology is the "scholarly" one, some may assume that it must be true and then try to work it into the pasuk. This was
the subject matter of a post on Hirhurim (Moses and Mada). He notes that the Netziv explains that he is called Moshe because the verse says
that "he became her son." The statement "Because I drew him out of the water" in incidental, just explaining why she considered him her son.
The pasuk:
; ,- , - , -

- , ,
,
.

10 And the child grew, and she brought him unto Pharaoh's daughter, and he became
her son. And she called his name Moses, and said: 'Because I drew him out of the
water.'

While this is a possible explanation of the pasuk, I think it is farfetched as peshat, because this form of [s]he called / for [s]he said is used many
times, and it always is the etymological basis for the name.
I would possibly agree to a dual etymology (Hebrew and Egyptian), but the pashtan in me rejects the Netziv's explanation of the pasuk.
I think more likely is that either assonance is in play here, such that the grammar need not work out, or else that it is the rare Hebrew Qal
passive participle form.
parshat Bereishit: Adam and Eve as Metaphor
Some preliminaries: In this post I discuss the story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden as metaphor. I believe a strong case can be made for
the story as metaphor. However, how one comes to the conclusion that it is metaphor is, I believe, important.
A. Motivations
I dislike the notion of coming to the conclusion that the beginning of Bereishit is metaphorpurely on the basis of its clash with modern science's
Creation Myth. I think this reaction stems from either lack of faith or abundance of faith.

Lack of faith: If there is a clash between currently held scientific theories and that which is described in the Torah, the former must be more
correct, and the latter inaccurate as a description of real events. The easiest was to render the Torah's narrative impotent while minimizing
chances of being labelled a heretic (or to persuade people who do not wish to listen to or accept heresy) is to claim that the Torah did not really
mean it. In this way, one appears to possess the courage to be modern and Orthodox, while really only having the courage to be modern.
Abundance of faith: If there is a clash between science and Torah, both must be 100% correct. Torah I know to be true, but I won't ignore my
own eyes, and science is also true. Yet how could they both be true. It must be that I do not understand what the Torah is saying, and that it is
to be understood on a deeper level, or else is describing events in a way I do not and perhaps cannot understand, and so I will label the Torah's
account as metaphor and leave it at that. Or I will try to find correlations between the Torah's account of creation and that of contemporary
science.
I feel that both approaches are in some respect unfair to the text.
This is especially true if the science is wrong, but there have of course been attempts to explain the text on the basis of contemporary science.
Two examples: a Ramban-like attempt to explain maaseh Bereishit on the basis of the four elements. And one of my favorites: the spoiling of
the manna in Shemot 16:20:

-.
- - , : ,

19 And Moses said unto them: 'Let no man leave of it till the morning.'

,
,
20 Notwithstanding they hearkened not unto Moses; but some of them left of it until the

- -
-

morning, and it bred worms, and rotted; and Moses was wroth with them.
,
; , .
This verse states that the manna first bred worms and then rotted. For Chazal, their contemporary science held that worms came about via
spontaneous generation, and were the result of rotting, so the rotting should come first. Thus, the Mechilta puts forth that this is a mikra
mesuras, a verse out of order, and of course the rotting happened before the breeding of worms! Obviously, we would no longer be troubled by
the verse being "out of order."
It is unfair to the derasha to leave it at that, and so: It is not so clear that the Mechilta is wrong. I claim no knowledge of the state of science
that was contemporary to the ancient Israelites who were the original recipients of this description, but let us say they were advanced to the
point that they, too, believed in spontaneous generation of worms from rotting food. One might say that the diversion of the order is
highlighting the miraculous nature of the food spoilage - it developed worms even before rotting! Or else, one could claim it is a mikra mesuras.
In modern terms, they would not claim the verse is out of order. They would claim that is a type of hendiadys, two phrases
juxtaposed to convey a single idea. (Think Tohu vaVohu in parshat Bereishit, of which modern scholars claim the same thing.) The order of these
two phrases is unimportant and was not chosen to convey any type of chronological precedence of one over the other. (And note, any issues you
may have with obeisance to inaccurate contemporary science I would dismiss via an appeal to dibra Torah kilshon benei Adam.)
In general, though, I hope this illustrates why I believe reinterpretations to accomodate contemporary science can be unfair to the text.
The same to motivations can be founds among those who would label an explanation by Chazal as intended as a derasha when it conflicts with
scientific or archaeological evidence. Besides being unfair to their interpretation as an entity in and of itself, it is unfair to the very concept
of derash. (And being a fan of derash I can find myself taking offense.)
Therefore, I feel that any attempt to label the text metaphorical should be, at least in part, driven by concerns and features which are internal
to the text. Such concerns and features are certainly present, and I hope to list some of them.
B. Three Distinct Issues
We should immediately distinguish between the three clashes between Torah and contemporary science:
1.
The Age of the Universe
2.

The Age of the Earth

3.

The Age of Civilization

These are separate issues, and should not be conflated. Now, the title of my post is Adam and Eve as metaphor, and that corresponds with #3,
and so I do not intend to discuss #1 or #2 in any great detail, let alone resolve them.
However, to briefly touch on those issues:
The Age of the Universe:
Let us say that contemporary science puts the age of the universe at somewhere between 11.2 and 20 billion years. (I'm not up on the latest
science, and a few billions here and there don't really matter.) Meanwhile, the Torah dates the beginning of the universe to about 6000 years
ago.
Or does it? People who know the science do not necessarily know the intricacies of Hebrew Grammar or of parallel Ancient Creation Myths.
Bereishit begins:
,
.
, ,

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

- , ; - ,
, ,
.

2 Now the earth was unformed and void, and darkness was upon
the face of the deep; and the spirit of God hovered over the face of
the waters.

- ; , .

3 And God said: 'Let there be light.' And there was light.

Quick quiz: What was created on the first day?

The simplest answer would be: heaven and earth = reality, which contained the earth (eretz), water (mayim), and the deep (tehom). Perhaps
we could add to this a mighty wind blowing on the face of the water (ruach elohim, with elohim meaning mighty as it does in other instances).
Plus, of course, light.
However, one must ask some questions.
is the construct form - what is it attached to? In other words, it should say "the beginning of the
creation of X." Otherwise, it should sayberishona. (Alternatively, it means bereishit hakol, the beginning of everthing -- and Rashi gives some
other examples of omission of words in verses.)
Rashi says as much:
In the beginning of Gods creation ofHeb.
. This verse calls for a midrashic interpretation [because according to its simple
interpretation, the vowelization of the word , should be different, as Rashi explains further]

...
But if you wish to explain it according to its simple meaning, explain it thus: At the beginning of the creation of heaven and earth, the earth
was astonishing with emptiness, and darknessand God said, Let there be light. But Scripture did not come to teach the sequence of the
Creation, to say that these came first, for if it came to teach this, it should have written:At first ( ) He created the heavens and the
earth, for there is no
in Scripture that is not connected to the following word, [i.e., in the construct state]
...
Furthermore, the vav hachibur rather than vav hahipuch is used in the second verse (verather than va), which strongly suggests that the second
verse is parenthetical, and describes the state of the world when Creation began.
What this means is that only light was created on the first day. To restate the first three verses: In the beginning of God's creation of heaven and
earth, when the earth was unformed and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep, and the spirit of God hovered over the face of the
waters, God said "Let there be light" and there was light.
In other words, the first day of Creation is not to be described as Creation yesh me`ayin, that is ex nihilo, from nothing, but rather from some
primordial matter. Before the first day, there was an eretz (land), a tehom (deep / watery depths), mayim (water), perhaps a mighty wind
(ruach elohim) and of course God. Perhaps this earlier existence was also created by God - an interpretation or derash of the
first pasuk standing alone would read it as describing God's Creation of that initial state of affairs.
Creation myths of other cultures should also perhaps be taken into account, since they would be known to the ancient Israelite reader. In
the Enuma Elish account of creation, Marduk slays the female Tiamat (roughly parallel to tehom, primordial matter mentioned in verse 2) and
from her body, creates heaven and earth. Thus, existence and primordial matter before creation.
If so, the creation of the universe did not happen in six days, but could have taken 11.2 to 20 billion years. Attempts to use the theory of
relativity to collapse 20 billion years into 6 days is unnecessary and quite possibly against the simple meaning of the text even taken nonmetaphorically. Simply put, there is no real conflict - the 20 billion years could have happened before the 6 days of creation.
Now, one might easily object that the fourth day has the creation and establishment of sun, moon and stars, and the stars would thus need to be
6000 years old, or at least about equal to the age of the earth, which it is not. This is really to be taken within a discussion of the Creation
account which Genesis does give, but two quick possible answers among many: 1) the judicious application of the pluperfect can have the
creation of these taking place before, and only the establishing of their relation with earth described. 2) the Creation of everthing here is Earth
centered, and the placing them in the sky for days, nights, seasons, etc. is certainlt Earth-centered. Perhaps
, ,
, -

, ; .

14 And God said: 'Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide
the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days
and years;

-; - ,
.

15 and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon
the earth.' And it was so.

, - : -
,
,
- ,
.

16 And God made the two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the
lesser light to rule the night; and the stars.

- , ,
, -.

17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

;
, , , -
- , .

18 and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the
darkness; and God saw that it was good.

describes the placement and establishment of the Earth in its orbit, with a "good" proximity to the sun, the creation of the moon, and the
setting of Earth's rate and angle of rotation.
And of course, there is the question of what anythinh in the 6-day creation account really means.
The Age of the Earth
Even if taken absolutely literally, there is the question of why tell us these details. Of what use is the order of creation of creeping creatures vs.
fish significant to an Israelite, ritually or spiritually? If it is of no significance, why waste all these words. (In part, this is what Rashi attempts to
address in his first statement of why start with Genesis rather than the first commandment, though his question encompasses the entire world
and Israelite history up to the Exodus.)
As with any cosmogony, the purpose of the relating the Biblical cosmogony, even if entirely true, is to teach something about God's relationship
with the world and his creations. (Just as the Enuma Elish account has the creation of man as an attempt to provide for the gods.)
We see god create the natural order, and He could subvert it - this as opposed to other cultures which made all subject to a natural order. We
see God create the host of heavenly bodies - sun, moon, and stars, in order to keep time for his creations - and they are thus not things to be
worshipped of their own. We see Hashem create the fish - but not just the fish, but also great sea-monsters:
; ,
--

- ,- .

20 And God said: 'Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures,
and let fowl fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.'

- ; - ,
- ,


- , , .

21 And God created the great sea-monsters, and every living creature that
creepeth, wherewith the waters swarmed, after its kind, and every winged
fowl after its kind; and God saw that it was good.

Why mention the creation of great sea monsters, taninim? The sea monsters were the foes of the ancient gods, who battled with them. Here the
Torah transforms them into another of God's creations, and thus not another force in the universe opposed to God.
Compare the Leviathan, a sea monster, whose creation is mentioned in Tehillim 104:26:
-- , :
- , ; ,- .

25 Yonder sea, great and wide, {N}

therein are creeping things innumerable, living creatures, both small and great.

-
- , ; , .

26 There go the ships; there is leviathan, whom Thou hast formed to sport therein.

Thus, God plays with his pet, the Leviathan, in his spare time. He is no opposing force to God.
Note also the nice parallel made between the 1's and 4th (light and luminaries), 2nd and 5th, and 3rd and 6th day in terms of what is created.
Further, what is described in the 6-day account of Creation are the actions of God. God is Unfathomable, and so the reality and exact mechanics
of Creation could well be beyond Man's comprehension. Even if Creation is actually being described, it would of course be metaphorical in some
respect. Just as we do not think that the God has an arm because of the use of the term zeroa netuya. Along this line of reasoning, within a
metaphorical reference, 6 "days" may well refer to eras, or to a conceptual group of related acts of Creation, and are used because the human
mind could wrap around the term.
But enough for this issue. Separate from the 6 days is the issue of the age of about 6000 years. This time reference is from Adam, and we should
not perforce relate this to the age of the Earth, or the age of dinosaurs, or even the age of early human-like creatures. If Adam and Eve in the
garden is metaphor, then much time may elapse from the "six days" to the 6000.
The Age of Civilization
The issue of 6000 years really is a problem in terms of dating civilization. Counting years from Adam, based on genealogical lists throughout
Tanach, the time since Adam is less than 6000 years.
First, to attack the science :)
Now, carbon dating is based on extrapolation rather than being directly observed. They look at the half-life of carbon today, and assume that
that was its half-life in the past. This may be true, or it may be not. And none of this is testable. To cite a Wired article, which I
citedearlier when on a nishtaneh hateva series:
Scientists led by a team at the University of Chicago developed carbon dating in the 1950s. The technique dates a piece of dead organic material
by measuring the rate of decay of a radioactive isotope known as carbon-14. The problem: The level of carbon in the atmosphere -- and
ultimately in living things -- varies over time. Scientists needed to calibrate their numbers, but that turned out to be a challenge because
nuclear weapons used in testing and warfare changed the level of radioactivity in Earth's atmosphere in the 1950s and 1960s.
...
Could other events have had an effect on the level of radioactivity in Earth's atmosphere in the past, such that the numbers would need to be
recalibrated? Is there any way of knowing? Try calibrating with ancient trees, since they figure a specific rate of growth for the trees...
Another interesting tidbit, from the same article:
At first, scientists could only date materials to about 5,600 years ago, the half-life of carbon-14. After a while, newer technology expanded the
reliability, but only so far because tree rings don't go back more than 12,400 years ago, said Paula J. Reimer, co-author of the new Radiocarbon
report and director of the Center for Climate, the Environment & Chronology at Queen's University Belfast.
This is a curious number. That is, at first, carbon dating did not contradict the Biblical account, but with newer technology, and further
assumptions about the past, it began to.
But enough with the science. I am not sufficiently scientifically trained to be able to attack the science. In other words, I most likely have no
idea what I am talking about. Let us turn to the text. If the garden of Eden is Biblical metaphor, and the geneological lists with people living for
about a thousand years is not taken literally (compare ancient Sumerian king lists in whichs kings ruled for tens of thousands of years), the
dating may well be off. If the events in the garden of Eden is Biblical metaphor, then while Adam may have existed historically, he is not
necessarily the very first human, but other humans and civilizations could have preceded.
With this (lengthy) introduction out of the way, let us consider the merits of Adam and Eve as metaphor.
C. Adam and Eve as Metaphor
There are many different parts to the story of Adam and Chava (=Eve). There is (in chapter 2) Adam's creation, the naming of the animals,
Chava's creation, and (in chapter 3) the sin of eating of the fruit of the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.
If the first chapter, the Biblical cosmogony, is there to tell of the relationship of God to the World and his creations, the second and third
chapters tell of the relationship of man to God and the world. Specifically, the creation of Adam in the image of God (tzelem ilu) shows
Mankind's (here man and woman) relation to God and role on the earth. The naming of the animals shows Man's dominion of the natural world.
Chava's creation shows the proper relationship between man and woman in married life, in a monogamous relationship, and one unit, with
independence from parents. The sin of eating of the fruit of the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil is a lesson about the nature and place of
man in this world, and how he is distinct from the angels. It is this last tale, of the Tree of Knowledge, that I wish to focus on.
What are some text-internal reasons we would label the story about the garden of Eden , and paericularly the tree of Knowledge, metaphorical?
1.
Adam = Man and Isha = Woman (she is not named Chava yet) are names of types, and thus connote humanity. Add the consistent use of
the definite article which depersonalizes them.
2.
Forget modern science. Talking snakes and a paradise in which nature provides for man, and in which man lives eternally, is not within
the perceived reality of any Israelite throughout history. (Of course, the change in the nature of reality is explained at the end in the
punishment.) Nor are trees that grant knowledge or eternal life.
3.
Disagreement between chapter 1 and chapters 2 and 3 in the description of the creation of various creatures, including Man. If one or
both is metaphor, we can account for the differences.
4.

Consumption of the fruit changes the nature of Mankind.

5.

The "punishments" are not truly personal punishments but rather changes to the very nature of Man and the natural order.

The tale of the eating from the Tree of Knowledge is not a tale of Man's Fall From Grace. Man was not worse off after the "sin" than before. His
eating of the fruit of the Tree is inevitable, and it improved him.
Within the text we see that this is an improvement. Thus the serpent says (third chapter):
4. ,- :
- , And the serpent said unto the woman: 'Ye shall not surely die; , ;
, , ,
5. , , for God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as God, knowing good and
evil.' and God repeats this, so we know it to be true:

22. , , ,
- ; , , , And the LORD God said: 'Behold, the man is become
as one of us, to know good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever.' Man is
different from angels. The angels cannot help but do God's will, for they are so constructed. They lack free will. As we read in the first perek,
Man was created - deliberately, in God's image. This image of God is the same as that we read in verse 22, above - the knowledge of good and
evil, and the ability to choose between them.
In the story, yetzer - temptation and the ability to choose contrary to God's wishes - is personified by the snake. The fruit is not what gives Man
the ability to know Good and Evil, and to act against God's will - it is the act of eating it. Eating the fruit was set up as being against God's will,
so by eating it, Man turned his ability to choose between Good and Evil from potential to actual.
No reality of Adam and Chava eating the fruit was necessary - the story is a way of highlighting this feature of man in a metaphorical way - but
man was created with this ability.
Man is also created with a mission. He is given the ability to know and choose between Good and Evil, between what is God's Will and what is
against His Will, and his mission is to choose Good. Thus, Devarim 30:19:

19 . , --- , ;
- ---
- , - I call heaven and earth to witness against you
, - -
this day, that I have set before thee life and death, the blessing and the curse; therefore choose life, that thou mayest live, thou and thy
seed; ,

-
--
, -
, :-
20 to love the LORD thy God, to hearken to His voice, and to cleave unto Him; for that is thy life, and the length of thy days; that thou mayest
dwell in the land which the LORD swore unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give them. If an angel must follow God and do
Good, what greatness is there in doing so. Man after the "sin" is on a higher level than angels, since he can actually choose Good.
The "punishments," which are cast as punishments in the story, are not really punishments, but declarations of reality as it must be given man's
nature.
Since man's calling is to work on himself and be faced with difficult choices as they exist in the "real world," he cannot live in a paradise, for this
would be a waste of his potential. He must struggle to bring forth the fruits of his labor, as must Chava. The serpent, who in the tale represents
temptation, is now the all-time enemy of man, and man must struggle with the snake - his nature - and man must crush the snake in order to
fulfil his mission. Man is not to live forever, but has a path of development, and a set time to choose Good before he returns to the earth, and so
man differs from angel. This was the reality from the beginning, but is shown as a reaction to man's nature because they stem from Man's
nature.
Man's exile from the Garden (and the other punishments delineated there) is therefore not the unjust action of a Jealous God who guards His
Power and fears rivals, or an overreaction to what was seems a minor sin.
There is surely more to to the metaphor, and perhaps other layers of metaphor (e.g. regarding man's relationship to woman), but it seems that a
good argument can be made for it being metaphor, arguing on the basis of the text itself.
Does Sifsei Chachamim know about time zones?
Summary: And that it can be night in one country while it is day in another? I think he can. Rav Chaim Kanievsky points out a difficulty in Sifsei
Chachamim, in that it does not seem to work with a round earth. He answers that the division away from was only during the days of
Creation. I suggest another resolution.
Post: The fourth pasuk of sefer Bereishit, with Rashi:
4. And God saw the light that it was good, and God separated between the light and
between the darkness.
And God saw the light that it was good, and God separated: Here too, we need the
words of the Aggadah: He saw it that it was not proper for the wicked to use it; so He
separated it for the righteous in the future. According to its simple meaning, explain it
as follows: He saw it that it was good, and it was unseemly that it [light] and darkness
should serve in confusion; so He established for this one its boundary by day, and for
that one its boundary by night.

,
, .
:

, : -
, ,
.
: , ,

Siftei Chachamim explains the , serving in confusion, that it would be

in this country light and in that country darkness. Or one hour daylight and two hours night, and afterwards the reverse. But most
decidedly not that light and darkness were literally mixed together one with the other.
In Taama deKra, after citing this pasuk, Rashi, and Siftei Chachamim -- specifically the bit about light in one medinah and darkness in
another medinah, Rav Chaim Kanievsky writes:

"And this is difficult, for even during the day, half the globe is light and half of it is dark. And one can say that this was discussing the days of
Creation, that there were some places which were light and some were darkness, and Hashem divided it, such that during the 'day', there would
be throughout the entire globe day, and at night, all would be darkness. But after the Sun was created, always half of the globe would be day
and half of it would be night."
This is an interesting catch. (And it is good to know that, despite the kol koreh of a few years back banning time zones, Rav Kanievsky maintains
that the earth is round and there are, indeed, different time zones.)
Depending on when Siftei Chachamim wrote it, I would not dismiss out of hand the idea that he actually believes that the earth was flat and
that there were no different time zones. After all, Rabbi Eliyahu Mizrachi, the Vilna Gaon, and the Shevus Yaakov all seem to have been flat
earthers.
Even so, I don't think that that was the Sifsei Chachamim's intent. He can believe in a round earth. And at the same time, I think that Rav
Kanievsky's interpretation as applying only during the Days of Creation is somewhat forced. This is a creative act of division, setting up how the
world operates, not a limited-time modification for the days of Creation. Rather, I would say that the Sifsei Chachamim's comment makes good
sense in context.
Imagine a patchwork, with swirling areas of light and dark. It could be dark in one place in the patchwork, light a bit north, then dark again.
Each country could have light or darkness as this patchwork moves from one place to the other. There is no regularity to it, not like the Sun's
progression across the sky.
It seems rather clear that this is what Sifsei Chachamim had in mind. Compare to the patchwork of specific hours, with a total lack of regularity.
So of course he knew that different countries can have day and night at different times, but that is simply not what he meant. And sof kol sof,
the main point of Sifsei Chachamim is that the described is not light and dark mixed in the same location. And so, we need not give a
farfetched interpretation, and say that this division Hashem made between day and night was a creative step just for the limited span of the
days of Creatione.