IN THE BEGINNING. Our wise men¹, 6:2. taught that the letter bet (of bereshit, in the beginning) is superfluous.² placed before the word reshit has no translatable meaning. According to Weiser it is there for emphasis. Our verse should thus be rendered: First God created heaven and earth. They compare it to the bet in the word ba-rishonah (at the first) (Genesis 13:4). We know the bet in ba-rishonah to be superfluous for we find they shall set forth first (rishonah) (Numbers 2:9).³ and ba-rishonah mean the same. Hence the bet of ba-rishonah is superfluous. However, if this were so the bet (of bereshit) would be vocalized with a long kamatz.⁴ of ba-rishonah. The fact that the bet of bereshit is vocalized with a sheva proves that both cases are not exactly the same. Other scholars maintain that the word bereshit is always in the construct and its meaning in our verse is: “In the beginning of the evening, or of the night, or of the darkness.”⁵ is connected to is missing and must be supplied by the reader. According to Cherez, I.E. is trying to explain why the superfluous bet of bereshit is vocalized with a sheva while that of ba-rishonah is vocalized with a kamatz. The reason is that bereshit is in the construct and therefore is vocalized with a sheva. However, they have overlooked And he chose a first part (reshit) for himself (Deuteronomy 33:21).⁶ is in the absolute. Others say that the bet of bereshit is a preposition.⁷. 38, which has kli ta’am rather than bli ta’am. For alternate interpretations see Filwarg, Weiser and Cherez. They explain that Scripture intends to preclude the thought that heaven and earth were preexisting. Hence it states, In the beginning.⁸ is there for emphasis. The meaning of the verse is: In the beginning, i.e., before anything was created, God created heaven and earth. I believe that bereshit is in the construct, as in In the beginning of (bereshit) the reign of Jehoiakim (Jeremiah 26:1).⁹ is in the construct. He disagrees with the earlier quoted opinion only in maintaining that it is not always in the construct. Don’t ask, how can a word in the construct be connected to a verb in the perfect.¹⁰ This presents no problem, for we find that very case in the verse When the Lord spoke at first with Hosea (Hosea 1:2),¹¹ (at first) is in the construct with dibber (spoke). and in the verse the city where David encamped (Isaiah 29:1).¹² (the city) is in the construct with chanah (encamped). The meaning of bereshit will be explained in our comments on the next verse.¹³ in the construct is to be connected to.

footnotes: ¹ The Hebrew grammarians. See Ibn Janah, Sefer ha-Rikmah ² The letter bet ³ According to this opinion rishonah ⁴ As is the bet ⁵ The word or phrase that bereshit ⁶ Where the word reshit ⁷ The Hebrew texts printed in our editions are most probably incorrect. We have followed Vat. Ebr ⁸ The bet ⁹ I.E. agrees that bereshit ¹⁰ A noun is usually in the construct when connected to another noun, hence I.E.’s comment. ¹¹ Techillat ¹² Kiryat ¹³ That is, the explanation of what bereshit

CREATED. Most Biblical commentators explain that the word bara (created) indicates creation ex nihilo. But if the Lord make (yivra) a new thing (beri’ah) (Num. 16:30) is similar. However, they have overlooked And God created (va-yivra) the great sea monsters¹⁴, for the verse concludes, and every living creature that creepeth, wherewith the waters swarmed, which shows that the sea monsters were created out of the water. Also, it is absurd to assume that on the fifth day of creation God would create sea monsters ex nihilo. (Gen. 1:21) and the three times the word created is used in one verse, viz., And God created (va-yivra) man in His own image, in the image of God created (bara) He him; male and female created (bara) He them (Gen. 1:27). They also failed to consider I form the light, and create darkness (Is. 45:7) wherein darkness, which is the opposite of light, an existing entity, is described by the prophet as being created.¹⁵. In Isaiah it means the creation of nothing out of something (Krinsky). Hence bara does not necessarily imply creation ex nihilo. The following is the precise explanation of the word bara. Bara has two meanings, one of which has been noted above.¹⁶ The second¹⁷ is found in the verse neither did he eat (bara) bread with them (II Samuel 12:17). However, in the latter case, an alef has been substituted for a heh.¹⁸ with a heh. However, Ibn Ezra’s manuscript must have had bara with an alef. See also Jacob ben Haim’s edition of the Hebrew Bible, 1524, which has the same reading as Ibn Ezra. There is some difficulty in understanding this comment as the printed text is corrupt. We have followed Vat. Ebr. 38 as suggested by Weiser. For a different rendering see Filwarg. The reason is that bara (in I Sam. 12:17) is similar to le-havrot (to urge to eat) in And all the people came to cause David to eat (le-havrot) bread (II Sam. 3:35). The verb le-havrot appears in the hifil (and its root ends with heh), for if it ended with an alef, Scripture would have read le-havri, as in to make yourselves fat (le-havri’achem) with the chiefest of all the offerings of Israel (I Sam. 2:29). We also find bara conjugated in the pi’el, as in and cut down (u-vereta) for thyself (trees) (Joshua 17:15). This is not like the similar word beru in choose (beru) you a man for you (I Sam. 17:8) but rather like bare (hack, dispatch) in and dispatch them (u-vare) with their swords¹⁹, root bet, resh, alef, explains bara in Josh. 17:15 to mean chose, as in I Sam. 17:8. Ibn Ezra disagrees. The point of I.E’s comment is that bara spelled bet, resh, alef primarily means to cut. It is encountered with this meaning in both the kal and pi’el. Bara also means to eat. However, in the latter case its root is bet, resh, heh, although it is found spelled bet, resh, alef in I Sam. 17:8. In the latter instance, however, we treat it as if there were an interchange between the heh and alef. (Ezekiel 23:47). The meaning of bara is to cut or to set a boundary. The intelligent person will understand what I am alluding to.²⁰, p. 190, notes, “The Hebrew word bara, ordinarily translated “created,” which implies to most people the idea of creatio ex nihilo, Ibn Ezra renders, in accordance with its etymology, to limit, to define, by drawing or incising a line or boundary. Having said this, Ibn Ezra, in his wonted mysterious manner, stops short, refusing to say more, and preferring to mystify the reader by adding the tantalizing phrase, ‘The intelligent will understand.’ He means apparently to indicate that an eternal matter was endowed with form.” Nahman Krochmal, More Nevuche Ha-zeman (quoted by Krinsky), suggests that Ibn Ezra’s belief is similar to that of the Kabbalists; i.e., the world was created out of an emanation from God. See also C. Sirot, Philosophy in the Middle Ages (Hebrew), p. 112. Ibn Ezra was a neo-Platonist. According to neo-Platonism the world came about by emanation from God. Ibn Ezra is apparently saying that at the creation spoken of in the first chapter of Genesis, God gave final form to what had previously emanated from Him.

footnotes: ¹⁴ God obviously did not create the sea monsters ex nihilo ¹⁵ Darkness is the absence of light. Thus Isaiah uses the term created in the opposite sense of creation ex nihilo ¹⁶ That is, to create or make. ¹⁷ That is, to eat. ¹⁸ Most of our manuscripts of the Bible have barah ¹⁹ Ibn Janah, The Book of Roots ²⁰ I. Husik, A History of Medieval Jewish Philosophy

GOD. Elohim (God) is a plural. We know this because we come across the singular form Elo’ah.²¹ being the singular of Elohim. Elohim is employed stylistically. Every language has honorific terminology. In the non-Hebrew tongues when an inferior addresses a superior he employs the plural. In Arabic it is customary for a dignitary such as a king to speak in the plural. In Hebrew, too, it is considered a sign of dignity to employ the plural when speaking of a superior. Such is the case with the words adonim (lords) and be’alim (owners). Thus Scripture says, a cruel lord (adonim) (Is. 19:4),²² is a plural, yet its meaning in this verse is singular (lord). The singular of adonim is adon. and and the owner thereof (be’alav) shall accept it (Exodus 22:10).²³ literally means, its owners. The terms alav (upon him), elav (to him), and adav (unto him) are similar.²⁴ It is for this reason that Scipture reads bara Elohim and not bare’u Elohim.²⁵ is to be understood as singular, the verb following it (bara) is in the singular. If Elohim were plural, the verb following it would also be plural (bare’u). We know from the study of logic that speech is called safah²⁶ is the Hebrew word for lip. The point is that more than the lips are involved in speech, but speech is so called because it is seen to come from the lips. because it is seen to come from the lips. Similarly man’s highest soul is called heart (lev) even though the soul itself is incorporeal while the heart is corporeal. It is referred to in this manner because the heart is its first resting place. Similarly God is called Elohim because His actions are executed via angels who do His will and who are referred to as Elohim.²⁷ because the soul acts via the heart. Similarly God is called Elohim because He acts via the angels. Husik, p. 191, points out that according to I.E., “God cannot come in contact with the material and changeable (hence)…it follows that (the terrestrial world)…was not made directly by him, but by angels; hence the word Elohim is used in the first chapter of Genesis, which means primarily the angels, and secondarily God as acting through the angels.” I will explain part of the secret of God’s name when I comment on for My name is in him (Ex. 23:21). Pay no heed to the opinion of Rabbi Saadiah Gaon who holds that man is superior to the angels. I have already explained to you in The Book of Foundation that all of his proofs are wrong. We know that the prophets are the most exalted human beings. Nevertheless, the prophet Joshua fell upon his face and prostrated himself before God’s angel and said to him, What saith my lord unto his servant (Josh. 5:14).²⁸ The same is true of the prophets Zechariah and Daniel.²⁹ Why should I elaborate when this point is so elementary?The meaning of Lord of Hosts (Elohe ha-tzeva’ot) is the same as God of gods (Elohe ha-Elohim) (Deut. 10:17).³⁰ means the same as tzeva’ot (hosts or angels). The definition of elohim (lord) is angels.³¹ (angel) rather than melekh (king) (Weiser). People engaged in the dispensation of God’s justice are also called elohim.³² at times signifies a judge. See Mekhilta on Ex. 21:6. Elohim is an adjective, not a proper noun.³³ It is not found conjugated in the perfect or imperfect.³⁴ is never found in the verbal form. Nevertheless, Ibn Ezra insists that it is an adjective. One should not assume that angels are composed of fire and air because Scripture states, Who makest winds Thy messengers, The flaming fire Thy ministers (Psalms 104:4).³⁵ This is not the literal meaning of this verse. David (in Psalm 104) speaks first of creation. He starts with light and says, Who coverest Thyself with light as with a garment (Ps. 104:2). He then goes on to say, Who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain, heaven referring to the firmament upon which is water, fire, snow and wind. David next says that the wind serves as God’s agent; i.e., it goes wherever God sends it. He speaks in a similar vein of fire as one of God’s ministers.³⁶ David then says, Who didst establish the earth upon its foundations (Ps. 104:5), which refers to dry land. Similarly it is written, Stormy wind, fulfilling His word (Ps. 148:8).³⁷

footnotes: ²¹ Ps. 114:7. Elo’ah ²² Adonim ²³ Be’alav ²⁴ All of these words have plural endings, yet are used to indicate singulars. ²⁵ Since Elohim ²⁶ Safah ²⁷ Man’s soul is often referred to in Scripture as lev ²⁸ Joshua’s bowing before God’s angels proves that angels are superior to prophets. ²⁹ Both address the angels as superiors. See Zechariah 1:9 and Dan. 10:17. ³⁰ We thus see that Elohim ³¹ Reading malakh ³² According to Rabbinic interpretation Elohim ³³ Hence it can be declined and be in the construct. A proper noun cannot. I.E. seems to limit the term noun to proper nouns. Apparently common nouns were treated like adjectives. ³⁴ Hebrew adjectives have verbal forms. However, Elohim ³⁵ Which implies that God makes his angels out of wind. ³⁶ Psalm 104. It is not to be taken as implying that the angels are made out of fire. It rather means that fire is God’s agent. Cf. Ibn Ezra on Ps. 104:4. ³⁷ Which shows that the wind is God’s agent. Krinsky suggests that this quote is misplaced and should follow, “it (the winds) goes wherever God sends it.”

Et indicates the very thing. It signifies the direct object, as in the heaven (et ha-shamayim).³⁸ is a most difficult word to translate because it has many different meanings, depending on the context. However, sometimes it is omitted, as in that God created man (Deut. 4:32). It is also found placed before the subject, as in and when there came a lion, or (ve-et) a bear (I Sam. 17:34). However, the latter usage is very rare. Furthermore, et is used in place of with or from.³⁹

footnotes: ³⁸ Gen. 1:1. The word et ³⁹ Cf. Ex. 2:21; 9:29.

THE HEAVEN. The definite article (ha) is placed before heaven (shamayim) to indicate that Scripture speaks of the heaven visible to man.⁴⁰ Heaven (shamayim) is always written in the plural.⁴¹ (heaven) is a plural. It is possible that its dominion in Knowest thou the ordinances of the heavens? Canst thou establish its dominion over the earth?⁴² is in the singular. Since shamayim is a plural, we would expect “their dominion” rather than “its dominion.” (Job 38:33) refers to the dominion exercised by each one of the heavenly spheres.⁴³ The meaning of shamayim (heaven) is high and above, as it is in Arabic, a language akin in form to Hebrew. There is also a heaven of heavens.⁴⁴ is the spheres (Krinsky). See note 40. The word for heaven (shamayim) is never written in the singular.⁴⁵ It is like the words millstone (rechayim) and noon (tzohorayim). Those who are well-versed in geometry will understand these secrets.⁴⁶ Saadiah Gaon says that the earth may be compared to a point and the heaven to a thread circling it. Since Scripture tells us that heaven and earth were created, we deduce from this that all their contents, such as fire and water, were also created.⁴⁷ Others say that the earth includes water and the heaven air.⁴⁸ However, in my opinion the heaven and earth spoken of in our verse refer only to the firmament and the dry land.⁴⁹ For only one thing was created on each day. Thus light was created on the first day, the firmament on the second, plants on the third, luminaries on the fourth, and living creatures on the fifth and the sixth. This interpretation is borne out by the psalm quoted above (Psalm 104). It is impossible to maintain that the line circling the dot was created before the dot, or the dot before the circle. Hence our sages say that heaven and earth were created simultaneously.⁵⁰ 12a. They offer as proof of their viewpoint, Yea, My hand hath laid the foundation of the earth, And My right hand hath spread out the heavens; When I call unto them, They stand up together (Is. 48:13).⁵¹ implies that they were created simultaneously. However, this proof is questionable. The plain meaning of this verse is not so, for how could God address that which was not yet created?⁵² How could He call to that which was in a chaotic state? The explanation of this verse is as follows: I, God, created heaven and earth. When I call them, they stand before Me as servants ready to do My will. The meaning of this verse is similar to that of Thy word standeth fast in heaven (Ps. 119:89). After stating this the Psalmist makes mention of the earth (Ps. 119:90). He then goes on to say that heaven and earth stand ready to execute any commands that God will direct to them (Ps. 119:91).

footnotes: ⁴⁰ That is, the firmament. According to I.E. there is a heaven above the firmament which is invisible to man. This heaven is eternal. It contains the spheres in which the planets and constellations are embodied. Above this heaven is the abode of the angels. Cf. Husik, p. 190. ⁴¹ The word shamayim ⁴² In this verse its dominion ⁴³ See note 40 above. See also Ibn Ezra’s Introduction, page XVII, second paragraph. ⁴⁴ Cf. Ps. 148:4. Scripture in our chapter speaks of the visible heaven. However, in Psalm 148 it speaks of the “heaven of heavens.” The heaven of heavens ⁴⁵ Even if the reference is to one of the heavens. ⁴⁶ They will understand the reference to the heaven of heavens. ⁴⁷ Scripture does not explicitly mention the creation of fire and water, two of the four elements. However, according to Saadiah the creation of these two elements is implied. There was no need for Scripture to mention their creation as their creation is self evident. For how could the fire and water, which filled the void between heaven and earth, be in existence before the creation of their container? Cf. I.E.’s alternate commentary on this verse in Weiser, p. 145. ⁴⁸ Hence Scripture does state that these two elements were created. ⁴⁹ Gen. 1:1 does not tell us that God created heaven and earth on the first day; neither does it deal with the creation of matter. I.E. will explain the meaning of this verse later on in his comments. ⁵⁰ Hagigah ⁵¹ They stand up together ⁵² How can the Bible say, “When I call unto them,” if they were not yet in being?

NOW THE EARTH. The word ha-aretz (the earth) is irregular in that it is always vocalized with a kamatz beneath both the heh and the alef.⁵³ (earth) is vocalized aretz when preceded by the definite article. The normal vocalization should be ha-eretz, with a segol beneath the alef. It is unlike the word ha-elef (the thousand) in Thou, O Solomon, shall have the thousand (ha-elef) (Canticles 8:12); or ha-even (the stone) in and this stone (ha-even) (Gen. 28:22).⁵⁴ and even the segol remains in place even when preceded by the definite article.

footnotes: ⁵³ That is, the word eretz ⁵⁴ In elef

UNFORMED. Saadiah Gaon claims that the word tohu (unformed) is a derivative of tehom (the deep). This explanation is incorrect because the mem of tehom is a root letter⁵⁵ would not fall out. Thus tohu cannot derive from tehom. like the mem of hadom (footstool).⁵⁶ of tehom is similar to the mem of hadom. Both mems are integral parts of the respective words and do not drop out. The Sefer Yetzirah explains tohu (unformed) and bohu (void) as follows: Tohu refers to the green line; bohu alludes to the smooth stones.⁵⁷ 12a. “Tohu is a green band which encompasses the whole world, out of which darkness proceeds…, and tohu consists of the smooth stones in the abyss, out of which the waters proceed.” However, the correct meaning of these terms is found in the Aramaic translation of the Pentateuch.⁵⁸ We similarly read, And in the waste (tohu), a howling wilderness (Deut. 32:10), and go after vain things (tohu) (I Sam. 12:21), which means worshipping things that have no substance.⁵⁹

footnotes: ⁵⁵ Hence the mem ⁵⁶ The mem ⁵⁷ Cf. Hagigah ⁵⁸ That is, Onkelos. The latter renders these terms as “waste and empty.” ⁵⁹ That is, idols.

[VOID.] Bohu is a synonym of tohu. The vavs of tohu and bohu are in place of a heh. They are like the vav in (va-yishtachu) (and he bowed)⁶⁰ of va-yishtachu (and he bowed) is in place of a heh. and the vav of achu (reed-grass) in They fed in the reed-grass (achu) (Gen. 41:2).⁶¹ of achu (reed grass) is in place of a heh. The meaning of our verses is this: When the creation of the firmament and the dry land took place, the earth was uninhabited because it was covered with water. God created the earth in such a way that by the laws of nature it would be below the waters.⁶² Do not reject this interpretation because of the vav that is placed before the words the earth (ve-ha-aretz), for its meaning is identical to that of the Arabic fa.⁶³ of ve-ha’aretz (and the earth) introduces a new idea. This contradicts I.E.’s assertion that verse 2 is a mere continuation of verse 1, for I.E. interprets verse 1 and 2 as reading: When God made heaven and earth the earth was unformed and void. I.E. thus explains that the vav does not always mean “and” (it is like the Arabic fa). Thus verse 2 reads: the earth was, rather than: and the earth was. The vav placed before the word mist (ed) in but there went up a mist (ve-ed) from the earth (Gen. 2:6)⁶⁴ of ve-ed does not mean “and a mist.” is analogous. Our verses are to be so interpreted because Moses did not speak of the eternal world, which is the world of the angels; he spoke only of the transient world.⁶⁵ 12a; note 40 above. I.E. disagrees. He maintains that heaven in verse 1 refers only to the firmament. How can those who say that the word heaven in the first verse refers to the highest heavens explain the presence of the earth in the same verse?⁶⁶ does not refer to the firmament but rather to the abode of the heavenly beings, what, then, does earth refer to? It is illogical to assume that the Bible juxtaposes the creation of the eternal with the creation of the transient. Intelligent people have reputable proof that there is only one earth.⁶⁷ As to the Midrash, when it says that there are seven earths it means that the area of the world inhabited by human beings is divided into seven sections.⁶⁸. The Holy Temple was in the center of the inhabited world.⁶⁹ 48:2. Here too world means the inhabitable world and not the globe. It was not in the center of the earth because we know that it was far from there.

footnotes: ⁶⁰ The final vav ⁶¹ The final vav ⁶² Earth is the heaviest and water is the second heaviest of the four elements. Hence according to the laws of nature earth has the lowest position and water the next lowest. Thus at the beginning of creation the earth was covered with water. It took a special act of God to dry the land. ⁶³ The vav ⁶⁴ The vav ⁶⁵ There were those who explained the sky in Gen. 1:1 as referring to heaven. Cf. Hagigah ⁶⁶ If shamayim ⁶⁷ Perhaps one will argue that earth refers to some spiritual earth, hence I.E.’s argument that unlike the heavens there is only one earth. ⁶⁸ The Midrash is not to be taken literally. The seven earths are mentioned in Zohar Chadash 1:216 ⁶⁹ According to the Midrash the Temple was in the center of the world. Cf. Midrash Tehillim

AND THE SPIRIT OF GOD. Ru’ach (wind) is in the construct with Elohim (God) because it was the medium employed by God to dry the land.⁷⁰ (spirit) as wind. Thus ve-ru’ach Elohim (and the spirit of God) means: and God’s wind.

footnotes: ⁷⁰ I.E. renders ru’ach

[THE WATERS.] Mayim (waters) is in the plural. It does not come in a singular form. It belongs to the dual forms,⁷¹), heaven (shamayim), ears (oznayim), hands (yadayim), legs (raglayim). the latter being either masculine or feminine.⁷² is in the masculine. A masculine noun may also come in the dual form (Filwarg). For an alternate interpretation see Krinsky. Mayim is also found used in the singular in the water of sprinkling was not dashed against him (Num. 19:13).⁷³ is in the plural, the verb pertaining to it should also be in the plural. Hence, rather than “was not,” one would expect “were not.”

footnotes: ⁷¹ Certain Hebrew words are found only in the dual forms, e.g., noon (tzohorayim ⁷² Most of the words in dual form are feminine. However, I.E. points out that this is not necessarily so. Waters ⁷³ Strictly speaking, if mayim

[HOVERED.] Merachefet (hovered) means “blowing above the waters.” As an eagle…Hovereth (yerachef) over her young (Deut. 32:11), is similar.

AND GOD SAID. Saadiah Gaon interprets va-yomer Elohim (and God said), as and God wanted. However, if this were the case Scripture should have stated God wanted (said) light to be. Therefore va-yomer Elohim is to be rendered “and God said.”⁷⁴ means God wanted, rather than God said, Scripture should have used the infinite li-heyot in place of yehi; Let there be implies a statement. We similarly read, By the word of the Lord were the heavens made (Ps. 33:6), and For He commanded, and they were created (Ps. 148:5).⁷⁵ Scripture describes creation as coming about by God’s word because it wants to teach us that heaven and earth came into being without any labor on God’s part. We may compare this to a king assigning certain tasks to his servants.

footnotes: ⁷⁴ If va-yomer Elohim ⁷⁵ Here creation is described as coming about by God’s word. The terms used are: spoke and command. It is absurd to translate these two words as wanted.

[LIGHT.] The light spoken of in this verse was above the air.⁷⁶

footnotes: ⁷⁶ See note 88.

AND GOD SAW THE LIGHT. “Saw” is to be understood here as perceived. Compare, Then I saw that wisdom excelleth folly (Ecclesiastes 2:13).⁷⁷. I.E. reads, and I saw.

footnotes: ⁷⁷ I.E’s proof text may be Dan. 10:7, viz., And I Daniel alone saw the vision

The meaning of divided is: He divided them by naming one, day and the other, night.⁷⁸

footnotes: ⁷⁸ God divided light from darkness by giving each a name. This verse doesn’t speak of a physical division. Thus verse 5 explains how God divided the light from the darkness (Filwarg).

AND GOD CALLED. The heh of laylah (night) is superfluous, because the word is penultimately accented. It is always a masculine noun.⁷⁹ of laylah (night) was an essential part of the word, laylah would be a feminine noun and would be accented on the last syllable (Filwarg).

footnotes: ⁷⁹ If the heh

EVENING. Erev (evening) is close in meaning to choshekh (darkness). Erev is so called because forms are then intermingled.⁸⁰) is ayin, resh, bet. The opposite of evening is called boker (morning) because one can then distinguish between various forms.⁸¹ means to examine. Cf. Lev. 27:33. One day refers to the movement of the sphere.⁸² There is a secret meaning to the Midrashic statement to the effect that the world will exist for six thousand years.⁸³ 97a. Once it is stated that God called the light “day,” it is impossible to maintain that the evening, too, is considered part of the day.⁸⁴

footnotes: ⁸⁰ The root of intermingle (erev ⁸¹ Bakker ⁸² The heavenly sphere made one revolution. The sun was not yet seen in the firmament; neither was there as yet a firmament. Hence I.E.’s comment. ⁸³ Cf. Sanhedrin ⁸⁴ I.E. takes issue with those who maintain that the evening is part of the day. According to I.E. day refers only to daylight. For the implications of this comment see Weiser.

The correct interpretation of And there was evening and there was morning, one day is that evening passed and the morning of the first day also came. If the intention of this verse is to teach that evening and morning make a day, then what is the meaning of And there was evening and there was morning, a second day (v. 8)?⁸⁵

footnotes: ⁸⁵ If the intention of Scripture is to teach us that evening and morning make a day, why keep on repeating this with regard to the subsequent days? Hence Scripture is only describing what happened (Kaputa).

AND GOD SAID. Saadiah Gaon says things about the firmament that are not so.⁸⁶ The correct interpretation of firmament (raki’a) is something spread out, as in And they did beat (va-yirakke’u) the gold into thin plates (Ex. 39:3); Then did I beat them (erka’em) (II Sam. 22:43); and similarly, And spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in (Is. 40:22). How precious are the words of he who said that the firmament begins at the point where the sun and the ocean merge.⁸⁷, as in Vat. Ebr. 38, for ketzot ha-shemesh. Cf. Pirke de-Rabbi Eliezer, Chap. III. The firmament is the air because when the light shone very strongly upon the earth and a wind dried off from the earth, the flame turned into the firmament.⁸⁸ (firmament)” (Cohen). Similarly⁸⁹ the Psalmist states, Who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain; Who layest the beams of Thine upper chambers in the waters (Ps. 104:2 and 3). The Psalmist then makes mention of the clouds and the wind and the establishment of the earth. The latter is above the waters. We thus read, For He hath founded it (the earth) upon the seas (Ps. 24:2), and To Him that spread forth the earth above the waters (Ps. 136:6). Similarly whoever goes to the ocean is said to be going down.⁹⁰ The meaning of (He) That calleth for the waters of the sea, And poureth them out upon the face of the earth⁹¹ (Amos 5:8) is that God commands the waters of the sea to give birth to clouds, and, afterward, And (He) poureth them out upon the face of the earth.

footnotes: ⁸⁶ Saadiah says that the waters are congealed on the firmament in a manner similar to the albumen of an egg. Saadiah also identifies the firmament with heaven (Krinsky). ⁸⁷ Reading ketzot ha-shamayim ⁸⁸ I.E. apparently alludes here to “the light as the medium whereby the chaotic base elements were progressively transformed into their present form” (Levine). Fire was believed to be one of the primeval elements out of which the world was created. I.E. believed that this element “changed and became the raki’a ⁸⁹ Ps. 104:2 describes the heaven (firmament) as being “stretched out like a curtain,” which agrees with I.E.’s interpretation that the firmament is “something spread out.” Furthermore, Psalm 104, like Gen. 1:6-10, first describes the creation of the sky and then that of the dry land. ⁹⁰ For the earth is above the waters. Cf. Ps. 107:23. ⁹¹ Which implies that the waters are above the earth.

AND GOD MADE. Dividing one thing from another is expressed by placing the preposition ben (between) before the first object and a lamed before the second, as in And let it divide⁹². the waters (ben mayim) from the waters (la-mayim) (Gen. 1:6) and between the holy (ben kodesh) and the common (le-chol) (Ezek. 44:23). It may also be expressed by placing the preposition (ben) before each one of the objects, as in our verse and divided the waters⁹³. (ben ha-mayim) which were under the firmament from the waters (u-ven ha-mayim) which were above the firmament. And it is found with the word ben repeated and a lamed before the second object, as in But your iniquities have separated Between you (benekhem) and your God (le-ven elohekhem) (Is. 59:2).

footnotes: ⁹² The verse literally reads: and let it divide between ⁹³ The verse literally reads: and God divided between the waters

[AND IT WAS SO.] This phrase is connected to the verse which follows it: When it was so, God called the firmament heaven.⁹⁴ is out of place following And God made the firmament. If he made it, then obviously it was so. Hence it does not apply to verse 7 but is connected to verse 8; viz., after the firmament came into being God called it heaven (Krinsky).

footnotes: ⁹⁴ And it was so

AND GOD CALLED. There are five things which God named because there was then no man to name them. They are: light, darkness, heaven, earth and the seas. In addition, God named man.⁹⁵

footnotes: ⁹⁵ Scripture explicitly tells us that God named the Light, the Darkness, etc. I.E. points out that God also named Adam, even though this is not expressly stated in our chapter.

AND GOD SAID. I believe that this chapter is connected to the one preceding it⁹⁶ because the firmament did not come into being until the land dried.⁹⁷ Proof of this is Scripture’s statement, In the day that the Lord God made earth (dry land) and heaven (the firmament) (Gen. 2:4). Thus they were made on the same day. The revelation of something which had previously been hidden (the land) or the gathering of something which was scattered (the water) into one place is not a creation.⁹⁸, rather than the Lord God created earth and heaven. I.E. had previously commented that only one thing was created on each day. He therefore explains that the making of the firmament and dry land on one day does not constitute the creation of two things on the same day, for the drying of the land was not a creation. The meaning of our verse is: now God had said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered.⁹⁹ is to be understood as a pluperfect. Verses 8 and 9 are to be read as one verse and understood as follows: And God called the firmament heaven…for God had said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place (Cohen). There are hundreds of similar instances in the Torah. I will offer two examples from the portion of Bereshit. One is: And the Lord God planted a garden eastward, in Eden; and there He put the man whom He had formed (Gen. 2:8). After stating this, Scripture goes on to say, And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight (v. 9). However, God caused vegetation and trees to sprout before the creation of man.¹⁰⁰ The second example is when God commanded man not to eat from the tree of knowledge (Gen. 2:16). However, immediately after this it is written, 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, etc. (Gen. 2:19).¹⁰¹ in Gen. 2:19 is had formed, i.e., before creating man God had formed the beasts of the field and every fowl of the air. The meaning of formed thus is had formed. According to this interpretation it follows that And God saw that it was good (Gen. 1:10) is connected to the act of creation which took place on the second day.¹⁰². The account of the creation which took place on the third day thus begins with And God said: Let the earth put forth grass (Gen. 1:11).

footnotes: ⁹⁶ In the Hebrew Bible verses 6-8 and 9-13 form separate chapters. According to I.E. verse 9 does not start the account of the third day of creation, but is a continuation of verse 8. See note 99. ⁹⁷ Thus land was created on the second day and not on the third day. ⁹⁸ Hence Scripture (Gen. 2:4) states, the Lord God made earth and heaven ⁹⁹ And God said ¹⁰⁰ According to Gen. 1:11,12, vegetation was created before man. Therefore the meaning of Gen. 2:9 is: And out of the ground the Lord God had previously made to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight. ¹⁰¹ The implication is that the beasts of the field were created after man. However, Gen. 1:25 tells us that man was created after the beasts of the field. Hence the meaning of formed ¹⁰² The account describing the making of the sky and the earth concludes with Gen. 1:10, And God saw that is was good

[LET…BE GATHERED.] The meaning of yikkavu is let them come together. Ve-nikvu in At that time they shall call Jerusalem the throne of the Lord; and all nations shall be gathered (ve-nikvu) unto it (Jer. 3:17) is similar.

[SEAS.] Scripture employs the term seas (yammim) because there is no one name for the sea that surrounds all of the earth.¹⁰³

footnotes: ¹⁰³ Ibn Ezra, in line with other medievalists, believed that there is one sea covering most of the earth. Thus he was faced with the problem of why Scripture doesn’t say God called the gathering of the waters “sea.” His guess was that the sea had different names in different places. Hence Scripture refers to it as seas. For an alternate interpretation see Filwarg.

AND GOD SAID. Scripture states, Let the earth put forth grass (Gen. 1:11); Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures (Gen. 1:20); Let the earth bring forth the living creature after its kind (Gen. 1:24). This teaches that God placed in the earth and in the water the power to bring forth these things at God’s command. These are the generations (offspring) of the heaven and the earth (Gen. 2:4).¹⁰⁴

footnotes: ¹⁰⁴ Filwarg. For an alternate interpretation see Krinsky.

[LET THE EARTH PUT FORTH GRASS.] Tadshe means let it put forth.

WHEREIN IS THE SEED THEREOF. Wherein the seed is in the fruit and each one produces its own kind.

AND GOD SAID. Yehi (let there be) is short for yiheyeh. Due to the frequency with which this term is used, it is employed before both the singular and the plural.¹⁰⁵, rather than the singular yehi. It is also employed in Scripture with the feminine as in, If there be a damsel (yiheyeh) that is a virgin (Deut. 22:23).¹⁰⁶, rather than yiheyeh (which is masculine), should have been used. I.E. points out that there is a tendency toward uniformity when a word is employed frequently.

footnotes: ¹⁰⁵ Luminaries is a plural, so Scripture should have used the plural yiheyu ¹⁰⁶ Since damsel is a feminine, the verb tiheyeh

FOR SIGNS AND FOR SEASONS. For signs, i.e., for minutes, and for seasons, i.e., for hours. For signs may also be interpreted as referring to the eclipse of the moon and the sun and also to shooting stars. The last-mentioned phenomena are to be included among the signs produced by the lights of the firmament because they are caused by the stars. This meaning of signs is like signs in And be not dismayed at the signs (omens) of heaven (Jer. 10:2). Anyone who explains the lamed of le-otot (for signs) as superfluous is mistaken.¹⁰⁷ is a preposition.

footnotes: ¹⁰⁷ I.E.’s point is that the lamed

AND LET THEM BE FOR SIGNS. A prominent Spanish sage¹⁰⁸ stated that the firmament is divided into eight parts, seven for the seven spheres of the seven stars and one for the constellations.¹⁰⁹ However, this cannot be so because we know there is no body above the sphere of the constellations. Behold, Scripture explicitly states, And God set them in the firmament of the heaven, which clearly indicates that there is a heaven above the firmament. The heaven of heavens (Nehemiah 9:6) and To Him that rideth upon the heaven of heavens, which are of old (kedem) (Ps. 68:34) are similar.¹¹⁰ refers to the heaven above the firmament. It is I.E.’s belief that the planets and constellations are above the firmament (see note 40). Note that the word kedem in the verse quoted above does not mean east but ancient.¹¹¹ may also mean east, but not here. If the verse alluded to the eastern sky it could not refer to the heaven above the firmament (the ancient heaven) which is invisible. Indeed, Rabbi Saadiah Gaon, may the righteous be remembered for a blessing, was afraid to comment on this verse.¹¹² means old. It implies that they are older than the earth and may even be eternal. Hence Saadiah refrains from commenting on this verse. See Krinsky. It appears to me that the sun, the moon and other luminaries are called lights in the firmament because they are visible there.¹¹³

footnotes: ¹⁰⁸ Ibn Janah (Krinsky). ¹⁰⁹ The eighth sphere is a sphere of the constellations. The seven “planets” are the Moon, Mercury, Venus, the Sun, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn. Each “planet” has its own sphere (Krinsky). Hence the firmament consists of eight parts. Heaven consists of the seven planets and the constellations. Thus according to the Spanish sage the firmament and heaven are identical. ¹¹⁰ The term heaven of heavens ¹¹¹ Kedem ¹¹² The word kedem ¹¹³ According to I.E. the luminaries are not in the firmament. They are above it. Nevertheless, Scripture states that God placed them in the firmament because they shine through the firmament and thus appear to be there.

AND GOD MADE. The sun and the moon are called the great lights in contradistinction to the stars.¹¹⁴ Similarly the first three sons of Jesse are called the elders, in contrast to their younger brothers.¹¹⁵ In reality, Eliab, the first born, was the oldest of them all. As to the Midrash, which states One was not greater than the other,¹¹⁶, Chap. VI. there is a secret meaning to it.¹¹⁷

footnotes: ¹¹⁴ The term “two great lights” implies that both lights were of equal size, hence I.E.’s comment. Cf. Rashi’s comment on this verse. ¹¹⁵ Obviously only one of them was the eldest. ¹¹⁶ That is, both the sun and the moon were the same size at creation. Cf. Pirke de-Rabbi Eliezer ¹¹⁷ The Midrashic statement is not to be taken literally.

[TO RULE THE DAY.] The sun rules during the day and not at night because it is not seen. Conversely, the light of the moon and stars are not seen during the day. One may ask, do not the astronomers teach that Jupiter and all the stars, with the exception of Mercury and Venus, are larger than the moon? Why, then, is it written the great lights?¹¹⁸ The answer is that the term great does not refer to size but to light, and the light of the moon is many times greater than their light because of its proximity to the earth. Thus we see that Scripture describes them as lights.¹¹⁹

footnotes: ¹¹⁸ The implication from Scripture is clearly that the moon is larger than the stars. ¹¹⁹ Scripture calls the sun and the moon lights because it refers to the light given off by them and not to their physical size.

AND GOD SET. Do not be surprised that Scripture states, And God set,¹²⁰ (Filwarg). According to Weiser the question is, “If the stars are set in the sky then why are they not visible there at all times?” for the Bible also says, I have set My bow in the cloud (Gen. 9:13).¹²¹ (Gen. 9:13).

footnotes: ¹²⁰ If the stars are above the firmament, why does Scripture state, And God set them in the firmament ¹²¹ The rainbow only appears to be in the cloud (Krinsky). Weiser interprets, “The rainbow is not always visible there.” Even so Scripture states, I have set My bow in the cloud

AND TO RULE. The day spoken of in the Torah begins at sunrise and lasts until sunset. Night begins when the stars are first visible. Those who say that night begins with the appearance of three stars are correct.¹²² 35b), night begins with the appearance of three stars. Know that evening begins at sunset and lasts for one and a third hours, during which time a light-like appearance is seen in the clouds. Similarly morning dawns before sunrise.¹²³ When the light of the sun shines during the day and the light of the moon at night, they separate between the light and the dark.¹²⁴ refers to both the sun and the moon.

footnotes: ¹²² According to the Talmud (Sabbath ¹²³ Morning dawns one and a third hours before sunrise (Krinsky). ¹²⁴ Thus and to divide the light from the darkness

AND GOD SAID. Yishritzu (let it swarm) is a transitive verb, as is sharatz (swarm) in And the river shall bring forth swarms of frogs (ve-sharatz) (Ex. 7:28).¹²⁵ The meaning of Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures and let fowl fly above the earth is that the waters shall produce living beings that will immediately fly.¹²⁶ The verse And let fowl fly…in the open firmament of heaven proves my interpretation of the firmament.¹²⁷ cannot be the domain of the spheres (Cherez). Saadiah Gaon¹²⁸ explains al pene (in the open) to mean with the face of. Hence, according to the Gaon, the heavens face down.¹²⁹ The feh of ye’ofef (let fly) is doubled like the nun in yekhonen (till He establish) (Is. 62:7).¹³⁰ has its final letter doubled in the pi’el. The root of ye’offe f is ayin, vav, peh. The root of yekhonen is caf, vav, nun.

footnotes: ¹²⁵ In Gen. 9:7 and Ex. 1:7 swarm is intransitive. I.E. points out that here and in Exodus it is transitive. Therefore swarm may be either a transitive or an intransitive verb (Weiser). ¹²⁶ Filwarg. ¹²⁷ According to I.E. the firmament is the air or atmosphere, not heaven. See I.E.’s comments on verse 6. The birds fly in the air, not among the spheres; thus raki’a ¹²⁸ Filwarg explains that according to Saadiah the stars are in the firmament which is in motion. Thus the fowl fly along with the firmament. It should be noted that Saadiah identifies the firmament with heaven. ¹²⁹ Scripture says that the birds fly on the face of the firmament. Since, according to Saadiah, the fowl fly along with the face of the firmament (heaven), then the firmament (heaven) faces down. This is absurd and shows how wrong Saadiah is. ¹³⁰ An ayin vav

AND GOD CREATED. The meaning of romeset (creepeth) is walks. Some are of the opinion that the sin of romeset is in place of a samekh.¹³¹ means to tread. Thus romes with a sin means the same as romes with a samekh.

footnotes: ¹³¹ The root resh mem samekh

AND GOD BLESSED. The meaning of Be fruitful, and multiply is, “You shall be fruitful and you shall multiply.” And die in the mount (Deut. 32:50) is similar because it is not in one’s power to determine the time of one’s death.¹³² is to be rendered: and you shall die in the mount. For we cannot determine the time of our death. Similarly one can have intercourse but one cannot guarantee conception. Hence Be fruitful, and multiply, like and die, is not an imperative.

footnotes: ¹³² And die in the mount

AND GOD SAID. Living creature is a general term for what the fire, water and earth gave birth to.¹³³ It also includes man.

footnotes: ¹³³ The basic elements according to medieval scientific belief.

CATTLE. Domesticated beasts that are utilized by man for their needs, for riding and for food.

AND CREEPING THING. Small animals that walk upon the earth.

AND BEAST OF THE EARTH. Animals that are in the wilderness where there are no human settlements. The vav at the end of ve-chayeto (and beast of) is superfluous. It is like the vav of le-mayeno (into a fountain) in into a fountain (le-mayeno) of waters (Ps. 114:8), and the vav in the son of (beno) Beor (Num. 24:3).

LET US MAKE MAN. Some are of the opinion that na’aseh (let us make) is a nifal participle¹³⁴ is not a first person plural future kal but rather a nifal participle. This interpretation eliminates the problem of God using a plural form when speaking of Himself. The verse is to be read as follows: And God said, Let a man be made (Cherez). and is to be compared to the same word in Now that which was prepared (na’aseh) for one day (Neh. 5:18).¹³⁵ is definitely a nifal form. They further say that in our image, after our likeness are the words of Moses.¹³⁶ They also explain the pronominal suffix “his” in And God created man in His own image (v. 27) as referring to man,¹³⁷ and connect God (in Gen. 9:6) to made rather than to image. They read this verse as follows: “For God made man in an image,” rather than “for in the image of God made He man.”¹³⁸. The usual and correct reading is, ki be-tzelem Elohim, asah et ha-adam. Cherez notes that the same interpretation applies to verse 27, i.e., be-tzelem, Elohim bara oto. Now this interpretation is absurd. According to it the first quoted verse should have read, “Let a man be made.”¹³⁹ means “Let (yehi) a man be made,” then the text should read yehi na’aseh adam. Similarly Scripture should have read, “He made him in his image.”¹⁴⁰. 38 reads, “It should have stated, He made him in our image”; i.e., if “our image” relates to man’s image, 9:6 and 1:27 should have so read. Furthermore, how can the his in His image (v. 27) refer to man? If this were the case then man had an image before he was created.¹⁴¹ Finally, what sense would there be to Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed (Gen. 9:6), if the reason for the above is that man was made in an image? All living things have an image.¹⁴² Saadiah Gaon explains in our image, after our likeness as referring to the dominion man exercises on earth.¹⁴³ He explains His image¹⁴⁴ for image (Filwarg). as the image that God in His wisdom chose for man because He saw that this image was good for man. The Gaon further notes that Scripture connects image to God (be-tzelem Elohim) to stress man’s glorified state.¹⁴⁵) means in the image chosen by God. A very precious image. Similarly Scripture states, and are gone forth out of His land (Ezek. 36:20). The Bible says this to emphasize the importance of the land of Israel because, in reality, The earth is the Lord’s, and the fullness thereof (Ps. 24:1).¹⁴⁶ The Gaon also says that the word na’aseh (let us make) has the meaning of the singular even though it is in the plural because it is the plural of majesty.¹⁴⁷ really means: I will make. He offers as proof, and we will give thee the other also (Gen. 29:27); and we will tell the interpretation thereof before the king (Daniel 2:36); peradventure I shall prevail, that we may smite (nakkeh) them (Num. 22:6). However, these witnesses are false witnesses.¹⁴⁸ First of all, and we will give thee (ve-nittenah) (Gen. 29:27) is a nifal and its meaning is “the other will also be given thee.”¹⁴⁹. It is like the word nittenah (is given) in and the city is given (nittenah) (Jer. 32:24). The vav conversive changes nittenah (she was given) to “she will be given (ve-nittenah),” as is the case with every verb in the perfect which becomes an imperfect when a vav conversive is prefixed to it. Similarly nakkeh bo (we may smite them) (Num. 22:6) means, “I and my army will smite them.”¹⁵⁰ is not a plural of majesty. Further, nakkeh may be a pi’el infinitive¹⁵¹ of nakkeh (smite) is not the nun of the first person plural but is part of the root of the word nakkeh. The meaning of the word thus is to smite, rather than we will smite. meaning to smite, like nakeh (destroy)¹⁵² is a pi’el infinitive. in But will not utterly destroy thee (ve-nakkeh lo anakkekah) (Jer. 46:28). The latter interpretation is supported by the fact that Scripture employs the phrase lo nukku (were not smitten) (Ex. 9:32), and a verb cannot come in the pu’a l unless it also comes in the pi’el.¹⁵³ (were smitten) is a pu’al. Pu’al is the passive of pi’el. If a verb is found in the pu’al it can also come in the pi’el, Hence smite can be a pi’el (Meijler). For alternate interpretations see Krinsky and Filwarg. Rabbi Moses Ha-kohen, the Spaniard, errs in his book.¹⁵⁴ as the plural of majesty. Similarly we will tell (Dan. 2:36) is Aramaic.¹⁵⁵ For if we will tell is a plural of majesty, how would Daniel dare to speak in such haughty terms before Nebuchadnezzar who was the “King of Kings”?I will now explain. Note that all the works of creation came into being by God’s command for the sake of man. Scripture relates that the earth and water brought forth plants and all living creatures. After all plants and living creatures had been created, God said to the angels, Let us make man; i.e., We, rather than the earth and water, will occupy ourselves with his creation. We know that the Torah spoke the language of man,¹⁵⁶ 31b. for it was given to humans who speak and hear. Now a human being cannot speak of things above or below him without employing human terminology. Hence Scripture uses such terms as the mouth of the earth (Num. 16:30), the hand of the Jordan (Num. 13:29),¹⁵⁷ and the head¹⁵⁸ of the dust of the world (Proverbs 8:26). Far be it from us to believe that God has an image.¹⁵⁹. Scripture clearly refutes such a notion by stating, To whom then will you liken Me, that I should be equal (Is. 40:25). It is because man’s upper soul is eternal and is compared in its existence to God and because man’s soul is incorporeal and fills the body, which is a microcosm, in the same way that God fills the universe that Scripture states, in our image, after our likeness. May God’s name be blessed. He commenced with the macrocosm and concluded with the microcosm.¹⁶⁰ The prophet also says that he saw God’s glory appear in human form (Ezek. 1:26).¹⁶¹ God is one. He is the creator of all. He is all. I cannot explain further.¹⁶² Man was originally created with two faces;¹⁶³, and then saying, created He them (Meijler). Weiser explains that I.E.’s interpretation is in keeping with the Rabbinic tradition that man was originally androgynous (Erubin 18a). Levine (p. 135) suggests that I.E. speaks of man’s dual nature; i.e., he has a body and a soul. man is thus one but also two. In the image of God means in the image of the angels. Man was created both male and female.¹⁶⁴ The words Be fruitful, and multiply are a blessing not a command,¹⁶⁵ 35a. just as they are with regard to the creatures brought forth by the waters (Gen. 1:22).¹⁶⁶ Nevertheless, there is in fact a commandment to be fruitful and multiply transmitted by our sages, of blessed memory, which they attached to this verse in order to remember the commandment.¹⁶⁷

footnotes: ¹³⁴ Na’aseh ¹³⁵ Here na’aseh ¹³⁶ They interpret the verse as follows: God said, “Let a man be made.” Moses added: “in our image after our likeness,” i.e., in human form. This eliminates the problem of God having a human form. ¹³⁷ The verse is to be explained as God created man in man’s own image. ¹³⁸ They read the verse, ki be-tzelem, Elohim asah et ha-adam ¹³⁹ If na’aseh adam ¹⁴⁰ The reference is either to Gen. 9:6 (Netter) or 1:27 (Cherez). I.E.’s point is, why use such roundabout language to say that God made man in his (human) image when the Bible could have said this directly (Cherez). Vat. Ebr ¹⁴¹ If man was created in man’s image, then man had an image before he was created. This is obviously an impossibility. ¹⁴² The verse stresses man’s uniqueness; i.e., he was created in God’s image. But if the verse speaks only of man having an image, animals, too, have an image. Wherein is the uniqueness of man? ¹⁴³ Man rules over the world just as God rules over the universe (Weiser). ¹⁴⁴ Reading His image ¹⁴⁵ In the image of God (be-tzelem Elohim ¹⁴⁶ All of the earth is in reality His land. There is thus no reason to call Israel “His land.” Hence the Torah calls the land of Israel “His land” in order to stress its importance. ¹⁴⁷ Therefore Let us make ¹⁴⁸ These verbs are not examples of the plural of Majesty. ¹⁴⁹ It is not a first person plural kal ¹⁵⁰ In other words, nakkeh ¹⁵¹ The nun ¹⁵² Nakkeh ¹⁵³ Nukku ¹⁵⁴ Rabbi Moses ben Samuel Gikatila, an 11th century Bible commentator. It is not clear what error I.E. is referring to. Cf. Filwarg. Perhaps R. Moses also interpreted nakkeh ¹⁵⁵ It is not a plural of majesty but the normal way of speaking in Aramaic (Krinsky). ¹⁵⁶ Berekhot ¹⁵⁷ J.P.S. translates: the side of the Jordan. ¹⁵⁸ J.P.S. translates: beginning. ¹⁵⁹ On the basis of our verses reading, in our image, after our likeness ¹⁶⁰ Man. The account of creation begins with the creation of the “large world,” the universe, and concludes with the creation of the “small world,” man. “Man is a microcosm, a universe in little, for like the great universe he consists of a body animated by a soul” (Husik, p. 191). ¹⁶¹ Hence Ezekiel, like Moses, employed human terminology in speaking of God (Weiser). ¹⁶² I.E. “seems to favor the idea of eternal creation and maintenance of the universe, the relation of which to God is as the relation of speech to the speaker, which exists only so long as the speaker speaks. The moment he ceases speaking the sounds cease to exist” (Husik, p. 190). The mystery of God being “All” is difficult to comprehend and lends itself to misinterpretation. It might lead one to believe in pantheism. ¹⁶³ Hence there is no contradiction in Scripture stating, created He him ¹⁶⁴ The angels are of only one sex, man is of two. Nevertheless, man was created in the image of the angels. ¹⁶⁵ According to the rabbis of the Talmud there is a commandment to “be fruitful and multiply.” Cf. Kiddushin ¹⁶⁶ Obviously no command is addressed to animals. ¹⁶⁷ According to I.E. when a Rabbinic interpretation is not in keeping with the literal meaning of the verse, then the verse is to be interpreted literally, and the Rabbinic interpretation accepted as true in itself but not as being derived from the verse. The verse merely serves as a peg on which to attach an authentic tradition.

AND GOD SAID: BEHOLD I HAVE GIVEN YOU. God permitted mankind and every living thing to eat all herbs. He also permitted man to eat the fruits of the trees and limited the animals and creeping things to green herbs. At this point in time the consumption of flesh was not permitted. That came after the flood.

THE SIXTH DAY. Some say that the word yom (day) is in the construct with sixth,¹⁶⁸ should have a definite article prefixed to it, i.e., ha-yom ha-shishi rather than yom ha-shishi, as in Deut. 3:25 ha-har ha-tov (that goodly hill-country); or both yom and shishi should be written without a heh, as in yom sheni (a second day). Hence yom ha-sheshi means the day of the sixth (Filwarg). and the meaning of yom ha-shishi (the sixth day) is the day of the sixth sphere.¹⁶⁹ They say the same with regard to yom ha-shevi’i (the seventh day). However, they are wrong. Proof of their error is found in the teaching of the astrologers who tell us who the lord¹⁷⁰ of the sixth day is.¹⁷¹ The meaning of yom ha-shishi, then, is the sixth day from day one. This is also the meaning of the seventh day. We similarly find¹⁷² and the adjective is (Filwarg). ish ha-yisraeli (the Israelite man) (Leviticus 24:10)¹⁷³, taking man to be in the construct with Israel. and many such cases, among them reki’a ha-shamayim (Gen. 1:20),¹⁷⁴, taking firmament to be in the construct with heaven. which should be rendered as “the firmament which is heaven.”

footnotes: ¹⁶⁸ If sixth were an adjective then yom ¹⁶⁹ That is, the day when the sixth heavenly sphere (the sphere of Jupiter) exerts an astrological influence on the earth. ¹⁷⁰ That is, the dominant sphere. ¹⁷¹ The astrologers say that the sphere of Venus is dominant on the sixth day (Weiser). Venus is the third sphere (Cherez). It should be noted that in the Romance languages Friday is called Venus’s day. Thus in Italian, Friday is known as venerdi and in French as vendredi. ¹⁷² Where the noun is not preceded by a heh ¹⁷³ J.P.S. translates: a man of Israel ¹⁷⁴ J.P.S. renders: firmament of heaven