פרשת שמות מדרשים בענין המטה וענין שנברא ע"ש בין השמשות

יהוה said to him, “What is that in your hand?” And he replied, “A rod.”

And take with you this rod, with which you shall perform the signs.”

“Take the staff…” (Bamidbar 20:8) This is what the scripture says “The staff of your might the Lord will send from Zion…” (Psalms 110:2) This is the staff which was in the hand of our father Yaakov, as it says “…for with my staff I crossed…” (Genesis 32:11) And it is the staff which was in the hand of Yehudah, as it says “Your signet, your cloak, and the staff that is in your hand.” (Genesis 38:18) And it was in the hand of Moshe, as it says “And you shall take this staff in your hand…” (Exodus 4:17) And it was in the hand of Aharon, as it says “Aaron cast his staff…” (Exodus 7:10) And it was in the hand of David, as it says “And he took his staff in his hand…” (Samuel I 17:40) And it was in the hand of every king until the Holy Temple was destroyed, and so in the future that very staff will be given to the King Messiah and with it he will rule over the nations of the world in the future. Therefore it says “The staff of your might the Lord will send from Zion…” (Psalms 110:2)…

ואת המטה הזה תקח בידך, "and take this staff in your hand, etc." According to the Zohar section 3 page 28 there were two staffs. The Torah then spoke about "this one" to tell Moses that he should not take the other staff.

אשר תעשה בו את האותות, "the one with which you will perform the miracles." This may be a reference to the staff with which Aaron performed such miracles as turning it into a snake (7,10). According to the Zohar we have just quoted that staff became known as "the staff of Aaron;" G'd had commanded Aaron also to have his staff ready at all times. According to Targum Yonathan 2,21 the staff was made of sapphire and no one was able to even move it except Moses. Accordingly, the very fact that Moses could "take" it was a miracle in itself. The words וזה לך האות therefore meant that no one but Moses would be able to handle the staff.

THE CREATION ON THE EVE OF THE SABBATH
TEN things were created (on the eve of the Sabbath) in the twilight (namely): the mouth of the earth; the mouth of the well; the mouth of the ass; the rainbow; the Manna; the Shamir; the shape of the alphabet; the writing and the tables (of the law); and the ram of Abraham. (Some sages say: the destroying spirits also, and the sepulchre of Moses, and the ram of Isaac; and other sages say: the tongs also.)

Ten things were created on the eve of Shabbat at twilight, and these are they: The mouth of the earth; and the mouth of the well; and the mouth of the donkey; and the rainbow; and the manna; and the staff [of Moshe]; and the shamir; and the letters; and the writing; and the tablets. And some say, "Also the demons; and the grave of Moshe; and the ram of Avraham, our father." And some say, "And also tongs made with tongs." Ten things were created at twilight: It may be asked why these things were grouped together to be created at twilight and not during the day; and why specifically the twilight of Shabbat eve? And the Rambam, may his memory be blessed, (in his Commentary on the Mishnah here) explains something about this mishnah that the Sages did not have in mind. As he wanted to say that the opinion of the Sages was that His will does not diverge at any time. Rather (according to the Rambam), their opinion was that God, may He be blessed, placed into the nature of things on the six days of creation to do a given miracle, such that a miracle could be done and there would not be a divergence in His will. And he said that this is also their opinion in that which they said in the Midrash (Bereshit Rabbah 5:5), "Rabbi Yochanan said, 'The Holy One, blessed be He, stipulated a condition with the acts of creation, such that the sea should split, and the fire should not burn Channaniah, Mishael, etc.'" And the Rambam, may his memory be blessed, wrote in his book (Guide for the Perplexed II:29) that it was exceedingly difficult for [the Sages] that nature would change after the creation, or that there would be a divergence in [His] will after it was set like this. And that is why they said that the Holy One, blessed be He, placed into nature from the beginning of creation that a miracle would occur at a certain time - such that He [already] did the miracle and there would not be any change of [His] will here. That is how he explains the words of the Sages. And the Sages certainly did not have in mind - not in this mishnah and not in the words of the Midrash (Bereshit Rabbah 5:5) - that God, may He be blessed, placed into the creation on the six days of creation that a miracle would occur at its time because this would [otherwise] be a change of [God's] will. For these things do not have a basis or foundation at all. As how can we explain this mishnah - given that behold, it said, "Ten things were created at twilight": For why were these miracles not done like the other miracles that He placed into the nature of things when He created them, such that the miracle would occur with them at their time? And when He created water on the second day, he put into its nature that it would split when Israel would come to the Sea, and likewise with the other miracles. So too would it have been appropriate on the day that He created the earth (Genesis 1:1), that there be an opening made for when Korach would argue about the priesthood (Numbers 16:32). And likewise, the other things that were mentioned here that were created on the eve of Shabbat at twilight. And likewise, should the words of the Midrash not be understood like this at all - that this is why the Holy One, blessed be He, made a condition with the sea that it should split: Because the Sages, may their memory be blessed, found it difficult that there be a change in nature or a change in [His] will. This is not so. For if it were that a change in [His] will was what was difficult for them, they would not have said this about miracles alone. Rather [they] would also have said this about what was not a miracle - that the Holy One, blessed be He, ordered it from the creation, so that there would not be a change here, but rather that the Holy One, blessed be He, had wanted to do it from the six days of creation. But according to this, that which it is written (Exodus 32:14), "And the Lord renounced the punishment He had said to bring upon His people," would be nullified. For God, may He be blessed, changed His will. Yet if it is [only] because divergence in nature was difficult for them, about that thing it should be admitted that it was difficult for them. However, if he wanted to say that it was because God, may He be blessed, is not able to change nature - like those who believed in the pre-existence (eternity) of the world believed - that was certainly not the opinion of the Sages. For if we say that change in nature was difficult in the eyes of the Sages, then how is it an answer that God, may He blessed placed it into nature on the six days of creation that there be a change? So what? At the end of the day, how is it possible that God, may He be blessed did a miracle - whether God put a change in nature during the creation during the six days of creation or afterwards? And if God, may He be blessed, can change nature and put it into the nature of water that it can split and that of fire that it not burn - if so, then the Holy One, blessed be He, can also do this at the time of the miracle. So why should He do it specifically during the six days of creation? For it cannot be said that since this potential was placed into them on the six days of creation, this thing becomes nature. For how could it be something natural for fire not to burn? Rather it is impossible not to say that this is not natural. And, if so, He can also [do] it not on the six days of creation. But if his opinion is that for [the following] was it placed into the nature of things on the six days of creation that they would change - not because the Holy One, blessed be He, is not able to do what He wants; but rather his opinion was that it is because God, may He be blessed, made the world complete, and 'there is nothing new under the sun,' that God, may He be blessed, make a new creature in the world [- such a view would be acceptable]. For [a diversion from this order in the world] is not appropriate, as it would be considered the destruction of the world along with its preservation. And it would be as if the two opposites would be together - as the preservation of the world would also be found with its destruction. So there is no doubt that if God, may He be blessed, had not placed into the potential of the world to accept a change like this, there would have been a destruction of the world. And it is completely impossible to say something like that. And therefore they said, "The Holy One, blessed be He, stipulated a condition with the acts of creation." As He did not make a condition only with those mentioned - because God, may He be blessed, knew that Israel would need this miracle in the end - as the matter is not like this. Rather, he made a condition with the [entire] natural world: That sometimes, God, may He be blessed, will act not according to nature. And this condition is that this natural world is connected with the separated world. So because this world is connected with the separated world and there is no partition made between them, [a miracle] is subsequently not considered destruction to the natural world at all. For this is why this world was connected with the separated world: Because at a time of need, this world clings to the separated world and a miracle occurs. And He did not leave this world completely in the hands of nature; as then, there would have been a change in the world when there was a miracle. But God, may He be blessed, 'established the world upon its foundations.' And hence it said, "A condition, etc." - meaning to say, that He did not give over the world completely to nature. Rather he connected the natural world with the separated world, such that there would be the potential to change it without there being a change in creation - such that the miracle would also be in this world that God, may He be blessed, created on the six days of creation. And that is the explanation of the words of the Sages. But that change in nature be difficult to them from the angle that He is not able, God forbid, to change [things] - this thing is not the case at all. Rather it is that the Holy One, blessed be He, does not destroy the order of His world. So the Holy One, blessed be He, made a condition with the world - meaning to say, that He did not completely give over the world to nature. Rather at a time of need, the Holy One, blessed be He, would generate wonders according to His will. And with this, there is no destruction to the world that the Holy One, blessed be He, created. Or [if Rambam meant] that a change in [God's] will would be difficult for [the Sages], such that God, may He be blessed, diverge from [one] will to [another], as he said - this is [also] not the case. And because the opinion of the philosophers is that His intellect and His will are His essence, if there was a change in His will, there would be a change in His essence - [so] they said that there is no change in [His] will. And how very far are these things from knowledge! For, if so, why would Israel have needed prayer at the time of the splitting of the Reed Sea (Exodus 14:10)? If it had been placed into nature to split the Sea for them, behold it would be necessary that this happen; and if it had not been placed into the nature of the sea, it would not happen. Yet about this and that which is similar to it, the Rambam, may his memory be blessed, said that His knowledge, may He be blessed, does not determine [the outcome of] what is possible in nature. Even though He, may He be blessed, knows everything with His prescient Will, His knowledge does not determine [what happens]. And even though we cannot know in our mind how this thing can be configured - is His knowledge, may His Name be blessed, not His essence? And since we cannot know His essence, we cannot know His knowledge. And with this, he removed all of the arguments, which are necessitated by this, against him - if we say that everything is arranged before [one] arrives. And all of this is because of this convention, that His knowledge is His essence, may He be blessed - as has been explained. But we say that they have loaded upon themselves something that will not yield the knowledge of truth; and this thing is not found in the words of the Sages. And we have already elaborated at length about this in the book, Gevurot HaShem, in the (second) introduction - that it should not be said that His knowledge is His essence. And we brought a proof from the words of the Torah and from the words of the Sages that knowledge is from the actions of God, may He be blessed - as it is found in the usage, "and God knew" (Exodus 2:25). If so, knowledge is from His actions, and not His essence. So why should we contradict that which is written in every place? And [these are our words] there: "And when we say that His knowledge is not His Essence, it will no longer be difficult to you that His knowledge (is His essence) [changes], such that His essence changes - for His essence is not His knowledge." Behold we have explained with this that it should not be said - like the philosophers said - that His essence is His knowledge. Rather knowledge is is one of His actions, may He be blessed. And it is like it is with the soul. For knowledge is necessitated by the soul, but the essence of the soul is not knowledge. As this thing is not so. Rather, the soul effectuates knowledge. And the Rabbis, may their memory be blessed - the masters of truth - compared the soul to God, may He be blessed. As they said in the first chapter of Berakhot (10a), "Just like the soul sees and is not seen, etc." Hence we said that His essence is not knowledge. And we have not diminished anything at all on account of our saying His essence is not His knowledge. And hence we said there, "And maybe they will say, 'If His essence is not physical or spiritual - if so, what is His essence?" We would [then] answer them, 'And is a person able to understand the true [nature] of the soul inside the body?'" You must note that which we have said, that a person should learn from the soul in man. And these are actually the words of the Sages, who compare God, may He be blessed, to the soul - as we can see from their words in the Gemara in Berakhot (10a), and in several places in the Midrash of the Sages. And a person should learn from their understanding, for they knew the inner recesses of wisdom. Yet there is no person who would say that the essence of the soul is the knowledge of things. Rather the soul grasps and knows [things]. And behold they said that we cannot know His nature; so they said, "If I knew Him, I would be Him." And by saying that His knowledge is not His essence, we have not, God forbid, gone out to say that there is a matter of multiplicity in Him that would go beyond the root of unity or that there would, God forbid, be some addition. For the matter is not like this at all. But this is rather like the other actions that come from Him, [all of] which do not necessitate multiplicity. For, "knows," and, "is able," and those descriptions which are similar to it, do not necessitate His multiplicity, since they are all actions; and [the philosophers] have already agreed that descriptions of an action do not necessitate multiplicity at all. And when God, may He be blessed, knows that something is like this; and afterwards when it changes, He knows that it is not like this - as with a man who is righteous and God, may He be blessed, knows that he is righteous; but He knows afterwards that he is evil when he becomes evil, and likewise all things that change - it would not be said about it, that there is a change in His knowledge. Rather it would be said that the actions have changed - like when He does one action and afterwards an action different from [the first]. So too when He knows something now that it is like this; and afterwards He knows it to be different when the thing has changed - that is a change in action. And this change is from the angle of the recipient [of the action]. It is like when God, may He be blessed creates one [creature] male and [another] female - that is also from the angle of the recipient: When the recipient is prepared to receive the form of a male, it is made into a male; and when it is prepared to receive the form of a female, it is made a female. And likewise in that very case, when the recipient is like this, the knowledge of God, may He be blessed, is that it is like this; and when it is different, the knowledge of God, may He be blessed, is that it is different. Nevertheless, that knowledge is one of His actions - as Scripture writes (Exodus 2:25), "and God knew." [This is obvious] to the point that I say that those people [who understood it as a change in His essence] did not see clear light. And behold I heard that there was a certain man in Poland who, when he read my words in Gevurot HaShem (the second introduction), assembled the masses and 'expanded his mouth without measure' - [to say] that this thing departs from the Faith. And he spoke many words of emptiness and foolishness - all of this to become great and honored in front of people that do not know. They are like the people of this generation of ours who read books that the spirit of the Sages did not find pleasing and are from the third temperament among those who sit before the Sages (Avot 5:15, i.e. "the strainer, which lets the wine out and retains the sediment.") And he made all this noise against me, since I said that His knowledge is not His essence, but from His actions. And behold this 'expander' - why did he not 'expand his mouth' and question the words of the Zohar (1:81b, 3:109b) and all of the honored books authored by the masters of the Kabbalah. And do they say that His essence is the intellect? Rather behold they only compared the Holy One, blessed be He, to the soul, from which come all of the capabilities. And you will find this in all of their words, and it is the opinion of the Rabbis, may their memory be be blessed, as we said above (Paragraph 9). And our honorable teacher, the rabbi, Rabbi Meir (Gabbai), may his memory be blessed, wrote (in Avodat Hakodesh) in the Section on Unification in Chapter (11) [12] - and this is his language: "And the sages of the truth (Kabbalah) called the Holy One, blessed be He, Soul - for He is the soul to all of His characteristics, etc." Behold you see that He, may He be blessed, is the soul of His characteristics - which are the emanations. And this thing indicates to you that it should not be said that His knowledge - which is the wisdom (chokhmah) and the understanding (binah) - are His essence. So according to those that say that His knowledge is His essence, there is no room for the words of the Kabbalists. And we should not elaborate [about this] in this place. The general principle of [these] words is that these people are disagreeing with all of the words of the Kabbalah - such that anyone who understands things about this topic will know that it is all based on the wisdom of the Kabbalah. As the whole opinion of those who disagree is only that everything is His essence, may He be blessed, yet no description can be given to Him, as is explained in their words. And people who have heard their words, which - on account of our many iniquities - have spread, [situate these words of theirs as if the thing was in the Torah of Moshe, peace be upon him; such that they are bewildered when a man says something against it. However, when [one of them] studies the words of Kabbalah, he also gives them a place and instructs them, since they are words of truth. But given that [he thinks the previous idea is also] true, he does not know that he is gathering two things together, one of which contradicts the other. [He will then think] it is only the language that differentiates them - this is said in the language of the sages of the Kabbalah and that is said in the language of the philosophers - as if that resolved the contradictions found between them. And all of this is from the foolishness of the intellect of people who will not understand. For if one knows and understands the things, he will then know that they are as distant from one another as can be. And would it cross a person's mind to say that, according to the sages of the Kabbalah, everything would be His essence, and that there could be no description of Him, may He be blessed? And if so, what are His attributes? And if there can be no description of Him besides negations (i.e. He is not x), what would the word, emanations, refer to? And who is the one who would have this enter his mind, to make a comparison between these two things? And those that follow the philosophers thought that this is complete unity, and it is on account of this that they said these things. So people think that one who veers from these words of theirs is, God forbid, against [God's] unity. Yet all of this has no substance at all. For such a thing is not at all against His unity, may He be blessed. But this is not the place for this. And I said at the beginning of my words in the Book, Gevurot HaShem (the second introduction), that for us - the students of our teacher, Moshe, peace be upon him - the matter is not like this. And it is certainly not like this. For we cannot say that His knowledge is His essence, may He be blessed. And note that this thing can be seen from all the words of the Sages, as we said above. And the wonderous rabbi wrote further - and this is his language in the Section on Unification in Chapter 12 (at the beginning): "The diversity of [His] names and the number of the sefirot do not necessitate multiplicity in God, etc.... And they are called many names according to the variation of the aspects combined with His actions, according to the variation of the recipients; and they say about them, that they are the ten sefirot. And the proof of this is what they said in Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer, etc." This is testimony that the multiplicity of the sefirot is from the angle of the multiplicity of His actions, may He be blessed. Behold you should note that the multiplicity of sefirot - among which wisdom (chokhmah) and understanding (binah) are counted - is according to the multiplicity of actions. And you will find this thing in all of his chapters - that the sefirot are according to His actions - as you will find in Chapter 9, and in all of the chapters of the Section on Unification. It is just that the listeners are bewildered when they are told that He is a simple Unity; and that anyone who does not accept their words is as if he, God forbid, is veering from [His] unity. But the matter is not like this. For one can master this with complete understanding from the words of the Sages, and not gather together two opposites. Yet behold, they say that God, may He be blessed is a simple Oneness and He does not have any positive description, only negative [ones]. But what help are these words that are [only] said with the mouth? As behold He, may He be blessed, is the Cause of this world and its Mover. And is it possible to say in any way that this thing - that He is the Creator of the world and the Master of the world - is not some type of description? And what help will it be when we say that He has no description and that the descriptions of God, may He be blessed, are [only] negative? They say this; yet the descriptions of God, may He be blessed, exist by virtue of His creating the world. And this is impossible unless the world refers back to God, may He be blessed, with a description, by virtue of His creating the world. And the rabbi, Rabbi Chasdai (Crescas) already critiqued this - his words cited by the author of Neveh Shalom, Essay 12, Teaching 1. Even though the author of Neveh Shalom dismisses the words of the aforementioned rabbi, the words of the rabbi, Rabbi Chasdai are [correct]. And why did [Maharal's critic, see Paragraph 11] not 'expand his mouth' against the [anonymous commentary on the] book Maarakhet Elokut, [who wrote] in the ninth chapter, and these are his words: "Know that descriptions are dependent upon a subject. So no activity (a type of description) can have existence without a doer (a type of subject). Whereas the subject does not depend on it, it depends on the subject. And so (since a description can be understood as an appendage or an addition,) the sages of [philosophical] inquiry completely distanced descriptions from God, may He be blessed. However the Kabbalists attached descriptions - that do not add - to God, may He be exalted. [This is] similar to the sun and its rays. For the sun is called, the sphere of the sun or the great light, and its rays are called, sun. And it is known that the rays are not something that adds to the sphere. And it has two names, such that [the rays] are descriptions that do not add. So the Kabbalists attached to Him, names that do not add to Him. And the Kabbalists gave these descriptions a general name - and that is the expression, sefirot." You should note that the sages of the Kabbalah disagree with the philosophers about this very thing: For according to the words of the Kabbalists, there are direct descriptions of Him, may He be blessed. And if so, according to the words of [the commentary on] the Maarakhet, the sefirot - which are wisdom and understanding, and the other sefirot - are only just descriptions. But it should not be said that they are His essence at all. And [about] that which he wrote, that [the philosophers] distanced descriptions from God, may He be blessed, since if He had descriptions, it would add to His essence - the rabbi, Rabbi Chasdai already dismissed this matter with clear intelligence, as it is explained in the book, Neveh Shalom. And we wrote there that those who say that His essence is His intellect are the ones that are giving Him limits. For intellect is the knowledge of something with the intellect, as it [actually] is - outside of the intellect. So behold, they are giving him limits, whereas He, may He be blessed, has no limits at all. And therefore we said that He, may He be blessed, is completely simple, such that He cannot be limited by anything; and that knowledge is from the actions, such that no change [to God] is necessitated from it at all, when knowledge changes. And let it not be difficult to you that [even though with] the actions that are necessitated by God, may He be blessed, the actions do not exist within Him - such that this thing does not require a change or addition or expansion in Him - however knowledge exists within the knower; such that if there is a change in His knowledge, that change would be a change within Him, may He be blessed. For this is certainly not a difficulty! As He, may He be blessed, knows, is powerful and is able - all of it with one ability - which is Himself from which all of these things are necessitated. And hence when He knows something; and afterwards knows that the matter is not like that - this is not a change in Himself. For He, may He be blessed, is what knows what He, may He be blessed, knows and is capable. But His essence is not the knowledge. For then, if that knowledge would change, that thing would be a change in His essence. But we will not say that. Rather we say that He knows, and is capable and all of the other propensities. And if so, there is no change in Him, may He be blessed, at all. Rather everything is necessitated by His essence. But because they say that His essence is His intellect - and according to that, his knowledge is His essence - because of that, it was difficult for them. As if so, it would be a change in His essence, may He be blessed. But the matter is not like this at all. For He, may He be blessed, knows and is capable and alive - all of it from One ability, may He be blessed, His self. But his knowledge is not His self; rather He knows. And because this knowledge is that He knows something besides Him, and that which He knows something besides Him [can] not be Himself - given that the essence of a thing cannot be outside of it - there is no change of knowledge in Him here, and it does not necessitate a change in Him at all. For He, may He be blessed is completely simple and, as a result, includes everything. For this is the matter of simplicity (as opposed to multiplicity) - that it is not defined by any specific thing. And because of this, it includes all knowledge. There is nothing outside of Him, and He knows everything. And that which it stated (Psalms 94:3), "How long shall the wicked," in which [the wicked] say (Psalms 94:7), "The Lord (Yod-hey) does not see, the God of Yaakov does not pay heed" - why does it mention this name of "Yod-hey," and why, "the God of Yaakov?" However the explanation is that it is because the name, Yod-hey, indicates that He is everything. As all of the names are included in the explicit name [of God], and the name, Yod-hey, includes the explicit name. And when spelled out in full (spelling out the letters), it is, Yod-vav-dalet-hey-alef, and that is [a numerical count] of twenty-six, like [that of] the explicit name. That is why it is wondering about the wicked: Since He is everything, it is impossible that something be hidden from Him. For if so, that thing that He does not know would be separated from Him, and He would not be everything. And it said, "the God of Yaakov does not pay heed" - meaning to say, that He, may He be blessed, is the separated Holy One. That is why He is called the God of Yaakov [here], as it has been explained several times. For Yaakov had this characteristic, to be a separated holy one - as it is written (Isaiah 29:23), "and they will sanctify the Holy One of Yaakov." So how could it be that the One who is separated and simple, who has no limits at all, not understand? Since He is completely simple, it is impossible to say this about Him. For if so, He would not be simple. Rather, He would have a limit - that He knows this thing, but does not know that thing. However since He is completely simple, it could not be said about Him that He knows this but does not know everything. Rather He knows everything from the angle of His simplicity, such that He is not limited by anything specific. And that which He knows that this thing is so, and that it is different when it changes - this change is only from the angle of the recipient [of his knowledge]. But regarding God, may He be blessed, there is no change here. For He is completely simple; and from that angle, He knows everything. And if so, how could this thing necessitate multiplicity or complexity? For, just the opposite - the knowledge that He knows is from the angle of His simplicity, as the verse (in Psalms) stated. And so long as we attribute that simplicity to Him, it is necessary that He have a knowledge that knows everything, and nothing be hidden from Him. And this thing is very clear, but we should not elaborate about it in this place at all. And perhaps we will merit - with the help of the One that gives life to all in His kindness, may He be blessed - to explain all of these things in a place designated for this (it appears that the reference is to a book that he did not have the chance to write). It is just because of some people that lack knowledge that I have needed to explain the thing - that a person should not hear about things like this, that they are like the words of the Sages, the masters of fear of the Master of Truth. And behold this man that 'expanded his mouth,' placed a blemish on himself, when he expressed words from his mouth. [But I am writing] to remove an obstacle - even though I say there will not be any people who are from the children of Avraham, the head of the believers, those that received the Torah of [our teacher] Moshe, peace be upon him, who will take his words to heart; and only, "Go away," must be said to his words. However, perhaps lest there be one that, God forbid, will turn to his words, it is appropriate to remove this obstacle. Behold he (Rabbi Eliezer Ashkenazi in Maaseh HaShem) wrote in Chapter 21 of the section he called, Maaseh Avot, and this is his language: And now I will tell you what can be said about this - according to what I will tell you in a very few words, and you will will illustrate them yourself. And that is that when we said that the Holy One, blessed be He, is not able to make another like Him, and the other impossibilities, it is not considered a lack in the nature of His ability. For impossibilities are not included in abilities. Likewise should it not be considered a lack in His knowledge, may He be blessed, when we say that once He created man and knew that he has free will, that His knowledge did not encompass that which [man] would actually do. For if it did encompass it, that knowledge would surely contradict His original knowledge that He knew that at the time of the creation of man, that he would have complete free will. And in my opinion, the intent of Rivash, may his memory be blessed, (Paragraph 118) was in this direction, even if he did not say the words according to this precise formula. To here is his language. And 'would only [the critci's] lips be struck dumb - lips of dishonesty that speak falsehood about the Righteous One of the world.' And can any man be found like this who does not concern himself with the honor of his Maker, to express words like these; to remove the knowledge of the future for that which has not been actualized, from God, may He be blessed? Yet in the Gemara in the chapter [entitled] Chelek (Sanhedrin 90b): "The Romans asked, 'From where [do we know] that the Holy One, blessed be He, revives the dead and knows what will be in the future, etc.,'" as it is explained there. Then you should note that this is the belief of the Sages - that God, may He be blessed, knows the future! And what can be answered to words like these that have no grasp or footing, and which have no place? Yet a man like this came to speak such words - as he said that there is no lack in His nature when His knowledge does not encompass that which has not been actualized. For if so, that knowledge would contradict His first knowledge, such that He knew at the time of his creation that man would have free will. Yet if knowledge is part of ability and perfection - as is known and clear, since (but) knowledge is a perfection and ignorance a lack - so it necessarily comes out from this that no knowledge should be removed from Him, and man should not be created with free will. For knowledge is more immediate to Him [than man's free will]. And are these words fitting for one with intelligence: That the knowledge of the creation of man - that he have free will - should be a cause of a lack and of ignorance, such that He would not know something that is in His ability to know? For that which He, may He be blessed is set apart from lack is from His essence, may He be blessed, without any cause. For He has no cause. And because He created man and he would have free will, that thing should activate ignorance in Himself? Just the opposite, His perfection and ability should necessitate that He know everything, and man not have free will at all! It is rather necessary that He knows like this, and not the opposite - that the creation of man with free will remove knowledge from Him, may He be blessed - since lack of knowledge would be a lack in Himself, God forbid. Is it not complete ignorance to express such words about Him? But His glory, may He be blessed, is in its place - blessed be He, and 'blessed be the name of His glory forever and ever, amen and amen.' And [regarding] that which he supported himself 'with cords of falsehood, and with cartropes of sin,' to a great tree (scholar) - meaning the Rivash, may his memory be blessed - we need not answer this. For it is obvious in front of everyone that there is no angle of content to his words. Just the opposite, [Rivash's] words are the opposite of this, as is obvious to all. God forbid to say like this about him! And the explanation of this mishnah: The cause that necessitated the Sages to say that there were things created on the eve of Shabbat at twilight - was this time of the eve of Shabbat at twilight. That is because the other twilights - which are not day and not night [but rather a doubt as to which it is] - what difference does it make? If it is day, behold, it is the time of the six days of creation; and if it is night, it is also the time of the six days of creation - so there is no novelty [in it being twilight]. But on the eve of Shabbat at twilight - since it is the twilight of holiness, it has a greater level than the other days of nature, which are not so much on a level. Yet it is impossible to say that nothing would be created, since it is not completely Shabbat. But it is [also] impossible to say that what would be created on it would be like that which was created on the six days of creation, since it is also not completely [from] the days of the week. And therefore on the eve of Shabbat at twilight, things that were above nature were created. And they were not natural like [those] that were created on the six days of creation. For all of these things are not natural. And all of this is because twilight on the eve of Shabbat is above the six days of nature, just as Shabbat - due to its holiness - is above the six days of creation. Hence it is impossible that the twilight of the eve of Shabbat be without creation, since Shabbat - which is complete rest - had not yet began. But it is [also] impossible that natural things would be created on it, since it is on more of a level than the six days of creation. And therefore these things were created which were not completely natural, but they were close to nature. For all of these things were physical things. So from the angle of their being physical, they are natural things. But from the angle of their not being like other natural things, they depart from nature. And we say about this that they were created at twilight on the eve of Shabbat. And it has already been explained that the number ten is appropriate for anything that has holiness; and 'there is no holiness with less than ten' - as has been explained above several times. And it is something that is very understood. So therefore, they taught in the mishnah, "Ten things were created on the eve of Shabbat at twilight" - because there is an aspect of holiness to the time of the eve of Shabbat at twilight, in that it departs from the six days of creation, which are mundane. And hence ten things were created at this time by itself. [This is] like the world being created though all of the six days of creation with ten utterances (Avot 5:1), from the angle of the world clinging to the highest level, which is indicated by the number ten - as it has been explained. And likewise were ten things created [at this time] from the angle of the time of twilight - since it has holiness from the angle of it being twilight [on the eve of Shabbat]; and ten is applicable to all holiness. And in the chapter [entitled] Makom SheNahagu (Pesachim 54a), it is written: And was our fire [created] at the (eve) [conclusion] of Shabbat? Wasn’t it taught [in a baraita], "Ten things were created on the eve of Shabbat at twilight, and these are they: The well; and the manna; and the rainbow; and the letters; and the writing; and the tablets; and the grave of Moshe; and the cave in which Moshe and Eliyahu stood; and the opening of the mouth of the donkey; and the opening of the mouth of the earth to swallow up the wicked. Rabbi Nechemiah said in the name of his father, 'Also fire; and the mule.' Rabbi Yoshiyah said in the name of his father, 'Also the ram (found and slaughtered by Avraham); and the shamir.' Rabbi Yehudah says, 'Also the tongs.'" He would say, "Tongs can be made [only] with tongs, [so] who made the first tongs? Indeed, it was made by the hands of the Heavens." They said to him, "It is possible to make tongs with a mold and align it." To here [is the Gemara]. And also there: Ten things were created on the eve of Shabbat at twilight, and these are they: The well; and the manna; and the rainbow; and the letters; and the writing; and the tablets; and the grave of Moshe; and the cave in which Moshe and Eliyahu stood; and the opening of the mouth of the donkey; and the opening of the mouth of the earth to swallow up the wicked. And some say, "Also the staff of Aharon, its almonds and its blossoms." And some say, "Also the demons." And some say, "Also the garments of the first Adam." To here [is the Gemara]. And in our mishnah, not all the versions are the same. For in some texts, it is written, "And some say, 'Also the demons; and the grave of Moshe; and the ram of Avraham.' And some say, 'Also tongs made with tongs.'" And in some versions, it is written, "And some say, 'The ram of Yitzchak; and the grave of Moshe.' And some say, 'Also the demons; and the tongs.'" And I did not know how to understand this, as it connects two things together that have no connection. For that which it said in the baraita - "Also the ram; and the shamir" - they are two comparable things, as they are both creatures. So they are comparable and similar. And "the fire; and the mule" - even though it appears that they are not comparable - are certainly comparable, as it says there: Rabbi Yosei says, "Two things arose in thought to be created on Shabbat eve, but were not created until the conclusion of Shabbat. At the conclusion of Shabbat, the Holy One, blessed be He, granted Adam, the first man, understanding similar to divine knowledge, and he brought two rocks and rubbed them against each other, and fire emerged from them. [Adam also] brought two animals and mated them with each other, and a mule emerged from them." To here [is the Gemara]. Behold that these two things are comparable - for their completion is by the hands of man. Because with fire, it was man that actualized it; since the fire was only in potential, meaning in the rock from which the fire emerged. And likewise the mule, was only a potentiality in the animals - meaning in the male and in the female. But he joined them together, and a mule emerged from them - as with the joining of the stones. And we have already elaborated [on this] in a different place (Beer HaGolah 2); and this is not its place. But demons and tongs are not similar. And likewise if the [correct] version is, "the demons; and the grave of Moshe, and the ram of Avraham" - these three have no connection to each other. And therefore I say that the correct version [should be]: "The ram of Yitzchak; and the grave of Moshe" - since the ram and the grave are comparable - since they were both needed by great righteous men, as will be explained. "And some say, 'Also the demons.' And some say, 'Also tongs made with tongs.'" And so does the [correct] version appear to be. And then the mishnah is comparable to the baraitas. For you will find in the two baraitas equally, that it adds three things to the ten things. As in the first baraita, Rabbi Nechemiah adds in the name of his father, "Also fire; and the mule"; Rabbi Yoshiyah says, "Also the ram; and the shamir"; and Rabbi Yehudah says, "Also the tongs." And in the second baraita, some say, "Also the staff of Aharon, its almonds and its blossoms"; and some say, "Also the demons"; and some say, "Also the garments of the first Adam." You should note that you always find three additional opinions. And this thing does not at all appear to be a coincidence. Rather it is a great and magnificent thing. For we have already said that the creation of twilight was when the [main] part of the day had passed, so that it is not considered from the [main part of the] day. And we have explained to you why it was ten things that were created at twilight. And according to the opinion of all, it is impossible that there be less than ten things that were created at twilight. And that is because of the matter of the time, which is the twilight of the eve of Shabbat. However there are several times that are between the two days: As you say that promptly and immediately after the sun has set, the daytime has gone. Even though it has not reached twilight completely - nevertheless, since the full power of the day is not found, it is somewhat called twilight. And when it reaches it more, it is [fully] called twilight; until the end [of it] - which is the main twilight - during which it would be appropriate that ten things would be created, due to the elevation of this time. Do you not see - in the Gemara, there is a disagreement about [what is legally considered] twilight? And this is what we say there (Shabbat 34b): And what is twilight? "From when the sun sets, as long as the eastern face of the sky is reddening" These are the words of Rabbi Yehudah. Rabbi Nechemiah says, "Enough for a person to walk half a mil after the sun sets." Rabbi Yosei says, "Twilight is like the blink of an eye; this enters and that leaves, and it is impossible to calculate it." To here [is the Gemara]. You should note that it is explicit that there are several twilights: Rabbi Yosei said that "twilight is like the blink of an eye; this enters and that leaves" - that is the last twilight, such that it be impossible that anything less be twilight. And during this twilight - that it is impossible that there be less than it and it is as if it does not extend to any time at all - the ten things that were taught in the mishnah were created. For this twilight is completely close to Shabbat; hence the ten things were created during it. And the other twilights - up to three time periods - came as additions. And this is as we have said. As the first [opinion that adds to the ten things created] holds that even though the main twilight is completely between the days - and the ten things were created during it, and it is as if it does not extend to any time at all, given the closeness that it has to Shabbat - nevertheless the time that is next to (before) it is also twilight. And therefore, during that twilight as well, the ram of Yitzchak and the grave of Moshe were created. But there is another twilight and it is further (earlier), but it is [still] somewhat close. And because of that, they added, "Some say, 'Also the demons.'" Yet there is [still] another twilight immediately after sunset, but it is further (earlier) [still]. But nevertheless, since it is after sunset, it should also be added to twilight. So they also added the tongs to this - that it was also created at twilight. And they added specifically up to three, to the last twilight. And that is because once the day before it has already passed, [time] begins to approach the Shabbat. And anything that approaches [something else] is divided into three parts: The beginning of the approach, the middle of the approach and the end of the approach. [This is] aside from the last twilight, which is considered as if it does not contain any time at all and is considered like the present. For the present connects together the time of the past with the time of the future. And likewise is the last twilight only like the present, which is the end of the time of the past and the beginning of the time of the future; and there is no extension here of any time at all. But perhaps you will find it difficult: If so, how is creation applicable to it at all? For all existence is only within time! However this is not difficult. For if the creation was [of] physical things, all physical existence certainly does require time; but these things are not physical things that require time at all. For even if they are physical things, their essence is only that which is not natural; and that is what was created at twilight. As they were not completely created in actuality. Rather [their existence] was only decreed, as [discussed] later (Paragraph 30). And so this twilight is not considered time that is dependent upon the physical. And also - even if it is time - it is not considered to be time at all; for it is only an instant, about which Rabbi Yosei said, "It is impossible to calculate it" (Shabbat 34b). And hence ten things were created during it, as it has been explained several times; whereas the other twilights are not so much on a level. And every, "And some say," adds the time that is [progressively] more distant. So, in fact, the last addition is closer to nature - as it is closer to the time of the six days of creation. That is why the mishnah added, "tongs made with tongs," [as] the last addition. And it is something similar to the way of nature - to the point that the Sages argue and say (Pesachim 54a) that it is something completely created by man, such that it is like the other creations. And these words are words of much wisdom. However there is another reason for these additions upon the ten things. And that thing may be understood from the content of twilight; however we many not elaborate on things like these. And it should also be said that each [opinion] is adding on the previous, until they are three - but they are not arguing at all. And so is it shown in the discussion (Pesachim 54a), which asks, "And was fire [created] at the (eve) [conclusion] of Shabbat, etc.?" And it answered from [the opinion of] Rabbi Nechemiah. And what does it answer from Rabbi Nechemiah? Behold [we would otherwise say], we do not hold like that! But rather, each and every one came to add, and not to disagree at all. And that is correct. And you may say: Behold these baraitas are difficult with relation to our mishnah! For here others [different creations] were [listed]. And the baraitas also [list] different ones [from each other]. And with the additions also - the two baraitas are disparate, as you [see] in front of you. And the mishnah also does not agree about the additions with the baraitas. But it appears that none of this is difficult. For according to all, ten things were created at twilight; and they added other things onto the ten things - from the reason that was explained above - which correspond to the time that twilight extends on the eve of Shabbat. And all agreed about this thing. It is just that the mishnah here holds that the ten things that the mishnah listed are furthest from nature. And therefore, these should be situated as the ten things that were created at twilight. As these ten things are all the furthest from nature, as we explained above. And, [according to the mishnah,] the ram of Yitzchak and the grave of Moshe, our teacher, are not as distant from nature as the ten. However they are further from nature than the demons that are mentioned after this. And the demons are further than the tongs - as behold, "It is possible to make tongs with a mold and align it" (Pesachim 54a). That is the opinion of the mishnah. And likewise do the bariatas in the chapter [entitled] Makom SheNahagu hold that those things [that they list] are appropriate to list as the ten things, because they are the furthest from nature. And the things that, "Some say," added are appropriate to [only] add on, since they are not so distant from nature. But fire and the mule are further from nature than the ram and the shamir; and these two are further than the tongs. And for the other baraita, the staff of Aharon should be placed [first] in the additions; and afterwards the demons; and afterwards, the garments of the first Adam. That is because they were Adam's garments, who was created on the six days of nature - and garments have a relation and connection to the one that wears them. Hence they are close to nature. And the explanation of these ten things: In the chapter [entitled] Makom SheNahagu (Pesachim 54a), Rashi wrote: The well - the well of Miriam, and that is the boulder from which water emerged by way of Moshe and Aharon. And it was round like a sieve, and rolled with them in every place that they went. To here is his language. And it does not appear to me that the intention of Rashi, may his memory be blessed, was that the boulder would roll and go with them. For if so, why is there no mention of the miracle that the boulder gave water when detached from the ground? For since it was rolling with them, it was detached. However it only said, "the mouth of the well." Rather it appears that we can say that in every place they went, the well would rise up and gush water. And a mouth (an opening) was created for this well, such that the water would come out in each place that they went. And that is why it said, "the mouth of the well" - since God, may He be blessed, gave a mouth to the well in every place that they encamped - and water came out [through it]. And [regarding] that which Rashi explained, that "it was round like a sieve" - that is what they said in the Midrash (Midrash Tanchuma, Chukat 21): "Overlooking the wilderness" (Numbers 21:20) - for it was hidden (emptied) in the Sea of Tiberias, and one who stands by the wilderness may look and see a kind of sieve in the sea, and that was the well. To here is the language of Rashi in Parashat Chukat (Rashi on Bemidbar 21:20) from the Midrash. And "a sieve" is a circle (something round) - so does it appear. The letters and the writing (ketav oumikhtav): Rashi explained (Pesachim 54a): Ketav is reading the name of the letters; and the mikhtav is the inscribing of the letters. This is what I have heard. But it appears to me that ketav is the inscribing of the letters; and the mikhtav is the stylus with which He wrote the engraving on the tablets - like that in Tractate Kiddushin (21b), "From where [do we know] to include a sharp thorn, a thorn and a mikhtav." And my words appear [correct]; as reading is not called ketav To here [are his words]. But it is a wonder - behold, it is written (Exodus 31:18), "written (ketuvim) with the finger of God." And if so, they were not written with a stylus! So it appears that ketav is the shape of the letter; and the mikhtav is the reception of the writing - but the ketav is independent. And it should not be asked: Behold, without the reception of the writing, there is nothing at all; and how is creation relevant to something that has no substance? But this is not a question. For the Holy One, blessed be He, decreed on the eve of Shabbat that the form of the letter be such and such; yet there was still nothing to receive the form until He decreed about the reception of the ketav. For the creation of the ten things that were created at twilight was not an actual creation. It was rather that at twilight, He decreed the creation. For it does not appear that the ram of Yitzchak was alive from the six days of creation until Avraham. Rather He decreed its creation - and that is its creation. So too did He decree the letters according to what they were; and also decreed the reception of the letters. [This is] like the fire and the mule, according to the opinion of Rabbi Nechemiah. As it says in the Gemara (Pesachim 54a) that [fire] was created at twilight on the eve of Shabbat; and in the Gemara, they establish it to have gone up in [God's] thought on the eve of Shabbat. And for this [reason], it is said that it was created on the eve of Shabbat at twilight. So too, [regarding] the creation of the ketav - meaning the shape of the writing: God, may He be blessed, decreed it at twilight; [as well as] the mikhtav - the reception of the inscription. And since it did not say, "the tablets and the ketav," it is not talking about the ketav and the mikhtav only on the tablets. Rather it is all ketav and all mikhtav that was created at twilight; just like the fire and the mule that Rabbi Nechmiah said, was speaking about all fire and mules. So behold that all ketav and mikhtav was created at twilight on the eve of Shabbat. And the reason it was necessary to create the ketav and the mikhtav on the eve of Shabbat at twilight was because of the ketav of the tablets and of the [original] Torah scroll. For it is inappropriate for these things to be written by things that were arranged by men. And therefore it is necessary to say that they were the work of God, may He be blessed. And this thing is not similar to natural things that were created on the six days of creation. Si therefore we say that their creation was on the eve of Shabbat at twilight, which is appropriate for things that are completely not natural. And it meant to say that God, may He be blessed, decreed the writing and the reception of the writing and arranged it. And when it was actualized, that was what had been created on the eve of Shabbat at twilight. And our mishnah did not list the grave of Moshe and the cave in which Moshe and Eliyahu stood, because it held that it is more [fit] to list the staff and the shamir in their place. As what the staff was doing and what the shamir was doing were great things that were being done. And hence these two should be listed, and not the grave of Moshe and the cave in which Moshe and Eliyahu stood. But the baraita held that it was more [fit] to list the grave of Moshe, the place of which was not known to any man (Deuteronomy 34:6). And likewise, the cave in which Moshe and Eliyahu stood - as its place testifies for it, since it was on the Mountain of God (Mount Sinai). And therefore these two should be listed. And this is what they disagree about. And [regarding] that which it said, "Also tongs made with tongs" - we have already explained that its understanding is not that the Holy One, blessed be He, created the tongs on the eve of Shabbat at twilight. Rather the Holy One, blessed be He, decreed the [making of the] tongs on the eve of Shabbat at twilight. For God, may He be blessed, created, the world with perfection; and there is no lack in the world. And the craft of metalwork is needed for the world. But since this craft needs to have tongs, and the first tongs is not the work of people - God, may He be blessed, necessarily decreed that this would be made. And since this work is not a natural act, it was therefore created on the eve of Shabbat at twilight. And with this, the world would not be lacking - as God, may He be blessed, completed the world. And therefore the creation of the tongs fell out on the eve of Shabbat at twilight. And this explantion is known and we should not elaborate - and there is no other explanation. And we have already said that this is why this statement is last - on account of it it being appropriate that something departing from the acts of creation should be last, and not first. For the order of nature is first, and this comes afterwards. So everything is understood.

WERE CREATED AT THE DUSK OF THE SABBATH, AND THEY ARE: THE MOUTH OF THE EARTH, ETC. Even according to Rambam above, these things were singled out as having happened specifically at this time. Many ideas have been put forth to explain why this is; you can find them in Midrash Shmuel. I haven’t seen fit to reproduce a single one of them, as I don’t see that any of them have succeded.
I see that on the previous mishna of the ten miracles that were done for our ancestors in the Temple Maharal writes in Derech Chaim that the mishna starts with a woman, “no woman miscarried”, and ends with “no man ever said that there was not enough room” because these things correspond to the ten sefirot of blimah; he explains them one by one, see there. I felt it would be just as appropriate and even more so to expound that way here. For the world, certainly including these ten things, was created through the ten sefirot of blimah. And the mishna starts from the mouth of the earth the same way that the previous one starts with the miracles that happened to women. But I will not speak of what is beyond me.
I will rather speak in terms of the exoteric, and say that these ten things correspond to the ten utterances through which the world was created. In the first utterance, the verses spoke of the earth, which was formlessness and void. The mouth of the well corresponds to the utterance “let there be light”, for that light was hidden away (Chagigah 12a) and the well was also hidden away in the sea of Tiberias (Shabbat 35a). The mouth of the donkey corresponds to the utterance “let there be a firmament… and let it separate”, in which the waters supernaturally became the Upper Waters; in the case of the mouth of the donkey, a higher force was also supernaturally placed in a coarse material being. The rainbow corresponds to the utterance “let the waters be gathered... and let the dry land be seen”, for the rainbow comes about from the humidity of moist earth that the rains have made wet. The manna corresponds to the utterance “let the earth bring forth vegetation… fruit trees…”, for these are man’s bread and his fruit that grows in its season, and corresponding to them G-d rained down the heavenly produce of manna. The staff corresponds to the utterance “let there be lights” of which it is said that “they will be signs”, and G-d sent Moses His servant with the staff that he was to use for giving signs. The verse “do not fear the signs of the heavens” (Jeremiah 10:2) is related to this. The shamir is a worm-like creature that comes from the utterance “let the waters swarm, etc.” The script and the inscription correspond to the two utterances “let the earth bring forth living things of every kind” and “let Us make man”, for both have to do with life and spirit, as do the script and the inscription. The inscription has more of a spiritual dimension, for it could be read from all four directions, as Rav writes. Similarly, man became a superior living creature that speaks and rules over the four corners of the earth. The tablets correspond to the utterance “be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth” with the seed of man, which are created in the image of G-d. The tablets are likewise the “work of G-d” (Exodus 32:16).
Behold, this is what I consider the straight path. “Give to a wise man, and he will grow wiser” (Proverbs 9:9) and think of more satisfying explanations. This approach also explains why our tanna did not keep to any chronological order in his list.