meta: {"file": "/data/tomer/Sefaria-Export/txt/Tanakh/Commentary/Shadal/Torah/Shadal on Genesis/English/Sefaria Community Translation.txt"}
text: Shadal on Genesis
  שד"ל על בראשית
  Sefaria Community Translation
  
  
  Shadal on Genesis
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  The enlightened ones will understand that the intent of the Torah is not to inform about the natural sciences; and that the Torah was not given except to straighten the ways of man to righteousness and justice, and to establish in their hearts the belief in [His] unity and providence, since the Torah was not only given to sages but [rather] to the whole people. And just like the matter of providence and reward is not explained (and it would not have been fitting that it be explained) in a philosophical manner, but the Torah [rather] spoke about it like the language of [ordinary] people ([as in] "the anger of the Lord will flare against you" [Deuteronomy 7:4]; "and it grieved His heart [Genesis 6:6]; and there are many [other examples] like this); so too, the matter of creation is not told (and it is not fitting that it would be told) in the Torah in a philosophical manner. And it is as the Rabbis, of blessed memory, have stated (Midrash HaGadol, Genesis 1:1), "To tell the power of the story of creation to flesh and blood  is not possible." Hence it is not fitting for the follower of Torah to uproot the verses from their understanding in order to make them agree with the natural sciences. It is also not fitting for the scientist to deny that the Torah is divine (<i>min hashamayim</i>) if he finds things in its stories that don't agree with natural science. But it is fitting for this one and that one, that they contemplate the inner workings of human hearts and the ways of wisdom that is used by nature in speaking to the heart of every individual: to the youth according to his manner and to the young man in a different manner and to the old man in a different manner [still]; to the strong in a particular manner and to the weak in a particular manner; to the rich man in one manner and to the poor man in another manner; and so [too] with all groups of men, nature speaks to their hearts in a specific way that is fitting to the people of that group. And nature does not reveal the pristine truth - without any mask or cover - to any one of these groups. And so [too] the Giver of the Torah, may He be blessed, (since the God that created nature and the God that gave us the Torah is one God.) in his speaking with people was required to speak according to their levels, and not according to His level, may He be blessed. And behold, God wanted to inform people of the unity of the [universe] and the unity of mankind; since error in both of these matters caused great evils in ancient times: from the lack of awareness of the unity of the [universe], it came out that people would believe in the existence of specific gods, with defects and inferior character traits; and they would do evil acts in order to please [these gods] (see what I have written in Parshat Yitro on the verse, "There shall not be for you" [Exodus 20:3]). And from the lack of awareness of the unity of mankind, it came out that the people of one nation would hate and revile the people of another nation and they would act towards them with the force of arms, and not with justice and righteousness. And these two fundamental principles (the unity of the [universe] and the unity of mankind) are the main point of the stories of the creation saga; and details of the book also include other intentions, as will be explained. 
  In the beginning, God created: Many have already been disturbed [about] why there is no proclamation for the creation of the heavens and the earth, and why the creation of the angels is not mentioned. And one should also wonder why the first day is different from the other days of the creation; since every one of them is dedicated to a specific thing or to specific things of one type or one category. But the first day includes a specific thing which is the creation of light, and besides this [also] includes something general - and there is nothing more general than it - and that is the creation of the heavens and the earth. This is something very strange, and it would have been fitting to designate one day for the creation of the heavens and the earth, without attaching to them the creation of something specific - which is the light - on one day. And it appears to me that one answer will suffice for [all] three of the questions, and that is that the heavens and the earth were not created on the first day but before then. And this is according to what is said (Berakhot 25b), "the Torah was not given to the ministering angels" - and [this means] that the story of creation is only coming to tell the beginning of matters of the lower world - which is the habitation of man -  and a little of the matters of the upper world, from the angle of that which is relevant to people, which is to say from the angle of that which is useful for us [to know]. And it would not have been possible to explain to people all the matters of the heavens; but [at the same time] it was [also] not His will, may He be blessed, to bring people to believe that nothing exists except that which we see and [empirically] know. Therefore, the Torah tells what was created and made on each one of the six days of creation; and it began the story of the details of creation with one verse that includes a different creation that came before the six days - and its details were not explained in the Torah - in its stating, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth," and not stating, "And God said, 'let there be heavens, let there be earth.'" This is to inform that it is not His intention to tell us the details of that creation and that this is just a vague statement which contains many, many statements. And behold, the heavens and the earth mentioned here are not exactly the heavens and the earth mentioned on the second and third day. Rather the heavens mentioned here includes everything above the earth and the heavens mentioned on the second day includes only the portion from them that is known to people. And the earth that is mentioned here includes the earth that is mixed up with water, and upon which was the wind/spirit, [whereas] the earth mentioned on the third day only includes the dry land. That is, in my opinion, the main simple explanation of this verse. And lest someone say that this contradicts what comes in the Ten Commandments, "because in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth;" there is, in fact, no contradiction to my explanation from there, since it does not say, "because in six days the Lord <i>created</i> the heavens and the earth," but rather, "because in six days the Lord made;" and the intention [there] is about the making of the firmament and about the separation of the earth from the water. And the words, "and all that there is in it" that are said in [the continuation of] the Ten Commandments include the light and the luminaries and the animals that are upon the earth and in the midst of the seas. And in Parshat Ki Tissa (Exodus 31:17), it shortened it and only mentioned the heavens and the earth, and included in them every thing that is in them. Also the Sages, of blessed memory, said (Pesachim 54a) that the Throne of Glory came before the creation of the world. <i>Bara</i> (created): The verb, <i>bara</i>, in the simple structure and in the passive structure, is never found in any place  with reference to human action. And we find that a man is called a doer and a former, but we don't find any place where man is called a creator (<i>boreh</i>). And it appears that this root is used to indicate anything that deviates from that which is the way of the world, as per, "I will make wonders which were not created (<i>nivrau</i>) in all the earth" (Exodus 34:10); "and if the Lord creates (<i>yivra</i>) a creation and the ground opens its mouth" (Numbers 16:30); "I let you hear new things from now... they were created (<i>nivrau</i>) now and not from before" (Isaiah 48:6-7); "because the Lord created (<i>bara</i>) something new on the earth" (Jeremiah 48:7); and here God created (<i>bara</i>) the heavens and the earth, a Godly act which has nothing like it. We find creation from nothing (<i>ex nihilo</i>) explicitly [mentioned] in the Book of Maccabees, Book II 7:28; and also the Samaritans say that the world was created from nothing in their liturgical poems, and it is also [included in] the faith of the Karaites. And Yechezkel, when speaking about the king of Tyre, used the expression, <i>briah</i> about him: "on the day you were created (<i>hibaraecha</i>), they were established" (Ezekiel 28:13); "from the day you were created (<i>hibaraech</i>)" (Ibid., 15). He poetically compared him to Adam, whom God created and placed in the Garden of Eden, which is as it is stated [there], "you were in Eden, the garden of God;" hence, he used the expression <i>briah</i>, as if [to say] that he was not formed through a father and mother; instead he was a creation that God created. And in the intensive (<i>piel</i>) structure, we find the root, <i>bara</i>, indicating chopping and cutting (Joshua 17:15; Ezekiel 23:47); and in the causative, "<i>lehavriachem</i> (to feed yourselves)" (I Samuel 2:29), [to indicate] a matter of health and portliness. And in some [versions] of II Samuel 12:17, we find <i>bara</i> in the simple structure [as follows]: "and you did not create bread," with a [letter,] <i>alef</i> instead of a [letter,] <i>hay</i>. And that was the version [in front of] Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra, and it was not the version [in front of] Rabbi David Kimchi.   <i>Elohim</i> (God): <i>El</i> and <i>eyal</i> is always an expression of power and strength and <i>elohim</i> is the plural form; and this was [the accepted terminology] of the nations that worshiped idols (Kuzari 4:1). And they would call all of the forces of nature that are the causes of phenomena, [<i>elohim</i>], and they would worship them; and each one of them would be a god for them. However, the Hebrews, who were monotheists, kept this name in the plural to indicate that the God that they were worshiping was not [just] one specific power. As the non-Jews would say, "the Lord is the god of the hills and not the god of the valleys," (I Kings 20:28) but [in fact] He is the collection of all the forces and the Master of every force. (And similar to this is the word, seas [<i>yamim</i>], see below, verse 10). So [too] is He called by the name, 'Hosts,' to say that He, Himself, contains all the powers of all of the hosts of the Heavens which the non-Jews would worship - see my commentary on Isaiah 1:9.  
  The heavens and the earth: The Torah spoke as in the language of men and divided the whole world - and all of the worlds - into two parts; that which is above and that which is below, everything according to the eyes of man that dwells upon the earth. <i>Sama</i> (which is similar to <i>shamayim</i>, the word used here to mean heavens) in Arabic, is like <i>gava</i> (high) in Hebrew; and <i>ara</i> (from which comes  <i>araa</i>, which is the same as <i>arets</i> [earth], when switching the letters, <i>ayin</i> and <i>tsaddi</i>, as in <i>tson</i> [in Hebrew] is <i>aaan</i> [in Aramaic], and <i>ravats</i> [accordingly turns into] <i>rava</i> - and from which comes <i>arbaah</i> [in the Targum to Isaiah 7:25] - and also <i>ir</i>, which is a designation for an angel, is like <i>tsir</i> in the Holy Language - the understanding of which is, messenger) is lowly in the Aramaic language, as in (Daniel 2:39) "And after you, a king more lowly (<i>ara</i>) than you will arise." And according to the opinion of some (Galius and Clericus), <i>sama</i> and <i>ara</i> are derived from [the Hebrew], <i>shamayim</i> and <i>arets</i>. And plausible are the words of Rabbi Yaakov Abendana: that <i>shamayim</i> is from <i>sham</i> (there), which indicates a far place - and it is called <i>shamayim</i> from its being far and high from any direction that one turns. And nonetheless, [it was] from <i>shamayim</i> that the Arabic verb (<i>sama</i>) that refers to height, was afterwards derived. Since, truly, it is not possible that verbs that do not indicate an action, but [rather] the characteristic of something, like the verb <i>sama</i> - the understanding of which is 'being high' (<i>altus fuit</i> in Italian) - exist before the existence of the noun or adjective that refers to that characteristic. For example, first the blood of animals was called <i>dam</i>, and afterwards, [people] called that which appears like the color of blood <i>adom</i> (red), and afterwards [still], they made the verb and said <i>odem</i> (redden), <i>odmu</i> (they redden), and similar to it. But [concerning] <i>ara</i> - which is an adjective [to describe] all low things - it is plausible that they said it, before they called the earth, <i>araa</i>.
  
  Verse 2
  
  And the earth was: This verse is connected to the one after it [as follows]: the earth at the beginning was such and such, and therefore, "God said, etc., etc."
  Chaos (<i>tohu</i>) and void (<i>bohu</i>): Their understanding is desolation, since <i>taha</i> and <i>baha</i> in Aramaic is about bewilderment; as they said in Bereishit Rabbah 2:1, "that servant sat for him, <i>toha</i> and <i>boha</i>," and the intention is that he was astounded. And so [too] in Syriac: <i>atbahaba</i> is a matter of stupefaction and <i>bohbaha</i> is wonderment and disorientation. And just like the wilderness is called desolate and barrenness, so [too] is it called <i>tohu</i> and <i>bohu</i>. And the intention [here] is that there was neither vegetation nor animals on the earth.
  And darkness on the face of the deep (<i>tehom</i>): It appears to me that <i>tehom</i> is also from the root, <i>taha</i>, [just] like <i>tohu</i> (and so too is the opinion of our Rabbi Saadia). It is an expression of disorientation and wonderment, except that it is used specifically about the abundance of waters and their depth - as they have no end. And the intention [here] is that the whole earth was <i>tehom</i>, since the waters were covering it and it was not visible. And there was no light on the face of this <i>tehom</i>, but [only] darkness. And behold, this is a frightful image - desolation below and desolation above.
  And the wind of God was hovering: It is like its translation (Targum Onkelos), "A wind was blowing in front of God." And the understanding of "a wind of God" is a great and strong wind, as per "the wind of the Lord has blown upon it" (Isaiah 40:7); "He blows His wind, the waters flow" (Psalms 147:18); "You blew with Your wind" (Exodus 15:10); and like "the mountains of the Power" (Psalms 36:7) and "the Lord's flame" (Song of Songs 8:6). 
  <i>Merachafet</i> (hovering): This is a matter of movement, as per "it hovers (<i>yerachef</i>) over its fledglings" (Deuteronomy 32:11); "all my bones shake (<i>rachafu</i>)" (Jeremiah 23:9). And [the reason] it did not state, 'blowing' (<i>minashevet</i>) is because it did not blow like that which is the way of the world, [which is] that the wind blows in one direction, but [rather] all of the air was moving in every direction. And some explain <i>ruach Elohim</i> (the wind/spirit of God) as the will of God and His power and His providence. And besides [the fact] that the term, <i>richuf</i> does not sit well with regards to the Upper One, it would be very correct that the entire verse would speak in description of what was at the beginning, and [only] afterwards tell of God's action, which was sudden and in an instant - since it is no more than a statement ("And God said, 'let there be light'") - and not say that God or His will or His power was moving on the waters, as if He had been putting forth effort and involved [with this] for a long time. And also this description of the wind that was - at the beginning - blowing in every direction, teaches us of the kindnesses of God on His creations; since now it is ordered according to the laws [of nature] that God imprinted on His world. And had the world remained in chaos - as it was then - the wind would have always blown powerfully in every direction or not moved at all, and the creatures would not have been able to exist. 
  
  Verse 3
  
  And God said: It portrays God as a king who commands and everything happens with His word, to [show] that the action of God is not like the action of a man that makes [things] with his hands but - metaphorically - like one who commands others to make [things]; even though here there was no one to command (and so is the opinion of Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra).
  "Let there be light:" It appears to me that it is for [the following] reason that He [started] with the creation of the light: Since most nations worshiped the sun because of its great [effect] on [people], through [its] light and heat; hence, He started [with it] to make known that also before there were luminaries, there was light and there was day and night, as everything [only] existed through the word of God.
  
  Verse 4
  
  And God saw, etc.: Since He saw and knew that the light was a good and useful thing, hence "He separated, etc." And behold, the Torah spoke like the language of men [here], as their knowledge is only according to experience; and there are many times that a man will make something, thinking that it is for the good, and afterwards he sees that it is not so. Therefore, the Torah tells that in every act of the Creator, He saw afterwards that it was good. 
  And He separated, etc.: He ordained that they should not be mixed in one another, but [rather] when there is light, there should not [also] be darkness, and when there is darkness, there should not [also] be light. And it says this (even though there was no need to say it), because according to the opinion of the ancients, darkness was not only the absence of light, but [rather] it too was a substance. As the matter is stated, "He forms the light and creates the darkness" (Isaiah 45:7); and so [too], "Where is the path [to[ where the light dwells, and darkness, where is its place" (Job 38:19). And hence the nations would attribute the light to one god and the darkness to [another] one. And the Holy One, blessed be He, wanted to inform His people that He, may He be blessed, is the Master of the light and the darkness; and from Him alone are all of their laws.
  
  Verse 5
  
  And God called the light, day, etc.: Plausible are the words of Clericus, that this calling is just a sign of authority and rulership over something; to tell that the day and the night are dependent upon the will of the Omnipresent, and so [too] with the other callings in the story of creation. And so [too], He brought the animals to man that he should call them names, to say that he should have dominion over them and and that they would all be under his [control]. And so was the custom of kings in ancient times, to call their servants with new names, like Pharaoh and Yosef; and Pharaoh-Neco and Eliyakim ben Yoshiyahu; and Nevuchadnezzar and Matanya, whose name he changed to Tzidkiyah; and so [too] Daniel and Channaniah, Mishael and Azariah.
  To the light, day: He called the time that the light serves, day, and the time that the darkness serves, night. And there was night and day, even before the creation of the luminaries; as the light would serve for a certain time and afterwards disappear and pause for a certain time, and the darkness would serve instead of it. There was evening and morning then also, since there were gradations of evening, morning and afternoon within the light, as per the opinion of Don Yitschak Abarabanel. 
  And it was evening and it was morning: Evening sometimes (as is written by Rabbi David Kimchi) also includes the night that is adjacent to it and so [too], morning also includes the day that is adjacent to it. And behold, there was already darkness before the creation of the light - hence it mentions the evening first; and so too is the Torah's day, from evening t evening. And there was already in the time of Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra, someone who wanted to explain that the night comes after the day and [subsequently] that Shabbat begins in the morning; and he explained "and it was morning, one day" [to mean] that when it was the morning of the second day, then was the first day finished. And against this did Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra write <i>The Epistle of Shabbat</i>, to elucidate the character of the year and the month and the day that are mentioned in the Torah (and I have already published this epistle in the fourth volume of <i>Kerem Chemed</i>). However, the verse (Leviticus 23:32), "from evening to evening," is a conclusive proof and [so] there is no need for [any] other proofs. And, nonetheless, it may have been possible to explain (like the explanation of  Des Vignoles) that at first, the time of light proceeded and afterwards came the evening, and afterwards proceeded the time of darkness and afterwards was morning, and this was [the structure of] one day of the days of the creation, even though it is not the Torah's day. However, according to this, there is no reason for the verse to mention the structure of the day of creation, since it is not the Torah's day. And one cannot say that there is no connection between the Torah's day and the day of creation, since, behold, the Shabbat day is based on the creation, and if the Shabbat of creation was from morning to morning, why should its [observance] be from evening to evening? Hence, it is correct as I have explained. 
  <i>Erev</i> (evening): It is called this because of the mixing up (<i>arevut</i>) of things in people's vision, because of the lack of light. 
  Boker (morning): [It is derived] from <i>baka or</i> (light breaks through), as is the meaning of "your light will break through like the dawn" (Isaiah 58:8).
  One day: [This means] that it was evening and it was morning, which is to say (<i>klomar</i>) that it was one day. The word, <i>klomar</i>, is missing (only understood but not written) in Scripture hundreds and thousands of times. 
  One day: A complete day: the morning and the evening, one after the other, that is one day. And the intention is not to say 'the first day' but rather 'a complete day.' And Nachmanides (Ramban) wrote that it did not say, 'first,' since there cannot be a first without a second, and there was not yet a second [day]. And this is not a sufficient solution, since, in truth, immediately at the end of the first day, the night began and that is the beginning of the second day, and [so] it would have been possible to call the first [day], first. And behold, the preeminent usage of the word, 'day' is regarding the time of the light. And afterwards they [continued to] call it day, alongside [calling day] the time that includes the night and the day - that is to say, twenty-four hours. And so [too] in the other languages (<i>Dies</i>, <i>jour</i>, <i>Tag</i>), one word, by itself, indicates [both] the light of the day and also the span of twenty-four hours. And this is something common in all of the languages, to call something by the name of one of its main parts which is most visible and known or most useful and the like; as the sail (<i>vela</i> in Italian) of the ship is [used to refer] to the ship, [and] "a womb, two wombs" (Judges 5:30) is [used to refer] to a woman. And so here [too], they called the twenty four hours, 'days' as a result of its main part, which is the time of light. And the intention of the Torah here is to say that the connection of evening and morning - first evening and then morning is called one day.
  
  Verse 6
  
  "Let there be a firmament:" The Holy One, blessed be He, wanted to inform Israel that neither the sun nor anything else controls the rain, to bring it down or not to bring it down. Therefore, He told about the existence of the higher waters before the existence of the luminaries. "Firmament (<i>rakiya</i>):" [It is] a body that stretches out like a plate, [as in] the expression, "To the One that stretches out (<i>rokea</i>) the earth over the waters" (Psalms 136:6);  "And they flattened (<i>yiraka'au</i>) the gold [into thin plates]" (Exodus 39:3); and [also] "And over the heads of the living creatures there was the likeness of a firmament, like the color of the terrible ice" (Ezekiel 1:22). And here it portrayed the air between the earth and the clouds as a body that extends and separates between the waters on earth and the waters in the clouds, and carries the waters upon it; and by the will of God, the water descends from there to the earth. And it is like it states (Deuteronomy 28:12), "And God will open for you His good storehouse, the heavens, to give the rain of your land in its time;" and in the Curse, when it states (Leviticus 26:19), "And I will give your skies to be like iron," to prevent the descent of water upon them; and so [too] below (Genesis 7:11), "and the windows of the heavens opened." But afterwards, in the time of Yishiyahu, it appears that they knew that there are no storehouses of water above, and that rain waters return above; since behold, he says (Isaiah 55:10), "For just as the rain and the snow come down from the skies, and do not return there except when the earth is satiated;" [which] implies that after it is satiated, it does return to there, see my commentary there. And so [too], Yirmiyahu said in the way of a question, "do the heavens give raindrops?" (Jeremiah 14:22); [which] implies that [the heavens] do not give them by themselves, since they do not have storehouses of water in them. And so [too], they called the vapors that rise up from upon the earth [and become clouds] the name, <i>nissi'im</i> (raised up ones), as [in], "He raises <i>nissi'im</i> from the end of the earth" (Psalms 135:7); "He raised the <i>nissi'im</i> from the end of the earth" (Jeremiah 10:13; 51:16); and so [too], "<i>Nissi'im</i> and wind, but no rain" (Proverbs 25:14). And we do not know from what time this word (<i>nissi'im</i>) became common; as Psalm 135 is not attributed to David and it is not clear that the Book of Proverbs from Chapter 25 is by Shlomo. And in Job, he says (Job 38:22), "Did you come to the storehouses of snow, did you see the storehouses of hail?" - and this is a proof of the antiquity of that book. And since the word, <i>rakiya</i>, is based on the belief in higher waters - "the waters that are above the heavens" (Psalms 148:4) - that the <i>rakiya</i> supports, and that belief became antiquated and forgotten; the word, <i>rakiya</i>, also became antiquated. And [<i>rakiya</i>] is only used to indicate the skies in three [other] places. Two are in Psalms - "and the acts of your hands, does the <i>rakiya</i> proclaim" (Psalms 19:2); "praise Him in the <i>rakiya</i> of His strength" (Psalms 150:1) - since the word remained in poetic use; as it is the custom in all languages for the poets to use antiquated words. And the third place is in Daniel 12:3, "And the enlightened ones will shine like the splendor of the <i>rakiya</i>;" and there also, it is a poetic expression. And so [likewise], in Malachi 3:10, "I will open for you the windows of the heavens," is by way of poetic expression. And we have also found a variant of <i>rakiya</i> referring to the heavens in Job 37:18, "<i>Tarkiya</i> (Did you spread out) the skies with Him;" and this too is a sign of the antiquity of this book. And he finishes [this verse], "they are as strong as a molten mirror," as they carry the weight of many waters. And  so [too] did Shlomo say (Proverbs 8:28), "And in His strengthening of the skies above." And behold, the Torah spoke as in the language of people, and stated, "let there be a firmament," according to their thought (that it actually existed). And nonetheless, what was intended does not deviate from being true and solid, and that is that God implanted in the nature of water to rise upwards and to descend afterwards down to the earth. And in the Greek translation attributed to the seventy elders (the Septuagint), <i>rakiya</i> is translated as <i>strauma</i>, [which] is a matter of strength, and so [too] did they translate it afterwords into Latin [as] <i>firmāmenta</i> and this came to them  from the use of the root, <i>raka</i>, in Syriac, which denotes strength; and so [too], <i>rakiya</i> in Syriac is strong and hard. And Johannes Clericus says that they translated it thus, because it was the opinion of some of the ancient philosophers that the heavens and air that surround the earth on all sides, prevent it and everything on it from getting detached and crumbling apart; and behold, they cause the earth to stay hard and its parts to remain fastened together. And he explains the expression to be one of hitting and trampling, as in "hit with your hand and stamp (<i>reka</i>) with your foot" (Ezekiel 6:11); "because you hit with your hand and you stamped (<i>rakacha</i>) with your foot" (Ezekiel 25:6); because the heavens are stamping on the earth and stopping its parts from detaching. And all of this is far from the simple meaning of the verses. And  nonetheless, [his] words, that the origin of the root, <i>raka</i>, is from stomping and hitting, are plausible. And because something that is hit [becomes] flat and stretched out, the root, <i>raka</i>, is borrowed to indicate stretching out and flatness.  
  
  Verse 7
  
  And it was so: that the firmament sufficed to hold up the higher waters, that they should not get mixed up with the lower ones.
  
  Verse 8
  
  And He called: See above, verse 8. And behold, it states that God called the heavens a name to say that He is the ruler over them - to bring down rain and to prevent it, according to His will - and man does not have any control over this.
  
  Verse 9
  
  And God said, "let the waters gather:" Because the sea is something big and bewildering, to the point that some ancient nations attributed a specific god to it; it was also something bewildering in early thought, [the fear being] that it should not [overflow] and flood the earth, as the prophet said (Jeremiah 5:22), "Do you not fear me, says the Lord, from before Me do you not tremble; since I put sand as the border of the sea, it is a permanent law and it may not trespass it;" and in Job 38:11, it states, "And He said, until here may you come but no further, etc.;" therefore the Holy One, blessed be He, wanted to inform Israel that even the sea is the work of His hands, since He is the One that commanded the waters to gather.
  "Let the waters gather (<i>yikvu</i>):" The root, <i>kavah</i>, is formed from <i>kav</i> (line). And the term, <i>kivui</i>, is used with water since it sits in an even line and surface, which is not the case with bodies that do not flow, which by their falling one on top of the other become [an uneven] pile. And this term is not found not in reference to water except in the verse, "and to you will gather (<i>nikvu</i>) all the nations" (Jeremiah 3:17); and there it is a poetic phrase that is borrowed from the waters; as in "and all the nations will stream to it" (Isaiah 2:2), which is borrowed from the running of waters in a stream. And it appears that it is from the term <i>mikveh</i> (gathering of water) that <i>aqua</i> and also <i>aequus</i> are formed in Latin, as its subject is straightness. 
  "Below the heavens to (<i>el</i>) one place:" They will come from their places, which are dispersed under all of the heavens and they will move to one place and stay there. The word, <i>el</i>, generally indicates movement, and not resting; therefore I say that <i>yikvu</i> (gather) includes the idea of movement towards the place of the gathering and not just the gathering; and so [too with the phrase], "and to you will gather (<i>nikvu</i>) all the nations" (Jeremiah 3:17), the intention is that they should come to it and gather in it. 
  "One place:" One only.
  "And appear:"And through this, it will be seen.
  "<i>Hayabasha</i> (The dry land):" It is a noun in the grammatical pattern that contains a diacritic mark (<i>dagush</i>), and so [too] <i>charava</i>: their idea is a dry (<i>yavesh</i>) thing or a parched (<i>charev</i>) thing; like (other nouns that follow this pattern), <i>aveida</i>, <i>geneiva</i>, <i>gezeila</i>; and it is not an adjective but rather it [is a noun] like <i>tohu</i>, <i>bohu</i>.   
  
  Verse 10
  
  And He called: See above, verse 5. And it states that God called the dry land and the sea with a name, to say that He is the one that [keeps] the waters of the seas in the seas that they should not go out and flood the land; and when He wants, He sends them [out] and they overturn the land and destroy great countries to the point that what was dry land yesterday will become sea today, without man having any control over this. 
  <i>Yamim</i> (seas): It is one sea that includes all the seas (as I wrote above about the word, <i>Elohim</i>), since they are all united (connected) one with the other.
  And God saw that it was good: The intention is that His desire was completed and it was what He wanted it to be. And above on the second day, it doesn't say, "it was good," because the work of the water was not completed (Rashi). Since the desire of God was not completed [on the second day] with the separation of the higher waters from the lower ones, as the main [point] of the creation of the firmament was for the need of bringing down water for the growth of the plants; and behold, until the waters were gathered and the dry land did not appear, there was no place for all this, since the earth was still "chaos and void" - covered by water on all sides and not fitting for habitation. However, when the waters gathered to one place and the dry land appeared, then the work of the water was finished, since there was [now] a place for the falling of the rain onto the face of the dry land, to make it propagate and to make it grow vegetation. And if you will [ask]: if so, why was it not stated that the waters should gather on the second day together with "let there be a firmament;" [the answer is] that the order would not have been proper and elegant if He was involved on one day with [both] the heavens and the earth. And just the opposite, behold the matter comes out very nicely: that on the second day, He created the firmament and on the third day, He arranged the earth that it should grow vegetation; and in order for that to be, He needed first to gather the waters to one place, so that the planet could appear. 
  
  Verse 11
  
  "Let the earth bring forth (<i>tadshe</i>) grass (<i>deshe</i>):" The correct [understanding] is that <i>deshe</i> is small, soft grass, in which the seed is not recognizable (and therefore it does not say "grass that gives off seed") and the <i>esev</i> (herbs) is bigger than it. And Rabbi Ovadia Sforno says, that <i>deshe</i> is animal food and <i>esev</i> is food for people. But what the commentator on Netivot Shalom wrote - that <i>deshe</i> also includes trees - is not possible, since behold, we find [this word] in many places adjacent to herbs and vegetables (for example II Kings 19:26; Isaiah 15:6; 37:27) and not even once adjacent to trees. And nonetheless, [when used as a verb here in the phrase], "Let the earth bring forth (<i>tadshe</i>)," [it] includes the trees also, since the trees also are small and soft at the beginning of their sprouting (My student, our teacher, Rabbi Avraham Chai Meinster). And behold, "<i>tadshe</i>" is like, "let sprout" and afterwards [the verse] explains [what should sprout]: the <i>deshe</i> which is the smallest, and afterwards, it adds <i>esev</i> that gives off seed - which is bigger than <i>deshe</i>, and afterwards, it adds fruit trees. And therefore the cantillation sign, <i>ravia</i>, which is on top of the word, grass, is correct, since it creates less of a pause than the sign, <i>zakef</i>, which is on top of the word, seed; as grass and herbs [that bear seed] are one matter and fruit trees are another matter.  And the sign, <i>pashta</i> over the [word,] earth, creates more of a pause than the <i>ravia</i> after it, as is the way of any <i>ravia</i> that comes after a <i>pashta</i> since it is [only there] so as not to repeat the  <i>pashta</i> three times, as [is also the case in] "Behold, I have made him a lord over you, and all of his brothers have I given to him as slaves" (Genesis 27:37). And it is known that the sign, <i>yetiv</i> under the [word,] herb, is only to take the place of a <i>pashta</i>, since the word is [too] short [for it]. However, there is no doubt that the versions that have the word, grass, with a <i>zakef</i> are mistaken. And the 'trustworthy witness' [to this] is in the verse after it, "and the land brought forth grass;" wherein 'grass' is not with a <i>zakef</i> but with a <i>tilsha gedola</i> sign; and the words, "and the land brought forth" are with the signs, <i>kadma</i> and <i>azla</i>, which would not be possible if grass had been with a <i>zakef</i>. And the error in the first [of these two verses] came about because it is easy to mix up a <i>ravia</i> with a <i>zakef</i>, besides [the fact] that there is a <i>pashta</i> in front of it, and it is its way to come in front of a <i>zakef</i>; while no error in the second verse came about because it is unlikely to mix up a <i>tilsha</i> with a <i>zakef</i>, besides [the fact] that there is no <i>pashta</i> in front of it there.
  "That bears (<i>mazria</i>) seed:" That has seed in it. And this is one of the functions of the causative (<i>hifil</i>) structure, as in "<i>makrin</i>, <i>mafris</i>" (Psalms 69:32), [means respectively] that it has horns and it has hooves; "<i>marbeh raglayim</i>" (Leviticus 11:42), is that it has many feet. 
  "Fruit trees that make fruit according to its specie:" All the commentators that I have seen explained that "according to its species" refers back to "that make fruit," but the author of the cantillation marks saw better than all of them, and connected "according to its species" with "fruit trees. And [hence] "that make fruit" is a parenthetical statement, as it is only an additional explanation about the fruit trees. And the word, <i>lemino</i> (according to its specie) and <i>lemineihu</i> (according to its species) is a poetic phrase of the Holy language and its sense is, of many types, of all the types that there are; as in "all of the raven of all of its type,... and the hawk of all of its types,... the heron of all of its type,... and the locust of all of its type;" (Leviticus 11:15-22), the sense of which is the raven and the hawk, etc. of all the types that there are. And so [too] below (verse 21), "and all of the crawling living souls that the waters swarmed of their types and all flying fowl of its types;" and so [too] (verse 24) "and let the earth  bring forth living souls of their type, beasts and crawling animals and wild animals of the land, of their types;" and so [too] (Genesis 6:20) "From the fowl of their types and from the beasts of their type, from all that crawl upon the earth of its types." 'And the father of all of them' (the clearest example) is (Ezekiel 47:10) "of its type will be their fish, like the fish of the Great Sea, very many;" the intention being that the fish will be numerous and will be of all the types, and so [too is it expalined] in the Talmud Yerushalmi Shekalim 6:2, "'of its type will be their fish;' types of types will be their fish." I wrote this explanation in the year 5596 in my book <i>Prolegomeni</i>, page 191; and at the end of ten years, I acquired the book, <i>Harecasim Lebikaah,</i> and I found that he also explains it thus (and see below 13:3). 
  "That has seed in it:" [This] refers back to trees; that the trees should have everything they need for the preservation of their specie on the earth.
  
  Verse 12
  
  And the earth brought forth, etc.: Also in this verse, the author of the cantillation marks distanced the word "<i>lemineihu</i>" (of its species) from the words, "that has seed in it," and 'moved' it above; which is [as if] to say "And the earth brought forth trees of its species, and it makes fruit and its seed is also in it." And so [too] did he distance "of its species" from "that bears seed" and 'moved' it to [refer to] "grass" and to "herbs."
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  "Let there be (<i>yehi</i>) luminaries:" When the [verb], being, is before the noun, it does not always adhere to the gender and number [of the noun]; as it is like an anonymous (<i>impersonale</i>) verb. It is like in French, <i>il y aura, il y a</i>; and as in (Numbers 9:6) "And there was (<i>vayehi</i>) people," and (Deuteronomy 22:23) "If there is (<i>yehieh</i> which is masculine) a virgin maiden."
  "Luminaries:" The stars - all the ones that are visible to our eyes - are included in this name, since they all shine upon us, if [dimly], if [brightly].
  "In the firmament of the heavens:" In the firmament that is called the heavens, [meaning in the firmament which is [our] heavens. And this is one use of the relational form (<i>smikhut</i>), as in the 'River of Euphrates' (<i>Parat</i>), [which means] the river that is called Euphrates; [and] (Jeremiah 14:17) "the virgin of the daughter of my people," [ which means] the virgin which is the daughter of my people; [and] (Isaiah 37:22) "the virgin of the daughter of Zion," [which means that she] is the daughter of Zion. [And so too are understood the next few verses:] (I Kings 10:15), "the people of trade;" (Judges 19:22) "the people of the sons of lawlessness;" and so [too] (Isaiah 1:4) "the seed of evildoers;" (Isaiah 65:23) "the seed of those blessed by God." And so [too], 'God of Hosts,' [which means] God who is the Hosts. (And so too Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra wrote below [verse 31], "'the day of the sixth (<i>yom hashishi</i>)' - the day that is the sixth." Here too, the firmament of the heavens [means] the firmament that is the heavens.)
  "To separate between the day and the night:" That which was the will of God at the beginning and without an intermediary (since on the first three days the light would serve for a certain time and afterwards leave and the darkness would take its place, and all of this was through the actions of God and through his proclamation),  [and] now it would be through the luminaries. And all of this was to make known that the sun and all the hosts of the heavens are only His servants who follow His will.
  "And they will be for signs:" The luminaries will be the cause of the signs of the heavens, as per the explanation of (Jeremiah 10:4), "of the signs of the heavens do not be afraid" (Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra); and the explanation of signs is indicators. And the nations of the world called them this because they believed that they were indicators of what will come in the future; and it is as Yirmiyahu said [in the verse just cited], that the nations feared from them. And behold, it would have been fitting for Him to first say, "and they will be for days and years and appointed times," and at the end He would mention the signs, [since] they are only occasional; except that He wanted to start with the [most] important (like below, verse 21); as the signs are the main intention of this half of the verse, since the Holy One, blessed be He, wanted to let Israel know that even the signs of the heavens are only like the days and years - all of them are structured by His will, like the other laws of nature: the day and the night, 'the planting and the harvest and the coldness and the heat.' And just like the day and the night and the planting and the harvest don't have their own specific gods and do not inform of the future, so too [is it] with the signs of the heavens. And since the belief that one could learn about the future from the signs of the heavens and from solar and lunar eclipses was widespread among the nations and [nonetheless] Moshe (and after him, Yirmiyahu) pushed off this mistake and made known that they are natural [occurrences] like the days and the years, behold this is a great proof that the Torah is of divine origin (<i>min hashamayim</i>). And one should not wonder, why didn't the Holy One, blessed be He, want to reveal to His people the other errors to which [man] had become accustomed. As the other errors did not cause damage to the fundamental principles of faith nor to the rectification of human character traits. [But] this is not the case of faith in the signs of the heavens, as it is damaging - like faith in fortune telling and similar matters that were forbidden by the Torah - as it weakens a person in his [Divine] service in which he toils, and it fills his heart with vain things and removes his trust in God.  
  "And for appointed times (<i>moadim</i>):" <i>Moed</i> is said about anything that comes back around at specific times. And so holidays are called <i>moadim</i> based on their regularity. And so too (Psalms 104:19), "He made the moon for <i>moadim</i>;" as it is visible and hidden at set times. And so too are all the luminaries the cause of <i>moadim</i> and the celebration of set times that come back around, and especially of days and years. 
  
  Verse 15
  
  "And they shall be for luminaries, etc.:" It added that their light and radiance should reach the earth, since it was possible that they should show light in the heavens and do all of the acts that are mentioned, without their shining upon the earth (Nachmanides - Ramban).
  
  Verse 16
  
  And He made: [This is] the explanation of "and it was so."
  The two great luminaries: The sun and the moon, since both of them shine upon the earth more than [do] the other stars. And from this perspective - for which they are called luminaries (meaning that the emphasis is on the effect of their light, not the light itself) - they are greater than the other ones like them. And even though the moon, in terms of the size of its mass is smaller than other stars, and even though the moon does not have any light of its own at all, the Torah did not speak except from the perspective of people; and behold, we receive much light from the moon and, hence, it is a great luminary.
  The great luminary and the small luminary: Even though the light of [both of] them is greater than that of the other stars, they are different from each other: as the light of one is greater than the light of the other. And one is big and one is small from the perspective of light that we receive from them.
  To rule the day... to rule the night: Not that it should have rulership over the lowly beings, but [rather] that the day should be under the rulership of the sun and the night under the rulership of the moon, [meaning] that the light of the day be from the sun and the light of the night from the moon. And this requires further study. And what also requires further study is that it would have been fit for the <i>etnach</i> (a cantillation mark indicating a slight pause) to be under [the word,] the night (my student, Yitzchak Yehuda Kleinaberger). And see below, verse 18. 
  
  Verse 17
  
  And God placed them in the firmament of the skies, etc.: He fixed them and fixed their laws, [so] that they should shine upon the earth.
  
  Verse 18
  
  And to rule over the day and the night (<i>velimshol bayom ouvalila</i>): The root, <i>mem-shin-lamed</i> (to rule) is connected to the [letter,] bet [after it], as [is the case with] (Genesis 37:8), "will you surely rule over us (<i>timshol banu</i>)." And the intention is that the night and the day be under the rulership of the luminaries as I have explained; and not that they will rule over the lower beings, this one by day and this one by night as is the opinion of Ramban. And this matter still requires much study, and maybe [Ramban] is right; and so did the Psalmist say (Psalms 136:8-9), "for the government of the day... for the government of the night." And it appears that this is what the author of the cantillation marks intended in verse 16, as he wanted to attach "and the small luminary to rule the night" with "and the stars;" as the psalmist [there] said, "and the moon and the stars for the government of the night."
  And to separate between the light and the darkness: That the light and the darkness should be set and separated in their times.
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  "Let the waters swarm:" <i>Shorets</i> (swarm) is always an intransitive verb - and its main connotation is about the movement and running of animals that are not high off the ground, whether they don't have legs or whether they have legs. And [the following creatures] are called <i>sherets</i> (according to the words of Rashi): "Every living thing that is not very high... among flying creatures, such as flies; among the insects, such as ants... and worms; and among the [four legged] creatures, such as the weasel, the mouse, the lizard, and their like; and all of the fish." And the explanation of "and let the waters swarm" is not that the waters should bring out and propagate them, but [rather] that the waters appear moving with them. And so [too is the understanding of] "And the Nile will swarm frogs" (Exodus 7:28), [and] "Their land swarmed frogs" (Psalms 105:30) - the Nile and the land appeared to be moving because of the movement of the frogs - <i>brulicare</i> in [Italian] (<i>wimmeln</i> in Yiddish). And so [too is the understanding of] "And all the living souls that will swarm" (Ezekiel  47:9) - the river [in the continuation of the verse] is called swarming because of the swarming of the living souls within it. And this [usage] is like [that] in "withering its leaves" (Isaiah 1:30) - the tree is called withering because of the withering of its leaves; and also "only the throne shall I be greater than you" (Genesis 41:40) [means] I will be greater than you in view of the throne, with the throne. 
  "A swarm of living souls;" The swarming of living creatures; that is to say the multiplication of living creatures. And the [use here of the word,] <i>sherets</i> is not like everywhere else in Scripture, which is [there] the name of the species of creeping animals, [but this could not be how it is used here,] since nowhere does it state, 'beasts with living souls' or 'fowl with living souls;' but it is [a reference to] proliferation and multiplication; and so [too in Italian], <i>brulicame</i> [refers to] proliferation and multiplication. And the reason [that these animals are described with reference to proliferation] is that since even one or two creeping animals - when they creep or propel themselves on the ground - appear as if they are numerous. And this is because of the swiftness of their movement and the shortness of their legs, or their absence [altogether]. And from this is the [word], <i>shorets</i> borrowed to indicate multiplication, as in (Exodus 1:7) "they were fruitful and multiplied (<i>yishratsu</i>)."
  "Living souls:" And the origin of the deriviation of the word <i>nefesh</i> (soul) is from breath (<i>neshima</i>) - and the word is the opposite of <i>neshef</i> (blow), and so [too] we find (Job 41:13), "His soul kindles coals;" the implication of which is, his breath and the air from his mouth. And so [too] <i>neshama</i> (higher soul), and so [too] spirit, the origin of their derivation is the inhalation and exhalation of air, which is the mainstay of human life, and all life upon the earth. And <i>chaya</i> (living) is the explanation of soul; which is to say a being that inhales and exhales air and - by so doing - lives. And the customary language is to say the word, soul [by itself, when referring] to man - as in (Leviticus 4:2), "a soul, if it sins" - and a living soul [when referring] to other animals - meaning to say [that it is] a breathing being that has life but no more; since man has other virtues: speech and intelligence and the other characteristics that are not [found] in other animals. 
  "And let foul fly etc.:" This is a different command [than that of the creatures that swarmed]: let the fowl fly upon the earth! [It is as if it said] "let the waters be filled with swarming living souls and the firmament with fowl." And one should not ask whether the fowl were created from the waters, since in truth even the swarming living souls were not created from the waters, as <i>yishratsu</i> (swarm) is not a transitive verb [and only refers to the waters and not to the animals].
  "On the face of the firmament of the heavens:" The air, [together] with all that is above the earth is called the firmament of the heavens or [just] the heavens. And the side [of something] that is in front of the beholder is called face. And behold, the lower part of the heavens is what is visible to us, and it is called the face of the firmament of the heavens, and it is upon that part of the heavens that the fowl fly. And behold, [it reads:] they fly upon the face of the firmament of the heavens - and there is no need to explain it like Ros., [that] "upon the face" is like "to the face." And why did He connect the fowl with the birds on one day? Some say that it is because both these and those lay eggs and straighten their way with their tails. And I would add that He wanted to connect the creation of man with the creation of the beasts and animals and not with the fowl and the fish, since the characteristics of the human body are closer to [the former] than they are to [the latter]; and also since the beasts and animals dwell with him upon the earth, which is not the case with the fowl and the fish, that dwell in the air and the water. 
  
  Verse 21
  
  And God created the great (sea) monsters (<i>taninim</i>): [The verse] began with the <i>taninim</i> because of their unusual largeness, to inform that they too were the work of His hands, may He be blessed. And all animals that are of unusual largeness - that live in the water or crawl on the earth - are called <i>taninim</i>.
  That crawls: [This is] an expression of trampling; which is to say that the whole body is on the earth and tramples the ground.
  That the waters swarmed: See the previous verse.
  According to its species... according to their species: See above, verse 11.
  
  Verse 22
  
  And He blessed them: He decreed for them the blessing that they should be fruitful and multiply; that is to say He established it in their nature to be fruitful and multiply. And He mentioned this blessing [specifically] with the fish and the fowl, as since they lay eggs, they reproduce more than beasts and animals.
  "In the seas:" In all of the places that water gathers; even in the rivers that are not seas but are [still] a place of water, as it is written (Exodus 7:19), "upon their rivers, upon their estuaries, upon their lakes and upon all the gathering of their waters."
  "Multiply upon the earth:" Since even those that dwell in the water and are nurtured there lay their eggs on the land (Netivot  Hashalom).
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  "Let the earth bring forth living souls, etc.:" Most of the elements from which animal bodies are composed are found in the ground; and so [likewise,] the dead body after a long time becomes earth. And the ancients thought that the earth brought out man and animals by itself. And Ovid (Mct. I, 70) was in doubt about the creation of man, if the Creator of all created him from divine seed or whether the earth which had then recently been separated from the skies included some heavenly seed [and engendered him]. And the divine Torah informed us that both man and animals were [created] by the command of God and not by chance.  
  "Living souls:" [This is] a general term, and here  it includes [domesticated] beasts, crawling animals and [wild] animals.  
  "According to its specie:" As per above, verse 11.
  "Beasts" (<i>behema</i>): It appears to me that he beginning of this word's usage is with reference to four-legged herbivorous animals that do not prey, like the bull and the sheep, the horse and the donkey; and this is its usage in this verse, and in any place it is juxtaposed to <i>chaya</i> (wild animals). And it appears to me that its main connotation is the opposite of the cruelty of wild animals; since in Syriac, its root indicates softness and goodness - the opposite of harshness. And so did I found in the works of Master Ephraim (S. Ephraem the Syrian), Section 3, page 614, "<i>Tivdi letaiboutach, debah <u>bahemin</u> negdaich</i>" - the intention [of which] is: Is it not up to us to give thanks to Your attribute of kindness, since within it [even] the afflictions that You afflict us with are <i>softened</i> and sweetened? (And it is translated into Latin as: <i>Gratiâs misericordiae tuae maximas agere debemus, quae justitiae severitatem mitigat</i>.) And sometimes the name, <i>behema</i>, is borrowed to include all animals besides man, as in (Psalms 36:7), "you save <i>behema</i> and man, O Lord;" and sometimes it does not include [other] animals, only four legged [ones], whether they be domesticated or wild.
  "And <i>remes</i> (crawling animals):" "These are the creeping things, which are low and crawl upon the earth and appear as if they are dragging along, because their movement is not discernible" (Rashi). And <i>remes</i> is different than <i>sherets</i> (creeping animals), since it does not include flying creatures and fish (Johannes Clericus); since a <i>remes</i> [by definition] must crawl on the earth, as <i>remes</i> is [derived from] <i>remisa</i> (treading). However, the root <i>remes</i> is also used with [reference to] all four-legged animals, as in (Psalms 104:20) "in it crawls (<i>tirmos</i>) all the animals of the forest;" and also all the birds [are included], as in (Genesis 7:21) "And all flesh that crawls (<i>romes</i>) on the earth perished, among the fowl and among the beasts and among the animals and among all the creeping animals that creep on the earth and all men." And observe that it does not state [in the verse just quoted], "among all men," but [rather] "and all men;" since man is not included in "all flesh that crawls upon the earth." Rather, he is a different specie and separate from them. And the author of the cantillation marks also understood thus and [so] separated [that part of the verse] with an <i>etnach</i> (which denotes a pause) before "and all men." And the reason is that when animals and birds walk, their bodies are flat and laying (horizantal) upon the face of the earth; which is not the case with man, who walks with an erect posture, and his body is straight (vertical) upon the earth. And this is also the opinion of Ramban, who wrote, "because [animals] tread on the ground with their entire bodies."
  "And animals of the (<i>chayeto</i>) earth:" Animals that eat meat and prey are called <i>chayot</i> due to their liveliness (<i>chiyutam</i>) and their strength, [which] is how [liveliness] is understood in (Exodus 1:19), "they are lively." And they are called"<i>chayot</i> of the earth" and "<i>chayot</i> of the field" (Genesis 2:20). And the word, <i>chayeto</i>, with the addition of a [letter,] vav [at the end of the word which does nonetheless not change its meaning] is like "<i>beno</i> (the son of) Be'or" (Numbers 24:3), and "<i>lemayano</i> (to a spring of) water" (Psalms (114:8). And the word, <i>chayeto</i>, is only found in verse [and not prose], and so [too] <i>beno</i> and <i>mayano</i>. And it appears that this is an Aramaic mode of expression [for] the son <i>of</i> Be'or, as in (Song of Songs 3:7), Behold, the bed of Shlomo (<i>mitato shel Shlomo</i>); in the manner of (Daniel 2:20) "the name of God." And even though water (<i>mayim</i>) [in Psalms 114] is not singular, and earth [in our verse] is not masculine, the additional <i>vav</i> [which usually indicates masculine gender and first person] remains due to the poetic style, even when it would have been fitting to change it according to [the word's] standard grammatical form.
  
  Verse 25
  
  And He made: [This is] the explanation (or elaboration) of "and it was so."
  
  Verse 26
  
  "Let us make:" It appears to me that this is also an ancient mode of expression, in the way of Aramaic. And the intention is not that He should consult with others, like angels; since it states "in Our image," and man is not in the image of the angels. It is also not an expression of honor, like the speech of kings [who refers to themselves as 'we']. Rather, this is the way of Aramaic, as in (Daniel 2:36) "and its interpretation will we say in front of the king;" and Daniel would not have used an expression of honor for himself when he was speaking with the big king (as is attested by Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra). And this manner [of speaking] is used frequently by the Talmud Yerushalmi and the midrashim: for example, "[Shimon ben Shetach] said to [Yannai], 'And what should we say [to introduce the Grace over the Meal], "for the food which we have not eaten?"'" (Yerushalmi Berakhot 7:2); "I too, we will solve it according to the opinion of the rabbis in the graveyard" (Shir HaShirim Rabbah on the verse "O, my dove, in the clefts of the rock" [2:14]); and also, "Were it only that I had a mother and father that I could honor, so that we would inherit the Garden of Eden" (Yerushalmi Peah 1:1). And Ros. wrote that this is the way of the Holy Language (Biblical Hebrew), to [use] plural when [speaking] about [one]self, as in (II Samuel 24:14) "Let us please fall in the hand of the Lord." And that is not a proof, since David was not speaking only about himself [in that verse], but [rather] about himself and about his people. And so [too] with Rechavam  when he said (I Kings 12:9), "What do you advise and we will [respond] to the people", since he combined himself with his advisers;  and so [too] Avshalom when he said (I Samuel 16:20), "give your advice, [about] what we shall do."
  "Man:" [This is] the name of the species, as in sheep or cattle, and therefore, He said, "and let them have dominion," in the plural. It appears that the name <i>adam</i> (man) is derived from <i>adom</i> (red), not from <i>adama</i> (ground), since the animals were also formed from the ground. But man is differentiated in his body from animals in that his body is not full of hair and his skin (in moderate climates) is reddish.
  "In our image" (<i>tsalmeinu</i>): The form of the body and its build is not called <i>tselem</i> but rather <i>toar</i> or <i>tavnit</i> (as Rambam said in the Guide for the Perplexed 1:1). Since they would say  <i>yafat toar</i> (nice appearance), not <i>yafat tselem</i>. And to indicate the construction of the parts of a body, they would say, "the <i>tavnit</i> of the tabernacle and the <i>tavnit</i> of all its vessels" (Exodus 28:9). Rather, they would call <i>tselem</i> anything that is made to resemble something else, like a drawing on paper made to resemble a specific person; and so [too] any statue or mask made to resemble a certain body. As it is written (I Samuel 6:5), "the resemblances of (<i>tsalmei</i>) your hemorrhoids and the resemblances of (<i>tsalmei</i>) your mice;" and (Ezekiel 16:17) "and you made resemblances of (<i>tsalmei</i>) males;" and (Ezekiel 23:14) "resemblances of (<i>tsalmei</i>) Chaldeans, inscribed with vermilion." And the word, <i>tselem</i> is derived from <i>tsel</i> (shadow) (and like Bochart also wrote), since a shadow depicts a form which resembles a body. And from it did men learn to begin the art of drawing. And also in Aramaic, they say a 'golden <i>tslam</i>' [to mean a golden statue] and the like; and the intention is always about something that is made to resemble something else. Only once do we find - in Daniel 3:19, "and the appearance (<i>tselem</i>) of his face changed" - [that it refers] to the appearance of a living person, and it is a borrowed expression [there] and not precise. And behold, man is a resemblance of God; meaning that from a certain angle, he resembles the Power that is Master of all the powers. And ostensibly, the letter <i>bet</i> (designating in or according to) in the word <i>betsalmeinu</i> is difficult according to my explanation - and so [too] (Genesis 9:6), "since <i>betselem</i> (in the image/resemblance) of God did He make man." Since according to my explanation, man himself <i>is</i> the resemblance of God, and not [just created to be] in the image of God. However, it is fitting to know that we have found this in a few places - an additional <i>bet</i> in a word that [simply] indicates that it is the predicate of a statement (<i>praedicatum</i>). For example, "since it is <i>be</i> evil" (Exodus 32:22);   "Behold, the Lord will come <i>be</i> strength" (Isaiah 40:10); "He is <i>be</i> one" (Job 23:13); "<i>be</i> the Lord is His name" (Pslams 68:5). And this [type of] <i>bet</i> is frequently used in Arabic. And it appears that the expression, <i>be</i> evil, <i>be</i> strength, <i>be</i> one [all] mainly indicates [that it is] as if you would say a certain person has the characteristic that is called evil, strength or [oneness]. Here too, [it is understood as] "let Us make man [to have] the quality which would justify it being called, resemblance of God." And behold, the word, <i>betsalmeinu</i>, and the expression, <i>tselem Elohim</i> (image of God), are not a proof that the Torah teaches that God has a human form (<i>Antropomorphismus</i>). And we cannot deny that some of our forbears attributed a build like the build of a man to God, and so did they say in the blessing for grooms (Ketuvot 8a), "Who formed man in His resemblance, in the resemblance of the image of <i>tavnito</i> (His build)." And <i>tavnit</i> is certainly a name that refers to the structure of the parts of a body. And nonetheless, our forbears did not believe that God and the angels had a body and a hull like us. And Rashi explicitly wrote (Makkot 12a, s.v. <i>chamuts begadim</i>) that angels are not flesh and blood. But the truth of the matter is that a completely incorporeal simple intellect that has no form - no breadth and width and height whatsoever - is something that is impossible for a person to imagine and [hence] it will not be [internalized by him.] And if the philosophers speak about Him, at the end of the day, they can only describe Him negatively (what He is not), not positively (what He is). And the Torah was given to the whole people, and the people need to be able to imagine their God with a positive description, not just a negative description. And behold, [therefore] our forbears would attribute to God and to the angels and to souls, a finer spiritual substance than any body known to us, and nonetheless, [that substance] has a form and a build. And see the book <i>Malakhet Machshevet</i>, <i>Parshat Shelach Lecha</i>. 
  "<i>Ke'demuteinu</i>:" In similarity to Us - that He be similar to Us. However, in what way is man similar to God? It appears to me (like I wrote in <i>Bikkurei HaItim</i> 5588, page 165) that [just] like God is the Master of all powers - and that is the connotation of the word <i>Elohim</i> - so too is man distinguished from all the other animals; in that all of them have an ability and makeup for a specific trait and activity, and only man has the makeup and ability for all of the traits and activities in the world. (See Rabbi N. H. Wessely's <i>Sefer HaMiddot</i>, Section I, Chapters 1 and 2). And from this it comes out that he has dominion over all the animals; and for this reason, He immediately said, "let them have dominion over the fish of the seas, etc." And so [too] did David state (Psalms 8:6-7), "And You have made him little less than angels, etc. You have made him govern over the works of your hands." And behold, with man, it does not state, "and it was so," since it does not state, "let there be man," but [rather], let Us make man. Due to the stature of man, He fashioned him as if it were 'a thought-out work,' and as if he was made with more special supervision and attention than all the other animals. 
  And Seneca wrote similarly to this (L VIII. c. 23), <i>Cogitavit de beneficiis.  nos ante natura quam fecit, nec tam leve opus sumus, ut illi potuerimus excidere - Scias non esse hominem tumultuarium et incogitatum opusm.</i> And all of this, however, is so that we recognize how great were his kindnesses upon us.
  "And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the fowl of the heavens and over the beast and over all of the earth and over all of the crawling animals that crawl upon the earth:" Nachmanides (Ramban) explained, "'and over all the earth,' [to mean] that they should rule over the earth itself: to uproot and to smash and to dig copper and iron." And ostensibly, this is difficult: how can it speak about the earth itself and then afterwards, go back and speak about the crawling animals that crawl upon it? And one of my students answered, that [the crawling animals] are a general category [that can come] after the [listing of] individual parts; as if it said, "And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the fowl of the heavens and over the beast and more generally, have dominion over all of the earth and over all that crawls upon it." And "the crawling animals that crawl upon the earth" will include all of the animals, and [it is] like it says in the verse that is after this, "and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the fowl of the heavens and over all of the animals that crawl over the earth." And I say that other animals are called "flesh that crawls on the earth," [and] "animals that crawl upon the earth; but the phrase, "the crawling animals that crawl upon the earth" is never found in any place to refer to all animals, but rather only to the crawling animals. And behold, in the verse after this, it is written "and subdue it" about the earth itself - therefore, the words of Ramban are plausible, that here also, when it states, "and over all the earth," the intention was about the subduing of the earth itself: to dig, to plant and to build homes and to to do with it according to our will. And afterwards it mentions the crawling animals, because of their being (as per the words of my student, Yosef Yira) close to the ground. Hence, after He said that they should have dominion over the whole earth, He added that they should have dominion also over the crawling animals, which appear as if they are clinging to it and a part of it. And the intention is that in man's working of the earth, he expels and destroys the crawling animals that are in it. 
  
  Verse 27
  
  In the resemblance of God did He create him: He repeated the matter to bring attention on this great advantage [given] to man (Netivot Shalom). And an example [of this type of repetition] is (Leviticus 20:10), "And a man who has adultery with a married woman, who has adultery with the wife of his neighbor;" and see below 9:5.
  Male and female did He create them: This is the general [description] and below it explains the details of the creation of the female.
  
  Verse 28
  
  And he blessed them: He gave them the power and setup for all of this; and He also said to them, "be fruitful and multiply, etc.," which is to say that He explained to them what their power and nature [consists of] and what He wants from them. And above (verse 22) with the fish and the birds, it did not say "And God said to them," since they are not intelligent creatures. And behold, to man - when the human species was at the beginning of its existence, and so [too] below (Genesis 9:1,7) when the human specie was very little - He explained His desire, that they be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. And when He gave the Torah to Israel, it was not necessary to command them about this, since the earth was already settled. And nonetheless, the Sages, of blessed memory, did well when they counted (Yevamot 6:6), "be fruitful and multiply" as one of the [Torah's] commandments; since it is certainly the will of God that the human species [continue] to be fruitful and multiply. And especially after the destruction [of the Temple] when the [Jewish] people had decreased, they needed to reinforce this commandment. And 'blessed is He that chose them and their teachings;' since were it not for their prohibitions and their decrees, the nation would have been lost from the world, [just] like several great and powerful nations were lost and forgotten.
  "And conquer it:" from the animals. Like the understanding of all usages of 'conquering' which is said about the earth, the idea of which is [that it be conquered] from the hands of others. And according to this, it is well that this expression is used adjacent to "and fill the earth;" since in order to fill it, he would need to conquer if from the animals. And so [too] did He explain [this meaning by continuing]: "and have dominion, etc."
  "And have dominion over the fish of the sea and the fowl of the sky:" Even though they are not subjugated to man to do his work, behold man uses them for all of his needs - for his food and [as raw materials] for his crafts.
  
  Verse 29
  
  "That seeds (bears) seed:" Like (verse 11) "that gives off seed."
  "That has in it fruit of the tree:" Because the word fruit (<i>pri</i>) is not specific to fruit of trees - as there are [also] fruit of the ground and fruit of the womb, and anything that comes out of something else is called a fruit of that thing - it states "that has in it fruit of the tree," which means to say the fruit specific to trees.
  
  Verse 30
  
  "And to all animals (<i>chayat</i>) of the earth:" It includes beasts (<i>behama</i>) to be in the category of animals [here].
  "Which has a living soul in it:" The breath of life. See above, verse 20.
  "All green herbs (<i>yerek esev</i>):" The green of the herb, which means to say green herbs (or grasses), as below (Genesis 3:24) "the glow of the sword"  [means] a sword that is glowing; and (Esther 10:3) "accepted by many of his brothers" [means] to his many brothers. And behold, He gave to man all seed bearing herbs and all fruit trees; and to the other animals only the green herbs, which grow without planting. And the intention of this is because man has the intelligence to plant, and this is not the case with other animals. And it should not be derived from this that fruit of trees were forbidden to animals, like the opinion of Grotius; or that [here] Moshe did not speak with exactitude like the opinion of Clericus, when, in fact, the language is very exact. Since He did not give control to other [animals] over seeds and the fruit of trees, as He did not give them intelligence to sow and plant in all places that they would want, like He did for man. And behold, one should ask why He didn't mention the eating of meat - not with man and not with animals. And many already believed that the slaughter of animals was not permitted before the flood. And this is very unlikely; since in his nature and the build of his body and the shape of his teeth, man is fashioned for the eating of both [plants] and meat as one; and if it was not the will of the Creator that he should eat meat, He would not have formed his body [in this way]. And it appears to me that the permission to eat meat is included in the expression, "and have dominion over the fish of the sea, etc." Since [in the case of] Noach (Genesis 9:2-3): after He said, "and your awe and dread will be upon all the animals of the earth, etc... into your hands are they given," He explained and said "every crawling thing that lives on the earth, for you shall it be to eat." But to Adam, He did not need to explain further, while with Noach; because it was necessary to warn him about the spilling of man's blood, he preceded [that warning] by saying that He was not forbidding the slaughtering of animals. And one can add that the proclamation, "have dominion over the fish of the seas," is a clear proof that the killing of animals was permitted - since, how is it possible to rule over the fish without their coming out of the water and [so] dying? And one cannot say that the intention is to make fish oil and use their teeth after they die, since dominion and rulership is not the use of something [when it is] dead, but to rule over a living body, whether to subjugate it or to kill it. And that which they said [to answer this question] (Sanhedrin 59b), "one used a goat and a mullet to lead [his chariot]," that is not something common [and hence not a good answer]. And my student, Shalom Shimon Modina answered (today, the 23rd of Tammuz, 5625) that there is no absolute proof from here that Adam was permitted to eat meat. Since it is nonetheless possible that the intention of the proclamation, "have dominion over the fist of the sea, etc." is that man should have dominion and rulership over the animals by preventing them from ruling over him and hurting him, and that their killing be permitted to save ourselves - but not to eat them. And even without the fish having to serve man and do his work, behold, that is called dominion over them, since it is in his hand to overpower them that they should not hurt him. And I say that we never find the root, <i>reish dalet hey</i> (have dominion) with this usage, but [rather] to indicate subjugation, and the rulership to force others to [submit] to our will and our pleasure, as in (Leviticus 25:53) "he shall not subjugate him with hard work in front of your eyes," and (Leviticus 26:17) "and the ones that hate you will subjugate you," and so [too] (I Kings 5:4), "Since he ruled over the entire bank of the river," and (Psalms 72:8) "And may he dominate from the sea to the sea:" their sense is control [over] them to take taxes. And at this point, it appears to me that the Holy One, blessed be He, did not want to say to Adam explicitly that he had permission to kill living souls, so that he not accustom his hands to spilling blood. Rather, He said to him that he would rule and have dominion over all animals; and the permission to kill them for the sake of eating them 'was not explicitly said, but implicitly said.' But after the flood - after the earth was filled with violence and all flesh had corrupted its way and the spillers of blood proliferated - then did God explain to Noach and his children that they have permission to kill and eat animals, but they do not have permission for 'a man to kill his brother,' though they should kill murderers.
  
  Verse 31
  
  And he saw, etc... and behold it was very good: That there was nothing besides what He wanted and in the quantity that He wanted. And all of this is to implant in our hearts that there is nothing [that exists] against His will, and that there is no ability counter to his ability, since He is one and there is no other. And the intention is not that everything is good and that there is no bad (evil) in existence, as bad does exist without a doubt. Rather, everything is according to what His wisdom decreed, may He be blessed, [and] He created a little bad for the sake of the abundant good. And everything was very good, and agreed with the decree of His wisdom; not that He wanted one thing and it turned out to be another thing against His will. And behold, 'with this it went up and with that it went down' (everything fit in with every other thing), to teach us the unity of the Power and the unity of the entire creation; that it is all one work and the act of the hands of one Maker, and that all of its pieces fit; 'one comes to help its friend.' And this thing - the more man increases his investigation and knowledge of the secrets of nature, the more he will recognize that this is true. 'And the word of God will stand forever.'
  The sixth (<i>hashishi</i>) day: [It is written] with a [letter,] <i>hay</i> that is a definite article; since [this day] is the last of the days of creation. And its sense is, this day is the sixth. And similar to it is (below 2:3) "the seventh (<i>shevi'i</i>) day;" and (Leviticus 24:10) "the Israelite (<i>hayisraeli</i>) man." 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  The truth is that most of the time, "falling one another's neck" only is mentioned when there is a kiss, and therefore the text could have mentioned this, along with the weeping, without explicitly mentioning that they kissed; the kiss would have been understood implicitly like Ya'akov and Yosef in Gen. 46:29 ("And Yosef...went up to meet his father...and fell on his neck and wept on his neck a good while"). In the latter case, Yosef clearly kissed him without it having to be mentioned in the text. It's also possible that in a state of great emotional excitement one would be too wonderstruck and stunned to kiss the other person; perhaps this was the case with Yosef and Ya'akov. However, regarding Ya'akov and Esav there's no doubt that there was no great affection between them, certainly not the type of excitement that would lead to being wonderstruck and stunned.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  And they pulled and lifted Joseph from the pit, and they sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites. Most of the world believe that the brothers of Joseph sold him, but the Rashbam writes that this was not so, and the Chizkuni agrees with him. My friend and son of my uncle, my teacher and rabbi R. Shmuel Chaim b. David Lo-Li zt"l, delved deeply into the topic of this story, and he tended to the understanding of the Rashbam. He wrote about his opinions to be in a letter (28 Kislev 5589), and these are his words in explanation of this story: When Joseph's brothers saw him in the distance, they plotted to kill him: "And they said... let us go and kill him..." But Reuven heard and saved him immediately, and advised them to cast him into the pit (in order to save him from their hand). They followed his advice and cast him into the pit. Afterwards, they returned to eat bread, and they distanced themselves from the pit, so as not to hear the cries of Joseph as he begged them, as the verse testifies, "Since we saw the aggrievement of his soul, when he begged us and we did not listen to him." While they were eating, they lifted their eyes and they saw some Ishmaelites. Judah said, "Let us go and sell him, etc." His brothers listened to him, i.e., they all agreed that after they finished eating, they would return to the pit and lift Joseph from there, and bring him to the Ishmaelites to sell him to them. (Since no hint is found in the verses that the Ishmaelites needed to come close to Jacob's sons on their way.) Meanwhile, while they they were speaking amongst themselves, far from the pit—behold!—without any of them knowing, Midianite men, merchants, crossed over by the pit (by Divine Providence). The Midianites pulled and lifted Joseph from the pit and brought him to the Ishmaelites and sold him to them for twenty [pieces of] silver. They brought Joseph to Egypt.Now, behold! after they ate, Reuven hurried by himself, separating from his brothers without them seeing, and returned quickly to the pit to lift Joseph out and return him to his father before his brothers could reach him to lift him out and sell him. However... as the melting of wax before the fire, so melted Reuven's heart and became water as he gazed into the pit, where Joseph was no longer. He tore his garments [in mourning], for he thought in his imagination that without a doubt, a bear or a lion hunted [Joseph] for its cubs, suffocating him to take him as its prey. It had carried him off alive, as he was, his head on his thighs and on his stomach, to some hole or to some den, to fill its hole with prey and its den with game. And that was why he didn't find any blood or bones!Reuven returned, in grief and in panic, to his brothers, and he cried and said, "Hei! The boy is no longer, for he has been ravaged! My plan, like yours, has been ruined! Now where do I go? I am guiltier than you all, because it was by my advice that you threw him into the pit, and it is as if I were the cause of his death!" All his brothers believed him and were astonished about this, as if G-d answered them that their brother should die. However, they were not pained, but glad to know that the one they hated was dead, without them having to lay a hand on him. Hence, they did not respond.After this, they discussed what to do to also save Reuven also from the accusations of their father. Accordingly, they dipped Joseph's coat in blood and sent it to their father, in order that he believe that Joseph was hunted down before he reached them.Now, when Jacob's sons came to their father, and they saw how Jacob mourned so exceedingly for his son, they regretted immediately everything they had done. But, what was to be done? If Joseph was already ravaged and had become the food of beasts of the field, all that remained for them to do was to comfort him with words, and so they did.Now, according to this [following], it will be clarified that the children of Jacob, the tribes of Y-ah, which He chose as His unique ones, were not wicked, guided by their evil inclinations; nor were their deaths such that it be said of them, "They will be torn forever. His wrath and His fury will keep eternally." Even if in a small moment they had sinned out of jealousy and hatred, since it is the way of people to be unjust, they could not, Heaven forbid, have remained in their rebellion. It would have abated quickly, they would have recognized their sin, and regretted everything they had done. They were exerting themselves with all their power to cleanse themselves of it, since when they all returned home, no man held back any of their courage and strength to console their father.That none of them sought out Joseph was because all of them fully believed without any shadow of a doubt that he was hunted down, and there was no hope to bring him back alive. That Reuven was silent when he heard the Judah's suggestion to sell Joseph was with the intention to conceal his good thoughts concerting Joseph from his brothers, so that his brothers not monitor him carefully to see what he was doing when he went alone to the pit. This was especially so after he heard Judah's suggestion, and he knew, or at least it appeared to him, that his brothers did not oppose Judah, the master among the brothers, and none disagreed and all were silent in deference to his suggestion. If he were to reveal his mind to them, they doubtless would not allow him to go alone to the pit as he had planned, lest he prevent them to doing to their brother as they wished. It is also understood why none responded to Reuven when he said to them, "The boy isn't there!" They should have said, "We sold him," but instead, they did not respond, because they did not sell him, and they did not know what had happened to him any more than did Reuven.It is also understood why Joseph said, "I was verily kidnapped." It was because he was talking about the Midianites who actually kidnapped him and took him away from the land of the Hebrews, since he did not suspect that his brothers sold him from the outset to the Midianites. Regarding what is written after this, "And the Midianites sold him to Egypt," by his understanding, these were the Ishmaelites mentioned above, since in his understanding, "Ishmaelites" is a general term including all the children of Abraham aside from Isaac, and possibly these were descendants of Medan the son of Abraham. Even though the Midianites who sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites were themselves descendants of Abraham, they were certainly different people who were not true Ishmaelites. We cannot say that the sellers and buyers were one and the same, so they were called by a borrowed name separate from the sellers. There is further proof that the Ishmaelites and the Midianites are one and the same, since Scripture says here, "And the Midianites sold him to Egypt to Potiphar," and after that it says, "And Potiphar bought him... from the hand of the Ishmaelites."And, after these words and truth, it will no longer be difficult to explain one verse that was repeated twice, which appears as if in contradiction to this structure. This is the statement of Joseph to his brothers when he admitted to them, "I am Joseph your brother, whom you sold to Egypt. Now, do not be distraught... that you sold me here," since the intention here is this: "You are the cause of my sale and coming to Egypt." This is similar to "and Solomon built the House. The Shadal [Samuel b. David Lo-Li] said that it is possible to add other, further examples, like, "And you will bring my hoariness down in grief to the grave" (below, Genesis 42:38), "You have killed the people of G‑d" (Numbers 17:6), "And this city shall burn with fire" (Jeremiah 38:23). Similarly, his brothers, in their hatred, were the reason Joseph was sold to Egypt. The proof of this, that in any case, they did not sell him to Egypt, is that it would have been sufficient [for Joseph] to say, "You sold me." Similarly, he says after this, "You did not send me here." It is understood that they did not send him, but were the cause that he be sent to Egypt.If you wish to explain the verse, "I was verily kidnapped," according to all the commentators, that the intention was regarding his brothers who kidnapped and sold him, then you would also be able to say that Joseph, when he saw the Midianites who pulled and sold him like masters, did not know who the kidnappers were: Were they the brothers? or were they the Midianites?Perhaps he thought in his imagination that his brothers sold him to the Midianites from the outset, and therefore said to them in his admission, "whom you sold." If you would argue that if the brothers did not sell him, they would not be silent when he said to them, "whom you sold," then the rebuttal is by your side. The brothers were not able to answer him [at all], not even the question, "Is my father still alive?" because they were confounded before him. How could they be so brazen as to bicker with him about their sin?Until here are the words of the one dear to my soul, Samuel Chaim b. David Lo-Li zt"l. Even though I do not agree with him on all the details of the explanation, the main thing here is that his words and the words of the Rashbam are correct in my view: it appears to me that those who pulled Joseph out of the pit were the Midianites and they sold him to the Ishmaelites, and Jacob's children did not see or know about any of this at all. Joseph believed that they sold him to the Midianites and said to them, "Go pull him out of the pit." Joseph's brothers never said to him that they didn't sell him, since in speaking about it, it would be revealed that their intent was that he die in the pit. How could they say to him, "Don't think that we sold you. It was only in our heart that you die in the pit. When afterwards we agreed to Judah's suggestion to sell you, the Midianites got there first and sold you themselves!" The reason for "I was verily kidnapped" was regarding Joseph's brothers, who (in Joseph's belief) sold him, and kidnapped him from his father.