א) מִדְרַשׁ רַבּוֹתאיבאר רבינו אשר דברי המדרש אין פירושו כדברי הש"ס בחולין וגם שונה בפירושו משני מאמרי הזוהר, ועיקר השינוי הוא בזה שלדברי המדרש אין צריך ללמוד שהיה איזה שינוי במצב הלבנה בין שעת בריאתו ולאחריו כלל, אלא שמיד בבריאת המאורות היתה השמש גדולה מהירח, והשינוי הוא רק בענין כינוי הירח שקראו גדול בהשוואה לשמש ושוב קראו קטן, לסיבת היותה קופצת בראש ברצונה להאיר באותה שעה נגד השמש..
This passage does not focus on the apparent contradiction between the phrases, “the two great luminaries” and “the small luminary” as does R. Shimon ben Pazi,11. Tosfos Yom Tov is referring back to the passage from Chulin 60b, which he cited previously. because the author of the Midrash did not see these phrases as contradictory, and definitely not to the extent that the phrases are to be considered as referring to two separate, distinct stages of creation, as R. Shimon ben Pazi understands the text. Indeed, this interpretation also differs from that found in both the passages from the Zohar cited above, which also highlight a difference between the moon’s original creation and its present state – although, according to the Zohar, the difference is not as great as R. Shimon ben Pazi maintains. Midrash Rabbah, by contrast, does not see the verses as in any way contradictory, but rather as one integral description of the moon’s creation without implying that it underwent a change – that the moon was created as great and then diminished. Instead, the present state of both the sun and the moon is the same as their original state at the time they were created.
Scripture’s description of both the sun and the moon as “great” can be explained according to the words of R. Avraham ibn Ezra:2See Ibn Ezra’s commentary to Bereishis 1:16. If one will ask: The astronomers have stated that the planet Tzedek3Tzedek is the name with which the Sages refer to the planet Jupiter. Tzedek means “righteousness.” The Sages referred to Jupiter as Tzedek, because in many pagan systems of mythology, this planet was identified with their primary false deity whom the pagans believed was the source for righteousness and justice. and indeed, all the planets and stars aside from Kochav and Nogah4Kochav, “planet” (or “star”) and Nogah (“brilliance”) are the names with which the Sages refer to the planets Mercury and Venus respectively. are larger than the moon, why then are they both described as “great”? In resolution: The term “great” does not refer to the size of the planets, but to their light. The light reflected by the moon is much greater than the light of the other planets and stars because it is much closer to the earth. This is also indicated by the term Scripture uses to refer to them: “luminaries.”5I.e., by referring to both the sun and the moon as “great luminaries”, the Torah is emphasizing their light, not their size.
Similarly, with regard to the wording of the Midrash cited: There is no contradiction between the verses, and even at the present time both verses are true. Both the sun and the moon are described as “great luminaries” because of the light each one shines forth. Afterwards, the moon is referred to as “small,” because it is smaller in size than the sun. Indeed, the moon is even smaller than all the stars and planets aside from Kochav and Nogah. Alternatively, the moon was called small because its light is less than that of the sun.
Nevertheless, the Midrash saw a difficulty in the verses: Why would Scripture demean the moon by calling it small after it was already extolled and exalted by being described as “great” together with the sun, even though both its size and light are lesser? Once prominence is ascribed to an entity, it is improper to retract and minimize its importance. Therefore, the Midrash explains that it was appropriate for Scripture to do so because the moon “entered into its neighbor’s domain.” What does that mean? As we see, during certain days of the month, the moon can be seen in the sky in the morning and the evening, entering the domain of the sun, as it were. Since the moon does so, Scripture minimized its honor and does not refer to it as great, but rather as small, for it conducts itself in the manner of petty people who flaunt themselves before those who are truly great saying, “I am like you.”
6
וְאָמַר רַבִּי פִּנְחָס, בְּכָל הַקָּרְבָּנוֹת כְּתִיב כו׳ אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא הָבִיאוּ כַּפָּרָה עָלַי עַל שֶׁמִּעַטְתִּי בוהרי לשון זה מופיע בדברי ר"ש בן פזי שלומד שהירח נתמעט מגדלו הראשון. וע"ז משני רבינו שבעל המדרש רבה אינו סובר כן והכוונה כאן במיעוט הירח (לא במובן פיזי אלא) הוא בכינוי שכינה אותו "קטן". כו׳, לֹא מִעוּט בְּמִדַּת הַגּוּף וְלֹא מִעוּט בְּרִבּוּי הָאוֹרָה, כִּי בְּכָל זֶה לֹא נַעֲשָׂה שׁוּם הִשְׁתַּנּוּת, רַק מִעוּט כְּבוֹדָהּ בִּקְרִיאַת הַשֵּׁם.
Thus, when R. Pinchas said: “With regard to all other additional offerings… The Holy One, blessed be He, said: “Bring an atonement offering for Me because I diminished the moon,” he was not speaking about diminishing the size or the light of the moon, because there was no change regarding these aspects. God diminished only the moon’s honor by referring to it as “the small luminary.”
7
וְאַל תִּתְמַהּ עַל הַחֵפֶץ שֶׁחָפַצְתִּי גכלומר הרצון שרציתי לומר, דהיינו הפירוש המחודש שמפרש רבינו שמיעוט זה הוא מפני שהלבנה התנשאה ליכנס בתחום השמש. לוֹמַר שֶׁלְּכָךְ קְרָאָהּ "קָטָן", עַל שֶׁאָחֲזָה מִדַּת הַקְּטַנִּים הַקּוֹפְצִים בְּרֹאשׁ כֹּל. כִּי הֲלֹא כֹּה דִּבֶּר הָרַב אַבְרָהָם בֶּן עֶזְרָא בְּפֵרוּשׁ הָאַגָּדָה דְּפֶרֶק אֵלּוּ טְרֵפוֹת דשהרי האבן עזרא מפרש גם מאמר ר"ש בן פזי במס' חולין שהקיטרוג והמיעוט אינם כפשוטו. (רק שרבינו לא ס"ל כפירוש זה שם בגמ', ורק במאמר המדרש שלפנינו מפרש כן.) הָאֲמוּרָה לְמַעְלָה, הֱבִיאוֹ בַּעַל הָעֲקֵדָה בְּשַׁעַר ל״ז, שֶׁכָּתַב שֶׁהַקִּטְרוּג הַהוּא נֶאֱמַר עַל שְׁעַת הַהַקְבָּלָה הבשעה שחמה ולבנה הן זו כנגד זו (כמו "מקבילֹת הלֻלאֹת". (שמות כו ה)), שֶׁהַמְּאוֹרוֹת כְּאִלּוּ הֵם עוֹרְכִים קְטָטָה זֶה לְעֻמַּת זֶה בְּרֹחַק חֲצִי גַלְגַּל בֵּינֵיהֶם ובתחילת כל חודש אין הלבנה נראית ברקיע, ובמהלך חצי החודש הראשון היא נגלית יותר ויותר עד שבאמצע החודש היא נגלית לגמרי בשלימותה. כמו כן משך סיבובה ברקיע גדול יותר באמצע החודש מבתחילתה. דהיינו שמתחילת החודש עד אמצע החודש גם גודל גופה נגלית וגם אורך מהלך הלבנה בגלגל הרקיע מתארך עד שבאמצע החודש ישנו מצב שנראית הלבנה נגד כדור השמש ברקיע זו נגד זו כעורכים מלחמה (שעה זו נקראת "שעת הניגוד"). מיד אחרי מצב זה הלבנה מתחילה להתכסות מיום ליום עד סוף החדש שמתכסית לגמרי וכן מתקצר משך סיבובה עד שנעלמת לגמרי (שאז מתחיל "המולד" החדש)., וְאָז שְׁנֵיהֶם מְלֵאִים אוֹרָה וְזִיו כְּאִלּוּ אָז הַיָּרֵחַ מִתְנַשֵּׂא לֵאמֹר אֲנִי אֶמְלוֹךְ זעל פי מלכים א א, ה., וּמֵאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה, מִיָּד בִּנְטוֹתָהּ מֵהַנּוֹכְחִיּוּת הַהִיא, הִתְחִיל לְחַסֵּר אוֹרָהּ, וַהֲרֵי הוּא הַקְטָנָתָהּ חומפרש האבן עזרא שכוונת הגמ' שבזה שהלבנה עומדת נגד השמש כנ"ל כאילו בהתרסה זה עצמו פירוש הקטרוג הנזכר, ועל כן מיד אחריה היא מתחילה להתמעט כעונש על זה (ולקמן (שער ה פ"ג) יפרש רבינו סוגיית הגמ' במס' חולין ושם יביא מה שהקשו כמה מפרשים על פירוש ראב"ע)., וְצִוָּה הַשֵּׁם יִתְבָּרֵךְ שֶׁיָּבִיאוּ קָרְבָּן בְּיוֹם חֶסְרוֹן כָּל אוֹרָהּ. וְרָמְזוּ טַעַם "לְחַטָּאת לַה׳", בַּעֲבוּר שֶׁהַשֵּׁם יִתְבָּרֵךְ הוּא הַסִּבָּה הָרִאשׁוֹנָה לְהַמְעִיט אוֹרָהּ, כִּי בְרָאָהּ מְקַבֶּלֶת אוֹר הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ וְאֵין לָהּ אוֹר מֵעַצְמָהּ. עַד כָּאן לְשׁוֹנוֹ.
Do not question the interpretation I offered for the moon being called “small” – that the moon was described in this manner because it conducted itself in the manner of petty people who flaunt themselves before all others. These explanations are in accord with the interpretation given by R. Avraham ibn Ezra in explanation of the Aggadic teachings in Tractate Chulin mentioned above,6Ibn Ezra explains that the passage in Chulin 60b does not interpret the diminishment of the moon in a simple sense, but rather that it refers to the moon’s waxing and waning in its phases. Tosfos Yom Tov offers a different interpretation of that passage (see page 86ff.), but cites Ibn Ezra’s interpretation here because Ibn Ezra also refers to the moon as boasting and contending with the sun, as it were. as cited in the Akeidah, ch. 37,7Tosfos Yom Tov is referring to Akeidas Yitzchak, by R. Yitzchak ben Moshe Aramah. This text is often referred to as “the Akeidah” who states: The moon’s protests refer to the time of the alignment.8The time of the full moon when the sun, the moon, and the earth are all aligned in a straight line. Hence, the disc of the moon is full. Such an alignment occurs every month. When the three bodies are on more or less the same latitudinal plane, a lunar eclipse takes place. Generally, however, they are on different latitudinal planes and hence, such eclipses are rare. It is as if the luminaries are contesting with each other when they are at opposite ends of their orbits. When they are both filled with light it is as if the moon raises itself up to say “I will rule.”9Cf. I Melachim 1:5. Ibn Ezra borrows the wording of the verse that refers to Adoniyahu, who, like the moon, attempted to achieve greatness he was not destined for. From that time onward, as soon as the moon departs from that point, its light begins to diminish. This is the diminishment referred to by our Sages. God commanded that a sacrifice be brought on the day that all of the moon’s light is eliminated. The verse speaks of “a sin-offering for God,” since God was the first cause for the light of the moon to be diminished, for He created the moon in a manner that it receives light from the sun and does not possess its own light.
8
וְעִם הֱיוֹת כִּי בַּעַל הָעֲקֵדָה דָּחָה דְבָרָיו מִפֵּרוּשׁ מַאֲמָר הַנִּזְכָּר, וּכְמוֹ שֶׁאֶכְתֹּב (שער ה פ"ג) בְּהַגִּיעִי שָׁם בְּעֶזְרַת ה' יִתְבָּרֵךְ, מִכָּל מָקוֹם נִמְצֵינוּ לְמֵדִין שֶׁסְּבָרָתֵנוּ זֹאת לוֹמַר שֶׁעָשְׂתָה מִדַּת הַקְּטַנִּים כו׳ סְבָרָא הוּא טשאף שרבינו אינו מפרש לקמן דברי הגמ' כן, מכל מקום את דברי המדרש מפרש רבינו כן, ללמד חומר שלילת הנכנס לתחום חבירו.. שֶׁהֲרֵי הֶחָכָם הָרַב אַבְרָהָם בֶּן עֶזְרָא כֹּה סוֹבֵר בְּעִנְיַן הַקִּטְרוּג שֶׁמִּתְנַשֵּׂאת לוֹמַר אֲנִי אֶמְלוֹךְ.
True, the author of the Akeidah rejected Ibn Ezra’s interpretation of that passage, as I will explain in the appropriate place.10See page 70 below. Nevertheless, we learn from this that our conception – that the moon conducted itself in the manner of petty people – is a valid approach, for the sage R. Avraham ibn Ezra follows a similar approach, explaining that the moon’s protest was issued because it sought to exalt itself, saying, “I will rule.”
9
וּמָה שֶׁהֻקְשָׁה לְבַעַל הָעֲקֵדָה, שֶׁאֵין לְפָרֵשׁ כֵּן אוֹתוֹ הַמַּאֲמָר כְּדִלְקַמָּן ילקמן מביא רבינו מה שהקשה בעל העקדה על ראב"ע שלכאורה אין מאמר הגמ' מלמדת אותנו שום דבר, ולכן כותב רבינו כאן שלעומת זאת במאמר המדרש אפשר לפרש כנ"ל שהרי מלמדנו שני ענינים גדולים כבסמוך., לֹא יִקְשֶׁה לְעִנְיַן הַפֵּרוּשׁ שֶׁלָּנוּ בְּפֵרוּשׁ זֶה הַמַּאֲמָר, כִּי לִמֵּד אוֹתָנוּ מוּסַר הַשְׂכֵּל בִּשְׁתַּיִם. הָאֶחָד, שֶׁאֲנַחְנוּ לֹא נַעֲשֶׂה כְּמַעֲשֶׂה זֶה, וְאַף שֶׁזֶּה פָּשׁוּט וְלֹא הָיָה צָרִיךְ לִמּוּד, הִנֵּה בְּכָאן נַחְשֹׁב שֶׁכְּבָר הֻרְשֵׁית בְּכָךְ וּכְמוֹ שֶׁמְּבָאֵר וְהוֹלֵךְ, וְעִם כָּל זֶה הֻקְטְנָה בִּכְבוֹד שְׁמָהּ אֲשֶׁר נִקְרָא לָהּ מֵאָז. וְהַשֵּׁנִי, לָמַדְנוּ שֶׁהַגּוֹרֵם לָזֶה צָרִיךְ לְהָבִיא כַּפָּרָה יאכמאמר הקב"ה הביאו עלי כפרה..
The questions raised by the author of the Akeidah which led him to say that this passage should not be interpreted in this manner (as which will be explained below) do not apply with regard to our interpretation of this passage, for the passage teaches us two insights: a) that one should not conduct himself in this manner – encroaching upon another’s domain. True, that is a simple concept and seemingly need not be taught. Nevertheless, here, it is important to emphasize because one might think that license was given for the moon to do so, as the passage continues. The passage teaches us that this behavior is unacceptable by showing that as a result of entering into the sun’s domain the honor of the moon’s name was minimized. b) that the one who causes such conduct requires atonement.11That God, as it were, required atonement, since He structured the pattern of the moon’s appearance in the sky as such that from time to time it appears in the day, entering the domain of the sun as it were. Tosfos Yom Tov elaborates on this point further in the main text.
Furthermore, from this narrative, we learn through a kal vechomer (a fortiori reasoning) that one who enters another person’s domain without permission is deserving of punishment that is too great to bear. Had we not heard about the punishment visited on one who enters another’s domain with permission, we would not know how serious it is to enter another’s domain without permission.
11
וְאָמְנָם, עִנְיַן הַגְּרַם לְעִנְיָן הַכְּנִיסָה בִרְשׁוּת שֶׁהִזְכִּיר בַּעַל הַמִּדְרָשׁ, וְנִרְאֶה לִכְאוֹרָה שֶׁהוּא מַאֲמָר סָתוּר בְּעַצְמוֹ, וְאֵינוֹ כֵן יבסָתוּר בְּעַצְמוֹ, שהרי אין שייך ח"ו איזה טעות וכדומה למעלה עד שנאמר שניתן רשות ללבנה ליכנס בתחום חבירו. וְאֵינוֹ כֵן. כי הטעות היתה מצד שהלבנה טעתה בצווי השי"ת, ומ"מ הכפרה היא על זה "הגרם" ונתינת המקום כביכול לטעות בדברי הקב"ה (וכל זה עשה הקב"ה כדי ללמד ענין זה כמה חמור ענשו של הנכנס לתחומו של חבירו).. כִּי נְדַקְדֵּק תְּחִלָּה הֵיכָא רְמִיזָא הַגְּרַם אוֹ הָרְשׁוּת. נֹאמַר יגתוכן דברי רבינו להלן: שבפסוק המתאר את "עשיית" המאורות, נאמר שהמאור הגדול הוא לממשלת היום והמאור הקטן לממשלת הלילה, לעומתו הפסוק שמתאר את "תליית" המאורות ברקיע השמים, שם כולל את ממשלת שניהם ביחד כלומר שיש זמן ששני המאורות ישמשו כאחד. שֶׁמַּה שֶּׁכָּתוּב (שם פסוק יז–יח) "וַיִּתֵּן אוֹתָם אֱלֹהִים בִּרְקִיעַהַשָּׁמָיִם לְהָאִיר עַל הָאָרֶץ וְלִמְשֹׁל בַּיוֹם וּבַלַּיְלָה וּלְהַבְדִּיל וגו׳", שֶׁמַּשְׁמָע וַדַּאי שֶׁזֶּה שֶׁכָּתוּב "וְלִמְשֹׁל" אֵינוֹ מִסֵּדֶר הַהַבְדָּלָה, שֶׁהֲרֵי הַהֶבְדֵּל מוֹנֶה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ, אֶלָּא יֹאמַר עַל הַמֶּמְשָׁלָה וּמִשְׁטָרָם שֶׁל אֵלּוּ הַמְּאוֹרוֹת. וְיִקְשֶׁה לְפִי זֶה, הֵיאַךְ יֹאמַר בַּיּוֹם וּבַלַּיְלָה, שֶׁהַמֶּמְשָׁלָה לֹא עַל הַיּוֹם נֶאֱמַר וְלֹא עַל הַלַּיְלָה, אֶלָּא עַל הָאָרֶץ וְלַדָּרִים עָלֶיהָ. וְהָיָה אִם כֵּן מֵהָרָאוּי לְקַצֵּר וְלִכְלֹל וְלוֹמַר, "לְהָאִיר וְלִמְשֹׁל עַל הָאָרֶץ". שֶׁאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמִּתְחִלָּה אָמַר (פסוק טז) "לְמֶמְשֶׁלֶת הַיּוֹם וגו׳", הִנֵּה שָׁם לֹא נֶאֱמַר הַהֶאָרָה שֶׁעַל הָאָרֶץ עַד שֶׁהָיָה יָכוֹל לְכָלְלָם, מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן כָּאן.
Nevertheless, the concept that the one who causes someone to enter another’s domain with permission requires atonement mentioned by the Midrash seems to be self-contradictory.12If God created the sun and the moon in a manner that the moon would enter the sun’s domain, why would He require atonement for the moon’s action? In truth, however, this is not so. To explain: When we search for the first place the concept of causation and license are mentioned, it appears to be the verses,13Bereishis 1:17-18. “God placed them in the expanse of the heaven to radiate light upon the earth, to rule during the day and during the night, and to make a distinction between light and darkness.” From the verses, it is clearly evident that although the phrase “to rule” is used, “ruling,” i.e. exercising authority, is not an element of the distinction that is made, because making a distinction is mentioned separately in the verse. Instead, the term “to rule” refers to the sovereignty and dominion of these luminaries. A question thus arises: Why does the verse mention ruling “over the day and over the night”?14Although we originally translated the Hebrew words, limshol bayom u’valaylah as, “to rule during the day and during the night,” this phrase can also be translated as, “to rule over the day and over the night.” Tosfos Yom Tov is basing his question on this second interpretation. The sun and the moon are not ruling over the day or over the night; they rule over the earth and its inhabitants. Therefore, it would have been appropriate to use less words, and say, “to radiate light and rule over the earth.” True, the verse preceding these verses also mentions15Ibid. 1:16. “to rule the day.” Nevertheless, that verse did not mention radiating light upon the earth. Hence, the two concepts could not be coupled in that verse. In contrast, in this verse, it would have been possible to do so.
For this reason, the author of this Midrashic passage postulates that the statement, “to rule during the day and the night,” explains the previous verse, “God made the two great luminaries; the great luminary to rule the day, and the small luminary to rule the night.” True, God originally made the luminaries, each one with a separate dominion. When, however, God “placed them in the expanse of the heaven,” He allowed for the possibility that both luminaries would rule together, during the day and during the night. Nevertheless, the verse does not explicitly state whether the intent was that one of them would be ruling during the day and during the night, nor does it specify which one would be given this sovereignty. Perhaps the intent was that both luminaries were given sovereignty to rule during the day and during the night. True, the day was allotted to the sun and the night to the moon. Even so, it could be said that neither the entire night nor the entire day was allotted to either one, and so the luminaries would share dominion during part of the day and part of the night.
13
וּכְבָר נִמְצָאִים מִדְּרָשִׁים רַבִּים ידרבינו מביא להלן כמה דוגמאות מדברי חז"ל לענין זה, שיש כוונת מכוון אחת בעצם בריאתם, ושוב כוונה מיוחדת אחרת באופן וסדרי שמושן בעולם. לַחֲכָמֵינוּ זִכְרוֹנָם לִבְרָכָה שֶׁהִרְחִיבוּ לוֹמַר שֶׁהַנִּבְרָאִים בְּו׳ יְמֵי בְרֵאשִׁית הָיָה לָהֶם בְּעַצְמָם עִנְיָן מְכֻוָּן. כְּמוֹ שֶׁאָמְרוּ (בְּרֵאשִׁית רַבָּה פֶּרֶק ה): "אֲנִי אֵל שַׁדַּי", אֲנִי הוּא שֶׁאָמַרְתִּי לְעוֹלָמִי דַּי, שֶׁאִלּוּלֵי כֵן, הָיוּ שָׁמַיִם וָאָרֶץ נִמְתָּחִים וְהוֹלְכִים.
There are many Midrashim from our Sages that emphasize that the creation during the Six Days of Creation had a unique purpose, but the present form of certain entities is different.16Tosfos Yom Tov is explaining that just as the sun and the moon were created with a particular potential but afterwards, as they were placed in the heaven to function, that potential was adapted somewhat, so too we find other examples where the fundamental potential of a created being was modified so that it could function in a structured world. For example, on the verse,17Bereishis 17:1. “I am the Almighty Shaddai,” our Sages commented,18Bereishis Rabbah 5:8. “I am He who told My world ‘enough.’”19God’s name Shaddai can be read as she-dai, “that is enough”. Thus, the Midrash is explaining that the verse in Bereishis, “I am the Almighty Shaddai,” should be understood as meaning, “I am the Almighty She-dai, He Who told the world ‘enough’.” Had He not done so, the heavens and the earth would be endlessly expanding.20I.e., when they were created, heaven and earth had the potential to endlessly expand. However, God limited that potential.
And with regard to the water, the Sages stated:21Pirkei d’Rabbi Eliezer, ch. 5; consult that source. When the utterance,22Bereishis 1:9. “Let the waters be collected,” was pronounced by the Holy One, blessed be He, the mountains and the hills separated23The wording in the standard published text of Pirkei d’Rabbi Eliezer differs slightly. over the surface of the earth and a series of valleys were made reaching the depths of the earth. The waters naturally flowed into them and were collected there, as indicated by the verse,24Bereishis 1:10. I.e., at first there was one watery mass. After God commanded the water to be collected, these valleys were made, and the watery mass was separated and collected into separate seas. “He called the gathering of the water, seas.” Immediately thereafter, the waters rose up in pride and sought to cover the earth as was their original state until the Holy One, blessed be He, rebuked them and subdued them.
Similarly, our Sages25Bereishis Rabbah 5:9. commented on the verse,26Bereishis 1:11. “Let the earth produce vegetation,” that the earth violated God’s command. The Holy One, blessed be He, commanded the earth to sprout forth “fruit trees that yield fruit,” implying that the actual tree would be able to be eaten. The earth did not do this. Instead, “the earth produced vegetation… trees yielding fruit,”27Ibid. 1:12. the fruit was edible, but the tree was not edible.
In this instance as well, from the fact that Scripture demeaned the moon by calling it “small” after first calling it “great,” the Midrash understands that the moon violated God’s intent, just as the earth was cursed because it violated a Divine command, as Rashi states.28See Rashi’s commentary to Bereishis 1:11.
Therefore, the Midrash sought to find a matter in which the moon deviated from God’s intent and it focused on the point we mentioned, that “to rule during the day and during the night” is a directive that the sun and the moon should function together during the day and the night. As we mentioned before, there are two possible explanations for this: a) that they should function together for part of the time, or b) that one should have sovereignty even in the domain of the other, also ruling the entire day or the entire night. The author of the Midrash maintains that the intent that one of the luminaries was given sovereignty in the time allotted to the other refers to the sun because it is many times larger than the earth. Thus, even at night when the sun is found below the earth’s horizon, its light shines around the earth, since it is larger than the sphere of the earth. Nevertheless, the sun is not visible because the shadow of the earth blocks its light and causes darkness.
18
וְאֶחְשֹׁב אֲנִי שֶׁזֶּהוּ כַּוָּנַת רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ, בְּפֶרֶק אֵין דּוֹרְשִׁין, (חגיגה יב:) שֶׁאָמַר שִׁבְעָה רְקִיעִים הֵם וְאֵלּוּ הֵן׃ וִילוֹן וכו׳, וִילוֹן אֵינוֹ מְשַׁמֵּשׁ כְּלוּם אֶלָּא נִכְנָס שַׁחֲרִית וְיוֹצֵא עַרְבִית. וּפֵרֵשׁ רַשִׁ"י טועיין מהרש"א (ח"א שם ד"ה וילון) שהאריך בפירש"י ותוס'. ועיין ביאורי הרד"ל על פרקי דרבי אליעזר פרק ג סוף אות מו. ועיין עוד בהערה הבאה.׃ נִכְנָס שַׁחֲרִית לְתוֹךְ תִּיקוֹ, וְהָאוֹר נִרְאֶה. יוֹצֵא עַרְבִית מִתִּיקוֹ וּמִתְפַּשֵּׁט לְמַטָּה מִן הָאוֹר, וַהֲרֵי הָעוֹלָם חָשׁוּךְ. עַד כָּאן לְשׁוֹנוֹ. וְהִקְשׁוּ הַתּוֹסָפוֹת (שם ד"ה נכנס), הֵיאַךְ נִרְאֶה הַכּוֹכָבִים כו׳, וּמַסְּקִי׃ נִכְנָס שַׁחֲרִית בָּעוֹלָם, וּמִמֶּנּוּ אוֹרָה יוֹצֵא. וְיוֹצֵא עַרְבִית מִן הָעוֹלָם, וּלְכָךְ הַכּוֹכָבִים נִרְאִים טזהמפרשים הרבו לתמוה בפירוש דברי התוס', וז"ל השפת אמת: פי' רש"י לתוך תיקו וממילא האור יוצא ותוס' פי' דנכנס בעולם לכן יש אורה, וקשה דא"כ משמש טובא, ומאי קאמר דאינו משמש כלום. ונראה דבלא"ה תמוה, דהא האור מן השמש, וכן הקשה בטורי אבן. לכן נראה לפרש דאין העולם יכול לקבל אור השמש רק ע"י פריסת הוילון, לכן גם לשיטת התוס' אינו משמש רק להסתיר רוב האורה, ועי"ז יכולין לקבל אור השמש, ואף על גב דעננים מכסין הכוכבים אבל השמש שאורו רב אינו מתכסה ע"י העננים, ומאיר גם באמצעית הוילון עכ"ל. וגם המהרש"א שבהערה הקודמת כתב, לולא דבריהם נ"ל לפרש באופן אחר. והנה רבינו דרך מיוחדת לו לפרש דברי התוס', שהכוונה בוילון הוא על צל כדור הארץ, ועפי"ז נתיישב מה שהקשו הנ"ל.. נִרְאֶה שֶׁהוּא הַצֵּל הַמַּחְשִׁיךְ יזכלומר צל כדור הארץ שהוא מתפשט יותר מגוף הכדור. וַהֲרֵי הוּא כְּמוֹ הַוִּילוֹן שתפקידו להיות מסך מסתיר, כך צל הכדור מסתיר קרני השמש שלא יאירו בלילה מעל הארץ אלא בחצי הכדור למטה. וְנִכְנַס שַׁחֲרִית לְמַטָּה מִן הָאָרֶץ, הוילון הוא בשחרית נכנס למטה כדי שיאיר השמש למעלה אבל לא למטה מן הארץ - וּמַחְשִׁיךְ שָׁם, וְיוֹצֵא עַרְבִית מֵעַל לָאָרֶץ, וכנ”ל שהכונה לצל הכדור ובערבית הוא מעל הכדור כדי להחשיך על הארץ., וַהֲרֵי הוּא כְּמוֹ הַוִּילוֹן וְנִכְנָס שַׁחֲרִית לְמַטָּה מִן הָאָרֶץ וּמַחְשִׁיךְ שָׁם, וְיוֹצֵא עַרְבִית מֵעַל לָאָרֶץ וּמַחְשִׁיךְ שָׁם, שֶׁאֵינוֹ אֶלָּא צֵל בְּעָלְמָא, וְנִרְאִין הַכּוֹכָבִים. וְנִמְצָא, שֶׁאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהַצֵּל מוֹנֵעַ אֶת הָאוֹר, אֲבָל לֹא מִפְּנֵי כֵן יִמְנַע מֶמְשַׁלְתּוֹ וּמִשְׁטָרוֹ, כְּמוֹ שֶׁלֹּא יִמְנְעוּ הֶעָבִים כֹּחַ הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ וּפְעֻלָּתוֹ, עִם שֶׁמַּאֲפִילִים וּמַחְשִׁיכִים גַּם כֵּן הָאוֹרָה בְּמִקְצָת.
I maintain that Reish Lakish alluded to this concept with his statement in Tractate Chagigah:29Chagigah 12b. “There are seven heavens: The first is Vilon30In modern Hebrew, vilon means “curtain.”… Vilon serves no function. It enters in the morning and departs in the evening.” In his commentary, Rashi explains: “It enters in the morning – In the morning, Vilon enters its sheath, allowing light to be seen.31According to Rashi, the vilon is like a curtain which when it emerges, prevents light from reaching the world.And departs in the evening – In the evening, Vilon departs from its shield and spreads below the light, causing the world to become dark.” Tosafos questions Rashi’s statements, asking: If Vilon prevents light from reaching the earth, how are the stars visible? Tosafos, therefore, offers a different interpretation: In the morning, Vilon emerges into the world, and light becomes visible from it. At night, Vilon departs from the world. Therefore, the stars become visible. Thus, it appears that Tosafos interprets vilon as a shadow which causes darkness,32With this explanation of Tosafos’ explanation, Tosfos Yom Tov is equating the vilon with the shadow of the earth. like a curtain. In the morning, it enters below the earth and causes darkness there and in the evening, emerges above the earth and causes darkness there. Nevertheless, since vilon is only a shadow, the stars are visible. Thus, although the shadow prevents the sun’s light from being seen, it does not stand in the way of the sun’s sovereignty and rule. This is comparable to the clouds, which do not hold back the power of the sun and its effect on the earth even though they obscure and dim the light of the sun somewhat.
Despite the sun having been given sovereignty, the moon conducted itself like the water mentioned above.33I.e., as mentioned in the passage from Pirkei d’Rabbi Eliezer cited above. Just as the water rose up in pride and sought to return and cover the entire earth as it had before, so too, the moon in its pride interpreted the Divine charge to give sovereignty to one of the luminaries in both the day and the night as directed toward itself. Although the moon was not made in a manner that would permit it to be visible during part of the day and during the evening, nevertheless the moon still thrust itself forward and perhaps approached the light of the sun so that it would “rule during the day and the night.” Therefore, the Holy One, blessed be He, demeaned its name. Nevertheless, God did not rebuke the moon as He did the water, nor did He nullify its thought, because the moon had room for justification: it could have claimed that God was the cause of its actions in that He did not explicitly clarify which of the luminaries would be the one that would rule both during the day and the night, or whether both of them would. Therefore, God left the situation as it was, without undoing the moon’s initiative.
Alternatively, it is possible to say that, as explained above, in the interpretation of the Midrash that states,34Bereishis Rabbah 5:8. “I am He who told My world ‘enough,’” had God not called the moon “small,” it would have continued to proceed and approach the status of the sun to the extent that it would be visible throughout the day. Calling the moon “small” affected it as a rebuke would, and caused it to halt and remain in its immediate position. Nevertheless, the moon did not return to its initial state, since it had specifically heard God say that the luminaries should rule “during the day and the night.” Even though He called the moon “small,” God also did not force the moon to return to its initial state, for He had been the cause for its act. Indeed, as reflected in the words, “Bring an atonement offering for Me,” God sought to find a way to appease the moon.
The appeasement granted the moon – and the difficult wording used by our Sages who speak of “atonement” and it being “for Me” – will be explained at the end of the passage from Chulin cited above. There, I will focus on the interpretation advanced by Rabbeinu Yitzchak Alfasi mentioned above, and make known my understanding of it.
The passage in Bereishis Rabbah then concludes with an ethical lesson: “Now, if the moon entered the sun’s domain with license from God…,” alluding to the idea that the moon thought it was acting with license.35The ethical lesson is, the Midrash proceeds to state, that one should be careful not to enter the domain of another person.
Before I will begin explaining the next passage,36I.e., before beginning the interpretation of the passage from the Zohar that follows. I would like to draw a possible connection between the statement of our Sages that the moon entered the domain of the sun and the words of the prophet Chabakuk,37Chabakuk 3:11. “The sun and the moon stood in their domains.” In that verse, the hei of the word zevulah, translated as “in their domains,” is written without a mapik (i.e., a “diacritic,” a mark indicating that the letter should be read as a consonant).38As will shortly be stated, Tosfos Yom Tov advances theinterpretation of zevulah as “its (the sun’s) domain.” He prefaces his statements by saying that were that to be the interpretation, the hei should be written with a mapik. Hence, he agrees that this is not the simple meaning of the verse. Nevertheless, according to the approach of derush, there is room for the interpretation that he will advance. Thus, Rashi comments on that word:In their domains – Whenever a word requires a lamed at its beginning, a hei may be used at its end. The verse refers to the actions of the sun and the moon during the war against Givon, as reflected by the Targum.”39See Yehoshua 10:12. Similarly, Radak comments on that verse: The sun and the moon – In the war of Yehoshua…. In their domains – In the heavens, which serve them as a domain and as a home, as it is written:40Ibid. 10:13. “And the sun stood in the center of the sky.” The word zevulah contains an extra hei, like the hei of the word lailah, for the word is accented on the penultimate syllable. Radak is saying that the hei at the end of the word zevulah is extra and does not connote the feminine, just as the word lailah is masculine, as reflected in the verse,41Bereishis 41:11. Hebrew words ending with the letter hei are often feminine. However, this does not apply when the word is accented on the penultimate syllable. In such words the hei is called “extra,” i.e. it serves no grammatical function. Thus, although the noun lailah, “night,” ends in a hei, since the word is accented on the penultimate syllable, it is quantified by echad, the masculine form of the number one.Thus, we see that lailah is masculine, not feminine. “And we dreamt… on one night.” However, the way of the Midrashim is to give explanations even to extra letters.42As Tosfos Yom Tov will proceed to explain, in the mode of derush, the hei may be understood as feminine possessive. Also, the phrase, “The sun and the moon” requires explanation because the words are written without the connecting letter vav, i.e., without the word “and”. Also, the term amad, “stood,” requires explanation because seemingly, it should have been written with a plural form. True, the singular form could be interpreted as meaning, “each stood individually,” as in the verse,43Ibid. 49:22. See the commentaries of Rashi and Ibn Ezra, who explain that the singular form of the verb “strode” is used with “maidens”, which is plural, for the reason Tosfos Yom Tov offers here in the main text. “Maidens strode,” where a singular verb is used for a plural noun to imply that each one strode individually. Here, too, the intent is that both the sun and the moon stood individually. Nevertheless, there is room to explain, following the mode of derush, why the plural form is not used. Therefore, I maintain that the word “sun” in this verse can be understood as an introductory phrase, as if to say, “Let me tell you what happened concerning the sun.” Now, there are places in Scripture where the word “sun” takes a masculine form, as in the verses, “the sun emerged,”44Bereishis 19:23. and “and when the sun sets.”45Vayikra 22:7. However, there are other verses, e.g., “If the sun shines upon him,”46Shmos 22:2. and “And as the sun was setting,”47Bereishis 16:17. where the word “sun” takes a feminine form. Thus, the word zevulah could be understood as meaning “the sun’s domain.” Thus, the verse could be interpreted as meaning, “The sun – the moon stood in its domain,” i.e., to borrow the wording of our Sages mentioned above, the moon entered the domain and sphere of the sun.
Moreover, I maintain that the Men of the Great Assembly alluded to this concept in the wording they used for the blessing for the luminaries in the Shabbos Morning Prayers, kara lashemesh vayizrach or, which is usually translated as, “He called to the sun and it shined forth light.” However, if that were to be its meaning, the phrase should have read vizarach or, as in the verse,48Koheles 1:5. “and the sun shines.” Moreover, it is unnecessary to mention the word “light.” It is self-understood; thus, the verse cited previously does not mention the word “light”. Instead, I maintain that the subject of the phrase “and it shined forth light” is not the sun mentioned in the preceding phrase, “He called to the sun.” Instead, it refers to the moon, which entered the domain of the sun and shined forth light. The sun responded in anger, and as a result, God “looked and ordained the form of the moon,”49See also Tur, Orach Chayim 281, which cites a variant version of that hymn. Instead of והתקין צורת הלבנה, “ordained the form of the moon,” it reads והקטין צורת הלבנה, “reduced the form of the moon.” i.e., He told the moon, “Enough.” Accordingly, it retained the form the moon had at that time. Were the moon to have continued to draw closer to the sun, it undoubtedly would have had a different form.
א) מִדְרַשׁ רַבּוֹת איבאר רבינו אשר דברי המדרש אין פירושו כדברי הש"ס בחולין וגם שונה בפירושו משני מאמרי הזוהר, ועיקר השינוי הוא בזה שלדברי המדרש אין צריך ללמוד שהיה איזה שינוי במצב הלבנה בין שעת בריאתו ולאחריו כלל, אלא שמיד בבריאת המאורות היתה השמש גדולה מהירח, והשינוי הוא רק בענין כינוי הירח שקראו גדול בהשוואה לשמש ושוב קראו קטן, לסיבת היותה קופצת בראש ברצונה להאיר באותה שעה נגד השמש..
An Analysis of the Passage from Midrash Rabbah
לֹא רָמֵי קְרָאֵי אַהֲדָדֵי כִּדְרָמֵי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן פָּזִי, כִּי אֵין נִרְאֶה בְּעֵינֵי בַּעַל הַמִּדְרָשׁ הַזֶּה שֶׁיִּהְיוּ הַכְּתוּבִים סוֹתְרִים זֶה אֶת זֶה כְּלָל, עַד שֶׁאִם הֵם סוֹתְרִים נִצְטָרֵךְ עַל כָּל פָּנִים לָבוֹא לְמִדָּה זוֹ לוֹמַר שֶׁהָיוּ כָּאן שְׁתֵּי יְצִירוֹת זוֹ מְשֻׁנָּה מִזּוֹ, כְּמוֹ שֶׁהוּא לְמַאֲמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן פָּזִי עַל כָּל פָּנִים. וּמַה גַּם לִשְׁתַּיִם שֶׁמֵּהַזֹּהַר, עִם שֶׁאֵינָם מַרְחִיבִים וּמַגְדִּילִים הַהֶבְדֵּל שֶׁבֵּין שְׁתֵּי יְצִירוֹת אֵלּוּ כְּמוֹ רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן פָּזִי. אָכֵן לִדְהָרַבּוֹת לֹא קָשׁוּ קְרָאֵי אַהֲדָדֵי כְּלָל, כִּי הַכֹּל יְצִירָה אַחַת, וְלֹא בָא שׁוּם שִׁנּוּי בְּרִיאָה בְּגֹדֶל וְקֹטֶן. אַךְ כַּאֲשֶׁר הֵם עַתָּה אֵלּוּ שְׁנֵי הַמְּאוֹרוֹת, כֵּן הָיוּ מִלְּפָנִים מֵאָז שֶׁנּוֹצְרוּ וְנִבְרָאוּ.
This passage does not focus on the apparent contradiction between the phrases, “the two great luminaries” and “the small luminary” as does R. Shimon ben Pazi,11. Tosfos Yom Tov is referring back to the passage from Chulin 60b, which he cited previously. because the author of the Midrash did not see these phrases as contradictory, and definitely not to the extent that the phrases are to be considered as referring to two separate, distinct stages of creation, as R. Shimon ben Pazi understands the text. Indeed, this interpretation also differs from that found in both the passages from the Zohar cited above, which also highlight a difference between the moon’s original creation and its present state – although, according to the Zohar, the difference is not as great as R. Shimon ben Pazi maintains. Midrash Rabbah, by contrast, does not see the verses as in any way contradictory, but rather as one integral description of the moon’s creation without implying that it underwent a change – that the moon was created as great and then diminished. Instead, the present state of both the sun and the moon is the same as their original state at the time they were created.
וּמַה שֶּׁקְּרָאָם תְּחִלָּה שְׁנֵיהֶם "הַגְּדוֹלִים", יוּכַל לִהְיוֹת כִּדְבַר הָרַב אַבְרָהָם בֶּן עֶזְרָא (בראשית א טז) שֶׁכָּתַב: וְאִם יִשְׁאַל שׁוֹאֵל, הֲלֹא אָמְרוּ חַכְמֵי הַסְּפִירוֹת שֶׁכּוֹכַב צֶדֶק וְכָל הַכּוֹכָבִים חוּץ מִכּוֹכָב וְנֹגַהּ גְּדוֹלִים מֵהַלְּבָנָה, וְאֵיךְ כָּתַב "הַגְּדוֹלִים"? הַתְּשׁוּבָה; אֵין פֵּרוּשׁ "גְּדוֹלִים" עַל מִדָּתָם בְּגוּפָם, רַק עַל אוֹרָם, וְאוֹר הַלְּבָנָה כִּפְלֵי כִּפְלַיִם בַּעֲבוּר הֱיוֹתָהּ קְרוֹבָה מֵהָאָרֶץ. וְכֵן כָּתוּב "מָאוֹר". עַד כָּאן לְשׁוֹנוֹ.
Scripture’s description of both the sun and the moon as “great” can be explained according to the words of R. Avraham ibn Ezra:2See Ibn Ezra’s commentary to Bereishis 1:16. If one will ask: The astronomers have stated that the planet Tzedek3Tzedek is the name with which the Sages refer to the planet Jupiter. Tzedek means “righteousness.” The Sages referred to Jupiter as Tzedek, because in many pagan systems of mythology, this planet was identified with their primary false deity whom the pagans believed was the source for righteousness and justice. and indeed, all the planets and stars aside from Kochav and Nogah4Kochav, “planet” (or “star”) and Nogah (“brilliance”) are the names with which the Sages refer to the planets Mercury and Venus respectively. are larger than the moon, why then are they both described as “great”? In resolution: The term “great” does not refer to the size of the planets, but to their light. The light reflected by the moon is much greater than the light of the other planets and stars because it is much closer to the earth. This is also indicated by the term Scripture uses to refer to them: “luminaries.”5I.e., by referring to both the sun and the moon as “great luminaries”, the Torah is emphasizing their light, not their size.
כָּכָה גַּם לְפִי זֶה הַמִּדְרָשׁ. וְלָכֵן לֹא הוּקְשׁוּ לוֹ קְרָאֵי אַהֲדָדֵי, שֶׁהֲרֵי גַּם עַכְשָׁו שְׁנֵיהֶם אֲמִתִּיִּים, רוֹצֶה לוֹמַר; מַה שֶּׁנִּקְרְאוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם "גְּדוֹלִים". וְזֶהוּ מִפְּנֵי הַמָּאוֹר שֶׁבְּכָל אֶחָד מֵהֶם. וּמַה שֶּׁנִּקְרָא אַחַר כָּךְ הָאֶחָד "קָטָן", וְזֶהוּ לְפִי שֶׁהוּא קָטָן בְּעֵרֶךְ הַחַמָּה בְּמִדַּת גּוּפוֹ. וְאִי נַמִּי, מִכָּל הָאֲחֵרִים חוּץ מִנֹּגַהּ וְכוֹכָב. וְאִי נַמִּי, גַּם כֵּן בְּמָאוֹר נִקְרָא "קָטָן", וּבְעִנְיַן הָאוֹרָה.
Similarly, with regard to the wording of the Midrash cited: There is no contradiction between the verses, and even at the present time both verses are true. Both the sun and the moon are described as “great luminaries” because of the light each one shines forth. Afterwards, the moon is referred to as “small,” because it is smaller in size than the sun. Indeed, the moon is even smaller than all the stars and planets aside from Kochav and Nogah. Alternatively, the moon was called small because its light is less than that of the sun.
אֶלָּא הָא קַשְׁיָא לֵיהּ, לָמָּה יִפְגְמֵהוּ וְיִקְרָאֵהוּ בְּשֵׁם ״קָטָן״ אַחֲרֵי שֶׁכְּבָר גִּדְּלוֹ וְנִשְּׂאוֹ לִקְרֹא בְּשֵׁם ״הַגְּדוֹלִים״ לַשֶּׁמֶשׁ וְיָרֵחַ, וְלֹא חָשׁ עַל שֶׁהַיָּרֵחַ קָטָן מִמֶּנּוּ אִם בְּמִדַּת גּוּפוֹ אִם בְּהֶאָרָתוֹ? וְאִם נִתַּן שֵׁם חֲשִׁיבוּת לְמִי שֶׁיִּהְיֶה, אֵין מִן הַדֶּרֶךְ לַחֲזֹר מִשֵּׁם חֲשִׁיבוּת הַהוּא וּלְהַקְטִינוֹ. וְנִיחָא לֵיהּ, שֶׁהָיָה כֵן עַל יְדֵי שֶׁנִּכְנַס בִּתְחוּמוֹ שֶׁל חֲבֵרוֹ, כַּאֲשֶׁר עֵינֵינוּ הָרוֹאוֹת שֶׁהַלְּבָנָה עוֹמֶדֶת נִרְאֵית לָעֵינַיִם בְּמִקְצָת מֵהַשַּׁחֲרִית וּמִקְצָת מֵהָעַרְבִית בְּכַמָּה יָמִים מִימֵי הַחֹדֶשׁ. וּבְעִנְיָן שֶׁעָשְׂתָה כֵן, מִעֵט בִּכְבוֹדָהּ וְלֹא קְרָאָהּ עוֹד "גָּדוֹל" כִּי אִם "קָטָן", כִּי אָחֲזָה מִדַּת הַקְּטַנִּים הַקּוֹפְצִים בִּפְנֵי הַגְּדוֹלִים לוֹמַר 'כָּמוֹנִי כָּמוֹכֶם'.
Nevertheless, the Midrash saw a difficulty in the verses: Why would Scripture demean the moon by calling it small after it was already extolled and exalted by being described as “great” together with the sun, even though both its size and light are lesser? Once prominence is ascribed to an entity, it is improper to retract and minimize its importance. Therefore, the Midrash explains that it was appropriate for Scripture to do so because the moon “entered into its neighbor’s domain.” What does that mean? As we see, during certain days of the month, the moon can be seen in the sky in the morning and the evening, entering the domain of the sun, as it were. Since the moon does so, Scripture minimized its honor and does not refer to it as great, but rather as small, for it conducts itself in the manner of petty people who flaunt themselves before those who are truly great saying, “I am like you.”
וְאָמַר רַבִּי פִּנְחָס, בְּכָל הַקָּרְבָּנוֹת כְּתִיב כו׳ אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא הָבִיאוּ כַּפָּרָה עָלַי עַל שֶׁמִּעַטְתִּי בוהרי לשון זה מופיע בדברי ר"ש בן פזי שלומד שהירח נתמעט מגדלו הראשון. וע"ז משני רבינו שבעל המדרש רבה אינו סובר כן והכוונה כאן במיעוט הירח (לא במובן פיזי אלא) הוא בכינוי שכינה אותו "קטן". כו׳, לֹא מִעוּט בְּמִדַּת הַגּוּף וְלֹא מִעוּט בְּרִבּוּי הָאוֹרָה, כִּי בְּכָל זֶה לֹא נַעֲשָׂה שׁוּם הִשְׁתַּנּוּת, רַק מִעוּט כְּבוֹדָהּ בִּקְרִיאַת הַשֵּׁם.
Thus, when R. Pinchas said: “With regard to all other additional offerings… The Holy One, blessed be He, said: “Bring an atonement offering for Me because I diminished the moon,” he was not speaking about diminishing the size or the light of the moon, because there was no change regarding these aspects. God diminished only the moon’s honor by referring to it as “the small luminary.”
וְאַל תִּתְמַהּ עַל הַחֵפֶץ שֶׁחָפַצְתִּי גכלומר הרצון שרציתי לומר, דהיינו הפירוש המחודש שמפרש רבינו שמיעוט זה הוא מפני שהלבנה התנשאה ליכנס בתחום השמש. לוֹמַר שֶׁלְּכָךְ קְרָאָהּ "קָטָן", עַל שֶׁאָחֲזָה מִדַּת הַקְּטַנִּים הַקּוֹפְצִים בְּרֹאשׁ כֹּל. כִּי הֲלֹא כֹּה דִּבֶּר הָרַב אַבְרָהָם בֶּן עֶזְרָא בְּפֵרוּשׁ הָאַגָּדָה דְּפֶרֶק אֵלּוּ טְרֵפוֹת דשהרי האבן עזרא מפרש גם מאמר ר"ש בן פזי במס' חולין שהקיטרוג והמיעוט אינם כפשוטו. (רק שרבינו לא ס"ל כפירוש זה שם בגמ', ורק במאמר המדרש שלפנינו מפרש כן.) הָאֲמוּרָה לְמַעְלָה, הֱבִיאוֹ בַּעַל הָעֲקֵדָה בְּשַׁעַר ל״ז, שֶׁכָּתַב שֶׁהַקִּטְרוּג הַהוּא נֶאֱמַר עַל שְׁעַת הַהַקְבָּלָה הבשעה שחמה ולבנה הן זו כנגד זו (כמו "מקבילֹת הלֻלאֹת". (שמות כו ה)), שֶׁהַמְּאוֹרוֹת כְּאִלּוּ הֵם עוֹרְכִים קְטָטָה זֶה לְעֻמַּת זֶה בְּרֹחַק חֲצִי גַלְגַּל בֵּינֵיהֶם ובתחילת כל חודש אין הלבנה נראית ברקיע, ובמהלך חצי החודש הראשון היא נגלית יותר ויותר עד שבאמצע החודש היא נגלית לגמרי בשלימותה. כמו כן משך סיבובה ברקיע גדול יותר באמצע החודש מבתחילתה. דהיינו שמתחילת החודש עד אמצע החודש גם גודל גופה נגלית וגם אורך מהלך הלבנה בגלגל הרקיע מתארך עד שבאמצע החודש ישנו מצב שנראית הלבנה נגד כדור השמש ברקיע זו נגד זו כעורכים מלחמה (שעה זו נקראת "שעת הניגוד"). מיד אחרי מצב זה הלבנה מתחילה להתכסות מיום ליום עד סוף החדש שמתכסית לגמרי וכן מתקצר משך סיבובה עד שנעלמת לגמרי (שאז מתחיל "המולד" החדש)., וְאָז שְׁנֵיהֶם מְלֵאִים אוֹרָה וְזִיו כְּאִלּוּ אָז הַיָּרֵחַ מִתְנַשֵּׂא לֵאמֹר אֲנִי אֶמְלוֹךְ זעל פי מלכים א א, ה., וּמֵאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה, מִיָּד בִּנְטוֹתָהּ מֵהַנּוֹכְחִיּוּת הַהִיא, הִתְחִיל לְחַסֵּר אוֹרָהּ, וַהֲרֵי הוּא הַקְטָנָתָהּ חומפרש האבן עזרא שכוונת הגמ' שבזה שהלבנה עומדת נגד השמש כנ"ל כאילו בהתרסה זה עצמו פירוש הקטרוג הנזכר, ועל כן מיד אחריה היא מתחילה להתמעט כעונש על זה (ולקמן (שער ה פ"ג) יפרש רבינו סוגיית הגמ' במס' חולין ושם יביא מה שהקשו כמה מפרשים על פירוש ראב"ע)., וְצִוָּה הַשֵּׁם יִתְבָּרֵךְ שֶׁיָּבִיאוּ קָרְבָּן בְּיוֹם חֶסְרוֹן כָּל אוֹרָהּ. וְרָמְזוּ טַעַם "לְחַטָּאת לַה׳", בַּעֲבוּר שֶׁהַשֵּׁם יִתְבָּרֵךְ הוּא הַסִּבָּה הָרִאשׁוֹנָה לְהַמְעִיט אוֹרָהּ, כִּי בְרָאָהּ מְקַבֶּלֶת אוֹר הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ וְאֵין לָהּ אוֹר מֵעַצְמָהּ. עַד כָּאן לְשׁוֹנוֹ.
Do not question the interpretation I offered for the moon being called “small” – that the moon was described in this manner because it conducted itself in the manner of petty people who flaunt themselves before all others. These explanations are in accord with the interpretation given by R. Avraham ibn Ezra in explanation of the Aggadic teachings in Tractate Chulin mentioned above,6Ibn Ezra explains that the passage in Chulin 60b does not interpret the diminishment of the moon in a simple sense, but rather that it refers to the moon’s waxing and waning in its phases. Tosfos Yom Tov offers a different interpretation of that passage (see page 86ff.), but cites Ibn Ezra’s interpretation here because Ibn Ezra also refers to the moon as boasting and contending with the sun, as it were. as cited in the Akeidah, ch. 37,7Tosfos Yom Tov is referring to Akeidas Yitzchak, by R. Yitzchak ben Moshe Aramah. This text is often referred to as “the Akeidah” who states: The moon’s protests refer to the time of the alignment.8The time of the full moon when the sun, the moon, and the earth are all aligned in a straight line. Hence, the disc of the moon is full. Such an alignment occurs every month. When the three bodies are on more or less the same latitudinal plane, a lunar eclipse takes place. Generally, however, they are on different latitudinal planes and hence, such eclipses are rare. It is as if the luminaries are contesting with each other when they are at opposite ends of their orbits. When they are both filled with light it is as if the moon raises itself up to say “I will rule.”9Cf. I Melachim 1:5. Ibn Ezra borrows the wording of the verse that refers to Adoniyahu, who, like the moon, attempted to achieve greatness he was not destined for. From that time onward, as soon as the moon departs from that point, its light begins to diminish. This is the diminishment referred to by our Sages. God commanded that a sacrifice be brought on the day that all of the moon’s light is eliminated. The verse speaks of “a sin-offering for God,” since God was the first cause for the light of the moon to be diminished, for He created the moon in a manner that it receives light from the sun and does not possess its own light.
וְעִם הֱיוֹת כִּי בַּעַל הָעֲקֵדָה דָּחָה דְבָרָיו מִפֵּרוּשׁ מַאֲמָר הַנִּזְכָּר, וּכְמוֹ שֶׁאֶכְתֹּב (שער ה פ"ג) בְּהַגִּיעִי שָׁם בְּעֶזְרַת ה' יִתְבָּרֵךְ, מִכָּל מָקוֹם נִמְצֵינוּ לְמֵדִין שֶׁסְּבָרָתֵנוּ זֹאת לוֹמַר שֶׁעָשְׂתָה מִדַּת הַקְּטַנִּים כו׳ סְבָרָא הוּא טשאף שרבינו אינו מפרש לקמן דברי הגמ' כן, מכל מקום את דברי המדרש מפרש רבינו כן, ללמד חומר שלילת הנכנס לתחום חבירו.. שֶׁהֲרֵי הֶחָכָם הָרַב אַבְרָהָם בֶּן עֶזְרָא כֹּה סוֹבֵר בְּעִנְיַן הַקִּטְרוּג שֶׁמִּתְנַשֵּׂאת לוֹמַר אֲנִי אֶמְלוֹךְ.
True, the author of the Akeidah rejected Ibn Ezra’s interpretation of that passage, as I will explain in the appropriate place.10See page 70 below. Nevertheless, we learn from this that our conception – that the moon conducted itself in the manner of petty people – is a valid approach, for the sage R. Avraham ibn Ezra follows a similar approach, explaining that the moon’s protest was issued because it sought to exalt itself, saying, “I will rule.”
וּמָה שֶׁהֻקְשָׁה לְבַעַל הָעֲקֵדָה, שֶׁאֵין לְפָרֵשׁ כֵּן אוֹתוֹ הַמַּאֲמָר כְּדִלְקַמָּן ילקמן מביא רבינו מה שהקשה בעל העקדה על ראב"ע שלכאורה אין מאמר הגמ' מלמדת אותנו שום דבר, ולכן כותב רבינו כאן שלעומת זאת במאמר המדרש אפשר לפרש כנ"ל שהרי מלמדנו שני ענינים גדולים כבסמוך., לֹא יִקְשֶׁה לְעִנְיַן הַפֵּרוּשׁ שֶׁלָּנוּ בְּפֵרוּשׁ זֶה הַמַּאֲמָר, כִּי לִמֵּד אוֹתָנוּ מוּסַר הַשְׂכֵּל בִּשְׁתַּיִם. הָאֶחָד, שֶׁאֲנַחְנוּ לֹא נַעֲשֶׂה כְּמַעֲשֶׂה זֶה, וְאַף שֶׁזֶּה פָּשׁוּט וְלֹא הָיָה צָרִיךְ לִמּוּד, הִנֵּה בְּכָאן נַחְשֹׁב שֶׁכְּבָר הֻרְשֵׁית בְּכָךְ וּכְמוֹ שֶׁמְּבָאֵר וְהוֹלֵךְ, וְעִם כָּל זֶה הֻקְטְנָה בִּכְבוֹד שְׁמָהּ אֲשֶׁר נִקְרָא לָהּ מֵאָז. וְהַשֵּׁנִי, לָמַדְנוּ שֶׁהַגּוֹרֵם לָזֶה צָרִיךְ לְהָבִיא כַּפָּרָה יאכמאמר הקב"ה הביאו עלי כפרה..
The questions raised by the author of the Akeidah which led him to say that this passage should not be interpreted in this manner (as which will be explained below) do not apply with regard to our interpretation of this passage, for the passage teaches us two insights:
a) that one should not conduct himself in this manner – encroaching upon another’s domain. True, that is a simple concept and seemingly need not be taught. Nevertheless, here, it is important to emphasize because one might think that license was given for the moon to do so, as the passage continues. The passage teaches us that this behavior is unacceptable by showing that as a result of entering into the sun’s domain the honor of the moon’s name was minimized.
b) that the one who causes such conduct requires atonement.11That God, as it were, required atonement, since He structured the pattern of the moon’s appearance in the sky as such that from time to time it appears in the day, entering the domain of the sun as it were. Tosfos Yom Tov elaborates on this point further in the main text.
וְעוֹד מִתּוֹךְ כָּךְ אָנוּ לְמֵדִין בְּקַל וָחֹמֶר, מִי שֶׁאֵין לוֹ רְשׁוּת וְנִכְנָס לְתוֹךְ תְּחוּם חֲבֵרוֹ כַּמָּה גָדוֹל עָנְשׁוֹ מִנְּשׂוֹא, וְאִלּוּ לֹא שָׁמַעְנוּ עֹנֶשׁ לַנִּכְנָס וכו׳ בִּרְשׁוּת, לֹא הָיִינוּ יְכוֹלִים לְהַגְדִּיל הָעֹנֶשׁ כּוּלֵי הַאי עַל הַנִּכְנָס שֶׁלֹּא בִרְשׁוּת.
Furthermore, from this narrative, we learn through a kal vechomer (a fortiori reasoning) that one who enters another person’s domain without permission is deserving of punishment that is too great to bear. Had we not heard about the punishment visited on one who enters another’s domain with permission, we would not know how serious it is to enter another’s domain without permission.
וְאָמְנָם, עִנְיַן הַגְּרַם לְעִנְיָן הַכְּנִיסָה בִרְשׁוּת שֶׁהִזְכִּיר בַּעַל הַמִּדְרָשׁ, וְנִרְאֶה לִכְאוֹרָה שֶׁהוּא מַאֲמָר סָתוּר בְּעַצְמוֹ, וְאֵינוֹ כֵן יבסָתוּר בְּעַצְמוֹ, שהרי אין שייך ח"ו איזה טעות וכדומה למעלה עד שנאמר שניתן רשות ללבנה ליכנס בתחום חבירו. וְאֵינוֹ כֵן. כי הטעות היתה מצד שהלבנה טעתה בצווי השי"ת, ומ"מ הכפרה היא על זה "הגרם" ונתינת המקום כביכול לטעות בדברי הקב"ה (וכל זה עשה הקב"ה כדי ללמד ענין זה כמה חמור ענשו של הנכנס לתחומו של חבירו).. כִּי נְדַקְדֵּק תְּחִלָּה הֵיכָא רְמִיזָא הַגְּרַם אוֹ הָרְשׁוּת. נֹאמַר יגתוכן דברי רבינו להלן: שבפסוק המתאר את "עשיית" המאורות, נאמר שהמאור הגדול הוא לממשלת היום והמאור הקטן לממשלת הלילה, לעומתו הפסוק שמתאר את "תליית" המאורות ברקיע השמים, שם כולל את ממשלת שניהם ביחד כלומר שיש זמן ששני המאורות ישמשו כאחד. שֶׁמַּה שֶּׁכָּתוּב (שם פסוק יז–יח) "וַיִּתֵּן אוֹתָם אֱלֹהִים בִּרְקִיעַהַשָּׁמָיִם לְהָאִיר עַל הָאָרֶץ וְלִמְשֹׁל בַּיוֹם וּבַלַּיְלָה וּלְהַבְדִּיל וגו׳", שֶׁמַּשְׁמָע וַדַּאי שֶׁזֶּה שֶׁכָּתוּב "וְלִמְשֹׁל" אֵינוֹ מִסֵּדֶר הַהַבְדָּלָה, שֶׁהֲרֵי הַהֶבְדֵּל מוֹנֶה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ, אֶלָּא יֹאמַר עַל הַמֶּמְשָׁלָה וּמִשְׁטָרָם שֶׁל אֵלּוּ הַמְּאוֹרוֹת. וְיִקְשֶׁה לְפִי זֶה, הֵיאַךְ יֹאמַר בַּיּוֹם וּבַלַּיְלָה, שֶׁהַמֶּמְשָׁלָה לֹא עַל הַיּוֹם נֶאֱמַר וְלֹא עַל הַלַּיְלָה, אֶלָּא עַל הָאָרֶץ וְלַדָּרִים עָלֶיהָ. וְהָיָה אִם כֵּן מֵהָרָאוּי לְקַצֵּר וְלִכְלֹל וְלוֹמַר, "לְהָאִיר וְלִמְשֹׁל עַל הָאָרֶץ". שֶׁאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמִּתְחִלָּה אָמַר (פסוק טז) "לְמֶמְשֶׁלֶת הַיּוֹם וגו׳", הִנֵּה שָׁם לֹא נֶאֱמַר הַהֶאָרָה שֶׁעַל הָאָרֶץ עַד שֶׁהָיָה יָכוֹל לְכָלְלָם, מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן כָּאן.
Nevertheless, the concept that the one who causes someone to enter another’s domain with permission requires atonement mentioned by the Midrash seems to be self-contradictory.12If God created the sun and the moon in a manner that the moon would enter the sun’s domain, why would He require atonement for the moon’s action? In truth, however, this is not so. To explain: When we search for the first place the concept of causation and license are mentioned, it appears to be the verses,13Bereishis 1:17-18. “God placed them in the expanse of the heaven to radiate light upon the earth, to rule during the day and during the night, and to make a distinction between light and darkness.” From the verses, it is clearly evident that although the phrase “to rule” is used, “ruling,” i.e. exercising authority, is not an element of the distinction that is made, because making a distinction is mentioned separately in the verse. Instead, the term “to rule” refers to the sovereignty and dominion of these luminaries. A question thus arises: Why does the verse mention ruling “over the day and over the night”?14Although we originally translated the Hebrew words, limshol bayom u’valaylah as, “to rule during the day and during the night,” this phrase can also be translated as, “to rule over the day and over the night.” Tosfos Yom Tov is basing his question on this second interpretation. The sun and the moon are not ruling over the day or over the night; they rule over the earth and its inhabitants. Therefore, it would have been appropriate to use less words, and say, “to radiate light and rule over the earth.” True, the verse preceding these verses also mentions15Ibid. 1:16. “to rule the day.” Nevertheless, that verse did not mention radiating light upon the earth. Hence, the two concepts could not be coupled in that verse. In contrast, in this verse, it would have been possible to do so.
וּלְפִיכָךְ דּוֹרֵשׁ בַּעַל מַאֲמָר הַלָּז, שֶׁאָמְרוֹ "וְלִמְשֹׁל בַּיּוֹם וּבַלַּיְלָה", הוּא לְבָאֵר שֶׁמַּה שֶּׁאָמַר (שם) "וַיַּעַשׂ וגו׳ לְמֶמְשֶׁלֶת הַיּוֹם וגו׳ לְמֶמְשֶׁלֶת הַלַּיְלָה" שֶׁעִם שֶׁכָּךְ הָיְתָה הָעֲשִׂיָּה, אָמְנָם הַנְּתִינָה שֶׁאַחַר כָּךְ בָּרָקִיעַ הָיָה בְּעִנְיָן שֶׁיֵּשׁ מֶמְשָׁלָה לִשְׁנֵיהֶם יַחַד בַּיּוֹם וּבַלַּיְלָה. אֶלָּא שֶׁלֹּא בָא מְפֹרָשׁ אִם הַמְּכֻוָּן עַל אֶחָד מֵהֶם שֶׁיִּהְיֶה לּוֹ הַמֶּמְשָׁלָה הַזֹּאת הָאָמוּר בַּיּוֹם וּבַלַּיְלָה, וְאֵיזֶהוּ שֶׁכִּוֵּן אֵלָיו, אוֹ שֶׁהַמְּכֻוָּן גַּם עַל שְׁנֵיהֶם, שֶׁעִם שֶׁיֻּחַד הַיּוֹם לַשֶּׁמֶשׁ וְהַלַּיְלָה לַיָּרֵחַ, עִם כָּל זֶה, לֹא כָּל הַלַּיְלָה וְלֹא כָּל הַיּוֹם, כִּי מִקְצָת מִן הַיּוֹם אוֹ מִקְצָת מִן הַלַּיְלָה יִשְׁווּ יַחַד.
For this reason, the author of this Midrashic passage postulates that the statement, “to rule during the day and the night,” explains the previous verse, “God made the two great luminaries; the great luminary to rule the day, and the small luminary to rule the night.” True, God originally made the luminaries, each one with a separate dominion. When, however, God “placed them in the expanse of the heaven,” He allowed for the possibility that both luminaries would rule together, during the day and during the night. Nevertheless, the verse does not explicitly state whether the intent was that one of them would be ruling during the day and during the night, nor does it specify which one would be given this sovereignty. Perhaps the intent was that both luminaries were given sovereignty to rule during the day and during the night. True, the day was allotted to the sun and the night to the moon. Even so, it could be said that neither the entire night nor the entire day was allotted to either one, and so the luminaries would share dominion during part of the day and part of the night.
וּכְבָר נִמְצָאִים מִדְּרָשִׁים רַבִּים ידרבינו מביא להלן כמה דוגמאות מדברי חז"ל לענין זה, שיש כוונת מכוון אחת בעצם בריאתם, ושוב כוונה מיוחדת אחרת באופן וסדרי שמושן בעולם. לַחֲכָמֵינוּ זִכְרוֹנָם לִבְרָכָה שֶׁהִרְחִיבוּ לוֹמַר שֶׁהַנִּבְרָאִים בְּו׳ יְמֵי בְרֵאשִׁית הָיָה לָהֶם בְּעַצְמָם עִנְיָן מְכֻוָּן. כְּמוֹ שֶׁאָמְרוּ (בְּרֵאשִׁית רַבָּה פֶּרֶק ה): "אֲנִי אֵל שַׁדַּי", אֲנִי הוּא שֶׁאָמַרְתִּי לְעוֹלָמִי דַּי, שֶׁאִלּוּלֵי כֵן, הָיוּ שָׁמַיִם וָאָרֶץ נִמְתָּחִים וְהוֹלְכִים.
There are many Midrashim from our Sages that emphasize that the creation during the Six Days of Creation had a unique purpose, but the present form of certain entities is different.16Tosfos Yom Tov is explaining that just as the sun and the moon were created with a particular potential but afterwards, as they were placed in the heaven to function, that potential was adapted somewhat, so too we find other examples where the fundamental potential of a created being was modified so that it could function in a structured world. For example, on the verse,17Bereishis 17:1. “I am the Almighty Shaddai,” our Sages commented,18Bereishis Rabbah 5:8. “I am He who told My world ‘enough.’”19God’s name Shaddai can be read as she-dai, “that is enough”. Thus, the Midrash is explaining that the verse in Bereishis, “I am the Almighty Shaddai,” should be understood as meaning, “I am the Almighty She-dai, He Who told the world ‘enough’.” Had He not done so, the heavens and the earth would be endlessly expanding.20I.e., when they were created, heaven and earth had the potential to endlessly expand. However, God limited that potential.
וְאָמְרוּ עַל הַמַּיִם (פִּרְקֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר פֶּרֶק ה עַיֵּן שָׁם), כְּשֶׁיָּצָא הַדָּבָר מִפִּי הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא "יִקָּווּ הַמַּיִם", הָרִים וּגְבָעוֹת נִתְפָּרְדוּ עַל פְּנֵי כָל הָאָרֶץ, וְנַעֲשֵׂית עֲמָקִים עֲמָקִים עַל תּוֹכָהּ שֶׁל אֶרֶץ, וְנִתְגַּלְגְּלוּ וְנִקְוּוּ הַמַּיִם שָׁם, "וּלְמִקְוֵה הַמַּיִם קָרָא יַמִּים". מִיַּד נִתְגָּאוּ הַמַּיִם וְעָלוּ לְכַסּוֹת אֶת הָאָרֶץ כְּבַתְּחִלָּה, עַד שֶׁגָּעַר בָּהֶן הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא וּכְבָשָׁן וכו׳.
And with regard to the water, the Sages stated:21Pirkei d’Rabbi Eliezer, ch. 5; consult that source. When the utterance,22Bereishis 1:9. “Let the waters be collected,” was pronounced by the Holy One, blessed be He, the mountains and the hills separated23The wording in the standard published text of Pirkei d’Rabbi Eliezer differs slightly. over the surface of the earth and a series of valleys were made reaching the depths of the earth. The waters naturally flowed into them and were collected there, as indicated by the verse,24Bereishis 1:10. I.e., at first there was one watery mass. After God commanded the water to be collected, these valleys were made, and the watery mass was separated and collected into separate seas. “He called the gathering of the water, seas.” Immediately thereafter, the waters rose up in pride and sought to cover the earth as was their original state until the Holy One, blessed be He, rebuked them and subdued them.
וְעוֹד אָמְרוּ (בְּרֵאשִׁית רַבָּה שם) "וַתּוֹצֵא הָאָרֶץ דֶּשֶׁא", עָבְרָה עַל הַצִּוּוּי. שֶׁאָמַר לָהּ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא "עֵץ פְּרִי עֹשֶׂה פְּרִי", מַה הַפְּרִי נֶאֱכָל אַף הָעֵץ נֶאֱכָל. וְהִיא לֹא עָשְׂתָה כֵן, אֶלָּא "וַתּוֹצֵא הָאָרֶץ דֶּשֶׁא עֵץ עֹשֶׂה פְּרִי", פְּרִי נֶאֱכָל וְאֵין הָעֵץ נֶאֱכָל וכו׳.
Similarly, our Sages25Bereishis Rabbah 5:9. commented on the verse,26Bereishis 1:11. “Let the earth produce vegetation,” that the earth violated God’s command. The Holy One, blessed be He, commanded the earth to sprout forth “fruit trees that yield fruit,” implying that the actual tree would be able to be eaten. The earth did not do this. Instead, “the earth produced vegetation… trees yielding fruit,”27Ibid. 1:12. the fruit was edible, but the tree was not edible.
אַף כָּאן מִתּוֹךְ מַה שֶּׁפָּגַם בַּיָּרֵחַ לְקָרְאָהּ ״קָטָן״ אַחַר שֶׁכְּבָר קְרָאָהּ ״גָּדוֹל״, לָמַדְנוּ שֶׁנֶּעֶנְשָׁה עַל עָבְרָהּ אֵיזֶה עִנְיָן, וּכְמוֹ שֶׁהִזְכִּירוּ בַּאֲדָמָה שֶׁנִּתְקַלְּלָה כו׳ עַל עָבְרָהּ הַצִּוּוּי כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתַב רַשִׁ״י ז״ל.
In this instance as well, from the fact that Scripture demeaned the moon by calling it “small” after first calling it “great,” the Midrash understands that the moon violated God’s intent, just as the earth was cursed because it violated a Divine command, as Rashi states.28See Rashi’s commentary to Bereishis 1:11.
עַל כֵּן, הַמִּדְרָשׁ הַנִּזְכָּר חִפֵּשׂ וּמָצָא זֶה שֶׁאָמַרְנוּ, שֶׁאָמְרוֹ "וְלִמְשֹׁל בַּיּוֹם וּבַלַּיְלָה", שֶׁהוּא הוֹרָאָה שֶׁיִּהְיוּ יַחַד בַּיּוֹם וּבַלַּיְלָה, הַיְנוּ אוֹ מִקְצָתוֹ אוֹ שֶׁאֶחָד יִהְיֶה מֶמְשַׁלְתּוֹ גַּם בַּגְּבוּל שֶׁל הַשֵּׁנִי כָּל הַיּוֹם אוֹ כָּל הַלַּיְלָה הַהוּא. וְהִנֵּה סוֹבֵר בַּעַל הַמַּאֲמָר שֶׁהַמְּכֻוָּן הָיָה עַל הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ, וְהוּא בְּמַה שֶּׁהִיא גְּדוֹלַת הַגּוּף בְּכַמָּה מִן הָאָרֶץ. וּלְפִיכָךְ, אַף שֶׁהִיא בַּלַּיְלָה מִתַּחַת לָאָרֶץ, מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁהִיא גְּדוֹלָה וּמִתְרַחֶבֶת מִשֶּׁטַח הָאָרֶץ מְאִירָה מִמַּעַל לָאָרֶץ גַּם כֵּן, אֶלָּא שֶׁצֵּל הָאָרֶץ מַחְשֶׁכֶת וּמוֹנַעַת הָאוֹר.
Therefore, the Midrash sought to find a matter in which the moon deviated from God’s intent and it focused on the point we mentioned, that “to rule during the day and during the night” is a directive that the sun and the moon should function together during the day and the night. As we mentioned before, there are two possible explanations for this: a) that they should function together for part of the time, or b) that one should have sovereignty even in the domain of the other, also ruling the entire day or the entire night. The author of the Midrash maintains that the intent that one of the luminaries was given sovereignty in the time allotted to the other refers to the sun because it is many times larger than the earth. Thus, even at night when the sun is found below the earth’s horizon, its light shines around the earth, since it is larger than the sphere of the earth. Nevertheless, the sun is not visible because the shadow of the earth blocks its light and causes darkness.
וְאֶחְשֹׁב אֲנִי שֶׁזֶּהוּ כַּוָּנַת רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ, בְּפֶרֶק אֵין דּוֹרְשִׁין, (חגיגה יב:) שֶׁאָמַר שִׁבְעָה רְקִיעִים הֵם וְאֵלּוּ הֵן׃ וִילוֹן וכו׳, וִילוֹן אֵינוֹ מְשַׁמֵּשׁ כְּלוּם אֶלָּא נִכְנָס שַׁחֲרִית וְיוֹצֵא עַרְבִית. וּפֵרֵשׁ רַשִׁ"י טועיין מהרש"א (ח"א שם ד"ה וילון) שהאריך בפירש"י ותוס'. ועיין ביאורי הרד"ל על פרקי דרבי אליעזר פרק ג סוף אות מו. ועיין עוד בהערה הבאה.׃ נִכְנָס שַׁחֲרִית לְתוֹךְ תִּיקוֹ, וְהָאוֹר נִרְאֶה. יוֹצֵא עַרְבִית מִתִּיקוֹ וּמִתְפַּשֵּׁט לְמַטָּה מִן הָאוֹר, וַהֲרֵי הָעוֹלָם חָשׁוּךְ. עַד כָּאן לְשׁוֹנוֹ. וְהִקְשׁוּ הַתּוֹסָפוֹת (שם ד"ה נכנס), הֵיאַךְ נִרְאֶה הַכּוֹכָבִים כו׳, וּמַסְּקִי׃ נִכְנָס שַׁחֲרִית בָּעוֹלָם, וּמִמֶּנּוּ אוֹרָה יוֹצֵא. וְיוֹצֵא עַרְבִית מִן הָעוֹלָם, וּלְכָךְ הַכּוֹכָבִים נִרְאִים טזהמפרשים הרבו לתמוה בפירוש דברי התוס', וז"ל השפת אמת: פי' רש"י לתוך תיקו וממילא האור יוצא ותוס' פי' דנכנס בעולם לכן יש אורה, וקשה דא"כ משמש טובא, ומאי קאמר דאינו משמש כלום. ונראה דבלא"ה תמוה, דהא האור מן השמש, וכן הקשה בטורי אבן. לכן נראה לפרש דאין העולם יכול לקבל אור השמש רק ע"י פריסת הוילון, לכן גם לשיטת התוס' אינו משמש רק להסתיר רוב האורה, ועי"ז יכולין לקבל אור השמש, ואף על גב דעננים מכסין הכוכבים אבל השמש שאורו רב אינו מתכסה ע"י העננים, ומאיר גם באמצעית הוילון עכ"ל. וגם המהרש"א שבהערה הקודמת כתב, לולא דבריהם נ"ל לפרש באופן אחר. והנה רבינו דרך מיוחדת לו לפרש דברי התוס', שהכוונה בוילון הוא על צל כדור הארץ, ועפי"ז נתיישב מה שהקשו הנ"ל.. נִרְאֶה שֶׁהוּא הַצֵּל הַמַּחְשִׁיךְ יזכלומר צל כדור הארץ שהוא מתפשט יותר מגוף הכדור. וַהֲרֵי הוּא כְּמוֹ הַוִּילוֹן שתפקידו להיות מסך מסתיר, כך צל הכדור מסתיר קרני השמש שלא יאירו בלילה מעל הארץ אלא בחצי הכדור למטה. וְנִכְנַס שַׁחֲרִית לְמַטָּה מִן הָאָרֶץ, הוילון הוא בשחרית נכנס למטה כדי שיאיר השמש למעלה אבל לא למטה מן הארץ - וּמַחְשִׁיךְ שָׁם, וְיוֹצֵא עַרְבִית מֵעַל לָאָרֶץ, וכנ”ל שהכונה לצל הכדור ובערבית הוא מעל הכדור כדי להחשיך על הארץ., וַהֲרֵי הוּא כְּמוֹ הַוִּילוֹן וְנִכְנָס שַׁחֲרִית לְמַטָּה מִן הָאָרֶץ וּמַחְשִׁיךְ שָׁם, וְיוֹצֵא עַרְבִית מֵעַל לָאָרֶץ וּמַחְשִׁיךְ שָׁם, שֶׁאֵינוֹ אֶלָּא צֵל בְּעָלְמָא, וְנִרְאִין הַכּוֹכָבִים. וְנִמְצָא, שֶׁאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהַצֵּל מוֹנֵעַ אֶת הָאוֹר, אֲבָל לֹא מִפְּנֵי כֵן יִמְנַע מֶמְשַׁלְתּוֹ וּמִשְׁטָרוֹ, כְּמוֹ שֶׁלֹּא יִמְנְעוּ הֶעָבִים כֹּחַ הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ וּפְעֻלָּתוֹ, עִם שֶׁמַּאֲפִילִים וּמַחְשִׁיכִים גַּם כֵּן הָאוֹרָה בְּמִקְצָת.
I maintain that Reish Lakish alluded to this concept with his statement in Tractate Chagigah:29Chagigah 12b. “There are seven heavens: The first is Vilon30In modern Hebrew, vilon means “curtain.”… Vilon serves no function. It enters in the morning and departs in the evening.” In his commentary, Rashi explains: “It enters in the morning – In the morning, Vilon enters its sheath, allowing light to be seen.31According to Rashi, the vilon is like a curtain which when it emerges, prevents light from reaching the world. And departs in the evening – In the evening, Vilon departs from its shield and spreads below the light, causing the world to become dark.” Tosafos questions Rashi’s statements, asking: If Vilon prevents light from reaching the earth, how are the stars visible? Tosafos, therefore, offers a different interpretation: In the morning, Vilon emerges into the world, and light becomes visible from it. At night, Vilon departs from the world. Therefore, the stars become visible. Thus, it appears that Tosafos interprets vilon as a shadow which causes darkness,32With this explanation of Tosafos’ explanation, Tosfos Yom Tov is equating the vilon with the shadow of the earth. like a curtain. In the morning, it enters below the earth and causes darkness there and in the evening, emerges above the earth and causes darkness there. Nevertheless, since vilon is only a shadow, the stars are visible. Thus, although the shadow prevents the sun’s light from being seen, it does not stand in the way of the sun’s sovereignty and rule. This is comparable to the clouds, which do not hold back the power of the sun and its effect on the earth even though they obscure and dim the light of the sun somewhat.
אָמְנָם כֵּן הַיָּרֵחַ כְּמוֹ הַמַּיִם, שֶׁנִּתְגָּאוּ וְרָצוּ לַחֲזֹר וּלְכַסּוֹת הָעוֹלָם, כֵּן בְּגַאֲוָתָהּ שֶׁל הַיָּרֵחַ כִּוְּנָה הַמְּכֻוָּן אֵלֶיהָ. וְעִם שֶׁמַּעֲמָדָהּ לֹא הָיָה בְּאֹפֶן שֶׁתִּהְיֶה נִרְאֵית מִקְצָת יוֹם שַׁחֲרִית וְעַרְבִית, עִם כָּל זֶה שִׁרְבְּבָה קוֹמָתָהּ, וְאוּלַי נִתְקָרְבָה לְאוֹר הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ, וְקִיְּמָה בְּעַצְמָהּ מַאֲמָר "וְלִמְשֹׁל בַּיּוֹם וּבַלַּיְלָה", אָז פָּגַם הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא אֶת שְׁמָהּ. אָמְנָם לֹא גָעַר בָּהּ, וְלֹא בִטְּלָהּ מִמַּחְשַׁבְתָּהּ כְּמוֹ שֶׁגָּעַר בַּמָּיִם. שֶׁמִּכֵּיוָן שֶׁהָיָה לָהּ פִּתְחוֹן פֶּה, וְהוּא יִתְבָּרֵךְ הָיָה הַגּוֹרֵם בְּמַה שֶּׁלֹּא פֵרֵשׁ לְהֶדְיָא מִי יִהְיֶה הַמּוֹשֵׁל, אִם גַּם שְׁנֵיהֶם אוֹ אֶחָד בִּלְבָד, לָכֵן הִנִּיחָהּ בְּמַצָּבָהּ הַהוּא.
Despite the sun having been given sovereignty, the moon conducted itself like the water mentioned above.33I.e., as mentioned in the passage from Pirkei d’Rabbi Eliezer cited above. Just as the water rose up in pride and sought to return and cover the entire earth as it had before, so too, the moon in its pride interpreted the Divine charge to give sovereignty to one of the luminaries in both the day and the night as directed toward itself. Although the moon was not made in a manner that would permit it to be visible during part of the day and during the evening, nevertheless the moon still thrust itself forward and perhaps approached the light of the sun so that it would “rule during the day and the night.” Therefore, the Holy One, blessed be He, demeaned its name. Nevertheless, God did not rebuke the moon as He did the water, nor did He nullify its thought, because the moon had room for justification: it could have claimed that God was the cause of its actions in that He did not explicitly clarify which of the luminaries would be the one that would rule both during the day and the night, or whether both of them would. Therefore, God left the situation as it was, without undoing the moon’s initiative.
וְאִי נַמִּי, יֵשׁ לוֹמַר שֶׁהוּא כְּעִנְיָן שֶׁאָמַרְתִּי לְעוֹלָמִי דַּי כו׳ כְּדִלְעֵיל, שֶׁכֵּן גַּם כָּאן, לוּלֵא שֶׁהַשֵּׁם יִתְבָּרֵךְ הָיָה קוֹרְאָהּ "קָטָן", הָיְתָה הוֹלֶכֶת וּמִתְקָרֶבֶת, עַד שֶׁתִּהְיֶה נִרְאֵית כָּל הַיּוֹם. וּמֵאָז שֶׁקְּרָאָהּ בְּשֵׁם "קָטָן", תֵּחַת בָּהּ כְּמוֹ גְעָרָה, וְעָמְדָה בַּאֲשֶׁר הִיא שָׁם. וּמִכָּל מָקוֹם לְאָחוֹר לֹא נָזוֹרָה, הוֹאִיל וְשָׁמְעָה אָמְרוֹ יִתְבָּרֵךְ "וְלִמְשֹׁל בַּיּוֹם וּבַלַּיְלָה" בִּסְתָם, וְהוּא יִתְבָּרֵךְ שְׁמוֹ, לֹא מִלְּבַד שֶׁלֹּא הֱשִׁיבָהּ אָחוֹר, כִּי אִם אַף גַּם זֹאת עַל שֶׁקְּרָאָהּ "קָטָן", וְהוּא הָיָה הַגּוֹרֵם, בִּקֵּשׁ לִמְצוֹא דְּבַר חֵפֶץ לְפַיֵּס הַלְּבָנָה, לֵאמֹר, הָבִיאוּ כַּפָּרָה עָלַי.
Alternatively, it is possible to say that, as explained above, in the interpretation of the Midrash that states,34Bereishis Rabbah 5:8. “I am He who told My world ‘enough,’” had God not called the moon “small,” it would have continued to proceed and approach the status of the sun to the extent that it would be visible throughout the day. Calling the moon “small” affected it as a rebuke would, and caused it to halt and remain in its immediate position. Nevertheless, the moon did not return to its initial state, since it had specifically heard God say that the luminaries should rule “during the day and the night.” Even though He called the moon “small,” God also did not force the moon to return to its initial state, for He had been the cause for its act. Indeed, as reflected in the words, “Bring an atonement offering for Me,” God sought to find a way to appease the moon.
וְעִנְיַן הַפִּיּוּס הַזֶּה, וְהַלָּשׁוֹן הַדָּחוּק, שֶׁאָמַר "כַּפָּרָה", וְגַם "עָלַי", זֶה יִהְיֶה מְקוֹם בֵּאוּרוֹ בְּסוֹף הַמַּאֲמָר דְּפֶרֶק אֵלּוּ טְרֵפוֹת. כִּי שָׁם פֵּרֵשׁ בּוֹ גַּם הָרִי״ף עַל זֶה הַלָּשׁוֹן כְּמוֹ שֶׁהֲבִיאוֹתִיו לְמַעְלָה, וַאֲדַקְדֵּק עַל פֵּרוּשׁוֹ, וְאוֹדִיעַ דַּעְתִּי, בְּעֶזְרַת ה' יִתְבָּרֵךְ.
The appeasement granted the moon – and the difficult wording used by our Sages who speak of “atonement” and it being “for Me” – will be explained at the end of the passage from Chulin cited above. There, I will focus on the interpretation advanced by Rabbeinu Yitzchak Alfasi mentioned above, and make known my understanding of it.
וְאָמַר, מָה אִם זֶה שֶׁנִּכְנַס בִּרְשׁוּת כו׳, הַיְנוּ כְּפִי הַמַּחֲשָׁבָה שֶׁל הַלְּבָנָה, שֶׁסָּבְרָה שֶׁנִּתַּן לָהּ רְשׁוּת:
The passage in Bereishis Rabbah then concludes with an ethical lesson: “Now, if the moon entered the sun’s domain with license from God…,” alluding to the idea that the moon thought it was acting with license.35The ethical lesson is, the Midrash proceeds to state, that one should be careful not to enter the domain of another person.
וַאֲנִי טֶרֶם וְקֹדֶם שֶׁאֶכָּנֵס בְּבֵאוּר מַאֲמָר שֶׁאַחֲרֵי זֶה, אֶחְשֹׁב לְהַמְלִיץ עַל הָעִנְיָן זֶה שֶׁכִּוְּנוּ לוֹ חֲכָמֵינוּ זִכְרוֹנָם לִבְרָכָה, הַמַּאֲמָר שֶׁהַלְּבָנָה נִכְנֶסֶת הָיְתָה בִּתְחוּמָהּ שֶׁל הַחַמָּה, בְּדִבְרֵי הַנָּבִיא בַּחֲבַקּוּק ג׳ (יא), שֶׁאָמַר "שֶׁמֶשׁ יָרֵחַ עָמַד זְבֻלָה". וְעִם הֱיוֹת שֶׁאֵין בה״א מַפִּיק, וְגַם רַשִׁ״י פֵּרֵשׁ, בִּמְדוֹרֵיהֶן יחלדעת מפרשי התנ”ך מתפרש מקרא זה על הנס שאירע בימי יהושע שאמר שמש בגבעון דום וירח בעמק אילון, ופירוש “זבולה” הוא מדור השמש והירח שעמדו במקומן על פי דברי הנביא, אולם רבינו מבאר כמה דיוקים וייתורים שבהמקרא שאומרים דרשני, ודורש באופן אחר בעניינו שהירח עמד בזבול (מקום וגבול) השמש וכו’., כָּל תֵּבָה שֶׁצְּרִיכָה למ״ד בִּתְחִלָּתָהּ הֵטִיל לָהּ ה״א בְּסוֹפָהּ, וּפֵרְשׁוּהָ עַל מִלְחֶמֶת גִבְעוֹן כְּתַרְגּוּמוֹ. עַד כָּאן. וְאַף הָרַדַ״ק כָּתַב, שֶׁמֶשׁ יָרֵחַ בְּמִלְחֶמֶת יְהוֹשֻׁעַ כו׳ זְבֻלָה בַּשָּׁמַיִם, שֶׁהֵם זְבוּל וּמָעוֹן לָהֶם, כְּמוֹ שֶׁאָמַר "וַיַּעֲמֹד הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ בַּחֲצִי הַשָּׁמַיִם", זְבֻלָה הַה״א נוֹסֶפֶת כְּה״א לַיְלָה, כִּי הַמִּלָּה מִלְּעֵיל. עַד כָּאן. וּכְלוֹמַר, שֶׁאֵין הה״א סִימָן הַנְּקֵבָה, שֶׁכֵּן לַיְלָה גַּם כֵּן לָשׁוֹן זָכָר, כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתוּב "וַנַּחַלְמָה כו׳ בְּלַיְלָה אֶחָד". וְאִם כֵּן הַה״א נוֹסֶפֶת, מִכָּל מָקוֹם לְפִי דֶּרֶךְ הַמִּדְרָשִׁים נִדְרָשִׁים הַנּוֹסָפוֹת גַּם כֵּן. וְכֵן יֵשׁ לְדַקְדֵּק, שֶׁהָיָה לוֹ לוֹמַר ׳וְיָרֵחַ׳ בְּוא״ו, וְגַם הָיָה לוֹ לוֹמַר ׳עָמְדוּ׳. וְאַף שֶׁעָמַד יְכוֹלִין לִפָּתֵר כְּמוֹ "בָּנוֹת צָעֲדָה", שֶׁרוֹצֶה לוֹמַר, כָּל אַחַת וְאַחַת. כָּךְ כָּאן, עָמַד כָּל אֶחָד מִשְּׁנַיִם אֵלּוּ. מִכָּל מָקוֹם יָכוֹל הַדּוֹרֵשׁ לִדְרוֹשׁ, לָמָּה לֹא כָּתַב עָמְדוּ. וְלָזֶה אֲנִי אוֹמֵר שֶׁ׳שֶּׁמֶשׁ׳ הָאָמוּר כָּאן, הוּא כְּמוֹ קְרִיאָה, לוֹמַר מַה שֶּׁאֵרַע בַּשֶּׁמֶשׁ. וְעִם הֱיוֹת שֶׁנִּמְצָא בַּכְּתוּבִים שֶׁמֶשׁ בִּלְשׁוֹן זָכָר, כְּמוֹ "הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ יָצָא" "וּבָא הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ", הִנֵּה כְּמוֹ כֵן נֶאֱמַר "אִם זָרְחָה הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ עָלָיו", "וַיְהִי הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ בָּאָה". עַד שֶׁקְּרָאָהּ הַכָּתוּב גַּם כֵּן בִּלְשׁוֹן נְקֵבָה. וְיֹאמַר הַכָּתוּב שֶׁאֵרַע עִנְיָן בַּשֶּׁמֶשׁ, וְהוּא זֶה שֶׁהַיָּרֵחַ עָמַד זְבֻלָהּ שֶׁל הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ, הַיְנוּ נִכְנַס בִּתְחוּמָהּ וּגְבוּל שֶׁלָּהּ.
Before I will begin explaining the next passage,36I.e., before beginning the interpretation of the passage from the Zohar that follows. I would like to draw a possible connection between the statement of our Sages that the moon entered the domain of the sun and the words of the prophet Chabakuk,37Chabakuk 3:11. “The sun and the moon stood in their domains.” In that verse, the hei of the word zevulah, translated as “in their domains,” is written without a mapik (i.e., a “diacritic,” a mark indicating that the letter should be read as a consonant).38As will shortly be stated, Tosfos Yom Tov advances the interpretation of zevulah as “its (the sun’s) domain.” He prefaces his statements by saying that were that to be the interpretation, the hei should be written with a mapik. Hence, he agrees that this is not the simple meaning of the verse. Nevertheless, according to the approach of derush, there is room for the interpretation that he will advance. Thus, Rashi comments on that word:In their domains – Whenever a word requires a lamed at its beginning, a hei may be used at its end. The verse refers to the actions of the sun and the moon during the war against Givon, as reflected by the Targum.”39See Yehoshua 10:12. Similarly, Radak comments on that verse: The sun and the moon – In the war of Yehoshua…. In their domains – In the heavens, which serve them as a domain and as a home, as it is written:40Ibid. 10:13. “And the sun stood in the center of the sky.” The word zevulah contains an extra hei, like the hei of the word lailah, for the word is accented on the penultimate syllable. Radak is saying that the hei at the end of the word zevulah is extra and does not connote the feminine, just as the word lailah is masculine, as reflected in the verse,41Bereishis 41:11. Hebrew words ending with the letter hei are often feminine. However, this does not apply when the word is accented on the penultimate syllable. In such words the hei is called “extra,” i.e. it serves no grammatical function. Thus, although the noun lailah, “night,” ends in a hei, since the word is accented on the penultimate syllable, it is quantified by echad, the masculine form of the number one. Thus, we see that lailah is masculine, not feminine. “And we dreamt… on one night.” However, the way of the Midrashim is to give explanations even to extra letters.42As Tosfos Yom Tov will proceed to explain, in the mode of derush, the hei may be understood as feminine possessive. Also, the phrase, “The sun and the moon” requires explanation because the words are written without the connecting letter vav, i.e., without the word “and”. Also, the term amad, “stood,” requires explanation because seemingly, it should have been written with a plural form. True, the singular form could be interpreted as meaning, “each stood individually,” as in the verse,43Ibid. 49:22. See the commentaries of Rashi and Ibn Ezra, who explain that the singular form of the verb “strode” is used with “maidens”, which is plural, for the reason Tosfos Yom Tov offers here in the main text. “Maidens strode,” where a singular verb is used for a plural noun to imply that each one strode individually. Here, too, the intent is that both the sun and the moon stood individually. Nevertheless, there is room to explain, following the mode of derush, why the plural form is not used. Therefore, I maintain that the word “sun” in this verse can be understood as an introductory phrase, as if to say, “Let me tell you what happened concerning the sun.” Now, there are places in Scripture where the word “sun” takes a masculine form, as in the verses, “the sun emerged,”44Bereishis 19:23. and “and when the sun sets.”45Vayikra 22:7. However, there are other verses, e.g., “If the sun shines upon him,”46Shmos 22:2. and “And as the sun was setting,”47Bereishis 16:17. where the word “sun” takes a feminine form. Thus, the word zevulah could be understood as meaning “the sun’s domain.” Thus, the verse could be interpreted as meaning, “The sun – the moon stood in its domain,” i.e., to borrow the wording of our Sages mentioned above, the moon entered the domain and sphere of the sun.
וְאוֹמֵר אֲנִי עוֹד, שֶׁאַנְשֵׁי כְּנֶסֶת הַגְּדוֹלָה תִּקְּנוּ בְּסֵדֶר בִּרְכַּת הַמְּאוֹרוֹת בְּיוֹם הַשַּׁבָּת "קָרָא לַשֶּׁמֶשׁ וכו'". וְיוּבַן כָּל הָעִנְיָן הַזֶּה שֶׁאָמְרוּ שֶׁ"קָּרָא לַשֶּׁמֶשׁ וַיִּזְרַח אוֹר", שֶׁהָיָה לוֹ לוֹמַר ׳וְזָרַח אוֹר׳, כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתוּב "וְזָרַח הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ". וְגַם עוֹד, שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה לוֹ לוֹמַר ׳אוֹר׳ כְּלָל, כְּמוֹ שֶׁשָּׁם לֹא אָמַר ׳וְזָרַח הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ אוֹר׳. אֶלָּא פֵּרְשׁוּ בוֹ זֶה הָעִנְיָן, שֶׁ"קָּרָא לַשֶּׁמֶש" וְהִנֵּה "יִזְרַח אוֹר" אַחֵר, וְהוּא הַלְּבָנָה שֶׁנִּכְנְסָה בִּתְחוּמָהּ שֶׁל הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ, וְרָאָה זֶה שֶׁהַשֶּׁמֶשׁ כָּעַס וכו׳ וְהִתְקִין יטכאן המקום להעיר מהנוסח (נזכר בטור או"ח סימן רפ"א ועוד) ראה "והקטין" צורת הלבנה. "צוּרַת הַלְּבָנָה" שֶׁאָמַר לָהּ דַּי, וְעָמְדָה בְּזוֹ הַצּוּרָה שֶׁהִיא, שֶׁאִלּוּ נִתְקָרְבָה יוֹתֵר הָיְתָה בְּלִי סָפֵק עַל צוּרָה אַחֶרֶת:
Moreover, I maintain that the Men of the Great Assembly alluded to this concept in the wording they used for the blessing for the luminaries in the Shabbos Morning Prayers, kara lashemesh vayizrach or, which is usually translated as, “He called to the sun and it shined forth light.” However, if that were to be its meaning, the phrase should have read vizarach or, as in the verse,48Koheles 1:5. “and the sun shines.” Moreover, it is unnecessary to mention the word “light.” It is self-understood; thus, the verse cited previously does not mention the word “light”. Instead, I maintain that the subject of the phrase “and it shined forth light” is not the sun mentioned in the preceding phrase, “He called to the sun.” Instead, it refers to the moon, which entered the domain of the sun and shined forth light. The sun responded in anger, and as a result, God “looked and ordained the form of the moon,”49See also Tur, Orach Chayim 281, which cites a variant version of that hymn. Instead of והתקין צורת הלבנה, “ordained the form of the moon,” it reads והקטין צורת הלבנה, “reduced the form of the moon.” i.e., He told the moon, “Enough.” Accordingly, it retained the form the moon had at that time. Were the moon to have continued to draw closer to the sun, it undoubtedly would have had a different form.