Daf Ditty Chagigah 12: The Seven Firmaments

God creating the cosmos (Bible moralisée, French, 13th century)

1
§ It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yosei says: Woe to them, the creations, who see and know
not what they see; who stand and know not upon what they stand. He clarifies: Upon what
does the earth stand? Upon pillars, as it is stated:

2
 ,‫ְוַﬠמּוֶּדיָה‬ ;‫ ִמְמּקוָֹמהּ‬,‫ו ַהַמּ ְרִגּיז ֶא ֶרץ‬ 6 Who shaketh the earth out of her place, and the
.‫ִיְתַפָּלּצוּן‬ pillars thereof tremble.
Job 9:6

“Who shakes the earth out of its place, and its pillars tremble” These pillars are positioned upon
water, as it is stated:

‫ִכּי‬ :‫ַהָמּ ִים‬-‫ ַﬠל‬,‫ו ְלֹרַקע ָהָא ֶרץ‬ 6 To Him that spread forth the earth above the waters, for
.‫ְלעוָֹלם ַחְסדּוֹ‬ His mercy endureth for ever.
Ps 136:1

“To Him Who spread forth the earth over the waters” These waters stand upon mountains, as
it is stated:

-‫ַﬠל‬ ;‫ ַכְּלּבוּשׁ ִכִּסּיתוֹ‬,‫ו ְתּהוֹם‬ 6 Thou didst cover it with the deep as with a vesture; the
.‫ ַיַﬠְמדוּ ָמ ִים‬,‫ָה ִרים‬ waters stood above the mountains.
Ps 104:6

“The waters stood above the mountains” The mountains are upon the wind, as it is stated:

,‫יג ִכּי ִהֵנּה יוֵֹצר ָה ִרים וֹּב ֵרא רוַּח‬ 13 For, lo, He that formeth the mountains, and createth the
‫ ֹעֵשׂה ַשַׁחר‬,‫ֵשּׂחוֹ‬-‫וַּמִגּיד ְלָאָדם ַמה‬ wind, and declareth unto man what is his thought, that
‫ ְיהָוה‬--‫ָבֳּמֵתי ָא ֶרץ‬-‫ ַﬠל‬y‫ ְוֹד ֵר‬,‫ֵﬠיָפה‬ maketh the morning darkness, and treadeth upon the high
{‫ }פ‬.‫ ְשׁמוֹ‬,‫ְצָבאוֹת‬-‫ֱא}ֵהי‬ places of the earth; the LORD, the God of hosts, is His
name. {P}
Amos 4:13

“For behold He forms the mountains and creates the wind” The wind is upon a storm, as it is
stated:

,‫רוַּח ְסָﬠ ָרה‬ ;‫שֶׁלג ְוִקיטוֹר‬

ֶ ,‫ח ֵאשׁ וָּב ָרד‬ 8 Fire and hail, snow and vapour, stormy wind,
.‫ֹעָשׂה ְדָברוֹ‬ fulfilling His word;
Ps 148:8

“Stormy wind, fulfilling His word” The storm hangs upon the arm of the Holy One, Blessed
be He, as it is stated:

3
 ‫ וִּמַתַּחת‬,‫כז ְמֹעָנה ֱא}ֵהי ֶקֶדם‬ 27 The eternal God is a dwelling-place, and underneath are
,‫ְזֹרֹעת עוָֹלם; ַו ְיָג ֶרשׁ ִמָפֶּני‹ אוֵֹיב‬ the everlasting arms; and He thrust out the enemy from
.‫ַויּ ֹאֶמר ַהְשֵׁמד‬ before thee, and said: 'Destroy.'
Deut 33:27

“And underneath are the everlasting arms” which demonstrates that the entire world rests upon
the arms of the Holy One, Blessed be He.

And the Rabbis say: The earth stands on twelve pillars, as it is stated:

‫ }ס{ ְבַּהְפ ִרידוֹ ְבֵּני‬,‫ח ְבַּה ְנֵחל ֶﬠְליוֹן גּוֹ ִים‬ 8 When the Most High gave to the nations their
‫ְגֻּב}ת‬ ‫ַיֵצּב‬ {‫}ר‬ ;‫ָאָדם‬ inheritance, when He separated the children of men,
{‫ }ר‬.‫ }ס{ ְלִמְסַפּר ְבֵּני ִיְשׂ ָרֵאל‬,‫ַﬠִמּים‬ He set the borders of the peoples according to the
number of the children of Israel.
Deut 32:8

“He set the borders of the nations according to the number of the children of Israel”

Just as the children of Israel, i.e., the sons of Jacob, are twelve in number, so does the world rest
on twelve pillars. And some say: There are seven pillars, as it is stated:

.‫ָחְצָבה ַﬠמּוֶּדיָה ִשְׁבָﬠה‬ ;‫ ָבּ ְנָתה ֵביָתהּ‬,‫א ָחְכמוֹת‬ 1 Wisdom hath builded her house, she hath
hewn out her seven pillars;
Prov 9:1

“She has hewn out her seven pillars” Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua says: The earth rests on one
pillar and a righteous person is its name, as it is stated:

‫ְוֵאין‬ ,‫סוָּפה‬ ‫כה ַכֲּﬠבוֹר‬ 25 When the whirlwind passeth, the wicked is no more; but
.‫ ְיסוֹד עוָֹלם‬,‫ְוַצִדּיק‬ ;‫ָרָשׁע‬ the righteous is an everlasting foundation.
Prov 10:25

4
“But a righteous person is the foundation of the world”

§ Rabbi Yehuda said: There are two firmaments, as it is stated:

‫ ַהָשַּׁמ ִים‬,‹‫יד ֵהן ַליהָוה ֱא}ֶהי‬ 14 Behold, unto the LORD thy God belongeth the heaven,
-‫ֲאֶשׁר‬-‫ ְוָכל‬,‫ ָהָא ֶרץ‬,‫וְּשֵׁמי ַהָשָּׁמ ִים‬ and the heaven of heavens, the earth, with all that therein
.‫ָבּהּ‬ is.
Deut 10:14

“Behold, to the Lord your God belongs the heaven and the heaven of heavens” indicating that
there is a heaven above our heaven.

Reish Lakish said: There are seven firmaments, and they are as follows: Vilon, Rakia,
Sheḥakim, Zevul, Ma’on, Makhon, and Aravot. The Gemara proceeds to explain the role of each
firmament: Vilon, curtain, is the firmament that does not contain anything, but enters at
morning and departs in the evening, and renews the act of Creation daily, as it is stated:

,‫חוּג ָהָא ֶרץ‬-‫ַﬠל‬ ‫כב ַה ֹיֵּשׁב‬ 22 It is He that sitteth above the circle of the earth, and the
‫ְו ֹיְשֶׁביָה ַכֲּחָגִבים; ַהנּוֶֹטה ַכֹדּק‬ inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out
.‫ ַו ִיְּמָתֵּחם ָכֹּאֶהל ָלָשֶׁבת‬,‫ָשַׁמ ִים‬ the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to
dwell in;
Isa 40:22

5
 “Who stretches out the heavens as a curtain [Vilon], and spreads them out as a tent to dwell
in” Rakia, firmament, is the one in which the sun, moon, stars, and zodiac signs are fixed, as it
is stated:

,‫שָּׁמ ִים‬
ָ ‫ ִבּ ְרִקיַﬠ ַה‬,‫יז ַו ִיֵּתּן ֹאָתם ֱא}ִהים‬ 17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to
.‫ָהָא ֶרץ‬-‫ ַﬠל‬,‫ְלָהִאיר‬ give light upon the earth,
Gen 1:17

“And God set them in the firmament [Rakia] of the heaven” Sheḥakim, heights, is the one in
which mills stand and grind manna for the righteous, as it is stated:

‫ְוַדְלֵתי‬ ;‫ כג ַו ְיַצו ְשָׁחִקים ִמָמַּﬠל‬23 And He commanded the skies above, and opened the
.‫ָשַׁמ ִים ָפָּתח‬ doors of heaven;

-‫ כד ַוַיְּמֵטר ֲﬠֵליֶהם ָמן ֶלֱאֹכל; וְּדַגן‬24 And He caused manna to rain upon them for food, and
.‫ ָנַתן ָלמוֹ‬,‫ָשַׁמ ִים‬ gave them of the corn of heaven.
Ps 78:23-24

“And He commanded the heights [Shehakim] above, and opened the doors of heaven; and He
caused manna to rain upon them for food, and gave them of the corn of heaven”

Zevul, abode, is the location of the heavenly Jerusalem and the heavenly Temple, and there the
heavenly altar is built, and the angel Michael, the great minister, stands and sacrifices an
offering upon it, as it is stated:

‫ָמכוֹן‬--y‫ ָל‬,‫יג ָבֹּנה ָב ִניִתי ֵבּית ְזֻבל‬ 13 I have surely built Thee a house of habitation, a place
.‫ עוָֹלִמים‬,‹‫ְלִשְׁבְתּ‬ for Thee to dwell in for ever
I Kings 8:13

“I have surely built a house of Zevul for You, a place for You to dwell forever” And from
where do we derive that Zevul is called heaven? As it is written:

6
 ‹‫ ִמְזֻּבל ָקְדְשׁ‬,‫טו ַהֵבּט ִמָשַּׁמ ִים וּ ְרֵאה‬ 15 Look down from heaven, and see, even from Thy holy
,‹‫ ַאֵיּה ִק ְנָאְת‹ וְּגבוֹּרֶת‬:‹‫ְוִתְפַא ְרֶתּ‬ and glorious habitation; Where is Thy zeal and Thy
.‫ֲהמוֹן ֵמֶﬠי‹ ְו ַרֲחֶמי‹ ֵאַלי ִהְתַאָפּקוּ‬ mighty acts, the yearning of Thy heart and Thy
compassions, now restrained toward me?
Isa 63:15

“Look down from heaven and see, from Your holy and glorious abode [Zevul]”

Ma’on, habitation, is where there are groups of ministering angels who recite song at night and
are silent during the day out of respect for Israel, in order not to compete with their songs, as
it is stated:

‫ְיהָוה‬ ‫ְיַצֶוּה‬ ,‫ט יוָֹמם‬ 9 By day the LORD will command His lovingkindness, and
--‫ ִשׁיֹרה ִﬠִמּי‬,‫וַּבַלּ ְיָלה‬ ,‫ַחְסדּוֹ‬ in the night His song shall be with me, {N}
.‫ ְלֵאל ַחָיּי‬,‫ְתִּפָלּה‬ even a prayer unto the God of my life.
Ps 42:9

“By day the Lord will command His kindness, and in the night His song is with me” indicating
that the song of the angels is with God only at night.

7
With regard to the aforementioned verse, Reish Lakish said: Whoever occupies himself with
Torah at night, the Holy One, Blessed be He, extends a thread of kindness over him by day,
as it is stated: “By day, the Lord will command His kindness,” and what is the reason that “by
day, the Lord will command His kindness”? Because “and in the night His song,” i.e., the song
of Torah, “is with me.”

And some say that Reish Lakish said: Whoever occupies himself with Torah in this world,
which is comparable to night, the Holy One, Blessed be He, extends a thread of kindness over
him in the World-to-Come, which is comparable to day, as it is stated: “By day, the Lord will
command His kindness, and in the night His song is with me.”

With regard to the same matter, Rabbi Levi said: Anyone who pauses from words of Torah to
occupy himself with mundane conversation will be fed with the coals of the broom tree, as it
is stated:

‫שׁ ֶרשׁ‬
ֹ ‫ִשׂיַח; ְו‬-‫ד ַהֹקְּטִפים ַמלּוַּח ֲﬠֵלי‬ 4 They pluck salt-wort with wormwood; and the roots of
.‫ְרָתִמים ַלְחָמם‬ the broom are their food.
Job 30:4

“They pluck saltwort [maluaḥ] with wormwood [alei siaḥ], and the roots of the broom tree
[retamim] are their food” The exposition is as follows: Those who pluck, i.e., pause, from
learning Torah, which was given upon two tablets, luḥot, which sounds similar to maluaḥ, for the
purpose of siaḥ, idle chatter, are punished by having to eat coals made from “the roots of the broom
tree.” And from where do we derive that Ma’on is called heaven? As it is stated:

,‫ַהָשַּׁמ ִים‬-‫טו ַהְשִׁקיָפה ִמְמּעוֹן ָקְדְשׁ‹ ִמן‬ 15 Look forth from Thy holy habitation, from
,‫ ְוֵאת ָהֲאָדָמה‬,‫ ִיְשׂ ָרֵאל‬-‫ַﬠְמּ‹ ֶאת‬-‫ ֶאת‬y‫וָּב ֵר‬ heaven, and bless Thy people Israel, and the land
,‫שׁר ִנְשַׁבְּﬠָתּ ַלֲאֹבֵתינוּ‬
ֶ ‫ַכֲּא‬--‫ֲאֶשׁר ָנַתָתּה ָלנוּ‬ which Thou hast given us, as Thou didst swear unto
{‫ }ס‬.‫ֶא ֶרץ ָזַבת ָחָלב וְּדָבשׁ‬ our fathers, a land flowing with milk and honey.' {S}
Deut 26:15

“Look forth from Your holy Ma’on, from heaven”

8
Makhon, dwelling place, is where there are storehouses of snow and storehouses of hail, and
the upper chamber of harmful dews, and the upper chamber of drops, and the room of
tempests and storms, and the cave of mist. And the doors of all these are made of fire. How do
we know that there are storehouses for evil things? For it is stated:

‫אוָֹצרוֹ ַהטּוֹב‬-‫יב ִיְפַתּח ְיהָוה ְל‹ ֶאת‬
,‫ַא ְרְצ‹ ְבִּﬠתּוֹ‬-‫ ָלֵתת ְמַטר‬,‫ַהָשַּׁמ ִים‬-‫ֶאת‬
‫ַמֲﬠֵשׂה ָיֶד‹; ְוִהְל ִויָת‬-‫ ֵאת ָכּל‬,y‫וְּלָב ֵר‬
.‫ ְוַאָתּה ל ֹא ִתְלֶוה‬,‫גּוֹ ִים ַרִבּים‬
12 The LORD will open unto thee His good treasure the
heaven to give the rain of thy land in its season, and to
bless all the work of thy hand; and thou shalt lend unto
many nations, but thou shalt not borrow.
Deut 28:12

“The Lord will open for you His good storehouse, the heavens” which indicates the existence of
a storehouse that contains the opposite of good.

RASHI

The Gemara asks a question: With regard to these things listed above, are they located in heaven?
It is obvious that they are located on the earth. As it is written:

9
 ,‫ַתּ ִנּי ִנים‬ --‫ָהָא ֶרץ‬-‫ ִמן‬,‫ ְיהָוה‬-‫ז ַהְללוּ ֶאת‬ 7 Praise the LORD from the earth, ye sea-monsters,
.‫ְתֹּהמוֹת‬-‫ְוָכל‬ and all deeps;

,‫רוַּח ְסָﬠ ָרה‬ ;‫שֶׁלג ְוִקיטוֹר‬

ֶ ,‫ח ֵאשׁ וָּב ָרד‬ 8 Fire and hail, snow and vapour, stormy wind,
.‫ֹעָשׂה ְדָברוֹ‬ fulfilling His word;
Ps 148: 7-8

“Praise the Lord from the earth, sea monsters and all depths, fire and hail, snow and mist,
stormy wind, fulfilling His word”

The verse seems to indicate that all these things are found on the earth. Rav Yehuda said that Rav
said: David requested mercy with regard to them, that they should not remain in heaven, and
He brought them down to earth. He said before Him: Master of the Universe,

‫שׁע‬ַ ‫ ל ֹא ֵאל ָחֵפץ ֶר‬,‫ה ִכּי‬ 5 For Thou art not a God that hath pleasure in wickedness;
.‫ ל ֹא ְיֻג ְר‹ ָרע‬:‫ָאָתּה‬ evil shall not sojourn with Thee.
Ps 5:5

“You are not a God that has pleasure in wickedness, evil shall not sojourn with You”

In other words, You are righteous, O Lord. Nothing evil should sojourn in Your vicinity.
Rather, it is better that they remain close to us. And from where do we derive that this place is
called “heaven”? As it is written:

,‹‫לט ְוַאָתּה ִתְּשַׁמע ַהָשַּׁמ ִים ְמכוֹן ִשְׁבֶתּ‬ 39 then hear Thou in heaven Thy dwelling-place, and
,‫ְדּ ָרָכיו‬-‫ ְוָנַתָתּ ָלִאישׁ ְכָּכל‬,‫ְוָסַלְחָתּ ְוָﬠִשׂיָת‬ forgive, and do, and render unto every man according
‫ַאָתּה ָיַדְﬠָתּ‬-‫ ִכּי‬:‫ְלָבבוֹ‬-‫ֲאֶשׁר ֵתַּדע ֶאת‬ to all his ways, whose heart Thou knowest--for Thou,
.‫ְבֵּני ָהָאָדם‬-‫ְלַבב ָכּל‬-‫ ֶאת‬,‹‫ְלַבְדּ‬ even Thou only, knowest the hearts of all the children
of men--
I Kings 8:39

“And You shall hear in heaven, the Makhon of Your dwelling”

Summary

Rav Avrohom Adler writes:1

Size of Adam

1
http://dafnotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Chagigah_12.pdf

10
The Gemora asks: Why does the verse need to say, “from the day when Hashem created man on
the earth,” once we learned that one may not inquire about anything outside of the skies from the
end of the verse, which says to ask, “from one end of the sky to the other”? The Gemora answers:
It teaches us the size of Adam, as Rabbi Elazar says that originally he reached from the ground to
the sky, but when he sinned, Hashem placed His hand on him, and diminished him, as the verse
says that “You have formed me before and after and placed Your palm on me.”

Rav Yehudah quotes Rav saying that Adam originally reached from one end of the world to the
other, as the verse refers to the day when Hashem created Adam on the land, “and from one end
of the sky to the other”, but when he sinned, Hashem placed his hand on him and diminished him.
The Gemora reconciles the two measures for Adam's original measurement by saying they are
equivalent.

First day of creation

Rav Yehudah quotes Rav listing ten things that were created on the first day: heaven and earth (as
the verse says that in the beginning, Hashem created the heaven and the earth), tohu and bohu (as
the verse says that the world then was tohu and bohu), light (as the verse says that Hashem said
“let there be light”), darkness (as the verse says that the darkness was on the face of the depths),
wind and water (as the verse says that the wind of Hashem was on the face of the water), the length
of a day and the length of a night (as the verse says that it was night and day on the first day).

The braisa states that tohu is a green line that surrounds the entire world, from which darkness
emanated. Bohu is moist stones which are submerged in the depths, from where water emanates.
The braisa proves that darkness surrounds the world from the verse which says that Hashem places
the darkness around the sky, and the nature of tohu and bohu from the verse which says that
Hashem placed on it a line of tohu and bohu stones.

The Gemora challenges the statement that light was created on the first day, from the verse which
says that Hashem placed the celestial lights in the sky on the fourth day, and answers with Rabbi
Elazar's statement that the light Hashem created on the first day was a different light, with which
one may see from one end of the world to the other.

When Hashem saw the future actions of the generations of the flood and the tower of Bavel, he
hid this light, as the verse says that He withheld the light from the wicked. He stored it away for
the righteous to enjoy it in the future, as the verse says that Hashem saw that the light was tov –
good, which is a reference to the righteous, as the verse says that we should say to the righteous ki
tov – that [he] is good. When Hashem saw this light stored away, He was happy, as the verse says
that the light of the righteous causes joy.

The Gemora says that this is a dispute of Tannaim, as the braisa cites Rabbi Yaakov saying that
the first day's light was this special light, while the Sages say it was the light of the celestial lights,
which was created then, but only placed in the sky on the fourth day.

Attributes used to create the world

11
Rav Zutra bar Tuvia quotes Rav listing the ten attributes used to create the world: wisdom and
reason (as the verse says that Hashem established the land with wisdom, and prepared the heavens
with reason), understanding (as the verse says that with His understanding, the depths were broken
through), strength and courage (as the verse says that Hashem prepares the mountains with
strength, and He is girded with courage), reproach (as the verse says the columns of the land were
weak and shook from His reproach), righteousness and justice (as the verse says righteousness and
justice are the base of Your throne), and kindness and mercy (as the verse implores Hashem to
remember His mercy and kindness, as they are eternal).

Expansion

Rav Yehudah quotes Rav saying that when Hashem created the world, it was expanding like two
warp strings, until Hashem reproached them and they stopped, as the verse says that the pillars of
the world were weakening, and they shook from His reproach. This is consistent with Rish Lakish's
statement that Hashem's name of Sha-dai refers to Hashem's saying dai – enough to the world.
Rish Lakish says that when Hashem created the sea, it was expanding until Hashem reproached it,
and dried it, as the verse says that Hashem is the One who reproached the sea and dried it.

Order of creation

The Gemora cites a braisa with a dispute about the order of creation. Bais Shammai says the
heavens were created before the land, as the verse says that in the beginning, Hashem create the
heavens and the earth, while Bais Hillel says the opposite order, as the verse refers to the day that
Hashem created the earth and the heavens. Bais Hillel challenged Bais Shammai from the normal
practice of first building a house and only then the upper level, as the verse refers to the heavens
as the upper level of the world. Bais Shamai challenged Bais Hillel from the normal practice of
first building a chair, and only then building a footrest, as Hashems says that the heavens are His
throne, and the earth is the place of His feet. The Sages dispute both, and say that they were created
simultaneously, as the verse says, “My hand established the earth, and My right hand spread the
heavens.”

The Gemora explains that Bais Shammai and Bais Hillel explain that verse to only mean that they
remain attached, but not describing how they were created. The Gemora asks how to reconcile the
verses cited by Bais Shamai and Bais Hillel, and Raish Lakish answers that Hashem created heaven
first, but placed the earth first.

The Gemora offers explanations for the meaning of the word shamayim – heaven:

1. sham mayim – water is there (Rabbi Yossi bar Chanina)

2. aish umayim – fire and water, as Hashem mixed the two to create the heavens (braisa)

Rabbi Yishmael asked Rabbi Akiva while they were walking, what his Rebbe, Nachum Ish Gam
Zu, learned from the words es preceding shamayim - heavens and eretz - earth in the creation, as
he would explain the lessons of each instance of es. He answered that without the one preceding
shamayim, we may have thought that shamayim was a name of Hashem, while the es before eretz
teaches that they were not created simultaneously.

12
The Gemora asks why the next verse begins by describing the eretz, even though the preceding
verse began with the heavens. Rabbi Yishmael answers with a parable. If the king told his servants
to arrive early in the morning, and find both women and men who did so, he first praises the
women, who are not accustomed to rising so early. Similarly, the earth is not as quick as the
heavens, and therefore is more deserving of praise for being ready at the same time.

Basis of the land

The Gemora cites a braisa in which Rabbi Yosi bemoans people who see without understanding
and stand without knowing what they are standing on. He explains that the earth rests on the pillars,
as the verse refers to the earth's pillars.

The pillars rest on the water, as the verse says that Hashem places the land on the water.
The water rests on the mountains, as the verse says that one the mountains the water stands.
The mountains rest on the wind, as the verse refers to Hashem as the former of mountains, and
creator of wind.
The wind rests on the storm, as the verse refers to the wind of the storm fulfilling His will.
The storm is in the arm of Hashem, as the verse says that underneath, is the Eternal arm.

The Sages say that the earth rests on twelve pillars, as the verse says that Hashem established the
boundaries of the world, to the number of the sons of Israel (i.e., the 12 tribes). Some say there are
seven pillars, as the verse says that Hashem hewed its seven pillars. Rabbi Elazar ben Shamua says
it is one pillar, whose name is tzadik, as the verse says that the tzadik- righteous is the foundation
of the world.

Levels of heaven

Rav Yehudah says there are two levels of heaven, as the verse says that Hashem has both the
shamayim – heaven and shmai hashamayim – the heaven of the heavens.

Raish Lakish lists 7 (vilon, rakia, shechakim, zevul, ma'on, machon, and aravos), and lists the
function of each one:
1. Vilon (curtain) only goes in at morning, and out at night, recreating the light and dark cycle of
creation, as the verse says that Hashem spread the heavens like dok – a curtain, and He tightened
them like a tent.
2. Rakia is the place where the celestial bodies are located, as the verse says that Hashem placed
them in the rakia of the heavens.
3. Shechakim is the location of the heavenly mill, which provides man for the righteous, as the
verse says that Hashem commanded the shechakim above, and opened the doors of heaven, and
rained on them man to eat.
4. Zevul is the location of the upper Yerushalayim and Bais Hamikdash, with an altar on which
Micha'el offers sacrifices, as Shlomo said when he built the Bais Hamikdash, “I have built a zevul
house for You, an eternal dwelling place.” The verse which beseeches Hashem to look from the
heavens and see, from the zevul of Your holiness and glory teaches that zevul is considered heaven
as well.

13
5. Ma'on is the location of the angels who praise Hashem at night, and are silent during the day,
out of deference to Bnai Yisrael, as the verse says that during the daytime Hashem commands His
kindness (i.e., instructing the angels to be silent, to enable the prayers for His kindness to be heard),
and at night, His song is with me. Raish Lakish says this verse teaches that anyone who learns
Torah at night (i.e., His song is with me) merits a thread of kindness in the day (He commands His
kindness during the daytime). Some say that Raish Lakish explained it to mean that anyone who
learns Torah in this world, which is like night, will merit a thread of kindness in the world to come,
which is like day. Rabbi Levi says that if one interrupts learning Torah to involve himself in
chatter, he is fed coals, as the verse says that those who grab maluach (i.e., grab themselves away
from Torah which is lach – moist, or which was written on luchos – tablets) on siach (to siach –
speech), will have the roots (i.e. coals) of resamim as their food. The verse which asks Hashem to
“look from the ma'on of Your holiness, from the heaven” teaches that ma'on is considered heaven.
6. Machon is the location of storehouses of destructive weather (snow, hail, harmful dew, floods,
storms, and heat), with doors of fire. The verse refers to Hashem opening for you His good
storehouse for rain implies that there is a storehouse for destructive weather. The Gemora
challenges this, as the verse says fire, hail, snow, heat, and storms praise Hashem on the earth,
since they do His will, indicating that these reside on the earth. Rav Yehuda says in the name of
Rav that Dovid requested that they be lowered to the earth, as he said that Hashem does not desire
evil, and therefore evil things like these should not dwell next to Him. The verse which says that
Hashem will listen from the heavens, “the machon of Your dwelling” teaches that they are also
called heaven.
7. Aravos is the location of righteousness, justice, charity, the reservoirs of life, peace, and
blessing, the souls of the righteous, the souls that will yet be created, and the dew with which
Hashem will resurrect the dead.

The Gemora cites verses for each of these:

1. Righteousness and justice: righteousness and justice are [in] the machon of Your dwelling.
2. Charity: And He wore charity like armor, which must be in Aravos, which is closest to Hashem's
honor.
3. Reservoirs of life: because with You is the source of life.
4. Reservoirs of peace: and Hashem called peace to Him.
5. Reservoirs of blessing: and he will carry a blessing from Hashem, indicating that blessings are
close to Him.
6. The souls of the righteous: and my master's soul will be attached with a lifeline with Hashem,
indicating that they are close to Him.
7. The souls that will be created: because the soul, which is before Me will envelop, and souls that
I have made.
8. The dew to be used for resurrection: You will save the rain of gift (which will resurrect).

In this level are also the angels (ofanim, serafim, holy chayos, and angels of service), and
Hashem's throne of honor, and Hashem dwells on top of them, as the verse says to praise Hashem,
which rides atop aravos.

We know that this is considered heaven, since the same word rochev – riding is used in the
preceding verse which refers to aravos, and in another verse which refers to Hashem as the One
who rides in the heaven.

14
The Gemora says that darkness, clouds, and fog surround Hashem. The Gemora challenges this
from the verse which says that Hashem reveals all hidden things, knows what is in the dark, and
has light dwelling with Him, indicating that there is no darkness around Him.

The Gemora answers that in the inner chambers there is no darkness, but in the outer chambers
there is.

CIRCUMFERENCE OF THE WORLD, CREATION OF DARKNESS AND

THE BLESSING ON THE MANNA *

Adam HaRishon initially stood from the ground until the heavens. Upon sinning, HaShem placed
His hand on Adam and diminished his stature. The Chasam Sofer (Chulin) asks: One Gemora says
that the circumference of the world is equivalent to a person’s journey around the world for five
hundred years; yet the Rambam in his introduction to Mishnayos Seder Zeraim states that the
world is precisely twenty-four thousand milin. How can these two different measurements be
reconciled?

The Chasam Sofer goes to great lengths, with extraordinary calculations, illustrating how every
word of Chazal is precise and accurate.

Ten items were created on the first day of creation; tohu and vohu were two of them. The Gemora
states that tohu is a green line, which surrounds the entire world and darkness emerges from it.

Reb Yaakov Emden comments that it is evident from this Gemora that ‘darkness’ is something
physical, not merely an absence of light. There can be a distinction between the darkness in the
night, which may be only an absence of sunlight and the darkness which was created during the
Six Days of Creation. The darkness of the ninth plague was also not the regular darkness, but
rather, one of a miracle.

Rabbi Sinclair says regarding the plague of darkness: The Torah describes the plague of darkness
thus: "And there was darkness on the land of Egypt and the darkness removed the light." When
the Torah tells us the "the darkness removed the light" it means that darkness is not the absence of
light, it means that darkness is a creation just as much as light is a creation. In the normal course
of events, G-d allows light to push away the darkness. In the ninth plague, He chose to reverse
nature's polarity and it was the darkness that removed the light. Rabbi Winston cites the Vilna
Gaon: G-d said to Moshe, "Stretch out your hand towards Heaven, so that darkness will come over
Egypt, a darkness which can be felt (vayamaish)." (Shemos 10:21)

What is a "darkness which can be felt"? Why do we ask such a question? Because to us, darkness
is merely that absence of light, the result, for example, of when the sun leaves our part of the world
for another. However, the truth is that it is not so simple, as the Vilna Gaon (Gra) indicates:

"There are some who say that light is an independent creation, and that darkness is an
independent creation, not like those who say that darkness is just an absence of light. In truth,
it is not like this, but rather, darkness is in fact an independent creation that is pushed away by

15
light, and that's the way The Holy One, Blessed is He, made nature. Therefore, here (in this
plague), G-d changed nature, because it says, 'a darkness which can be felt,' which means that
the darkness 'pushed' away the light, and not the light, the darkness (the root of the word
'vayamaish' is from 'and he [Yehoshua] didn't move (yamish) from his tent (Shemos 33:11)'."

Kol Eliyahu, Bo 53

In other words, says the Gra, the posuk means "a darkness that can move light."

A sefer called HaK'sav v'HaKabbalah on Parashas Bereishis also quotes the Gra saying that
darkness is in fact an independent creation. However, the Radak seems to hold that darkness is the
result of an absence of light.

The Talmud, which treats darkness as an "object," seems to provide support for the Gra's opinion:
This is what it means to say: G-d called to the light and commanded it in the mitzvos of the day,
and G-d called to the darkness and commanded it in the mitzvos of the night (Pesachim 2a) As
well, the Talmud states that: We must mention the "trait" of night during the day blessings, and
the "trait" of day during the evening blessings, to counter the heretics who claim that He who made
the day did not also make the night. (Brochos 11b)

If darkness is only the absence of light, then how could the heretics think such a thing? We would
only be dealing with one creation, the creation of light, and the lack of its presence. (Nevertheless,
the Bach on theTur considers darkness to only be an absence of light, though there are so many
proofs to support the Gra.)

The Gemora stated that there are various heavens and each one of them have different functions.
In shechakim there are mills that grind manna to the righteous. The Bnei Yisoschar quotes the
Rama Mipano that in the World to come by the feast of the Livyasan, a jar of manna that was
hidden in the times of Yoshiyahu will be taken out and the righteous will recite the blessing, “He
who brought out the bread from the heavens” before eating the manna.

Sefer Chasidim (1640) and the Zohar in Parshas Beshalach concur. There are those that disagree
and state that there is no blessing recited on eating manna because the purpose of a blessing is to
separate the favorable portions of the food away from the parts which have an adverse effect; the
manna that fell in the Wilderness was purely spiritual and it did not require any separation.

Perhaps the Rama Mipano was only referring to the manna in the future. Sefer Gan Raveh posits
that perhaps the blessing of “mezonos” should be recited on the manna because the Torah records
that it had a taste of dough mixed with honey. Birkas Aharon writes that the Gemora Brochos (35a)
rules that it is forbidden to derive pleasure from anything in this world without reciting a blessing
beforehand. The manna, he says, was not from this world, and therefore did not require a blessing.
(Sedeh Tzofim)

16
In discussing the construction and assembly of the Mishkan and its vessels with Betzalel, Rashi
writes that Moshe initially suggested that the vessels should be built before the Mishkan itself.
Betzalel disagreed and maintained that the structure should be constructed before its contents so
that the utensils would have a place to rest upon their completion, a position to which Moshe
subsequently acquiesced.

Tosefos (Berachos 55a) notes that the wording of the verses in Parshas Terumah seems to support
the opinion of Moshe, while the order used in Parshas Ki Sisa is in accord with Betzalel’s position.
I once read a beautiful explanation of the dispute between Moshe and Betzalel based on a
comparison to a similar disagreement.

The Gemora in Chagigah (12a) records that Beis Hillel claimed that the Earth was created before
the Heavens, while Beis Shammai maintained the opposite. Beis Hillel issued a challenge
strikingly similar to that of Betzalel, asking Beis Shammai whether it is customary for a person to
first build an attic (the Heavens) and only afterward the house (Earth).

The Rogatchover explains that this dispute was over a more profound question: which has more
importance, the means to accomplish a goal or the goal itself?

The ultimate purpose of life is to earn a portion in the World to Come, yet the mechanism for doing
so is the performance of mitzvos in this world. Beis Shammai focused on the goal and held that
the Heavens were created first, while Beis Hillel argued that because it is impossible to get there
without the proper means, the Earth was created first.

Similarly, the focus of our lives is to elevate and perfect our souls, but the mechanism for doing
so is the observance of the Torah with our bodies. Initially, a person’s soul was dominant, but after
Adam sinned the body became superior. The mystics write that although the Gemora rules in
accordance with the opinion of Beis Hillel, in the Messianic era the law will be like the position
of Beis Shammai.

We may symbolically explain that at present, the body (means) prevails, and we follow the rulings
of Beis Hillel. When Moshiach comes, the soul (purpose) will once again be dominant as it initially
was, and we will conduct ourselves according to Beis Shammai. When the Jewish people
enthusiastically accepted the Torah at Mount Sinai, they purified themselves to reach Adam’s pre-
sin level (Shabbos 146a).

This new state was brief in duration, as they lost it when they sinned with the golden calf. With
this introduction, we can now explain that the purpose of the Mishkan was the Divine Service
which took place inside through its vessels, while the Mishkan itself merely represented the means
to accomplish this goal.

Moshe wasn’t present during the sin of the golden calf and didn’t recognize the spiritual decline
which had befallen the people. As such, he instructed Betzalel to make the vessels and then the
Mishkan as he had been instructed in Parshas Terumah before the sin of the golden calf, when the
Jewish people were on a level to follow the opinion of Beis Shammai. Betzalel, on the other hand,
recognized what had transpired and knew that they were no longer able to conduct themselves on

17
such a lofty plane. He therefore suggested following the order of Parshas Ki Sisa, which was given
after the sin of the golden calf (Rashi 31:18).

Moshe recognized the unfortunate truth behind Betzalel’s logic and conceded that his opinion was
to be followed, remarking, “You were in the shadow of Hashem.” Moshe was hinting that, unlike
himself, Betzalel had witnessed the national downfall during the sin of the golden calf when the
people returned to living in Hashem’s “shadow” without a soul-dominated clarity of
understanding, and therefore Beis Hillel’s logic once again prevailed!

CHANUKAH -- PHYSICAL ACTIONS, SPIRITUAL POTENTIAL

Rav Mordechai Kornfeld writes:2

The Gemara records a dispute between Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel with regard to what was
created first, the heavens (Shamayim) or the earth (Aretz). Beis Shamai says that the Shamayim
was created first. Beis Hillel says that the Aretz was created first.

This dispute reflects a fundamental difference in ideology between the two schools. Beis Shamai
always focuses on the potential ("Ko'ach") inherent in the subject, while Beis Hillel focuses on the
part of that potential which is realized through actions ("Po'el") in the physical world.

Beis Shamai considers the primary component of creation to be the potential that it contains,
because the ability to do any act in this world comes from that potential, spiritual energy. The
source of all Ruchniyus (spiritual energy) is the Shamayim (from which the Neshamah originates).
Since the Shamayim is the primary part of creation, it had to be created first.

Beis Hillel maintains that the "Po'el," the actual execution of actions in the physical world, is the
primary component of creation. This is because the world was created for the sake of enabling
people to accomplish and perfect themselves in the physical world of Olam ha'Zeh. Since the
physical world is the primary part of creation, it had to be created first.

This difference in ideology is expressed in other disputes between Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel. In
Shabbos (21b), Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel disagree about how the Chanukah lights are to be
kindled. Beis Shamai maintains that they are kindled in descending order, with eight lit on the first
night and one lit on the eighth night. Beis Hillel says that they are lit in ascending order, with one
lit on the first night and eight lit on the eighth night.

This dispute is based on their difference in ideology. Beis Shamai maintains that the "Ko'ach," or
potential, has primary importance. Hence, on the first night of Chanukah, the oil which burned in
the Menorah in the Beis ha'Mikdash contained not only the miracle for that night, but also
the potential to remain lit for the remaining seven nights. Since the oil contained the potential for
eight days of miracles, that number of candles is lit on the first night. Beis Hillel, on the other

2
https://www.dafyomi.co.il/chagigah/insites/cg-dt-012.htm

18
hand, maintains that the "Po'el," the realization of the potential, is most important. Since only one
actual miracle occurred "b'Po'el" on the first night of Chanukah, only one candle is lit. By the
eighth night, eight miracles had occurred "b'Po'el" and thus eight candles are lit.
Similarly, in Kesuvos (17a) Beis Shamai says that a Kalah is praised with whatever attributes she
has ("Kalah Kemos she'Hi"). This is because a Kalah is praised for her potential ability to endear
her Chasan, which is measured according to the attributes inherent in her that are visible to the
average person. Beis Hillel, however, says that she is praised with generous words of praise
("Kalah Na'ah v'Chasudah") for attributes which are not readily noticeable in her. This is because
she is praised not for her potential, but for what actually occurred: her Chasan was attracted to her,
and thus he must have seen in her such noble attributes.

Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel also disagree with regard to the text of the blessing recited over the
flame during Havdalah on Motza'i Shabbos. Beis Shamai says that the text is "Bara Ma'or ha'Esh,"
while Beis Hillel says that the text is "Borei Me'orei ha'Esh." Beis Shamai says that the blessing
should be made on the original concept of fire which contained the potential for all future fires.
The text of the blessing, therefore, should be in the singular form, "Ma'or," since it is a single
concept. In contrast, Beis Hillel says that the blessing should be made on the actual fire which
appears before us, which can be described in terms of the different colors that comprise it, and thus
it may be referred to in the plural form (see Berachos 52b).

(This approach is related to the approach presented in Insights to Berachos 52:2 in the name of
the ROGATCHOVER GA'ON, who explains that the disputes between Beis Shamai and Beis
Hillel reflect their ideological difference as to whether an object's Chomer (substance) or Tzurah
(essence) is its primary part. The Rogatchover Ga'on elaborates on this in TESHUVOS
TZAFNAS PANE'ACH #50 and in many other places; see the eulogy of the compiler of
Teshuvos Tzafnas Pane'ach after Teshuvah #255, Rav Zevin's L'OR HA'HALACHAH, chapter
on "snow," footnote 11, Rav Menachem Kasher's introduction to TZAFNAS PANE'ACH on the
Torah, Parshas Bereishis.)

BEYOND TIME
The Gemara points out that the Torah describes the details of the creation of the land (Aretz;
Bereishis 1:2) before it describes the details of the creation of the heavens (Shamayim), even
though the Shamayim was created first (Bereishis 1:1). The Gemara explains (through a metaphor)
that the reason is because the Aretz is more praiseworthy than the Shamayim since it is not the
normal manner for the Aretz to act with alacrity and it nevertheless responded swiftly at the time
of creation. RASHI explains, "All earthly acts are sluggish, while heavenly acts occur swiftly."

The MAHARAL (in GUR ARYEH to Shemos 12:17, and GEVUROS HASH-M, ch. 36)
elaborates on this concept when he explains the meaning of the words of the Mechilta. The verse
says, "Guard the Matzos from becoming Chametz, for on this very day I took your multitudes out
of Mitzrayim" (Shemos 12:17). Rashi there quotes the Mechilta which says in the name of Rebbi
Yoshiyah, "Do not read the word as `Matzos,' but rather as `Mitzvos': 'Keep the Mitzvos from
becoming Chametz' -- for just as one should not allow Matzos to ferment, so should one not allow

19
Mitzvos to 'ferment.' Rather, when a Mitzvah comes into your hand, do it immediately." The verse
teaches that all Mitzvos must be done with Zerizus, alacrity.

The Maharal questions the Derashah of the Mechilta. First, how can Rebbi Yoshiyah change the
reading of the word in the verse in order to superimpose his homiletical interpretation? Normally,
there must be some indication from the theme or context of a verse which supports such an
interpretation; the suggested "change" in the reading of the verse is merely a tool to demonstrate a
point which can be learned from the straightforward reading of the verse itself. What, then, is the
connection between the simple meaning of the verse and Rebbi Yoshiyah's homily?

Second, in what way does a Mitzvah become "fermented," or spoiled, if not performed
immediately?

The Maharal addresses these two questions by examining the nature of the Mitzvah of Matzah.
The Torah says, "Do not eat Chametz...; for seven days you shall eat Matzos... because you left
Mitzrayim in haste" (Devarim 16:3). The Torah clearly states that the purpose of the Mitzvah to
eat Matzah on Pesach is to remind the Jewish people of the haste with which they left Mitzrayim.
They were so hurried that "they baked the dough which they had taken out of Mitzrayim into cakes
of Matzah, because they were expelled from Mitzrayim and were not able to delay" (Shemos
12:39; see also Seforno to Shemos 12:17, and the Pesach Hagadah).

Why, though, does the Torah command us to remember that the Exodus occurred so swiftly and
suddenly?

The Maharal explains that the lesson of the haste is that Hash-m Himself (as opposed to any natural
force) took the Jewish people out of Mitzrayim. Any act done directly by Hash-m takes place
instantaneously; there is no element of mass or matter related to Hash-m. A physical object has
inertia which it must overcome in order to be set into motion. Hash-m, Whose actions are purely
spiritual and are unimpeded by any physical qualities, acts with infinite speed. Furthermore, Hash-
m exists outside of the framework of space and time, and, therefore, even when His actions are
executed in the physical world they can take place without the passage of time.

This is the key to understanding the Mitzvah of Matzah. The Matzah reminds the Jewish people
how rushed the events were at the time of the Exodus. This haste is the mark of a Divine act. It is
the sign that the hand of Hash-m was at work, shaping the nation's destiny. "'Hashem took us out
of Mitzrayim' -- It was not an angel, Seraph, or messenger, but Hash-m Himself Who took us out
of Mitzrayim" (Pesach Hagadah). By requiring that we remember the swiftness of the Exodus, the
Torah ensures that the future generations will realize the extent of Hash-m's love for the Jewish
people.

This is the meaning behind Rebbi Yoshiyah's interpretation of the verse. The reason why a Mitzvah
should be done swiftly is because any act of Hash-m is beyond time. A Mitzvah is the Divine will
in this world. When one performs a Mitzvah, he should demonstrate that it is not merely a mundane
act. He should show that he is fulfilling the will of the Creator. By performing a Mitzvah with
Zerizus, one gives the act the mark of the Creator and shows that the act he is doing is Hash-m's
will.

20
This is also the meaning of the "fermenting" of a Mitzvah. When one performs a Mitzvah slowly,
with no eagerness or enthusiasm, he makes it appear as though the Mitzvah is a worldly act ("all
earthly acts are sluggish"). In this sense, the Mitzvah becomes "fermented" or "spoiled." In order
to prevent a Mitzvah from becoming a fermented, mundane act, one must perform it with the
attribute of Zerizus, the attribute of Shamayim, of the spiritual world, to show that it is the will of
Hash-m.

ON WHAT DOES THE WORLD STAND

The Gemara quotes Rebbi Yosi who says, "Woe to those who see but do not know what they see,
and who stand but do not know upon what they stand." He proceeds to describe what supports the
world. The world is supported by pillars, which are supported by water. The water is supported by
mountains, which are supported by the wind (Ru'ach). The wind is supported by the tempest
(Se'arah), which is supported by the mighty arm of the Holy One, Blessed is He.

Why does Rebbi Yosi bemoan the fact that people do not know on what they stand? Why do they
have to know what supports them?

The MAHARSHA explains that Rebbi Yosi means that people do not realize that the world
depends on the choices they make, and that their proper use of their ability of free choice has a
great effect on the state of the world.

1. "The world is supported by the pillars" refers to the pillars of Torah, Avodah, and Gemilus
Chasadim, or the pillars of Din, Emes, and Shalom, which sustain the world (Avos 1:2, 1:18).
2. The pillars in turn stand on water, which alludes to the Torah (Bava Kama 17a). It is the Torah
which instructs a person how to strengthen the pillars upon which the world stands.
3. "The water is supported by mountains." The mountains refer to the Avos and the Tzadikim (see
Megilah 17b). This means that the Torah is supported by the Avos and other Tzadikim, for it is
they who choose to use the Torah to create the three pillars that sustain the world.
4. The mountains, in turn, are supported by the wind (Ru'ach), an allusion to the Neshamah (see
Bereishis 7:22) which the Tzadikim use to exercise their free choice.
5. The wind is supported by the tempest (Se'arah). "Se'arah" is related to the word "Sa'arah" or
"Se'ir" which refers to the Yetzer ha'Ra (which appears as a hair, see Sukah 52a, and is related to
Esav, who is also called "Se'ir"). The first step in activating one's free choice is to overcome the
Yetzer ha'Ra. (It is the existence of the Yetzer ha'Ra which allows the possibility of Bechirah, free
choice.)
6. In turn, the Se'arah stands on the mighty arm of Hash-m, which means that one who desires to
overcome the Yetzer ha'Ra cannot do so on his own, but he needs Hash-m's assistance (as the
Gemara says in Kidushin 30b).

The dispute between the Tana'im about how many pillars support the world -- twelve, seven, or
one -- is based on the Gemara in Makos (24a) which discusses how many primary sets of Mitzvos
there are. "David ha'Melech narrowed down the 613 Mitzvos to twelve.... Yeshayah narrowed
them down further to six... until Chabakuk came and narrowed them down to one: Emunah, faith
in Hash-m."

21
According to the opinion here that there are twelve pillars which support the world, these pillars
are the eleven primary Mitzvos plus the Mitzvah of Emunah. According to the opinion here that
there are seven pillars, these pillars are the six primary Mitzvos (as Yeshayah counts them) plus
the Mitzvah of Emunah. The opinion which says that the world stands on only one pillar is in
accordance with the view of Chabakuk who says that there is only one primary Mitzvah, the
Mitzvah of Emunah.

Steinzaltz (OBM) writes:3

The Mishnah (11b) taught that ma’aseh bereshit – the secrets of creation – can be taught only to a
single student, while ma’aseh merkavah – the secrets of the supernatural – can only be taught to a
single student, if he is a scholar who has the ability to understand on his own. How are the
terms ma’aseh bereshit and ma’aseh merkavah to be understood?

The Rambam interprets ma’aseh bereshit as the study of science generally, and ma’aseh
merkavah as the study of the supernatural. Tosafot and the Bartenura suggest that these involve
the study of shemot – use of the holy names of God in an attempt to understand the secrets of
creation and Godly intervention in the workings of the world. The Tosafot Yom Tov argues that
what is limited is not merely the study and analysis of these secrets, but their use in performing
supernatural acts.

Our Gemara brings teachings of the Sages that touch on these areas of study. One example is the
dispute between Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel about the order of creation. Bet Shammai argues
(based on the passage in Bereshit 1:1) that the shamayim – the sky, or firmament – was created
before the earth, while Bet Hillel points to a later pasuk (verse) (Bereshit 2:4) that seems to
indicate that it was the earth that was created before the heavens. Bet Hillel also argues from a
logical perspective, that the attic of a house is built only after the foundation and building are
complete (see Amos 9:6), while Bet Shammai views the heavens as God’s chair and the earth as
His footrest (see Yeshayahu 66:1), and argues that the chair should precede the footrest.

A compromise position is laid out by the Chachamim, who point to another passage in Sefer (Book
of) Yeshayahu (48:13) as indicating that the heavens and earth were created simultaneously. One
explanation of this position is that the heavens and earth can be compared to a clay pot and its
cover that are placed in the furnace so that they will harden.

It is only if they are placed in the furnace together that the potter can be certain that the cover will
be a perfect fit to the finished pot.

3
https://www.ou.org/life/torah/masechet_hagigah_612/

22
In the context of presenting Maaser Sheni, the Torah (Devarim 26:15) states that we declare that
we have provided for the needy ones among us. We then ask from Hashem that He “Gaze down
from Your holy habitation (‫)קדשך מעון‬, from the heavens, and bless Your people Israel…” It is
noteworthy that Hashem’s dwelling in the sector of ‫ מעון‬is also featured in the verse in Tehillim
(68:6): “Father of orphans and Judge of widows is G-d, in the habitation (‫ )מעון‬of His holiness.” 4

There are people who extend merciful gestures toward the poor and who perform acts to remedy
the plight of orphans and widows. Few, however, actually open their spacious homes for the sake
of the needy. Rather, they suffice in providing a meager home for them, albeit secure, in which
they remain. As described in the verse in Tehillim, however, Hashem sets a higher standard for us
to follow. Hashem raises and cares for the widow and the orphan in the “‫ ”מעון‬of His holiness.

Consequently, only when a person follows this example can he declare about himself: "I have
given to the stranger, to the orphan and to the widow as invited guests in my own home as You
have directed me to do." It is precisely this level of kindness which brings a person to turn to
Hashem and request that He should look upon all of us from His holy habitation - “‫”קדשו מעון‬.

Our Gemara tells us that there are seven levels in the heavens. Among them is the “‫”זבול‬, where
the heavenly city of Yerushalayim is situated. It is there that the celestial Beis Hamikdash and altar
are located, and where the angel Michael stands and brings offerings. Above that is the corridor
named “‫ מעון‬,“where groups of ministering angels sing God's praise all night but remain silent
during the day in deference to the Jewish nation who sing His praise at that time. ‫ חכמה משך‬explains
that, as we have seen, Hashem cares for orphans in the “‫“ מעון‬sphere, which is accordingly to be
understood as being at a level even higher than that at which korbanos are offered (‫)זבול‬.

This being the case, we can appreciate the ruling of the Gemara (Sukkah 49b) that when one
performs tzedakah, he is achieving a mitzvah even greater than the offerings, as it says in Mishlei
(21:3): “Performing charity...is preferred by Hashem to an offering.”

The language of the berachah on the appearance of the new moon1 means literally which” ‫אשר‬
‫ ”במאמרו ברא שחקים‬is “With his utterance He created heavens” and refers to the sun and moon that
are found in the heavens.

The commentators, however, challenge the wording of the beracha from our Gemara that states
clearly that the sun and the moon are not in the ‫ שחקים‬but rather in the ‫ רקיע‬,and the correct language
of the .‫ אשר במאמרו ברא רקיע‬be should berachah.

The Aruch HaShulchan (2) points out the language of the berachah on the appearance of the new
moon was formulated by R’ Yehudah who disagrees with Reish Lakish and states that there are
only two levels in heaven rather than seven.

4
https://www.dafdigest.org/masechtos/Chagiga%20012.pdf

23
Furthermore, it is logical to assume that the names of the two levels would be ‫ רקיע‬and ‫ שחקים‬since
those are the terms found in Tanach. Accordingly, although there may be seven levels in heaven
they are nonetheless grouped into two, namely ‫ רקיע‬and ‫ שחקים‬,and the sun and the moon are
affixed in the level R’ Yehudah calls ‫שחקים‬. T

he Eishel Avrohom Butchach (3) suggests that the term ‫ שחקים‬that appears in the berachah is based
on the verse that states4 ‫— שחקים ובגאותו‬and in His majesty through the upper heights. The monthly
renewal of the moon testifies to Hashem’s majesty in the upper heights because it testifies to His
capacity to renew creation and that He does so ex nihilo ‫מאין יש‬and all of creation, including the
sun and the moon, is powerless. Hashem’s conduct of providing food for tzadikim also testifies to
His power to create something from nothing.

Tzadikim do not invest effort to obtain sustenance and yet food is provided for them, seemingly
ex nihilo. Therefore, the term ‫ שחקים‬is used to connect these two concepts to one another. Just like
‫ שחקים‬is the place in heaven where Hashem arranges sustenance for tzadikim, which is a
manifestation of Hashem’s capacity to create something from nothing, so too the renewal of the
moon testifies to Hashem’s capacity to create something from nothing and the term ‫ שחקים‬is thus
appropriate.

Someone once came to speak with the Ahavas Yisroel of Vizhnitz, zt”l, but the Rebbe was deeply
immersed in his learning and would not permit an interruption. It was only after he was through
with his set order of study that he turned to his visitor and asked what seemed to be a question out
of context. “Are you my good friend?” the Rebbe asked. “But of course!” the man answered. “If
so, why have you been trying to feed me burning hot coals?

The Gemara in Chagiga 12b says in the name of Rav Levi that anyone who interrupts his Torah
study to engage in mundane conversation is punished by being fed burning coals…!”

We see a similar exchange between Rav Boruch of Gurlitz, zt”l, and a visitor. Once, while the Rav
was sitting and learning, this person came in to ask a trivial question. Although another person in
the room tried to prevent the man from interrupting the Rav’s learning, he could not quiet the loud
and insistent stranger.

24
The moment he managed to distract the Rav; Rav Boruch turned to him with a sardonic expression.
“Why don’t you sit down and share a meal with me?” “Rebbe, what do you mean?” asked the man.
“In Chagiga 12 we find that anyone who interrupts his learning to speak mundane matters is fed
burning coals. Since you are so insistent on interrupting my seder, I expect that I will have a table
companion when this delicacy is served!”

Rav Eliezer Shick has remarked on this subject, “Very often, if a person is finding it difficult to
concentrate on his studies, he will find himself tempted to console himself by striking up a
conversation with a friend in the beis midrash. But what a mistake this is! If he can’t learn at that
moment, nu. But how could he be so abysmally unaware of the consequences of interrupting
someone who is learning! At the very least, he should have mercy and not disturb those who would
otherwise be immersed in Torah study!”

R. HEATHER MILLER WRITES:5

On our daf, the question is: Which came first? But the subject here is not the chicken or the egg.
It is: heaven or earth?

Beit Shammai says: The heavens were created first and afterward the earth was created, as it is
stated: “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” (Genesis 1:1)

Beit Shammai begins by insisting heaven was created first because it is mentioned before the earth
in the very first verse of the Torah. Beit Hillel counters with a verse that reverses the order:

Beit Hillel says: The earth was created first, and heaven after it, as it is stated: “On the day
that the Lord God made earth and heaven.” (Genesis 2:4)

To argue more fully for their position, Beit Hillel now explains why Beit Shammai’s reasoning is
wrong:

Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai: According to your words, does a person build a second floor
first and build the first floor of the house afterward? As it is stated: “It is God who builds the
divine upper chambers in the heaven and has founded God’s vault upon the earth.” (Amos
9:6)

In the prooftext cited from Amos, Hillel notes that heaven is likened to an upper chamber, and
earth to a lower room. It doesn’t make sense, Beit Hillel argues, that one would build a second
floor before constructing a first floor. Therefore, earth must have been created first.

Beit Shammai counters with a different metaphor for the relationship between heaven and earth.
Drawing in this time Isaiah 66:1 — “So said the Lord: The heavens are My seat, and the earth My
footstool” — Beit Shammai compares the earth not to a lower room in a house, but to a footstool

5
https://www.myjewishlearning.com/author/rabbi-heather-miller/

25
that sits below the throne of God, which is the heavens. One wouldn’t construct the footstool before
constructing the throne, so clearly heaven was created first.

So, which was it?

This discussion reminds me of another text by the 11th-century Spanish Rabbi Bachya Ibn
Pakuda, Duties of the Heart, which asks another “which came first” question: master or servant?
Ibn Pakuda notes that one cannot be a master if one is not being served, and one can only be a
servant if one has a master to serve. Each exists only if the other does — therefore they come into
being at the same time.

Back on today’s daf, this is essentially what the rabbis conclude about heaven and earth:

The rabbis say: Both this and that were created as one, for it is stated: “Indeed, My hand has
laid the foundation of the earth, and My right hand has spread out the heavens; when I call
to them, they stand up together.” (Isaiah 48:13)

Heaven and earth were created together — yachdav, which comes from the word echad, meaning
one. They were created as one and neither could exist without the other.

But why then, the Gemara can’t help but wonder, does Genesis 1:1 mention heaven first,
while Genesis 2:4 mentions earth first? Reish Lakish suggests the following explanation:

Reish Lakish said: When they were created, God first created the heavens and afterward created
the earth, but when God spread them out and fixed them in their places, God spread out the
earth and afterward God spread out the heavens.

Creation, suggests Reish Lakish, took place in two steps: first heaven and earth were created
(heaven first), and then they were affixed in their assigned spaces (earth first). The accounts for
the order in which they are mentioned in Genesis 1:1 and 2:4 respectively.

As a final postscript, a beraita (an early rabbinic teaching) is brought in to support the idea that
they were created together:

Shamayim (“heaven”) means esh umayim (“fire and water”) which teaches that the Holy One,
Blessed be He, brought them both and combined them together, and made the firmament from
them.

That’s just like the rabbis — to answer an “either/or” question with a “both, together.”

Rabbi Jeremy Rosen writes:6

6
Mytalmudiclearning.com

26
For the rabbis, there is seemingly no higher value than learning. But is all learning
encouraged? The famous mishnah on today’s page that opens the second chapter of Chagigah
warns against the study of certain subjects:

One may not study (dorshin) forbidden sexual relations with three nor the act of creation with
two individuals, nor the chariot with one person unless he is wise and understands things on his
own.

Dorshin, rendered above as study, can either mean to learn or to teach. If it is to learn, then it means
that one should do so with an expert in limited company. If it means to teach, then it must be done
in a very small tutorial where students get lots of attention.

Why must the study of these three subjects — forbidden sexual relationships (e.g. parent and child
or brother and sister), the divine act of creation, and God’s heavenly chariot (a term, deriving from
Ezekiel’s vision of God’s heavenly chariot, that the rabbis use for mystical speculation) — be so
tightly controlled? What makes them so dangerous?

In a few days we will come to the famous talmudic story of four rabbis who entered the Pardes —
by which we understand that they delved head-first into some of these subjects. Only one, Rabbi
Akiva, emerged unscathed. The story was made famous to many 20th century Jews through Rabbi
Milton Steinberg’s novel-length treatment of it, As a Driven Leaf. Steinberg speculated that the
danger of these subjects was the allure of rationalistic, scientific inquiry which could potentially
disprove Judaism.

But another interpretation is that these three subjects open the door to the admission of Greek
values. For example: What is the problem with studying forbidden sexual relations? Perhaps just
talking about the details of sexual unions is dangerous because it might lead students to want to
experiment themselves. And given the permissive Greek attitude towards sexuality, the rabbis
feared it might lead young people away from religious discipline.

Our mishnah continues with more warnings:

Whoever looks (mistakel) at four matters, it would have been better if that person had not been
born: what is above and what is below, what was, and what will be.

And anyone who has no concern for the honor of his maker, should not have been born.

The term mistakel means to look but it has more intensity than the typical verb used for
looking, ro’eh. Mistakel can also mean to consider, to philosophize. And this is a hint about what
is meant — these are areas of philosophical and mystical endeavor, questions about what is above
in the heavens, and deep below the earth, in the underworld, as well as questions of what came
long ago before creation, and questions about seeing into the future.

Perhaps, too, the rabbis were concerned that too much abstract speculation would lead to
frustration. Scripture tells us that King Solomon said: “The more you know, the more your
frustration.”(Ecclesiastes 1:18) Maybe there's a limit to what we can know about what has

27
happened before the world was created and what's going to happen in the future. It's a question of
emphasis and the rabbis wanted us to focus on thinking about and living in the present as a moral
person.

The Gemara will go on to talk about the source for this mishnah. The rabbis find a verse from the
Torah that proves that the study of these subjects should be tightly controlled. But they are unable,
and conclude that it is a matter of logic. It’s just common sense, they decide, that teaching people
dangerous subjects should be done in small tutorials with select students, not giant lecture halls
that are open to all. And some things are best not studied.

And one final footnote: When the rabbis say that it would have been better if someone had not
been born, this is not likely meant to be understood literally. Instead, think of it as a hyperbolic
way of saying that such a person is not fulfilling his or her human potential in making the present
a priority. These alluring and dangerous subjects can pull us away and make it a struggle to stay
rooted in our own time and place.

Rabbi Johnny Solomon writes:7

There are some subjects which are so delicate, and so open to misunderstanding, that they should
only be taught in very small groups. Specifically, we are taught in Mishna Chagigah 2:1 in today’s
daf (Chagigah 11b) that a Torah teacher should not attempt to explain the laws of forbidden
relationships (‫ )עריות‬that are not explicitly stated in the Torah and which require exegesis to derive
their details before a crowd of three or more students (i.e. they may do so if teaching one or two
students). Moreover, they should not attempt to share exegetical insights relating to the manner in
which the world was created (‫ )מעשה בראשית‬before two or more students (i.e. they may do so if
teaching a student one-to-one). And moreover, they should not attempt to share exegetical insights
relating to the Divine Chariot (‫ )מרכבה‬to any individual student unless that student was ( ‫אלא אם כן‬
‫ )היה‬wise and can derive matters on their own having been taught the foundation of a subject.

You will note that the Mishna uses an unexpected word. Rather than stating that the ‫ מרכבה‬can be
taught to a student who ‘is’ wise (‫)אלא אם כן הוא חכם‬, it states that it can be taught to a student who
‘was’ wise (‫)אלא אם כן היה חכם‬. Addressing this point, Rav Yosef Chaim explains (in his ‘Ben
Yehoyada’) that a teacher should not begin their teaching of a student with mystical subjects such
as the Divine Chariot (‫)מרכבה‬. Instead, a student who wishes to learn this should have already
studied a substantial amount of non-mystical content from their teacher, and as a result of the
teacher being satisfied with the wisdom of their student (i.e. they know that the student ‘was’ wise),
they can then make the decision to teach them about the Divine Chariot (‫)מרכבה‬.

From here we learn a number of important lessons: Firstly, that the authentic study of Jewish
mysticism only occurs when studying directly from a teacher (which is why Jewish mysticism is
called ‫ – קבלה‬meaning the act of directly ‘receiving’ wisdom from a teacher). Secondly, that it can
only begin once a student has achieved a full understanding of the core Jewish teachings and texts
(eg. Tanach, Mishna, Gemara). And finally, that such study can only begin once a student has

7
www.rabbijohnnysolomon.com

28
demonstrated the Torah thinking skills to independently derive authentic conclusions having first
been taught the foundation of a given Torah subject.

Rav Amnon Bazak writes:8

Much ink has been spilled in the attempt to define the terms "peshat" and
"derash,"[1] which have their origin in the teachings of Chazal.[2] It could happen that in a given
debate over the explanation of a verse, everyone could agree that one of the proposed
interpretations is a "peshat" one, while the other interpretation is a "derash” one, and yet disagree
with one another as to which one is which! In fact, a well-known aphorism contends that "My
interpretation of the verse represents the peshat (i.e., the plain meaning of the text), while yours
represents derash (a homiletical lesson representing a different level of interpretation)." For the
purposes of our discussion, we will assume the following definition:

"Peshat assumes that 'the Torah speaks in the language of human beings,'[3] and that it
should be understood in the same manner in which human speech is usually understood –
i.e., in accordance with the rules of grammar and syntax, with consideration for textual

8
https://etzion.org.il/en/tanakh/studies-tanakh/core-studies-tanakh/peshat-and-derash-1

29
 context, and within the framework of that which human rational thought deems
plausible,[4] of social convention, and of the laws of nature. Derash assumes that the Torah
does not speak in the language of man,[5] and it must be understood in special ways, with
attention paid to elaboration and superfluities, and using the hermeneutical laws."[6]

A huge body of midrashic literature was created, starting from the time of Chazal and up
to the end of the Middle Ages. Midrashei Chazal were widely disseminated and highly popular
among Torah scholars – especially those midrashim familiar to us from the commentaries of Rashi,
who was fond of integrating them into his work. For many scholars, a large number
of midrashim became integral to the content of the text itself.

Midrashim may be divided into two main types: midrashei halakha, pertaining to laws that
are derived from the verses or based upon them; and midrashei aggada, pertaining to the non-legal
parts of the Torah. In this chapter we will be discussing midrashei aggada and our attitude towards
them; in the next chapter we will turn our attention to midrashei halakha.

In recent years in Israel, we have witnessed two different trends within the Religious-
Zionist community: on the one hand there are rabbis and religious Tanakh scholars, many of them
graduates of Yeshivat Har Etzion and associated institutions, who propound the study
of Tanakh on the level of peshat, sometimes making cautious use of academic tools and the
accumulated knowledge of the academic world. Amongst this group special mention should be
made of Rabbi Mordekhai Breuer, zt”l, and – may they live long – Rabbi Yoel bin Nun and Rabbi
Yaakov Medan, who have raised a generation of students and students' students who
study Tanakh in depth, on the level of peshat, as an integral part of the world of the beit midrash.

On the other hand, there are rabbis and scholars of a more Charedi-National (Chardal)
orientation, who view the study of Tanakh on the level of peshat as a dangerous innovation, and
therefore rule out the study of peshat of Tanakh in our generation. Tanakh is not studied much
amongst these circles, and the main approach to such study relies on midrashei Chazal or exegesis
in Hassidic or kabbalistic style.[7]

In this chapter we will seek to demonstrate that the approaches that ignore the level
of peshat represent a substantial deviation from the path of most of the major medieval biblical
commentators. These commentators interpret the text on the level of peshat and proceed from the
assumption that God's word, as recorded in the Books of Tanakh, finds expression on the level
of peshat, too – perhaps principally so[8] – and for this reason someone who wants to study God's
word must know how to understand the meaning of the text on its plain level. They emphasize that
the complementary insights offered by derash do not obligate the scholar of peshat, and they do
not rule out the legitimacy of an interpretation that ignores these insights. In this chapter we will
cite some comments in this spirit from the classical biblical commentators and examine the
ramifications of this approach for Tanakh study in our generation.

b. The attitude of the Geonim to midrash aggada

30
 The distinction between peshat and derash is apparent already in the writings of the
Geonim of Babylonia, who in many instances are reluctant to be bound to midrashic interpretations
of verses. We shall briefly review the attitude of the Geonim to the midrash.[9]

It appears that it was Rabbi Sa'adia Gaon,[10] the first rabbinic biblical commentator, who
established the principle that "we do not rely on aggada,"[11] thereby setting the precedent for
many of the Geonim to take a different view from that expressed in the midrash – obviously, with
a clear distinction between halakha, as binding, and aggada, as non-binding. Rav Sherira Gaon
writes explicitly:[12]

"Those matters which are inferred from biblical verses, known as midrash and aggada, are
but conjecture; some of them are substantiated … but many are not – such as R. Akiva's
teaching that the 'gatherer' [of wood on Shabbat, referred to in Bamidbar 15] was
Tzelofchad,[13] or R. Shimon's assertion that 'the fast of the tenth month' refers to the
10th of Tevet,[14] and they mention each opinion, but as for us – 'a man is praised according
to his reason' (Mishlei 12:8). Likewise the aggadot brought by their disciples' disciples,
such as Rabbi Tanchuma and Rabbi Ushia and the like – most of them are not
substantiated, and therefore we do not rely on the words of aggada. The correct
interpretations among them are those which may be backed up by logic and by the text,
but there is no limit or end to aggadot."[15]

According to Rav Sherira Gaon, aggada should be regarded as an educated opinion, not as
an authoritative tradition handed down, and therefore the exegete has every right to accept or reject
it. The guiding principle, in his view, is the question of the extent to which the aggada is based on
reason and grounded in the text. Where the connection is strong, the aggada may be accepted;
where it is not, "we do not rely on the words of aggada.”

A similar view was adopted by Rav Shemuel ben Chofni Gaon,[16] who drew a clear
distinction between matters of halakha and matters of aggada, in terms of the obligation to accept
them:

"Aggada is any interpretation brought in the Talmud that does not explain a commandment.
This is Aggada, and one should only rely on it within reason. You should know that all
laws that the rabbis [of the Talmud] enacted on the basis of a commandment come directly
from Moshe our Teacher, may he rest in peace, who received them from the Almighty. One
may neither add nor detract from them.But when [the rabbis] interpreted [non-legal] verses,
they were expressing their own opinions and what happened to occur to them. We rely on
these interpretations only when they are reasonable."[17]

A similar view is expressed by his son-in-law, Rav Hai Gaon:[18]

"Rav Hai was asked concerning the distinction between aggadot written in the Talmud,
regarding which we are charged to remove their corruptions, and other
written aggadot outside of the Talmud. He replied: Everything included in the Talmud is
clearer than that which was omitted. Nonetheless, with respect to the aggadot included
therein, if it cannot be reconciled or it has been corrupted, one should not rely upon it, for

31
 we have a principle that one does not rely upon aggada. Yet, we are charged to correct the
distortions in anything included in the Talmud, for if a teaching did not contain a midrash,
it would not have been included in the Talmud. But if a text lies so corrupted, beyond
anyone’s ability to edit it, then we must treat it as words which are not legally binding. But
regarding other aggadot we are not obligated to pay so much attention: if they are true and
correct, they should be studied and preached, if not, they should be ignored."[19]

Rav Hai Gaon maintains that a distinction should be drawn between the aggadot found in the
Babylonian Talmud, and those that do not appear there. In the case of the latter, the guiding
principle is that "if it is reasonable and good – it is studied and taught; if not – we do not pay
attention to it." Concerning the midrashim that appear in the Gemara, on the other hand, greater
efforts should be exerted in order to understand them, but here too – "if they make no sense, and
have been corrupted, they are not to be relied upon."

Elsewhere the Geonim discuss the midrashic interpretation of the verse, "And it shall be
on that day that there shall be no bright light (or yekarot) but thick darkness (ve-
kipaon)" (Zekharia 14:6):

"What is the meaning of the terms 'yekarot' and 'kipaon'? Rabbi Elazar taught: This means
that the light that is precious (yakar) in this world, is considered of no value (kapuy) in the
World to Come. R. Yochanan taught: These refer to the laws concerning leprosy and the
ritual impurity of a tent in which there lies a corpse; these are dear [i.e., acquired at great
cost, requiring great effort to understand] in this world, but are cheap [i.e., easily
understood] in the World to Come. R. Yehoshua ben Levi taught: These refer to people
who are honored in this world but will be considered unimportant in the World to Come."

The Geonim devote brief discussion to these interpretations, but conclude: "These are
all midrashim and aggadot… and there are other ways of understanding this verse."[20]

To conclude this brief review, let us consider what Rabbenu Chananel[21] writes in his
commentary on Chagiga 12a concerning the many midrashim cited there: "These are
all midrashim, and we should not be too exacting with them, holding them up to rational
evaluation."

The critical attitude of the Geonim towards midrash was not passed down to later
generations. During the Middle Ages the attitude changed, and midrash came to occupy a central
and significant place in Jewish scholarship. For instance, in his Introduction to the Commentary
on the Mishna, the Rambam writes:

"Do not imagine that the midrashim brought in the Talmud are of little importance, or of
little value. They serve an important purpose, insofar as they include some profound
allusions to wondrous matters, accessible to those who study these midrashim in depth.
From them we understand something of the absolute, unsurpassed good, and they reveal
some Godly matters, matters of truth, which these wise men concealed within them, and
which have been sought by generations of philosophers."

32
 Nevertheless, despite the value given to midrashim, the distinction
between derash and peshat is still maintained, and the legitimacy of peshat as an independent
level of interpretation in its own right is preserved.9

APPENDIX – THE HISTORY OF THE PHRASE, “THE TORAH SPEAKS IN

THE LANGUAGE OF HUMAN BEINGS”
Originally, the statement that "The Torah speaks in the language of human beings" was
meant in a rather limited context. Rabbi Akiva's approach was that it is necessary to seek the reason
for every instance where the Torah uses an expression involving a repetitious phrase – such as
"hikaret tikaret" (Bamidbar 15:31); "bashel mevushal" (Shemot 12:9); "shaleach
teshalach" (Devarim 22:7), etc., while Rabbi Yishmael rejects this exegetical principle,
maintaining that "the Torah speaks in the language of human beings" – i.e., in using these
grammatical forms, the Torah does not mean to teach us anything extra; rather, the situation is
"Just as when a person is telling his friend to do something: if he wishes to urge him, he repeats
himself and commands him twice over; thus, the text doubles its language, in order to urge [us]"
(Torat Chaim, Bava Metzi'a 31b). For instance, concerning the verse, "That soul shall surely be
cut off (hikaret tikaret), its iniquity is upon it" (Bamidbar 15:31), Rabbi Akiva teaches:
"'Hikaret' – [teaches that the soul will be cut off] from this world; 'tikaret' – [it will be cut off]
from the World to Come" (Sanhedrin 64b), but Rabbi Yishmael rejects this interpretation,
maintaining that the Torah is simply "speaking in the language of human beings."

This debate is related to the exegetical approach in general: while R. Akiva tended towards
extensive, far-reaching exegesis, R. Yishmael adhered more closely to the plain meaning of the
text.10
It should be noted that many of the Rishonim extended the use of the principle that "the
Torah speaks in the language of human beings" to apply also to the expressions in the Torah that
seem to attribute some corporeality to God. Thus, for example, the Rambam writes (Hilkhot
Yesodei haTorah 1:12): "…All such [descriptions] and the like which are related in the Torah and
the words of the Prophets – all these are metaphors and imagery. [For example,] 'He who sits in
the heavens shall laugh' (Tehillim 2:4); 'They angered Me with their emptiness' (Devarim 32:21);
and 'As God rejoiced' [ibid. 28:63]. With regard to all such statements, our Sages said: 'The Torah
speaks in the language of man.'"

Similarly, Radak writes (in his commentary on Yirmiyahu 14:8), "In many places the Torah
speaks about the Creator using the language of man, attributing to Him sight and hearing and smell,
a hand, a foot – in the manner of human speech, but all is meant metaphorically, so that people can
understand." 11

9
Translated by Kaeren Fish
10
On the differences between their respective approaches concerning midrash, see A.J. Heschel, Heavenly Torah: As Refracted
Through the Generations, Bloomsbury 2006, pp. XLI-LIX.
11
For an in-depth discussion on the use of the phrase from the period of the Talmud through to the Rambam and its connection to
the philosophy of religious language, see Margalit and Halbertal, Idolatry, Harvard University Press, 1992, pp. 54-62.

33
[1] See, for example, A. Touitou, Rabbi Chaim Ben Attar u-Perusho Or ha-Chaim al ha-Torah, Jerusalem 5742, p. 48, p. 13; S.
Kamin, Rashi – Peshuto shel Mikra u-Midrasho shel Mikra, Jerusalem 5746, pp. 11-17; M. Ahrend, Parshanut ha-Mikra ve-
Hora'ato, Jerusalem 5766, pp. 9-31.
[2] For discussion of Chazal's use of these terms and their meaning, see Kamin, pp. 32-48; D. Weiss Halivni, Peshat and Derash,
New York-Oxford, 1991, pp. 54-76; Ahrend, pp. 9-16. It is unanimously agreed that it is difficult to find a distinct and clear system
in the way Chazal related to the differences between the two concepts.
[3]See the appendix to this shiur for a discussion of the history of the phrase, “The Torah speaks in the language of human beings.”
[4] Obviously, it is clear that the biblical commentator lives within a certain cultural world, and his understanding of the peshat is
inseparable from this world. Nevertheless, this does not mean that we cannot apply the same definition to the aim of his study
(within the world that he is coming from): the desire to understand the text from within its authentic context.
[5] Obviously, the intention here is that derash assumes that the Torah does not speak only in the language of human beings; it
does not mean to negate the plain meaning of the text.
[6] A. Touitou, Ha-Peshatot ha-Mitchadshim bekhol Yom – Iyyunim be-Perusho shel Rashbam la-Torah, Jerusalem 5763, p. 55.
His insightful comment concerning other definitions (ibid. 54, n. 8) is worthy of note: "Words about the 'objectivity' of the peshat as
opposed to the 'subjectivity' of derash are in fact the evaluation of [the respective interpretations on the part of] the scholars, and
not definitions reflecting the view of the commentators."
[7] In recent years, statements have been heard such as, "We are fortunate enough to have Chazal, whose insight was close to the
level of prophecy. In the Oral Law it is they who teach us greater depth than what we, with our meager abilities, are able to grasp
ourselves. It is essential to know this, that through Chazal we see more depth… One can stand in front of a mirror and talk to
himself, but this has nothing to do with what the Tanakh is saying" (Rabbi Tzvi Tau, Tzaddik be-Emunato Yichyeh, Jerusalem 5762,
pp. 13-14); "In our beit midrash we emphasize the indispensable adherence to Chazal in studying Tanakh. Without this, the Book
of Books is not complete" (Y. Rosen, Sefer Shoftim be-Gova Chazal, Jerusalem 5765, p. 9).
In the Diaspora, sentiments along similar lines were expressed by Rabbi Aharon Kotler. See Mishnat Rebbi Aharon III:179.
[8] As we shall see below, there are different views among the medieval commentators as to whether peshat represents the most
important level of understanding, or whether it is an additional level subservient to derash.
[9] See Y. Fraenkel, Darkei ha-Aggada ve-ha-Midrash, vol. II, Givatayim 1991, pp. 504-507; Y. Elbaum, Lehavin Divrei
Chakhamim, Jerusalem 5761, pp. 47-64. Among the reasons for this attitude, as Fraenkel and Elbaum note, was the considerable
attention invested in polemics against Karaites and even Muslims, who attacked aggada from a rationalist position.
[10] Known by his initials – RaSaG (882-942), he was one of the greatest Jewish scholars in the early Middle Ages. He wrote
books in the spheres of halakha, Tanakh, philosophy, and grammar, and these were a basis for later Jewish scholarship.
[11] See B.M. Levin, Otzar ha-Geonim: Berakhot, Haifa 5688, Chelek Ha-Perushim, p. 91, and n. 10.
[12] Rav Sherira Gaon (906-1006) was the Gaon of Pumbedita, and the author of a great number of responsa. The well-
known Iggeret Rav Sherira Gaon (Letter of Rav Sherira Gaon) deals with the development of rabbinic literature, and the history
of the Talmud, the Savoraim and the Geonim.
[13]See Shabbat 96b. Rabbi Akiva bases his opinion on the hermeneutical principle of the gezera shava: "Here the text says, 'And
Bnei Yisrael were in the wilderness, and they found a man…' (Bamidbar 15:32), and later on Tzelofchad's daughters say, 'Our
father died in the wilderness' (Bamidbar 27:3). Just as the later quote refers to Tzelofchad, so does the earlier one." We may
assume that Rav Sherira Gaon's reservations concerning this identification related to the fact that if it had indeed been Tzelofchad
who had gathered wood on Shabbat, the text would have mentioned him by name – as indeed the continuation of the discussion
there would suggest: "R. Yehuda ben Beteira said to him: Akiva, either way you will have to answer for this in the future. If the
matter is as you say, then the situation is that the Torah chose to conceal his identity, but you have revealed it. And if it is not as
you say, then you are slandering a righteous man."
[14] See Rosh ha-Shana 18b, where the opposing view is cited.
[15] Cited in Sefer Ha-Eshkol, Hilkhot Sefer Torah, Albeck edition 60b.
[16]Rav Shemuel ben Chofni (the Gaon of Sura starting from the year 997, d. 1013) wrote works in different spheres, including a
Commentary on the Torah and philosophical works. For more about him see A. Greenbaum's introduction to Perush ha-Torah la-
Rav Shmeul ben Chofni Gaon, Jerusalem 5739, pp. 11-23.
[17] Translation by Dr. Moshe Simon-Shoshan: http://vbm-torah.org/archive/taggada/02taggada.htm.) This excerpt is from Mavo
la-Talmud, which is erroneously attributed to Rabbi Shemuel ha-Naggid. The work is actually an abridged translation of a work by
Rabbi Shemuel ben Chofni Gaon, entitled Mavo el Mada ha-Mishna ve-ha-Talmud; see Elbaum, p. 52, no. 11, and the bibliography
listed there. Further on there are more quotations from the writings of Rabbi Shemuel ben Chofni Gaon, the most strident among
them being an excerpt from a letter (originally published by S. Asaf, Tekufat ha-Geonim ve-Sifrutah, Jerusalem 5737, p. 283), in
which he states, with rhyming literary finesse, that while some of the early Geonim would write aggadot to draw the hearts of
readers, "we have adopted different paths in writing halakhot and traditions, and these are like fine flour, while the aggadot are
like chaff…".
In his commentary on the story of the woman medium consulted by Shaul (Shemuel I 28), R. Shemuel ben Chofni Gaon maintains
that it is inconceivable that the woman actually conjured up the spirit of Shemuel. In his view, the entire story is one of deceit on
the part of the woman, and she herself invents all the messages conveyed to Shaul. He is well aware that Chazal understand the
episode according to its plain meaning (see, for instance, Chagiga 4b; Sanhedrin 65b) – i.e., that the woman did indeed raise the
spirit of Shemuel, but he writes: "Even though what Chazal say in the Gemara suggests that the woman truly raised up
Shemuel, such statements cannot be accepted where they run counter to rational thought" (quoted in the commentaries of R.
Yehuda ben Bil'am and Radak on Shemuel I 28).

34
[18] Rav Hai Gaon (939-1038), son and heir of Rav Sherira Gaon of Pumbedita, and son-in-law of Rav Shemuel ben Chofni, Gaon
of Sura, is considered the last of the Geonim. His best-known works include Mishpetei Shevu'ot and Sefer ha-Shetarot.
[19]Translation by Mark
Goldenberg http://www.cardozo.yu.edu/sites/default/files/Berachyahu%20Lifshitz,%20Aggadah%20Versus%20Haggadah,%20T
owards%20a%20More%20Precise%20Understanding%20of%20the%20Distinction.pdf
[20] Teshuvot ha-Geonim Harkaby, siman 353.
[21] Rabbenu Chananel ben Chushiel (965-1055) was the first to write a commentary on the majority of the Babylonian Talmud.
He was one of the greatest scholars in the early period of the Rishonim.

The Old Testament cosmos.

Chaos From The Beginning

Pinchas Winston writes:12

The earth was null (Tohu) and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep… (Bereishis
1:2)

The stone the builders despised, has become the cornerstone. (Tehillim 118:22)

12
https://torah.org/torah-portion/perceptions-5762-bereishis/

35
When Dovid HaMelech wrote this posuk, he had himself in mind. He was amazed at how
Hashgochah Pratis – Divine Providence – works, how G-d takes advantage of our assumptions to
either reveal to or hide from us clues about history. Details WE take for granted can often be the
most important to Heaven, and thus, even Shmuel HaNavi was fooled by Dovid’s older six
brothers, who seemed far more qualified for leadership roles than Dovid, when it came time to
anoint the new king of Israel.

The posuk above is a great example of this axiom. It seems to be sandwiched between two amazing
possukim, one that describes the beginning of all physical matter, and one that recounts the creation
of the greatest invention of all time: light. As a result, it is often misunderstood and under-
appreciated in terms of the vital information it has to teach us about life in This World.

It is this verse that made the attack against the World Trade Center and the Pentagon in the United
States on September 11th of this year possible, and every act of evil since G-d first made creation.
If you were shocked by the attack against humanity and what has occurred since then, then you do
not know “Tohu” and the role it plays in life.

I say “shocked” as opposed to devastated, saddened, and demoralized, for even during war time
one is hurt by destruction even if it is expected. However, shock implies something out of the blue,
something that SEEMINGLY should never have happened, yet did. And, once it does, it forces us
to re-examine our assumptions about life that led to our faulty perceptions that did not allow for
such tragedies to occur in the first place. Had they, then maybe we could have avoided so many of
life’s fatal tragedies.

According to Kabbalah, the world was built upon Tohu, a fact that had not the Torah itself
mentioned it, we ourselves would have no right to speak about. For, says the Midrash, it is like
speaking about how the king’s palace was built upon a garbage dump; even it is true, it is a disgrace
for the king to recall it.

What exactly is Tohu? The Talmud itself discusses this:

A green line around the globe from which darkness emanates, as it says, “He made darkness
His secret place surrounding Him” (Tehillim 18:11). (Chagigah 12a)

Whatever this means, its effect is described in Sefer Habahir: something that creates wonder for
man (Siman 2). That is, it is very difficult to fathom just how chaotic the conditions of creation
can become.

According to Kabbalistic tradition, Tohu was the pre-creation state of existence from Rosh
Chodesh Av through the ninth of Av (the most severe part of the “Three Weeks” observed at this
time every year). In other words, if one were to count backwards from the 25th of Elul, when G-d
first began to make physical creation, into what would have been the year before creation until
what would have been the first day of the Jewish month of Av, he would arrive at the pre-creation
time that Tohu began. It continued for the next nine days, “days” being a borrowed term since time
before creation was different than time after creation began.

36
The state of existence prior to Tohu was very different. It was not a time of darkness and death,
but one of light and life. However, for the sake of man who would later require free-will to earn
his portion in the World-to-Come, the light that was the “soul” of that stage of existence was
withdrawn, effectively resulting in the death of that which existed at that time. In Kabbalah, this
act is referred to a “Shviras Hekeilim” – the Breaking of the Vessels,” also called the “Death of
the Vessels.”

As the Soul-Light ascended, the vessels that previously contained it spiritually descended to the
future location of the world we now live within. However, according to Kabbalah, they did not do
so peacefully, but rather, “piecefully,” having shattered into an infinite amount of (spiritual) pieces.
The result was the “World of Tohu” – a lifeless spiritual vacuum in the most extreme sense.

However, the fact that anything remained at all means that, on some level, G-d was still there
amongst it. Had the light of G-d not remained even in Olam Hatohu, then even the “broken pieces”
could not have survived even a moment. However, the fact that the pieces broke at all means that,
whatever level of G-d’s light remained, it was very, very minimal. Had a human being been there
at the time to witness it, he would have assumed that G-d was nowhere to be found at all, G-d
forbid.

Tohu was and is the ultimate “hester panim” – hiding of G-d’s face.

And G-d said, “Let there be light!” and there was light. (Bereishis 1:3)

Again, according to Kabbalah, this light occurred in advance of physical creation for the sake of
making it. This light would have begun to shine on the pre-creation tenth day of Av, at the
beginning of what is called “The Tikun,” – The Rectification. Its goal was to reverse the state of
Tohu and “resurrect” the broken pieces into creation as we know it. It lasted for forty-five days,
ending where the six days of creation begin.

Another question that Kabbalah asks is, even if we CAN discuss Tohu because the Torah itself
does, why bother? What is the point of recalling an unfavorable state of creation when it has long
ended; it is like reminding a sinner of his past life once he has already done teshuvah and changed
his ways!

Kabbalah answers: because the chaos did NOT end long ago.

In other words, though this remarkable Light shone and breathed new life into the broken pieces
and fabricated creation, it did not do a complete job. In fact, only as much was required to create
existence was rectified, the rest remaining “untouched” by the Light to leave room for man to
participate in the perfection of creation, just as in the case of Bris Milah. This was to be the result
of Adam HaRishon’s own actions, specifically the abstaining of eating from the Tree of
Knowledge of Good and Evil until Shabbos.

However, not only did Adam NOT rectify the remaining broken pieces and rid the world of Tohu
once-and-for-all, but he even reversed much of what the Light, under the auspices of the Creator

37
Himself, had previously rectified. The result was increased Tohu, that is, increased hester panim
– a greater hiding of G-d within creation.

There are different ways of understanding this. However, the most accurate version is the one that
G-d created many levels of angels to act out His will. In the beginning before Adam sinned, G-d
did much of the work Himself personally, which is why the Torah constantly says, “And G-d said
. . .” – a direct reference to G-d and His direct involvement.

The result of the sin was that G-d “withdrew” from public, so-to-speak, creating angels whose
entire existence is just for the sake of carrying out specific commands of G-d. It is still G-d doing
EVERYTHING, but behind the spiritual veil of a massive army of angels. We have a word for this
reality in English: Nature.

It’s those tricky angels that create the impression of randomness.

This is really the deeper understanding of the following Talmudic statement:

And it was evening, and it was morning, the sixth day (ha-shishi). (Bereishis 1:31)… The letter
“heh” (preceding the word “shishi”) is extra… to say that [G-d] made a condition with them
[creation]: “If the Jewish people accept the Five Books of the Torah, [then you are to] remain; if
not, then I will return you back to null and void.” (Shabbos 88a)
In other words, the letter “heh” which represents the number five is an allusion to the Five Books
of the Torah; the “sixth day” is also an allusion to the sixth day of Sivan, 2,448 years later at Mt.
Sinai when the Torah was destined be given. Thus, hester panim and the randomness it seems to
project is a function of the Jewish people’s acceptance and living by Torah. The more we accept
Torah, the less angels involved in daily life, the more the hand of G-d is revealed, and the eviller
goes “up like smoke” instead of buildings and people.

In a way, it works a lot like magic today. Magic today is not real, that is, it does not work above
the rules of nature, but within them. Instead, it takes advantage of people’s assumptions and
physical limitations to create false impressions that are, to the viewer, quite real. It is the fine art
of distraction where the magician does all kinds of fancy footwork to keep the entertainee mentally
engaged while he does the truly REAL and mundane thing elsewhere.

Do not misunderstand. The devastating and horrific destruction of September 11, 2001, was real.
It was real, but it was not random. It involved thousands of seemingly innocent individuals, and
the problems that it has and will leave in its wake will be truly felt. However, what we are
perceiving about it and the conclusions that most people are drawing from it are bound to be
inaccurate if they do not take into account the concept of Tohu, what it is, and its role in creation
and our lives.

First of all, G-d is completely just, 100 percent just. He can do no evil, and no evil can exist within
Him, which is where our world and EVERYTHING is located. Yet, we have witnessed what
appears to us as the ultimate evils, and many have turned away from G-d as a result, sadly. How
can G-d be SO just and SO much injustice can occur?

38
It is the ultimate optical and mental illusion, like Tohu itself, which is why, like evil itself, it cannot
exist forever.

The Tablet of Shamash depicting a solid sky with stars embedded holding up
the heavenly ocean

The Myths of Creation

MATTHEW BERKOWITZ WRITES:13

With the celebration of this coming Shabbat, we return to the beginning—specifically, to the
narrative of Creation. Counter to the way many of us were taught in our youth, the peshat (literal
sense) of Torah demonstrates clearly that God does not create the world ex nihilo (out of nothing).
God turns to the primordial building blocks, and from these materials crafts a world and all it
contains. In fact, God’s essential act over the days of Creation involves separation, boundaries,
and order. The Hebrew v-d-l (as in va’yavdil, [God separated]) is an expression that one finds
repeatedly throughout the first chapter of Genesis. Of special significance is establishing the
boundary between the water and dry land. On the third day, God declares, “‘Let the water below

13
https://www.jtsa.edu/torah/the-myths-of-creation/

39
the sky be gathered into one area, that the dry land may appear.’ And it was so” (Genesis 1:9).
How may we better understand this gathering of waters?

Renowned biblical scholar Umberto Cassuto (1883–1951), professor of Bible at the Hebrew
University of Jerusalem (1938–1951), writes that our chosen text

should be studied against the background of the myths current in the Orient, as well as . . . the
ancient epic poems of the Israelites. The peoples of the East used to tell many stories about the
battle waged by one of the great gods against the deity of the sea . . . Mesopotamian mythology
described in detail the combat of the creative god against Tiamat and his ultimate victory over
her . . . Similar myths were known to the Canaanites . . . As for the Israelites, it is clear from
many allusions in the Bible, as well as from a number of legends in rabbinic literature, that
there had existed among them an ancient poetic tradition that told of Rahav, the lord of the sea,
who opposed the will of God and would not confine his waters within given limits, until the Holy
One subdued him and slew him and fixed a boundary for the waters of the sea that they should
never pass (see Isaiah li[nes] 9–10). Here there is no trace of war between the gods as related
by the gentile myths, but only the revolt of one of the creatures against his Creator. [That said],
the underlying thought of Torah is: “Far be it from you to think, as do the Gentiles, that the sea
is endowed with an autonomous divine power that fought, as it were against the Creator of the
Universe . . . ”

Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis: Part One, 36–39

Later biblical writings and rabbinic tradition preserve what is absent in Genesis. For
instance, Psalms 74:13 declares, “You divided the sea by Your Might; You broke the heads of the
dragons on the waters”; Tractate Hagigah 12a our daf reads, “Resh Lekeish taught: ‘When the
Holy One created the sea, it continued to expand until the Holy One rebuked it and caused it to dry
up.’”

Even though Torah, as Cassuto points out, makes a clear distinction in its narrative from Near
Eastern myth, the true richness of our literary inheritance is that we were able and wise enough to
preserve oral traditions. It is these traditions that enrich our understanding and enable us to
experience the full texture of the written text. May Cassuto’s wisdom and God’s creative act inspire
us all toward learning Torah in deeper, multidimensional ways.

40
 The water, rippling under the wind

A spirit of creation and commotion

Human beings are prone to intertia, but when we let go and allow the spirit of God to move us
and change us, we may create entire worlds

And so we commence, once and ever again

together traversing another Torah year.
What shall the glowing words
reveal this time?
What encounters occur
twixt ancient verses and this-moment hearts?

41
Yael Unterman writes:14

I confess that whenever the Torah cycle comes back round to Genesis, a feeling of profound
intimidation arises in me. Every single word and letter, jot and tittle of the creation verses seems
to be packed with the mysteries of the universe; how can I skim through them as I would the back
of a cereal box?! They demand slowing to a near standstill and devoting entire essays on just one
or two words. And that is precisely what I plan to do here.

One of the most mysterious and intriguing phrases in the creation verses is ruah Elohim, the
“wind” or “spirit of God.”

On its own, the word ruah is given six possible meanings by Maimonides: the element of air; a
wind; the life force; the soul; prophecy; and willpower. Abravanel adds another meaning, speech.
As a phrase, ruah Elohim, it makes many appearances in the Tanach. We also find a similar phrase,
but with a different name of God, the Tetragrammaton: ruah YHVH (the spirit of the L-RD). In
some books, such as Samuel, both appear, and in others, neither appear. In Judges, there is
only ruah YHVH, while unusually in Isaiah 61:1, we find two for the price of one: Ruah Adonai
YHVH.[1]

We won’t delve into the meanings of all the different instances. Instead, let’s return to Genesis
1:2 and ask, what is the significance of ruah Elohim here?

For some, though not all, Christians, this spirit is the none other than the Holy Spirit or Holy Ghost
— the third entity of the trinity. It thus takes on a highly significant role in Christian theology. For
Jews, though, it barely registers on the radar. In my entire life as an Orthodox Jew, learning Torah
from numerous and varied sources, I cannot recall encountering the phrase “ruah Elohim” even

14
https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/a-spirit-of-creation-and-commotion/

42
once. More common is “ruah hakodesh,” holy spirit, generally referring to prophecy; in rabbinic
thought, this term may have superseded ruah Elohim.[2]

Can we nonetheless uncover a particular Jewish meaning to this ruah Elohim appearing so early
in the Torah — one that can speak to us in a way aligned with our general outlook? We immediately
have some basic questions to pose: What is it? How does it relate to God and creation? Why and
how does it “move upon the face of the waters?”

Let’s begin by delving into classic commentators. We discover that for some, such as Ibn Ezra,
this was a physical wind, whose role was to dry up the water; and he explains that it is referred to
here as “a wind of God” due to it acting in the service of God. In contrast, Rashi, in highly
picturesque language, tells us of its decidedly spiritual nature:

The Maharal, in his Gur Aryeh commentary on Rashi, explains that Rashi’s rejection of the
physical wind explanation is due to the verb “hovering” — because the usual verb for a physical
wind is menashevet, blowing. Indeed, the real winds with which we are familiar tend to move from
one place to another, not hover in stationary fashion above one spot.

However, we find the verb normally associated with ruah Elohim is “rests upon” (Tz-L-Ch) or
“fills” (M-L-A) someone; not “hovers” (R-Ch-F). And this verb root R-Ch-F is itself unusual. The
two other instances of its use in the Tanach refer not to winds, but to a bird hovering over its
young (Deut 32:11) and to bones shaking or trembling (Jeremiah 23:9)! Abravanel, scrutinizing
all three instances, explains that there is a movement occurring — a force causes movement. The
wind causes movement in the water; the bird comes to shake up its offspring; horror causes
Jeremiah’s bones to tremble.

43
In which case, what we have is a unique combination in all of the Bible of ruah
Elohim and merachefet that means that the divine ruah — whether physical wind or spirit
— causes motion and upheaval in the waters.

Now let’s throw into the mix one more fact: the Aramaic translations — Targum Yonatan and
Targum Yerushalmi (though not Onkelos) — add an extra, unexpected word in their translation
of Genesis 1:2, writing of a divine “ruah (de)rahamin,” a wind/spirit of mercy.[3] They likewise
translate the wind that God brings to make the waters recede after the great flood in Noah’s
time (Gen. 18:1) as ruah (de)rahamin.[4]
Why this insertion of mercy into creation, especially when we have an opposite tradition, that the
world was created with din, strict judgment?

Perhaps we can suggest two profound messages here, relating to two fundamental aspects of the
world as know it:

1) The first relates to boundaries. The wind of creation made the waters divide and recede, in
order to bring about the creation of land. God’s mercy lies in dividing everything from
everything else. Without division, we have no world, just an undifferentiated mass of water,
of primary material, or of divine infinity. The divine name, Shadai, is taken by the midrash
to mean “she’amar dai” — who told the world, enough! Namely, stop here; there is a
boundary! As it says in our daf Hagigah 12a:

44
Boundaries placed upon the sea are crucial for our survival as humans, as we see all too clearly
and terrifyingly when tsunamis and tornados overturn them. Boundaries and divisions are also
necessary for our sanity. Ben Zoma, one of the four sages who entered the Pardes, who
subsequently “went insane,”[5] is described in Hagigah 15a as standing on the Temple Mount and
behaving very oddly. He explained to the inquiring Rabbi Joshua:

Note how two of the Torah’s three “hoverings” meet in this text: the dove that hovers in
Deuteronomy, and the miniscule gap between the upper and lower waters, the gap that the ruah
Elohim must widen in order to create boundaries. We can infer that Ben Zoma lost his sanity
because he saw the world without its divisions; he gazed at the place where the waters met, and it
was essentially undivided. He had “too much honey,” in the words of the verse quoted with
reference to him in Tosefta Hagiga 2.

A lack of boundaries is associated with mental imbalance and inability to live in reality. We can
therefore appreciate the mercy of boundaries in the world and in ourselves. This is not necessarily
our end point — I believe that we should strive to transcend boundaries and move towards oneness,
God’s reality; but not in a manner that will cause us to go insane, rather with measured and wise
steps.

2) A second idea that arises from the examination of the ruah Elohim, whose purpose was to
cause commotion in the waters, is this: forces that cause turbulence and commotion,
motion, and upheaval, are creative forces.

If I were to do “bibliodrama,” by giving the water a voice, and ask it how it is feeling during this
dawn of the world, I imagine it might tell me that it did not enjoy being “upheaved” and split apart
like that. Very reasonable — who would? Yet for the world to move forward and progress, the

45
waters must of necessity divide and make room for land to appear. So too the Reed Sea many years
later had to split upon God’s command, in order to facilitate the progress of Israel’s history and
the final justice against the Egyptians. We would imagine a sea would feel very reluctant to split.
Yet, on the words (Ex. 14:27), “the sea returned to its strength,” midrash Bereshit Rabbah
5:5 makes a word play on “to its strength” (le-eytano) and changes the letter order around to “to
its stipulation” (le-tnai’o). Meaning, to the stipulation made when it was created, that when the
Israelites would arrive, it would split. After splitting in this unnatural way, the sea truly returns
to/fulfills its original stipulation.

We, like the waters, are inhabited by strong forces of inertia. We do not want to change (hollering
“who moved my cheese??“), much less split entirely apart. Yet if we can let go and allow ruah
Elohim, the spirit of the Prime Mover in the world, to hover upon us, move us and change us, then
entire worlds may be created, and history may progress.

American businessman J. Williard Marriott said: “Good lumber does not grow with ease. The
stronger the wind, the stronger the trees.” Let’s take our inspiration from the waters and gracefully
agree to the wind-driven forward motion of our lives and of the world in general, even when it is
a tad uncomfortable, and we would rather things stayed as they were. In this way, we become an
aligned and organic part of a world constantly being reinvented, as it says in our daily prayer: “God
renews, in goodness, daily and constantly, the work of Creation.”

[1] In Jewish tradition, this is pronounced, “ruah Adonai Elohim” — the vowels under YHVH are unusually those of the word,

“Elohim,” not the usual vowels for the Tetragrammaton.

[2] In the Babylonian Talmud, ruah Elohim is mentioned very few times and almost always as part of a quotation of our Genesis

verse, while ruah hakodesh, in contrast, appears several dozen times in talmudic discussions as a useful and current term for

supernatural knowledge or a prophetic-type state.

[3] The verb they use to translate merachefet is menatva/menashva, which might imply that they lean towards the physical wind

explanation.

46
[4] In this same vein, Rabbi Menachem Kasher, in his Torah Shelemah, quotes Tanhuma Yashan to the effect that these two

winds — at the time of creation and at the time of Noah — were identical.

[5] According to the version in the Tosefta and the Babylonian Talmud; Shir Hashirim Rabbah and the Yerushalmi have Ben

Azai as the one who is “nifga” i.e., goes mad.

Babylonian Map of the World (c. 600 BCE). The Old Testament concept of
the Earth was very similar: a flat circular Earth ringed by a world-ocean,
with fabulous islands or mountains beyond at the "ends of the earth"

Heaven and Earth Kiss

R. Mimi Feigelson writes:15

"In the beginning God created heaven and earth" (Breishit/Genesis 1:1)

15
https://www.aju.edu/ziegler-school-rabbinic-studies/our-torah/back-issues/heaven-and-earth-kiss

47
This verse seems to be one of the hardest verses of the Torah to comprehend. Every word begs for
multiple questions and attempts of interpretation.

For example:

Breishit (in the beginning) - If there is a beginning, what was before hand? The Talmud will
address this in one manner in P'sachim 54, when highlighting those things that existed before
creation.

Bara Elokim (God created) - again, what is the nature of creation and the Creator? Can we think
of all that was created in a form that precedes creation? Where would the Neo-Platonic
understanding of the realm of ideals dwell? Is 'creation' only a physical manifestation or one that
contains the realm of ideas as well?

An element of dichotomy that manifests as well is the split between heaven and earth. The
separation between what are known as 'the higher waters' and 'the lower waters'.

Alongside these questions it appears that as old as the world is, so too are the controversies between
Beit (the house of) Shamai and Beit (the house of) Hillel and the questions they challenge each
other with. We did not even complete one verse of the Torah and already they disagree!

"The sages have taught: Beit Shamai says: the heavens were created first and then the earth, for it
says: "In the beginning God created heaven and earth" (Breishit/Genesis 1:1); and Beit Hillel says:
the earth was created first and then the heavens, as it says: "...in the day that Hashem Elokim made
the earth and the heavens" (Breishit/Genesis 2:4)"

After they state their opening positions they bring proof texts to challenge each other. Beit Hillel
challenges Beit Shamai: "Is it reasonable that a person first creates the second story before erecting
the first story of a building?" Beit Shamai challenges Beit Hillel: "Is it reasonable that a person
would build a foot stool first and only after make a chair?" (Chagiga 12a).

It seems hard to look at this controversy at face value when thinking about the verses that they are
debating, and the plethora of questions that we began to touch upon in our opening comments to
Breishit/Genesis 1:1. Is this really what Beit Hillel and Beit Shamai being in disagreement about?
Is it really about the precedence of heaven over earth or earth over heaven? And what is the
difference if heaven was created first, or if the earth was created first. Why do we indeed have two
different verses in the first two chapters of Breishit/Genesis?

In his known work, The Lonely Man of Faith, Rabbi J.B. Soloveitchik (d.1993) lays out many
differences between the story of creation in Breishit/Genesis 1 and 2. He portrays two different
images of Adam as described in these chapters as two different ways of walking in the world: The
Adam that conquers the world, and the Adam that responds to the glory of the world. The Adam
that wants to take apart a clock, to understand the components that avail the clock to tick, versus
the Adam that wants to understand the meaning of time, the imprint that time has on our human
existence.

48
In bringing together Rav Soloveitchik and the controversy between Beit Hillel and Beit Shamai
we find ourselves asking foundational questions as to how we live our lives. What are the guiding
principles with which we interpret the reality that we live in? Do we need to be grounded in this
world before we aspire to reach for the heavens, as Beit Hillel is asking of us? Or, perhaps, without
first being able to answer questions of meaning and purpose we can't really take a step forward, as
Beit Shamai would suggest. The controversy between the two is therefore not a technical question
of the accuracy of the verses or even the process of creation, but rather a core question that we
each need to answer for ourselves. What is it that we need to function in God's world - an earth
beneath our feet or a heaven above our head?

It was only a couple of weeks ago when we read the Torah portion of Ha'azinu where there, too,
earth and heaven are called into center field. Moshe calls for the heavens to listen and for the earth
to hear (D'varim/Deuteronomy 32:1). The Ishbitzer rebbe (d.1853) in his interpretation of this
verse aligns the heaven with the mind and the earth with the heart. For the Ishbitzer rebbe the key
difference between the two is that the mind can hold onto dichotomies, realities that seem
unfathomable. The mind can comprehend simultaneously juxtapositions that the heart cannot. The
heart, he teaches, seeks for peace and harmony. The mind can accept everything while the heart
will only hold on to that which in the immediate present beckons quiet and integration.

It is in this light that Reb Shlomo Carlebach (d.1994) while teaching and performing in Poland in
1989 repeatedly said, when addressing his relationship to the Polish people in the shadow of the
Shoah: "If I had two hearts, I would love with one and hate with the other. But I only have one
heart, and I choose to love."

The Ishbitzer would smile and say, "Yes, with our mind we can hold on to 'love' and 'hate', but
with our heart we have to choose - to love or to hate."

It is here that I am left with a question and challenge: I remember hearing that the Piasetzna rebbe
(d.1944) once walked into the beit midrash (the study hall) and smacked and hugged a student
simultaneously. The student was wearing a tie, and this was unacceptable in the eyes of the
Piasetzna rebbe - having something that cuts off the connection between the mind and the heart,
like the tie around one's neck, has no room in his beit midrash.

I'm left with the challenge of connecting heaven and earth. Regardless to whether we stand in the
world as a disciple of Beit Hillel or Beit Shamai we cannot live without both. That was never the
rabbi's question - heaven and earth are a given. I know that when the Torah will be taken out of
the ark this Shabbat I will lean to kiss it as it passes me by. I know that it is only when my upper
lip, the lip closer to the heaven connects with my lower lip, the lip closer to the earth, that this kiss
possible.

With the conclusion of 'the chaggim' (holidays) and as we start our individual trek into this new
year, may we find our path to serve God with our minds and hearts. May our minds and hearts find
a language to feed each other with, a co-existence that will enable us to kiss the Torah every time
it passes us by.

49
 The Flammarion Engraving

Before the Beginning:

Appreciating the Thought of an Ancient Cosmologist

Ziony Zevit writes:16

16
https://www.thetorah.com/article/before-the-beginning-appreciating-the-thought-of-an-ancient-cosmologist

50
 :‫” ִ֑הים ֵ֥את ַהָשַּׁ֖מ ִים ְוֵ֥את ָה ָ ֽאֶרץ‬-‫א ְבֵּראִ֖שׁית ָבּ ָ֣רא ֱא‬
‫ב‬
:‫”ִ֔הים ְמַרֶ֖חֶפת ַﬠל־ְפּ ֵ֥ני ַה ָ ֽמּ ִים‬-‫ ַﬠל־ְפֵּנ ֣י ְת֑הוֹם ְו ֣רוַּח ֱא‬¢‫ְוָהָ֗אֶרץ ָה ְיָ֥תה ֹ֨תה ֙וּ ָוֹ֔בהוּ ְוֹ֖חֶשׁ‬
:‫” ִ֖הים ְי ִ֣הי ֑אוֹר ַֽו  ְיִהי־ֽאוֹר‬-‫ג ַו ֥יּ ֹאֶמר ֱא‬

Introduction: The Anti-Theistic Critique of Genesis 1

Lawrence M. Krauss is a particle physicist whose innovative research and popular publications
about cosmology have earned him an international reputation.[1] He is also a skilled writer,
entertaining speaker, and a public anti-theist. On July 17, 2013, in a lecture at the Radcliffe Institute
for Advanced Study at Harvard University, Kraus introduced his topic by saying that he was
interested in the beginning of the universe and told his audience that he would explain how it came
about by asking "Why is there something, rather than nothing?" He continued his introduction,
combining cosmology and anti-theism, saying that one way of answering the question is

In this devar torah, I propose to consider Krauss's answer to his question along with the very
different one provided in the first three verses of our parashah in the book “that doesn't explain
anything." My intention is to show that despite many differences, both answers are informed by
senses of wonderment, aesthetic delight, and a desire to understand creation scientifically within
the knowledge base and worldview of their times. Of course, the author of Genesis 1:2 could not
do what Krauss could because the author was born more than two and one-half millennia before
Krauss, well before the creation of telescopes, physics, and calculus. Nevertheless, both undertake
to explain reasonably by means of an attention-grabbing narrative what their authors inferred from
what they observed. Considered in tandem, both can generate interesting questions and induce
stimulating conversations.

51
The Opening of Genesis: Two Translations of One Longish Sentence

The opening sentence of Genesis is surprisingly difficult to translate, and many translations
misunderstand it. Yet the best translations do capture the point correctly; this may be seen, for
example, in both the Tanakh translation of the Jewish Publication Society and Everett Fox’s
“English with a Hebraic voice” translation, which render Genesis 1:1-3 as a single grammatical
sentence:

Rashi

In many ways, both of these modern translators follow Rashi, who in his second comment to verse
1, notes:

The Meaning of Verse 2

Despite the seeming concreteness of the sentence, the contents of verse 2 are unclear. What are
readers expected to imagine?

52
According to the translations offered above, verse 2 offers some background, by describing the
prevailing circumstances in the cosmos before any creative act affected it. In other words, this
verse describes what existed before God undertook creating the heavens and the earth. The first
act of creation occurs only in verse 3, when light is called into existence.

The Ordered Construction of the World: Understanding Creation: Days 2-6

Reading the rather straightforward descriptions of what occurred during days two through six
raises the following question: How did the ancient author of Genesis come up with this schema? I
propose that the speculative process underlying Genesis 1 began with the a priori assumption that
humans are the most important beings in the world and worked back from humans to what must
have existed for humans to thrive in the world.

Most obvious would be the large, domestic, and undomesticated animals that humans exploit (day
6), preceded by all manner of live creatures that swarm, creep, swim, walk and fly (day 5). There
would need to be the regular cycle of day and night, complete with sun, moon and stars that
governed longer and shorter days and dry and wet seasons (day 4). For all this to have occurred
required that there be gathered waters, and a sky, and earth, and victuals for all the creatures (days
3 and 2).[6]

On these days God either manipulates existent material elements in the world by fiat (verses 9, 11)
or, after deciding what each particular stage of his world construction project required, he makes
it for the world (verses 7,16-18, 21, 25, 27).[7] The sense of deity projected in these verses is not
that of a magician spouting words and waving his wand, but of a thoughtful master artisan at work,
involved intimately in his own project (verses 6, 14-15, 20, 24, and see 26).[8]

The ordered presentation of the world constructed from raw materials that had to be prepared and
manipulated to provide for an infrastructure and then a complicated superstructure, a self-
sustaining biosphere, is presented as a logical, comprehensible progression. Its conclusion,

53
describing the settlement of the world by creatures, each in its proper ecological niche, reflects the
ideas of someone— to paraphrase Krauss—who looked at the world and undertook to discover an
answer to the audacious, original, and retrospective question: "How did the world that I know
come about?"

Understanding What Came Before Creation

This thought process has a certain amount of common sense, as it is an attempt to describe what
is. A major problem, however, arose with imagining what existed before the world emerged in its
recognizable shape or, to paraphrase the author, before God set about creating it. At this point, the
ancient author stopped reasoning like a philosophical scientist and began to think in terms of
cosmology.

He concluded that the raw stuff, earth and water, out of which the world's infrastructure had been
made, must have existed as a shapeless, flowing slime that would later be divided into component
parts (verse 9).[9] The tehom (‫)תהום‬, an unbounded sea of fresh water (see Proverbs 8:27-28)
translated as "deep" and "Ocean" that would eventually be contained under the surface of the earth
(Gen 7:11, 8:2), also existed, but was restrained from splitting apart by a covering of "darkness."

This darkness was understood to be something real and palpable, not merely the absence of light,
as in the Egyptian darkness plague (Exod 10:21). Other waters were kept from rising up by a
horizontal wind or rushing-spirit of God (see also Gen 8:1 where a wind sent by God drives flood
waters off the land and Exod 14:21 where such a wind drives back sea waters, exposing the dry
sea floor). Thus, before the creation of the world, different types of matter moved in an otherwise
empty void. Balanced, powerful forces in relational adjacency co-existed in a cosmos that had no
light.[10] The pre-creation cosmos was filled with matter, energy, and motion.

54
“Let There Be Light” – What Was This Light?

All this began to change in v. 3, "Let there be light" (verse 3). This light, a new element in the
primeval soup, began to exist. It apparently mixed into the dark stuff immediately. That is why
God's second activity during the first day consisted of separating out the light from the dark stuff
to establish daytime, nighttime, and thereby, a measurable day (verse 4).

God later improved on the light of the first day by creating the heavenly luminaries on the fourth
day and designating their functions. The author's unlikely conclusion that disembodied light must
have been created before anything else appears to partake in the common ancient Near Eastern
conception that light was associated with comprehensible order and structure, darkness with
disorder and anti-structure.[11]

The Challenge of Describing Primal Matter

According to this story, God co-existed with primal matter. Since no world even partially
recognizable to humans existed before what the narrative refers to as "the first day," the author
imagined that the raw materials of creation had existed eternally in the same void where God later
set the earth and the heavens, the world that he had created.[12] His speculations in Gen 1:1-3
suffice to reveal that when unable to infer from direct observations, he drew secondary inferences
from primary ones, logically and imaginatively. By exerting his intellect, he pictured a pre-world
cosmos in his mind and then described it tersely in his text.

Although unable to articulate it precisely, the author of these verses indicates that he thought the
pre-world cosmos and God to be infinite in both time and space. He could not imagine that either
of these were measurable before God created the measure and concept "day" at the end of day one
and before he established physical limits that created meaningful quantifiable distances between
static objects in the world. Once time, chronological and biological, and distance could be
measured, the world and its inhabitants were understood to be finite, in the main. The mountains

55
and earth, perhaps everything falling loosely within our category of "mineral" may have been
thought of as infinite; but not those items in our categories of "vegetable" that wither away and
"animal" that die.

The uncreated cosmos, matter moving in a void, simply “was.” It existed. It had existed always
without rhyme or reason until it was turned into raw material for a world. The world, however,
created by an intelligent being, God, could be the subject of inquiry and evaluation because it had
a beginning, and, therefore, a purpose.[13]

The Septuagint Translation: A Hellenistic Interpretation

In the middle of the third century, ca. 250 BCE, an anonymous Jewish scholar, most likely from
Alexandria, who "translated" Genesis 1:1-3 into Greek, provided his readers with an interpretation,
not a translation:

In the beginning God made the heaven and the earth. Yet the earth was invisible and unformed,
and darkness was over the bottomless deep; and the breath of God was floating over the water.
And God said, 'Let light come into being;' and light came into being.[14]
The translator treated what in Hebrew is a dependent adverbial clause in verse 1, indicating the
moment at which God called light into existence, as an independent sentence informing readers
when God created the heavens and the earth. His translation/interpretation taught fellow Jews in
the Hellenistic Egypt of his day that God, who was pure spirit, as many had come to believe, had
never co-existed eternally with primal matter; rather, he created the matter ex nihilo. In this
manner, he converted a popular Hellenistic philosophical premise, based on Aristotle’s teachings,
into a biblical teaching.

For many Jews since, even those who read and understand Hebrew well, this doctrine is a truism.
When they see and read the Hebrew, they think the Septuagint translation. When they read a similar

56
translation in English or any other language, they assume that it reflects the Hebrew accurately. It
does not.

But the popular Hellenistic idea was strongly supported by Maimonides on philosophical grounds
and remains rooted in the contemporary religious thought of Judaism and Christianity.[15] Even
modern physics appears to support it.

Dark Energy - The Cosmology of Modern Physics

Physicists agree that the universe consists of matter, energy, and space-time, and that these interact
in particular ways that are described as the "laws of physics," that is, natural laws that scientists
discovered, mainly in the twentieth century, following strict methods of data-gathering,
experimentation, and quantitative analysis. According to Lawrence Krauss, the origin of the
universe as something is to be sought in primal "dark energy"—about which little is known—that
still exists in the void, filling almost all of space in our expanding universe.

Krauss explains that dark energy is "vacuum energy," a force extant in empty space that contains
neither matter nor radiation. Under such conditions, the laws of general relativity and quantum
mechanics imply that "virtual particles" come in and out of existence in so little time that they
cannot be directly observed. Although physicists have access to only some indirect effects of this
process, these suffice for them to posit that the interconversion of energy into matter and vice versa
is a regular feature of the void. This is because the posited process elegantly accounts for various
phenomena that are observed indirectly.

These virtual particles and their corresponding anti-particles, equal to them in mass with an
opposite electric charge, become actual particles spontaneously. This electron-positron pair collide
and self-annihilate, leaving trace radiating particles and empty space. Consequently, Krauss
determines on the basis of what is known in physics today that something can come into existence
from nothing.[16]

57
Cosmology, Semantics, Points of Agreement and Disagreement

Although I lack sufficient knowledge to venture an opinion about virtual particles or Krauss's use
of this idea, I would like to comment on a semantic matter in his presentation. Krauss regularly
uses similes and metaphors and non-technical, natural language to translate the meaning and
significance of complicated concepts in physics and mathematical distillations of the laws of
physics for his popular audiences. He translates science talk into what the classical rabbis call “the
language of people (‫”)לשון בני אדם‬. When, it comes to the term "nothing," however, he plays loosely
with English semantics.

His "nothing" is filled with energy that is quantifiable. This energy that converts itself into or
precipitates an event in space-time as a result of which a virtual particle, behaving in accord with
complex natural laws, becomes an elementary particle, is different from what "nothing" means in
common speech. Thus, in the title of his book and lectures, "nothing" refers to no thing at all; but
in his written and oral presentations, "nothing" refers to no thing that is visible but that is none-
the-less real and present.

Thus, Krauss's use of "nothing" as a technical term referring to energy in all its forms including
mass compels translating his "something out of nothing" into natural language by "something out
of something else." Correcting this "semantic slippage" affects nothing in Krauss's learned
arguments. It does suggest, however, that his explanation counters rather than supports the position
of Maimonides. The correction also raises a question with regard to what he thinks it all goes to
teach, especially in comparison with Genesis 1.[17]

Comparing the Ancient and Modern Cosmologist

Taking Krauss and the author of Genesis 1 as responsible cosmologists, separated by almost 2,500
years, we can compare their methods and assumptions.

58
 • Krauss's presentation illustrates how he applied scientific observations and made using
very sophisticated ideas and instruments to explain how the universe originated from dark
matter after the Big Bang. Gen 1:1-3 illustrates how the author of this sentence applied his
intellect imaginatively to explain that some specific things must have existed before the
world was created.[18]

• Neither author had anything good or bad to say about the pre-existing stuff; it just was.

• When the author of Genesis 1 turns to the observable world, that he explained as having
been manufactured by God, divine power affecting matter, he introduces moral, evaluative
language into his description of how God perceived what he had achieved.[19] Likewise,
Krauss's scientific descriptions are often accompanied by expressions of appreciation for
the aesthetic beauty and clarity of the natural processes that they reveal and the equations
that describe them.[20]

• The author of Genesis 1 does not distinguish between physics and metaphysics. Krauss has
no interest in or use for metaphysics because metaphysical considerations cannot be shoe-
horned into scientific equations.

• The author of Genesis 1 makes use of “human language” and imaginative concepts to
describe his theory in ways people could picture in their minds.[21] Krauss also makes use
of figurative language to clarify his ideas for his audiences.

Conclusion – Explaining the Universe: First Causes and Intermediate Causes

In chapter 48, Maimonides teaches that, in the Bible natural things, "which always follow their
course, such as the melting of the snow when the air becomes warm and waves being stirred...when
the wind blows," are often described as a consequence of divine authority or action (Ps 147:18;
Ps. 107:25).

Maimonides insight about the biblical text points to a truism: biblical authors often leave out "the
intermediate causes," those natural causes that result in or precipitate an event and affect its

59
outcome. The authors prefer to jump directly to the First Cause.[22] The approach of modern
physics is the exact opposite. Modern physics traces causes as far back as it is able using physics,
and most importantly, without recourse to what the ancient cosmologist of the Bible would have
considered the original cause: God, his power, and his will. Atypically, however, Genesis 1 does
not carry everything back to a First Cause.

The author of Gen 1:2 says nothing about the origin of what he inferred to be the primal stuff in
the cosmos because he understood that it was always there. Some modern physicists, like Krauss,
would agree on this point. Unlike a modern physicist, however, the author of Genesis 1 was not
ethically neutral about the created world. He understood not that it was merely "good," but that it
was "very good" (Gen 1:32).

In short, the author of Genesis 1:1-2:4 is very much like a modern cosmologist in a very important
way. The modern cosmologist works with the assumption that the universe that he or she perceives
is explicable. The author of Genesis also believed that the world that he perceived and the pre-
world cosmos that he inferred were explicable. It is that fundamental premise, that the world and
its origins can be explained, that undergirds the project of cosmology, whether today or in ancient
times.

Footnotes

1. I am drawn to Krauss’s work because he repeatedly points out an important idea about scientific thinking in

general: almost all scientific ideas proposed turn out to be wrong or, at least, incomplete. They are unable to withstand

critiques that may come from multiple directions such as better theorizing, mathematics, observations, and

experiments. He allows that scientific ideas, including his own, are regularly disproven and invalidated. A few ideas,

however, make it through the gauntlet of skeptical challenges, emerging unscathed or, more often, slightly scarred and

thereby improved. Then, they advance a notch, from the status of ideas to that of theories. The very best, the most robust,

insightful, and useful advance from theories to the status of laws.

60
2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwzbU0bGOdc. Krauss’s reference to Genesis 1:1 is at 12:48-

14:26. YouTube contains many versions of this lecture delivered around the world since 2009 as well as interviews in

which Krauss explains how and why his work, building on that of others, leads to new conclusions. In 2012, he

published A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing (New York: Atria). Some ideas

developed in this book appeared in slightly different more expanded formulations in earlier works referred to below.

3. Footnotes accompanying this translation draw readers attention to the fact that others translate the opening

words of verse 1 as “In the beginning God created,” the translation to which Krauss referred; and the last words of verse

2 as “the spirit of God.” with a lower case “s.”

4. Everett Fox, The Five Books of Moses: A New Translation with Introductions, Commentary, and Notes, New

York: Schocken Books, 1995, pp. ix, 11-13. Footnotes that function as a slight commentary indicate that these verses

describe God ordering the chaos, not creating something from nothing; that Hebrew tohu va-vohu, translated as “wild

and waste” indicates “emptiness”; that “rushing-spirit” is intended to reflect Hebrew ruah that refers to both wind and

spirit; and that Hebrew merahefet, rendered “hovering” could mean “flitting”, suggesting the image of an eagle protecting

its young as in Deut 32:11. Unlike the Tanakh translation, Fox properly repeats the phrase “over the face of”, ’al pney,

that occurs twice in verse 2.

5.

Rashi understands the second Hebrew word of verse 1, br’, as a nominal form, not as a verb, and glosses it in his comment

with the noun bry’t , “creation of.” He, as do the Tanakh and Fox translations, reads the relevant Hebrew word as the

construct infinitive of the word for creating, /bero/. This exact form occurs in Bereishit 5:1: [O]n the day of the

creating, br’, of God….” The same construction occurs also in Bereishit 2:4b with a different word: [O]n the day of the

making of the Lord, ‘swt ’lhym, the heavens and the earth ….” For a slightly technical discussion drawing on ancient

Near Eastern parallels, see Ephraim A. Speiser,Genesis (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Co., 1964) 11-12; for a technical

discussion developed on the basis of Rashi’s comment, see John Skinner, Genesis (Edinburg: T& T Clark, 1930) 12-15.

6. Only the light of day 1 seems out of place, given that the luminaries were created on the fourth day. (I will

explain its significance later.)

7. On these occasions, even when God said yehiy, “let there be” or something similar, the import of the words

was “There should be X and I will now undertake to make it.” In verse 20, yishretzu and ye‘ofef are used: “Let the waters

swarm living swarming creatures” and “let flying creatures fly.”

61
8. Two cases of calling for a change in circumstance are in verse 9, where the waters gather themselves together

so that dry land emerges, and verse 11 where the earth sprouts vegetation from beneath its surface. Verse 11 may reflect

the idea of spontaneous generation unless what is referred to as ’arets, earth, was known to include seeds that naturally

germinate under opportune circumstances.

9. Memes borrowed from cultures neighboring Israel may have been recast in the formation of his ideas. With a

single exception, I will not discuss this topic in this devar torah.

10. The narrative describes only the vertical, but not the horizontal, spatial relationships between the primeval

slime, the deep/Ocean covered over by the dark stuff, and a second body of waters over which a rushing-spirit wind

moved.

11. Meir Malul, “The Family Hearth in the Ancient Near East and the Social-Legal Significance of Light and

Darkness,” in K. Abraham and J. Fleishman, eds, Looking at the Ancient Near East and the Bible through the Same Eyes

— Minha LeAhron: A Tribute to Aaron Skaist, Bethesda, MD., 2012, pp. 285-86.

12. Or the author may have intuited something else vaguely. Lacking the ability to conceptualize and visualize it,

as well as a vocabulary with which to express it, he was unable to record his ideas on parchment. He was writing about

what he could neither see nor experience.

13. See, Moses Maimonides, The Guide of the Perplexed, Volume Two, Translated and with an Introduction and

Notes by Shlomo Pines (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1963), part III, chapter 13, pp. 448-49.

14. Susan Brayford, Genesis (Septuagint Commentary Series), Leiden: Brill, 2007, pp. 32-33.

15. Maimonides, The Guide, Part II, chs, 16-25, pp. 293-330. He did not base his arguments on what he considered

inconclusive scriptural texts, but on philosophical grounds alone. He was aware that biblical texts could be cited against

his position if they were read literally. See chapter 25.

16. See L. M. Krauss, Quintessence: The Mystery of Missing Mass in the University, New York: Basic Books,

2000, 33-42, 98, 109-110, 138-168, 332-336; Hiding in the Mirror: The Quest for Alternate Realities, from Plato to

String Theory, New York: Viking, 2005, pp. 257-72; A Universe from Nothing, pp. 39-104, 153-56.

17. Krauss is not the first physicist to use nothing as a technical term. However, his discussions of “nothing” in the

“Preface” to A Universe from Nothing and of varieties of nothing and “almost nothing” in chapters 9 and 10 support my

contention that his arbitrary decision to use this word in a popular book makes it difficult to comprehend parts of his

argument.

18. The types of observed data used in their theoretical cosmology differ, of course.

19. He uses the word, tov in the sense of good/satisfactory for the first time in verses 10, 12 on day three.

20. They too are good/satisfactory.

62
 21. In Part II (ch. 47) of The Guide of the Perplexed, Maimonides claims that books of the Bible employ parables

and hyperboles, similes, and metaphoric language to convey their meanings, and that this figurative language is a product

of human imagination. Consequently, he encourages readers to apply their intellect in discerning between such language

“and what has been said exactly according to the first conventional meaning.” Maimonides’ suggestion is useful for

modern readers, as it enables us to interpret Gen 1:2 as poetic language expressing a particular idea about the co-existence

of God- power and primal matter before God-power augmented the primal matter and worked it into the recognizable

world.

Since the velocity of light is finite, observations of stars and galaxies are
always observations of how they were at some time in the past.

Astronomy and cosmology are fields that study past phenomena, and the
relevant time is the "lookback time". The nearest star is 4 lightyears away, so
we are seeing it as it was 4 years ago.

Seeking "Wholeness"

63
Rabbi Marc D. Angel writes:17

Our daf (Hagiga 12b) records an enigmatic statement by Rabbi Yosei: “Woe unto people, who see
but do not know what they see; who stand, but do not know on what they stand.”

Rabbi Yosef Hayyim, the great rabbinic sage of 19th century Baghdad, interpreted this statement
to be reflecting on the need to know about the world in which we live. There are those who wish
to devote themselves to heavenly spiritual matters…but who are ignorant about the workings of
this world. They do not study the sciences, or mathematics, or geography. “One who does not
know what occurs on the earth below will not succeed in understanding what occurs in the heavens
above. A lack in the wisdoms of the world is a bar to knowledge of the Torah”(Imrei Binah, 1:2).
Knowledge of the sciences and humanities enables us to see…and know what we see. It deepens
our relationship with the Almighty by allowing us to better understand His creations. It enlarges
the scope of our thinking; it prods us to reach a greater “wholeness” and balance in our religious
worldview.

The Torah’s majestic opening verses give poetic expression to God’s creation of the universe. This
is an invitation to come closer to God by taking notice of His works. If we seek God without also
seeking to understand the world, our religious vision is deficient. If we seek to understand the
world without recognizing God as Creator, our scientific vision is deficient.

Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, in his classic work The Lonely Man of Faith, identifies two
“Adams,” two dimensions within each human being. One part of us—Adam the first-- is
scientifically-bent, desiring mastery over the universe. The other part of us—Adam the second--
is spiritual, seeking communion with God. Adam the first strives for majesty; Adam the second
yearns for redemption.

The “whole” human being encompasses a practical, social, creative, and scientific dimension; as
well as a spiritual, intensely personal, and lonely dimension. To eliminate either dimension is to
deny one’s full humanity.

Rabbi Soloveitchik notes that contemporary Westerners tend to focus on Adam the first—the
scientific, sociable, technologically-directed personality. The spiritual, God-seeking Adam the
second is downplayed or denied. He writes: “Contemporary Adam the first, extremely successful
in his cosmic-majestic enterprise, refuses to pay earnest heed to the duality in man and tries to
deny the undeniable, that another Adam exists beside or, rather, in him. By rejecting Adam the
second, contemporary man, eo ipso, dismisses the covenantal faith community as something
superfluous and obsolete.”

A striking example of Rabbi Soloveitchik’s concern is the current best-selling book, Sapiens, by
an Israeli academic Yuval Noah Harari. This book is very well written, full of fascinating
information, and has won high praise from many critics and the public at large. Dr. Harari is solely

17
https://www.jewishideas.org/seeking-wholeness-thoughts-parashat-bereishith

64
concerned with Adam the first. He dismisses God, the soul, and spirituality as things not
scientifically provable…and therefore not real. When reading Sapiens—with all its erudition and
literary style—one does not come into meaningful contact with Adam the second. Dr. Harari—a
highly regarded Israeli scholar—essentially negates the central teaching of the historic People of
Israel who received and transmitted the Torah to humanity. He is surely a successful Adam the
first; but his lack of awareness of the reality of Adam the second leaves a serious void in his
understanding of homo sapiens.

Rabbi Soloveitchik points out. “An atheist cosmonaut circling the earth, advising his superiors
who placed him in orbit that he did not encounter any angels, might lay claim to dignity because
he courageously mastered space; he is, however, very far from experiencing a redeemed
existence.”

Our challenge as thinking human beings is to develop the fullness of our humanity—the majestic
and the redemptive. By studying the universe with keen vision, we learn to understand what we
see and upon what we stand; we learn to value the relationship between our material and spiritual
natures; we learn to live with the “wholeness” of internalizing both Adam the first and Adam the
second.

Rabbi Yosei warned: “Woe unto people, who see but do not know what they see; who stand, but
do not know on what they stand.”

65
 Torah on the Big Bang and the Age of the Universe18
The Torah begins with Beresheet, the famous account of Creation. In recent times, many have
questioned the validity of this narrative in light of the findings of modern science. In reality, the
Torah’s account is quite accurate in scientific terms, and the Jewish tradition described the origins
of the universe and its age with stunning precision centuries before modern science caught up.

According to Science

The current scientific model holds that 13.7 billion years ago, the entire universe was compacted
into a super tiny point with infinite density.

For some unknown reason, this point suddenly burst in a massively vast and rapid expansion of
energy and radiation. As the early universe cooled and expanded, particles began to form, and then
whole atoms, starting with hydrogen.

Hydrogen atoms fused into helium atoms, and later on heavy elements formed from further fusion
in the cores of stars and their explosions. Everything that we see today—the entire universe and
all matter within it—emerged from that initial expansion, “the Big Bang”.

18
https://www.mayimachronim.com/torah-on-the-big-bang-and-the-age-of-the-universe/

66
The evidence for a Big Bang is extensive. In fact, you can see some of it when you look at the
“snow” on an old television that is not tuned to any channel. The antenna is picking up some of
the cosmic microwave background radiation, the “afterglow” of the Big Bang. The entire universe
is still glowing from that initial expansion! Popular physicist Brian Greene writes in his
bestselling The Hidden Reality (pg. 43):

…if you were to shut off the sun, remove the other stars from the Milky Way, and even sweep
away the most distant galaxies, space would not be black. To the human eye it would appear black,
but if you could see radiation in the microwave part of the spectrum, then every which way you
turned, you’d see a uniform glow. It’s origin? The origin.

The universe is glowing, it’s just that most people cannot see it because human eyes perceive only
a very narrow part of the electromagnetic spectrum, which we call “visible light”. Light of a higher
energy and frequency includes dangerous x-rays and gamma rays, while light of lower energy and
frequency includes microwaves and radio waves.

The seeming blackness of the universe is actually radiating with light—we simply cannot see it.
Incredibly, this is precisely what the Torah states.

67
 The electromagnetic spectrum. Visible light makes up just a tiny sliver of the

spectrum. Some living organisms can see in UV or infrared wavelengths.

Zohar haRakia

We read in the Tanakh (Daniel 12:3) that “they who are wise shall shine as bright as the rakia…”
The Torah tells us that God established a rakia (wrongly translated as “firmament”) on the second
day of Creation, and this is where all the stars and planets are suspended (Genesis 1:15). The
Talmud (Chagigah 12a), composed over 1500 years ago, further elaborates that above the earth is
the vilon, the atmosphere that stretches over the planet, and beyond the vilon is the rakia, a vast
expanse within which are all the stars. Beyond the rakia is a region called shechakim, the interface
between the physical and spiritual realms, and further still are the highest levels of the Heavens,
inhabited by angels and transcendental beings. From this, and other ancient sources, it is clear that
rakia refers to outer space.

Daniel tells us that the wise will shine like the rakia and goes on to state that “they who turn the
many to righteousness [shall shine] as the stars”. We can understand how people might shine bright
like stars, but why would Daniel say the rakia is shining? Outer space is totally dark! Of course,
as Brian Greene described, today we know that the universe is indeed glowing.

One of the most ancient Jewish mystical texts is Sefer HaBahir. According to tradition, it dates
back some two thousand years, and was first published at least seven hundred years ago. This book
gets its name from another verse in the Tanakh (Job 37:21), which states “And now, men do not
see the light that is bright [bahir] in the skies.” Once again, Scripture tells us that the universe is
glowing with a bright light that humans are unable to perceive. Science has found that this glow
comes from the Big Bang, and this too is accurately described by the most famous of Jewish
mystical texts, the Zohar.

68
 Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, the glow of the universe, discovered

in the 1960s by Robert Wilson and Jewish physicist Arno Penzias.

The Secret of Beresheet and the Big Bang

Like Sefer HaBahir, the Zohar was first published around seven hundred years ago, with its
teachings dating back two millennia. The Zohar is a parasha-by-parasha commentary on the Torah,
and naturally begins with the first section in describing Creation. The book gets its name from the
above verse in Daniel which speaks of Zohar haRakia, the glow of the universe. It elaborates (I,
2a, 15a):

Many centuries ago, the Zohar accurately and elegantly sums up the findings of modern science.
God first created a tiny singular point which burst forth in light, and from which He “carved out”
all things in existence. All of God’s Utterances (since the Torah says God created by speaking:
“And God said, ‘Let there be light.’”) came forth from the expansion of that initial primordial
radiance.

69
Time is Relative

All that remains is the seeming contradiction in time. Science estimates 13.7 billion years, while
the Torah speaks of six days. Of course, the nature of a “day” in the account of Creation is flexible,
considering there was no Earth, sun, or moon until the third and fourth days (so how could there
be a 24-hour day as we know it before this?) There were also no humans at this point, and the
Torah describes Creation from the perspective of God, for whom “a thousand years is like one
passing day” (Psalms 90:4). The fact that time runs differently for man and God actually highlights
another scientific principle, as revealed by Albert Einstein.

Einstein’s theory of relativity holds that the passing of time varies depending on an entity’s speed.
A person who could board a spaceship and fly near light-speed would experience very slow time.
A few days for this person would be equivalent to many years on Earth. (This theme has been
explored in countless science fiction books and films, including 2014’s Interstellar.) The
Lubavitcher Rebbe often cited this fact to conclude that arguing about apparent space-time
contradictions is therefore quite pointless. Meanwhile, physicist Gerald
Schroeder has mathematically calculated that six days could be equivalent to 13.7 billion years
when factoring in the universe’s expansion. After all, we are looking back in time at an ancient
universe through human eyes, while God was looking forward in time from the universe’s first
moments.

An infographic explaining the relativity of time.

Physicist and Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan explored this issue extensively and cites multiple ancient Jewish
texts that support the notion of a very ancient universe (see his book Kabbalah and the Age of the

70
Universe). In multiple places, the Midrash states that before creating this world, God was creating
and destroying many previous worlds (see, for example, Kohelet Rabbah 3:14), while the Talmud
calculates that “there were 974 generations before Adam” (Chagigah 13b, Shabbat 88a).

On this last point, it has been shown that a generation according to the Torah is forty years
(Numbers 32:13), and as we saw, a day for God is likened to 1000 human years (Psalms 90:4),
therefore:

974 generations × 40 years/generation × 365 days/year × 1000 human years/divine day =

14.2 billion years

Compared to the current best estimate of science at 13.7 billion years, it is amazing that one can
come to a very similar number by simply putting together a few Torah verses.

What we see from all of the above is that ancient Jewish texts describe the universe’s origins in
absolutely perfect detail. And it is only in recent decades that science has finally caught up. In
many other ways, too, science has a lot of catching up to do.

Art by Sefira Lightstone

71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101