{
"title": "Derush Chidushei HaLevana",
"language": "en",
"versionTitle": "merged",
"versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org/Derush_Chidushei_HaLevana",
"text": {
"Sources": [
"BEREISHIS 1:14-19",
"God said, “Let there be luminaries in the expanse of the heaven to make a distinction between the day and the night; and they shall serve as signs, for appointed times, for days, and years. Let them serve as luminaries in the expanse of the heaven to radiate light upon the earth;” and it was so. God made the two great luminaries; the great luminary to rule the day, and the small luminary to rule the night, and the stars. God placed them in the expanse of the heaven to radiate light upon the earth, to rule during the day and during the night, and to make a distinction between the light and the darkness. And God saw that it was good. There was evening and there was morning, the fourth day.",
"BEREISHIS RABBAH 6:3",
"R Yudan in the name of R. Tanchum ben R. Chiya, and R. Pinchas in the name of R. Simon said: After God called both luminaries great, would He then demean one, stating, “The large luminary to rule the day, and the small luminary to rule the night?!” This is a source of wonderment. The reason is because the moon entered into its neighbor’s domain. R. Pinchas said: With regard to all other additional offerings, it is written, “And one goat for a sin-offering,” whereas with regard to Rosh Chodesh, it is written, “And one goat for a sin-offering for God.” The Holy One, blessed be He, said: “Bring an atonement offering for Me because I diminished the moon, for it was I who caused it to enter its neighbor’s domain.” Now, if the moon, which entered the sun’s domain with license from God, was nevertheless demeaned by Scripture, how much more so does this apply to one who enters another person’s domain without permission!",
"ZOHAR CHADASH, SHIR HASHIRIM, P. 70B-71A",
"It is written: “God created the two great luminaries.” Originally, both luminaries were coupled as one and they were of equal importance. Hence, they were both called “great.” As explained previously, the intent is not that the moon was originally greater and superior to its present state. Instead, as long as the moon would stand together with the sun in one mystical bond, as a result of this, it was called “great” along with it, for even the tail of a lion is part of the lion and is called a lion. Nevertheless, the moon said before the Holy One, blessed be He: “Is it possible for one king to use two crowns at once? This one should be distinct and this one should be distinct.” He told it: “I see that you desire to be the head of foxes. Go and diminish yourself. Even though you will become their head, you will be less than what you are now.” This is what is meant by the moon’s statement, “Tell me, You whom my soul loves, where will You pasture Your flocks?” i.e., how is it possible to conduct the world wearing two crowns at once?",
"ZOHAR, VOL. III, PARSHAS PINCHAS, RAYA MEHEMNA, P. 247B",
"“On your Rashei Chodashim…” Does the moon have several heads? Instead, they refer to two points arranged in the following manner: There is a point below; that is the moon. Its two heads are the two upper points of the vocalization mark, segol ֶ . Originally, there was a crown on two kings in this manner, , in the shape of the cantillation note segolta. After the moon inquired: Is it possible for two kings to use one crown, the Holy One, blessed be He, told it, “Go and diminish yourself,” it then descended below the feet of the two kings in this manner, ֶ , i.e., a segol. What was originally a segolta became a segol. For this reason, God said, “Bring an atonement offering for Me.”",
"CHULIN 60B",
"R. Shimon ben Pazi (others attribute this teaching to ben Azzai) pointed out a contradiction between the verses. One verse says: “And God made the two great luminaries,” but it is also written, “the great luminary” and “the small luminary”. The moon said before the Holy One, blessed be He, “Master of the world, is it possible for two kings to wear one crown?” God answered: “Go and diminish yourself.” The moon replied, “Master of the world, because I have suggested something that is proper must I diminish myself?” God answered, “Go and ‘rule during the day and during the night.’” The moon responded, “Of what value will that be? Of what use is a candle in broad daylight?” God answered, “Go. Israel will reckon by the days and the years according to you.” The moon countered, “That is impossible without the sun for the reckoning of the seasons, as it is written: ‘And let them be for signs, and for appointed times, and for days and years.’” God replied, “‘Go. The righteous will be called by your name. Thus Yaakov is referred to as “the smaller one;” Shmuel is referred to as “the smaller one;” and David is referred to as “the smaller one.” God saw that the moon would not be consoled. Hence, the Holy One, blessed be He, said: “Bring an atonement offering for Me because I diminished the moon.” This is reflected in the teaching of R. Shimon ben Lakish who said, “Why is the wording describing the goat offered on the new moon different, for it is written concerning it, “a sin-offering for God”? Because the Holy One, blessed be He, said: “Let this goat be offered as atonement for Me for diminishing the moon.”",
"Rabbeinu Yitzchak Alfasi quotes this passage in his Halachos at the end of the first chapter of Tractate Shevuos and writes: The intent is that since the Holy One, blessed be He, told the moon that it would “rule during the day and during the night,” and yet the moon remained agitated, the Holy One, blessed be He, told it: “I will honor you in a manner that will calm you because I diminished you. What will that be? Every month, on Rosh Chodesh, the Jews will offer a sacrifice to atone for their sins.” The Holy One, blessed be He, thus said: Bring an atonement offering before Me every Rosh Chodesh to atone for yourselves so that you will bring a complete atonement offering before Me. This is the honor I promised to grant the moon because I diminished it. This is the meaning of the phrase, “Bring an atonement offering for Me because I diminished the moon.”",
"The compiler of Ein Yaakov quotes Rashba, who writes: R. Alfas interpreted the words “for Me” as meaning “to Me,” as in the word ילא, for the alef is substituted for the ayin. Later, in the appropriate place, I will elaborate on this concept. Nevertheless, I found it necessary to cite it here, because every reader will be bewildered by the phrase, “Bring an atonement offering for Me.” Therefore, I cited the interpretation of Rabbeinu Yitzchak Alfasi here rather than delay it until later when I will interpret the passage in detail, with God’s help."
],
"Introduction": [
"The two passages cited from the Zohar conclude with the interpretation of the concepts according to the Kabbalah. Therefore R. Moshe Cordevero in his text Pardes Rimonim, which is based entirely on the teachings of Kabbalah, in the portion entitled Shaar Miut HaYarei’ach (“The Portal of the Diminishment of the Moon”), cited these two passages at length. He interpreted them – and continuing that approach, also the passage from Tractate Chulin cited above – according to the teachings of Kabbalah. I, however, will do the opposite, for the passage in Chulin lends itself (more) to an interpretation according to its simple, literal meaning (pshat). True, the concluding portions of the passages from the Zohar follow the approach of the Kabbalah. Nevertheless, I found it possible to understand the initial portions of these passages according to their simple, literal meaning, and it is proper to do so. Although Scripture alludes to sublime realms, it speaks about matters on this lowly, earthly plane. This is reflected in the approach of most commentaries, and is summarized in the above-quoted principle that “The interpretation of a Scriptural phrase never departs from its simple, literal meaning,” as Mar bar Ravina recorded in Tractate Shabbos. If so, everything said concerning any verse should be interpreted according to its simple, literal meaning.",
"Moreover, our lot is not to teach mystical secrets in public, as the mishnah states: “Maaseh Bereishis (‘the mysteries of Creation’) should not be expounded upon to two people and Maaseh Mercavah (‘the mysteries of the Divine chariot’) should not be expounded upon even to one person.” ",
"And at its very outset, Midrash Rabbah states: “Let the lying lips be dumb;” this means, “Let them be bound”…. “which speak against the righteous” – this refers to the Ultimate Righteous One, He Who is the Life of all worlds, “insolent words” – this refers to teachings that He has withheld from His creation. “with pride” – It is as if God says: “I am amazed that in order to boast and say, ‘I can discourse on the mysteries of creation….’ “and with contempt” – “a person will treat My Glory with contempt.” For R. Yossi ben R. Hanina said: “Whoever aggrandizes himself through his fellow man’s degradation has no share in the World to Come. How much more so does this apply when it is done at the expense of the Glory of the Omnipresent.”What is written after this verse? “How abundant is Your goodness which You have stored away for those who fear You.” “For those who fear You,” and not for those who degrade Your manifold awe. Let them not have a portion in that “abundant goodness.”",
"There are public speakers who permit themselves to speak openly about reincarnation because the philosophers of the early eras believed in that concept, as reflected in the writings of Rav Yitzchak Abarbanel in the passage concerning yibbum. I do not accept this license, for even though those philosophers believed in the concept of reincarnation, they nevertheless did not understand it in all of its ramifications, nor did they grasp several mystical points associated with it. How much more so do these words of censure apply to those public speakers who, based on their own intuition describe this-and-this person as a reincarnation of so-and-so through allusions that they perceive from Scripture. Their listeners will accept these allusions as if they were received from Sinai, and this is not so. Indeed, the responsa of Rav Levi ibn Chaviv (responsa 8 and 75) explicitly forbade speaking publicly about reincarnation. This should be sufficient. Moreover, I say that undoubtedly this is the intent of the author of …. to show us a path to understand the passages of the Midrashim and to explain them in public in a manner that they can be understood solely according to their simple meaning. Therefore, I will follow this path in interpreting these four Midrashic passages according to the simple, straightforward explanation.",
"Now, the author of Pardes Rimonim did not cite the passage from Midrash Rabbah. It cannot be said that he was unaware of it, for he was thoroughly knowledgeable as is well known. It appears to me that this passage does not accept the concept of the diminishment of the moon. Or if this Midrashic passage does accept that the moon was diminished in size, it nevertheless interprets the Scriptural passage in a different manner, as it is said,",
"I, Yom Tov, who is referred to as Lippman, the son of my revered father, R. Nassan HaLevi of blessed memory, saw that God granted me the potential to interpret these passages fittingly, in particular, the passage from Tractate Chulin. In the process, I also offered an interpretation for scattered verses, an entire psalm from the book of Tehillim, and the entire passage describing the fourth of the Six Days of Creation. I cherished this discourse dearly and gave it a distinctive name that reflects its content, Chiddushei HaLevanah, “The Cycles20. We have translated the title as The Cycles of the Renewal of the Moon, instead of simply The Renewal of the Moon because the Hebrew title, Chiddushei HaLevanah, employs the plural term Chiddushei. With this choice of words, Tosfos Yom Tov is highlighting the fact that the moon continuously renews itself, and will experience a drastic renewal in the Ultimate Future. of the Renewal of the Moon.”",
"I maintain that these passages differ with regard to the titles with which Scripture refers to the luminaries. Initially, it refers to both luminaries as “great,” but then refers to one of them as “small.” On this basis, our Sages’ analyses of that passage differed in two respects. Firstly, each of the Sages derived a particular insight from the variation of terms found in the passage.",
"They also differed with regard to the extent of the deviation from the initial pattern of creation – was it great or small, i.e., was there a major difference between the present size of the sun and the moon and the manner in which they were originally created, or perhaps the change was minimal, or maybe there was no change at all.",
"Based on these concepts, I will give a general overview of each passage. Afterwards, I will focus on an analysis of the details of the passage from Tractate Chulin. I will cite all the commentaries I have seen regarding that passage and review them, explaining them according to my understanding and my study, with God’s help.",
"On the basis of the above, I will explain the passage concerning the fourth day of Creation after first elucidating Psalm 8 of Tehillim. Afterwards, I will derive particular points and insights following the path established by all commentaries and lecturers."
],
"": [
[
[
"An Analysis of the Passage from Midrash Rabbah",
"This passage does not focus on the apparent contradiction between the phrases, “the two great luminaries” and “the small luminary” as does R. Shimon ben Pazi,1. Tosfos Yom Tov is referring back to the passage from Chulin 60b, which he cited previously. because the author of the Midrash did not see these phrases as contradictory, and definitely not to the extent that the phrases are to be considered as referring to two separate, distinct stages of creation, as R. Shimon ben Pazi understands the text. Indeed, this interpretation also differs from that found in both the passages from the Zohar cited above, which also highlight a difference between the moon’s original creation and its present state – although, according to the Zohar, the difference is not as great as R. Shimon ben Pazi maintains. Midrash Rabbah, by contrast, does not see the verses as in any way contradictory, but rather as one integral description of the moon’s creation without implying that it underwent a change – that the moon was created as great and then diminished. Instead, the present state of both the sun and the moon is the same as their original state at the time they were created.",
"Scripture’s description of both the sun and the moon as “great” can be explained according to the words of R. Avraham ibn Ezra: If one will ask: The astronomers have stated that the planet Tzedek and indeed, all the planets and stars aside from Kochav and Nogah are larger than the moon, why then are they both described as “great”? In resolution: The term “great” does not refer to the size of the planets, but to their light. The light reflected by the moon is much greater than the light of the other planets and stars because it is much closer to the earth. This is also indicated by the term Scripture uses to refer to them: “luminaries.”",
"Similarly, with regard to the wording of the Midrash cited: There is no contradiction between the verses, and even at the present time both verses are true. Both the sun and the moon are described as “great luminaries” because of the light each one shines forth. Afterwards, the moon is referred to as “small,” because it is smaller in size than the sun. Indeed, the moon is even smaller than all the stars and planets aside from Kochav and Nogah. Alternatively, the moon was called small because its light is less than that of the sun.",
"Nevertheless, the Midrash saw a difficulty in the verses: Why would Scripture demean the moon by calling it small after it was already extolled and exalted by being described as “great” together with the sun, even though both its size and light are lesser? Once prominence is ascribed to an entity, it is improper to retract and minimize its importance. Therefore, the Midrash explains that it was appropriate for Scripture to do so because the moon “entered into its neighbor’s domain.” What does that mean? As we see, during certain days of the month, the moon can be seen in the sky in the morning and the evening, entering the domain of the sun, as it were. Since the moon does so, Scripture minimized its honor and does not refer to it as great, but rather as small, for it conducts itself in the manner of petty people who flaunt themselves before those who are truly great saying, “I am like you.”",
"Thus, when R. Pinchas said: “With regard to all other additional offerings… The Holy One, blessed be He, said: “Bring an atonement offering for Me because I diminished the moon,” he was not speaking about diminishing the size or the light of the moon, because there was no change regarding these aspects. God diminished only the moon’s honor by referring to it as “the small luminary.”",
"Do not question the interpretation I offered for the moon being called “small” – that the moon was described in this manner because it conducted itself in the manner of petty people who flaunt themselves before all others. These explanations are in accord with the interpretation given by R. Avraham ibn Ezra in explanation of the Aggadic teachings in Tractate Chulin mentioned above, as cited in the Akeidah, ch. 37, who states: The moon’s protests refer to the time of the alignment. It is as if the luminaries are contesting with each other when they are at opposite ends of their orbits. When they are both filled with light it is as if the moon raises itself up to say “I will rule.” From that time onward, as soon as the moon departs from that point, its light begins to diminish. This is the diminishment referred to by our Sages. God commanded that a sacrifice be brought on the day that all of the moon’s light is eliminated. The verse speaks of “a sin-offering for God,” since God was the first cause for the light of the moon to be diminished, for He created the moon in a manner that it receives light from the sun and does not possess its own light.",
"True, the author of the Akeidah rejected Ibn Ezra’s interpretation of that passage, as I will explain in the appropriate place. Nevertheless, we learn from this that our conception – that the moon conducted itself in the manner of petty people – is a valid approach, for the sage R. Avraham ibn Ezra follows a similar approach, explaining that the moon’s protest was issued because it sought to exalt itself, saying, “I will rule.”",
"The questions raised by the author of the Akeidah which led him to say that this passage should not be interpreted in this manner (as which will be explained below) do not apply with regard to our interpretation of this passage, for the passage teaches us two insights:
a) that one should not conduct himself in this manner – encroaching upon another’s domain. True, that is a simple concept and seemingly need not be taught. Nevertheless, here, it is important to emphasize because one might think that license was given for the moon to do so, as the passage continues. The passage teaches us that this behavior is unacceptable by showing that as a result of entering into the sun’s domain the honor of the moon’s name was minimized.
b) that the one who causes such conduct requires atonement.",
"Furthermore, from this narrative, we learn through a kal vechomer (a fortiori reasoning) that one who enters another person’s domain without permission is deserving of punishment that is too great to bear. Had we not heard about the punishment visited on one who enters another’s domain with permission, we would not know how serious it is to enter another’s domain without permission."
],
[
"Nevertheless, the concept that the one who causes someone to enter another’s domain with permission requires atonement mentioned by the Midrash seems to be self-contradictory. In truth, however, this is not so. To explain: When we search for the first place the concept of causation and license are mentioned, it appears to be the verses, “God placed them in the expanse of the heaven to radiate light upon the earth, to rule during the day and during the night, and to make a distinction between light and darkness.” From the verses, it is clearly evident that although the phrase “to rule” is used, “ruling,” i.e. exercising authority, is not an element of the distinction that is made, because making a distinction is mentioned separately in the verse. Instead, the term “to rule” refers to the sovereignty and dominion of these luminaries. A question thus arises: Why does the verse mention ruling “over the day and over the night”? The sun and the moon are not ruling over the day or over the night; they rule over the earth and its inhabitants. Therefore, it would have been appropriate to use less words, and say, “to radiate light and rule over the earth.” True, the verse preceding these verses also mentions “to rule the day.” Nevertheless, that verse did not mention radiating light upon the earth. Hence, the two concepts could not be coupled in that verse. In contrast, in this verse, it would have been possible to do so. ",
"For this reason, the author of this Midrashic passage postulates that the statement, “to rule during the day and the night,” explains the previous verse, “God made the two great luminaries; the great luminary to rule the day, and the small luminary to rule the night.” True, God originally made the luminaries, each one with a separate dominion. When, however, God “placed them in the expanse of the heaven,” He allowed for the possibility that both luminaries would rule together, during the day and during the night. Nevertheless, the verse does not explicitly state whether the intent was that one of them would be ruling during the day and during the night, nor does it specify which one would be given this sovereignty. Perhaps the intent was that both luminaries were given sovereignty to rule during the day and during the night. True, the day was allotted to the sun and the night to the moon. Even so, it could be said that neither the entire night nor the entire day was allotted to either one, and so the luminaries would share dominion during part of the day and part of the night.",
"There are many Midrashim from our Sages that emphasize that the creation during the Six Days of Creation had a unique purpose, but the present form of certain entities is different. For example, on the verse, “I am the Almighty Shaddai,” our Sages commented, “I am He who told My world ‘enough.’” Had He not done so, the heavens and the earth would be endlessly expanding. ",
"And with regard to the water, the Sages stated: When the utterance, “Let the waters be collected,” was pronounced by the Holy One, blessed be He, the mountains and the hills separated over the surface of the earth and a series of valleys were made reaching the depths of the earth. The waters naturally flowed into them and were collected there, as indicated by the verse, “He called the gathering of the water, seas.” Immediately thereafter, the waters rose up in pride and sought to cover the earth as was their original state until the Holy One, blessed be He, rebuked them and subdued them.",
"Similarly, our Sages commented on the verse, “Let the earth produce vegetation,” that the earth violated God’s command. The Holy One, blessed be He, commanded the earth to sprout forth “fruit trees that yield fruit,” implying that the actual tree would be able to be eaten. The earth did not do this. Instead, “the earth produced vegetation… trees yielding fruit,” the fruit was edible, but the tree was not edible. ",
"In this instance as well, from the fact that Scripture demeaned the moon by calling it “small” after first calling it “great,” the Midrash understands that the moon violated God’s intent, just as the earth was cursed because it violated a Divine command, as Rashi states.",
"Therefore, the Midrash sought to find a matter in which the moon deviated from God’s intent and it focused on the point we mentioned, that “to rule during the day and during the night” is a directive that the sun and the moon should function together during the day and the night. As we mentioned before, there are two possible explanations for this: a) that they should function together for part of the time, or b) that one should have sovereignty even in the domain of the other, also ruling the entire day or the entire night. The author of the Midrash maintains that the intent that one of the luminaries was given sovereignty in the time allotted to the other refers to the sun because it is many times larger than the earth. Thus, even at night when the sun is found below the earth’s horizon, its light shines around the earth, since it is larger than the sphere of the earth. Nevertheless, the sun is not visible because the shadow of the earth blocks its light and causes darkness.",
"I maintain that Reish Lakish alluded to this concept with his statement in Tractate Chagigah: “There are seven heavens: The first is Vilon… Vilon serves no function. It enters in the morning and departs in the evening.” In his commentary, Rashi explains: “It enters in the morning – In the morning, Vilon enters its sheath, allowing light to be seen. And departs in the evening – In the evening, Vilon departs from its shield and spreads below the light, causing the world to become dark.” Tosafos questions Rashi’s statements, asking: If Vilon prevents light from reaching the earth, how are the stars visible? Tosafos, therefore, offers a different interpretation: In the morning, Vilon emerges into the world, and light becomes visible from it. At night, Vilon departs from the world. Therefore, the stars become visible. Thus, it appears that Tosafos interprets vilon as a shadow which causes darkness, like a curtain. In the morning, it enters below the earth and causes darkness there and in the evening, emerges above the earth and causes darkness there. Nevertheless, since vilon is only a shadow, the stars are visible. Thus, although the shadow prevents the sun’s light from being seen, it does not stand in the way of the sun’s sovereignty and rule. This is comparable to the clouds, which do not hold back the power of the sun and its effect on the earth even though they obscure and dim the light of the sun somewhat."
],
[
"Despite the sun having been given sovereignty, the moon conducted itself like the water mentioned above. Just as the water rose up in pride and sought to return and cover the entire earth as it had before, so too, the moon in its pride interpreted the Divine charge to give sovereignty to one of the luminaries in both the day and the night as directed toward itself. Although the moon was not made in a manner that would permit it to be visible during part of the day and during the evening, nevertheless the moon still thrust itself forward and perhaps approached the light of the sun so that it would “rule during the day and the night.” Therefore, the Holy One, blessed be He, demeaned its name. Nevertheless, God did not rebuke the moon as He did the water, nor did He nullify its thought, because the moon had room for justification: it could have claimed that God was the cause of its actions in that He did not explicitly clarify which of the luminaries would be the one that would rule both during the day and the night, or whether both of them would. Therefore, God left the situation as it was, without undoing the moon’s initiative.",
"Alternatively, it is possible to say that, as explained above, in the interpretation of the Midrash that states, “I am He who told My world ‘enough,’” had God not called the moon “small,” it would have continued to proceed and approach the status of the sun to the extent that it would be visible throughout the day. Calling the moon “small” affected it as a rebuke would, and caused it to halt and remain in its immediate position. Nevertheless, the moon did not return to its initial state, since it had specifically heard God say that the luminaries should rule “during the day and the night.” Even though He called the moon “small,” God also did not force the moon to return to its initial state, for He had been the cause for its act. Indeed, as reflected in the words, “Bring an atonement offering for Me,” God sought to find a way to appease the moon.",
"The appeasement granted the moon – and the difficult wording used by our Sages who speak of “atonement” and it being “for Me” – will be explained at the end of the passage from Chulin cited above. There, I will focus on the interpretation advanced by Rabbeinu Yitzchak Alfasi mentioned above, and make known my understanding of it.",
"The passage in Bereishis Rabbah then concludes with an ethical lesson: “Now, if the moon entered the sun’s domain with license from God…,” alluding to the idea that the moon thought it was acting with license."
],
[
"Before I will begin explaining the next passage, I would like to draw a possible connection between the statement of our Sages that the moon entered the domain of the sun and the words of the prophet Chabakuk, “The sun and the moon stood in their domains.” In that verse, the hei of the word zevulah, translated as “in their domains,” is written without a mapik (i.e., a “diacritic,” a mark indicating that the letter should be read as a consonant). Thus, Rashi comments on that word:In their domains – Whenever a word requires a lamed at its beginning, a hei may be used at its end. The verse refers to the actions of the sun and the moon during the war against Givon, as reflected by the Targum.” Similarly, Radak comments on that verse: The sun and the moon – In the war of Yehoshua…. In their domains – In the heavens, which serve them as a domain and as a home, as it is written: “And the sun stood in the center of the sky.” The word zevulah contains an extra hei, like the hei of the word lailah, for the word is accented on the penultimate syllable. Radak is saying that the hei at the end of the word zevulah is extra and does not connote the feminine, just as the word lailah is masculine, as reflected in the verse, “And we dreamt… on one night.” However, the way of the Midrashim is to give explanations even to extra letters. Also, the phrase, “The sun and the moon” requires explanation because the words are written without the connecting letter vav, i.e., without the word “and”. Also, the term amad, “stood,” requires explanation because seemingly, it should have been written with a plural form. True, the singular form could be interpreted as meaning, “each stood individually,” as in the verse, “Maidens strode,” where a singular verb is used for a plural noun to imply that each one strode individually. Here, too, the intent is that both the sun and the moon stood individually. Nevertheless, there is room to explain, following the mode of derush, why the plural form is not used. Therefore, I maintain that the word “sun” in this verse can be understood as an introductory phrase, as if to say, “Let me tell you what happened concerning the sun.” Now, there are places in Scripture where the word “sun” takes a masculine form, as in the verses, “the sun emerged,” and “and when the sun sets.” However, there are other verses, e.g., “If the sun shines upon him,” and “And as the sun was setting,” where the word “sun” takes a feminine form. Thus, the word zevulah could be understood as meaning “the sun’s domain.” Thus, the verse could be interpreted as meaning, “The sun – the moon stood in its domain,” i.e., to borrow the wording of our Sages mentioned above, the moon entered the domain and sphere of the sun.",
"Moreover, I maintain that the Men of the Great Assembly alluded to this concept in the wording they used for the blessing for the luminaries in the Shabbos Morning Prayers, kara lashemesh vayizrach or, which is usually translated as, “He called to the sun and it shined forth light.” However, if that were to be its meaning, the phrase should have read vizarach or, as in the verse, “and the sun shines.” Moreover, it is unnecessary to mention the word “light.” It is self-understood; thus, the verse cited previously does not mention the word “light”. Instead, I maintain that the subject of the phrase “and it shined forth light” is not the sun mentioned in the preceding phrase, “He called to the sun.” Instead, it refers to the moon, which entered the domain of the sun and shined forth light. The sun responded in anger, and as a result, God “looked and ordained the form of the moon,” i.e., He told the moon, “Enough.” Accordingly, it retained the form the moon had at that time. Were the moon to have continued to draw closer to the sun, it undoubtedly would have had a different form."
]
],
[
[
"An Analysis of the Passage from the Zohar Chadash, Shir HaShirim",
"The intent of this passage is also to resolve the apparent contradiction between the earlier verse that describes both the sun and the moon as “great” and the later verse which describes the moon as “small.” The author of this passage maintains that the moon was subjected to change because of its protest. This interpretation contrasts to the statements in the passage from Midrash Rabbah, which maintains that the moon did not undergo any change – neither a quantitative nor a qualitative one. According to that passage, the size of the moon did not change, nor did its light. Indeed, even the position of the moon did not change. Even though the moon entered the domain of the sun, the moon was originally located in the same heavenly sphere as it is presently located, and not in a higher one.",
"The passage from the Zohar Chadash on Shir HaShirim differs concerning this last point, maintaining that there was a change in the moon’s position, as will be explained. The passage from the Zohar Chadash maintains that there was no change, however, in the quantity or the quality of the moon’s light, as the passage from Midrash Rabbah cited previously maintained. ",
"This is what the Zohar Chadash meant with its statement: The intent is not that the moon was originally greater and superior to its present state. Instead, as long as the moon would stand together with the sun in one mystical bond, as a result of this, it was called “great” along with it, for even the tail of a lion is part of the lion and is called a lion. Thus, the Zohar Chadash explicitly states that there was no change in the quality and the quantity of the moon’s light. ",
"The term עִלָּאָה, which has been translated as “superior,” should not be understood in a spatial sense. This, to intimate that the moon was not previously superior, would not be appropriate, because the moon indeed became “a head of foxes,” one that controls entities on a lower plane. Thus, the moon did undergo a descent, to become sovereign on a lower plane. Instead, the term עִלָּאָה refers to importance. The two terms רַב and עִלָּאָה, “greater” and “superior” that the Zohar uses are merely synonyms. Both terms imply that originally the moon did not possess any superiority over its state after its protest, neither with regard to its size nor with regard to the radiance of its light. Alternatively, we can say that the Zohar Chadash used the term רַב to refer to the physical size of the moon, while the term עִלָּאָה was used to refer to the quality of its light. The Zohar Chadash is emphasizing that the original state of the moon was in no way superior with regard to either of these aspects over its state after its protest. ",
"As such, the moon deserved to be called “great” and to be thus equated with the sun only because it stood “together with the sun in one mystical bond,” like the tail of a lion with the lion itself. Therefore, this teaching does not use the wording “two kings.” For how can a lion and its tail be called “two kings”? True, the tail of a lion is also called a lion. That is because it is part of the lion. However, it is not the lion itself. For this reason, the author of this teaching maintains that the moon’s complaint was expressed in its protest that it is not befitting for the King of Glory to use two crowns at the same time. Instead, He should wear one at one time and the other at a different time. The moon’s intent was that its honor would be increased by becoming a “head of foxes” rather than remaining a “tail of lions.” The Holy One, blessed be He, answered the moon by instructing it to go to the lower plane, where it would become a “head of foxes.” God cautioned the moon however, saying that “you will not achieve glory” in this manner, for you will be called “small,” because smallness is inherent to you.",
"We derive an appealing lesson from this narrative that was instilled in our spiritual heritage by the Sages of the Mishnah, who taught, “Be a tail of lions and not the head of foxes,” emphasizing how necessary it is to guide a person against seeking imagined honor. Thus, we find many students contriving to receive positions of prominence even though they are not masters of Torah, nor masters of commerce. Nevertheless, these students seek to be recognized as men of prominence rather than sit before an elderly master who sits in the yeshivah and occupies a Rabbinic position, drinking in his words thirstily and serving him so that they can see the rulings and judgments he delivers and listen to his explanation of the laws.",
"There is no basis for questioning this interpretation based on the verse cited above, “The sun and the moon stood in their domains,” where a masculine form is used for the word “moon.” True, the passage from the Zohar Chadash discussed here uses a feminine form when referring to the moon, but the passage in Chulin also uses a feminine form when referring to the moon. Tosafos explains the apparent difficulty as follows: “The moon said. Although here, our Sages use a feminine form, in Scripture, a masculine term is used for the moon, as it is written וירח עמד, ‘and the moon stood.’”",
"Thus, as mentioned above, from this teaching, we have learned an important ethical lesson, as I related. This lesson should not be taken lightly, because it is a significant and substantial point. Would it be that listeners accept the lesson and draw a conclusion regarding their own conduct, not to emulate the moon."
],
[
"In this instance as well, before I proceed to the explanation of the next passage, I would like to comment on a related matter. In Tehillim, it is written: “The sun, the time of its appearance is known.” In Tractate Rosh HaShanah, our Sages state: The sun, the time of its appearance is known i.e., it is predictable when the sun will rise, the moon, the time of its appearance is not known,” i.e., it is difficult to predict when the new moon will appear. “There are times when the moon appears in less time after its conjunction than expected and times, when it appears after more time than expected.” The reason why the moon came to undergo such fluctuations is because it changed its position and ceased to cleave to the sun. Then, the moon’s situation was preferable to its present one. Originally, the moon followed in the orbit of the sun, which has only one pattern of setting. Now, by contrast, the moon has its own unique patterns.",
"This is alluded to by the phrase, “He made the moon for the festivals,” which implies that were the moon to have remained cleaving to the sun, there would be no way to calculate the festivals, because there would be one identical, measured pattern. Nevertheless, the moon knew “the time of the appearance” of the sun and was uncomfortable with it. The moon therefore desired and chose another course so that it could be “the head of foxes.” Therefore, God “made the moon for the festivals,” establishing a pattern for the festivals according to the moon’s choice.",
"Since according to this passage, the moon itself choose to diminish itself, it is not appropriate to speak of God asking, “Bring an atonement offering for Me,” for God did no more than carry out the moon’s request. In contrast, the other passages speak of God asking for an atonement offering, because He ordained the moon’s diminishment; the moon’s own intent and aspiration was to ascend, not to descend."
]
],
[
[
"An Analysis of the Passage from Zohar, Vol. III, Parshas Pinchas, Raya Mehemna",
"This passage also intends to emphasize that the moon’s protests did not lead to any essential change from its original state, only to a change in its position and a change in its mazal, i.e., the moon’s influence on the other celestial bodies changed. For the term mazal (מזל) derives from the word יזל, as in the phrase, yizal mayim, “water will flow.” These changes – i.e. the change in the moon’s position and the change in its influence on the other celestial bodies – are the reason why the earlier verse describes the moon as “great” and the later verse that describes it as “small.”",
"There are two differences between this passage and the passage from the Zohar Chadash, Shir HaShirim:",
"a) According to this passage, the sun and the moon were never so strongly associated with each other to the extent that they were considered like a lion and its tail. Instead, the sun and the moon were separate entities. Nevertheless, the size and the intensity of the radiance of both these luminaries did not change. They remained the same after the moon’s protests as they were before.",
"b) The position of the moon did undergo a change. The position of the sun was always above that of the moon. Nevertheless, originally, before its protest, the position of the moon in the heavens was higher than it is now. For previously, the moon was located directly below the sun, above the planets of Nogah (Venus) and Kochav (Mercury). As a result of its protest, the moon was lowered and positioned below these planets.",
"We are forced to say that, according to the Raya Mehemna, originally the moon did not cling to the sun as the Zohar Chadash maintains. This is reflected by the moon’s protest, “Is it possible for two kings to use one crown?” For clearly, the moon wanted a crown for itself. Had the moon been on the same plane and clinging to the sun, the question of how two kings could use one crown would not have been fitting. On the contrary, according to that conception, two crowns would be used, as reflected by the passage from the Zohar Chadash, Shir HaShirim, which describes the sun and the moon as “two crowns.” Instead, according to this passage from the Raya Mehemna, originally, the moon was alone and not clinging to the sun. Rather, the moon was positioned directly below the sun, and it showered its influence on two kings, Nogah and Kochav.",
"One might ask: According to this explanation, the moon would influence the planets under it, and these planets would not be influenced by the sun. For since the sun was above the moon, the sun would not influence the planets under the moon. Seemingly, using this logic we can ask, since Nogah was below the moon and above Kochav, how could the moon influence Kochav? Why then does the moon speak of two kings using one crown? This is not a valid question, for our Sages of blessed memory did not understand the planets as being positioned in separate spheres one below the other. Instead, in the chapter entitled Ein Dorshin, they taught: Rav Yehudah states: “There are two heavens, as it is written: “The heaven and the heaven of heavens belong to God, your Lord.” Reish Lakish states: “There are seven: Vilon, Rakia, Shechakim, Zevul, Maon, Machon, and Aravos. Vilon serves no function…. Rakia, in it the sun, the moon, the stars and the constellations are positioned, as it is written: “God placed them in the expanse of the heaven.” Thus, Rav Yehudah maintains that there are only two heavens – one for the sublime angels and one below it for the entire host of heaven. Although Reish Lakish maintains that there are more heavens, he agrees that the angels are located in the heaven called Maon, and the entire host of heaven found in the second heaven called Rakia. ",
"Thus, according to both Sages, all of the stars are located in the same heaven. Thus, the order of the planets does not require that they be positioned one on top of the other. True, our Sages maintain that the heavens are measured entities, with each one having an area of 500 years journey. Thus, while it is possible that the stars are located one above the other, it is also possible that they are all of different longitudes on the same latitudinal plane, or that some stars are of different longitudes on one latitudinal plane and other stars are on different latitudinal planes. Accordingly, it is possible that those stars which are of different longitudes – either all of them or some of them – are not on different latitudinal planes at all. One star is not higher than the other. Instead, the stars are on different places on a sphere that has no beginning or end. According to this conception, it can be said that the sun is positioned higher than the moon and originally, the moon was positioned higher than Nogah and Kochav. However, neither Nogah nor Kochav were higher than each other. Instead, they were merely positioned on different longitudes.",
"Thus, Nogah and Kochav were on the same plane below the moon, and the moon served as a crown for them. Therefore, the moon argued that it was impossible for two kings – i.e. Nogah and Kochav – to use one crown – i.e. the moon. God answered the moon, “Go and diminish yourself.” As a result, the shape of a segol – one point below two others – was formed. For the other two heavenly bodies, Nogah and Kochav, remained in their original position."
],
[
"The conception advanced here by the Zohar leads to the question: What was the motivation for the moon’s complaint? After all, what difference does it make to the crown if it is being used by two kings? Even the “kings” themselves were not bothered by this. It appears to me that this entire incident is related to teach us an ethical lesson related to the trait of tzarus ayin, a lack of generosity. The moon’s complaint was motivated by a lack of generosity; it did not desire to provide a flow of influence to the two crowns under it. The moon couched its protest in a dignified manner, as if it was concerned with the “kings” below it. God responded by punishing the moon “measure for measure”, in a manner that reflected the moon’s complaint; i.e., the moon was prevented from influencing either of the “kings.” Below, I will elaborate further concerning this concept with God’s help. Therefore, instead of the configuration of these three bodies representing a segolta, one of the taamim, cantillation notes of the letters, their configuration became that of a segol, one of the nekudos, vocalization signs that are written below the letters. The Rabbis teach us that the letters of the Torah have four dimensions, which are known asטנת\"א . טנת\"א is an acronym for the Hebrew words taamim (טעמים), “the cantillation notes”; nekudos (נקודות), “the vocalization signs”; taggin (תגין), “the crowns”; and osios (אותיות), “the letters.” According to the Kabbalah, the osios, the letters, represent the body and the other three dimensions, represent the three levels of the soul – nefesh, ruach, and neshamah. The nekudos, vocalization signs, are associated with nefesh, the lowest level of the soul, while the taamim are associated with neshamah, the highest level of the soul. Thus, the moon’s position changed. Originally, the moon was positioned as the point of a segolta, which as one of the taamim, relates to the level of neshamah, and afterwards, it was demoted to the point of a segol, which as one of the nekudos, relates to the level of nefesh.",
"The passage from the Zohar continues, stating that God said: “‘Bring an atonement offering for Me,’ for the moon was a crown for Me, like this (וׂ), and after it was diminished, it descended below the feet, like this (וּ).” True, the above represents the approach of the sages of Kabbalah, and our approach is not to elaborate on such matters publicly. Nevertheless, I have quoted this passage in order to demonstrate that even from the words of the Zohar it can be understood that, as a result of its protest, the moon descended from the lofty level on which it had operated. Originally, the moon served as a segolta, which as one of the cantillation notes, corresponds to the neshamah, the highest level of the soul. The moon was then demoted to the lowest level, that of the nekudos, the vocalization signs a segol, which corresponds to the nefesh. I have already designated a place – the conclusion of the explanation of the passage from Chulin – for an explanation of the meaning of the phrase, “Bring an atonement offering for Me,” on the level of pshat, i.e., the simple meaning of the passage."
],
[
"Nevertheless, I will not refrain from explaining the association of this passage to several verses in Tehillim, Psalm 72, which was authored by King Shlomoh: “They will fear You as long as the sun and the moon endure, for all generations. May his words descend like rain on cut grass, like raindrops that saturate the earth. The righteous will flourish in his days, blessed with abundant peace, until the moon ceases to exist.” The Midrash, as quoted also in Sefer HaAkeidah, comments: “This month shall be – This relates to the verse, “The righteous will flourish in his days, blessed with abundant peace, until the moon ceases to exist.” Even before the Holy One, blessed be He, took the Jews out of Egypt, He intimated to them that their monarchy would be granted to them only until the thirtieth generation, saying: “Just as the moon has 30 days, your monarchy will encompass 30 generations.” On the first day of the month, the moon begins to shine and proceeds, growing in light until the fifteenth day of the month. Then, the moon’s disk becomes full. So too, Avraham began to shine… then Yitzchak… then Yaakov. Afterwards followed Yehudah, Peretz, Chetzron, Ram, Aminadav, Nachshon, Salmon, Boaz, Oved, Yishai, and David. In Shlomoh’s time, the disc of the moon became full.",
"In Shlomoh’s time, the people feared God “as long as the sun and the moon endure, for all generations.” Beyond the simple translation, that verse can be interpreted as an allusion to the desired state of the world: The words עם שמש can be understood as meaning “in an ongoing manner”, for the sun’s light is unchanging, as it was in the past, so it is now. A similar interpretation can be given for the expression, דור דורים, translated as “for all generations”. דור, generation, shares a root with the word דירה, which means “dwelling”. Thus, this phrase means that the Jews’ fear of God will be established and permanent like a person’s dwelling is established and permanent. The notion of permanence relates to the moon, as reflected in our Sages’ discussion of the Greek conception of the movement of the heavenly spheres as compared with our Sages’ own conception: The Greeks maintained that the stars and constellations are fixed in their positions, and the heavenly sphere moves. Our Sages maintained that the heavenly sphere is fixed in its position, and the stars and constellations move. Ultimately, the Sages conceded to the Greek position. Hence, the Sages teach that the term דירה relates to the moon and the other stars, for they are fixed in the sky. This concept is also reflected by another verse: “In the heavens He made a tent for the sun.” The implication is that all the heavens as a whole continually revolve, while the sun remains fixed in its tent, “which will not be moved… or uprooted” from it. To illustrate by analogy: The sun in its “tent” is like a person sitting in a ship; the ship proceeds and cruises on the water. Just as the ship moves while the person is stationary, so too, the heavenly sphere moves while the sun remains stationary. ",
"A further concept can be derived from the moon being associated with the phrase, דור דורים. As mentioned, דור shares a root with the word דירה, which means “dwelling”. The moon’s dwelling (דור) is above two dwellings (דורים), i.e., the “dwellings” of the two planets – Mercury and Venus – that were located below it.",
"Alternatively, that concept can be derived building on the explanation Radak gives to the phrase: “like a sphere in a wide-opened land,” and to the verse, “I encamped like a sphere around you.” In his gloss to those verses, Radak explains that both verses should be understood as if the word “like” precedes the words “a sphere”; i.e., it is as if the verses read ככדור, with a second kaf. Hence, Radak states, the initial kaf, referred to as kaf hadimyon, “a kaf of comparison,” is missing. The basis of Radak’s rationale is that it is more logical to say that the kaf that is missing is the kaf hadimyon, than to say that the kaf which serves as one of the root letters of the word is missing. Nevertheless, I maintain that it is the kaf which serves as one of the root letters of the word that is missing, and not the kaf hadimyon. My rationale is that it is possible to explain that the absence of the kaf of the word’s root is alluded to by its vocalization sign, which appears under the kaf hadimyon in the word כדור, “sphere”. This is an accepted pattern in Hebrew grammar. Taking this concept a step further, since we see that a kaf which serves as one of the root letters in a word can be missing as in these two verses, why not say that the same concept applies to the phrase, דור דורים? Why not understand the phrase דור דורים as כדור כדורים, i.e., that the moon, the subject of that verse, is כדור, “a sphere,” above כדורים, “two spheres,” i.e. Mercury and Venus, for as is well known, all the stars and planets are spherical? If one will ask, where is the vocalization sign that indicates that the kaf was omitted? It is possible to reply that in the two verses cited previously, Radak understood that the kaf hadimyon was omitted, even though there is no vocalization sign alluding to the omission. Similarly, I maintain that in those places where it is possible to say that a vocalization sign – i.e., the pasach of the root letter kaf – was included as an allusion, it is preferable to say that is the intent, for this is more appropriate according to the rules of grammar. When, however, no sign can be found, Radak’s approach, that no allusion to the missing letter is necessary, may be followed.",
"Accordingly, the intent of the verse יִירָאוּךָ עִם שָׁמֶשׁ וְלִפְנֵי יָרֵחַ דּוֹר דּוֹרִים is that the people will fear God, “as the sun,” i.e. as the sun was originally, וְלִפְנֵי, “and before”, when the moon was “a sphere (כדור) above two spheres (כדורים).” Undoubtedly, were the order of Creation not to have undergone a change as a result of the moon’s complaint, the world would be in a more complete state of fullness and goodness. Know that this is true, for it is due to the descent of the moon that the entire concept of the waning and waxing of the moon came about. And as a result, the state of the Jewish people went through similar phases of ascent and descent, as indicated by the Midrash",
"The passage from Psalm 72 cited above continues: ירד כמטר על גז כרביבים זרזיף ארץ, “May his words descend like rain on cut grass, like raindrops that saturate the earth.” Rav Avraham Ibn Ezra explains that the word זרזיף does not appear elsewhere in the Tanach. He interprets it as meaning “to saturate” or “to inundate.” This relates to the explanation given previously, that the Raya Mehemna understands that the moon’s protest was the result of its begrudging attitude, that it did not want to impart influence to the two planets. In this psalm, King Shlomoh is saying that this will not be the ultimate state. In the future, because the people will be God-fearing, the moon’s existence will be comparable to the original state of Creation, when the moon was a sphere above two spheres, and influence will be granted in abundance. That influence will “descend like rain,” without any meanness. The psalm continues, “The righteous will flourish in his days… until the moon ceases to exist.” The words, “until the moon ceases to exist,” should not be understood literally. Rather, the intent is that the moon as it exists in its present state of lacking will cease to exist. Instead, the moon will return to its original state when there was no lack in its light even from its other side i.e. the side that is not facing the sun, because the moon will once again be close to the sun."
]
],
[
[
"An Analysis of the Passage in Chulin 60b",
"Before entering into an explanation of this passage, I would like to raise certain questions: i) The passage focuses on an apparent contradiction between the phrase, “And God made the two great luminaries,” and the later phrases, “the great luminary” and “the small luminary.” Why is it necessary to say there is a contradiction between these phrases? In the present era as well, when compared to the other celestial bodies, the light of the sun and the moon is great. Hence, they can both described as “great luminaries” (as cited in sec. 1 in the name of Rav Avraham ibn Ezra), even though when they are compared to each other, one is greater and the other smaller.",
"I researched texts that would discuss the difficulty in this passage – some which discuss it as a whole or and others that discussing particular details of this passage. Knowing that the Maharal of Prague1. Rav Yehudah Loewe of Prague, known as Maharal of Prague, was a renowned Torah sage who authored many works, including commentaries on the Talmud and treatises of Jewish philosophy and mysticism. There is some dispute as to the exact year Maharal was born, but all historians agree that he was born between 5272 (1512 CE) and 5286 (1526 CE). Maharal died in 5369 (1609 CE). Rabbi Loewe served as chief rabbi of Prague, and was one of Tosfos Yom Tov’s mentors. Here, Tosafos Yom Tov is citing Maharal’s text, Gur Aryeh, which is a commentary on the Torah, focusing primarily on Rashi’s commentary. was well-versed in all fields of knowledge, I opened his text Gur Aryeh, and I found the object of my search because he did discuss this passage. Nevertheless, Maharal’s treatment of the subject did not satisfy my desire, as will be evident from my citation of his words and my critique of them. True, to borrow the wording of our Sages, “One should not seek to refute the lion after his passing,” i.e., it is not proper to question the words of a Torah sage when he cannot respond. Nevertheless, our Sages also taught, “It is Torah and I am obligated to learn.” In this spirit I followed the example of our ancestors and teachers, whereby, that every later scholar who perceives a statement as being problematic turns to the sages of previous generations and raises questions if he has critique of his teachers instead of remaining silent. Others will see both the original work and the question, and choose that which they find more desirable. By saying, “One should not seek to refute the lion…,” our Sages were implying that critique of “the lion’s” teachings should be expressed with deference and respect. It should be realized that were “the lion” still with us, he might well have been able to resolve the questions asked concerning his words. The intent is not, however, to refrain from asking questions. True, the departed sage may well have had a resolution, but a judge can only rule on the evidence before him. Therefore, our Sages did not say, “One is not permitted to refute a lion….” This should suffice regarding this matter.",
"Gur Aryeh writes concerning this issue: There are those who raise questions regarding our Sages’ words, for the verse can be understood according to its simple meaning. The sun and the moon are described as “the two great luminaries,” because they are both great in comparison to the other celestial beings. Even so, the sun is referred to as “the great luminary,” because it is great in comparison to the moon. These scholars did not know the words of the Sages, for the wording of the verse indicates that the sun and moon were created at the same time, as it is written, “And He made… the great luminaries.” Now, since they are not identical – one is “the great luminary” and one, “the small luminary” – how could they have been created at the same time? For created beings that are different from each other were brought into being at different times. How then was it possible for “the great luminary” and “the small luminary” to be created at the same time? This is the true interpretation of the matter.",
"And in Parshas Pinchas, Gur Aryeh writes: Rav Abraham ibn Ezra sought to interpret the matter cleverly and explain that he did not see any difficulty in these verses (i.e., the apparent contradiction raised by the author of the passage mentioned does not present any difficulty for Rav Avraham ibn Ezra), for the intent of the phrase “the two great luminaries” is that they appear greater than the other stars. Nevertheless, the moon can aptly be called “the small luminary” when compared to the sun. These words are mere prattle. Our Sages could also have offered such an interpretation. As we already explained in the beginning of Bereishis, such an interpretation should not be offered, since the sun and the moon were created at one time, and it is not befitting that two utterly different entities – one being described as “great” and one as “small” – be created at the same time, for they are opposites. Throughout the Creation, when entities were created together, they were equal. We are compelled to say that the verse, “And God made… the two great luminaries” implies that the sun and the moon] were created as equals, because they were created at the same time.",
"After begging forgiveness from Maharal’s honor and the honor of his Torah, I object to Maharal’s absolute renunciation of the position of those who question the interpretation he favors – saying that, “These scholars did not know the words of the Sages,” and his condemnation of the words of Rav Avraham ibn Ezra as “mere prattle” – for offering a simple explanation of the words of the verse. Maharal’s understanding of the source for the question our Sages raised in the passage from Chulin – that since the sun and the moon were created at the same time, they had to have been identical – is a reasonable thesis, but there is no absolute proof of its validity. Why then should Maharal reject the interpretation of Rav Avraham ibn Ezra so absolutely, calling it “mere prattle”? How much harsher is Maharal’s statement that “these scholars did not know the words of the Sages”! Behold, there are three testimonies from the words of our Sages themselves, which were not concerned with the questions raised in the passage from Chulin. Without a doubt, the reason is that these Sages also understand the narrative in Bereishis according to the simple interpretation advanced by Rav Avraham ibn Ezra and the other scholars whom Maharal maligns.",
"These three “testimonies” are the three passages that I cited before this passage from Chulin. The passage from the Zohar Chadash, Shir HaShirim, explicitly states: “The intent is not that the moon was originally greater and superior to its present state. Instead, as long as the moon would stand together with the sun in one mystical bond, as a result of this, it was called ‘great’ along with it.”",
"The passage from its companion, the Raya Mehemna, also supports this view. The description of both the sun and the moon as “great” does not create a difficulty for the Raya Mehemna, as it refers to “the two kings” as being the planets Nogah and Kochav which were originally below the moon and which are now above the moon. According to the understanding of the Raya Mehemna, “the two kings” are not the sun and the moon, as the passage from Chulin infers. If so, according to the Raya Mehemna, the term “great luminaries” can refer to the sun and the moon, as is the simple interpretation, for their light is great when compared to the light of the other stars. Nevertheless, since the Torah later refers to the moon as “small” and does not suffice its reference to the moon by saying, “one luminary to rule the day and another to rule the night,” the Raya Mehemna understood that the verse alluded to the diminishment of the moon in the manner which was explained in section 3. Thus, there are two passages that support the approach of Rav Avraham ibn Ezra.",
"The third passage that] supports the approach of Rav Avraham ibn Ezra is the passage in Midrash Rabbah which points out the difficulty in the Scriptural passage in that God demeaned the moon by calling it “small” after He originally gave the moon prominence and called it “great.” However, according to Midrash Rabbah, the description of the sun and the moon as “great” does not mean that they were formerly equal in size, but rather that both the sun and the moon were of greater prominence than the other celestial bodies. Nevertheless, Midrash Rabbah felt that an explanation was necessary, since once the moon had been described as “great” – even though it is smaller than the sun – Scripture should not have referred to it as “small,” for that is demeaning.",
"Thus, there are three faithful testimonies from the works of our Sages that indicate they understand that the verse should be understood according to its simple meaning and left at that. Therefore, there are no grounds for reproach against one who accepts this interpretation and does not see any contradiction between the fact that Scripture first referred to both the sun and the moon as “great” and afterwards called the moon “small”. Instead, these three passages present a different question: Why was it necessary for Scripture to call the moon “small” after first calling it “great”? From the interpretation of the narrative in these sources, it is obvious that they do not accept the rationale cited by Gur Aryeh – that the fact that the sun and the moon were created at the same time shows that they were created as equals in all matters. Why must Gur Aryeh hold to this rationale so forcibly and say that someone who does not accept it does not know the way of the Sages? We see that there were Sages who did not accept this rationale, as is evident from the fact that they did not see the contradiction between the two verses as presented in the passage in Chulin.",
"Furthermore, we find several verses that appear to contradict this principle. For example, “God created the great sea-creatures.” There are some who, like Rashi, interpret the verse simply, as referring to the various large fish in the sea. Now, certainly, not all the large fish are of the same size, as any sea-farer will relate. Even if one would say that – as is the Aggadic interpretation that Rashi also cites – the verse refers to the Leviathan and its mate, the male and female Leviathan were not identical, as is evident from that Talmudic passage which cites the verse, “On that day, God will focus the attention of His hard and strong sword upon Leviathan, the extended serpent, and upon Leviathan, the crooked serpent.” The Talmud notes that the word Leviathan is mentioned twice, once referring to the male and once to the female. Rashbam explains that the words “the extended serpent” refer to the male, which is straight, like a door-bolt. The words “the crooked serpent” refer to the female Leviathan that surrounds the entire world. Thus, even according to this interpretation, the two were not identical: one was male, the other female; one straight, the other crooked. The same principle applies with regard to Adam and Chavah, according to the interpretation that they were created together as a two-faced entity. According to this interpretation, although Adam and Chavah were created together and fused as one being, they were nevertheless formed differently – one was entirely male, and one was entirely female. The same is true regarding the creation of the heavens. First, it is written: “In the beginning, God created the heavens,” and then it is written: “God made the firmament,” as explained by the commentaries. As cited in the previous section, there are at least two heavens, and they are not identical. Since the higher heaven encompasses the lower one, it must be greater than the lower one. In any event, the verses refer to all the heavens, which were created or made with one act.",
"Furthermore, King David praises God “Who makes the great luminaries,” using the present tense. King David similarly uses the present tense in the phrases, “Who makes the heavens with understanding,” and, “Who spreads out the land over the waters.” Without a doubt, God “renews every day, continually, the work of Creation.” Unquestionably, were God to withdraw His Creative energy from the created beings, they would all cease to exist immediately. Accordingly, it can be said that if the sun and the moon could both be considered as great luminaries even though they are not identical, because they are “great” in comparison to other celestial bodies, then the words of praise “Who makes the great luminaries” are appropriate, the intent being that the “great luminaries” brought into being at the time of Creation are renewed each day. If, however, one postulates that the sun and the moon were identical at the time of Creation, and the moon was diminished because of its complaint, how could King David praise God as the One “Who makes the great luminaries”? At present, they are not the same as they were originally. Thus, this verse also appears to contradict the logic advanced by Gur Aryeh.",
"Similarly, there are many verses which describe diverse entities as “great” even though they are not identical. True, it can be said that these verses do not represent a contradiction to the above thesis, the rationale being that since the entities mentioned in these verses were not created at the same time, they need not be identical. Nevertheless, according to this logic, at times the term “great” will have one meaning, and at times another. Thus, it weakens the strength of that thesis. Thus, the original question returns: Why are the verses considered as contradictory? In truth, there is no difficulty in understanding them.",
"ii) The passage in Chulin states that the moon complained. Whenever it is postulated that there was a complaint, proof of such is necessary. This is because if – as a result of the contradiction between the verses – one is forced to say that the moon was diminished, it is possible to say that perhaps God immediately diminished the moon without it complaining at all. Instead, God recognized that the world could not be maintained when two kings use a single crown. Afterwards, because He diminished the size of the moon and did not diminish the size of the sun God might have offered the moon consolation on His own initiative. This idea will be mentioned in the fourth question. A parallel to this idea can be found in our Sages’ words, “Initially, the Holy One, blessed be He, created the world with the attribute of Judgment. He saw that the world would not be able to continue, therefore, He blended the attribute of Mercy with the attribute of Judgment.” Without a complaint having been issued, God realized that an adjustment had to be made to the initial state of Creation, and did so on His own initiative.",
"iii) The moon’s words imply that its complaint was reasonable and justified. This is also reflected by the fact that God made several conciliatory gestures to the moon after diminishing it. If so, a great question arises: How is it possible that God made both luminaries “great” without realizing that it is impossible for two kings to wear one crown?",
"iv) If one assumes that originally the sun and the moon were identical, and that afterwards the size of one was diminished, it is more logical to say that God had the change of mind on His own initiative, realizing that it is impossible for two kings to wear one crown, and therefore, diminished one of the luminaries. What prompted the author of this passage to say that the moon issued a complaint? It cannot be said that the fact that the size of the moon was diminished is proof that the moon complained, because otherwise the sun would have been the one diminished. This is certainly not a viable argument: If the sun had been diminished, one would ask why the moon was not diminished?",
"v) The passage quotes God as saying, “Go and diminish yourself.” Why does God say “Go”? Seemingly, it would have been sufficient to say, “Diminish yourself.”",
"vi-vii) God commanded the moon to diminish itself. Why didn’t God diminish the moon through a Divine decree? Just as God spoke and the moon was created as “great,” so too God could speak and the moon would be diminished. Moreover, how is it possible for an entity to diminish itself? And if one would answer that the intent is that God would diminish it with His word, the wording used by our Sages is difficult, for the passage states that God instructed the moon to “Diminish yourself.” Instead, the passage should have said, “The Holy One, blessed be He, decreed: you shall be diminished.”",
"viii-ix) The passage states that after God told the moon to diminish itself, the moon protested: “Because I have suggested something that is proper must I diminish myself?” It appears that with this statement, the moon revealed the intent hidden in its original statement. The moon’s original question, “Is it possible for two kings…,” could have been understood as implying that it was willing to forgo its honor and be diminished. In that way, the difficulty of having two kings using the same crown would have been avoided. However, the moon’s protest: “Must I diminish myself?” indicates that its initial intent was that the sun be diminished and not the moon. This certainly reflects a severe negative trait and a sign of meanness. Even though the issue raised is legitimate, the moon is deserving of punishment. Thus, the moon’s protest, “because I have suggested something that is proper must I diminish myself?” raises two questions:
a) The moon’s claim is a hollow one. Since the moon admitted that its intent was that the sun be diminished, following the pattern that God rewards and punishes His created beings “measure for measure,” it was justified that the moon be diminished. Of what importance then is the fact that the issue raised by the moon was legitimate?
b) God’s response also raises a question: Since the moon admitted that its intent was that the sun be diminished, why did God repeatedly seek to console it? Initially, when the moon’s intent was not apparent, and it was possible to interpret the moon’s statement as implying that it was willing to waive its honor and diminish itself, and hence God decreed that it should be diminished, the need for conciliatory gestures is understood. But once the moon revealed that its intent was that the sun be diminished, why were these gestures necessary? True, one might say that, at the outset, God decreed that the moon should be diminished because either way, it was the appropriate thing to do. For if the moon intended that it be diminished, waiving its honor, the moon’s diminishment would be done according to its own will. And if the moon’s intent was that the sun be diminished, then it was appropriate that the moon be diminished for its meanness. Even so, the question still remains: Why did God repeatedly offer the moon conciliatory gestures? On the contrary, the moon proved it was deserving of being diminished when it revealed its intent that the sun be diminished.",
"x) The passage quotes the moon as saying: “because I have suggested something that is proper must I diminish myself?” Is the fact that the moon made a proper suggestion sufficient justification for it not to be diminished? For if the moon would not be diminished, there would still be two kings with one crown. And if the moon’s intent was that the sun should be diminished, then the moon] revealed its flaw in character, and proved that it is fitting that it be diminished anyway, as stated above.",
"xi) Since the wording, “must I diminish myself,” which the moon used, employs the future tense, it is apparent that the moon had yet to carry out God’s decree and diminish itself. From the fact that God offered the moon several conciliatory gestures, it appears that the moon’s arguments were accepted. If so, why did God not rescind His decree and fulfill the moon’s request? Nothing is beyond God’s capacity, and there is certainly another way that He could have resolved the difficulty of two kings using the same crown. There is no reason to say God did not rescind His decree was because once a Divine decree is issued, God does not desire to retract it, as reflected in the interpretation of Yirmeyahu’s statement: “Regarding the prophet who will prophesy promising peace, when the words of the prophet will come to fruition, it will be made known that God truly sent him.” Rashi, based on the Midrash Tanchuma, explains that if a prophet prophesies that negative events will occur, the fact that his prophecy does not materialize is not a proof that he is a false prophet, for God is patient and relents, and may withold harmful consequences. Radak offers a similar explanation, supporting his words through the example of God’s retraction of the prophecy of doom for Nineveh. A prophecy for good, by contrast, will certainly materialize. True, it is possible that a prophecy for good will later be annulled as a result of sin, as reflected in Yirmeyahu’s words: “If at any time, I speak concerning a nation… to build it and to plant it… if they do what is evil in My eyes, I will retract the good.” Nevertheless, at least initially, the positive prophecy will be fulfilled. In a similar vein, the Talmud Yerushalmi states that when the false prophet Chananyah ben Azur challenged Yirmeyahu to prove his words, Yirmeyahu answered him: I am prophesying concerning harmful events. Therefore, I cannot supply proof for my words, because although God said that the evil would come, He may relent. You are prophesying concerning positive events, so it is you who must give a sign of the truth of your words.” From all this, it is apparent that a negative Divine decree may be abrogated. Why then – if God acknowledged that the moon’s claim was valid – did He not retract?",
"xii) Our Sages relate that God told the moon: “Go and rule.” As mentioned above, The command “go” appears unnecessary.",
"xiii) According to our Sages, God instructed the moon to rule during the day and the night. What was the intent in such an instruction? Did God not comprehend that during the day the moon’s light would be of no avail? It would be like the light of a candle in broad daylight, as the moon objected!",
"xiv) After the moon protested, God offered another conciliatory gesture, saying, “Go. Israel will reckon the days and the years according to you.” Here, too, as above, the question arises: What is the intent of the command, “Go”? Also, here, our Sages begin reporting the dialogue in Aramaic while previously they used Hebrew.",
"xv-xvi) The first conciliatory gesture offered the moon was that the Jews would “reckon the days and the years according to you,” to which the moon countered, “That is impossible without the sun.” Here, also, the same issue raised in question xiii could be asked. Seemingly, the objection is obvious. Did God not know that the sun would also be included in the calculation of the days and the years?",
"Moreover, in this instance, the complaint is thoroughly justified, for the days and the years are determined primarily by the movement of the sun. The days are determined by the setting of the sun, i.e., the duration of a day is from one setting of the sun to the next, as Rav Avraham ibn Ezra comments on the verse, “And Moshe said, ‘Eat it today.’” Similarly, the years are solar years. The concept of a lunar year is only a borrowed term, for the word year, שנה, has the connotation of repetition, as in the verse, שנו וישנו, “He instructed them to repeat, and they repeated.” In other words, a solar year is the sun’s completion of its circuit of its orbit from the west to the east, as the sun returns to the place where its orbit began. In contrast, the moon finishes its orbit from west to east every month. The term “lunar year” is adopted because the moon concludes twelve cycles in the time it takes the sun to proceed through the twelve Zodiac constellations. Thus, the reckoning of the days and the years is more closely associated with the sun than with the moon. Conversely, it would have been appropriate to mention that the festivals too are dependent on the moon, because the dates on which the festivals fall are dependent on the days of the lunar months, just as they are dependent on the times of spring, the grain harvest, and the fruit harvest. Although the festivals are dependent on the seasons that are determined by the sun, their celebration is also dependent on the moon. Why then did the passage in Chulin mention only the days and the years and overlook the festivals?",
"Gur Aryeh writes that because the moon was diminished, it is appropriate to measure according to it, for a small measure is fit to be used in all measurements, while a large measure is not. This consolation was granted to the moon because it was diminished. As a result of the moon’s being diminished, this positive dimension came about. I heard the words of that text, but I do not comprehend them. The establishment of the calendar according to the moon has nothing to do with its size, but with the time the moon takes to complete its orbit. If so, what does the diminishment of the moon have to do with the positive quality of having the days and years measured according to it?",
"Furthermore, one cannot say that because of its small size, the moon proceeds faster in its orbit, i.e., that a large entity is heavier and a small entity is lighter. This is not true for two reasons:
a) The scholars of natural science have determined that in the fifth type of being, from which the heavenly beings are comprised, does not possess natural characteristics as we know them. Thus, the concept of being heavier or lighter does not apply with regard to the heavenly beings.
b) Even if the heavenly beings would have natural characteristics and would be characterized by lightness or heaviness, those characteristics would not have an effect on the speed or slowness of their progress in their orbits. This is evident from the fact that the sun concludes its orbit in approximately 365 and ¼ days, yet its mass is larger than that of any one of the other heavenly bodies and their constellations, as recorded in the list of the heavenly bodies in the text Yesod Olam, Discourse 3, ch. 17. Shabbetai (Saturn) completes one cycle of its orbit in 30 years, while Tzedek (Jupiter) takes twelve years to complete one cycle of its orbit, and Ma’adim (Mars) takes slightly less than two years to complete one cycle of its orbit. Similarly, the size of Nogah (Venus) is greater than that of the moon, but not substantially greater. (For the moon is 1/39 and a quarter the size of the earth, and Nogah is 1/37 the size of the earth.) Nevertheless, the time it takes for Nogah to circle the earth is far longer than the time necessary for the moon to make its circuit. For Nogah makes one circuit in 300 days, which is approximately ten times longer than one of the moon’s circuits. Moreover, the planet called Kochav (Mercury) is very small, only 1/19,000 of the size of the earth, and yet it requires 336 days to complete the one circuit of its orbit. The above figures are taken from the works of the astronomers. In its commentary to the verse beginning Vay’chulu, Midrash Rabbah to Parshas Bereishis offers different calculations, and in some texts of Midrash Rabbah those figures are questioned based on the words of the astronomers. Regardless of these details, from all the above, however, it is obvious that the size of a heavenly body is not the conclusive determinant in the speed of its orbit.",
"Moreover, based on the above, another question arises regarding the words of Gur Aryeh: If the fact that a heavenly body is small makes it fitting that the reckoning of the festivals be made according to it, seemingly, the reckoning should be dependent on the movement of Kochav, for it is very small. Perhaps this itself was part of the conciliatory gesture made to the moon – that even though it is befitting that the reckoning of the festivals be dependent on the movement of Kochav, since reckoning should be made based on the smallest measure, the honor of having the dates of the festivals be based on its movement was given to the moon to appease it.",
"xvii) The moon responded to God’s statement that it would feature in the reckoning of the days and the years by saying, “That is impossible without the sun.” This response shows that the moon returned to its undesirable trait of showing jealousy that the sun would also be included in the reckoning that the Jews would make. How could the moon make such statements without fear that it would be punished again?",
"xviii-xix) A prooftext, “And let them be for signs,” is brought by the passage in Chulin in support of the moon’s statements. I don’t understand why it is necessary to bring proof that the seasons are calculated according to the sun. This is a fact well known to the sages, their students, and their students’ students. A point of public knowledge does not require support. And if one would say that the prooftext was cited merely for supplementary purpose, the question could then be raised from the opposite perspective: Why didn’t the passage bring a prooftext for God’s conciliatory statement that the Jews would calculate the days and the years according to the moon, citing the verse, “they shall serve as signs… for days and years”?",
"It is not appropriate to say that a prooftext was not cited because the verse that could serve as the prooftext, not only does not support, but runs contrary to the desired intent, for it states, “they shall serve” which also highlights the importance of the sun. How would this pacify the moon? This does not present a question, because regardless, God knew that the calculations would also include the sun. Even so, God made this statement to the moon to appease it. As such, it would not have harmed the author of this passage to have quoted this proof. For the verse would not be cited as proof that God made these statements to the moon. Rather, the verse would serve as proof with regard to the issue itself: that the Jews would calculate their calendar according to the moon. The dialogue between God and the moon is not derived from this verse: rather, the verse only serves as a proof of the concept itself. If so, the passage in Chulin should also have cited the verse, “they shall serve as signs… for days and years,” when relating God’s words to the moon, because this verse indicates that the reckoning depends on the moon.",
"This also leads to another question: The passage in Chulin should have cited a prooftext for God’s instruction to the moon to rule during the day and the night, quoting the verse, “to rule during the day and during the night.” If you would say that this verse was not cited since it does not prove that the moon was given authority to rule alone, that will lead to another question: What is the source which led the author of this passage to maintain that God told the moon to rule alone during the day and the night? The simple meaning of the verse is that the charge was delivered to both the sun and the moon.",
"xx) The passage continues, saying that God told the moon, “Go. The righteous will be called by your name.” As above, the reason why God told the moon to “go” requires explanation.",
"xxi) Explanation is also required as to why God’s statement, “The righteous will be called by your name,” is considered a conciliatory gesture. That question is strengthened by the fact that only three righteous men are mentioned. Moreover, one of the references, Shmuel HaKatan, is not found in Scripture. It is far-fetched to say that the reference is to Shmuel HaKatan, the Tanna mentioned in Pirkei Avos. Especially, since if that was the intent, Shmuel HaKatan should not be mentioned between Yaakov and David, but after David, according to chronological order. Indeed, when the text Maaseh HaShem relates this passage in his own words, in ch. 8 of Maaseh Bereishis, as I will mention later on, it mentions Shmuel HaKatan last. Nevertheless, when quoting the Talmudic passage itself, Maaseh HaShem mentions Shmuel second. When the author of the Akeidah cited the passage (in Shaar 37), he removed the reference to Shmuel HaKatan altogether. If so, there were only two righteous men associated with the moon.",
"(Parenthetically, it can be noted that in his commentary to the Talmud, Rashi states that the description of David as “small” is found in Divrei HaYamim. In his haste, Rashi was not careful. The intended reference is in I Shmuel, ch. 17.)",
"xxii) The passage continues, stating that God “saw that the moon would not be consoled.” What lead God to that conclusion? On the contrary, the fact that the moon remained silent could be understood as indicating that it was consoled. And if one would say that “God sees into the hearts” of all beings and thus knew the moon’s feelings, the passage should not have recounted the interchange cited before as a dialogue between God and the moon, but as God’s awareness of the moon’s feelings.",
"xxiii) The passage continues that God concluded, “Bring an atonement offering for Me because I diminished the moon.” This wording is fundamentally problematic. How can such a statement be made? Is it appropriate to say that God could possibly need atonement?! I have already cited the understanding of Rabbeinu Yitzchak Alfasi, who interprets this statement as meaning, “Bring an atonement offering before Me every Rosh Chodesh to atone for yourselves.” Nevertheless, even in interpreting the statement in this manner, Rav Yitzchak Alfasi did not save the author of the passage from the following question: Why did the author of this passage phrase his statements in a manner that does not reveal his intent? Furthermore, besides obscuring the correct meaning, the text as it is written appears irreverent. Similar statements are found in Gur Aryeh, to quote:
הביאו עלי כפרה The wordעלי , “for Me”, should be understood here as meaning “for My sake.” The Holy One, blessed be He, commanded Israel to bring an atonement offering for themselves. This is an honor for the moon, and as a result it was appeased. According to the understanding of the author of the passage the meaning of the term “for a sin-offering” is that the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded Israel to bring this sacrifice as a sin-offering to God, for God’s sake because He diminished the moon. And God commanded Israel to bring this sin-offering on Rosh Chodesh as a token of honor to the moon. This interpretation is sufficient to answer those who question the wording of the passage, i.e., that the passage implies that God requires atonement. ",
"Nevertheless, one may still ask: Why did the passage say, “Bring an atonement offering for Me”? Why didn’t it say, “Bring a sacrifice for Me”? This would have been more appropriate wording. Who forced the author of the passage to say, “Bring an atonement offering for Me”? Why use wording that would provoke questions? Although Gur Aryeh states that Rabbeinu Yitzchak Alfasi interprets עלי as meaning “for Me,” I already wrote otherwise, in the name of Rashba, that Rabbeinu Yitzchak Alfasi interprets עלי as similar to אלי, “to Me.” This nevertheless provokes the same question, for seemingly the author of the passage should have used the word אלי rather than עלי. Indeed, it is a question that is almost impossible to resolve. On the other hand, the question raised by Gur Aryeh – Why did the passage say “Bring an atonement offering for Me” and not “Bring a sacrifice for Me”? – can be resolved as follows: Since the verse mentions a sin-offering, the author of the passage mentioned atonement, and he also used concise wording. Therefore, the author of the passage did not say, “Bring atonement for your sins.” It is possible to say that the author of the passage chose to use concise wording without worrying about the possibility of questions arising, as we see the Torah did when quoting God as saying, “Let us make man.” Concerning that verse, the Midrash relates that Moshe asked God: “Master of the World, why do You provide heretics with an excuse?” God responded: “Write it and whoever wishes to err may err.” Nevertheless, I am not comfortable with that resolution, for the words of Torah are composed in one manner, while the words of the Sages require a different approach. Were the wording “Bring an atonement offering for Me” not necessary to teach a concept that could only be derived from these words, it would certainly have been changed, and it would have been appropriate to use other wording which would not evoke questions.",
"Furthermore, the concept of bringing an atonement offering for God is problematic. If one requires atonement, is it appropriate that another bring an atonement offering for him? True, the offering would actually be God’s, for everything belongs to Him, as King David said: “For everything is from You, and it is Your gift that we have given to You.” Nevertheless, having man bring the offering is inappropriate. True, Rabbeinu Yitzchak Alfasi’s interpretation resolves the latter question. For according to this interpretation, the Holy One, blessed be He, did not say that He required atonement, but that the Jews require atonement and, as a means of honoring the moon, they should bring the atonement offering on the day of the moon’s renewal. Nevertheless, this is not the simple meaning of the wording of the passage. It is problematic that the passage employs this wording which evokes a question, unless these specific words help convey the intent of the passage and without these words, the intent of the passage would not be understood. Only for such a reason would the author of the passage use such wording.",
"xxiv) Why did the author of the passage not cite support for his concluding statement, showing the source from which he derived this concept, as Reish Lakish did? Even the verse Reish Lakish cited as a source needs explanation, and is interpreted in various ways, as I will explain below. Indeed, blessed is he who knows the one who can appreciate the true intent of the author of this passage! If so, when the author presents his claim without proof, the difficulty in understanding the passage is even more pronounced.",
"xxv), xxvi), xxvii) Gur Aryeh raises two questions, and I will add a third. Gur Aryeh asks: a) why is the honor granted to the moon conveyed through a sin-offering and not through any other of the additional offerings?
b) Why was the moon appeased only through the designation of a sacrifice to be offered in its honor, but not because of anything else? Other gestures were made to the moon, and yet it did not become appeased.",
"I add: Was the moon in fact appeased by this final gesture? The author of the passage does not explicitly say the moon was appeased. By not doing so, he left us in a quandary. Perhaps the moon was not appeased, and God merely did not desire to make any further gestures to appease it. After all, the moon refused to be appeased despite the previous gestures made to it. Moreover, all of these gestures were beyond the measure of the law, for the moon itself brought about its diminishment through its complaint. That the moon caused its own diminishment is evident from the moon’s words, which reflect how it was jealous and requested to possess a unique quality that the sun would lack. This can be seen from the hidden intent in the beginning of the moon’s words when it asked: “Is it possible for two kings to wear one crown?” It is clear that, because of its jealousy, the moon desired that the sun be diminished and it alone remain great. Therefore, God acted according to the letter of the law by diminishing the moon, and all of the conciliatory gestures made to it were beyond the measure of the law. Thus, it could be said that although the moon was not appeased after the offering of a sacrifice was instituted in its honor, nevertheless God did not seek to appease the moon any further. On the other hand, it could be said that the moon was appeased by this final gesture. The reason that the author of the passage did not mention this is because he did not think that it was necessary, since it is self-evident from the fact that further conciliatory gestures were not made to the moon. Now God is not constrained at all, and could have made further gestures. From the fact that He did not, we can conclude that the moon was appeased. Since the passage does not clarify this point, it is unclear which of these two approaches is correct.",
"xxviii) Reish Lakish emphasizes that a goat is offered as an atonement offering. Why is the word “goat” used? Why didn’t Reish Lakish emphasize the type of offering – namely a sin-offering? Seemingly, the emphasis should be on the type of sacrifice being brought, not on the type of animal being offered. The significance of the animal is that it is being designated as a sin-offering.",
"These are the questions and difficulties that I felt necessary to raise regarding this passage. From them, an explanation will emerge, with the help of God. Its truth will become more apparent after having raised these issues than it would have had I presented my commentary without having done so. For this same reason, I also briefly mentioned the opinions of the other scholars who interpreted this passage and my difficulties in comprehending their explanations. Henceforth I will respond to their claims."
],
[
"I already mentioned the statements of Rav Avraham ibn Ezra in sec. 1, see those words. Now, I will cite what the author of the Akeidah (Shaar 37) responded to him. Rav Avraham ibn Ezra concluded his explanation of the passage in Chulin with this statement: “None of the words of the Sages that preceded us have proved futile.” The author of the Akeidah took issue with Rav Avraham ibn Ezra regarding this matter, stating:
I see that his words are true, for none of our Sages’ words have proved futile. On the contrary, they are all-inclusive. It is the questions and the resolutions ibn Ezra proposes regarding the passage that are all futile; they are unfounded. For ibn Ezra did not bring out any new concept in his explanation of the passage, the only insight his explanations produced was that directly after the moon shines in its fullness, its light begins to diminish. Who does not know that? There is no novelty in ibn Ezra’s explanation, except that he offered it worded as a riddle. It is not possible that this is the intent of the Sages. Moreover, the diminishment of the moon of which ibn Ezra speaks is not diminishment in a true sense; it only appears so according to our perception. For in truth, the moon is always full, for the side facing the sun is never diminished, as our Sages said: “The sun never saw the moon’s diminishment.",
"Continuing his exposition, the author of the Akeidah offered two interpretations of the passage in Chulin: a) the author of that passage intended to use this teaching to reject the thought system of Epicurus, who believed that existence – as a whole and in its particulars – is governed entirely by chance. To rebut this line of thought, the author of the passage in Chulin offered an analogy of the moon engaging in a dialogue with the Creator. Since the moon saw it had no light of its own, but merely reflects the light of the sun, it asked: “Is it possible for two kings to wear one crown?” The implication is that it appears that everything happens by chance without any Divine intent. Thus, it is possible that all entities can be equal in sovereignty and in all matters. If so, the fact that the moon is not equal to the sun was simply by chance. Accordingly, there would be no basis for the moon to complain. But if the diminishment occurred as a result of a Divine intent, there is room to ask why this was done to it.
God answered: “Go and diminish yourself,” i.e., the diminishment was a result of My intent.
The moon replied, “Because I have suggested something that is proper must I diminish myself?” I.e., since I agreed that the diminishment came as a result of a Divine intent and not by chance, which is a proper statement, explain to me Your intent: Why is it that You diminished me, causing me not to have any light of my own?
God answered: “Go and ‘rule during the day and during the night’.” I.e., that was My intent, for this is the way your influence will be effective both during the day and at night.
The moon then responded: “Of what use is a candle in broad daylight?” I.e., the moon’s sovereignty during the day is not significant.
God answered: “Israel will reckon the days and the years according to you.” I.e., this is a matter of great benefit, and reflects a prodigious intent.
The moon replied: “That is impossible without the sun,” and hence the entire reckoning of the calendar should be made according to the sun. Why was it necessary for the moon to undergo the change and the diminishment?
God’s response was: “The righteous will be called by your name.” I.e., it is ethically correct for those who are small to “diminish” themselves i.e., to make themselves humble in the presence of those who are great. So too, you, the small sphere, should conduct yourself in this manner, accepting the fact that the recipient of influence should be below and the one who conveys influence should be above.",
"Nevertheless, since all these responses will not satisfy one whose heart is characterized by “a root that bears gall and wormwood,” God therefore said, “Bring an atonement offering for sinning against Me through such thoughts that came as a result of My diminishing the moon. My intent was for the benefit of the world, but you developed misconceptions about Me.” The wording עלי in the Talmudic passage is used in the same manner as the word על in the phrase, “who sinned against the soul.” This is also the intent of the verse, “a goat as a sin-offering to God,” i.e., the goat is brought as a sin-offering for having sinned against God. This is a short synopsis of the words of the Akeidah.",
"My heart tells me that any reader will himself understand that the words of the Akeidah are far from the simple meaning of the Talmudic passage, for the fundamental point of his thesis – that the moon questioned whether everything occurs accidentally or by Divine intent – is not stated in the narrative itself. Moreover, the other position – that everything happens by chance – is not explained at all, even though that option seemingly remains tenable. Also, how is it possible that after the moon was brought into being without having light of its own, God ordered it, “Go and diminish yourself”? That was already the situation; i.e., the moon was already less important than the sun. Furthermore, since the moon’s desire was to know the reason for its diminishment, why did God not answer at the outset that the moon’s diminishment was for the purpose of establishing the calendar, which was His fundamental intent? Why did God first reply, “So that you will rule…,” which is not a feasible answer? Also, the explanation that the righteous will follow the pattern of the moon is very far from the original question: Is the world governed by chance or by Divine providence? The comparison to the righteous who diminish themselves does not seem related to the concept that the world is governed by Divine providence. In addition, the explanation of the conclusion of the passage according to the Akeidah’s interpretation reverses the obvious meaning of God’s statement, “Let this goat be offered as atonement for Me for diminishing the moon.” The phrase “for diminishing” implies that God attributed the fault to His act, as it were, while the Akeidah explains that the intent is that there are people who sin and think that the diminishment of the moon was not a positive act and that the diminishment happened only by chance.",
"The second interpretation offered by the author of the Akeidah is based on another Midrash, which understands the moon as an analogy for the Jewish people, and the sun as an analogy for Esav. Using these analogies, the author of the passage in Chulin is explaining that the Jewish people (who are compared to the moon) protest, “Is it possible for two kings to share one crown?” i.e., is it possible for Yaakov and Esav to be equal and for both to inherit two worlds, i.e., this world and the World to Come, for their essences are different. As a result of this essential difference, success should also alternate between them.
The Holy One, blessed be He, told the moon (i.e., the Jewish people), “Go and diminish yourself,” i.e., you will not rule in this world.
The moon responded, “Why will I not be successful in this world and in the next?”
God responded, “Go and rule during the day and during the night,” i.e., there will be many Jews who will merit success in both worlds.
The moon replied, “Of what use is a candle in broad daylight?” I.e., the dominion of those select few is of no consequence in relation to that of the ruling kingdoms at large.
God answered, “Israel will reckon the days and the years according to you,” i.e., the Jewish people will establish the calculation of the months and the festivals, and the Heavenly Company will carry out their decision, as our Sages stated in their interpretation of the verse, “I will call upon the supreme Judge, to the God Who carries out the rulings according to me.” This is an expression of greatness and honor for the Jewish people.
The moon responded: The Heavenly Company also carries out the decisions of those who calculate their calendar according to the sun, as is evident from the spring and the other seasons.
God answered: “The righteous will be called by your name,” i.e., the willingness to be diminished in this world is the attribute that enables one to inherit the World to Come, as reflected in the conduct of Yaakov and David. Even so, God saw that because of its stubbornness, the Jewish people (referring back to the analogue) were not appeased. Therefore, God ordained that the Jewish people bring an atonement offering on account of their stubbornness, in addition to their being diminished. Had the Jewish people not been diminished, their conduct would have been even more perverse. Even in their present diminished state, the Jewish people behave stubbornly. Therefore, they are in need of atonement. Alternatively, God’s words can be understood as a jest, as if He said: “Bring an atonement offering for Me if I acted improperly by diminishing you. In truth, however, I acted for your benefit, so that you would inherit the World to Come.”
This summarizes the second interpretation offered by the author of the Akeidah. It too is very distant from the obvious intent of the words of the Talmudic passage."
],
[
"I saw that the author of the text Maaseh HaShem also offers an explanation similar to the second interpretation offered by the author of the Akeidah, containing only slight changes. Maaseh HaShem explains that the moon’s request was that it be the sole ruler. God responded, telling the moon that it would not reign at all. The moon replied that its complaint was justified. If so, the moon asked, why must it diminish itself and be subjugated to the rule of the non-Jewish kingdoms? In response, God offered to grant the moon a certain dimension of sovereignty. The moon, however, countered, “Of what use is a candle in broad daylight?” I.e., because the power granted to the moon is minimal, it will be of no consequence. God then answered, “Israel will reckon the days… according to you,” i.e., the years will be reckoned according to the rule of the kings of Israel. The moon responded that the Tanach also reckons the years according to non-Jewish kings, as recorded in the Book of Daniel, and the Sages reckoned according to the years of Greek kings. At the conclusion of the parable, God declares, “The righteous will be called by your name,” i.e., the righteous will be satisfied in the World to Come, although they will be of small stature in this world. God further states that this reduction in stature serves as atonement for the desire and yearning of the righteous for physical matters. And as an additional measure, God commanded that the righteous bring an atonement offering for this sin of material desire. This is implied by the words, “Bring an atonement offering for Me because I diminished the moon,” i.e., it is as if God said “In addition to the punishment already meted out to you, i.e., My lowering of your stature in this world, you also must bring an atonement offering.”
These are the words of Maaseh HaShem. In this instance as well, it is not necessary to elaborate on the difficulty in correlating this interpretation with the simple meaning of the passage in Chulin, for we have already mentioned this point with regard to the second interpretation in the Akeidah. The interpretation in Maaseh HaShem appears to be taken from the Akeidah with only slight variations. Alternatively, the author of Maaseh HaShem – as “a wise man who is superior to a prophet” – independently arrived at the same understanding as did the author of the Akeidah.",
"The author of Maaseh HaShem begins by focusing on the simple meaning of the passage as opposed to the Akeidah who views the text as an analogy. Thus, at the beginning of his interpretation, Maaseh HaShem stated that when the verse mentions the moon’s ruling during the day and the night, it is referring to the diminishment of the moon’s light. The appeasement granted the moon, that “the righteous will be called by your name,” focuses on another factor – that the moon was called “small.” This is hinted at in the moon’s statement, “Of what use is a candle in broad daylight?” With this statement, the moon is stating that it will be called “small” because its light is not considered significant. For this, God attempted to appease the moon through the explanation that this pattern is also reflected in the righteous, who are called “small”. When this explanation failed to appease the moon, God declared that an atonement offering should be brought every time the moon is renewed. Were it not to have been diminished, the moon would have rose in the morning and set in the evening like the sun. The Jewish people offer a daily burnt-offering at the rising and setting of the sun. Such a pattern is not appropriate for the moon after it was diminished, since a full moon does not rise and set every day. Hence, it was determined that a sacrifice be offered when the moon was renewed. The author of Maaseh HaShem states that it is for this reason the phrase מלבד עולת התמיד, “aside from the daily offering,” is not stated in the passage concerning the additional offering of Rosh Chodesh, as it is stated concerning the other additional offerings. Instead, concerning Rosh Chodesh, the passage states, על עולת התמיד, “in addition to the daily offering,” as if to say, “because of the daily offering.”",
"As mentioned above, the words of this scholar are, in my eyes, distant from a simple interpretation of the texts. Were this interpretation to be true, the additional offering of Rosh Chodesh would be – like the daily offering – a burnt-offering. Also, how does this offering serve as an appeasement for the moon’s complaint that it was called “small”? Even though this additional sacrifice is offered, the diminishment of the moon is evident, for the Jewish people offer sacrifices to God twice a day in connection with the rising and setting of the sun, while a sacrifice is brought only once in thirty days in connection with the renewal of the moon. Perhaps the author of Maaseh HaShem recognized the weakness of his interpretation, and that is why he said that this interpretation was offered only in response to those who raise questions and do not agree with the passage’s intent. Maaseh HaShem then sets out to explain the passage as a parable, as I explained in his name."
],
[
"The text entitled Gur Aryeh cited above, on Parshas Pinchas, elaborates in the interpretation of this passage, expounding upon it for more than a folio page. To summarize his words: From the perspective of the world, it is appropriate that there be only one ruler and not two. Nevertheless, the sun and the moon were created as equal. Therefore, the moon complained: True, with regard to sovereignty over the world, it is impossible for the two celestial bodies to be the same. Nevertheless, there is justification to ask: Why should the moon be diminished and reduced to a lesser state than it was when originally created?",
"God responded to the moon, explaining that its diminishment did not imply inferiority. On the contrary, in its present, reduced state, during the day the moon could be like an officer in the presence of a king. In its original state, by contrast, there would be two kings – and that cannot be. Alternatively, God was explaining that no superior entity can exist without a deficiency. (The exception, of course, is the Ultimate Cause of causes, blessed be He.) Therefore, the sun does not shine at night, for this is its deficiency. Nevertheless, a small entity need not suffer a similar limitation, for its smallness is its deficiency.",
"The moon replied that such a state does not represent a positive quality, for it will be secondary to the sun, like a candle in daylight.God sought to comfort the moon by explaining that by becoming small, the moon receives prominence in this lower world, which – like it – is characterized by dissolution, degeneration, and renewal. Therefore, the calendar will be reckoned according to the moon, as one reckons according to kings. Thus, the moon will possess a superior quality.",
"The moon did not accept that response, replying that since ultimately the calendar will also be reckoned according to the sun, it is a greater king. Or, according to the alternate explanation given above, the moon’s smallness is a reason people will reckon by it i.e., as a result of its small size, the moon completes its orbit in less time than the other celestial bodies, and is thus more easily used as a measurement. According to this explanation, the moon responded that since the reckoning of the calendar also involves the sun, the moon’s prominence is not exclusive.",
"God persisted in trying to appease the moon, saying, “The righteous will be called by your name.” The righteous are those who never lose focus of the fundamental point, and never expand and inflate themselves beyond that fundamental point. Thus, the righteous never deviate from their fundamental character trait, which is justice. Therefore, the righteous are called “small”, and are comparable to the earth, which as the least of the four elements remains in the center, without expanding and inflating itself. Not expanding or inflating oneself to reach beyond one’s rightful place is the attribute of the righteous. Thus, smallness is befitting to the existence of all beings in their present state. Hence, having its size diminished establishes the moon as the ruler of the lower plane.",
"This did not satisfy the moon, since it originally possessed a superior quality and had lost it. Therefore, God said that kaparah, translated as “an atonement offering,” should be brought for Him. Here, however, the intent of the term kaparah is not “atonement for sin,” i.e., that a person becomes aware that he has sinned, feels regret, and brings an offering so that the one against whom he has sinned will forgive him. All of this is not appropriate when speaking about God. In this context, the term kaparah means to wash away and remove, as Rashi explains in his commentary to the verse, אולי אכפרה פניו “Perhaps I will cause his mien to change.” Moreover, even the fundamental meaning of the term chatas, “sin,” is “lack,” as in the verses, אני ובני שלמה חטאים, “I and Shlomoh my son will be lacking,” and אנכי אחטנה, “I would compensate for the lack.” Similarly, a sin-offering is called a chatas because of the deficiency created, for every sin is due to a lack. On this basis, the passage can be understood as stating that God asked that a kaparah – i.e., a cleansing and a removal of the complaints – be brought to appease the moon because of the lack brought about by its diminishment.",
"If one will ask: How could God act unjustly toward the moon? This is not a valid question. All of the created beings were brought into existence as an expression of kindness. Fair judgment would not dictate that they be created any other way than the way they were created. The complaint of the moon that it should not have been diminished after being created as great is, from its perspective, a justified claim. However, in truth, the moon’s claim is not justified. For God created His world with kindness, and the created beings have no inherent right to be brought into existence. Therefore, God was justified in diminishing the moon so that the world would be ruled by one sovereign body. Merely to satisfy the complaints of the moon did God instruct that a kaparah be brought. Carrying that line of reasoning further, the terms kaparah and chatas can even be understood literally as “atonement offering” and “sin”, as they are usually used. For if these terms are understood literally, the incident is being understood from the moon’s perspective, that God made this request to appease the moon, as a gesture of honor to it, as Rabbeinu Yitzchak Alfasi explains.",
"Another concept can be understood from this incident: that without a doubt, the state of lack brought about within the moon caused a state of lack to be created in the world below, i.e., our physical existence, which is influenced by the moon. Conversely, when the moon is renewed, goodness is renewed throughout the world which is influenced by it. Therefore, a sacrifice – which is a means of drawing close to God – is brought at the time of the renewal of the world. Alternatively, initially, God thought to create the sun and the moon] as equals. Afterwards, God decided to diminish the moon in order for the world to be conducted justly. God then saw fit for the Jewish people to bring a sacrifice to facilitate their ability to draw close to and elicit His attribute of goodness, which brings about a renewal of light for the moon and, as a result, of the goodness drawn down from it to the world.",
"These are the words of the text Gur Aryeh. I assume that the fault is with me, but I do not understand the benefit gained by the Sages speaking in riddles and allusions, when they could have stated their points directly, and thus have these points understood by those of lesser potential as well by those of great potential. This is certainly true when speaking about a matter that could cause others to err regarding the wording they used when saying, “Bring an atonement offering.” At the very least, these Sages might cause some to think they are speaking insolently about God, Heaven forbid. Why should these Sages engage in such a matter?",
"The failure to relate to the simple meaning of our Sages’ words is evident from the conclusion of Gur Aryeh’s statements, where he writes that this interpretation does not communicate the fundamental depth of the understanding of the diminishment of the moon and the removal of its complaint via a sacrifice, for this matter cannot be understood except by deeply delving into wondrous wisdom, the study of which is not relevant here. Without question, with these words Gur Aryeh is alluding to the wisdom of the Kabbalah.",
"I, by contrast, maintain that our Sages emulate the pattern of the Written Torah. Certainly, it is obvious that its text contains allusions to the Kabbalah and its mystical secrets. Nevertheless, as stated in the above-quoted statement of our Sages, “The interpretation of a Scriptural phrase never departs from its simple, literal meaning.” How much more so does this guidance apply to the statements of the Sages themselves. Certainly, when our Sages made their statements they undoubtedly had in mind mystical secrets and allusions. Nevertheless, their original intent was that their words would be understood simply so that they be perceived correctly, without the possibility of error, Heaven forbid. Therefore, I will hold true to the simple meaning of the passage in Chulin, following the straightforward connotation of its words, explaining it in a manner that it will be simple and understandable, removing all the difficulties, questions, and doubts that I mentioned."
],
[
"As a foundation, I maintain that there are two paths to the comprehension of this passage: either there was in fact such a dialogue between the moon and the Omnipresent, or that the conversation presented in Chulin 60b is an allusion and a metaphor with which to convey a useful message.",
"These two positions revolve around a difference of opinion among our Rabbis regarding whether the heavenly bodies are living and conscious beings or not. The negation of the contention that the heavenly bodies are living, conscious beings is reflected in the simple meaning of the verses in the psalm beginning, “The heavens relate the glory of the Almighty.” For that psalm states explicitly, “Without speech or words, without their voice being heard,” merely because “their course spans the entire earth,” man is able to realize God’s glory.",
"Nevertheless Rambam, in his Moreh Nevuchim, subscribes to and expounds upon the view that the heavenly bodies are conscious entities, and explains the aforementioned psalm according to this viewpoint. The author of the Akeidah differs at great length with Rambam on this matter. Let the truth reside with the one who is correct. I do not desire to enter a discussion of that issue. I mentioned it only as a preface to point out that according to Rambam, who maintains that the heavenly bodies are conscious entities, it is possible that the entire dialogue between God and the moon actually took place as the passage relates, and that the conversation is not merely an allusion and a metaphor with which to convey useful messages, as will be clarified with God’s help.",
"Furthermore, even if the heavenly bodies are not living, conscious entities, and the author of the passage used an allusion and a metaphor in order to convey useful messages, the entire narrative can be understood according to its simple meaning without resorting to such allusions as those suggested by the commentaries mentioned above. For as already demonstrated, there are ample reasons why the explanations offered by those commentaries are not sufficient. Furthermore, all of the many severe objections I raised previously to the approaches of these commentaries will be resolved – with the help of God, my Rock and Redeemer – according to my approach. With that, I will begin:"
]
],
[
[
"The Elucidation of the Passage from Chulin 64a
The passage begins: “R. Shimon ben Azzai – or ben Pazi – pointed out a contradiction between the verses: One verse says: “And God made the two great luminaries,” but it is also written, “the great luminary” and “the small luminary.”",
"The contradiction on which the passage focuses is not that initially Scripture equates the luminaries and calls both the sun and the moon “great”, and afterwards refers to the sun as “great” and the moon as “small.” For the author of this passage is no less of a Sage than the authors of the other three passages mentioned at the outset. Just as they did not see this point as significant enough to highlight as an apparent contradiction between the verses, neither did the author of this passage. For in truth this apparent contradiction is not a contradiction at all, as both of the luminaries are indeed greater sources of light than all the other heavenly bodies, as is apparent to any observer. Nevertheless, in relation to each other, the sun is greater than the moon in both size and light. This is also an obvious fact. Accordingly, the author of this passage certainly would realize that there this is no contradiction between the verses.",
"Instead, according to my humble understanding, the apparent contradiction stems from a fundamental question: Why did the verse use the terms “the great luminaries,” “the great luminary,” and “the small luminary,” which require explanation? It is true, the explanation is obvious, but still the verse could have been worded in a manner which did not require any explanation. Scripture could have simply referred to the luminaries by name, i.e., Scripture could have referred to the luminaries as “the sun” and “the moon,” as Yosef did, in the verse: “Behold, the sun and the moon bowed to me,” and as Moshe Rabbeinu did in Parshas Va’Eschanan, in the verse: “and you see the sun and the moon,” and in Parshas Shoftim, which speaks of serving other gods including “the sun or the moon.” Similarly, here, the narrative should have stated, “God made the sun and the moon, the sun to rule during the day and the moon to rule during the night.” It cannot be said that Scripture intends to teach the concept that the light of the sun and the moon is greater than that of the other luminaries, and that the light of one is greater than the other. That would certainly be of no purpose. Why would Scripture need to tell us something that is obvious?",
"If so, the difficulty the author of the passage is highlighting is that the verse uses wording that requires explanation, instead of using wording that does not require explanation. Clearly, then, the intent of the verse in mentioning “the great luminaries,” “the great luminary,” and “the small luminary,” is to teach us a concept. This conclusion is desirable, for if one would maintain that the verses should be understood simply, as teaching that the light of the sun and the moon is greater than that of the other luminaries, and that the light of one is greater than the other, the unusual wording in the verse would be unnecessary because we can observe the amount of light ourselves. All this is correct and understandable to me. Hence, there is a basis for our Sages to comment on this Scriptural passage, and explain the lesson to be derived from it.",
"The passage begins to explain the allusions in this verse, saying that the moon asked: “Is it possible for two kings to wear one crown?” It appears to me that a support for the interpretation advanced by the author of the passage can be taken from an explicit verse that alludes to this complaint, and to God’s response, “Go and diminish yourself.”",
"One should not object, asking how I can make such a statement, suggesting a prooftext that the author of the passage himself did not cite in support of his words. After all, I have mentioned that the final point in this teaching, “Bring an atonement offering for Me because I diminished the moon,” is problematic. The author of this passage makes that statement without citing a prooftext, even though the prooftext is obviously the one cited by Reish Lakish. If so, why did the author of the passage not mention this teaching? Because this was the manner in which the author of this passage offered instruction – to make a statement, and present it to the students, sharpening their intellectual acumen, so they could find the desired verse that can serve as a source for the teaching. If this is true with regard to the concluding words of the author of this passage – and we are forced to say that this is his intent there – then it can be said that the conclusion indicates the pattern followed at the outset, and, indeed, throughout the entire passage: that the concepts presented have support in Scripture even though the author of the passage did not explicitly mention them.",
"Even without the proof from the conclusion of the passage, it is not implausible to make such a statement. In several instances in the Talmud, we find that a given Sage makes a statement, and a second Sage cites a verse that serves as a source for the first Sage’s statement. This pattern is seen throughout the Midrashim and the Aggadic passages of our Sages: support for a concept stated by one Sage is brought by other Sages who cite different verses. This is the familiar pattern in Midrashic works. Even though the conceptual building blocks of an idea are interrelated in a unified picture, the verses cited as support are scattered in several contexts and in different books of the Tanach. Indeed, this very passage follows that pattern, beginning with verses from the book of Bereishis and concluding with verses from the book of Bamidbar. And so too do not be surprised that I bring verses from various books of the Tanach as prooftexts and supports for the words of the passage.",
"My heart tells me that the complaint of the moon and God’s response to it, “Go and diminish yourself,” are alluded to in Iyov’s words: אִם אֶרְאֶה אוֹר כִּי יָהֵל, וְיָרֵחַ יָקָר הֹלֵךְ. וַיִּפְתְּ בַּסֵּתֶר לִבִּי, וַתִּשַּׁק יָדִי לְפִי. גַּם הוּא עָוֹן פְּלִילִי, כִּי כִחַשְׁתִּי לָאֵ-ל מִמָּעַל, which literally mean: “If I ever saw the light shining, the moon proceeding on its course with glory, and I was lured in the secret reaches of my heart to regard them as Divine and therefore covered my mouth with my hand so as not to utter such words, this too would have been a punishable sin, for I would have denied God above.” According to their simple meaning, all of Iyov’s words are expressions of grievance against God for punishing him severely and rigorously without any apparent cause, for his conduct was not marred by sin, transgression, or guilt.",
"However according to our understanding, Iyov’s words can be understood here as follows: If I ever saw the light of the sun shining on the world, and the moon proceeding on its course with glory. Rav Avraham ibn Ezra explains that the latter phrase describes the moon’s progress “in the half of the month” (i.e. when the moon becomes full). Now, the word הֹלֵךְ, “proceeds,” is not entirely appropriate here. Accordingly, I think that the verse can be interpreted as referring to an additional concept. Although we have translated the word יקר as “glory”, it can also be translated as “rare” or as “valuable”. Indeed, we find the term יָקָר, “rare”, used in association with speech, in the verse, ודבר ה' היה יקר, “The word of God was rare.” It could thus be said that Scripture alludes to the fact that the moon spoke of a matter that is יָקָר, “valuable.” This can be understood as a reference to the moon’s statement cited in the passage – i.e. “Is it possible for two kings to wear one crown?” that the moon described as “proper,” and as a result of which it was הֹלֵךְ – progressively diminished. Seemingly, the moon has a valid complaint. This relates to the continuation of Iyov’s words: וַיִּפְתְּ בַּסֵּתֶר לִבִּי – “I was lured in the secret reaches of my heart.” This phrase could be understood as meaning, “I was lured to think within my heart that Your judgments are not correct and just.”",
"The passage from Iyov continues: Despite these thoughts וַתִּשַּׁק יָדִי לְפִי – “I covered my mouth with my hand.” Rav Avraham ibn Ezra explains that covering one’s mouth with one’s hand was “a type of worship to the sun and the moon carried out by the people of early generations.” However, according to our interpretation of the passage, Iyov was saying, “I covered my mouth with my hand,” so as not to make a statement that would express a lack of faith, for this would be an עָוֹן פְּלִילִי – “a punishable sin.” The commentaries do not offer an interpretation of the term פלילי. Apparently, the term means “liable for judgment,” as in the phrase, וְנָתַן בִּפְלִילִים – “He must give as dictated by the judges.” According to our interpretation, the phrase עון פלילי can be understood as also meaning that the sin would be entertaining thoughts regarding the justice of God’s judgments. Thus, the continuation of the verse, כִּי כִחַשְׁתִּי לָאֵל מִמָּעַל should be interpreted as, “I would have questioned the validity of God’s judgments.”",
"Nevertheless, after enduring such suffering, Iyov could not restrain himself any further. This reflects our Sages’ teaching on the verse, “Despite all this, Iyov did not sin with his lips.” Our Sages explain that although Iyov did not question God’s judgments verbally, he did question God’s judgments within his heart. Rav Avraham ibn Ezra comments on that verse, “Ultimately, Iyov would sin with his lips and would speak words that reflect a lack of faith because of the great anguish he experienced.” The verse leaves room for such an interpretation.",
"To relate the above verse to the passage from Chulin 60b: The verse from Iyov serves as a support for the statement in the passage, that as a result of the moon’s complaint, “Is it possible for two kings to wear one crown?”, the moon was compelled to “proceed on its course,” i.e., to diminish itself. Later on, I will comment further on the relevance of this interpretation of the verse, “If I ever saw the light shining….”"
],
[
"The question was raised: Instead of God telling the moon: “Go diminish yourself,” why did He not diminish the moon Himself? In truth, this is not such a challenging question, because God did not desire to harm the moon Himself, for “Bad will not emerge from the mouth of the Most High,” and certainly God will not perform a negative act. In this instance, God’s negative statement resulted from the moon’s own complaint, “Is it possible for two kings to wear one crown?”",
"However, I will attempt to answer this question, because it appears to me that my answer will also resolve the question raised before, i.e., why did God not diminish the moon Himself at the outset? Did God not know that it is impossible for two kings to wear one crown? In truth, however, God’s original intent was as follows. He initially made both the sun and the moon great, with the intent that one of them would be diminished afterwards. Perhaps it was implicit in the law of Creation that the moon would be able to receive the light of the sun after it was diminished because at the outset the moon had cleaved to the sun. Who can know the mysteries of God’s wisdom and understand its hidden intricacies! Thus, the truth of the moon’s words was not hidden from God. Instead, God’s wisdom had ordained that initially both the sun and the moon would be great luminaries, and then one luminary would be diminished. However, before one luminary was actually diminished, the moon acted prematurely, and complained, “Is it possible….”",
"A hint of support for the statement that at the outset both the sun and the moon were made great with the intent that one of them would later be diminished can be drawn from the verse, “Let there be luminaries.” In that verse, the word מארת, “luminaries,” is written chasair, without vavim. Our Sages took notice of that fact and commented, “It is a cursed (מארה) day when children become ill with croup.” According to my understanding, the fact that the word מארת, “luminaries,” was written chasair, lacking the two vavim, as it were, when relating the Divine utterance leading to the creation of the luminaries, alludes to the concept that God created the luminaries with the intent that one would be diminished. Initially, God’s decree was that a curse, i.e., a מארה, and a diminishment would affect one of the luminaries. I will expound more on this point later, in further explanation of the passage, with God’s help.",
"Even though initially the moon was formed in a manner that enabled it to cleave to the sun and be equal to it, God’s initial intent was that the moon would be diminished. From the outset, God envisioned that the luminaries would be separated from each other, that the moon would go forth from its place, and be diminished in the process of doing so. This pattern reflects the opposite of the motif alluded to by our Sages in their statement, “Come near an oily substance, and oil will be smeared on you.” The converse is also true; one who distances himself from greatness will be diminished. Thus, from the outset, when God said, “Let there be luminaries,” writing the word מארת chasair, without the vavim, it was implied that there would be two stages in the formation of the moon. Initially, the sun and the moon would be equal, and then the moon would be diminished in both size and light through being separated from the sun and being distanced from it, i.e., the moon was forced to descend two heavens and three spaces between one heaven and the next. To explain: Based on the passage from the Raya Mehemna cited above, the moon was originally positioned directly below the sun, and then distanced to its present position beneath the planet Kochav. Thus, the moon descended the distance between the sun and the orbit of the planet Nogah, the orbit of the planet Nogah itself, the distance between the orbit of the planet Nogah and that of the planet Kochav, the orbit of the planet Kochav, and the distance between the orbit of the planet Kochav and the present position of the moon. Our Sages reckoned each of these orbits and spaces as being the distance of a journey of 500 years. This is close to the calculation given by the astronomers. Thus, in its process of separation, the moon was distanced five times the distance of a journey of 500 years from its original position. As a result of being distanced to such a degree, the moon was diminished.",
"Although we have difficulty understanding this concept, that difficulty can be resolved through an analogy given by Rambam in his Moreh Nevuchim. A child was born in a place where there were no people other than his parents. The child’s mother died before he was able to recognize her, and his father raised him. Thus, the child never saw a woman. When the child asked his father how he came into being, his father explained the process of pregnancy. However, the child didn’t believe his father. Indeed, the child brought proofs from his present state of existence that such a process was impossible. The analogy teaches us that it is impossible to bring a proof from the present state of being regarding the state of existence at the time of Creation. Similarly, in our context, the fact that at present traveling a long distance will not cause a body to be diminished in size or to lose its capacity to generate light, does not refute the possibility that because the moon was forced to separate itself from the sun, its size became diminished and it lost its power to generate light. This is because the state of existence at the time of Creation is not the same as the state of existence after Creation.",
" This explanation also clarifies why God instructed the moon, “Go and diminish yourself.” As explained above, the moon’s diminishment was dependent on its being distanced from its original position. Rambam’s analogy also clarifies why God did not retract His instructions to the moon after the moon presented its complaints. On the surface, it seems that the moon had yet to be diminished. After the moon complained, “Because I have suggested something that is proper must I diminish myself?” God apparently offered several gestures of consolation. This implies that God accepted the moon’s arguments. Why then did God not retract His decree that the moon be diminished? In resolution, initially, from the very beginning of Creation, God’s intent was that the moon be diminished. Hence, the decree was not retracted. This resolution, however, raises a stronger question: If God’s initial intent was that the moon be diminished, why did He offer the moon several gestures of consolation? That question can be answered through the resolution of another question I raised: Why did the moon protest against being diminished? If the moon was not to be diminished, the question it raised, “Is it possible for two kings to wear one crown?” would still apply! Therefore, the moon had to be diminished, by the force of its own argument.Instead, the moon’s response reflected a different intent. As explained above, the moon’s distancing itself from the sun brought about its diminishment. On that basis, the moon’s response, “Because I have suggested something that is proper must I diminish myself?” can be understood as follows: God’s decree, “Go and diminish yourself,” was twofold: “Go” – distance yourself from your present place, “and diminish yourself.” Hence, the moon protested: “Would not one of these acts be sufficient? Let me go, but why must I diminish myself? Once I have descended from the sun’s plane, even though I am not diminished, there will no longer be ‘two kings wearing one crown.’“ Instead, because of the change in the moon’s position, the situation would resemble, to borrow our Sages’ words, “an emperor and a deputy emperor.” Since the sun would be several levels above the moon as stated above, the change in position would bring about a change in their prominence, and they would no longer be “two kings wearing one crown.” The moon hinged this request on the argument that it “suggested something that is proper.” Thus, the moon was arguing that it is not appropriate that it should suffer a twofold punishment: that it should descend from a high place to a lower place, and also be diminished as a result. The moon admitted that it deserved punishment because of its original complaint – for the moon’s intent was that the sun be diminished. Nevertheless, since the moon’s statement was ultimately justified, it was proper for the moon to be pitied and not to be forced to suffer a twofold punishment.",
"Alternatively, the moon’s response can be interpreted in a different way. The words הוֹאִיל... אֲמַעֵט כו׳ can be understood as having been said in partial acquiescence to God’s instruction. It is as if the moon said: “Since I suggested something that is proper, it is not befitting that I suffer a twofold punishment. I consent to ‘diminish myself’ in my present position, but why must I go to a lower place? It is sufficient that I be diminished.” This second interpretation enables a resolution of another question raised above: Why did God respond, “Go and ‘rule during the day and during the night’”? The question was raised: Why was it necessary for God to say “Go” a second time? The above interpretation explains that point. Since the moon desired only to diminish itself, but not to descend, God instructed it to also descend, implying that it was necessary to do both: to change from the manner in which the moon was created and to diminish itself, and also for the moon to change its position.",
"Nevertheless, even according to the first interpretation given above, the instruction “Go” is appropriate. For the moon had yet to heed God’s instructions, and was still questioning whether it should be diminished. Therefore, God had to repeat the instruction “Go,” from which it could be understood that the moon was also to diminish itself."
],
[
"God then made a consolatory gesture to the moon, giving it a measure of sovereignty during the day and at night as recompense for it having made a proper statement. For God’s attributes are such that He does not withhold reward from any created being. For example, Lot’s younger daughter received a reward for naming her son in a manner that reflected modesty, as Rashi states. The fact that sovereignty was granted the moon during the day and the night, as the author of the passage in Chulin states, does not require support from additional verses, for it is obvious from the narrative itself. If the intent of the verse “to rule during the day and during the night” was that the sun would rule during the day and the moon would rule during the night, the phrase, “to rule during the day and during the night,” would be superfluous, for the verse already stated that the sun and the moon were created “to separate between the light and the darkness.” Why then is it necessary to further state that the sun and the moon were placed in the heavens “to rule during the day and during the night”? Also, were the passage’s intent that the sovereignty referred to in the verse reflects the same concept as the separation between light and darkness, the verse should have stated that one luminary would rule during the day and one luminary would rule during the night.",
"The question why the moon’s complaint, “Of what use is a candle in broad daylight?” was not obvious to God, is not a valid question at all. For the sovereignty granted the moon during the day and the night does not refer to its being visible during the day. Were that to be the intent, why would the verse use the phrase “to rule”? If that were the meaning, the verse should have stated, “to be seen”. However, the intent is that since the moon is also seen during the day, it has a measure of sovereignty during the day as well, according to the powers granted it, as Ramban writes: It is possible that the “sovereignty” granted the moon also includes the power of emanation, that sovereignty radiates from them. The sun and the moon are the governors of the lower realms, and through their power every reigning power and constellation rules; the mazal i.e., the “spiritual source” that causes growth during the day governs the day, and the mazal that causes growth during the night governs the night, as reflected in the interpretation of the phrase, “which God, your Lord, apportioned to all the nations.” This was God’s intent in instructing the moon to “rule during the day and during the night,” that the sovereignty granted the moon also be an active force during the day.",
"The moon’s reply, “Of what use is a candle in broad daylight?” is not a complaint regarding the sovereignty granted it, because that sovereignty does not involve shining light. Instead, the moon’s argument was, as explained above, that it is proper that the moon receive compensation for having made a correct statement, i.e. that God should repay the moon by not causing it to suffer a twofold punishment: that it be diminished, undergoing a change in deed, and that it be forced to descend, undergoing a change in position. God had not answered that argument directly; therefore, the moon sought to advance the same argument in a different manner. The actual diminishment of the moon was also twofold: The moon was diminished in size, and its light was diminished. The moon was now asking that at least its light not be diminished. The moon felt that this argument could be advanced since it was promised sovereignty during the day. Accordingly, the moon argued, “Of what use is a candle in broad daylight?” i.e., the moon was arguing, “Even though I will have a measure of sovereignty during the day, I will nevertheless face the ongoing displeasure of being merely ‘a candle in broad daylight’.” Therefore, the moon argued, God should compensate it for making a proper suggestion by not reducing its light, even though He reduced its size.",
"It appears to me that support for this interpretation of the complaint, “Of what use is a candle in broad daylight?” can be taken from the words of Bildad the Shuhite, “How can man justify himself before God and with what may one born of woman gain purity? Even the moon does not shine brightly.” The verse uses the phrase עד ירח ולא יאהיל, which we have translated as, “even the moon does not shine brightly.” The vav in the phrase ולא יאהיל appears superfluous, and seemingly does not fit the context of the verse. Therefore, it is possible to offer two interpretations of the verse. The first is that the word עד refers to something taken by force, like the spoils of war, as in the verse, “In the morning he will eat his spoils.” Thus, Bildad is saying, “Even some of the moon’s size was taken from it, and it also does not shine brightly.” It can be derived from this that the moon should have argued that its light should continue to shine brightly even though its size was diminished. Since this is a logical argument and the plaintiff will plead his own case better than others, it can be assumed that the moon indeed raised this argument.",
"Alternatively, the word עד can be interpreted as in the verse, עדיו לבלום, “shut their mouths;” i.e., עד means “mouth.” In that vein, Radak interprets the word עדיך as “mouth” in the verse, המשביע בטוב עדיך, “Who sates your mouth with generosity.” Now, the term “mouth” may also refer to speech. Thus, we find the expression, על פי ה', “according to the word of God,” and it is written, ועל פיך ישק כל עמי ‒ “according to your word, will all my people be directed.” There are many similar examples. According to this understanding, Bildad was saying,] “The moon spoke, ‘Why shall I not shine?’“ i.e., the moon was willing for its body to be diminished, but it asked ‘Why should my light not shine brightly?’",
"Nevertheless, God also did not consent to the moon’s request that its light not be diminished, and instructed the moon, “Go, Israel will reckon by the days and the years according to you.” God told the moon, “Go,” i.e., descend as you were instructed. This was necessary, for the moon had yet to fulfill that instruction. Were God to have accepted the moon’s request, the moon would not have had to descend that much in order that its light would not be diminished, so that the light of the sun would rule over it to a greater degree, for the moon would still be on one of the higher levels instead of being entirely below the lower sphere. Even the moon did not say that it refused to go and descend; it merely complained, “Of what use is a candle...” and from that it is understood as a matter of course that the moon would not have to descend as much as implied by God’s previous instruction. Therefore, when God did not desire to fulfill the moon’s request, He told it “Go,” i.e., “Descend entirely to the lower plane where I instructed you to go.” God expressed the instruction in Aramaic as a further gesture of consolation to the moon, for the angels do not understand Aramaic. Thus, they would not understand that God was persisting in His command that the moon go and diminish itself."
],
[
"In response to the moon’s lack of satisfaction with the dimension of] sovereignty granted it during the day and during the night, as reflected by the moon’s complaint, “Of what use is a candle?...” and the moon’s grievance that due to its lesser role, it would feel ongoing displeasure, God answered, “Israel will reckon the days and the years according to you.” God did not mention the festivals, because the sun also plays a role in setting the dates of the festivals, for the festivals are also dependent on the sun’s seasons, as is well known to the experts in the establishment of the calendar.",
"However, God mentioned “the days and the years,” even though, as mentioned in the sixteenth question, fundamentally the days and the years are dependent on the sun. Here, however, the phrase “the days and the years” does not refer to the passage of a day or a year, but rather to the concept that the festivals will be determined according to their dates in lunar months, not solar months. Similarly, with regard to years, although the concept of a year is dependent on the sun, since the festivals must be celebrated in the proper seasons, the determination of the years must be integrated with the lunar months. On this basis, the Rabbis determined a multi-year cycle of leap years, as is well known to the experts in the establishment of the calendar.",
"This new development was brought about because the moon was diminished and forced to descend to a much lower plane, to the extent that both its size and its light were diminished. As a result, it was necessary to calculate lunar years and create a cycle that would juxtapose the lunar years with the solar years, for we are commanded to reckon the festivals according to the dates of the lunar months, as written in the Torah given to us by Moshe. Nevertheless, with regard to establishing the festivals themselves, God did not tell the moon that the Jews would date their festivals according to it. The opposite is true. The timing of the festivals is dependent on the solar seasons, for the festivals must be celebrated in the spring and the fall, as reflected in the words of our Sages. In contrast to this, days are calculated exclusively according to the moon, i.e., the festivals are celebrated on a specific date in a specific lunar month. Similarly, with regard to years, although as mentioned above, in and of itself, there is no concept of a lunar year, since the festivals must be calculated according to the dates of the lunar months, it was necessary to develop a concept of a lunar year. Thus, the Jewish people fix their days and years according to the moon. This is an expression of honor and glory for the moon.",
"An explanation is necessary regarding why the passage in Chulin mentions God only telling the moon that the Jews would reckon “days and years” according to it, while the verse explicitly refers also to “signs” and “appointed times.” This point will be clarified shortly with God’s help."
],
[
"The moon responded to God, “That is impossible without the sun, for the reckoning of the seasons is dependent on it.” The meaning of this statement is that in response to God’s willingness that the Jews should reckon the days and the years by the moon, there were grounds for the moon to counter according to the following reasoning: God generously agreed to grant the moon the honor of having the festivals reckoned according to dates of the lunar months, and to also have the years calculated in coordination with the moon’s cycles even though in truth there is no concept of a lunar year. The moon wished to forego being considered with regard to calculating the years, since regardless it is impossible to reckon the years without the sun. Even when a lunar year is calculated, it is only calculated in relation to the sun. Therefore, since fundamentally, the reckoning of the years is dependent on the sun, what honor is there for the moon by also being considered in this reckoning? Accordingly, the moon requested that God’s generous gesture not be a futile one, and that instead, God grant the moon another generous gift, one that is hidden and not stated openly in the passage instead of the gesture of having the years coordinated with the lunar cycles that is mentioned here. Thus, the moon’s response was not an expression of its jealousy of the sun, but rather a request for an exchange. Since God generously offered the moon two gestures – that the days and the years be reckoned according to it – the moon responded that it wished that God grant it another gift in place of the years. The rationale for this is that with regard to years, the benefit to the moon is not that great, because ultimately, the years are dependent on the sun.",
"Nevertheless, the support that the author of the passage mentions – since it is from the very passage that he is explaining – also serves as support for the concepts mentioned previously, i.e., that the verse, “And let them be for signs, and for appointed times, and for days and years,” relates to the concepts stated directly before it and those stated earlier in the passage. To explain: This verse contains two anomalies that require analysis:",
"a) The verse states that “the luminaries will serve four purposes: for signs, for appointed times, for days and years.” However, the purposes are not mentioned in order, i.e., of the four purposes mentioned, “for days” is mentioned third, even though seemingly, it should be first. This applies according to Rashi’s interpretation that “for signs” refers to an eclipse. If a lunar eclipse occurs, it takes place on the fifteenth of the lunar month. If a solar eclipse occurs, it takes place on the first day of the lunar month. Similarly, the four purposes are mentioned out of order according to the interpretation in Midrash Rabbah. According to Midrash Rabbah, “for signs” refers to the Shabbasos, “for appointed times” refers to the three pilgrimage festivals, and “for days” refers to the Rashei Chodashim. Thus, according to either interpretation, “for days” should precede “for festivals”, i.e., according to Rashi’s interpretation, “for days” should be the first point mentioned, and according to Midrash Rabbah, “for days” should be second, preceding the festivals.",
"b) In the verse, three of the four terms are prefaced by the letter lamed, which we have translated as “for.” Only with regard to years is that prefix omitted. Why is this prefix omitted from the term “years”?",
"These two anomalies serve as allusions to the two concepts mentioned above:
a) that, as the author of the passage relates, God promised the moon that “Israel will reckon the days and the years according to you.” This concept is alluded to by the fact that the verse mentions “days” later than it should, juxtaposing “days” with “years,” thus linking the two. This juxtaposition teaches us that God promised the moon that “Israel will reckon the days and the years according to you.”",
"b) The second point raised by the author of the passage – that the moon declined the offer that the years would be reckoned according to it – is alluded to by the fact the word שנים, “years,” is not preceded by a lamed which we have translated as “for”. This indicates that “years” stands alone, separate from the other purposes mentioned. This alludes to the fact that the moon said, “and years,” as in, “and the years, what will be with them?” Thus, the word שנים “years” without the preceding lamed, “for”, refers to the moon’s unwillingness to accept that promise, because years are primarily dependent on the sun.",
"The fact that this interpretation causes the verse to be divided into two, as if it were related by two people, should not be seen as problematic. There are many examples of such verses. In several instances, our Sages would analyze a verse and divide it, saying “The one who related these words, did not relate these.” (See Yalkut Shimoni, Shoftim, sec. 58.)"
],
[
"The passage in Chulin continues, relating that God told the moon, “‘Go. The righteous will be called by your name.” Although God had previously told the moon, “Go and diminish yourself,” the moon had yet to do so, because it had advanced an argument on which basis it hoped God’s decree would be averted. The fact that the moon had yet to diminish itself is indicated by its statement, “Must I diminish myself,” which uses the future tense.
God responded to the moon by telling it to “go and rule,” i.e., go and do as I instructed you and carry out a twofold diminishment, as I explained previously. The moon then requested that one of the two aspects of the Divine decree be rescinded, i.e., the moon was hoping that it would not be forced to diminish its light.
God replied again, “Go…” indicating that His decree would not be nullified. However, God offered the moon consolation – that the days and the years would be calculated according to it. The moon did not accept the gesture of the years and requested that God give it something else instead. It is reasonable to assume that while the dialogue between God and the moon was going on, the moon had yet to diminish itself. Therefore, at this stage, God again told the moon, “Go,” i.e., God instructed the moon to carry out the instructions it was given and descend drastically. As a result of the wondrous descent, it would suffer a twofold diminishment, both in size and in light. God nevertheless accepted the moon’s complaint that the years are really dependent on the sun. Hence, God granted the moon another conciliatory gesture, saying, “The righteous will be called by your name.”",
"I maintain that the proper version of the passage is the one found in Yalkut Shimoni, which mentions only Yaakov and David, for verses referring to them as “small” are found in Scripture. The version of the text that mentions Shmuel HaKatan i.e.”Shmuel the small” is far-fetched and strange, for such a phrase is not found in Scripture, and one is forced to say that it refers to Shmuel HaKatan mentioned in Pirkei Avos as quoting the verse, “Do not rejoice at the downfall of your enemies.” Also, were that the case, Shmuel HaKatan should be mentioned after David, not before. Thus, the inclusion of Shmuel is obviously an error, which must have been made by a student who erroneously edited the text of the Talmud in his confusion.",
"Naming the righteous after the moon is significant, for a name reflects the fundamental nature of an entity. Accordingly, God praised Adam to the angels, highlighting his wisdom as expressed in his ability to name all the animals and beasts, as stated in Midrash Rabbah. Naming the animals and beasts reflected Adam’s knowledge of the wisdom of Creation, illustrating that he knew the nature of every created being.",
"Similarly, Ramban in his commentary on the passage under discussion, comments on the verse mentioning the sovereignty of the sun and the moon, and explains that naming the celestial beings distinguishes and defines the nature of their power. Thus, it is written: “He counts the sum of the stars, naming them all,” and “He calls them all by name.” Similarly, in the present context, calling the righteous by the moon’s name reflects their nature. In particular, these two – Yaakov and David – are described as small because of their humility and the difficulties that they underwent. Thus, Yaakov declared, “The days of the years of my sojourning… were few and aggravating.” Indeed, the narratives concerning Yaakov related in the Torah confirm this statement. In the same vein, David was continually beset by many wearisome troubles, as reflected in the stories concerning him. This theme is also expressed in his psalms. Similarly, both Yaakov and David experienced continuous ascents and descents, and were beset by hardships. This reflects the pattern of the moon, which sometimes shines and sometimes is hidden. By identifying the moon with the righteous, God granted it a significant honor, for according to the tradition we have received, the level of the righteous exceeds that of the angels, and certainly that of the celestial beings and their hosts. Therefore, by identifying the righteous with the moon – causing them to share the moon’s nature, with the moon resembling them and them it – God granted the moon a significant honor, praiseworthy quality, and exaltation.",
"Scriptural support for the proposition that God made this statement to the moon appears clear to me from the Midrashic passage cited previously when quoting the author of the Akeidah, who uses the sun and the moon as metaphors for Esav and Yaakov. Extending this analogy, a unique interpretation can be given to Yosef’s dream. Yosef told his father and brothers that he dreamt that “the sun, the moon, and eleven stars are bowing down to me.” Yaakov appeared to reject the dream, questioning, “Will I and your mother come…,” ostensibly because he thought that the sun referred to him and the moon to Yosef’s mother. However, according to the understanding of the passage in Chulin, the sun refers to Esav and to all the nations like him. Esav’s descendants and all these nations bowed down to Yosef when they came to him to purchase grain. Do not negate this interpretation because it includes all the nations that resemble Esav together with him, for these twins, Yaakov and Esav, represent all humanity, since there is no one distinct from all other men except Yaakov. All mankind aside from Yaakov are fundamentally the same – a single entity. True, at present, distinctions have arisen between nations. However, in earlier eras – and certainly, in the time of the Patriarchs – Esav can be understood as representing all the nations like him. Thus, in Yosef’s dream, the moon refers to Yaakov. According to this understanding, the prophecy in Yosef’s dream was fulfilled. Rashi explains that the moon in Yosef’s dream refers to Bilhah. That is incorrect, for as Ramban states, Bilhah and Zilpah had already died. (Ramban derives this from the verse that describes the 70 individuals who descended to Egypt with Yaakov. That verse mentions the individuals who descended “in addition to the wives of Yaakov’s sons.” Since the verse explicitly mentions “the wives of Yaakov’s sons” but makes no mention of Yaakov’s wives, it implies that although the wives of Yaakov’s sons descended to Egypt, Yaakov’s wives did not.) Nevertheless, the prophecy of Yosef’s dream was fulfilled because the moon in the dream refers to Yaakov and not Bilhah. True, Yaakov protested to Yosef, “Will I and your mother come….” However, that was only to calm Yosef’s brothers, to reduce their jealousy by intimating that the dream was untrue because Yosef’s mother had already died. In truth, however, Yaakov knew that the dream referred to Esav and himself. We thus have support from Yosef’s dream for the concept that Yaakov is identified with the moon.",
"The connection of King David with the moon requires more explanation. It is written: “One thing have I sworn by My holiness, that I will not fail David. His seed will endure forever and his throne is like the sun before Me. Like the moon, his line will be established forever; and they are a faithful witness in the sky, eternally true.” These verses are problematic, because they use both the sun and the moon as analogies for David’s line. First, it is written, “His throne is like the sun before Me,” and then it says, “Like the moon, his line will be established.” The sequence seems to imply a decline in the rule of David’s dynasty, for the sun is mentioned before the moon.",
"Also requiring explanation is the subject of the phrase, “and they are a faithful witness in the sky.” Rashi interprets this phrase as meaning, “The sun and the moon are witnesses for David; as long as they exist, David’s sovereignty will exist, as it is written, ‘If you will be able to break My covenant with the day and My covenant with the night… so will My covenant with David My servant be broken.’” Rashi’s interpretation concurs with our Sages’ statement, “Whenever Scripture uses the term ‘witness,’ the intent is that there are two, unless the verse explicitly mentions that there is only one witness.” However, according to this interpretation, the verses are repetitious, for it was already promised, “His throne is like the sun… like the moon, his line will be established.”",
"Rav Avraham ibn Ezra offers a different interpretation, stating that “the moon will be a faithful witness.” According to that understanding, it is possible to interpret the verses as follows: The words “His throne” refer to David’s dynasty, which will be like the sun. However, David himself – i.e. not his dynasty – will “be established like the moon.” Thus, the phrase “be established” is referring back to the phrase, “I will not fail David.” Rav Avraham ibn Ezra interprets David’s seed – and not his throne, the subject of the preceding phrase – as the subject of the phrase “be established.” I similarly maintain that the phrase “be established” can refer back to David himself, the subject of the still earlier phrase. Thus, the verses can be explained as follows: One thing I have sworn, and this oath that God made to David is threefold: a) his seed will endure forever, b) David’s dynasty, i.e. his throne will rule like the sun, the great luminary which rules the hosts of heaven, and c) David himself will be established forever. The word “forever” as it is used here should be understood in a personal sense, i.e., David will rule throughout his life. In other words, David himself, and not his dynasty, will undergo phases of waxing and waning like the moon. This corresponds with the interpretation of Rav Avraham ibn Ezra, that the words, “it is a faithful witness in the sky,” refer to the moon, which serves as a faithful witness to David’s personal history.",
"We have thus supported the thesis we sought to substantiate – that Yaakov and David resemble the moon. They are called small like the moon and personify its qualities. On this basis, an insight into the work of the liturgists who ordained that after reciting the blessing for the sanctification of the moon, we recite בָּרוּךְ יוֹצְרֵךְ בָּרוּךְ עוֹשֵׂךְ בָּרוּךְ קוֹנֵךְ בָּרוּךְ בּוֹרְאֵךְ (“Blessed be He Who formed you; blessed be He Who made you; blessed be He Who brought you into being; blessed be He Who created you”). The first letters of the descriptive terms for God mentioned here spell out יעקב – Yaakov. It is as if the verse is saying that God created the moon with these four letters that spell out the name Yaakov. The name Yaakov reflects our patriarch Yaakov’s fundamental nature, like all the names that God brought about within the world, which are not arbitrary like the names given by common people. Similarly, the nature of the moon is reflected by these letters which form the name Yaakov, for the nature of the two are the same. For similar reasons, the phrase, “David, King of Israel, is alive and enduring,” is recited after the blessing for the sanctification of the moon. In this phrase, David is described as “King of Israel,” to emphasize that he is ”King of Israel” and not “King of Esav” and the like, who are identified with the sun. David is also described as “alive and enduring,” for King David’s nature resembles that of the moon. Seeing the moon’s renewal teaches us that David is still “alive and enduring” like the moon that can be seen at present, and he also will be renewed as the moon is renewed. The process of renewal is reflected in Yechezkel’s prophecy of the future, in which he states, “My servant David will be king over them.” Yechezkel then emphasizes the matter by repeating, “My servant David will be prince over them forever.” This concept substantiates Ibn Ezra’s interpretation of the phrase, “They are a faithful witness in the sky, eternally true.” The term selah, translated as “eternally true,” refers to the Ultimate Future, when the moon will be renewed in a complete sense. The expression, “David, King of Israel, is alive and enduring,” was derived from the words of our Holy Teacher Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi, who told Rabbi Chiya: “Go to Ein Tav. Sanctify the moon there and send me the message, ‘David, King of Israel, is alive and enduring’ as a sign that you did so.” Rashi explains that Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi chose this message because “David King of Israel is described with the analogy of the moon as it is written, ‘His throne is like the sun before Me. Like the moon, his line will be established forever.’”"
],
[
"The passage in Chulin continues: “He saw that the moon would not be appeased.” God reached that conclusion from the fact that the moon remained silent and did not respond further. It does not appear that the moon remained silent because it accepted God’s words, as our Sages frequently commented: “Remaining silent is like acceptance,” in which instance, the moon would have been at peace and comfortable because of the conciliatory gestures God granted it. Instead, the opposite appears true, for were the moon to have been appeased by God’s conciliatory gestures, it would have been appropriate for the moon to have given thanks and praise to God for responding to its complaints. This is the appropriate course of action to take in response to a king, and how much more so in response to the King of kings, the Holy One, blessed be He. Since the moon did not do this, it is obvious that the moon was not appeased. Perhaps one could say that the opposite conclusion could be reached, for if the moon was not appeased, why did it remain silent and not make further requests? Since both conclusions could be reached, why say that the fact that the moon did not express thanks and praise indicate that it was not appeased? Why not say that the fact that the moon remained silent indicates that it was appeased?",
"This is not a question. For if one would say that the moon was not appeased, it is understandable why the moon did not offer praise and thanks to God. If, however, the moon was appeased, it would be difficult to understand why the moon did not offer praise. The question which would lead to the opposite conclusion – If the moon was not appeased, why did it not make further requests of God? – can be resolved in two ways:
a) The moon did not wish to trouble its Maker excessively. That is undesirable, as reflected by the statements of the Mishnah regarding the message Shimon ben Shetach sent Choni HaMe’agel.
b) Even though it was not appeased, the moon did not make further requests because it did not desire to make light of the honor of the righteous God had mentioned, for their power is great. The moon knew that the righteous could issue a decree and exert their rule over the heavens and all their hosts.",
"I can find support from Scripture also for this concept, that the moon remained silent so as not to make light of the honor of the righteous. This concept is reflected in the verse describing Menashe and Efraim, “Nevertheless, his younger brother will be greater than him and the renown of his seed will fill…” On the surface, it was not necessary to refer to Efraim as קטן, “younger.” It would have been sufficient to say, “his brother,” since the beginning of Yaakov’s words, “I know… also he will be…” are obviously referring to Menashe. Thus, by saying “his brother,” it would have been clear that Yaakov’s intent is to refer to Efraim. Why then should Efraim have to be described superfluously as קטן, younger?",
"This questioned can be resolved on the basis of the Midrash, which comments on the words “and the renown of his seed” in this verse: Is this possible that Efraim’s seed will fill all the nations? Rather, this refers to Yehoshua, who will descend from Efraim and who will bring to a halt the orbits of the sun and the moon, which rule over the world from one end until its other end. For this reason, the verse refers to Efraim as קטן, to emphasize that he is one of the righteous who are identified with that attribute. Hence, Efraim’s descendant will rule over the celestial beings and have the potential to halt the sun and the moon in their orbits. Thus, when referring to people, the term קטן implies that one has the power to rule over the celestial beings. Accordingly, the moon remained silent so as not to make light of the honor of the righteous, not only as an expression of respect for the righteous, but also out of fear."
],
[
"The passage in Chulin 60b continues: “The Holy One, blessed be He, said: ‘Bring an atonement offering for Me because I diminished the moon.’” It appears to me that this statement should be understood according to its simple meaning: God commanded the Jews to bring an atonement offering, i.e., a sin offering, which will atone for them like all other sin-offerings. Nevertheless, it could be considered “for Me,” i.e., that the atonement offering was brought on behalf of God. As explained, throughout this passage, God is described as seeking to appease the moon, for God conducts Himself when relating to His created beings as He commands them to conduct themselves with each other. For that reason, the Midrash relates that God does not issue decrees for man to observe unless God fulfills them first Himself. This is reflected in the verse, “Rise before the elderly… I am God,” which is interpreted in the Jerusalem Talmud, at the end of the first chapter of Rosh HaShanah, as meaning, “I am He Who was the first to carry out the mitzvah of rising before the elderly.”",
"On this basis, it can be understood why God asked the Jews to bring an atonement offering for Him. At the end of Tractate Yoma, it is stated: Rabbi Yitzchak said: “Anyone who offends his fellowman, even merely verbally, must appease him, as reflected by the verses: ‘My son, if you have committed yourself as a guarantor for your fellow… you have been trapped by the sayings of your mouth… Do this then, my son, and be saved… humble yourself and give your fellow superiority.’ Bring many friends to appease him.”
Rav Chisda said: “It is necessary to appease the offended person with three rows of three people each, as reflected by the verse, ‘He makes a row of men and says, I sinned.’”",
"Similarly, the Holy One, blessed be He, saw that the moon was not appeased by all He had said. Therefore, God fulfilled the injunction to “bring many friends” by commanding the Jewish people to bring an atonement offering on the day of the moon’s renewal. Thus, the moon was appeased by the Jewish people who are called God’s friends, as reflected by the verse, “This is my beloved and this is my friend.” God states that the atonement offering is to be brought “because I diminished the moon,” i.e., and it has yet to be appeased. Therefore, God said: “Bring your atonement offering on the day of the moon’s renewal so that the atonement offering will serve as an appeasement for the moon on My behalf. In this way, I will have fulfilled My obligation by appeasing the moon through you, sending many of My friends and loved ones to it.” In this manner, the concluding statement of the passage can be understood without any difficulty at all. Blessed is God Who has led me on the true path."
],
[
"The passage in Chulin continues: “Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said, ‘Why is the wording describing the goat offered on the new moon distinguished?’” This statement reflects a wondrous intent, as is evident from a passage from the Mishnah in Tractate Shevuos. In that source, our Sages discuss the sins for which the goats offered on Yom Kippur, the festivals, and Rosh Chodesh atone. The Mishnah mentions three Sages – Rabbi Yehudah, Rabbi Meir, and Rabbi Shimon, who offer varying opinions on this issue. Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Meir agree that the goats offered on the festivals and on Rosh Chodesh atone for entering the Beis HaMikdash or partaking of sacrificial offerings when one did not know that he was impure, neither before he did so, nor afterwards. This concept is derived from the fact that with regard to the goat brought as a sin-offering on Rosh Chodesh, the Torah states: חַטָּאת לַה; “a sin-offering for God.” This phrase implies that this sin-offering atones for a sin of which only God is aware. Moreover, these Sages agree that the Torah implies that the same concept also applies with regard to the goat offered as a sin-offering on the festivals. This is derived from the Torah’s use of the word ושעיר, “and the goat” when discussing the goat offered on the festivals. The vav at the beginning of the word שעיר, meaning “and”, hints at a connection between this sin-offering and the other two sin-offerings. Rabbi Meir maintains that this concept also applies to the goats offered on Yom Kippur. Rabbi Shimon differs and maintains that the goats offered on Rosh Chodesh atone only for the sin of a pure person who ate impure sacrificial food.",
" Thus, Rabbi Shimon does not interpret the phrase, “a sin-offering to God,” which is used in connection with the Rosh Chodesh sin-offering, as referring to atonement for a sin of which only God is aware. If so, what inference does he derive from that phrase? In Tosfos Yom Tov, I wrote that Rabbi Shimon derives the same inference as Reish Lakish i.e., that the phrase “a sin-offering for God” alludes to God’s request that an atonement offering be brought for Him for diminishing the moon. Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Meir can also accept that concept, because if the Torah wanted to teach only that the offering atoned for God’s diminishing the moon, it would have stated חַטַּאת ה׳, “a sin-offering of God.” Since the Torah states חַטָּאת לַה׳, both concepts can be derived from the phrase. From this, we can appreciate that Rabbi Shimon maintains that both concepts cannot be derived from the phrase, and only the concept taught by Reish Lakish can be derived from it. I merited to understand that this was Reish Lakish’s intent. This is reflected by the wording Reish Lakish used: “Why is the goat offered on the new moon distinguished?” and not: “Why is the sin-offering offered on the new moon distinguished?” This wording is appropriate because this goat serves a different purpose than all the other goats mentioned in the passage. According to whose opinion is this goat different? Only according to Rabbi Shimon, for according to Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Meir, all the goats mentioned in the passage share the same purpose, i.e., that of atoning for one who did not know that he was impure, neither before entering the Beis HaMikdash or before partaking of sacrificial foods, nor afterwards. Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Meir interpreted the phrase חַטָּאת לַה׳, “a sin-offering for God”, as teaching that the offering atones for a sin of which only God is aware. Rabbi Shimon, by contrast, maintains that this goat is unique and does not bring about atonement for a sin of which only God is aware, like the other goats mentioned in this passage. Instead, this goat atones for the sin of a pure person who eats impure sacrificial foods. The phrase חַטָּאת לַה׳, “a sin-offering for God,” is not necessary to teach this concept. Why then is the wording referring to this goat different than that used with regard to the other goats brought as offerings? To teach that God was asking for an offering to be brought because He diminished the size of the moon.",
"It could be said that Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Meir also accept this concept. As I wrote in Tosfos Yom Tov, it is possible to say that Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Meir understand this phrase as teaching two concepts. Nevertheless, there is no imperative to say that; it is possible that these Sages understand the phrase חַטָּאת לַה׳, “a sin-offering for God,” as teaching only one concept – that the offering atones for a sin of which only God is aware. For these sages explicitly say: “The goats brought on Rosh Chodesh atone for impurity of which one is unaware.” What compels us to say that they understand this phrase as teaching two concepts? The only motive to say that these Sages understand the verse in that manner, is so that they will not be disagreeing with Reish Lakish. But who will say that this is the true interpretation? Perhaps in fact Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Meir do not accept the interpretation of Reish Lakish. If that were the case, why should we accept the interpretation of Reish Lakish? Let us follow the understanding of two Tannaim – Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Meir – rather than that of one Amora – Reish Lakish. Also, according to the version of the passage in Chulin that attributes this teaching to Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi, the passage was authored by an Amora. For Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi was an Amora, as reflected by the fact that in Tractate Shabbos, Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi quotes Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, who was himself an Amora. True, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi is mentioned in the Mishnah at the end of Tractate Uktzin. Nevertheless, as I explained there in Tosfos Yom Tov, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi was an Amora and not a Tanna. If so, the teaching of Reish Lakish has no basis.",
"Therefore, the passage in Chulin asks “Why is the goat offered on the new moon distinguished?” In this way, the passage is referring to the words of Rabbi Shimon, who maintains that this goat is offered for a different purpose than the other goats mentioned in the passage, in contrast to the understanding of Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Shimon does not interpret the phrase חַטָּאת לַה׳, “a sin-offering for God,” as do Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Meir. How does Rabbi Shimon interpret this phrase? We are forced to say that Rabbi Shimon interprets this phrase as Reish Lakish does, that God was asking that an atonement offering be brought for Him. Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi was thus emphasizing that his understanding has the support of a Tanna, Rabbi Shimon.
This is the understanding of the passage that I was able to achieve by the grace of the Most High God, blessed be He."
]
],
[
[
"An Elucidation of Psalm 8
While contemplating the above passage and presenting it with thorough analysis, I was led to the awareness that based on some of the above concepts, explanation can be provided for one of the psalms, Psalm 8. That psalm contains the verse,1. Tehillim 8:4. “When I behold Your heavens, the work of Your fingers, the moon and stars that You established.” Significantly, although the psalm mentions the moon and the stars, it does not mention the sun. True, it could be said that the sun is included among “the stars.” Alternatively, as Rav Avraham ibn Ezra explains, citing other commentaries, the sun is alluded to by the phrase, “You have placed Your glory.” It could be said that this phrase refers to the sun, for it is the largest created being and hence, it is appropriate to describe the sun as “Your glory.” Nevertheless, in contrast to the moon, the sun is not mentioned explicitly by name. As such, my heart tells me that this psalm refers to the diminishment of the moon as described in the Midrashim explained above, as will be elucidated with God’s help.",
"To quote the entire psalm: To the conductor, on the gittis, a psalm of David: God, our Lord: How glorious is Your name throughout the earth, for You have placed Your glory above the heavens! Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings, You established strength because of Your foes, to silence an enemy and one who seeks revenge. When I see Your heavens, the work of Your fingers, the moon and the stars that You established, I cannot but wonder, what is man that You have been mindful of him, a mortal that You have designated him for attention! You made him but slightly less than the angels, and You crowned him with honor and splendor. You have made him ruler over Your handiwork, placing everything beneath his feet, flocks and cattle, all of them, and also the beasts of the field, the fowl of the heavens, the fish of the sea; he who travels the paths of the seas. God, our Lord: How glorious is Your name throughout the earth!",
"Our Sages explained that the word gittis is an allusion to the prophecy of Yeshayahu: “Why is Your clothing red, and Your garments like [those of] one who trod in a wine press? A wine press I trod alone… For a day of vengeance was in My heart, and the year of My redemption has arrived.” Like all [of Yeshayahu’s] prophecies beginning from the prophecy, “Comfort you, comfort you, My people” and onwards, this prophecy focuses on the Ultimate Future. [According to] the simple understanding [of the verses] of the psalm under discussion – with the exception of the phrase, “to silence an enemy and one who seeks revenge,” as I will explain – it does not appear to refer to the Ultimate Future. Nevertheless, it is fitting to proceed to explain how the entire psalm refers to the Ultimate Future. In that way, the words of our Sages – though they do not require support or proof – will be further understood and apparent. [To explain the psalm verse by verse:]",
"God, our Lord…. – The difficulty with this verse is apparent. How does “placing Your glory above the heavens” lead to “Your name [being] glorious throughout the earth”? Our Sages already focused on this [matter], explaining that [this verse] alludes to [the request] the angels [made] at [the time of] the Giving of the Torah. I maintain that – consonant with the simple meaning of the verse – the intent is: “How glorious and powerful will Your name be throughout the earth when You place Your glory above all the heavens and their hosts!” How will God’s glory become apparent over the heavens? By disrupting the celestial order from the pattern that was decreed. This certainly [reflects] glory. This verse uses the word hodcha, which we have translated as “Your glory.” [However, hod] can also mean “strength”, as Ralbag interprets the verse, “The power (hod) of His sneezing is awesome.”",
"Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings…. – Our Sages understood this verse as referring to [the infants who joined in the recitation of] the song [sung in appreciation of the crossing of] the Sea of Reeds. However, according to my understanding, the [words olelim v’yonkim, which are commonly translated as “babes and sucklings,” should be understood differently. I posit that] the word yonkim should not be understood as “sucklings,” i.e., [as referring to] infants who nurse from their mothers, but [instead] as referring to young children of more advanced ages. Indeed, our Sages use the term ינוקא, yanuka, to refer to a young child. Similarly, Rashi interprets עוללים, olelim, [which is commonly translated as “babes,”] as referring to mankind as a whole, [interpreting the verse as follows:
In Your great humility, You established strength from the mouths of olelim and yonkim, i.e., You caused Your presence to rest in the Beis HaMikdash and You ordained that Your strength would be acknowledged by the kohanim and the Levites, who are mortals who grow in filth, like babes and sucklings, as reflected by the verse, ‘I soiled (olalti) my radiance with dust.’ [Similarly,] all young children are called olelim because they are [live in] filth.” In the same vein, yonkim can be interpreted as referring to young children, as our Sages employ the term. This is closer to the simple meaning of the term. Rashi understands the verse as referring to [God’s] presence in the Beis HaMikdash, where the kohanim and Levites sing before Him. [Therefore, Rashi] cannot understand olelim [as referring to children, since children do not serve in the Beis HaMikdash. Rashi must therefore use the word as a metaphor for mankind as a whole]. However, I understand olelim and yonkim as referring to children of a slightly advanced age. [This understanding is reflected by one opinion] in the Midrashic understanding of this verse. As Midrash Tehillim [comments on the above verse]:
One [Sage] understood olelim as referring to infants in their mother’s womb, as reflected by the verse, “Like fetuses (olelim) that never saw light.” Another [Sage] understands olelim as referring to infants that have emerged from the womb, as reflected by the verse, “Infants (olalim) asked for bread.”",
"According to my understanding, [there is a correlation between these verses]. Our Sages state that “the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge” that Adam ate was wheat, because knowledge is dependent on grain. [The Sages derive this from the fact that] an infant does not acquire knowledge until he partakes of bread. Thus, when “infants ask for bread” and thereby gain knowledge and begin to speak, that is the age at which “a father is obligated to teach his son the verse, ‘The Torah Moshe commanded us…’ and the first verse of the Shema.” Hence, eating grain generates the possibility that, “Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings, You established strength.” This verse uses the word oz for strength. Oz refers to the Torah, as our Sages state, “The [sole] meaning of oz, ‘strength,’ is Torah.”Olelim are young children who have enough intelligence to be able to ask for bread. Similarly, the term yonkim is used to refer to children who study Torah, as stated in the several places in the Talmud, e.g. “He said to the child (yanuka), ‘Tell me the verse you are studying.’” “Out of the mouths” [of such children] – i.e., because of their Torah observance – “strength is established” for God to disrupt the celestial order [in favor of the Jewish people. Conversely, when the Jews] neglect [Torah observance], God vows, “I will hide My face from them, and they will be consumed,” i.e., the fate [of the Jews] will be given over to the natural order.",
"Therefore, Psalm 8 uses the term oz, which is used to describe the strength of the Torah, as our Sages commented on the verse, “God endowed His people with oz, strength.” I maintain that the Torah is called oz [and identified with strength] because it generates the power to disrupt the natural order. For when the Jews carry out God’s will they amplify God’s power, as alluded to by the verse, “Within God, we will generate power.” The foundation for this structure [of power is the Torah study of young children, i.e., the words of Torah that come forth] “from the mouths of babes and sucklings.” For the Torah study [of young children has a quality that surpasses that of the Torah study of adults], as Abbaye commented, “[The effects generated by the Torah study of] a voice untainted by sin are incomparably [greater] than those generated by a voice tainted by sin.”",
"Thus, it was established through “the mouths of sucklings and babes” that God’s name would be “glorious.” [Psalm 8:2 uses the word adir, which we have translated as “glorious.” However, adir can also] mean “mighty” – [i.e., God is mighty] with His glory and His power manifest over the heavens. Why [was it necessary to] request this? “Because of Your foes,” i.e., it is necessary to request that God manifest His glory and His power over the heavens because of His foes.",
"From the following verse, “When I see Your heavens, the work of Your fingers,” another interpretation can be reached. Thus, Tractate Kesubos relates: Bar Kappara expounded: The work of the righteous is greater than the work of heaven and earth, for regarding the creation of heaven and earth it is written, “Behold, My hand laid the foundation of the earth and My right hand spread out the heavens,” while regarding the work of the hands of the righteous it is written, “The place that You, O God, founded for Your dwelling, the Sanctuary that Your hands, O God, established.” One Babylonian, Rabbi Chiyya was his name, challenged [that statement, noting: It is written:] “And His hands formed the dry land.” [In support of bar Kappara, it was said: “Although the term “His hand” is pronounced in the plural,] it is written in the singular.” [In response, it was said, “The verb,] ‘formed’ is plural!” Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak said: “His fingers ‘formed,’ as it is written, “When I see Your heavens, the work of Your fingers.” [Since His fingers “formed” a plural form of the verb is used].",
"Based on the principle stated by bar Kappara – that the deeds of the righteous are greater than the creation of heaven and earth – I will explain this verse and the following ones until the end of the psalm. ",
"The psalmist is saying: Based on the utterances of the babes and sucklings, You established the foundation on which the structure [of all existence] was built. [God did this in a manner that His] glory and strength will cover the heavens and the light [of the celestial order] will not shine forth. [Hence,] the dominion and rule [of the celestial order] will not be manifest upon the earth. The reason for this is that Your heavens are but the work of Your fingers. [Since we don’t know how many of God’s fingers created the heavens,] we can only assume the minimum. Therefore, [we can] infer that the heavens are the work of only one [of God’s hands. In contrast,] the deeds of the righteous are greater, since they – as it were – reflect the work of both of [God’s] hands. Thus, the righteous rule over the work of the heavens. How is this possible? The glory and power of God that is manifest over the heavens is [generated by] the mouths of the babes and sucklings and the deeds of the righteous. True, [as Abbaye taught, “The effects generated by the Torah study of] a voice untainted by sin are incomparably [greater] than those generated by a voice tainted by sin.” Nevertheless, [the effects generated by the Torah study of the righteous – even though] it is not comparable [to that of the children –] is still powerful.",
"The psalm continues: the moon and the stars that You established. [When mentioning the moon and the stars, the psalmist] changes the word used, stating that You established. [Thus,] the work of Your fingers, stated beforehand, is not sufficient [when discussing the moon and the stars. Hence,] this phrasing implies that the moon and stars are not merely described as the work of Your fingers, but as having been “established”. [The word] “establishing” represents a stage of development beyond “work” (מעשה). After “work” is completed, [the object produced by the work is then] “established.” This is reflected by the phrases, “He has made you (עשך) and established you,” and “Your hands made me (עשוני) and established me.” [A similar motif applies with regard to] the moon and the stars. [After being made, they were established, for the moon] did not remain in the same state as [it was] originally created [i.e., “made”]. Thus, the moon was [originally] the same size as the sun, [but then] it had its size diminished. After [being made, the moon] was “established” in a different form than it was originally. Similarly, the stars were made and then established. [For as part of the] conciliatory [gestures granted the moon], its hosts were increased. [According to the conception that] the stars had already been created, [as part of the gestures to the moon,] God decreed that they would appear and disappear with [the moon], as our Sages stated. How much more so [does this apply] if [the stars] were created [only] after [the moon was] diminished and not earlier, thus their very existence serves as an “establishment” of the moon. [Thus, since the moon was established] in this manner, the psalmist said, “Since I see the moon and the stars as they have been established, I declare: What (מה) is man…!”",
"[In this verse, the word] מה, what, is used as in the exclamation מה אדיר שמך, How glorious is Your name! Similarly, in the phrase מה אנוש, what is man, the word מה, what, [is used] to exclaim a wondrous expression of praise. [The psalmist is saying:] “Just as You established the stars in an effort to placate the moon after it was diminished, so too how great is man, who was also mentioned as part of those gestures, since You declared that the righteous will be identified with the moon.” This verse, What is man that You have been mindful of him, a mortal that You have designated him for attention? refers to Yaakov and David, the two righteous men who are identified with the moon. ",
"In particular, Yaakov is identified with the term אנוש(enosh), [which is the least complementary of the terms used to refer to man. This term is used to allude to] Yaakov, [for Yaakov] was the least prominent of the patriarchs, as he testified regarding himself, “The days of my sojourning… have been few and undesirable, and they did not reach the days of my fathers.”",
"David is described with the term בן אדם (ben adam), [which we have translated as “mortal”. A more literal translation of ben adam is “son of man.”] Adam is the most superlative term for man, as the Zohar, Parshas Tazria, states. Therefore, it is appropriate to use [this term] with regard to David, for he reigned over Israel and the monarchy was given to him for eternity. [However,] David is referred to as ben Adam, “son of man,” and not Adam, “man,” because [in a way,] David was “the son of Adam,” as it were. As our Sages taught, David was destined to be stillborn and Adam, the first man, granted him 70 years of his life. Do not be surprised that David himself authored this psalm [even though it explicitly alludes to him. We see an even more surprising expression of this quality with regard to] Shmuel, who declared, “And He sent Yerubaal, Yiftach… and Shmuel,” referring to himself by name. Here, although David spoke about himself, he did not refer to himself by name, [but instead,] used a different term. [Thus, this verse is less surprising.]",
"You made him but slightly less than the angels. This [phrase] refers to Yaakov, with whom is associated the verse, “And he called it, ‘God, the God of Israel.’” Our Sages interpreted this verse as, “The God of Israel called him [i.e., Yaakov] God.” [This verse uses the names א-ל, E-l, and א-להים, E-lohim to refer to God.] God’s name א-ל derives from His name א-להים; it is only that א-ל is lacking [the last three letters of] א-להים. That lack is merely marginal (“slightly less”) because the additional dimension added to E-lohim is not of primary importance, since the main part of [the name E-lohim] is E-l… This pattern is reflected whenever there is a tosefes, an “additional element,” as in tosefes Shabbos, the additional time added to Shabbos, or tosefes sheviis, the additional time added to the Sabbatical year – [the laws governing] these additional times are not as strict [as those governing the Shabbos or the Sabbatical year themselves. Similarly, the additional dimension added to א-להים is not fundamental.] [This verse continues,] and You crowned him with honor and splendor, referring to David who was granted the honor of kingship and was crowned with “the diadem of their king on his head.”",
"You have made him ruler over Your handiwork. [This phrase] refers to both [Yaakov and David], and indeed to all the righteous who resemble them, for [the righteous] rule over all existence, as reflected by the verse, “You will issue a decree, and it will be upheld for you,” [which our Sages understand as implying that God will uphold a decree issued by a righteous man]. Your handiwork refers to heaven and earth, as reflected by the verse, “Behold, My hand laid the foundation of the earth and My right hand spread out the heavens.”",
"With regard to placing everything beneath his feet, the interpretation of [the term] “feet” given by [Rambam in] Moreh Nevuchim is well known. [Rambam interprets the word] “feet” [as referring to] causes, [i.e.] the factors that lead to a given result. Thus, [the phrase,] placing everything beneath his feet should be understood as meaning that everything in existence comes as a result of the man and the mortal mentioned above [i.e., Yaakov and David]. This interpretation parallels [the understanding of] our Sages who interpreted the Scriptural phrase, “for this is man’s entire [purpose],” [to mean that man is the purpose of all existence]. If [the phrase] You have made him ruler over Your handiwork is understood as referring back to [the phrase] You crowned him with honor and splendor, and thus to the son of man, i.e., David, the sequence of the verse will be understood better. A similar explanation is found in the Midrash, which states: You have made him ruler over Your handiwork – this refers to Yehoshua, who said, “Sun, be still over Givon.” Placing everything beneath his feet – this refers to David, of whom it is said, “I crushed them like the dust of the earth.”
The Midrash continues to interpret the other phrases of this psalm as referring to righteous men of renown.",
"Flocks and cattle, all of them, and also the beasts of the field – It is difficult to understand what is added by the phrase, and also the beasts of the field. Moreover, why is [that phrase introduced by the words] “and also”? [In resolution,] it appears that from [the word] “also” onward, the psalm is relating prophecies of the Ultimate Future. [Hence, the phrase] the beasts of the field refers to “the beast [that pastures] on a thousand mountains,” mentioned in Psalm 50. Our Sages interpret [that phrase as referring to “the wild ox”] which will be prepared for [the feast of] the righteous in the Ultimate Future, as stated in Tractate Bava Basra. Although [our Sages] speak only of one beast pasturing on one thousand mountains, the verse [uses the plural form, “beasts”]. The Sages’ statement can be understood as an exaggeration, indicating that each of these beasts will pasture on a thousand mountains each day, [since the text itself is describing many beasts pasturing on those one thousand mountains]. A similar [interpretation can be given for the phrase in the following verse in psalm 50], וְזִיז שָׂדַי עִמָּדִי, “the giant fowl of the field are with Me.” Yonasan ben Uziel translates [that phrase as referring to] “the wild rooster whose feet rest on the ground and whose head reaches the heaven.” Similarly, [this fowl is mentioned] in Tractate Bava Basra, [and] it is also alluded to [in this psalm with the phrase] the fowl of the heavens. Why should we not say that the meat of [this] fowl will be included in the feast [for the righteous in the Ultimate Future]? Just like the meat of fish – the Leviathan and its mate, the fish of the sea [mentioned in this psalm – the meat of fowl will also be served at this feast,] as I will explain shortly. On this basis, we can also understand why this phrase is introduced by the words and also [as mentioned above]. For [the phrase and also indicates] something significant, and to be included as part of this feast is certainly a significant matter.",
"The fowl of the heavens. As I mentioned above, just as the feast [for the righteous in the Ultimate Future] will include the meat of animals and fish, it is also appropriate that the meat of fowl [be served]. Why should this type [of food] be lacking [from that feast]? [Fowl] is the most prestigious of all types [of meat], as reflected by the comments of Midrash Tanchuma [with regard to the offerings brought on the holiday of Sukkos]: “On the first day, he [the host] should… feed him [the guest] fowl. On the second day, he [the host] should feed him fish….” Each day, the host reduces the quality of the food offered. Similar comments are made in Bamidbar Rabbah: “On the first day, [the host] should… feed [the guest] fowl. On the second day, [the host] should feed him meat. On the third day, he should feed him fish….” Similarly, Rashi speaks of giving fowl first (but gives precedence to fish over animal meat). [Thus, fowl is considered the most prominent of all meats.] Why then should [fowl] be lacking at the feast served by the King of kings in the Ultimate Future?",
"He who travels the paths of the seas – The seas are a metaphor for this [material] world. All those who journey on [a sea voyage place themselves in] danger. So too, all those who pass through this world are in danger, for they risk losing their portion in the true and eternal world. Who will have all these [benefits described in this Psalm]? Someone who travels the paths of the sea. The present participle is used here in place of the past tense, and the verse intends to say: someone who already “traveled these paths,” [i.e., who has already overcome these challenges,] need not be concerned about [the spiritual] danger, for he will be aware of his soul [and know that] he is righteous. Accordingly, even as [this person] passes through this world, he need not worry that his feet might, Heaven forbid, swerve from the just path.",
"God, our Lord: How glorious is Your name throughout the earth! [This phrase was already stated in the second verse of this psalm, and is repeated here. Nevertheless,] the second half of the phrase, for You have placed Your glory above the heavens, is not repeated. Our Sages noted this fact and explained that [the omission indicates that] the angels [acknowledged the validity of Moshe’s arguments, and] agreed that the Torah should be given on this material plane. According to our understanding – that [this portion of the psalm is a prophecy regarding the] Ultimate Future, when the evil inclination will cease to exist, for God will slay it – at that time, our mouths and our tongues will be filled with joyous song, and we will proclaim God, our Lord: How glorious is Your name throughout the earth! even though God will not place His glory and might above the heavens. For then God will create a new heaven and a new earth, as prophesied by Yeshayahu. Then, there will be no need to fear from the heavenly forces, for mankind will all be righteous. Why then would there be [the phenomenon of] a righteous man who suffers? [In particular, the above is true] according to the Zohar, which explains that “the new heavens and the new earth” will be created through the new Torah insights that the Torah scholars will develop. Accordingly, the heavenly hosts will not oppose [the righteous], for the very existence of these heavenly hosts is the result of the Torah [study of the righteous]. Therefore, there is no need to state place Your glory above the heavens."
]
],
[
[
"An Elucidation of the Narrative of the Fourth Day of Creation
Before explaining the passage, let us highlight several points:",
"a) As mentioned, in this passage, the word מארת, “luminaries,” is written in a short form, lacking the two vavim. Our Sages took notice of that fact and commented, “It is a cursed (מארה) day when children become ill with croup.” Explanation is, however, necessary because the word מארת appears two other times in the passage: וְהָיוּ לִמְאוֹרֹת and שְׁנֵי הַמְּאֹרֹת. In the last instance, the word מארת is lacking both vavim, while in the first instance, it is lacking only the second vav.",
"b) The phrase, בִּרְקִיעַ הַשָּׁמַיִם, “in the expanse of the heaven,” requires explanation. Seemingly, it would have been sufficient to say בַּשָּׁמַיִם, “in the heaven.”",
"c) Seemingly, directly after stating, “Let there be luminaries in the expanse of the heaven” the narrative should have continued, “to radiate light upon the earth.” Were that wording to be used, it would not have been necessary to state, “Let them serve as luminaries in the expanse of the heaven to radiate light upon the earth.” In the description of the fashioning of the luminaries, it is written: “God placed them in the expanse of the heaven to radiate light upon the earth,” without repeating the wording. Similarly, it would appear appropriate to use such wording here as well.",
"d) In relating God’s utterance, the narrative states that the luminaries were created “to make a distinction between the day and the night.” However, in the description of the fashioning of the luminaries it is written that they were created for two purposes: “to rule during the day and during the night, and to make a distinction between the light and the darkness.” If the distinction between day and night is the same as the distinction between light and darkness, it is necessary to understand why God’s statement does not mention ruling during the day and night. Furthermore, if day and night, and light and darkness are identical, the narrative should have stated simply, “to make a distinction between them.” Conversely, if the distinction between light and darkness is not the same as the distinction between day and night, God’s statement and the description of the actual fashioning of the luminaries are not the same at all. The description of the actual fashioning of the luminaries is totally different from God’s description of their being brought into being.",
"e) The passage states: והיו לאתת ולמועדים ולימים ושנים. והיו למאורת “And they shall serve as signs, for appointed times, for days, and years. Let them serve as luminaries…” These verses repeat the verb והיו, which we have translated as “they shall serve” and “Let them serve.” In Parshas Shmos, it is stated, וְהָיוּ הַמַּיִם אֲשֶׁר תִּקַּח מִן הַיְאֹר וְהָיוּ לְדָם בַּיַּבָּשֶׁת “And it shall be that the water that you will take from the river shall be blood on the dry land.” In this verse, as well, the word והיו, which we have translated as “shall be”, is repeated. Rashi notes this repetition, and derives an insight from it. In that instance, however, the verbוהיו needed to be stated at least once. In the passage from Bereishis under discussion, however, the verb והיו could have been omitted entirely. The passage could have stated: “Let there be luminaries in the expanse of the heaven to make a distinction between the day and the night, and as signs… and to radiate light,” without mentioning the verb והיו at all.",
"f) The passage states, “And they shall serve as signs, for appointed times, for days, and years.” It seems unnecessary to mention days, because the verse already stated, “Let there be luminaries… to make a distinction between the day and the night.” In addition to this redundancy, this verse is problematic because seemingly “for days” should have been stated before “for signs.” Firstly, in this way, the redundancy would not be so apparent, for it would have appeared as an explanation of the preceding phrase. Thus, the verse would read, “to make a distinction between the day and the night; and they shall be for days, and years,” i.e., the distinction between day and night will make it possible to count the days. Secondly, it is logical that the phrase “for days” precede the phrase “for appointed times.” “For appointed times” refers to the festivals, which occur just three times a year – or five times a year, if Rosh HaShanah and Yom Kippur are included. How much more so should the phrase “for days” precede “for signs,” which as Rashi explains refers to the lunar and solar eclipses. It is only possible for eclipses to occur once a month – a lunar eclipse can only occur at the time of a full moon and a solar eclipse can only occur at the time of a new moon. Moreover, eclipses do not occur every month, and even when they do occur, they are not visible in the entire world or even in an entire region.",
"g) Why does that verse state, לאתת “as signs,” למועדים “for appointed times,” and לימים “for days,” with each of these preceded by the letter lamed, “for” or “as”, while the verse merely states ושנים “and years” without a lamed?",
"h) Why does the passage say “and it was so” after the introductory statement, “Let there be luminaries”? Seemingly, this statement is unnecessary, for the passage continues, “and God made the two great luminaries.” True, the same expression is used in the middle of the narrative of the third day, after God said, “Let the earth sprout forth vegetation” and in the middle of the narrative of the sixth day, after God said, “Let the earth bring forth living beings.” Nevertheless, here explanation of this passage is necessary and this is our present focus.",
"i) The phrases “the great luminaries” and “the small luminary” require explanation, as reflected by the Midrash.",
"j) The passage states: “God made the two great luminaries…. God placed them in the expanse of the heaven.” Why was it necessary for there to be two activities, “making” and “placing”? Was God unable to make the luminaries in the heavens themselves, i.e., with one act to make them in the heaven without having to place them there afterwards?",
"k) The passage concludes, “And God saw that it was good.” After God created light on the first day, it is written, “God saw the light, that it was good.” Seemingly, the same pattern should have been repeated here, i.e., the verse should have said, “God saw that the luminaries were good.”",
"l) There is a general question that applies with regard to the Creation as a whole. Throughout the narrative of creation, it is written וירא... כי טוב, “God saw… that it was good.” Yet in summation of the entire narrative, it is written, וירא א-להים את כל אשר עשה והנה טוב מאד, “God saw everything that He had made and behold, it was very good.” Why is a different term used?",
"In resolution, regarding the verse, ויאמר א-להים יהי מְאֹרֹת, “God said, ‘Let there be luminaries,’” the Masoretic tradition relates that the word מְאֹרֹת appears twice in the Tanach lacking both vavim, in the verse, “And God said, ‘Let there be luminaries,’” and in the verse, “God made the two great luminaries.” By contrast, in the verse, והיו לִמְאוֹרֹת, “They shall be luminaries,” the word “luminaries” is written as לִמְאוֹרֹת, lacking the second vav but not the first. It is, however, possible to say that in this verse the word לִמְאוֹרֹת should be written לִמְאוֹרוֹת with both vavim, since there is no tradition that it is lacking one vav. Whatever the spelling of מאורת in that verse, the word מְאֹרֹת in the verse, יהי מְאֹרֹת, “Let there be luminaries,” and in the verse, ויעש א-להים את שני המארת הגדלים, “and God made the two great luminaries,” is written lacking vavim entirely. This indicates that originally, when God conceived of the luminaries, He had in mind the possibility of diminishment, and indeed, when God made the luminaries He diminished one of them. That diminishment affected both the size of the moon and the measure of its light. When considering all the particulars, it is possible to say that there are two other dimensions to the moon’s diminishment: that the place of its orbit was lowered to the lowest sphere, and that as a result of this diminishment, there is a possibility for a lunar eclipse. Hence, there are four aspects to the moon’s diminishment, which are alluded to by the lack of four vavim in the verses discussing the creation of the luminaries. According to the version that the word מְאוֹרֹת, “luminaries” in the verse, “They shall be luminaries” is also written lacking one vav, that missing vav can be understood as alluding to a solar eclipse, because the possibility for a solar eclipse also resulted from the diminishment of the moon. For when both the sun and the moon were equal in size and on the same plane, there could not be a solar eclipse, since the moon was not located on a lower plane and thus would not intervene – as it can at present – between someone looking from the earth and the sun.",
"In summary, the Masoretic text clearly indicates – as I explained in the elucidation of the passage from Chulin – that the diminishment of the moon was necessary, and would have happened even if the moon had not complained. This is alluded to by the mesorah with the words, ויאמר א-להים יהי מְאֹרֹת, “And God said, ‘Let there be luminaries’”. The missing vavim in the word מְאֹרֹת serves as a mnemonic device to teach us that God caused the lack – i.e., the diminishment – of the moon and that diminishment would have happened even if the moon had not complained. Similarly, the fact that the word “luminaries” in the verse, ויעש א-להים את שני המארת הגדלים, “God made the two great luminaries” is lacking two vavim, indicates that God created the moon intending for it to be diminished, even were it not to have complained.",
"The concept that the moon underwent a diminishment is also reflected by the phrase, יהי מארת ברקיע השמים, “Let there be luminaries in the expanse of the heaven.” It seems unnecessary for the verse to say ברקיע השמים, “in the expanse of the heaven.” However, this apparent redundancy alludes to the moon’s diminishment. The term rakia refers to the sphere in which the sun is located. This sphere is called rakia because it is in the middle of the seven heavens that are designated for the seven planets. Therefore, rakia is an appropriate term, for just as the rakia divided between the higher waters and the lower waters, so too, the orbit of the sun divides between the three orbits of the planets closest to the earth and the three orbits furthest from it. The moon was created in this orbit before its diminishment. True, as explained above, God already planned to diminish the moon. Nevertheless, initially, God established both the sun and the moon in this middle orbit. Moreover, initially, it was God’s intent to only create these two luminaries and no others. Nevertheless, after God diminished the moon, He “increased its hosts,” i.e., God also brought into being the stars, including the five nevuchim, and all the stars in the orbit of the constellations. On this basis, it can be understood why initially, the purpose of the creation of the sun and the moon is described as being: “to make a distinction between the day and the night.” This was achieved through the creation of the sun and the moon alone. Hence, only the two major luminaries were mentioned in the Torah’s description of God’s initial intent. In contrast, the phrase “to radiate light” refers to all the other stars, for they also radiate light to the earth. For this reason, “to radiate light” was not mentioned in connection with the creation of the sun and moon, but only when the other stars came into being after the diminishment of the moon. Nevertheless, that diminishment was implicit in God’s initial intent, as explained above and as will be clarified further in the elucidation of the subsequent verses.",
"יהי מארת... והיו לאתת Let there be luminaries… They shall serve as signs –The repetition of the root והיו in this verse alludes to a second “being,” i.e., that the sun and moon’s “being” i.e., form would go through a change, for one of them would be diminished. As a result of the moon’s diminishment, there would be signs, appointed times, days, and years. Since God desired to appease the moon because of the diminishment, He told the moon that the Jews would reckon the days and years according to it. The verse did not mention days before signs, because by deviating from the order that frequency dictates, the verse alludes to the fact that after the diminishment of the moon, through which the luminaries would enter a different state of being that would lead to the existence of “signs and appointed times,” God stated, in order to appease the moon, that the Jews would reckon their days and years according to it. The verse states והיו לאתת ולמועדים ולימים ושנים, they shall be as signs, for appointed times, for days and years. The words “signs”, “appointed times,” and “days”, are all preceded by a lamed. The fact that a lamed was not added before the word v’shanim (making it ul’shanim), as in the other three words, also serves as an allusion. It points to the moon’s response that the reckoning of years is fundamentally dependent on the sun and its annual cycle, as explained above in the explanation of the passage from Chulin.",
"והיו למאורת ברקיע השמים Let them serve as luminaries in the expanse of the heaven to radiate light – The repetition of the word והיו refers to another change that would come to pass as a result of the diminishing of the moon, creating a new entity, {the light,} that would exist “in the rakia, the expanse of the heaven.” The rakia constitutes the lower heaven which was created to separate between the higher waters and the lower waters. This refers to the open space that is between the spheres, as I explained in another exposition, which explains the entire process of creation as it transpired in all the first Six Days of Creation, which I called The Formation of the Elements. In essence, the sun and the moon do not possess the potential to radiate light, for the heavens and all their hosts do not possess any defined potential. All the changes that result from them in this lowly world stem from the recipients. Therefore, the sun darkens a person’s complexion, but whitens clothes, for everything depends on the recipients. Hence, were the moon not to have been diminished, the difference between the day and the night would have been of an entirely different nature. The light that radiated forth on the first day of Creation, before the creation of the luminaries, and the darkness mentioned in those verses, would have continued, and the distinction between this primeval light and primeval darkness would have come as a result of the luminaries. This constituted the difference between the first three days of Creation and all subsequent time. During the first three days of Creation, the distinction between light and darkness was made without the luminaries. From the fourth day onward, God desired that the difference between light and darkness come as a result of these luminaries. Initially, {however, God did not desire} to conceal the original light that radiated forth throughout the first three days. Nevertheless, {after the complaint of the moon,} God desired that one of the luminaries be diminished, and that the light of the first three days of Creation be concealed. The luminaries would come into existence and they would generate light in “the expanse of the heaven,” i.e., in the area that separates between the higher waters and the lower waters. The light that the luminaries would generate would be dependent on the manner in which its influence is accepted by the recipients, as stated above.",
"On this basis, we can understand the rationale for the creation of the two luminaries as equal in size, although the original intent was that ultimately one luminary would be diminished. This pattern resembles God’s creation of the light at the beginning of Creation, and His subsequent concealment of it for the reason explained by our Sages. Accordingly, in this verse, the focus is on the original intent, when the sun and the moon were created as equals, and the original light radiated forth. This passage relates that after creating this original light, vayavdel E-lohim, “and God made a distinction.” The words vayavdel E-lohim allude to the concealment of the light on the first day of Creation, i.e., God made a distinction concerning this light, and set it aside for the righteous in the Ultimate Future, as Rashi explains. It is in this very thought that the impulse that the moon would be diminished arose. The moon would shine in “the expanse of the heaven” as explained, and the primeval light would no longer shine forth because it would be concealed.",
"Since there are three totally different changes in being resulting from one activity, therefore the verse immediately states “And it was so.” Even though the order of creation underwent a change – originally, the luminaries were of equal size, and afterwards, their being became different – by saying, “and it was so,” the narrative indicates that one should note that the state of being of the luminaries underwent a change. It is as if the narrative says, note the progression of the different states of being as described, although these states of being appear contradictory to each other.",
"God made the two great luminaries – The narrative proceeds to describe how this action fulfilled God’s original intent, for He made two great luminaries, equal in appearance and size, and having the same location. Nevertheless, immediately afterwards, God diminished one of the luminaries, because even initially, the intent was that they be diminished. Initially, were the luminaries to have remained equal in size, light and darkness would not be dependent on them. The luminaries would merely “make a distinction between the day and the night,” as stated initially in the narrative. Nevertheless, after God’s wisdom dictated that the original light be concealed, the sun and the moon would serve as the sources of light “radiating light upon the earth and its inhabitants.” And for this reason, the sun and the moon would “rule,” one “during the day,” and the other “during the night,” as the narrative proceeds to state. As a natural consequence, this brought about “the signs, appointed times, days, and years,” mentioned earlier. All of these times alter the intervals for good or for the opposite, Heaven forbid. As explained previously, all of this came about as a result of the diminishment of the moon. Originally, before the diminishment, the sun and the moon were not designated for these functions; they were merely designated “to make a distinction.” The light that shined originally would be the ruling factor.",
"God placed them in the expanse of the heaven – The difference of opinion between the Sages of Israel and the Greek scholars, regarding whether the heavenly sphere is fixed in its place and the stars and constellations move in their orbits, or the stars and constellations are fixed in their positions and the heavenly sphere moves, has existed from the era of the Tannaim, as recorded in Tractate Pesachim. The view of our Sages is that the heavenly sphere is fixed and the stars and constellations move…. This conception is supported by the narrative that states first, “and God made the two great luminaries,” and only afterwards, “God placed them in the expanse of the heaven.” It appears from this passage that the luminaries are a unique creation and not merely part of the heavens. To explain: Were one to say that the luminary moves in its orbit and the heavenly sphere is fixed, it is understandable that the luminary is a separate entity from the heavens, and revolves on the surface of the heavens. A parallel to this exists with regard to the creation of man, concerning which it is stated, “God the Lord formed man,” and only afterwards, “God the Lord planted a garden… and placed man there.” If, by contrast, one would postulate that the luminary was fixed in the heavens and the heavenly sphere revolved, the luminaries would be part of the essence of the heavens. Otherwise, were one to postulate that the luminaries were separate entities implanted into the heavenly sphere, as it were, the substance that previously existed there would be nullified. That theory runs contrary to logic. Instead, one would be forced to say that the luminary is part of the sphere, it is just that God in the power of His wisdom made that portion of the heavenly sphere luminous. If that is the intent, the sequence “He made the two great luminaries” and only afterwards “God placed them in the expanse of the heaven,” is problematic…. “Placing” could be interpreted as distinguishing them and granting them honor, as in the verse, “I placed you as a judge for Pharaoh” and “I will place him as prominent.”…",
"On this verse, there is a relevant passage from the Midrash: “How do the spheres of the sun and the moon set?... Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai said: ‘We do not know whether they fly through the air, glide in the heaven, or proceed in their usual manner. It is an exceedingly difficult matter, and no created being can fathom it.’”… It is possible to explain that “flying” refers to proceeding at an exceedingly fast pace. “Gliding” also reflects swift progress, but not as fast as “flying.” An object glides rapidly because the air does not impede its progress to the same degree as an entity of substance which holds back one who runs on it. One who “proceeds in his usual manner” does not move quickly. All of these three approaches, however, follow the approach of our Sages, that the stars revolve and the heavenly sphere remains fixed in place.",
"To rule during the day and during the night, and to make a distinction between the light and the darkness – The wording of the verse indicates that ruling during the day and during the night, and making a distinction between light and darkness are two separate purposes. To rule was part of the appeasement that God granted the moon, instructing it to “go and rule during the day and during the night”. ",
"Afterwards, the verse mentions making a distinction between the light and the darkness, which is the same as stated in God’s original intent, to make a distinction between the day and the night, as “God called the light, day.”...",
"The fact that God did not explicitly mention the luminaries in the phrase, “And God saw that it was good,” as He explicitly mentioned the light with regard to the first day, is readily explained as related to the moon’s complaint. To cite a parallel: The Midrash relates that the phrase, “And God saw that it was good,” was not mentioned with regard to the second day because division was created on that day. That Midrashic passage continues: “Now, if God saw that it was good is not mentioned with regard to a division that is for the benefit of the world and its stability, how much more so does this apply to a division that leads to the disruption of the order of the world.”",
"The text continues for a little bit more than a page. Nevertheless, portions of the manuscript were illegible and thus not copied in the printed text. As a result, it was not possible to translate the conclusion of the text word for word. The paragraphs that follow reflect a summary of the translator’s partial understanding of Tosfos Yom Tov’s intent.",
"In this, we can see a parallel to the passage in Tractate Chulin discussed previously. The moon’s complaint was undesirable and therefore resulted in punishment. Nevertheless, because it ultimately led to the benefit of the world, God offered several measures to appease the moon. When, however, complaints and division arise that are not intended for the benefit of the world and its stability, punishment is fit to be meted out without any appeasement.",
"As mentioned, after the conclusion of every phase of creation, it is written, “And God saw ki tov,” commonly translated as “that it was good,” while at the end of the entire narrative of Creation, it is written, “And God saw everything that He had made and behold (v’hinai), it was very good.” Our Sages explain that ki can also be understood as im, i.e., it is a conditional term. After every day’s creation, God saw the possibility for good. Nevertheless, the ultimate good can only be achieved when man uses the world for Torah. Therefore, after the creation of man, the Torah states, “And God saw everything that He had made and behold, it was very good.” At that stage, the goodness will not be conditional, because through man’s action, the world will be brought to its complete perfection, as will be realized in the Ultimate Future."
]
]
]
},
"versions": [
[
"The Cycles of the Renewal of the Moon. Trans. Eliyahu Touger, 2017",
"https://www.amazon.com/Chidushei-HaLevanah-Cycles-Renewal-Hebrew/dp/1983507288"
]
],
"heTitle": "דרוש חדושי הלבנה",
"categories": [
"Jewish Thought",
"Acharonim"
],
"schema": {
"heTitle": "דרוש חדושי הלבנה",
"enTitle": "Derush Chidushei HaLevana",
"key": "Derush Chidushei HaLevana",
"nodes": [
{
"heTitle": "המקורות",
"enTitle": "Sources"
},
{
"heTitle": "הקדמה",
"enTitle": "Introduction"
},
{
"heTitle": "",
"enTitle": ""
}
]
}
}