R. Shimon said, flesh and blood who cannot know... Rashi is answering the question: ויכל אלהים ביום השביעי implies that Hashem worked even on the seventh day, but concluded the work then. Yet it is written, “He abstained on the seventh day,” implying that He did no work at all. [Thus Rashi explains, “It appears as if He concluded His work on that very day.”]

It can enter into it. I.e., the work enters into Shabbos.

And it appears. I.e., it appears to people as if Hashem concluded His work on that day, but it is not really so. Thus, “Elohim completed on the seventh day” describes the appearance, not the reality.

Another explanation: What was the world lacking? Rest. You might ask: Why cannot the world exist without [a day devoted to] rest? Will heaven and earth otherwise cease to exist? The answer is: In fact they would [cease to exist], for Rashi explained above (1:1) that בראשית means that the world was created for the Torah which is called ראשית דרכו. And without a day of rest, Jews would not have time all week to engage in Torah study. Thus Hashem created Shabbos on which work is forbidden, giving them time to study Torah. Consequently, the existence of heaven and earth is due to rest.

The work was completed and finished. This explains why it is written, “Elohim completed on the seventh day,” since rest was created on the seventh day and all the work was completed. [At the same time, “He abstained on the seventh day,”] because rest is only an act of abstaining and not actual work. (Re’m) Rashi’s second explanation [that the world lacked rest], raises a question: Why does it say מלאכתו אשר עשה implying that Hashem did actual work? Thus Rashi gives the first explanation. And his first explanation, [that it entered by a hairbreadth,] raises a question: Why is it not written, “Elohim completed on the sixth day”? Therefore Rashi gives both explanations. (Maharshal) [You might ask:] How can the terms “creation” and “work” apply to rest, which is only an act of abstention [passive] and does not involve a physical action? It seems [that the answer is]: Had Hashem not added the seventh day to the days of creation, the nature of man and other creatures would be to work day and night without cease. Resting would not be part of nature, and the body of man would wear out, leaving the world empty and desolate. But by adding the seventh day, on which Hashem abstained from work and rested, it became part of the world’s nature to rest and refresh oneself, regaining strength. [Thus, it is part of creation.] (Nachalas Yaakov)

He blessed it through the manna... but on the sixth dayou might ask: Why is this a blessing? It would be a blessing if there was more on Shabbos than during the week, yet Shabbos had only an omer per person like the other days. An answer is: The manna that fell each day was a blessing, for it is written, “and sanctified it,” [meaning] that Shabbos was sanctified and no manna fell then. Nonetheless it had the blessing of the manna, for the sixth day was doubly blessed. Thus, “He blessed it” means that the blessing was not interrupted on Shabbos. (Re’m) An additional answer is: “He blessed it through the manna” means the manna did not spoil. On other days, leftover manna would spoil by the next day, as it is written (Shemos 16:20), “Some men left some over until morning. It became wormy and putrid.” However, if people would eat only a half omer [on Friday], and leave an omer and a half for Shabbos, it would not spoil. This is Shabbos’ additional blessing. (Maharshal) It seems, [as an additional answer,] that the blessing [of Shabbos] was the manna’s increasing and sufficing for three meals, while the other days the manna yielded enough for only two meals. (Divrei Dovid) It is amazing that in recounting the world’s Creation, it would say “blessed” and “sanctified” just because of the short time — forty years — that the manna came down. Thus it seems that this teaching means as follows: Hashem sanctified the Shabbos as a day that we may not do anything for material needs, such as work and business, nor even walk and speak in the same manner as he does during the week. Thus, due to our evil inclination which will tell us, “What shall we eat... we will not sow, and we will not gather in our produce!” (Vayikra 25:20) the Torah first tells us: “Elohim blessed the seventh day.” I.e., Hashem doubled the blessing on the sixth day so that the day of Shabbos may then be sanctified, and no work need be done. Otherwise a person might think he will lack bread, and be unable to restrain himself in the face of monetary loss. And this blessing and sanctity was not only with the manna. But each Shabbos, Hashem proclaims: “Borrow on Me [i.e., on My credit] and I will pay” (Beitzah 16b), involving blessing and sanctity. The manna was mentioned because we saw with our own eyes its great miracle of “The one who had taken less, was not lacking” (Shemos 16:18). And since there was no one to keep Shabbos at the time of Creation, for the mitzvah had not yet been given, Rashi commented, “This verse is written with reference to the future,” meaning when the Jews will keep Shabbos, not only in the time of the manna. (Nachalas Yaakov)

The work which was to have been done on Shabbos Rashi knows this] because לעשות implies [doing in] the future. Otherwise it should have written, “Which Elohim had created and made.”

**Those mentioned previously.**Rashi is answering the question: Why is nothing mentioned afterwards? Thus it must refer to the previously mentioned.

This teaches you that they were all... I.e., even the products of heaven and earth were created on the first day, as the verse states: “When they were created, on the day when Adonoy Elohim made.” You might ask: Earlier, on “Let there be lights” (1:14), Rashi wrote, “[All products of heaven and earth were created on the first day...] ‘with the heavens’ to include their products, ‘with the earth,’ to include its products.” [Why then does Rashi repeat it here?] The answer is: If not for this verse, I might think that the creation of heavens had its command, and each product of the heavens had its own command too — just as they each came to actuality on their own. Thus it is written here, “This is the history...” to teach that the products were created with the same command as the heavens. It is like wheat kernels sown on one day, and each kernel sprouts and emerges on its own, at its time.

Another explanation of בהבראם... You might ask: Why is this “Another explanation,” a differing view? The first view did not explain the word בהבראם at all, and could thus agree with this explanation! The answer is: The first view relates בהבראם to the end of the verse, “When they were created, on the day.” But the second view relates it to the beginning of the verse, “The heavens and the earth בהבראם,” implying that He created them with the letter hey.

Here it teaches you... But without this verse, we would not know which world was created with hey, and which with yud. There is a difficulty with the second view: why does it say, “On the day when...”? Thus Rashi brought the first view. And there is a difficulty with the first view: Why does it say בהבראם, with a hey? Therefore Rashi brings also the second view. That is why both explanations are needed.

Like the ה which is closed on all sides. See Menachos 29b for another reason.

It means ‘not yet.’ I.e., it stands in place of the two words עדיין לא.

And cannot form a verb. I.e., it is a noun that does not take the form of a verb.

This verse proves this. Because if it means “before,” it would be connected to the words יהיה and יצמח written after it [thus forming an incomplete statement], and would not explain why Hashem had not brought rain. And if it is connected to the [implied but] omitted word “this,” as if it said: “Before this, all the plants were upon the earth, and before this,**all the vegetation sprouted,” then it does not fit with: “For Adonoy Elohim had not brought rain.” (Re’m)

And another [proof]. Meaning, there is another proof for this point.

This verse, too, should be explained thus. Re’m wrote at length on this, but Maharshal explained that Rashi means that it is impossible to explain the verse any other way, for if we say that טרם means before, how can the future tense verb תיראון be applicable to it?

When man appeared. Rashi means as follows: Hashem, who surely desires the prayers of tzaddikim, knew that man would appreciate the rain — and pray for it. See Chulin 60b.

Adonoy is His Name. His actual Name is יהוה, as it has the letters of היה הוה ויהיה (He was, He is, and He will be), and that is His Name. An alternative explanation: It is the Name signifying His essence, whereas the other names each describe one of His traits. Rashi did not explain this earlier, when it is written (v. 4): “On the day when Adonoy Elohim made...” because there it was necessary to say “Adonoy Elohim,” as Rashi explained earlier (1:1 ד"ה ברא).

That He is Ruler and Judge. I.e., Elohim means that He is All-Powerful, as it says, “The powerful ones (אילי) of the land” (Melachim II, 24:15).

For the purpose of creating. Rashi is answering the question: Earlier it is written that Hashem did not bring rain, since man had not yet been created. Why then is it written here, “A mist rose,” implying that there was rain before man was created?

Here, too. Why was Rashi forced to explain [that “a mist rose” is from the waters of the deep and] not from the waters on the surface of the earth which [evaporate and] feed the clouds? Because it is written: “For Adonoy Elohim had not brought rain,” referring to ordinary rain, from which come the waters on the earth. Thus, before man was created it did not rain. Yet “a mist rose” before man was created, for only afterwards it is written (v. 7), “Adonoy Elohim then formed the man.” If this mist was from ordinary rain, the verses would contradict each other.

**Two creations. One creation for this world, and one creation for when the dead will be resurrected.**This apparently means that Hashem now gives man the vitality to come back to life after death, as Hashem wills it. (Nachalas Yaakov)

He gathered dust... [Rashi knows this] because if not, why does it say, “Dust from the ground?” One term is sufficient! But this explanation raises a difficulty: It should say, “From all the earth.” Thus Rashi offers the other explanation. And the other explanation also raises a difficulty: It should say: “מֵאדמה”. Why the word מִן? Thus Rashi offered the first explanation, “From all four corners.” (Maharshal)

Will receive him for burial. This raises a difficulty: Animals are received for burial, although their dust was never gathered! Rather, Rashi is saying that the earth receives and guards man’s body within it until the dead will be resurrected (Devek Tov).

If this were not so, there would be jealousy... This is from Vayikra Rabba. One might ask: Rest on Shabbos was created for earthly matter. Why then is there no jealousy in Creation? The answer: Rest is mainly for man, who is created from heavenly and earthly matter. Thus there is no jealousy. (Nachalas Yaakov)

East of Eden. This explanation is contrary to Targum Onkelos who translates מקדם as “previously.” [Rashi rejects this] because a simple reading of the verse implies that vegetation and trees did not sprout in Gan Eden, or anywhere else, before man’s creation. Rashi added the extra words “where He planted the Garden” so we will not mistakenly explain the verse as: “To the east He placed the man He had formed.”

Should you ask. Although the question’s proper place is earlier (v. 7), on “Adonoy Elohim then formed the man,” Rashi waited to ask it until after he explained that Hashem “planted a garden in Eden מקדם, to the east.” Thus this verse describes one of the details of man’s creation, and thereby in accordance with Rashi’s answer to the above question, in which he says, “Hashem... caused the Garden of Eden to sprout for man’s benefit.” But if מקדם means “previously” [as Onkelos said,] then the Garden’s sprouting was not for man — and is not a detail of his creation. This would raise the question: Why does our verse interrupt [the story of man’s creation] to say, “Hashem planted a garden,” since He had planted it previously? Perforce, מקדם means “to the east,” as Rashi said. (Re’m) Alternatively, we can explain it the opposite way: If מקדם means “previously,” as Targum Onkelos says, then it is understandable that there it is written, “Hashem planted a garden [for him,]” right next to “Hashem formed man.” For this is in accordance with the Midrash: “וייצר with two yuds referring to two creations: One creation for this world and one creation for the World to Come.” I.e., man was created for the pleasures of the World to Come and for the pleasures of this world. Without the Midrash a difficulty arises: Why did He plant a garden in Eden previously, if not for man’s pleasures? But now that Rashi explains מקדם means “to the east,” it teaches only about the location of man’s residence, not about the pleasures of this world. And we could say the opposite, Heaven forbid, that He created man [only] to enjoy the pleasures of this world. And the question arises: Why is “Hashem planted a garden” written next to “Hashem formed man,” and not next to the earlier verse (1:27) “Hashem created man”? To answer this question, Rashi explains: “I saw in the B’rayso of R. Eliezer...”

This verse relates to the Garden. [Rashi knows this] because if it relates to the entire earth, why did Hashem not initially command the earth to bring forth “every tree that is pleasant... and good”?

In the center of the Garden. [Rashi knows this] because otherwise, why is it written “בתוך הגן”? It is already written: “Hashem made grow out of the soil every tree,” which refers to the Garden.

Because its waters are bountiful. Rashi is answering the question: Since it is the Nile, why is it not called by its wellknown name, the river of Egypt? We could erroneously think it is another river, and a land other than Egypt! Rashi answers: “Because its waters are bountiful... it is called Pishon.” I.e., it is called Pishon because this name conveys the river’s praise. And this raises the question: Why does the Torah tell us of this river’s greatness more than it tells of the other rivers’ greatness through their names? Thus Rashi explains that also the other rivers’ praise is conveyed by their names: “Gichon is so called because it flows and roars...” This explains why Rashi first comments on the names of [all] the rivers, and only then comments on, “To the east of Ashur,” which is not according to the order appearing in the Torah.

**But the Torah writes [these names]...**Why did Rashi not say about Pishon, regarding which it is written (v. 11), “It surrounds all the land of Chavilah,” [that the name Chavilah is based on the future]? For a man named Chavilah is mentioned [twice] in Parshas Noach (10:7, 29). The answer is: Here, Chavilah is simply the name of a territory, not named after a person. [Rashi knows this] because Pishon flows in the land of Egypt, so how could it be named after the man Chavilah [who was from a different place]? Furthermore, since it is written ארץ החוילה, with a modifying ה it must merely be the name of a territory. And this answers the question that people ask: How does Rashi know that Kush and Ashur are based on the future? Perhaps they are simply names of territories, just like Chavilah. The answer is: If so, when they are mentioned, their names should begin with a ה, like החוילה is written.

On the eastern side of Ashur. Rashi is saying that קדמת is like קדמה (to the east), since we often find a ת is written in place of a ה. But here it is written קדמת because it is connected to the word [following] אשור. And since it really means קדמה, it has the same meaning as if it had written לקדם, for the Torah places a ה at the end of a word that would otherwise take a ל at the beginning. Thus it has the same meaning as if it would have been written, “to the east of Ashur.”

The most important... Rashi derived this from the fact that it is written הוא פרת. Although the word הוא is written about all the rivers, [for example] הוא הסובב, nevertheless, only for P’ras is the word הוא written next to the river’s name. (Regarding P’ras, the Torah does not say “it surrounds” or give any identifying sign. Why is P’ras different, that it needs no sign? Because of the importance of the Land of Israel!)

He “took” him with kind words. Rashi is answering the question: The word לקיחה implies [an act of acquisition,] that before the taking it was not in the taker’s possession. But everything is in Hashem’s possession!

And persuaded him to enter. Why did Rashi not explain this earlier (v. 8), on: “And there He placed (וישם) the man?” It seems the answer is: [The import of the earlier verse] is closer to the simple meaning of its words, “placed (וישם),” [thus no difficulty arises]. But the term “took” (לקיחה), in our verse, is a term that relates only to inanimate objects or animals who naturally do not possess any intellect, whereas man’s essence is his knowledge and intellect, not his physical self. “Took” cannot be applied to knowledge, because it is not a physical object. Thus [Rashi was forced here to say that it means] inducing — i.e., inducing the mind to a different thought, similar to physically “taking” and moving an object from one location to another. (Nachalas Yaakov)

If he is not worthy, then opposite him. Rashi is answering the question: At first it is written “a helper.” Why then is it written כנגדו, implying she is against him, to fight him?

Also, it teaches you... This explanation [“On the day they were created...”] seems to apply only to the animals and beasts, which were created on the sixth day, [like man was]. But it does not apply to fowl which was created on the fifth day. Thus Rashi brought also the first explanation, “That the fowl were created from the swamps.” And the second explanation is to teach about the animals and beasts.

**You must transpose [the words]...**Rashi not only inverted the verse but also added “a name” after “Adam” and “forever” after “its name.” For without the addition of “a name,” the verse would not mean that Adam called them names. Rather it would mean “he called to it,” as in (Shemos 2:20): “Call him, and let him eat bread.” Then, the phrase of “that is its name” would not be understandable, for it cannot say “that is its name” before Adam gives it a name — since he was the one who named them. And without inverting the verse, it would seem as if Adam gave the name “living creature” to everything. That is untrue, for even without him giving it this name it was already called a “living creature.” This is because the term “living creature” includes animals, beasts and fowl. Furthermore, how could it say (v. 20): “And man gave names to every animal,” when there is only the name of “living creature”? (R’em)

From his sides. מסטריו means from his sides.

This [coincides with what] we said that they were created with two faces. I.e., this is true if we explain צלעותיו as “his sides.” But according to the simple meaning of the verse, צלעותיו are ribs.

The place of the cut. Re’m writes: This follows the opinion (Eiruvin 18a) that Chavah was made from Adam’s tail. Thus nothing was missing from his body [and only the place of the cut needed to be closed]. Whereas according to the opinion that they were first created with two faces, ויסגר בשר תחתנה follows its simple meaning: Hashem filled in the missing flesh. But I would say that even according to the opinion that they were created with two faces, nothing was missing from Adam’s body. Adam and Chavah were two faces with [full] bodies, attached at the side, and only the place of the cut was missing. One might object that the above Gemara implies that ויסגר בשר תחתנה follows its simple meaning according to the opinion that they were created with two faces. Only according to the opinion that Chavah was made from Adam’s tail, does it mean “the place of the cut.” The answer is: Even according to the opinion that they were created with two faces, they were slightly fastened, [so a little flesh needed to be filled in]. (Maharshal) The verse reads simply according to the opinion that they were created with two faces, for Adam was left without a back and his whole body cavity was open. Thus it says that Hashem “closed,” as one closes an open house or an open chest. But according to the opinion that Chavah was created from Adam’s tail, the verse reads with more difficulty — thus Rashi continued to explain that according to this opinion, it means “the place of the cut.” (Nachalas Yaakov)

So that he not see. This is from Bereishis Rabba 17:6 and Sanhedrin 39a, where Rashi explains [that “And he slept . . . and He took” was in order] that Adam should not see the piece of flesh before it was perfected. And there it is clear that this explanation follows the opinion that Chavah was made from Adam’s tail. Thus, [contrary to the order of the verse,] Rashi on this verse first explains “the place of the cut” — which also follows the opinion that Chavah was created from Adam’s tail. This was to convey that also his comment of, “So that he not see the piece of flesh” is according to the opinion that Chavah was created from Adam’s tail. *Re’m,*too,**offered this explanation. (Nachalas Yaakov)

So that it should become a woman. Rashi is answering the question: Does ויבן את הצלע לאשה not imply that He built the rib for the woman, to be used for something, rather than implying that He formed the woman from the rib? Thus Rashi explains [that the ל of לאשה means] “to become a woman.” Similarly in the verse Rashi cites, “And Gidon made it to an ephod” (Shoftim 8:27), it does not mean that Gidon made the material into something to be used for the ephod. Rather, he made the material into an ephod.

This teaches. בא אדם על כל בהמה וחיה does not mean intimate relations, for this expression is only a hint, while the matter itself is expressed in (4:1): “The man knew his wife, Chavah.” (Maharam) Another answer: It means that Adam grasped with his intellect the nature of each animal and beast, for if he did not know their nature he could not have named them. Some commentators, [understanding Rashi literally,] ask: How could Adam have intimate relations with the animals? He was commanded against illicit relations, and that includes relations with animals! However, this question is asked by the ill-informed. In Sanhedrin 38b it says that at the seventh hour Chavah was given to Adam as a mate, and at the ninth hour were they were commanded by Hashem. Thus, the command was given after pairing Chavah [with Adam]. (Divrei Dovid) Another proof that Adam sought a mate amongst the animals is that it says: “This at last is bone of my bones,” implying that in previous times it was not “bone of my bones.” Rashi explains quite similarly in Yevamos 63a. (Nachalas Yaakov)

From this [we derive]... The proof is that איש and אשה have the same root. In no other language is there an etymological reason for her being called אשה. This is because only in the Holy Tongue is the word for woman derived from the word for man.

The Divine Spirit. Rashi knows this because Adam could not have said it. Adam had no father, mother or children at that time, so what brought him to say it?

**Prohibiting to the “sons of Noach.”**As it says, “He shall cling to his wife,” and not to his fellow’s wife. The prohibition on illicit relations is derived from this verse, as if it said: “Therefore, a man shall leave his father’s wife and his mother and he may not have relations with them.” (Re’m) You might ask: What difference does it make that the Divine Spirit said it? [The answer is:] So you will not think that the verse is stating that this is the nature of things [and it is not a commandment]. For if so, it should say עוזב (“leaves”) rather than יעזוב (“shall leave”). (Maharshal) The implication of “therefore” could be explained as follows: Since I did a great kindness for Adam by forming the woman for him, [it is only right that I may make] a condition: that Adam refrain from engaging in forbidden relations. Similarly, Hashem says to Israel (Shemos 20:2): “I, Who brought you out of the land of Egypt,” implying that I brought you out on condition: that you fulfill the mitzvos. (Nachalas Yaakov)

The child is formed. In other words, the verse prohibits relations with animals, who do not form a child after relations with humans. (Re’m) It seems that according to Rashi, the verse is giving a reason for the forbidden relations: so that there be no illicit children. True, such relations are forbidden even with women too young or old to give birth, and with animals who do not conceive from humans. Nevertheless, the prohibition becomes more noticeable and visible when it produces an illicit child, a wrong that cannot be corrected.

**They did not...**It means that they did not know of modest conduct at all. Not from lack of wisdom, but because they did not need to know, for they had no evil inclination. (Tzeidah L’Derech)