Rav Avigdor Nebenzahl: Fire and The First Shabbos of Creation

The Gemara raises an objection from that which was previously taught: One recites a blessing over fire only at the conclusion of Shabbat and not at the conclusion of Festivals or Yom Kippur, since the conclusion of Shabbat is the time of its original creation. And once he sees it, he recites the blessing immediately. Rabbi Yehuda says: One does not recite the blessing immediately; rather, he waits and arranges and recites the blessings over fire and spices over the cup of wine that accompanies the recitation of havdala. And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. How does Rabbi Yoĥanan explain the baraita? The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. Here, where Rabbi Yoḥanan said that one recites the blessing at the conclusion of Yom Kippur, it is referring to fire that rested on Yom Kippur, i.e., fire for which no prohibition was involved in its kindling, either because it was kindled before Yom Kippur or because it was kindled in a permitted manner, e.g., for a dangerously ill person. There, where Rabbi Yoḥanan said that the blessing is recited only at the conclusion of Shabbat, it is referring to fire generated from wood and from stones after Shabbat, similar to the primordial fire, which was created at the conclusion of Shabbat. It was taught in one baraita: With regard to fire generated from wood and stones, one recites a blessing over it; and it was taught in one other baraita: One does not recite a blessing over it. This apparent contradiction is not difficult. Here, where the baraita states that one recites a blessing, it is referring to the conclusion of Shabbat. There, where the baraita states that one does not recite a blessing, it is referring to the conclusion of Yom Kippur. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi would distribute the blessings over the fire and the spices, reciting each when the opportunity arose. Rabbi Ḥiyya would collect them, reciting all the blessings at the same time in the framework of havdala. Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Avdimi said: Even though Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi distributes them and recites each blessing at his first opportunity, he repeats the blessings and arranges and recites them over the cup of wine in order to discharge the obligation of his children and the members of his household. The Gemara stated that fire was originally created at the conclusion of Shabbat. The Gemara asks: Was fire created at the conclusion of Shabbat? Wasn’t it taught in a baraita: Ten miraculous phenomena were created in heaven on Shabbat eve during twilight, and were revealed in the world only later? They were: Miriam’s well, and the manna that fell in the desert, and the rainbow, writing [ketav], and the writing instrument [mikhtav], and the tablets of the Ten Commandments, and the grave of Moses, and the cave in which Moses and Elijah stood, the opening of the mouth of Balaam’s donkey, and the opening of the earth’s mouth to swallow the wicked in the incident involving Korah. Rabbi Neḥemya said in the name of his father: Even the fire and the mule, which is a product of crossbreeding, were created at that time. Rabbi Yoshiya said in the name of his father: Even the ram slaughtered by Abraham in place of Isaac, and the shamir worm used to shape the stones for the altar, were created at that time. Rabbi Yehuda says: Even the tongs were created at this time. He would say: Tongs can be fashioned only with other tongs, but who fashioned the first tongs? Indeed, the first pair of tongs was fashioned at the hand of Heaven. An anonymous questioner said to him: It is possible to fashion tongs with a mold and align it without the need for other tongs. Indeed, the first tongs were a creation of man. In any event, fire was originally created before Shabbat, not at the conclusion of Shabbat. The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. This baraita is referring to our fire, and that baraita is referring to the fire of Gehenna. The Gemara explains: Our fire was created at the conclusion of Shabbat, but the fire of Gehenna was created on Shabbat eve. The Gemara proceeds to ask: Was the fire of Gehenna created on Shabbat eve? Wasn’t it taught in a baraita: Seven phenomena were created before the world was created, and they are: Torah, and repentance, and the Garden of Eden, and Gehenna, and the Throne of Glory, and the Temple, and the name of Messiah.

[God] thought to create [fire] before Shabbat [in the week of creation], but it was not created until after Shabbat [on Saturday night]. As Rabbi Yossi taught in a braita...after Shabbat, the Holy One, blessed be He, gave Adam wisdom akin to that of the Divine. He [Adam] brought two stones, ground them against each other, out of which came fire.

(5) Bet Shammai says: [the proper order is] candle, [Birkat Ha]Mazon, spices, and Havdalah. But Bet Hillel says: candle, spices, [Birkat Ha]Mazon, and Havdalah. Bet Shammai says [the blessing over the candle concludes with the words], “Who created the light of the fire.” But Bet Hillel says: “Who creates the lights of the fire.”

1. THE Rabbi: ELŌHIM is a term signifying the ruler, or governor of the world, if I allude to the possession of the whole of it, and of a portion, if I refer to the powers either of nature or the spheres, or of a human judge. The word has a plural form, because it was so used by gentile idolators, who believed that every deity was invested with astral and other powers. Each of these was called Elōah; their united forces were therefore, called Elōhim. They swore by them, and behaved as if bound to abide by their judgments. These deities were as numerous as are the forces which sway the human body and the universe. 'Force' is a name for any of the causes of motion. Every motion arises from a force of its own, to the exclusion of other forces. The spheres of the sun and moon are not subject to one force, but to different ones. These people did not take into account the prime power from which all these forces emanated, because they did not acknowledge its existence. They asserted that the sum total of these forces was styled Elōah, just as the sum total of the forces which control the human body was called 'soul.' Or they admitted the existence of God, but maintained that to serve Him was of no use. They considered Him too far removed and exalted to have any knowledge of us, much less to care about us. Far from God are such notions. As a result of their theories they worshipped, not one being, but many, which they styled 'Elōhim.' This is a collective form which comprises all causes equally. A more exact and more lofty name is to be found in the form known as the Tetragrammaton. This is a proper noun, which can only be indicated by attributes, but has no location, and was formerly unknown. If He was commonly styled 'Elōhim,' the Tetragrammaton was used as special name. This is as if one asked: Which God is to be worshipped, the sun, the moon, the heaven, the signs of the zodiac, any star, fire, a spirit, or celestial angels, etc.; each of these, taken singly, has an activity and force, and causes growth and decay? The answer to this question is: 'The Lord,' just as if one would say: A. B., or a proper name, as Ruben or Simeon, supposing that these names indicate their personalities.

3. The Rabbi: It can be designated by prophetic or visionary means. Demonstration can lead astray. Demonstration was the mother of heresy and destructive ideas. What was it, if not the wish to demonstrate, that led the dualists to assume two eternal causes? And what led materialists to teach that the sphere was not only eternal, but its own primary cause, as well as that of other matter? The worshippers of fire and sun are but the result of the desire to demonstrate. There are differences in the ways of demonstration, of which some are more extended than others. Those who go to the utmost length are the philosophers, and the ways of their arguments led them to teach of a Supreme Being which neither benefits nor injures, and knows nothing of our prayers, offerings, obedience, or disobedience, and that the world is as eternal as He himself. None of them applies a distinct proper name to God, except he who hears His address, command, or prohibition, approval for obedience, and reproof for disobedience. He bestows on Him some name as a designation for Him who spoke to him, and he is convinced that He is the Creator of the world from nought. The first man would never have known Him if He had not addressed, rewarded and punished him, and had not created Eve from one of his ribs. This gave him the conviction that this was the Creator of the world, whom he designated by words and attributes, and styled 'Lord.' Without this he would have been satisfied with the name Elōhim, neither perceiving what He was, nor whether He was a unity or many, whether He was cognizant of individuals or not. Cain and Abel were made acquainted with the nature of His being by the communications of their father as well as by prophetic intuition. Then Noah, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, Moses and the prophets called Him intuitively 'Lord,' as also did the people, having been taught by tradition that His influence and guidance were with men. His influence also being with the pious, they comprehended Him by means of intermediaries called: glory, Shekhinah, dominion, fire, cloud, likeness, form, 'the appearance of the bow,' etc. (Ezek. i. 28). For they proved to them that He had spoken to them, and they styled it: Glory of God. Occasionally they addressed the holy ark by the name of God, as it is written: 'Rise up, O Lord,', (Numbers 10:35, Numbers 10:36), when they made a start, and 'Return, O Lord' when they halted, or 'God is gone up with a shout, the Lord with the sound of the trumpet' (Psalms 47:6), With all this only the ark of the Lord is meant. Sometimes the name 'Lord' was applied to the connecting link between God and Israel, as it is written: 'Do not I hate them, O Lord, that hate thee?' (Psalms 139:21). By 'haters of the Lord' are meant those who hate the name, or covenant, or the law of God. For there exists no connexion between God and any other nation, as He pours out His light only on the select people. They are accepted by Him, and He by them. He is called 'the God of Israel,' whilst they are 'the people of the Lord,' and 'the people of the God of Abraham.' Even supposing some nations had followed Him and worshipped Him, their conversion being the result of hearsay and tradition, yet where do we find His acceptance of them and His connexion with them, His pleasure in their obedience, His anger for their disobedience? We see them left to nature and chance by which their prosperity or misfortune are determined, but not by an influence which proves to be of divine origin alone. Thus also we alone are meant in the words: 'So the Lord alone did lead him, and there was no strange god with him (Deuteronomy 32:12). The Tetragrammaton is a name exclusively employable by us, as no other people knows its true meaning. It is a proper name which takes no article, as is the case with Elohim in the form hāelōhim. It belongs, therefore, to the prerogatives by which we are distinguished. Although its meaning is hidden, the letters of which it is composed speak. For it is the letters alef, hē, wāv and yōd which cause all consonants to be sounded, as no letter can be pronounced as long as it is not supported by one of these four, viz. a by alef, and hē, u by wāv, and i by yōd. They form, so to speak, the spirit in the bodies of the consonants. The name Oh is like the Tetragrammaton (Exodus 3:14). As to EH’YEH, it can be derived from the latter name, or from the root hāyāh, and its tendency is to prevent the human mind from pondering over an incomprehensible but real entity. When Moses asked: 'And they shall say to me, What is His name?' the answer was: Why should they ask concerning things they are unable to grasp? In a like manner the angel answered: 'Why askest thou thus after my name, seeing it is secret?' (Judges 13:18). Say to them eh’yēh, which means: 'I am that I am,' the existing one, existing for you whenever you seek me. Let them search for no stronger proof than My presence among them, and name Me accordingly. Moses therefore answered: 'Eh’yēh has sent me to you.' God had previously given a similar proof to Moses in the words: 'Certainly I will be with thee, and this shall be a token unto thee,' etc. (Exodus 3:12), viz. that I have sent thee, and am with thee everywhere. This is followed by a similar phrase, viz. 'The God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob,' persons known to have been favoured by the Divine Influence perpetually. As regards the terms: Elōhē hāelōhim, it is a designation for the fact that all creative forces are depending upon God, who arranges and guides them. 'Lord of lords' has the same meaning. EL is derived from ayālūth, being the source of the forces [of nature], but exalted above them. The expression: 'Who is like unto thee among the ēlim,' is, therefore, permissible, placing ēl into the plural form. HOLY expresses the notion that He is high above any attribute of created beings, although many of these are applied to him metaphorically. For this reason Isaiah heard an endless: 'Holy, holy, holy,' which meant that God is too high, too exalted, too holy, and too pure for any impurity of the people in whose midst His light dwells to touch Him. For the same reason Isaiah saw him 'sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up.' Holy is, further, a description of the spiritual, which never assumes a corporeal form, and which nothing concrete can possibly resemble. God is called: the Holy One of Israel, which is another expression for the Divine Influence connected with Israel himself and the whole of his posterity, to rule and guide them, but not to be merely in external contact with them. Not everyone who wishes is permitted to say, 'My God and Holy One!' except in a metaphorical and traditional way. In reality only a prophet or a pious person with whom the Divine Influence is connected may say so. For this reason they said to the prophet: 'Pray to the Lord, thy God' (I Kings 13:6). The relation of this nation to others was to have been like that of a king to ordinary people, as it is written: 'Holy shall ye be, for holy am I the Lord, your God' (Leviticus 19:2). ADONAI, spelt alef, dalēth, nūn, yōd points to something which stands at such an immeasurable altitude that a real designation is impossible. Indication is possible in one direction only. We can point to things created by Him, and which form His immediate tools. Thus we allude to the intellect, and say that its seat is in the heart or brain. We also say 'this' or 'that intellect.' In reality we can only point to a thing enclosed by a space. Although all organs obey the intellect, they do so through the medium of the heart or brain, which are its primary tools, which arc considered as the abode of the intellect. In a like manner we point to heaven, because it is employed to carry out the divine will directly, and without the assistance of intermediary factors. On the other hand we cannot point to compound objects, because they can only operate with the assistance of intermediary causes, and are connected with God in a chain-like manner. For He is the cause of causes. He is also called 'He who dwelleth in heaven' (Psalms 123:1), and 'For God is in heaven,' (Ecclesiastes 5:1). One often says, 'Fear of heaven,' and 'fearing heaven in secret,' 'mercy shall come for them from heaven.' In a similar way we speak of the 'pillar of fire,' or the 'pillar of cloud,' worship them, and say that God is therein, because this pillar carried out His will exclusively, unlike other clouds and fires which arise in the air from different causes. Thus we also speak of the 'devouring fire on the top of the mount' (Exodus 24:17), which the common people saw, as well as of the spiritual form which was visible only to the higher classes: 'under His feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone' (Exodus 24:10). He is further styled: Living God. The holy ark is alluded to as 'The Lord of the whole earth,' because miracles happened as long as it existed, and disappeared with it. We say that it is the eye which sees, whilst in reality it is the soul that sees. Prophets and pious Sages are spoken of in similar terms, because they, too, are original instruments of the divine will which employs them without meeting with unwillingness, and performs miracles through them. In illustration of this the Rabbis said: 'The words: Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God,' include the learned disciples. He who occupies such a degree has a right to be styled 'a man of God,' a description comprising human and divine qualities, and as if one would say: godly man. Now in speaking of a divine being we use the appellation, Adōnāi--alef, dalēth, nūn, yōd--as if we wished to say: 'O Lord.' Metaphorically speaking, we point to a thing encompassed by a place as: 'He who dwells between the cherubim,' or 'He who dwells in Zion,' or, 'He who abides in Jerusalem.' The attributes of this kind are many, although His essence is only one. The variety arises from the variety of places where God's essence dwells, just as the rays of the sun are many whilst the sun is everywhere the same. This simile is not quite complete. Were only the rays of the sun visible, but not the sun itself, their origin would have to be demonstrated. I must enlarge on this subject a little more, because there are debatable points about it, viz. firstly, how it is possible to speak of space in connexion with a being that has no place; secondly, how can one believe that a subject to which one can point could be the Prime Cause? In reply to these objections we say in the first instance, that the senses can only perceive the attributes of things, not the substrata themselves. In a prince e.g., thou perceivest his external and visible form and proportions. It is not these to which thou must render homage. Thou seest him in war in one habit, in his city in another, in his house in a third. Following thy judgment rather than thy perception, thou sayest that he is the king. He may appear first as a boy, then as a youth, then in his prime, and finally as an old man; or as a healthy or sick man, his appearance, manner, disposition and qualities being changed. Still thou considerest him to be the same and the king, because he has spoken to thee and given thee his commands. The royal side of him is but the intellectual and rational one, but this is essence, not limited to space and not to be pointed to, although thou dost so and sayest that he is the king. But if he is dead, and thou seest the same old form, thou wilt conclude that this is not the king, but a body which can be moved by whoso wishes, which depends upon chance and other peoples’ humour, like a cloud in the air which one wind brings hither and another drives away, one wind gathers, another disperses. Previously he was a body which was subject to the royal will alone, resembling the divine pillar of cloud which no wind was able to disperse. Another instance is offered by the sun, which we see as a round, flat body, resembling a shield and giving forth light and heat, being in repose. Reason considers it to be a globe a hundred and sixty-six times larger than the globe of the earth, neither hot nor immovable, but moving in two opposite directions, from west to east, and from east to west, under conditions it would lead us too far to discuss. The senses have not the faculty of perceiving the essence of things. They only have the special power of perceiving the accidental peculiarities belonging to them which furnish reason with the arguments for their essence and causes. Why and wherefore are accessible to pure reason only. Everything that shares active intellect, like the angels, grasps the subjects in their true essence without requiring the medium of accessories. But our intellect which a priori is only theoretical, being sunk in matter, cannot penetrate to the true knowledge of things, except by the grace of God, by special faculties which He has placed in the senses, and which resemble those perceptible accessories, but are always found with the whole species. There is no difference between my perception and thine that this circumscribed disc, giving forth light and heat, is the sun. Should even these characteristics be denied by reason, this does no harm, because we can derive from it arguments for our purposes. Thus also a sharp-eyed person, looking for a camel, can be assisted by a weak-eyed and squinting one who tells him that he has seen two cranes at a certain place. The sharp-eyed person then knows that the other has only seen a camel, and that the weakness of his eyes made him believe that it was a crane, and his squint that there were two cranes. In this way the sharp-eyed person can make use of the evidence of the weak-eyed one, whilst he excuses his faulty description by his defective sight. A similar relation prevails between senses and imagination on one side, and reason on the other. The Creator was as wise in arranging this relation between the exterior senses and the things perceived, as He was in fixing the relation between the abstract sense and the uncorporeal substratum. To the chosen among His creatures He has given an inner eye which sees things as they really are, without any alteration. Reason is thus in a position to come to a conclusion regarding the true spirit of these things. He to whom this eye has been given is clear-sighted indeed. Other people who appear to him as blind, he guides on their way. It is possible that this eye is the power of imagination as long as it is under the control of the intellect. It beholds, then, a grand and awful sight which reveals unmistakable truths. The best proof of its truth is the harmony prevailing among the whole of this species and those sights. By this I mean all the prophets. For they witnessed things which one described to the other in the same manner as we do with things we have seen. We testify to the sweetness of honey and the bitterness of the coloquinth. and if anyone contradicts us, we say that he has failed to grasp a fact of natural history. Those prophets without doubt saw the divine world with the inner eye; they beheld a sight which harmonized with their natural imagination. Whatever they wrote down, they endowed with attributes as if they had seen them in corporeal form. These attributes are true as far as regards what is sought by inspiration, imagination, and feeling; they are untrue as regards the reality which is sought by reason, as we have seen in the parable of the king. For anyone who says that he is a tall, white figure clothed in silk, and wearing the royal insignia on his head has spoken no untruth. Whilst he who says that this is none other than the intelligent, sagacious person, who issues commands and prohibitions, in this city, in this age, and rules this people, has not spoken an untruth either. If a prophet sees with his mind's eye the most perfect figure ever beheld in the shape of a king or judge, seated on his throne, issuing commands and prohibitions, appointing and deposing officials, then he knows that this figure resembles a powerful prince. But if he sees a figure bearing arms or writing utensils, or ready to undertake work, then he knows that this figure resembles an obedient servant. Do not find it out of place that man should be compared to God. Upon deeper consideration reason might compare him to light, because this is the noblest and finest of all material things, and which has the greatest power of encompassing the component parts of the world. If we reflect on the attributes (which are essential whether they be taken in metaphorical or real sense) such as: living, omniscient, almighty, omnipotent, guiding, arranging, giving everything its due, wise and just, we shall find nothing resembling God more closely than the rational soul--in other words, the perfect human being. But here we must lay stress on his human character, not on his corporeality (which he has in common with the plant), or on his being endowed with life (which he has in common with the animals). Philosophers compared the world to a great man, and man to a small world. If this be so, God being the spirit, soul, intellect and life of the world--as He is called: the eternally Living, then rational comparison is plausible. Nay, a prophet's eye is more penetrating than speculation. His sight reaches up to the heavenly host direct, he sees the dwellers in heaven, and the spiritual beings which are near God, and others in human form. They are alluded to in the verse: 'Let us make man in our image after our likeness' (Genesis 1:26). The meaning is: I have displayed wisdom in arranging the creation in the following order: elements, metals, animals which live in the water as well as in the air, and those with fully developed senses and wonderful instincts. Next to this class there is only one which approaches the divine and celestial. God created man in the form of His angels and servants which are near Him, not in place but in rank, as we cannot speak of place in connexion with God. Even after these two comparisons, imagination can give him no other form than that of the noblest human being, who arranges order and harmony for the rest of mankind, in the same systematic way as God has done for the universe. At times the prophet sees princes deposed and others raised to the throne, and kingdoms judged, 'till the thrones were placed, and the Ancient of Days did sit' (Daniel 7:9); at other times he sees wrath poured out and the people in mourning on account of their threatened abandonment by Him, 'Who is sitting upon a throne high and lifted up . . . above it stood the seraphim.' (Isaiah 6:1, sq.). At other times, even outside the confines of prophecy, he sees the departure of the chariot as Ezekiel saw it, and retained it in his memory. For when the geographical limits of the land of prophecy were fixed, 'from the Red Sea, till the sea of the Philistines,' the desert of Sinai, Paran, Seir and Egypt were included. This area was also privileged. Whenever a person was found in it who fulfilled all the necessary conditions, these sights became distinctly visible to him, 'apparently, and not in dark speeches,' just as Moses saw the Tabernacle, the sacrificial worship, and the land of Canaan in all its parts; or in the scene when, 'the Lord passed by before him.' Elijah had a vision also within this area. These things, which cannot be approached by speculation, have been rejected by Greek philosophers, because speculation negatives everything the like of which it has not seen. Prophets, however, confirm it, because they cannot deny what they were privileged to behold with their mind's eye. Such a number of them, living as they did in various epochs, could not have acted upon some common understanding. These statements were borne out by contemporary sages who had witnessed their prophetic afflatus. Had the Greek philosophers seen them when they prophesied and performed miracles, they would have acknowledged them, and sought by speculative means to discover how to achieve such things. Some of them did, so especially gentile philosophers. The name Adonāi, (spelt alef, dalēth, nūn, yōd) must be understood in a similar way, because of the idea of divine sovereignty which it conveys. We say: 'O my Lord,' or, 'Messengership of the Lord,' which is another name for divine ordination. Some angels are only created for the time being from fine elementary corpuscles, others are lasting, and are perhaps those spiritual beings of which the prophets speak. We have neither to refute nor to adopt their views. Concerning the visions seen by Isaiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel, there is some doubt whether their objects were newly created, or of the number of those lasting spiritual beings. 'Glory of God' is that fine substance which follows the will of God, assuming any form God wishes to show to the prophet. This is one view. According to another view the Glory of God means the whole of the angels and spiritual beings, as well as the throne, chariot, firmament, wheels, spheres, and other imperishable beings. All this is styled 'Glory,' just as a king's retinue is called his splendour. Perhaps that was what Moses desired, when he said: 'I beseech Thee, shew me Thy glory.' God fulfilled his wish on the condition that he should not see His face which no mortal could endure, as He said: 'And thou shalt see My back parts, but My face shall not be seen.' This includes the glory which the prophet's eye could bear, and there are things in its wake which even our eye can behold, as the 'cloud,' and 'the devouring fire,' because we are accustomed to see them. The higher degrees of these are so transcendental that even prophets cannot perceive them. He, however, who boldly endeavours to do so impairs his constitution, even as the power of sight is impaired. People with weak eyes only see by subdued light after sunset, like the bat. Weak-eyed people can only see in the shadow, but people with strong eyes can see in sunlight. No eye, however, can look into the bright sun, and he who attempts to do so is stricken with blindness. Such is the explanation of the 'Glory of God,' 'the Angels of the Lord,' and the 'Shekhinah of the Lord,' as they are called in the Bible. Occasionally they are applied to objects of nature, e.g., 'Full is the whole earth of His glory,' (Isaiah 6:6), or, 'His kingdom ruleth over all' (Psalms 103:19). In truth, glory and kingdom do not become visible except to the pious, and the pure, and to the prophets who impart the conviction to the heretic that judgment and rule on earth belong to God, who knows every action of man. If this be so, it can truly be said, 'The Lord is King,' and 'the Glory of God shall be revealed.' 'The Lord shall reign for ever, thy God O Zion, unto all generations,' 'Say ye to Zion, thy God reigneth,' 'the Glory of the Lord is risen upon thee.' Now thou wilt not reject everything that has been said concerning such verses as: 'The similitude of the Lord shall he behold' (Num. xii. 8), 'they saw the Lord of Israel,' nor ma‘asēh merkābāh and Shēur Kōmàh, because in the opinion of some interpreters the reverence of God is implanted in the human mind, as it is written: 'That His fear may be before your faces.'