The Creation of the World בראשית א:א-ב:ג

1. Review your notes and the questions you came up with about the Creation story.

2. Choose 1-2 questions that you would like to explore in more depth.

3. Add those questions under the relevant "day" below (you can expand on or amend the question).

4. Use the tools of Sefaria to begin to answer your question(s).

5. Post any secondary sources you find useful in answering your question(s) below the questions.

6. EXPLAIN the secondary sources you have chosen - what they say and why you chose them

7. Summarize, in no more than 2 sentences, the answer to your question(s) as you now understand it.

What does saying that "it was so" add to the text?

Answer:

And it was so: It wrote on the first [day], "and there was light" [immediately] after "And God said, 'let there be light;'" - after the saying, it explained that it was materialized, and it was as it had been decreed; but here after the saying of, "let there be a firmament," it is written, "And God made a firmament and he separated" - and [so,] why did it add, "and it was so." Rather, it is say that it was to be like this always, all the days of the world.

"and it was so": it remained thus against its nature

EXPLANATION:

The commentators are both saying that adding "and it was so" is saying that whatever God is making, it will stay and it will be permanent.

I chose this source because it gives us a straight forward and relatable understanding of the text. Using this commentary, I feel that the text says "it was so" in order to mark down what is happening and make it permanent and more significant.

Responding to Talia: "And it was so" is said after many instances of God creating something, but I wonder why it is in those specific places and not other places because it doesn't say "and it was so" after everything that God created. Also, wouldn't it be expected that what God created would be permanent?

Responding to Talia: Why do you think Sforno says "Against its nature?" Do you think this means that God's creations aren't meant to be permanent?

Responding to Talia: Why do you think the words "It was so" were included in this certain pat of the text. In some other parts it says "it was good" to describe G-d's work. Why not here? Was it not good?

why did God call שמים, רקיע?

Rashi: "ויקרא אלהים לרקיע שמים AND GOD CALLED THE EXPANSE HEAVEN — The word “שמים”, Heaven, may be regarded as made up of שא מים “Carry water”, or שם מים “There is water”, or אש ומים “Fire and water”. He mingled fire with water and of them He made the heavens (Chagigah 12a)."

Explanation: Rashi gave three possible explanations to the question. The first is "carry water", the meaning is that in the sky there is water (rain). The second explanation is similar to the first one and it is that "there is water" meaning there is water in the sky. The last explanation is "Fire and water" meaning that God made the sky by combining fire and water.

My Answer: I think the best explanation is the first one because the word שמים is and exact combination of שא and מים, carry water.

Why did God say on the third day "כי טוב" twice and on the second day he didn't say it even once, considiring that in all other days he said it once?

Shadal: "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."

Explanation: Shadal explains that the reason that God didn't say "כי טוב" on the second day was because the firmament the He created wasn't finished yet and it was "chaos and void". Only when He finished with the work of the water and the land was ready for the rain to fall onto the face of the dry land and ready to propagate and make it grow vegetation then he could say it. That why he didn't say "כי טוב" on the second day and on the third day he said it twice once for the waters and once for the other creations He did that day.

My Answer: Every end of the day, when God finished his creation he said "כי טוב". At the end of the second day God didn't finish dealing with the waters. At the third day He finished dealing with the waters, said "כי טוב" and then created other things and by the end of the day said "כי טוב" for these things, that why he didn't it at the end of the second day and said it twice on the third day.

1. Why are animals called beasts?

According to Ibn Ezra, "[domesticated] beasts" - they are with human beings, for their needs - riding and eating. ​​​​​He says that the purpose of the wild beast is to help humans which is why they are called beasts. He also says "the animals of the earth" - they are in the unsettled wilds [lit. - fields]. The final vav of the word hayto (animals) is added [i.e., extra], like l'may'no mayim Psalm 114:8, b'no b'or Numbers 24:3.

This means that they are called wild beasts because they are wild and not domesticated. They are there to help the humans so they don't need to be called animals or have a category. He says they are there for the humans riding and food needs. According to chapter 2:8 of the English explanation of Mishana Birkkuin, animals were called beasts, because they did not fit into a certain category. In Isaiah 65, animals are mentioned as beasts again,

" כֹּ֖ל חַיְת֣וֹ שָׂדָ֑י אֵתָ֕יוּ לֶאֱכֹ֥ל כָּל־חַיְת֖וֹ בַּיָּֽעַר׃ (ס) צפו [צֹפָ֞יו] עִוְרִ֤ים כֻּלָּם֙ לֹ֣א יָדָ֔עוּ כֻּלָּם֙ כְּלָבִ֣ים אִלְּמִ֔ים לֹ֥א יוּכְל֖וּ לִנְבֹּ֑חַ הֹזִים֙ שֹֽׁכְבִ֔ים אֹהֲבֵ֖י לָנֽוּם׃"

In this chapter, they are referring to wild beasts. I think that the Torah uses the word beast to give a broad definition of the animal instead of categorizing it. It leaves the Rabbis to categorize it for themselves later.

In response to Aviva: It seems as though the commentators are saying that our definition of beast is different from that of the Torah. In the Torah it seems as though beast just means a non-domesticated animal whereas today it would be more barbarish.

In verse 26, why does God say "Let us make man in our image" and not in my/His image?

According to Rashi, the Rabbis believe that God says "Let us" instead of referring to just Himself because God is humble.

"The meekness of the Holy One, blessed be He, they (the Rabbis) learned from here: because the man is in the likeness of the angels and they might envy him, therefore He took counsel with them (Midrash Tanchuma, Shemot 18 and see Genesis Rabbah 8)."

Rashi says that God consulted His "heavenly council" when He was creating man, which is why He says "us" and "our." This demonstrates God's humility because God is giving others the credit that they deserve.

I chose this Rashi commentary because it explains why God references multiple beings in the creation of man rather than just himself. It effectively answers my question in a way that makes sense.

Responding to Kayla: The creation of man by God is considered to be a very important milestone, and maybe that's the reason why God consulted his "heavenly council". It is interesting to see if God consulted with the "heavenly council" in other situations written in the bible.

Responding to Kayla: Do you think making G-d humble is a form of personification?

Response to Kayla: Why does God need to consult anyone? If he is so powerful couldn't he have done this on his own. Also, I agree with you saying that God is humble because admitting to have received help on something so big is a very humble thing to do. He did not take all the credit.

Why do we think Adam was created before Eve if they were created in the same Pasook?

Rashi - "זכר ונקבה ברא אותם MALE AND FEMALE CREATED HE THEM — And further on (Genesis 2:21) it is said: “and He took one of his ribs etc.” (The two passages appear to be contradictory.) But according to a Midrashic explanation, He created him at first with two faces, and afterwards He divided him. But the real sense of the verse is: here it tells you that both of them were created on the sixth day, but it does not explain to you how their creation took place; this it explains to you in another place (Genesis Rabbah 8:1 and see Eruvin 18a)"

- summary: This pasook says G-d created Adam and Eve at the same time which seemingly goes against a later passage that says Eve was made from Adam's rib; however, Rashi interprets this to mean that at first G-d created a being that was both male and female (with 2 faces) and later separates them into man and woman.

- I chose this because it provides some context that I agreed with but provided further understanding to the text by saying that both passages are correct as Eve was created at the same time from Adam but was also taken from his rib. This left me still confused so I found another passage:

Bereishit Rabbah 8:1-

... Said R’ Yirmiyah ben Elazar: In the hour when the Holy One created the first human, He created him [as] an androgyne/androginos, as it is said, “male and female He created them”. Said R’ Shmuel bar Nachmani: In the hour when the Holy One created the first human, He created [for] him a double-face/di-prosopon/ du-par’tsufin, and sawed him and made him backs, a back here and a back [t]here, as it is said, “Back/achor and before/qedem You formed me” [Ps 139:5]. They objected to him: But it says, “He took one of his ribs/ts’la`ot . . . ” [Gn 2:21]! He said to them: [It means] “[one] of his sides/sit’rohi”, just as you would say, “And for the side/tsela` of the Tabernacle/ mishkan” [Ex 26:20], which they translate [in Aramaic] “for the side/seter”.

- summary: At first G-d created a person who was both male and female and then later cut them in half which is seen as Eve being created from Adam's rib.

- I chose this because it agrees with what Rashi says but goes further to explain how Eve and Adam being cut apart is the equivalent to Eve being created from Adam's rib as she was physically cut from the side of him.

Responding to Sophie: I think the explanation that God created Adam and Eve as one person and then separated them into two different human beings is interesting and maybe the reason God did it this way was because he wanted to show the equality between the genders. If the description was first one gender and then the other gender then the first one would have been shown as superior to the other.

Response to Sophie: If God is supposed to be perfect and everything He does is supposed to have intention, why would he separate Adam and Eve? Was their initial connection a mistake?

Responding to Sophie: I find it interesting that Eve was created from Adam's rib. Why was it like that? Why was Eve created from Adam and Adam not created from Eve? It seems like Adam was the dominant part of their two beings being connected. Also, why wouldn't they be cut from each other? Why was it just Eve who was cut apart?

Responding to Sophie: I find that Eve coming from Adam is a very interesting concept, and also wonder why Eve came from Adam rather than the opposite? Additionally, to me, at first it seemed like it was trying to make Adam and Eve equal by making them at the same time, but then the part about Eve coming from Adam kind of goes against that- this makes me wonder, if there was not necesarilly a motivation to make them equal, why they didn't just make Adam first or vice versa.

Answer: In the third verse it says "וַיְבָ֤רֶךְ אֱלֹהִים֙ אֶת־י֣וֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִ֔י וַיְקַדֵּ֖שׁ אֹת֑וֹ" meaning that God blessed the seventh day and made it holy. Ramban commented on this verse of the chapter and said, "And the truth is that the blessing on the Shabbat day is the source of blessings and it is the foundation of the world; 'and He sanctified it,' that it should draw from the holy." This comment can help explain why פרק ב was chosen to be the Kiddush, the blessing over a cup of wine every Shabbat. Ramban's comment means that the Kiddush was chosen to be these words because it is the source of all blessings and it was the foundation of the world, these words. I chose this source because it helps answer my question. From this source, I can deduce that an answer to this question might be that the verses that we read in the Kiddush proclaims the holiness of Shabbat that God recited in the creation of the world and that is why we read it every Friday night. We read it to follow God's commandment of the holiness of Shabbat that was the foundation for everything else to come.

Responding to Maya: I understand from this that the Kiddush is very important and gives us a foundation, but why is it read for the wine/only on Shabbat? If it is a foundation for everything else and let's us remember the creation of the world, why wouldn't it be a prayer said every day?