Before entering into an explanation of this passage, I would like to raise certain questions: i) The passage focuses on an apparent contradiction between the phrase, “And God made the two great luminaries,” and the later phrases, “the great luminary” and “the small luminary.” Why is it necessary to say there is a contradiction between these phrases? In the present era as well, when compared to the other celestial bodies, the light of the sun and the moon is great. Hence, they can both described as “great luminaries” (as cited in sec. 1 in the name of Rav Avraham ibn Ezra), even though when they are compared to each other, one is greater and the other smaller.
I researched texts that would discuss the difficulty in this passage – some which discuss it as a whole or and others that discussing particular details of this passage. Knowing that the Maharal of Prague11. Rav Yehudah Loewe of Prague, known as Maharal of Prague, was a renowned Torah sage who authored many works, including commentaries on the Talmud and treatises of Jewish philosophy and mysticism. There is some dispute as to the exact year Maharal was born, but all historians agree that he was born between 5272 (1512 CE) and 5286 (1526 CE). Maharal died in 5369 (1609 CE). Rabbi Loeweserved as chief rabbi of Prague, and was one of Tosfos Yom Tov’s mentors. Here, Tosafos Yom Tov is citing Maharal’s text, Gur Aryeh, which is a commentary on the Torah, focusing primarily on Rashi’s commentary. was well-versed in all fields of knowledge, I opened his text Gur Aryeh, and I found the object of my search because he did discuss this passage. Nevertheless, Maharal’s treatment of the subject did not satisfy my desire, as will be evident from my citation of his words and my critique of them. True, to borrow the wording of our Sages,2Gittin 83b. The metaphor of our Sages has added significance in the present context, because the title of Maharal’s text, Gur Aryeh, means “The Lion Cub.” “One should not seek to refute the lion after his passing,” i.e., it is not proper to question the words of a Torah sage when he cannot respond. Nevertheless, our Sages also taught,3Cf. Berachos 62a, et al. “It is Torah and I am obligated to learn.” In this spirit I followed the example of our ancestors and teachers, whereby, that every later scholar who perceives a statement as being problematic turns to the sages of previous generations and raises questions if he has critique of his teachers instead of remaining silent. Others will see both the original work and the question, and choose that which they find more desirable. By saying, “One should not seek to refute the lion…,” our Sages were implying that critique of “the lion’s” teachings should be expressed with deference and respect. It should be realized that were “the lion” still with us, he might well have been able to resolve the questions asked concerning his words. The intent is not, however, to refrain from asking questions. True, the departed sage may well have had a resolution, but a judge can only rule on the evidence before him.4Cf. Sanhedrin 6b. Therefore, our Sages did not say, “One is not permitted to refute a lion….” This should suffice regarding this matter.
Gur Aryeh writes concerning this issue:5Gur Aryeh, Bereishis 1:16. There are those6Gur Aryeh is referring to the comments of Ibn Ezra cited previously. who raise questions regarding our Sages’ words, for the verse can be understood according to its simple meaning. The sun and the moon are described as “the two great luminaries,” because they are both great in comparison to the other celestial beings. Even so, the sun is referred to as “the great luminary,” because it is great in comparison to the moon. These scholars did not know the words of the Sages, for the wording of the verse indicates that the sun and moon were created at the same time, as it is written, “And He made… the great luminaries.” Now, since they are not identical – one is “the great luminary” and one, “the small luminary” – how could they have been created at the same time? For created beings that are different from each other were brought into being at different times. How then was it possible for “the great luminary” and “the small luminary” to be created at the same time? This is the true interpretation of the matter.
And in Parshas Pinchas, Gur Aryeh writes:7Gur Aryeh, Bamidbar 28:15. Rav Abraham ibn Ezra sought to interpret the matter cleverly and explain that he did not see any difficulty in these verses (i.e., the apparent contradiction raised by the author of the passage mentioned does not present any difficulty for Rav Avraham ibn Ezra), for the intent of the phrase “the two great luminaries” is that they appear greater than the other stars. Nevertheless, the moon can aptly be called “the small luminary” when compared to the sun. These words are mere prattle. Our Sages8I.e., the Sages who debated the subject in Chulin 60b. could also have offered such an interpretation. As we already explained in the beginning of Bereishis, such an interpretation should not be offered, since the sun and the moon were created at one time, and it is not befitting that two utterly different entities – one being described as “great” and one as “small” – be created at the same time, for they are opposites. Throughout the Creation, when entities were created together, they were equal. We are compelled to say that the verse, “And God made… the two great luminaries” implies that the sun and the moon] were created as equals, because they were created at the same time.
After begging forgiveness from Maharal’s honor and the honor of his Torah, I object to Maharal’s absolute renunciation of the position of those who question the interpretation he favors – saying that, “These scholars did not know the words of the Sages,” and his condemnation of the words of Rav Avraham ibn Ezra as “mere prattle” – for offering a simple explanation of the words of the verse. Maharal’s understanding of the source for the question our Sages raised in the passage from Chulin – that since the sun and the moon were created at the same time, they had to have been identical – is a reasonable thesis, but there is no absolute proof of its validity. Why then should Maharal reject the interpretation of Rav Avraham ibn Ezra so absolutely, calling it “mere prattle”? How much harsher is Maharal’s statement that “these scholars did not know the words of the Sages”! Behold, there are three testimonies from the words of our Sages themselves, which were not concerned with the questions raised in the passage from Chulin. Without a doubt, the reason is that these Sages also understand the narrative in Bereishis according to the simple interpretation advanced by Rav Avraham ibn Ezra and the other scholars whom Maharal maligns.
These three “testimonies” are the three passages that I cited before this passage from Chulin. The passage from the Zohar Chadash, Shir HaShirim, explicitly states: “The intent is not that the moon was originally greater and superior to its present state. Instead, as long as the moon would stand together with the sun in one mystical bond, as a result of this, it was called ‘great’ along with it.”
The passage from its companion, the Raya Mehemna, also supports this view. The description of both the sun and the moon as “great” does not create a difficulty for the Raya Mehemna, as it refers to “the two kings” as being the planets Nogah and Kochav which were originally below the moon and which are now above the moon. According to the understanding of the Raya Mehemna, “the two kings” are not the sun and the moon, as the passage from Chulin infers. If so, according to the Raya Mehemna, the term “great luminaries” can refer to the sun and the moon, as is the simple interpretation, for their light is great when compared to the light of the other stars. Nevertheless, since the Torah later refers to the moon as “small” and does not suffice its reference to the moon by saying, “one luminary to rule the day and another to rule the night,” the Raya Mehemna understood that the verse alluded to the diminishment of the moon in the manner which was explained in section 3. Thus, there are two passages that support the approach of Rav Avraham ibn Ezra.
The third passage that] supports the approach of Rav Avraham ibn Ezra is the passage in Midrash Rabbah which points out the difficulty in the Scriptural passage in that God demeaned the moon by calling it “small” after He originally gave the moon prominence and called it “great.” However, according to Midrash Rabbah, the description of the sun and the moon as “great” does not mean that they were formerly equal in size, but rather that both the sun and the moon were of greater prominence than the other celestial bodies. Nevertheless, Midrash Rabbah felt that an explanation was necessary, since once the moon had been described as “great” – even though it is smaller than the sun – Scripture should not have referred to it as “small,” for that is demeaning.
Thus, there are three faithful testimonies from the works of our Sages that indicate they understand that the verse should be understood according to its simple meaning and left at that. Therefore, there are no grounds for reproach against one who accepts this interpretation and does not see any contradiction between the fact that Scripture first referred to both the sun and the moon as “great” and afterwards called the moon “small”. Instead, these three passages present a different question: Why was it necessary for Scripture to call the moon “small” after first calling it “great”? From the interpretation of the narrative in these sources, it is obvious that they do not accept the rationale cited by Gur Aryeh – that the fact that the sun and the moon were created at the same time shows that they were created as equals in all matters. Why must Gur Aryeh hold to this rationale so forcibly and say that someone who does not accept it does not know the way of the Sages? We see that there were Sages who did not accept this rationale, as is evident from the fact that they did not see the contradiction between the two verses as presented in the passage in Chulin.
11
וְתוּ, שֶׁסְּבָרָא זוֹ הֲרֵי מָצִינוּ פְּסוּקִים הַמִּתְנַגְּדִים לָהּ אובחידושי אגדות הש"ס למהר"ל (שבועות ט:) הרגיש בקושיא זאת ויישב שם שבכל מקום ששני הנבראים משלימים זה את זה, אף שאינם ממש שוים, גם כן נבראו בעשייה אחת., שֶׁכֵּן נֶאֱמַר (בראשית א כא) "וַיִּבְרָא אֱלֹהִים אֶת הַתַּנִּינִם הַגְּדֹלִים". וּבֵין שֶׁיִּהְיֶה כְּפִי פְשׁוּטוֹ שֶׁרוֹצֶה בּוֹ דָּגִים גְּדוֹלִים שֶׁבַּיָּם, כִּדְפֵרֵשׁ רַשִׁ״י, אִם כֵּן וַדַּאי שֶׁאֵין כֻּלָּם שָׁוִים, וְכַאֲשֶׁר עוֹבְרֵי אָרְחוֹת יַמִּים יָעִידוּ וְיַגִּידוּ עַל עִנְיְנֵי הַדָּגִים שֶׁבַּיָּם. אוֹ שֶׁיִּהְיֶה כְּפֵרוּשׁ הָאַגָּדָה שֶׁהֵבִיא רַשִׁ״י זִכְרוֹנוֹ לִבְרָכָה, שֶׁרוֹצֶה לוֹמַר עִנְיַן הַלִּוְיָתָן וּבֶן זוּגוֹ, וְלָמְדוּ בְּפֶרֶק הַמּוֹכֵר אֶת הַבַּיִת )ב"ב עד:) מִדִּכְתִיב (ישעי' כז א) "יִפְקוֹד ה׳ בְּחַרְבּוֹ הַקָּשָׁה וְהַחֲזָקָה עַל לִוְיָתָן נָחָשׁ בָּרִחַ וְעַל לִוְיָתָן נָחָשׁ עֲקַלָּתוֹן", תַּרְתֵּי - חַד זָכָר וְחַד נְקֵבָה. וּפֵרֵשׁ רַשְׁבַּ״ם זִכְרוֹנוֹ לִבְרָכָה, נָחָשׁ בָּרִיחַ הוּא הַזָּכָר שֶׁזָּקוּף כְּבָרִיחַ, וְלִוְיָתָן נָחָשׁ עֲקַלָּתוֹן הוּא הַנְּקֵבָה שֶׁמַּקִּיף אֶת הָעוֹלָם. עַד כָּאן. וַהֲרֵי בְּתַרְתֵּי אֵינָם שָׁוִים, שֶׁזֶּה זָכָר וְזוֹ נְקֵבָה, וְזֶה זָקוּף וְזֶה מְעֻקָּל. וְכֵן אַתָּה מוֹצֵא בְּאָדָם וְחַוָּה, לְמַאן דְּאָמַר דּוּ פַּרְצוּפִים נִבְרְאוּ, שְׁנַיִם שֶׁנִּבְרְאוּ כְּאֶחָד וּמְדֻבָּקִים יַחַד, הֲרֵי הָיוּ שְׁתֵּי יְצִירוֹת - פַּרְצוּף זָכָר וְכֻלּוֹ, וּפַרְצוּף נְקֵבָה וְכֻלָּהּ. וְעוֹד, בְּרִיאַת הַשָּׁמַיִם, עִם שֶׁהוּא מַה שֶּׁנֶּאֱמַר "בְּרֵאשִׁית בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִם", אוֹ הוּא מַה שֶּׁנֶּאֱמַר "וַיַּעַשׂ אֱלֹהִים אֶת הָרָקִיעַ", כְּפִי חִלּוּקֵי דֵּעוֹת הַמְּפָרְשִׁים זללה״ה בכוונת רבינו נראה שמתייחס למה שהתחבטו מפרשי התורה לבאר מה שבתחילה כתוב בראשית ברא את השמים וזה היה ביום הראשון, ושוב ביום השני נאמר ויאמר אלקים יהי רקיע, משמע שהשמיים (רקיע) נברא רק ביום השני, ותירצו כל אחד באופן אחר. עיין רמב"ן ורד"ק בראשית א, א., הֲרֵי מִכָּל מָקוֹם לְכָל הַשָּׁמַיִם נִתְכַּוֵּן הַפָּסוּק, בִּבְרִיאָה אוֹ בַּעֲשִׂיָּה אַחַת. וּלְפָחוֹת יֵשׁ שְׁנֵי שָׁמַיִם, כְּמוֹ שֶׁהֵבֵאתִי לְעֵיל סִימָן הַקּוֹדֵם. וְאֵינָם שָׁוִים, בְּלִי סָפֵק, שֶׁהֲרֵי הָעֶלְיוֹן מַקִּיף אֶת הַתַּחְתּוֹן, וּבְהֶכְרֵחַ הוּא גָּדוֹל מִמֶּנּוּ.
Furthermore, we find several verses that appear to contradict this principle.9Maharal was aware of this question, and offers the following explanation (Chiddushei Aggados, Shevuos 9b): when the created beings are complementary, like heaven and earth, it is possible that they were created at the same time even though they are not identical. For example, “God created the great sea-creatures.”10Bereishis 1:21. There are some who, like Rashi, interpret the verse simply, as referring to the various large fish in the sea. Now, certainly, not all the large fish are of the same size, as any sea-farer will relate. Even if one would say that – as is the Aggadic interpretation11Bava Basra 74b. that Rashi also cites – the verse refers to the Leviathan and its mate, the male and female Leviathan were not identical, as is evident from that Talmudic passage which cites the verse,12Yeshayahu 27:1. “On that day, God will focus the attention of His hard and strong sword upon Leviathan, the extended serpent, and upon Leviathan, the crooked serpent.” The Talmud notes that the word Leviathan is mentioned twice, once referring to the male and once to the female. Rashbam explains that the words “the extended serpent” refer to the male, which is straight, like a door-bolt.13The Hebrew describes the first Leviathan as nachash bariach, which we translated as, “an extended serpent.” Rashbam interprets the word bariach as meaning “a door-bolt”, for the reason Tosfos Yom Tov gives in the main text. The words “the crooked serpent” refer to the female Leviathan that surrounds the entire world. Thus, even according to this interpretation, the two were not identical: one was male, the other female; one straight, the other crooked. The same principle applies with regard to Adam and Chavah, according to the interpretation14Berachos 61a. that they were created together as a two-faced entity. According to this interpretation, although Adam and Chavah were created together and fused as one being, they were nevertheless formed differently – one was entirely male, and one was entirely female. The same is true regarding the creation of the heavens. First, it is written:15Bereishis 1:1. “In the beginning, God created the heavens,” and then it is written:16Ibid 1:7. “God made the firmament,” as explained by the commentaries.17The commentaries see an apparent contradiction between these two verses, and many of the commentaries have proposed resolutions. See, for example, the commentaries of Ramban and Radak to Bereishis 1:1. As cited in the previous section, there are at least two heavens, and they are not identical. Since the higher heaven encompasses the lower one, it must be greater than the lower one. In any event, the verses refer to all the heavens, which were created or made with one act.
12
וְעוֹד, הֲרֵי דָּוִד הַמֶּלֶךְ עָלָיו הַשָּׁלוֹם אָמַר (תהלים קלו ז) "לְעֹשֵׂה אוֹרִים גְּדֹלִים" בִּלְשׁוֹן הוֹוֶה, וּכְמוֹ שֶׁאָמַר (שם ה) "לְעֹשֵׂה הַשָּׁמַיִם בִּתְבוּנָה", "לְרֹקַע הָאָרֶץ עַל הַמָּיִם" (שם ו). וְהָעִנְיָן בְּלִי סָפֵק, לְפִי שֶׁהוּא "מְחַדֵּשׁ בְּכָל יוֹם תָּמִיד מַעֲשֵׂה בְרֵאשִׁית" (נוסח ברכת יוצר) גהנה ראשונים פירשו 'המחדש בטובו בכל...' קאי על חידוש זריחת השמש בכל יום מחדש (וכמו שנאמר חדשים לבקרים רבה אמונתך) וכמ"ש באבודרהם בברכות קריאת שמע וז"ל: ובטובו מחדש בכל יום תמיד מעשה בראשית. רוצה לומר על זריחת האור בכל יום שנאמר בו כי טוב. ואמר 'מעשה בראשית', כי כמו שהבדיל בין האור ובין החשך בששת ימי בראשית, כמו שנאמר (בראשית א, ד) ויבדל אלהים בין האור ובין החשך, כך הוא מתמיד אותה הויה בכל יום. אמר 'תמיד', על שם (שם ח, כב) ויום ולילה לא ישבותו. עכ"ל. ולפי פירוש זה מובן שפיר הכוונה במילים "בכל יום", אמנם מילת "תמיד" יש בו קושי בהבנתו, שהרי משמעותו הוא שבנוסף על החידוש של המחזור היומי ישנו חידוש מעשה בראשית בכל רגע. בזה מפרש רבינו כאן שהחידוש הזה מוכרח, מצד שאילו היה השי"ת מסיר שפעו לרגע אחד מהנבראים הרי היה הכל חוזר לאין ואפס. ועיין לקוטי אמרים תניא שער היחוד והאמונה פ"א שהאריך ברעיון זה בשם הבעש"ט לפרש הפסוק לעולם ה' דברך נצב בשמים.. כִּי אִלּוּ יְצֻיַּר שֶׁיָּסִיר הַשֵּׁם יִתְבָּרֵךְ שִׁפְעוֹ מֵהַבְּרוּאִים דהנה פירוש זה שפירש רבינו, אף שנמצא בספרי חסידות וכנ"ל בהערה הקודמת, הרי שדברי רבינו הם מהמקורות הראשונים לפירוש זה, ומצינו חבר לו (בן דורו ומוקדם בשנים) בשל"ה הקדוש (עשרה מאמרות מאמר שלישי ורביעי) וז"ל: וכן פירוש 'ואתה מחיה את כולם', והכל ענין אחד. כי מאחר שהוא היוה אותם והמציאם מן האין, יוכרח שיושפעו ממנו, ושואבים כולם ממנו חיות[ם]. ואחר שהוא מחיה אותם, נמצאו שהוא ממציאם ומהוום בכל עת ובכל רגע ובכל שעה. והנה 'מהווה' ו'מחיה' הכל ענין אחד להם. ובענין זה יובן 'ובטובו מחדש בכל יום תמיד מעשה בראשית', שהוא שפע השופע להחיותם ולהעמידם ולהציבם בצביונם. ואם חס ושלום יעלה על הדעת הסתלקות שפעו מהם כרגע יספו, ואינם אלא מחודשים בסוד חידוש אורו, עכ"ל., יַחְדָּו יִכְלוּ אַף יָסוּפוּ כְּרֶגַע הומה שתיקנו חז"ל דווקא לומר ולהזכיר החידוש של מעשה בראשית המתחדשת בכל יום מחדש אף שהם מתחדשים בכל רגע, הוא מפני שאז נראה בחוש לעיני כל איך שמעביר יום ומביא לילה וחדשים לבקרים (ליקוטי תורה לבעל התניא פרשת אחרי דף כו ע"א).. וְהַשְׁתָּא, אִי אָמַרְתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא שֶׁנִּקְרְאוּ 'גְּדוֹלִים' אַף שֶׁאֵינָם שָׁוִים אֲבָל בְּעֵרֶךְ אֲחֵרִים, אִם כֵּן שַׁפִּיר קָאָמַר "לְעֹשֵׂה אוֹרִים גְּדֹלִים", הַיְנוּ אוֹתָם שֶׁבְּמַעֲשֵׂה בְרֵאשִׁית, שֶׁמְּחַדְּשָׁם בְּכָל יוֹם. אֲבָל אִי אָמַרְתְּ שֶׁבְּמַעֲשֵׂה בְרֵאשִׁית הָיוּ שָׁוִים מִכָּל צַד, וּמִפְּנֵי הַקִּטְרוּג נִתְמַעֲטָה, אֵיךְ יֹאמַר דָּוִד הַמֶּלֶךְ עָלָיו הַשָּׁלוֹם "לְעֹשֵׂה אוֹרִים גְּדֹלִים"? וַהֲרֵי אֵינָם עַתָּה כֵּן כַּאֲשֶׁר הָיוּ בַּתְּחִלָּה! הֲרֵי שֶׁגַּם הַפָּסוּק הַזֶּה עוֹמֵד כְּנֶגֶד הַסְּבָרָא הַזֹּאת שֶׁל הַגּוּר אַרְיֵה.
Furthermore, King David praises God “Who makes the great luminaries,”18Tehillim 136:7. using the present tense. King David similarly uses the present tense in the phrases,19Ibid. 136:5. “Who makes the heavens with understanding,” and, “Who spreads out the land over the waters.”20Ibid. 136:6. Without a doubt, God “renews every day, continually, the work of Creation.”21Tosfos Yom Tov is citing the daily Shacharis liturgy. Unquestionably, were God to withdraw His Creative energy from the created beings, they would all cease to exist immediately.22Tosfos Yom Tov is emphasizing that Creation is not a historical event that happened at the beginning of time, but an ongoing process. This concept is explained in Shalah (Asarah Maamaros, Discourse 3 and 4) and at length in Tanya (Shaar HaYichud VehaEmunah). The underlying concept is that since the world was created yesh me’ayin, i.e., existence came into being from an absolute void, its fundamental state is nothingness. Therefore, were God not to continually renew His creative energy, all of existence would return to that initial state of absolute nothingness. Accordingly, it can be said that if the sun and the moon could both be considered as great luminaries even though they are not identical, because they are “great” in comparison to other celestial bodies, then the words of praise “Who makes the great luminaries” are appropriate, the intent being that the “great luminaries” brought into being at the time of Creation are renewed each day. If, however, one postulates that the sun and the moon were identical at the time of Creation, and the moon was diminished because of its complaint, how could King David praise God as the One “Who makes the great luminaries”? At present, they are not the same as they were originally. Thus, this verse also appears to contradict the logic advanced by Gur Aryeh.
13
וְכֵן תִּמְצָא כַּמָּה פְּסוּקִים שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בָּהֶם 'גְּדוֹלִים', וְאֵינָם שָׁוִים. אֶלָּא שֶׁעַל זֶה יֵשׁ לוֹמַר, כֵּיוָן שֶׁאֵינָם בִּבְרִיאָה אַחַת, אֵינָם צְרִיכִים לִהְיוֹת שָׁוִים. אַךְ לְפִי זֶה פַּעַם יִהְיֶה שֵׁם ׳הַגְּדוֹלִים׳ כָּךְ, וּפַעַם יִהְיֶה כָּךְ. וְכָל זֶה מַה שֶּׁמַּחְלֶשֶׁת כֹּחַ הַסְּבָרָא הַהִיא. וְהַדְרָא קֻשְׁיָא לְדוּכְתָּא, מָה רוּמְיָא הִיא דְּמַרְמֵי קְרָאֵי אַהֲדָדֵי, וַהֲרֵי לֹא קַשְׁיָא וְלֹא מִידִי: וסיכום שאלה א: בקושיית הגמ' צריך ביאור מה היא הסתירה בין הפסוקים, שהרי יש לפרש "גדולים" ביחס לשאר המאורות (כוכבים), ומ"ש המאור הקטן והגדול הוא ביחס הלבנה לחמה.
Similarly, there are many verses which describe diverse entities as “great” even though they are not identical. True, it can be said that these verses do not represent a contradiction to the above thesis, the rationale being that since the entities mentioned in these verses were not created at the same time, they need not be identical. Nevertheless, according to this logic, at times the term “great” will have one meaning, and at times another. Thus, it weakens the strength of that thesis. Thus, the original question returns: Why are the verses considered as contradictory? In truth, there is no difficulty in understanding them.
14
הַב׳). אָמְרָה יָרֵחַ וכו'. וְכָל הַוִּכּוּחִים וַדַּאי צְרִיכִים סַעַד. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁיְּכוֹלִין אָנוּ לוֹמַר דְּשֶׁמָּא מִבְּלִי וִכּוּחַ, מִיָּד שֶׁהִקְטִין הַיָּרֵחַ, שֶׁזֶּה מֻכְרָח מִכֹּחַ הָרוּמְיָא, הִנֵּה מֵעַצְמוֹ יִתְבָּרֵךְ [שָׁב] וְרָפָא לָהּ בַּפִּיּוּס הָאַחֲרוֹן. וְאַף טַעֲנַת הַיָּרֵחַ הָרִאשׁוֹנָה, שֶׁמָּא לֹא הִיא, אֶלָּא מֵעַצְמוֹ רָאָה יִתְבָּרֵךְ שֶׁאֵין הָעוֹלָם מִתְקַיֵּם בִּשְׁנֵי מְלָכִים שֶׁיִּשְׁתַּמְּשׁוּ בְּכֶתֶר אֶחָד, הִקְטִין הָאֶחָד וּפִיְּסָהּ עַל שֶׁלֹּא הִקְטִין לַשֵּׁנִי, וּכְמוֹ שֶׁאֶזְכֹּר בַּקֻּשְׁיָא הַד׳. וּכְדֶרֶךְ שֶׁאָמְרוּ זִכְרוֹנָם לִבְרָכָה, בַּתְּחִלָּה בָּרָא הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא הָעוֹלָם בְּמִדַּת הַדִּין, וְרָאָה שֶׁאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהִתְקַיֵּם, וְשִׁתֵּף מִדַּת הָרַחֲמִים וכו׳: זסיכום שאלה ב: מה המקור שהיה טענה וויכוח בכלל מצד הלבנה? הרי יתכן שכל הענין נעשה מצד הקב"ה ללא ויכוח.
ii) The passage in Chulin states that the moon complained. Whenever it is postulated that there was a complaint, proof of such is necessary. This is because if – as a result of the contradiction between the verses – one is forced to say that the moon was diminished, it is possible to say that perhaps God immediately diminished the moon without it complaining at all. Instead, God recognized that the world could not be maintained when two kings use a single crown. Afterwards, because He diminished the size of the moon and did not diminish the size of the sun God might have offered the moon consolation on His own initiative. This idea will be mentioned in the fourth question. A parallel to this idea can be found in our Sages’ words,23Bereishis Rabbah 12:15, cited by Rashi in his commentary to Bereishis 1:1. “Initially, the Holy One, blessed be He, created the world with the attribute of Judgment. He saw that the world would not be able to continue, therefore, He blended the attribute of Mercy with the attribute of Judgment.” Without a complaint having been issued, God realized that an adjustment had to be made to the initial state of Creation, and did so on His own initiative.
iii) The moon’s words imply that its complaint was reasonable and justified. This is also reflected by the fact that God made several conciliatory gestures to the moon after diminishing it. If so, a great question arises: How is it possible that God made both luminaries “great” without realizing that it is impossible for two kings to wear one crown?
16
הַד׳). וְלוּ הוּנַח שֶׁכָּךְ הָיוּ מִתְּחִלָּה שָׁוִים מִכָּל צַד, וְשֶׁאַחַר כָּךְ נִתְמַעֵט הָאֶחָד, אַכַּתִּי יוֹתֵר מִסְתַּבֵּר שֶׁהַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מֵעַצְמוֹ נִמְלַךְ וְטָעַן אֶפְשָׁר לְב׳ מְלָכִים, וּמִפְּנֵי כֵן מִעֵט הָאֶחָד, וּמְנָא לֵיהּ לְבַעַל הַמַּאֲמָר שֶׁהַיָּרֵחַ קִטְרְגָה? וְאֵין מַכְרִיחַ לוֹמַר שֶׁהַיָּרֵחַ קִטְרְגָה, דְּאִם לֹא כֵן, לָמָּה לֹא מִעֵט הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ, שֶׁזּוֹ וַדַּאי לָאו כְּלוּם, שֶׁאִם מִעֵט הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ, תִּקְשֵׁי לָמָּה לֹא מִעֵט הַיָּרֵחַ: טסיכום שאלה ד: אין להוכיח שהירח קטרגה ולכן נתמעטה (ולא נבראה בתחילה קטנה) מזה שמיעט הירח ולא השמש שהלא אם היה ממעט השמש היו שואלים למה למעט השמש ולא הירח.
iv) If one assumes that originally the sun and the moon were identical, and that afterwards the size of one was diminished, it is more logical to say that God had the change of mind on His own initiative, realizing that it is impossible for two kings to wear one crown, and therefore, diminished one of the luminaries. What prompted the author of this passage to say that the moon issued a complaint? It cannot be said that the fact that the size of the moon was diminished is proof that the moon complained, because otherwise the sun would have been the one diminished. This is certainly not a viable argument: If the sun had been diminished, one would ask why the moon was not diminished?
v) The passage quotes God as saying, “Go and diminish yourself.” Why does God say “Go”? Seemingly, it would have been sufficient to say, “Diminish yourself.”
vi-vii) God commanded the moon to diminish itself. Why didn’t God diminish the moon through a Divine decree? Just as God spoke and the moon was created as “great,” so too God could speak and the moon would be diminished. Moreover, how is it possible for an entity to diminish itself? And if one would answer that the intent is that God would diminish it with His word, the wording used by our Sages is difficult, for the passage states that God instructed the moon to “Diminish yourself.” Instead, the passage should have said, “The Holy One, blessed be He, decreed: you shall be diminished.”
viii-ix) The passage states that after God told the moon to diminish itself, the moon protested: “Because I have suggested something that is proper must I diminish myself?” It appears that with this statement, the moon revealed the intent hidden in its original statement. The moon’s original question, “Is it possible for two kings…,” could have been understood as implying that it was willing to forgo its honor and be diminished. In that way, the difficulty of having two kings using the same crown would have been avoided. However, the moon’s protest: “Must I diminish myself?” indicates that its initial intent was that the sun be diminished and not the moon. This certainly reflects a severe negative trait and a sign of meanness. Even though the issue raised is legitimate, the moon is deserving of punishment. Thus, the moon’s protest, “because I have suggested something that is proper must I diminish myself?” raises two questions: a) The moon’s claim is a hollow one. Since the moon admitted that its intent was that the sun be diminished, following the pattern that God rewards and punishes His created beings “measure for measure,”24Sanhedrin 90a. it was justified that the moon be diminished. Of what importance then is the fact that the issue raised by the moon was legitimate? b) God’s response also raises a question: Since the moon admitted that its intent was that the sun be diminished, why did God repeatedly seek to console it? Initially, when the moon’s intent was not apparent, and it was possible to interpret the moon’s statement as implying that it was willing to waive its honor and diminish itself, and hence God decreed that it should be diminished, the need for conciliatory gestures is understood. But once the moon revealed that its intent was that the sun be diminished, why were these gestures necessary? True, one might say that, at the outset, God decreed that the moon should be diminished because either way, it was the appropriate thing to do. For if the moon intended that it be diminished, waiving its honor, the moon’s diminishment would be done according to its own will. And if the moon’s intent was that the sun be diminished, then it was appropriate that the moon be diminished for its meanness. Even so, the question still remains: Why did God repeatedly offer the moon conciliatory gestures? On the contrary, the moon proved it was deserving of being diminished when it revealed its intent that the sun be diminished.
x) The passage quotes the moon as saying: “because I have suggested something that is proper must I diminish myself?” Is the fact that the moon made a proper suggestion sufficient justification for it not to be diminished? For if the moon would not be diminished, there would still be two kings with one crown. And if the moon’s intent was that the sun should be diminished, then the moon] revealed its flaw in character, and proved that it is fitting that it be diminished anyway, as stated above.
xi) Since the wording, “must I diminish myself,” which the moon used, employs the future tense, it is apparent that the moon had yet to carry out God’s decree and diminish itself. From the fact that God offered the moon several conciliatory gestures, it appears that the moon’s arguments were accepted. If so, why did God not rescind His decree and fulfill the moon’s request? Nothing is beyond God’s capacity, and there is certainly another way that He could have resolved the difficulty of two kings using the same crown. There is no reason to say God did not rescind His decree was because once a Divine decree is issued, God does not desire to retract it, as reflected in the interpretation of Yirmeyahu’s statement:25Yirmeyahu 28:9. “Regarding the prophet who will prophesy promising peace, when the words of the prophet will come to fruition, it will be made known that God truly sent him.” Rashi,26See Rashi’scommentary to Yirmeyahu 28:7. based on the Midrash Tanchuma,27Midrash Tanchuma, Parshas Masei, sec. 7. explains that if a prophet prophesies that negative events will occur, the fact that his prophecy does not materialize is not a proof that he is a false prophet, for God is patient and relents, and may withold harmful consequences. Radak28See Radak’scommentary to Yirmeyahu, loc. cit. offers a similar explanation, supporting his words through the example of God’s retraction of the prophecy of doom for Nineveh. A prophecy for good, by contrast, will certainly materialize. True, it is possible that a prophecy for good will later be annulled as a result of sin, as reflected in Yirmeyahu’s words:29Yirmeyahu 18:9-10. “If at any time, I speak concerning a nation… to build it and to plant it… if they do what is evil in My eyes, I will retract the good.” Nevertheless, at least initially, the positive prophecy will be fulfilled. In a similar vein, the Talmud Yerushalmi states30Talmud Yerushalmi, Sanhedrin 11:5. that when the false prophet Chananyah ben Azur challenged Yirmeyahu to prove his words, Yirmeyahu answered him: I am prophesying concerning harmful events. Therefore, I cannot supply proof for my words, because although God said that the evil would come, He may relent. You are prophesying concerning positive events, so it is you who must give a sign of the truth of your words.” From all this, it is apparent that a negative Divine decree may be abrogated. Why then – if God acknowledged that the moon’s claim was valid – did He not retract?
xiii) According to our Sages, God instructed the moon to rule during the day and the night. What was the intent in such an instruction? Did God not comprehend that during the day the moon’s light would be of no avail? It would be like the light of a candle in broad daylight, as the moon objected!
xiv) After the moon protested, God offered another conciliatory gesture, saying, “Go. Israel will reckon the days and the years according to you.” Here, too, as above, the question arises: What is the intent of the command, “Go”? Also, here, our Sages begin reporting the dialogue in Aramaic while previously they used Hebrew.
25
הַט"ו). וְהַט״ז). יגסיכום נקודת שאלה טו טז: מהו תשובת הקב"ה שימנו ימים ושנים ע"י הלבנה, הלא עיקר מנין ימים ושנים הוא ע"י החמה? וגם אמאי השמיט "למועדים", שהרי מועדי ישראל נקבעים, מלבד באסיף ובקציר שהם התקופות, גם בחדשי הירח?. לִימְנוּ בָךְ יִשְׂרָאֵל יָמִים וְשָׁנִים. קַשְׁיָן תַּרְתֵּי. חֲדָא הָא דַאֲמָרָן לְעֵיל בְּקֻשְׁיָא י״ג, דְּמִי לֹא יָדַע קֻדְשָׁא בְּרִיךְ הוּא דְּאַף בַּשֶּׁמֶשׁ מוֹנִים שָׁנִים וְיָמִים?
xv-xvi) The first conciliatory gesture offered the moon was that the Jews would “reckon the days and the years according to you,” to which the moon countered, “That is impossible without the sun.” Here, also, the same issue raised in question xiii could be asked. Seemingly, the objection is obvious. Did God not know that the sun would also be included in the calculation of the days and the years?
26
וְהָכָא קַשְׁיָא טְפֵי, דְּאַדְּרַבָּה, עִקַּר יָמִים וְשָׁנִים עַל פִּי הַחַמָּה מְנוּיִים, כִּי הַיּוֹם נִמְנֶה מִשְּׁקִיעָה זוֹ שֶׁל הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ עַד שְׁקִיעָה שֶׁאַחֲרֶיהָ, כִּדְבַר הָרַב אַבְרָהָם בֶּן עֶזְרָא ידעיי"ש שהאריך להוכיח שהיום על פי התורה הוא משקיעת החמה עד שקיעת החמה דהיום הולך אחר הלילה. בְּפָרָשַׁת בְּשַׁלַּח בְּפָסוּק (שמות טז כה) "וַיֹּאמֶר מֹשֶׁה אִכְלֻהוּ הַיּוֹם וגו׳". וְהַשָּׁנִים הֲלֹא אֵינָם אֶלָּא לַחַמָּה, מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן לַלְּבָנָה שֶׁאֵין שָׁנָה לָהּ כִּי אִם בְּדֶרֶךְ הַשְׁאָלָה טווז"ל אבן עזרא (שמות יב ב): והנה אין ללבנה שנה כלל כאשר אין לשמש חדש כלל, כי לא יתחדש בשמש דבר, רק דבר החדוש הוא לאור הלבנה, ובעבור זה נקרא חדש גם ירח, בעבור חדוש אור הלבנה, כי אין לה אור בראיות גמורות כי אם מהשמש וכו' (עיי"ש באריכות).. שֶׁהֲרֵי לְשׁוֹן שָׁנָה מִלְּשׁוֹן (מל"א יח לד) "שְׁנוּ וַיִּשְׁנוּ" טזשנו - שפכו פעם שנית ושפכו פעם שנית. (מצ"ד), כְּלוֹמַר, שֶׁעִנְיַן שְׁנַת הַחַמָּה הִיא תַּשְׁלוּם הַקָּפָה אַחַת שֶׁתַּעֲשֶׂה בִּמְרוּצַת גַּלְגַּלָּהּ מִמַּעֲרָב לְמִזְרָח, וְתִשְׁנֶה וְתָשׁוּב לִמְקוֹמָהּ הָרִאשׁוֹן שֶׁמִּמֶּנָּה הִתְחִילָה לְסַבֵּב. מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן בַּלְּבָנָה, שֶׁבְּכָל חֹדֶשׁ סוֹבֶבֶת הוֹלֶכֶת הֶקֵּף אֶחָד מִמַּעֲרָב לְמִזְרָח, וְהַשָּׁנָה מֻשְׁאָל לָהּ, מִצַּד שֶׁבְּי״ב הַקָּפוֹת שֶׁלָּהּ סָבְבָה הָלְכָה כָּל הַי״ב מַזָּלוֹת שֶׁל סִבּוּב הַחַמָּה בְּשָׁנָה אַחַת. סוֹף דָּבָר הַכֹּל נִשְׁמָע, שֶׁמִּנְיַן הַיָּמִים וְהַשָּׁנִים יוֹתֵר מְיֻחָדִים לַחַמָּה מִמַּה שֶּׁמְּיֻחָדִים לַלְּבָנָה. אִידָךְ, אִם כֵּן, אַמַּאי מְדַלֵּג 'מוֹעֲדִים', כִּי "אֵלֶּה מוֹעֲדֵי ה׳" תְּלוּיִים בְּמִנְיַן יָמִים לְחֹדֶשׁ הַלְּבָנָה, כְּמוֹ שֶׁתְּלוּיִים בָּאָבִיב וּבַקָּצִיר וּבָאָסִיף, אַף שֶׁהֵם כְּפִי הַזְּמַן שֶׁמִּצַּד הַחַמָּה, מִכָּל מָקוֹם בַּלְּבָנָה נַמִּי תְּלוּיִים, וְלָמָּה הִשְׁמִיט מוֹעֲדִים, וְלֹא אָמַר רַק יָמִים וְשָׁנִים?
Moreover, in this instance, the complaint is thoroughly justified, for the days and the years are determined primarily by the movement of the sun. The days are determined by the setting of the sun, i.e., the duration of a day is from one setting of the sun to the next, as Rav Avraham ibn Ezra comments on the verse,32Shmos 16:25. In that source, Ibn Ezra elaborates in the explanation of the fact that the determination of a day is dependent on the setting of the sun. “And Moshe said, ‘Eat it today.’” Similarly, the years are solar years. The concept of a lunar year is only a borrowed term,33See Ibn Ezra’s commentary to Shmos 12:2. for the word year, שנה, has the connotation of repetition, as in the verse,34I Melachim 18:34. שנו וישנו, “He instructed them to repeat, and they repeated.” In other words, a solar year is the sun’s completion of its circuit of its orbit from the west to the east, as the sun returns to the place where its orbit began. In contrast, the moon finishes its orbit from west to east every month. The term “lunar year” is adopted because the moon concludes twelve cycles in the time it takes the sun to proceed through the twelve Zodiac constellations. Thus, the reckoning of the days and the years is more closely associated with the sun than with the moon. Conversely, it would have been appropriate to mention that the festivals too are dependent on the moon, because the dates on which the festivals fall are dependent on the days of the lunar months, just as they are dependent on the times of spring, the grain harvest, and the fruit harvest. Although the festivals are dependent on the seasons that are determined by the sun, their celebration is also dependent on the moon. Why then did the passage in Chulin mention only the days and the years and overlook the festivals?
27
וּבְגוּר אַרְיֵה (במדבר כח טו) כָּתַב יזוז"ל: דע, כי הירח יותר ראוי למנות אליה מן החמה, וזה כי ראוי לזה יותר דבר שיש לו שעור קטן, שהירח שהוא מתחדש בחודש אחד ולכך הוא יותר ראוי לשער בו הזמן. וכמו שיותר ראוי למדידה הכלי שהוא יותר קטן יותר מן כלי שהוא גדול, לפי שאין הכל נמדד בכלי גדול אבל הכל נמדד בקטן. ולפיכך יותר ראוי למנות לירח, שהשעור שלו יותר קצר. ומפני זה יש למנות הכל אל הירח, המדה הקטנה. ומפני זה האריכו חכמי המחקר, ואמרו כי הזמן תולה בגלגל היומי, לפי שהוא סובב יום אחד ומפני שהוא יותר קצר בו משוער הזמן. אבל דעת התורה אינו כך, רק הזמן נמנה אל המאורות. ותחלה נמנה אל הירח, המאור הקטן, שמפני שהוא קטן יש לו זמן קטן, והוא ראוי לשיעור הזמן. ולפיכך אמר 'ימנה בך ימים ושנים', וכל זה נמשך אל הירח מצד הקטנות. ואז השיבה 'בדידה נמי לא סגיא', דהא מנין הירח נמשך אל החמה, שהרי צריך לעבר חודש אחד בשביל תקופות החמה. ואם כן לא סגיא בלא דידה, ואין כאן מעלה מיוחדת לירח בשביל הקטנות. שראוי שיהיה מכריע, כי אם היה הקטנות מצד עצמו עלוי מציאות - ראוי שיהיה מכריע, אבל אין זה כן, ונשאר התרעומת. ודברים אלו ברורים למי שמבין אותם., מִצַּד שֶׁנִּתְמַעֲטָה לְפִיכָךְ יָאוּת הַמִּנְיָן לִמָּנוֹת בָּהּ, שֶׁכֵּן מִדָּה קְטַנָּה רְאוּיָה לְכָל הַמִּדּוֹת, מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן מִדָּה גְדוֹלָה, שֶׁאֵינָהּ רְאוּיָה לְכָל הַמִּדּוֹת וּמְדִידוֹת. וְהָיָה זֶה פִּיּוּס עַל קַטְנוּתָהּ, שֶׁהֲרֵי עִלּוּי זֶה יֵשׁ לָהּ מִכֹּחַ שֶׁנִּתְמַעֲטָה וְנַעֲשֵׂית קְטַנָּה. וַאֲנִי שָׁמַעְתִּי דְּבָרָיו, וְלֹא אָבִין אוֹתָם. כִּי הָעִנְיָן הַזֶּה, לֹא עַל דֶּרֶךְ הַהַקְטָנָה שֶׁהִיא קְטַנָּה נִמְנֶה, אֶלָּא עַל פִּי מְרוּצַת מַהֲלָכָהּ. וּמָה עִנְיָן יֵשׁ, אִם כֵּן, לְהַמִּעוּט הַזֶּה אֶל שֶׁיִּהְיֶה מְיֻחָס לוֹ הָעִלּוּי הַזֶּה שֶׁל הַמְּדִידָה?
Gur Aryeh writes35See Gur Aryeh’s commentary to Bamidbar 28:15. that because the moon was diminished, it is appropriate to measure according to it, for a small measure is fit to be used in all measurements, while a large measure is not. This consolation was granted to the moon because it was diminished. As a result of the moon’s being diminished, this positive dimension came about. I heard the words of that text, but I do not comprehend them. The establishment of the calendar according to the moon has nothing to do with its size, but with the time the moon takes to complete its orbit. If so, what does the diminishment of the moon have to do with the positive quality of having the days and years measured according to it?
28
וְאֵין לוֹמַר כְּלָל שֶׁמֵּחֲמַת קַטְנוּתָהּ בָּא לָהּ הַמְּהִירוּת, שֶׁהַגֹּדֶל עוֹשֶׂה כְּבֵדוּת וְהַקַּטְנוּת עוֹשָׂה קַלּוּת. שֶׁזֶּה אֵינוֹ מִשְּׁנֵי פָנִים: הָא׳; כְּפִי חַכְמֵי הַטֶּבַע, שֶׁקִּיְּמוּ שֶׁאֵין בַּגֶּשֶׁם הַחֲמִישִׁי יחהוזכר במורה נבוכים (ח"א פע"ב) ובעוד חוקרי ישראל, וכן בשם חכמי יוון, שבנוסף לארבע יסודות ארמ"ע שממנו חומר הארץ, ישנו חומר חמישי נעלה, שאינו חומרי כמותם, וממנו גרמי השמים. ויש חולקים וסוברים שגרמי השמים ג"כ חומרי, והיסוד החמישי הוא "היולי" הידוע והוא אינו נראה, עיין רמב"ן עה"ת בתחילת חיבורו., הַיְנוּ הַגָּרְמִיִּים הַשְּׁמֵימִיִּים, שׁוּם אֵיכֻיּוֹת. וּבַכְּלָל הַזֶּה, שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶם לֹא כְּבֵדוּת וְלֹא קַלּוּת. אִידָךְ, שֶׁאַף שֶׁיִּהְיוּ בַּעֲלֵי אֵיכֻיּוֹת, וְיִהְיֶה נִמְצָא בָהֶם כְּבֵדוּת וְקַלּוּת, מִכָּל מָקוֹם אִי אֶפְשָׁר לוֹמַר שֶׁהַכְּבֵדוּת וְהַקַּלּוּת שֶׁבָּהֶם יִהְיוּ הַגּוֹרְמִים מְהִירוּת וְאִחוּר בִּמְרוּצַת מַהֲלָכָם, מִמַּה שֶּׁמַּהֲלַךְ הַחַמָּה בְּהֶקֵּף אֶחָד בְּשס״ה יוֹם וּרְבִיעַ בְּקֵרוּב. וְהוּא הַגָּדוֹל בְּגוּפוֹ יוֹתֵר מִכָּל א׳ מִכּוֹכְבֵי הַשָּׁמַיִם וּכְסִילֵיהֶם, כְּמוֹ שֶׁתִּמְצָא חֶשְׁבּוֹן כָּל א׳ בְּשִׁעוּר גּוּפוֹ בְּסֵפֶר 'יְסוֹד עוֹלָם' יטחיברו אחד הראשונים, ר' יצחק מטוליטולא תלמיד הרא"ש, והוא ספר נכבד בחכמת התכונה וסוד העיבור על פי התורה. בַּמַּאֲמָר הַשְּׁלִישִׁי סוֹף פֶּרֶק י״ז. וְשַׁבְּתַא״י סוֹבֵב בִּשְׁלֹשִׁים שָׁנָה הֶקֵּף אֶחָד, וְצֶדֶ״ק בִּשְׁנֵים עָשָׂר שָׁנִים, וּמַאֲדִי״ם קָרוֹב לִשְׁתֵּי שָׁנִים. וְגַם גּוּף נֹגַ״הּ גָּדוֹל מִגּוּף הַלְּבָנָה, אֲבָל לֹא שִׁעוּר רַב, כִּי הַיָּרֵחַ גּוּפוֹ בָּאָרֶץ כְּמוֹ ל״ט פַּעַם וּרְבִיעַ מִגּוּף הָאָרֶץ, וְהַנֹּגַ״הּ גּוּפוֹ חֵלֶק א׳ מִל"ז מִגּוּף הָאָרֶץ. וּמַהֲלַךְ הַנֹּגַהּ מִתְאַחֵר הַרְבֵּה יוֹתֵר מֵהַיָּרֵחַ לְפִי עֵרֶךְ הַזֶּה, שֶׁכֵּן הֶקֵּף א׳ עוֹשֶׂה בִּשְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת יוֹם, שֶׁהוּא בִּכְמוֹ מַהֲלַךְ עֲשָׂרָה חָדְשֵׁי הַלְּבָנָה. וְכֵן כּוֹכָב הַנִּקְרָא כּוֹכָ״ב קָטָן מְאֹד, שֶׁהוּא חֵלֶק א׳ מִי״ט אֶלֶף מִגּוּף הָאָרֶץ, וּמִתְאַחֵר קָרוֹב לִשְׁנַת הַחַמָּה, שֶׁהֶקֵּף א׳ מִמֶּנּוּ הוּא של״ו יוֹם. זוֹ הִיא מִדִּבְרֵי הַתּוֹכְנִים. וּבְמִדְרָשׁ הָרַבּוֹת פָּרָשַׁת בְּרֵאשִׁית (פרשה י סימן ד) בְּפָסוּק "וַיְכֻלּוּ", חֶשְׁבּוֹן אַחֵר כוז"ל: יש מזל שגומר הלוכו לי"ב חדש כגון כוכב חמה, ויש מזל שהוא גומר הלוכו לשלשים יום והיא לבנה, ויש מזל שהוא גומר הלוכו שנה והוא צדק, ויש מזל שהוא גומר הלוכו לשלשים שנה והוא שבתי, חוץ מן כוכב נוגה ומאדים, שאין גומרין הלוכן אלא לד' מאות ושמונים שנה, (ובעי שאלה שנוגה מהלכת י"ב מזלות לעשרה חדשים, כל מזל כ"ה יום, ומאדים חדש וחצי, כל מזל מהלך י"ב שנה ומחצה, והיאך אומר כן נוגה ומאדים אין גומרין הלוכן אלא לד' מאות ופ' שנה, חזינא תמיה לפיכך בעי שאלה), עכ"ל.. וּבִקְצָת סְפָרִים יֵשׁ הַגָּהָה כאכנראה כוונת רבינו על המוקף בסוגריים שם, הובא בהערה הקודמת., דְּמַקְשֶׁה עָלָיו מִדִּבְרֵי הַתּוֹכְנִים.
Furthermore, one cannot say that because of its small size, the moon proceeds faster in its orbit, i.e., that a large entity is heavier and a small entity is lighter. This is not true for two reasons: a) The scholars of natural science have determined that in the fifth type of being, from which the heavenly beings are comprised, does not possess natural characteristics as we know them.36Rambam (Moreh Nevuchim, Vol. 1, ch. 72), cites Greek thinkers who explain that in contrast to earthly existence that is made up of a combination of the four elements: fire, wind, water and earth, the heavenly beings are comprised of a fifth type of matter, hyli, that does not share the characteristics of these four elements. Thus, the concept of being heavier or lighter does not apply with regard to the heavenly beings. b) Even if the heavenly beings would have natural characteristics and would be characterized by lightness or heaviness, those characteristics would not have an effect on the speed or slowness of their progress in their orbits. This is evident from the fact that the sun concludes its orbit in approximately 365 and ¼ days, yet its mass is larger than that of any one of the other heavenly bodies and their constellations,37Cf. Yeshayahu 13:10. as recorded in the list of the heavenly bodies in the text Yesod Olam,38Yesod Olam is a text on astronomy written by R. Yitzchak of Tulitula, one of the students of Rabbeinu Asher. Discourse 3, ch. 17. Shabbetai (Saturn) completes one cycle of its orbit in 30 years, while Tzedek (Jupiter) takes twelve years to complete one cycle of its orbit, and Ma’adim (Mars) takes slightly less than two years to complete one cycle of its orbit. Similarly, the size of Nogah (Venus) is greater than that of the moon, but not substantially greater. (For the moon is 1/39 and a quarter the size of the earth, and Nogah is 1/37th the size of the earth.) Nevertheless, the time it takes for Nogah to circle the earth is far longer than the time necessary for the moon to make its circuit. For Nogah makes one circuit in 300 days, which is approximately ten times longer than one of the moon’s circuits. Moreover, the planet called Kochav (Mercury) is very small, only 1/19,000 of the size of the earth, and yet it requires 336 days to complete the one circuit of its orbit. The above figures are taken from the works of the astronomers. In its commentary to the verse beginning Vay’chulu,39Bereishis 2:1.Midrash Rabbah to Parshas Bereishis40Bereishis Rabbah 10:4. offers different calculations, and in some texts of Midrash Rabbah those figures are questioned based on the words of the astronomers. Regardless of these details, from all the above, however, it is obvious that the size of a heavenly body is not the conclusive determinant in the speed of its orbit.
Moreover, based on the above, another question arises regarding the words of Gur Aryeh: If the fact that a heavenly body is small makes it fitting that the reckoning of the festivals be made according to it, seemingly, the reckoning should be dependent on the movement of Kochav, for it is very small. Perhaps this itself was part of the conciliatory gesture made to the moon – that even though it is befitting that the reckoning of the festivals be dependent on the movement of Kochav, since reckoning should be made based on the smallest measure, the honor of having the dates of the festivals be based on its movement was given to the moon to appease it.
xvii) The moon responded to God’s statement that it would feature in the reckoning of the days and the years by saying, “That is impossible without the sun.” This response shows that the moon returned to its undesirable trait of showing jealousy that the sun would also be included in the reckoning that the Jews would make. How could the moon make such statements without fear that it would be punished again?
31
הַי״ח). וְהַי׳׳ט). כבנקודת השאלה מדוע ומה מוסיף הראיה מן המקרא על זה שמונין תקופות ע"י החמה, הלא דבר פשוט וידוע לכל הוא. דִּכְתִיב "וְהָיוּ לְאֹתוֹת וגו׳" כגאמרה ליה: יומא נמי, אי אפשר דלא מנו ביה תקופתא, דכתיב והיו לאותות ולמועדים ולימים ושנים, (חולין ס: שם).. לֹא יָדַעְתִּי מַה צָּרִיךְ רְאָיָה לָזֶה שֶׁמּוֹנִין תְּקוּפוֹת לַחַמָּה, וַהֲרֵי זֶה בִּכְלַל מַה דְּמַרְגְּלָא בְּפוּמַיְהוּ דְּרַבָּנָן וְתַלְמִידֵיהוֹן וְתַלְמִידֵי תַלְמִידֵיהוֹן, וְלַמְּפֻרְסָמוֹת אֵין צָרִיךְ רְאָיָה. וְאַף אִם נֹאמַר דִּלְרַוְחָא דְּמִילְתָא הֵבִיא רְאָיָה, אִם כֵּן, תִּקְשֶׁה אִיפְּכָא, לָמָּה לֹא הֵבִיא הָרְאָיָה בְּדִבְרֵי הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא שֶׁאָמַר, "לִימְנוּ בָךְ יִשְׂרָאֵל יָמִים וְשָׁנִים", הָיָה לוֹ לוֹמַר, דִּכְתִיב "וְהָיוּ וגו׳ וּלְיָמִים וְשָׁנִים"?
xviii-xix) A prooftext, “And let them be for signs,” is brought by the passage in Chulin in support of the moon’s statements. I don’t understand why it is necessary to bring proof that the seasons are calculated according to the sun. This is a fact well known to the sages, their students, and their students’ students. A point of public knowledge does not require support.41Tosfos Yom Tov is employing an expression frequently used by our Sages. And if one would say that the prooftext was cited merely for supplementary purpose, the question could then be raised from the opposite perspective: Why didn’t the passage bring a prooftext for God’s conciliatory statement that the Jews would calculate the days and the years according to the moon, citing the verse,42Bereishis 1:14. “they shall serve as signs… for days and years”?
It is not appropriate to say that a prooftext was not cited because the verse that could serve as the prooftext, not only does not support, but runs contrary to the desired intent, for it states, “they shall serve” which also highlights the importance of the sun. How would this pacify the moon? This does not present a question, because regardless, God knew that the calculations would also include the sun. Even so, God made this statement to the moon to appease it. As such, it would not have harmed the author of this passage to have quoted this proof. For the verse would not be cited as proof that God made these statements to the moon. Rather, the verse would serve as proof with regard to the issue itself: that the Jews would calculate their calendar according to the moon. The dialogue between God and the moon is not derived from this verse: rather, the verse only serves as a proof of the concept itself. If so, the passage in Chulin should also have cited the verse, “they shall serve as signs… for days and years,” when relating God’s words to the moon, because this verse indicates that the reckoning depends on the moon.
This also leads to another question: The passage in Chulin should have cited a prooftext for God’s instruction to the moon to rule during the day and the night, quoting the verse,43Bereishis 1:18. “to rule during the day and during the night.” If you would say that this verse was not cited since it does not prove that the moon was given authority to rule alone, that will lead to another question: What is the source which led the author of this passage to maintain that God told the moon to rule alone during the day and the night? The simple meaning of the verse is that the charge was delivered to both the sun and the moon.
xx) The passage continues, saying that God told the moon, “Go. The righteous will be called by your name.” As above,44Tosfos Yom Tov is referring back to questions v and xiv. the reason why God told the moon to “go” requires explanation.
xxi) Explanation is also required as to why God’s statement, “The righteous will be called by your name,” is considered a conciliatory gesture. That question is strengthened by the fact that only three righteous men are mentioned. Moreover, one of the references, Shmuel HaKatan, is not found in Scripture. It is far-fetched to say that the reference is to Shmuel HaKatan, the Tanna mentioned in Pirkei Avos.45Avos 4:19. Especially, since if that was the intent, Shmuel HaKatan should not be mentioned between Yaakov and David, but after David, according to chronological order. Indeed, when the text Maaseh HaShem relates this passage in his own words, in ch. 8 of Maaseh Bereishis, as I will mention later on, it mentions Shmuel HaKatan last. Nevertheless, when quoting the Talmudic passage itself, Maaseh HaShem mentions Shmuel second. When the author of the Akeidah46Tosfos Yom Tov is referring to Akeidas Yitzchak, by R. Yitzchak be Moshe Aramah. This work is often referred to as “the Akeidah”. cited the passage (in Shaar 37), he removed the reference to Shmuel HaKatan altogether. If so, there were only two righteous men associated with the moon.
(Parenthetically, it can be noted that in his commentary to the Talmud, Rashi states that the description of David as “small” is found in Divrei HaYamim. In his haste, Rashi was not careful. The intended reference is in I Shmuel, ch. 17.)47This error is found in many early printings of the Talmud. It has been corrected in most contemporary printings.
xxii) The passage continues, stating that God “saw that the moon would not be consoled.” What lead God to that conclusion? On the contrary, the fact that the moon remained silent could be understood as indicating that it was consoled. And if one would say that “God sees into the hearts”48Cf. Mishlei 17:3. of all beings and thus knew the moon’s feelings, the passage should not have recounted the interchange cited before as a dialogue between God and the moon, but as God’s awareness of the moon’s feelings.
xxiii) The passage continues that God concluded, “Bring an atonement offering for Me because I diminished the moon.” This wording is fundamentally problematic. How can such a statement be made? Is it appropriate to say that God could possibly need atonement?! I have already cited49See page 6. the understanding of Rabbeinu Yitzchak Alfasi, who interprets this statement as meaning, “Bring an atonement offering before Me every Rosh Chodesh to atone for yourselves.” Nevertheless, even in interpreting the statement in this manner, Rav Yitzchak Alfasi did not save the author of the passage from the following question: Why did the author of this passage phrase his statements in a manner that does not reveal his intent? Furthermore, besides obscuring the correct meaning, the text as it is written appears irreverent. Similar statements are found in Gur Aryeh,50See Gur Aryeh’s commentary to Bamidbar 28:15. to quote: הביאו עלי כפרה The wordעלי , “for Me”, should be understood here as meaning “for My sake.” The Holy One, blessed be He, commanded Israel to bring an atonement offering for themselves. This is an honor for the moon,51Rosh Chodesh is the first day of the lunar month. Hence, having the Jewish people bring a special sacrifice on that day is a form of honor for the moon. and as a result it was appeased. According to the understanding of the author of the passage the meaning of the term “for a sin-offering” is that the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded Israel to bring this sacrifice as a sin-offering to God, for God’s sake because He diminished the moon. And God commanded Israel to bring this sin-offering on Rosh Chodesh as a token of honor to the moon. This interpretation is sufficient to answer those who question the wording of the passage, i.e., that the passage implies that God requires atonement.
Nevertheless, one may still ask: Why did the passage say, “Bring an atonement offering for Me”? Why didn’t it say, “Bring a sacrifice for Me”? This would have been more appropriate wording. Who forced the author of the passage to say, “Bring an atonement offering for Me”? Why use wording that would provoke questions? Although Gur Aryeh states that Rabbeinu Yitzchak Alfasi interprets עלי as meaning “for Me,” I already wrote52See page 7 above. otherwise, in the name of Rashba, that Rabbeinu Yitzchak Alfasi interprets עלי as similar to אלי, “to Me.” This nevertheless provokes the same question, for seemingly the author of the passage should have used the word אלי rather than עלי. Indeed, it is a question that is almost impossible to resolve. On the other hand, the question raised by Gur Aryeh – Why did the passage say “Bring an atonement offering for Me” and not “Bring a sacrifice for Me”? – can be resolved as follows: Since the verse mentions a sin-offering, the author of the passage mentioned atonement, and he also used concise wording. Therefore, the author of the passage did not say, “Bring atonement for your sins.” It is possible to say that the author of the passage chose to use concise wording without worrying about the possibility of questions arising, as we see the Torah did when quoting God as saying,53Bereishis 1:26. “Let us make man.” Concerning that verse, the Midrash54Bereishis Rabbah 8:8. relates that Moshe asked God: “Master of the World, why do You provide heretics with an excuse?”55Moshe was asking why the Torah relates that God said, “Let us make man,” when God alone created man. Using the plural term “us” would allow heretics to claim there is more than one God. God responded: “Write it and whoever wishes to err may err.” Nevertheless, I am not comfortable with that resolution, for the words of Torah are composed in one manner, while the words of the Sages require a different approach. Were the wording “Bring an atonement offering for Me” not necessary to teach a concept that could only be derived from these words, it would certainly have been changed, and it would have been appropriate to use other wording which would not evoke questions.
Furthermore, the concept of bringing an atonement offering for God is problematic. If one requires atonement, is it appropriate that another bring an atonement offering for him? True, the offering would actually be God’s, for everything belongs to Him, as King David said:56I Divrei HaYamim 29:14. See also the citation of the verse in Pirkei Avos 3:7. “For everything is from You, and it is Your gift that we have given to You.” Nevertheless, having man bring the offering is inappropriate. True, Rabbeinu Yitzchak Alfasi’s interpretation resolves the latter question. For according to this interpretation, the Holy One, blessed be He, did not say that He required atonement, but that the Jews require atonement and, as a means of honoring the moon, they should bring the atonement offering on the day of the moon’s renewal. Nevertheless, this is not the simple meaning of the wording of the passage. It is problematic that the passage employs this wording which evokes a question, unless these specific words help convey the intent of the passage and without these words, the intent of the passage would not be understood. Only for such a reason would the author of the passage use such wording.
xxiv) Why did the author of the passage not cite support for his concluding statement, showing the source from which he derived this concept, as Reish Lakish did? Even the verse Reish Lakish cited as a source needs explanation, and is interpreted in various ways, as I will explain below. Indeed, blessed is he who knows the one who can appreciate the true intent of the author of this passage! If so, when the author presents his claim without proof, the difficulty in understanding the passage is even more pronounced.
xxv), xxvi), xxvii) Gur Aryeh57See Gur Aryeh’s commentary to Bamidbar, loc. cit. raises two questions, and I will add a third. Gur Aryeh asks: a) why is the honor granted to the moon conveyed through a sin-offering and not through any other of the additional offerings? b) Why was the moon appeased only through the designation of a sacrifice to be offered in its honor, but not because of anything else? Other gestures were made to the moon, and yet it did not become appeased.
I add: Was the moon in fact appeased by this final gesture? The author of the passage does not explicitly say the moon was appeased. By not doing so, he left us in a quandary. Perhaps the moon was not appeased, and God merely did not desire to make any further gestures to appease it. After all, the moon refused to be appeased despite the previous gestures made to it. Moreover, all of these gestures were beyond the measure of the law, for the moon itself brought about its diminishment through its complaint. That the moon caused its own diminishment is evident from the moon’s words, which reflect how it was jealous and requested to possess a unique quality that the sun would lack. This can be seen from the hidden intent in the beginning of the moon’s words when it asked: “Is it possible for two kings to wear one crown?” It is clear that, because of its jealousy, the moon desired that the sun be diminished and it alone remain great. Therefore, God acted according to the letter of the law by diminishing the moon, and all of the conciliatory gestures made to it were beyond the measure of the law. Thus, it could be said that although the moon was not appeased after the offering of a sacrifice was instituted in its honor, nevertheless God did not seek to appease the moon any further. On the other hand, it could be said that the moon was appeased by this final gesture. The reason that the author of the passage did not mention this is because he did not think that it was necessary, since it is self-evident from the fact that further conciliatory gestures were not made to the moon. Now God is not constrained at all, and could have made further gestures. From the fact that He did not, we can conclude that the moon was appeased. Since the passage does not clarify this point, it is unclear which of these two approaches is correct.
xxviii) Reish Lakish emphasizes that a goat is offered as an atonement offering. Why is the word “goat” used? Why didn’t Reish Lakish emphasize the type of offering – namely a sin-offering? Seemingly, the emphasis should be on the type of sacrifice being brought, not on the type of animal being offered. The significance of the animal is that it is being designated as a sin-offering.
These are the questions and difficulties that I felt necessary to raise regarding this passage. From them, an explanation will emerge, with the help of God. Its truth will become more apparent after having raised these issues than it would have had I presented my commentary without having done so. For this same reason, I also briefly mentioned the opinions of the other scholars who interpreted this passage and my difficulties in comprehending their explanations. Henceforth I will respond to their claims.
I already mentioned the statements of Rav Avraham ibn Ezra in sec. 1, see those words.58In explanation of the Aggadic teachings in Tractate Chulin mentioned above, R. Avraham ibn Ezra writes: “The moon’s protests refer to the time of the alignment of the luminaries. It is as if the luminaries are contesting with each other when they are at opposite ends of their orbits. When both luminaries are filled with light, it is as if the moon raises itself up to say, ‘I will rule.’ From that time onward, as soon as the moon departs from that point in its orbit, its light begins to diminish.” Now, I will cite what the author of the Akeidah (Shaar 37) responded to him. Rav Avraham ibn Ezra concluded his explanation of the passage in Chulin with this statement: “None of the words of the Sages that preceded us have proved futile.” The author of the Akeidah took issue with Rav Avraham ibn Ezra regarding this matter, stating: I see that his words are true, for none of our Sages’ words have proved futile. On the contrary, they are all-inclusive. It is the questions and the resolutions ibn Ezra proposes regarding the passage that are all futile; they are unfounded. For ibn Ezra did not bring out any new concept in his explanation of the passage, the only insight his explanations produced was that directly after the moon shines in its fullness, its light begins to diminish. Who does not know that? There is no novelty in ibn Ezra’s explanation, except that he offered it worded as a riddle. It is not possible that this is the intent of the Sages. Moreover, the diminishment of the moon of which ibn Ezra speaks is not diminishment in a true sense; it only appears so according to our perception. For in truth, the moon is always full, for the side facing the sun is never diminished, as our Sages said:59Rosh HaShanah 23b, et al. The intent is that we, from the earth’s viewpoint, see the moon’s light as waxing and waning. Were one standing on the sun, however, he would always be able to see the entire orb of the moon. “The sun never saw the moon’s diminishment.60By quoting these statements, Tosfos Yom Tov appears to agree with the rejection of ibn Ezra’s interpretation of the passage presented in the Akeidah.
47
וְאוּלָם הָרַב בַּעַל הָעֲקֵדָה בְּעַצְמוֹ כָּתַב שְׁנֵי פֵּרוּשִׁים. הָא' שֶׁבַּעַל הַמַּאֲמָר יְכַוֵּן לְהַשְׁמִיעֵנוּ כָּעֵת כחוז"ל עקידת יצחק שם: והוא כי הנה זה החכם שם במאמר הזה פקפוק מציאות ההזדמן וחקירתו ולקח לנושא החקירה הזאת הקטנת הלבנה, רצוני היותה משונה מכל שאר הכוכבים לבלתי היות לה אור מעצמה. אם היה זה בכוונת מכוין אשר כיון לתכלית או תכליות מה כמו שיאות למעשה הגדול ההוא כמו שנתבאר מדברי החוקר (כך נקרא אריסטו ע"י בעל העקדה) והושלם על פי התורה כנזכר. או אם היה זה מההזדמן כמו שחשב אפיקורוס וסיעתו (פילוסוף יווני בשם "אפיקורוס" שסבר שהכל מקרה ח"ו). ויהיה מה שיחקר בזה החלק נאמר על הכל., לִדְחוֹת דַּעַת הָאֶפִּיקוֹרוֹס הָאוֹמֵר שֶׁהַנִּמְצָא בִּכְלָלוֹ וּבִפְרָטוֹ, הַכֹּל עַל צַד הַקֶּרִי וְהַהִזְדַּמֵּן הָיָה. וְלָזֶה הִנִּיחַ מָשָׁל כטכלומר, בעל המאמר בגמרא ברצונו להוכיח איך שכל הבריאה הוא בכוונת מכוון, וע"כ הלביש זאת במשל שכביכול הלבנה שואלת את הקב"ה, מה הכוונה והתועלת בפרטי השינויים בבריאת הקב"ה אותה עצמה, והשאלות והתשובות בכל המשך המאמר הם בעצם הדרכים להבין את כוונת בריאת הירח לכל פרטיה., כְּאִלּוּ הָיְתָה נוֹשֵׂאת וְנוֹתֶנֶת בַּדָּבָר הַזֶּה עִם הַבּוֹרֵא יִתְבָּרֵךְ, בָּזֶה שֶׁרָאֲתָה בְּעַצְמָהּ שֶׁאֵין לָהּ אוֹר כִּי אִם מִזּוּלָתָהּ. וְאָמְרָה, אֶפְשָׁר לִשְׁנֵי מְלָכִים שֶׁיִּשְׁתַּמְּשׁוּ בְּכֶתֶר אֶחָד? כְּלוֹמַר, שֶׁהַכֹּל בְּאֶפְשָׁרוּת בְּלִי כַּוָּנָה לשהרי אם יש שני דברים שמשמשים לאותו תפקיד זאת אומרת שאחד מהם מיותר ונוצר ח"ו במקרה ובלא כוונת מכוון., וְהָיָה אֶפְשָׁר שֶׁיִּהְיֶה הַכֹּל שָׁוֶה בְּמֶמְשָׁלָה וְכָל דָּבָר. וְאִם כֵּן, מַה שֶׁלֹּא אֵרַע לָהּ שֶׁתִּהְיֶה בְּשָׁוֶה עִם הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ, הָיְתָה בְּמִקְרֶה, וְאֵין לָהּ לְהִתְרַעֵם. אוֹ אִם הָיָה בְּכַוָּנָה מִמֶּנּוּ יִתְבָּרֵךְ, אִם כֵּן, תִּשְׁאַל לָמָּה אֵרַע לָהּ כָּכָה. וְהֵשִׁיב יִתְבָּרֵךְ, לְכִי וּמַעֲטִי כו׳. כְּלוֹמַר, בְּכַוָּנָה מִמֶּנִּי הוּא. עָנְתָה וְאָמְרָה, הוֹאִיל וְאָמַרְתִּי לְפָנֶיךָ דָּבָר הָגוּן, כְּלוֹמַר, שֶׁהִסְכַּמְתִּי שֶׁהוּא בְּכַוָּנָה, שֶׁכֵּן הוּא הָגוּן וְלֹא שֶׁיִּהְיֶה בְּמִקְרֶה. אִם כֵּן, תְּבָאֵר לִי כַּוָּנָתְךָ שֶׁמִּעַטְתָּ אוֹתִי דַּוְקָא, שֶׁלֹּא יִהְיֶה לִי אוֹר מֵעַצְמִי. הֵשִׁיב, לֵךְ וּמְשֹׁל בַּיּוֹם וּבַלַּיְלָה, לְכַוָּנָה זוֹ עָשִׂיתִי. עָנְתָה וְאָמְרָה, שְׁרַגָּא בְּטִיהֲרָא מַאי וכו׳? שֶׁאֵין נֶחְשָׁב לָהּ מֶמְשֶׁלֶת הַיּוֹם כו׳. וְהֵשִׁיב, לִימְנוּ בָךְ כו׳. זֶהוּ תּוֹעֶלֶת גְּדוֹלָה וְכַוָּנָה עֲצוּמָה. וְעָנְתָה וְאָמְרָה, בְּדִידֵיהּ כו׳. וְהִלְכָּךְ הָיָה לְךָ לַעֲשׂוֹת כָּל הַמִּנּוּיִים בַּשֶּׁמֶשׁ, וְלָמָּה תִּשְׁתַּנֶּה הִיא בְּהַהַקְטָנָה הָאֲמוּרָה. וְהָיְתָה הַתְּשׁוּבָה, צַדִּיקִים יִקָּרְאוּ כו׳, מִדֶּרֶךְ הַמּוּסָר לְהַקְטִין נֶגֶד גְּדוֹלִים. וְכֵן אַתָּה, הַכַּדּוּר הַקָּטָן, לָכֵן רָאוּי לְהֵעָשׂוֹת כָּךְ, שֶׁיִּהְיֶה הַמֻּשְׁפָּע לְמַטָּה, וְהַמַּשְׁפִּיעַ לְמַעְלָה.
Continuing his exposition, the author of the Akeidah offered two interpretations of the passage in Chulin: a) the author of that passage intended to use this teaching to reject the thought system of Epicurus,61Epicurus was a Greek philosopher who rejected the concept of Divine providence, and believed that there is no order to existence. Instead, Epicurus believed that everything happens by chance. Heretics are therefore often referred to as epikorsim. who believed that existence – as a whole and in its particulars – is governed entirely by chance. To rebut this line of thought, the author of the passage in Chulin offered an analogy of the moon engaging in a dialogue with the Creator.62The Akeidah explains that the entire interchange between the moon and God is merely an analogy employed by the author of the passage in Chulin to illustrate how God’s intent governs every aspect of Creation. Since the moon saw it had no light of its own, but merely reflects the light of the sun, it asked: “Is it possible for two kings to wear one crown?” The implication is that it appears that everything happens by chance without any Divine intent.63According to this explanation, it is as if the moon is saying that if there was a specific Divine intent in all things, two entities would never serve the same purpose. Instead, each purpose would be fulfilled by only one entity. Thus, it is possible that all entities can be equal in sovereignty64I.e., no entity would rule over another. and in all matters. If so, the fact that the moon is not equal to the sun was simply by chance. Accordingly, there would be no basis for the moon to complain. But if the diminishment occurred as a result of a Divine intent, there is room to ask why this was done to it. God answered: “Go and diminish yourself,” i.e., the diminishment was a result of My intent. The moon replied, “Because I have suggested something that is proper must I diminish myself?” I.e., since I agreed that the diminishment came as a result of a Divine intent and not by chance, which is a proper statement, explain to me Your intent: Why is it that You diminished me, causing me not to have any light of my own? God answered: “Go and ‘rule during the day and during the night’.” I.e., that was My intent, for this is the way your influence will be effective both during the day and at night. The moon then responded: “Of what use is a candle in broad daylight?” I.e., the moon’s sovereignty during the day is not significant. God answered: “Israel will reckon the days and the years according to you.” I.e., this is a matter of great benefit, and reflects a prodigious intent. The moon replied: “That is impossible without the sun,” and hence the entire reckoning of the calendar should be made according to the sun. Why was it necessary for the moon to undergo the change and the diminishment? God’s response was: “The righteous will be called by your name.” I.e., it is ethically correct for those who are small to “diminish” themselves i.e., to make themselves humble in the presence of those who are great. So too, you, the small sphere, should conduct yourself in this manner, accepting the fact that the recipient of influence should be below and the one who conveys influence should be above.
Nevertheless, since all these responses will not satisfy one whose heart is characterized by “a root that bears gall and wormwood,”65Cf. Devarim 29:17. God therefore said, “Bring an atonement offering for sinning against Me through such thoughts that came as a result of My diminishing the moon. My intent was for the benefit of the world, but you developed misconceptions about Me.” The wording עלי in the Talmudic passage is used in the same manner as the word על in the phrase,66Bamidbar 6:11. “who sinned against the soul.” This is also the intent of the verse,67Ibid. 28:15. “a goat as a sin-offering to God,” i.e., the goat is brought as a sin-offering for having sinned against God. This is a short synopsis of the words of the Akeidah.
49
וְלִבִּי אוֹמֵר לִי, שֶׁהַקּוֹרֵא מֵעַצְמוֹ יַשְׂכִּיל אַף יָבִין, אֵיךְ שֶׁכָּל זֶה רָחוֹק מִמַּשְׁמָעוּת הַמַּאֲמָר. שֶׁהֲרֵי תְּחִלָּתוֹ 'עִקָּר חָסֵר מִן הַסֵּפֶר', שֶׁהִנִּיחָה הַיָּרֵחַ אִם בְּמִקְרֶה וְאִם לֹא, אֶלָּא בְּכַוָּנָה. וְהַצַּד הַשֵּׁנִי לֹא בֵאֲרָהּ לאהרי לפי פירוש העקדה יש כאן ויכוח של שני צדדים, א. ח"ו הכל דרך מקרה ולכן הירח קטן והשמש גדול, ב. שהכל בכוונת מכוון. לפי זה קודם כל צריך לתת הקדמה של שני הצדדים, 'שֶׁהֲרֵי תְּחִלָּתוֹ 'עִקַּר חָסֵר מִן הַסֵּפֶר''. שנית, מהלך הויכוח צריך להציע שני הצדדים ולהוכיח את הנכון, וזה לא מצינו כלל בכל מהלך הסוגיא "וְהַצַּד הַשֵּׁנִי לֹא בֵאֲרָהּ". יותר מזה, הצד המופיע בכל מהלך הסוגיא אינו הצד שרוצים להוכיח אמיתותו, רק הצד שכנגד - הצד הלא נכון, "וְאַף שֶׁהַצַּד הַהוּא נִשְׁאָר קַיָּם״., וְאַף שֶׁהַצַּד הַהוּא נִשְׁאָר קַיָּם, אֵיךְ יִתָּכֵן שֶׁאַחֲרֵי שֶׁכְּבָר נַעֲשֵׂית מִבְּלִי הֶאָרָה מֵעַצְמָהּ, שֶׁיֹּאמַר "לְכִי וּמַעֲטִי כו׳", וְזֶה כְּבָר הָיָה. וְכֵן נַמִּי אִם רְצוֹנָהּ לָדַעַת מֶה הָיְתָה הַכַּוָּנָה, לָמָּה לֹא אָמַר לָהּ הַשֵּׁם יִתְבָּרֵךְ מִיָּד "לִימְנוּ בָךְ כו׳", שֶׁהוּא עִקַּר הַכַּוָּנָה, מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן מֶמְשֶׁלֶת הַיּוֹם, דְּלֹא כְּלוּם הִיא. וּמְשַׁל הַצַּדִּיקִים רָחוֹק רָחוֹק מֵהָעִנְיָן הַזֶּה שֶׁל חִקּוּר דִּין הָעוֹלָם, אֵיךְ נִתְהַוָּה אִם בְּמִקְרֶה אוֹ בְּכַוָּנָה, שֶׁיָּבִיא רְאָיָה אֶל שֶׁהַכַּוָּנָה הִיא נָכוֹנָה, מִמַּה שֶּׁנִּמְצָא כֵּן בַּצַּדִּיקִים שֶׁמַּקְטִינִים עַצְמָם. וְגַם, שֶׁמְּהַפֵּךְ הַלָּשׁוֹן מַמָּשׁ מֵהַכַּוָּנָה הַנִּרְאֵית, שֶׁ"עַל שֶׁמִּעַטְתִּי כו'", מְבֹאָר הַמַּשְׁמָעוּת שֶׁתָּלָה כִּבְיָכוֹל חִסָּרוֹן בְּעַצְמוֹ, וְהוּא מְפָרְשׁוֹ שֶׁהֵם חוֹטְאִים בְּהִרְהוּרֵיהֶם עַל שֶׁהַמִּעוּט אֵינוֹ לְטוֹב וְהוּא רַק בְּמִקְרֶה:
My heart tells me that any reader will himself understand that the words of the Akeidah are far from the simple meaning of the Talmudic passage, for the fundamental point of his thesis – that the moon questioned whether everything occurs accidentally or by Divine intent – is not stated in the narrative itself. Moreover, the other position – that everything happens by chance – is not explained at all, even though that option seemingly remains tenable. Also, how is it possible that after the moon was brought into being without having light of its own, God ordered it, “Go and diminish yourself”? That was already the situation; i.e., the moon was already less important than the sun. Furthermore, since the moon’s desire was to know the reason for its diminishment, why did God not answer at the outset that the moon’s diminishment was for the purpose of establishing the calendar, which was His fundamental intent? Why did God first reply, “So that you will rule…,” which is not a feasible answer? Also, the explanation that the righteous will follow the pattern of the moon is very far from the original question: Is the world governed by chance or by Divine providence? The comparison to the righteous who diminish themselves does not seem related to the concept that the world is governed by Divine providence. In addition, the explanation of the conclusion of the passage according to the Akeidah’s interpretation reverses the obvious meaning of God’s statement, “Let this goat be offered as atonement for Me for diminishing the moon.” The phrase “for diminishing” implies that God attributed the fault to His act, as it were, while the Akeidah explains that the intent is that there are people who sin and think that the diminishment of the moon was not a positive act and that the diminishment happened only by chance.
The second interpretation offered by the author of the Akeidah is based on another Midrash, which understands the moon as an analogy for the Jewish people, and the sun as an analogy for Esav.68In a broader sense, the analogy refers to all non-Jewish nations, and specifically Rome and Christianity. Using these analogies, the author of the passage in Chulin is explaining that the Jewish people (who are compared to the moon) protest, “Is it possible for two kings to share one crown?” i.e., is it possible for Yaakov and Esav to be equal and for both to inherit two worlds, i.e., this world and the World to Come, for their essences are different. As a result of this essential difference, success should also alternate between them. The Holy One, blessed be He, told the moon (i.e., the Jewish people), “Go and diminish yourself,” i.e., you will not rule in this world.69I.e., Yaakov’s success (and that of the Jewish people) will be apparent only in the World to Come. The moon responded, “Why will I not be successful in this world and in the next?” God responded, “Go and rule during the day and during the night,” i.e., there will be many Jews who will merit success in both worlds. The moon replied, “Of what use is a candle in broad daylight?” I.e., the dominion of those select few is of no consequence in relation to that of the ruling kingdoms at large. God answered, “Israel will reckon the days and the years according to you,” i.e., the Jewish people will establish the calculation of the months and the festivals, and the Heavenly Company will carry out their decision, as our Sages stated70See Shmos Rabbah 15:2, which cites this verse as a prooftext for the concept that God told the Jewish people, “There are no festivals before Me except those which you declare.” in their interpretation of the verse,71Tehillim 57:3. We have translated the verse according to its interpretation in the above Midrash. The simple explanation of the verse is different. “I will call upon the supreme Judge, to the God Who carries out the rulings according to me.” This is an expression of greatness and honor for the Jewish people. The moon responded: The Heavenly Company also carries out the decisions of those who calculate their calendar according to the sun, as is evident from the spring and the other seasons. God answered: “The righteous will be called by your name,” i.e., the willingness to be diminished in this world is the attribute that enables one to inherit the World to Come, as reflected in the conduct of Yaakov and David. Even so, God saw that because of its stubbornness, the Jewish people (referring back to the analogue) were not appeased. Therefore, God ordained that the Jewish people bring an atonement offering on account of their stubbornness, in addition to their being diminished. Had the Jewish people not been diminished, their conduct would have been even more perverse. Even in their present diminished state, the Jewish people behave stubbornly.72I.e., the Jews should have understood that their diminishment came as a result of a Divine decree and accepted it graciously instead of protesting. Therefore, they are in need of atonement. Alternatively, God’s words can be understood as a jest, as if He said: “Bring an atonement offering for Me if I acted improperly by diminishing you. In truth, however, I acted for your benefit, so that you would inherit the World to Come.” This summarizes the second interpretation offered by the author of the Akeidah. It too is very distant from the obvious intent of the words of the Talmudic passage.
I saw that the author of the text Maaseh HaShem73Maaseh HaShem is a text authored by Rabbi Eliezer Ashkenazi 5273 (1513 CE) – 5346 (1586 CE). also offers an explanation similar to the second interpretation offered by the author of the Akeidah, containing only slight changes. Maaseh HaShem74Maaseh HaShem, Maaseh Bereishis, ch. 8. explains that the moon’s request was that it be the sole ruler. God responded, telling the moon that it would not reign at all. The moon replied that its complaint was justified. If so, the moon asked, why must it diminish itself and be subjugated to the rule of the non-Jewish kingdoms? In response, God offered to grant the moon a certain dimension of sovereignty. The moon, however, countered, “Of what use is a candle in broad daylight?” I.e., because the power granted to the moon is minimal, it will be of no consequence. God then answered, “Israel will reckon the days… according to you,” i.e., the years will be reckoned according to the rule of the kings of Israel. The moon responded that the Tanach also reckons the years according to non-Jewish kings, as recorded in the Book of Daniel, and the Sages reckoned according to the years of Greek kings.75The Sages often date events by referring to the number of years after the start of Alexander the Great’s rule that the event occurred. At the conclusion of the parable, God declares, “The righteous will be called by your name,” i.e., the righteous will be satisfied in the World to Come, although they will be of small stature in this world. God further states that this reduction in stature serves as atonement for the desire and yearning of the righteous for physical matters. And as an additional measure, God commanded that the righteous bring an atonement offering for this sin of material desire. This is implied by the words, “Bring an atonement offering for Me because I diminished the moon,” i.e., it is as if God said “In addition to the punishment already meted out to you, i.e., My lowering of your stature in this world, you also must bring an atonement offering.” These are the words of Maaseh HaShem. In this instance as well, it is not necessary to elaborate on the difficulty in correlating this interpretation with the simple meaning of the passage in Chulin, for we have already mentioned this point with regard to the second interpretation in the Akeidah. The interpretation in Maaseh HaShem appears to be taken from the Akeidah with only slight variations. Alternatively, the author of Maaseh HaShem – as “a wise man who is superior to a prophet”76Bava Basra 12a. – independently arrived at the same understanding as did the author of the Akeidah.
The author of Maaseh HaShem begins by focusing on the simple meaning of the passage as opposed to the Akeidah who views the text as an analogy. Thus, at the beginning of his interpretation, Maaseh HaShem stated that when the verse mentions the moon’s ruling during the day and the night, it is referring to the diminishment of the moon’s light. The appeasement granted the moon, that “the righteous will be called by your name,” focuses on another factor – that the moon was called “small.” This is hinted at in the moon’s statement, “Of what use is a candle in broad daylight?” With this statement, the moon is stating that it will be called “small” because its light is not considered significant. For this, God attempted to appease the moon through the explanation that this pattern is also reflected in the righteous, who are called “small”. When this explanation failed to appease the moon, God declared that an atonement offering should be brought every time the moon is renewed. Were it not to have been diminished, the moon would have rose in the morning and set in the evening like the sun. The Jewish people offer a daily burnt-offering at the rising and setting of the sun. Such a pattern is not appropriate for the moon after it was diminished, since a full moon does not rise and set every day. Hence, it was determined that a sacrifice be offered when the moon was renewed. The author of Maaseh HaShem states that it is for this reason the phrase מלבד עולת התמיד, “aside from the daily offering,” is not stated in the passage concerning the additional offering of Rosh Chodesh, as it is stated concerning the other additional offerings. Instead, concerning Rosh Chodesh, the passage states, על עולת התמיד, “in addition to the daily offering,” as if to say, “because of the daily offering.”
As mentioned above, the words of this scholar are, in my eyes, distant from a simple interpretation of the texts. Were this interpretation to be true, the additional offering of Rosh Chodesh would be – like the daily offering – a burnt-offering.77In fact, the additional offering is a sin-offering. Also, how does this offering serve as an appeasement for the moon’s complaint that it was called “small”? Even though this additional sacrifice is offered, the diminishment of the moon is evident, for the Jewish people offer sacrifices to God twice a day in connection with the rising and setting of the sun, while a sacrifice is brought only once in thirty days in connection with the renewal of the moon. Perhaps the author of Maaseh HaShem recognized the weakness of his interpretation, and that is why he said that this interpretation was offered only in response to those who raise questions and do not agree with the passage’s intent. Maaseh HaShem then sets out to explain the passage as a parable, as I explained in his name.
The text entitled Gur Aryeh cited above, on Parshas Pinchas, elaborates in the interpretation of this passage, expounding upon it for more than a folio page. To summarize his words: From the perspective of the world, it is appropriate that there be only one ruler and not two. Nevertheless, the sun and the moon were created as equal. Therefore, the moon complained: True, with regard to sovereignty over the world, it is impossible for the two celestial bodies to be the same. Nevertheless, there is justification to ask: Why should the moon be diminished and reduced to a lesser state than it was when originally created?
God responded to the moon, explaining that its diminishment did not imply inferiority. On the contrary, in its present, reduced state, during the day the moon could be like an officer in the presence of a king. In its original state, by contrast, there would be two kings – and that cannot be. Alternatively, God was explaining that no superior entity can exist without a deficiency. (The exception, of course, is the Ultimate Cause of causes, blessed be He.) Therefore, the sun does not shine at night, for this is its deficiency. Nevertheless, a small entity need not suffer a similar limitation, for its smallness is its deficiency.78Thus, after being diminished in size, the moon would not need to suffer a further deficiency.
The moon replied that such a state does not represent a positive quality, for it will be secondary to the sun, like a candle in daylight.God sought to comfort the moon by explaining that by becoming small, the moon receives prominence in this lower world, which – like it – is characterized by dissolution, degeneration, and renewal. Therefore, the calendar will be reckoned according to the moon, as one reckons according to kings.79In the era when Jews had a king, events would be recorded according to the year of the king’s reign, e.g., the famine of the fifth year of King Such-and-Such’s reign. God was saying that in a similar fashion, the calendar would be set according to the moon, because it would be the king, as it were, of the lower realm. Thus, the moon will possess a superior quality.
The moon did not accept that response, replying that since ultimately the calendar will also be reckoned according to the sun, it is a greater king. Or, according to the alternate explanation given above, the moon’s smallness is a reason people will reckon by it i.e., as a result of its small size, the moon completes its orbit in less time than the other celestial bodies, and is thus more easily used as a measurement. According to this explanation, the moon responded that since the reckoning of the calendar also involves the sun, the moon’s prominence is not exclusive.
God persisted in trying to appease the moon, saying, “The righteous will be called by your name.” The righteous are those who never lose focus of the fundamental point, and never expand and inflate themselves beyond that fundamental point. Thus, the righteous never deviate from their fundamental character trait, which is justice. Therefore, the righteous are called “small”, and are comparable to the earth, which as the least of the four elements remains in the center, without expanding and inflating itself. Not expanding or inflating oneself to reach beyond one’s rightful place is the attribute of the righteous. Thus, smallness is befitting to the existence of all beings in their present state. Hence, having its size diminished establishes the moon as the ruler of the lower plane.
This did not satisfy the moon, since it originally possessed a superior quality and had lost it. Therefore, God said that kaparah, translated as “an atonement offering,” should be brought for Him. Here, however, the intent of the term kaparah is not “atonement for sin,” i.e., that a person becomes aware that he has sinned, feels regret, and brings an offering so that the one against whom he has sinned will forgive him. All of this is not appropriate when speaking about God. In this context, the term kaparah means to wash away and remove, as Rashi explains in his commentary to the verse,80Bereishis 32:21. אולי אכפרה פניו “Perhaps I will cause his mien to change.” Moreover, even the fundamental meaning of the term chatas, “sin,” is “lack,” as in the verses,81 I Melachim 1:21. אני ובני שלמה חטאים, “I and Shlomoh my son will be lacking,” and אנכי אחטנה, “I would compensate for the lack.”82Bereishis 31:39. Similarly, a sin-offering is called a chatas because of the deficiency created, for every sin is due to a lack. On this basis, the passage can be understood as stating that God asked that a kaparah – i.e., a cleansing and a removal of the complaints – be brought to appease the moon because of the lack brought about by its diminishment.
If one will ask: How could God act unjustly toward the moon? This is not a valid question. All of the created beings were brought into existence as an expression of kindness. Fair judgment would not dictate that they be created any other way than the way they were created. The complaint of the moon that it should not have been diminished after being created as great is, from its perspective, a justified claim. However, in truth, the moon’s claim is not justified. For God created His world with kindness, and the created beings have no inherent right to be brought into existence. Therefore, God was justified in diminishing the moon so that the world would be ruled by one sovereign body. Merely to satisfy the complaints of the moon did God instruct that a kaparah be brought. Carrying that line of reasoning further, the terms kaparah and chatas can even be understood literally as “atonement offering” and “sin”, as they are usually used. For if these terms are understood literally, the incident is being understood from the moon’s perspective, that God made this request to appease the moon, as a gesture of honor to it, as Rabbeinu Yitzchak Alfasi explains.83See page ???
Another concept can be understood from this incident: that without a doubt, the state of lack brought about within the moon caused a state of lack to be created in the world below, i.e., our physical existence, which is influenced by the moon. Conversely, when the moon is renewed, goodness is renewed throughout the world which is influenced by it. Therefore, a sacrifice – which is a means of drawing close to God – is brought at the time of the renewal of the world. Alternatively, initially, God thought to create the sun and the moon] as equals. Afterwards, God decided to diminish the moon in order for the world to be conducted justly. God then saw fit for the Jewish people to bring a sacrifice to facilitate their ability to draw close to and elicit His attribute of goodness, which brings about a renewal of light for the moon and, as a result, of the goodness drawn down from it to the world.
62
הֵן הֵנָּה דִּבְרֵי הַגּוּר אַרְיֵה. וְהִנְנִי תּוֹלֶה הַחִסָּרוֹן בִּי, מֵחֶסְרוֹן הַיְדִיעָה וְהַהֲבָנָה מַה הוֹעִילוּ חֲכָמִים בְּמַאֲמָרִים אֵלּוּ בְּדֶרֶךְ חִידָה וְרֶמֶז, וְהָיוּ יְכוֹלִים לְאָמְרָם בְּפֵרוּשׁ, וְיָבִינוּ הַקְּטַנִּים עִם הַגְּדוֹלִים לדלפי פירוש הגור אריה הרי ׳הביאו עלי כפרה׳ אינו כפשוטו ומרמז לדברים אחרים, וא"כ אינו מובן למה היו חז"ל צריכים לדבר באופן כזה, אם לא שיש כאן סוד על פי נסתר, אלא שעפ״י נגלה קשה הפירוש של הגו"א, וכל מגמת רבינו בחיבור זה הוא לפרש האגדה על פי פשוטו וכדלהלן.. וְכָל שֶׁכֵּן שֶׁמְּדַבְּרִים בְּעִנְיָן שֶׁיּוּכְלוּ הַשּׁוֹמְעִים לִטְעוֹת בִּלְשׁוֹנָם, שֶׁאָמְרוּ "הָבִיאוּ כַּפָּרָה כו׳", וּלְפָחוֹת לְהַאֲשִׁימָם עַל שֶׁמְּדַבְּרִים עָתָק נֶגֶד הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא חַס וְשָׁלוֹם, וּמַה לָּהֶם וּלְצָרָה זוֹ.
These are the words of the text Gur Aryeh. I assume that the fault is with me, but I do not understand the benefit gained by the Sages speaking in riddles and allusions, when they could have stated their points directly, and thus have these points understood by those of lesser potential as well by those of great potential.84I.e., if this was the intent of the passage in Chulin, its author should have stated it straightforwardly rather than clothing it in the parable of a dialogue between God and the moon. This is certainly true when speaking about a matter that could cause others to err regarding the wording they used when saying, “Bring an atonement offering.” At the very least, these Sages might cause some to think they are speaking insolently about God, Heaven forbid. Why should these Sages engage in such a matter?
The failure to relate to the simple meaning of our Sages’ words is evident from the conclusion of Gur Aryeh’s statements, where he writes that this interpretation does not communicate the fundamental depth of the understanding of the diminishment of the moon and the removal of its complaint via a sacrifice, for this matter cannot be understood except by deeply delving into wondrous wisdom, the study of which is not relevant here. Without question, with these words Gur Aryeh is alluding to the wisdom of the Kabbalah.
I, by contrast, maintain that our Sages emulate the pattern of the Written Torah. Certainly, it is obvious that its text contains allusions to the Kabbalah and its mystical secrets. Nevertheless, as stated in the above-quoted statement of our Sages,85Shabbos 63a. See page 9. “The interpretation of a Scriptural phrase never departs from its simple, literal meaning.” How much more so does this guidance apply to the statements of the Sages themselves. Certainly, when our Sages made their statements they undoubtedly had in mind mystical secrets and allusions. Nevertheless, their original intent was that their words would be understood simply so that they be perceived correctly, without the possibility of error, Heaven forbid. Therefore, I will hold true to the simple meaning of the passage in Chulin, following the straightforward connotation of its words, explaining it in a manner that it will be simple and understandable, removing all the difficulties, questions, and doubts that I mentioned.
As a foundation, I maintain that there are two paths to the comprehension of this passage: either there was in fact such a dialogue between the moon and the Omnipresent, or that the conversation presented in Chulin 60b is an allusion and a metaphor with which to convey a useful message.
66
כָּל זֶה, רוֹצֶה לוֹמַר, אַחַת מֵאֵלּוּ שְׁתֵּי דְרָכִים, נִתְלֶה בְּחִלּוּקֵי הַדֵּעוֹת שֶׁיֵּשׁ עַל הַגְּרָמִים הַשְּׁמֵימִיִּים וְצִבְאוֹתָם אִם הֵם חַיִּים מַשְׂכִּילִים להכדעת הרמב"ם (יסודי התורה פ"ג ה"ט) וז"ל: כל הכוכבים והגלגלים כולן בעלי נפש ודעה והשכל הם, והם חיים ועומדים ומכירין את מי שאמר והיה העולם, כל אחד ואחד לפי גדלו ולפי מעלתו משבחים ומפארים ליוצרם כמו המלאכים, וכשם שמכירין הקדוש ברוך הוא כך מכירין את עצמן ומכירין את המלאכים שלמעלה מהן, ודעת הכוכבים והגלגלים מעוטה מדעת המלאכים וגדולה מדעת בני אדם. וכן כתב במורה נבוכים (ח"ב פ"ה) וכפי שכתב רבינו בשמו בסמוך., אִם לֹא לוכדעת רב סעדיה גאון (האמונות והדעות מאמר א הדעת השמינית), ועוד.. שֶׁכְּבָר מִפְּשַׁט הַכָּתוּב שֶׁל מִזְמוֹר "הַשָּׁמַיִם מְסַפְּרִים וגו׳" (תהלים יט) מְבֹאָר בִּטּוּל דַּעַת הָאוֹמֵר שֶׁהֵם חַיִּים מַשְׂכִּילִים לזהסוברים כדעת הרס"ג וסייעתו מוכיחים מפסוק "אין אומר ואין דברים" שאין צבא השמים בעלי דעה, ומה שכתוב "השמים מספרים" אין הכוונה סיפור בפועל אלא רק שעצם מהלכם "מספרים"., שֶׁהֲרֵי אָמַר "אֵין אוֹמֶר וְאֵין דְּבָרִים וגו׳" רַק "בְּכָל הָאָרֶץ יָצָא קַוָּם", וּמִזֶּה נוֹדַע כְּבוֹדוֹ יִתְבָּרֵךְ.
These two positions revolve around a difference of opinion among our Rabbis regarding whether the heavenly bodies are living and conscious beings or not.86I.e., if the heavenly bodies are living, conscious beings, it is appropriate to speak of a dialogue between God and the moon. Otherwise, the passage must be understood as an analogy. The negation of the contention that the heavenly bodies are living, conscious beings is reflected in the simple meaning of the verses in the psalm beginning,87Tehillim 19:2. “The heavens relate the glory of the Almighty.” For that psalm states explicitly,88Ibid. 4. The verse implies that the celestial bodies communicate God’s glory by passing through the heavens and not by speaking. “Without speech or words, without their voice being heard,” merely because “their course spans the entire earth,”89Ibid:5. man is able to realize God’s glory.
67
אָמְנָם, כְּבָר הָרַב הַמּוֹרֶה, בְּפֶרֶק ה׳ מֵחֵלֶק ב' בֵּאֲרָם לחהרמב"ם שם מתייחס לשאלה זו (השמים מספרים) ומבאר איך שאדרבא מתאים לשיטתו, וברד"ק (תהלים יט) הביאו תמצית דבריו וז"ל: השמים מספרים כבוד אל. יש מפרשים (התרגום וזולתו) כדרך אוֹ שִׂיחַ לָאָרֶץ וְתֹרֶךָ (איוב יב, ח), וכן שאל נא בהמות וְתֹרֶךָּ (שם פסוק ז), וכן השמים מספרים, כי מהנפלאות והמעשים הגדולים שאדם רואה בשמים יספר האדם כבוד האל. וזהו שאמר אין אומר ואין דברים בלי נשמע קולם, כלומר, לא שהם מספרים בדברים, אלא ממה שרואה אדם בהם מספרים בני אדם כבוד אל. ונוכל לפרש ׳מספרים׳ על השמים ועל הרקיע עצמם, כי במהלכם ובסיבובם על סדר נכון יֵרָאֶה כבוד האל יתברך, ואותו הוא הסיפור וההגדה, על דרך השולח אמרתו ארץ עד מהרה ירוץ דברו (תהלים קמז, טו). ומה שאמר: אין אומר ואין דברים, אין דברים כדברי בני אדם, אלא המעשה שיעשו הם הדברים והם הסיפור וההגדה, וכן אמר: ובקצה תבל מליהם. והרב מורה צדק החכם הגדול רבינו משה (מו"נ ב, ה) פירש ׳מספרים׳ על השמים, כי דעתו ודעת הפילוסופים, כי הגלגלים חיים משכילים עובדים לאל ומשבחים אותו שבח גדול ומהללים אותו מַהֲלָלִים עצומים וגדולים. ועל כן אמר: השמים מספרים כבוד אל ומעשה ידיו מגיד הרקיע, ואם כי הסיפור וההגדה אינם בפה ובלשון, וזהו שאמר: אין אומר ואין דברים בלי נשמע קולם, אלא הסיפור וההגדה להם כמו ציור שֶׁיְּצַיֵּר האדם בלבבו מדברי שבח והודאה מבלי שיוציאם בשפה., וּמַסְכִּימִים לְאוֹתָהּ הַדַּעַת וְהַחֲלִיטָה. אַךְ בַּעַל הָעֲקֵדָה, בִּנְעִילַת שַׁעַר הָרִאשׁוֹן, הִשִּׂיג עָלָיו הַרְבֵּה בָּזֶה. וְהָיָה הָאֱמֶת עִם מִי שֶׁהוּא, כִּי אֵינֶנִּי עַכְשָׁו מִתְעַסֵּק בַּחֲקִירָה הַהִיא לטלהרחבה בנושא ויכוח זה עיין בספר האדם על הירח פרק ד., אֲבָל הִקְדַמְתִּיו, לוֹמַר שֶׁאֶפְשָׁר וְיָכוֹל לִהְיוֹת, לְפִי דַעְתּוֹ שֶׁל הָרַמְבַּ״ם, הָאוֹמֵר שֶׁהַשָּׁמַיִם וְכָל צְבָאָם חַיִּים מַשְׂכִּילִים, שֶׁהָיוּ, אִם כֵּן, כָּל אֵלּוּ הַשְּׁאֵלוֹת וְהַתְּשׁוּבוֹת כְּמוֹת שֶׁהֵם בְּפֹעַל וְלֹא בְּדִמְיוֹן מִן בַּעַל הַמַּאֲמָר כְּדֵי לְהוֹעִילֵנוּ לְאֵיזֶה תּוֹעֶלֶת אוֹ תּוֹעָלוֹת, וּכְמוֹ שֶׁיְּבוֹרְרוּ בִּסִיַּעְתָּא דִשְׁמַיָּא.
Nevertheless Rambam, in his Moreh Nevuchim,90Moreh Nevuchim, Vol. 2, ch. 5. subscribes to and expounds upon the view that the heavenly bodies are conscious entities, and explains the aforementioned psalm according to this viewpoint. The author of the Akeidah91Akeidas Yitzchak, Shaar 1. differs at great length with Rambam on this matter. Let the truth reside with the one who is correct. I do not desire to enter a discussion of that issue. I mentioned it only as a preface to point out that according to Rambam, who maintains that the heavenly bodies are conscious entities, it is possible that the entire dialogue between God and the moon actually took place as the passage relates, and that the conversation is not merely an allusion and a metaphor with which to convey useful messages, as will be clarified with God’s help.
Furthermore, even if the heavenly bodies are not living, conscious entities, and the author of the passage used an allusion and a metaphor in order to convey useful messages, the entire narrative can be understood according to its simple meaning without resorting to such allusions as those suggested by the commentaries mentioned above. For as already demonstrated, there are ample reasons why the explanations offered by those commentaries are not sufficient. Furthermore, all of the many severe objections I raised previously to the approaches of these commentaries will be resolved – with the help of God, my Rock and Redeemer – according to my approach. With that, I will begin:
ד) בְּמַסֶּכֶת חֻלִּין פֶּרֶק אֵלּוּ טְרֵפוֹת.
An Analysis of the Passage in Chulin 60b
קֹדֶם שֶׁאֶכָּנֵס בְּבֵאוּר הַמַּאֲמָר הַזֶּה, הִנְנִי מְדַקְדֵּק בּוֹ כַּמָּה דִקְדּוּקִים. רִאשׁוֹנָה; מַאי רוּמְיָא קָא מַרְמִי, וַהֲרֵי עוֹדָם הַיּוֹם שְׁנֵיהֶם גְּדוֹלִים, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁבְּעֵרֶךְ זֶה עִם זֶה הָאֶחָד גָּדוֹל וְהָאֶחָד קָטָן, מִכָּל מָקוֹם בְּאוֹרָם נִרְאֶה אוֹר מַבְהִיק וְגָדוֹל בִּשְׁנֵיהֶם בְּעֵרֶךְ כָּל צְבָא הַשָּׁמַיִם. וְכֵן נֶאֱמַר "הַמְּאֹרֹת הַגְּדֹלִים", יִרְצֶה שֶׁבְּמָאוֹר הֵם גְּדוֹלִים, וּכְדִבְרֵי הָרַב אַבְרָהָם בֶּן עֶזְרָא שֶׁהֵבֵאתִיו בְּסִימָן א׳.
Before entering into an explanation of this passage, I would like to raise certain questions: i) The passage focuses on an apparent contradiction between the phrase, “And God made the two great luminaries,” and the later phrases, “the great luminary” and “the small luminary.” Why is it necessary to say there is a contradiction between these phrases? In the present era as well, when compared to the other celestial bodies, the light of the sun and the moon is great. Hence, they can both described as “great luminaries” (as cited in sec. 1 in the name of Rav Avraham ibn Ezra), even though when they are compared to each other, one is greater and the other smaller.
אָמְנָם בְּחַפְּשִׂי אַחַר סְפָרִים אֲשֶׁר יָדַעְתִּי שֶׁיְּדַבְּרוּ גַּם הֵמָּה מֵעִנְיַן קֹשִׁי זֶה הַמַּאֲמָר, אִם בִּכְלָלוֹ אוֹ בִּפְרָטִים מִמֶּנּוּ, וְהָיִיתִי יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁרַבֵּנוּ הַגָּאוֹן מ׳ לִיוָוא פְּרָאג זללה׳׳ה הָיְתָה חֲקִירָתוֹ בְּכָל מַדָּע, פָּתַחְתִּי גַּם סִפְרוֹ הַנִּקְרָא גּוּר אַרְיֵה, וּמָצָאתִי אֶת שֶׁבִּקְשָׁה נַפְשִׁי, כִּי דַּבֵּר יְדַבֵּר בְּזֶה הַמַּאֲמָר. אֶפֶס לֹא מִלֵּא אֶת חִשְׁקִי, כַּאֲשֶׁר אֶזְכּוֹר דְּבָרָיו וְאָשִׁיב עָלָיו. וְגַם שֶׁאֵין מְשִׁיבִין אֶת הָ'אֲרִי' לְאַחַר מוֹתוֹ (גטין פג:), תּוֹרָה הִיא, וְלִלְמֹד אֲנִי צָרִיךְ. וְאָחַזְתִּי מַעֲשֵׂה אֲבוֹתֵינוּ וְרַבּוֹתֵינוּ זִכְרוֹנָם לִבְרָכָה בְּיָדִי, שֶׁכָּל מְאֻחָר פּוֹנֶה אֶל הַמֻּקְדָּם. וְאִם יֵשׁ בְּיָדוֹ תְּשׁוּבָה לֹא יִסְתֹּם פִּיו מִלְּהָשִׁיב, וְהָרוֹאִים יִרְאוּ וְיִבְחֲרוּ הַנָּאוֹת. וּפֵרוּשׁ ״אֵין מְשִׁיבִין כו׳״, יוּכַל לִהְיוֹת דֶּרֶךְ כָּבוֹד. כְּלוֹמַר, אִלּוּ הָיָה פֹּה אִתָּנוּ, הָיָה לוֹ פֶּה לְהָשִׁיב עַל הַתְּשׁוּבוֹת שֶׁמְּשִׁיבִין עָלָיו. וּמִכָּל מָקוֹם, אֵין מוֹנְעִין וּמְשִׁיבִין. וְאַף שֶׁאֶפְשָׁר שֶׁהָיָה לוֹ כֹּחַ לְתָרֵץ, אָנוּ אֵין לָנוּ, שֶׁאֵין לַדַּיָּן אֶלָּא מַה שֶּׁעֵינָיו רוֹאוֹת. וְלָכֵן לֹא אָמְרוּ ׳אֵין רַשָּׁאִין לְהָשִׁיב אֶת הָאֲרִי כו׳׳. וְדַי מִזֶּה.
I researched texts that would discuss the difficulty in this passage – some which discuss it as a whole or and others that discussing particular details of this passage. Knowing that the Maharal of Prague11. Rav Yehudah Loewe of Prague, known as Maharal of Prague, was a renowned Torah sage who authored many works, including commentaries on the Talmud and treatises of Jewish philosophy and mysticism. There is some dispute as to the exact year Maharal was born, but all historians agree that he was born between 5272 (1512 CE) and 5286 (1526 CE). Maharal died in 5369 (1609 CE). Rabbi Loewe served as chief rabbi of Prague, and was one of Tosfos Yom Tov’s mentors. Here, Tosafos Yom Tov is citing Maharal’s text, Gur Aryeh, which is a commentary on the Torah, focusing primarily on Rashi’s commentary. was well-versed in all fields of knowledge, I opened his text Gur Aryeh, and I found the object of my search because he did discuss this passage. Nevertheless, Maharal’s treatment of the subject did not satisfy my desire, as will be evident from my citation of his words and my critique of them. True, to borrow the wording of our Sages,2Gittin 83b. The metaphor of our Sages has added significance in the present context, because the title of Maharal’s text, Gur Aryeh, means “The Lion Cub.” “One should not seek to refute the lion after his passing,” i.e., it is not proper to question the words of a Torah sage when he cannot respond. Nevertheless, our Sages also taught,3Cf. Berachos 62a, et al. “It is Torah and I am obligated to learn.” In this spirit I followed the example of our ancestors and teachers, whereby, that every later scholar who perceives a statement as being problematic turns to the sages of previous generations and raises questions if he has critique of his teachers instead of remaining silent. Others will see both the original work and the question, and choose that which they find more desirable. By saying, “One should not seek to refute the lion…,” our Sages were implying that critique of “the lion’s” teachings should be expressed with deference and respect. It should be realized that were “the lion” still with us, he might well have been able to resolve the questions asked concerning his words. The intent is not, however, to refrain from asking questions. True, the departed sage may well have had a resolution, but a judge can only rule on the evidence before him.4Cf. Sanhedrin 6b. Therefore, our Sages did not say, “One is not permitted to refute a lion….” This should suffice regarding this matter.
וְהִנֵּה אֶכְתֹּב מַה שֶּׁכָּתַב הַגּוּר אַרְיֵה עַל קֻשְׁיָא זוֹ בְּסֵפֶר בְּרֵאשִׁית (א טז), וְזֶה לְשׁוֹנוֹ: וְיֵשׁ מַקְשִׁים עַל דִּבְרֵי חֲכָמִים, שֶׁהֲרֵי הַכָּתוּב כְּפִי פְשׁוּטוֹ, "שְׁנֵי הַמְּאוֹרוֹת הַגְּדוֹלִים", לְפִי שֶׁשְּׁנֵיהֶם גְּדוֹלִים. ״הַמָּאוֹר הַגָּדוֹל״, שֶׁהוּא גָּדוֹל נֶגֶד הַיָּרֵחַ. וְאֵלּוּ לֹא יָדְעוּ דִּבְרֵי חֲכָמִים, שֶׁמִּפְּנֵי שֶׁהַכָּתוּב מַשְׁמַע שֶׁנִּבְרְאוּ כְּאֶחָד, כְּדִכְתִיב "וַיַּעַשׂ אֶת הַמְּאֹרֹת הַגְּדֹלִים", וּמֵאַחַר שֶׁאֵין זֶה כְּזֶה, וְזֶה מָאוֹר הַגָּדוֹל וְזֶה מָאוֹר הַקָּטָן, אֵיךְ יִהְיוּ נִבְרָאִים כְּאֶחָד? כִּי לְעוֹלָם הָיוּ הַנִּבְרָאִים שֶׁהֵם מְשֻׁנִּים זֶה מִזֶּה נִבְרָאִים בִּזְמַנִּים מְחֻלָּפִים. וְאֵיךְ יִהְיֶה מָאוֹר גָּדוֹל וּמָאוֹר קָטָן נִבְרָא כְּאֶחָד? וְזֶה הַפֵּרוּשׁ אֲמִתִּי. עַד כָּאן לְשׁוֹנוֹ.
Gur Aryeh writes concerning this issue:5Gur Aryeh, Bereishis 1:16. There are those6Gur Aryeh is referring to the comments of Ibn Ezra cited previously. who raise questions regarding our Sages’ words, for the verse can be understood according to its simple meaning. The sun and the moon are described as “the two great luminaries,” because they are both great in comparison to the other celestial beings. Even so, the sun is referred to as “the great luminary,” because it is great in comparison to the moon. These scholars did not know the words of the Sages, for the wording of the verse indicates that the sun and moon were created at the same time, as it is written, “And He made… the great luminaries.” Now, since they are not identical – one is “the great luminary” and one, “the small luminary” – how could they have been created at the same time? For created beings that are different from each other were brought into being at different times. How then was it possible for “the great luminary” and “the small luminary” to be created at the same time? This is the true interpretation of the matter.
עוֹד לוֹ בְּפָרָשַׁת פִּנְחָס (כח טו) וְזֶה לְשׁוֹנוֹ: וְהָרַב אַבְרָהָם בֶּן עֶזְרָא רָצָה לְהִתְחַכֵּם וּפֵרֵשׁ דְּלוֹ לֹא קָשֶׁה (כְּלוֹמַר מַה שֶּׁמַּקְשֶׁה בַּעַל הַמַּאֲמָר הַזֶּה), שֶׁכָּךְ רוֹצֶה לוֹמַר "שְׁנֵי הַמְּאוֹרוֹת הַגְּדוֹלִים" שֶׁהֵם גְּדוֹלִים בְּעֵרֶךְ שְׁאָר הַכּוֹכָבִים, "הַמָּאוֹר הַקָּטָן" שֶׁהֲרֵי הַיָּרֵחַ קָטָן כְּלַפֵּי הַחַמָּה. וְדִבְרֵי הֲבַאי הֵם אֵלּוּ הַדְּבָרִים, כִּי גַּם רַבּוֹתֵינוּ זִכְרוֹנָם לִבְרָכָה יוֹדְעִים לְפָרֵשׁ כָּךְ, וּכְבָר בֵּאַרְנוּ זֶה בִּתְחִלַּת בְּרֵאשִׁית שֶׁאֵין לְפָרֵשׁ כָּךְ, שֶׁכֵּיוָן שֶׁבִּבְרִיאָה אַחַת נִבְרְאוּ, אֵין רָאוּי שֶׁיִּהְיֶה נִבְרָא בִּבְרִיאָה אַחַת שְׁנֵי דְּבָרִים הַמִּתְחַלְּפִים, שֶׁהָאֶחָד נִקְרָא "גָּדוֹל" וְהַשֵּׁנִי נִקְרָא "קָטָן", שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהֶם צַד הֵפֶךְ. וּלְעוֹלָם תִּמְצָא בַּבְּרִיאָה שֶׁהַדְּבָרִים שֶׁהֵם שָׁוִים נִבְרְאוּ יַחַד. וְעַל כָּרְחָךְ, מַה שֶּׁכָּתוּב "וַיַּעַשׂ אֱלֹהִים אֶת שְׁנֵי הַמְּאֹרֹת הַגְּדֹלִים", שָׁוִים נִבְרְאוּ, כֵּיוָן שֶׁנִּבְרְאוּ כְּאֶחָד. עַד כָּאן לְשׁוֹנוֹ.
And in Parshas Pinchas, Gur Aryeh writes:7Gur Aryeh, Bamidbar 28:15. Rav Abraham ibn Ezra sought to interpret the matter cleverly and explain that he did not see any difficulty in these verses (i.e., the apparent contradiction raised by the author of the passage mentioned does not present any difficulty for Rav Avraham ibn Ezra), for the intent of the phrase “the two great luminaries” is that they appear greater than the other stars. Nevertheless, the moon can aptly be called “the small luminary” when compared to the sun. These words are mere prattle. Our Sages8I.e., the Sages who debated the subject in Chulin 60b. could also have offered such an interpretation. As we already explained in the beginning of Bereishis, such an interpretation should not be offered, since the sun and the moon were created at one time, and it is not befitting that two utterly different entities – one being described as “great” and one as “small” – be created at the same time, for they are opposites. Throughout the Creation, when entities were created together, they were equal. We are compelled to say that the verse, “And God made… the two great luminaries” implies that the sun and the moon] were created as equals, because they were created at the same time.
וַאֲנִי אוֹמֵר, אַחַר בַּקָּשַׁת הַמְּחִילָה מִכְּבוֹדוֹ וּמִכְּבוֹד תּוֹרָתוֹ, שֶׁהַהַפְלָגָה שֶׁהִפְלִיג עַל הַמַּקְשִׁים וְאָמַר, שֶׁלֹּא יָדְעוּ דִּבְרֵי חֲכָמֵינוּ זִכְרוֹנָם לִבְרָכָה וכו׳, וְקָרָא לְדִבְרֵי הָרַב אַבְרָהָם בֶּן עֶזְרָא בָּזֶה דִּבְרֵי הֲבַאי בַּעֲבוּר מַה שֶּׁאָמַר פֵּרוּשׁ הַפָּשׁוּט, וְשֶׁרַבּוֹתֵינוּ זִכְרוֹנָם לִבְרָכָה קֻשְׁיָתָם עַל שֶׁמִּדֶּרֶךְ מַה שֶּׁנִּבְרְאוּ כְּאֶחָד צָרִיךְ שֶׁיִּהְיוּ שָׁוִים בְּכָל צַד - וְזוֹ סְבָרָא וְאֵין לָהּ מוֹכִיחַ - וְלָמָּה יַפְלִיג בָּהּ וְיֹאמַר שֶׁהַפֵּרוּשׁ שֶׁל הָרַב אַבְרָהָם בֶּן עֶזְרָא הוּא הֲבַאי? וְכָל שֶׁכֵּן מַה שֶּׁאָמַר שֶׁלֹּא יָדְעוּ דִּבְרֵי הַחֲכָמִים. וַהֲלֹא יֵשׁ לָנוּ שְׁלֹשָׁה עֵדִים מֵחֲכָמֵינוּ זִכְרוֹנָם לִבְרָכָה עַצְמָם, שֶׁלֹּא חָשְׁשׁוּ לְקֻשְׁיָתוֹ שֶׁל בַּעַל הַמַּאֲמָר הַלָּז. וּבְלִי סָפֵק הוּא מִפְּנֵי שֶׁגַּם הֵמָּה מְפָרְשִׁים פֵּרוּשׁ הַפָּשׁוּט הַזֶּה, שֶׁל הָרַב אַבְרָהָם בֶּן עֶזְרָא וְהַיֵּשׁ מַקְשִׁים.
After begging forgiveness from Maharal’s honor and the honor of his Torah, I object to Maharal’s absolute renunciation of the position of those who question the interpretation he favors – saying that, “These scholars did not know the words of the Sages,” and his condemnation of the words of Rav Avraham ibn Ezra as “mere prattle” – for offering a simple explanation of the words of the verse. Maharal’s understanding of the source for the question our Sages raised in the passage from Chulin – that since the sun and the moon were created at the same time, they had to have been identical – is a reasonable thesis, but there is no absolute proof of its validity. Why then should Maharal reject the interpretation of Rav Avraham ibn Ezra so absolutely, calling it “mere prattle”? How much harsher is Maharal’s statement that “these scholars did not know the words of the Sages”! Behold, there are three testimonies from the words of our Sages themselves, which were not concerned with the questions raised in the passage from Chulin. Without a doubt, the reason is that these Sages also understand the narrative in Bereishis according to the simple interpretation advanced by Rav Avraham ibn Ezra and the other scholars whom Maharal maligns.
[וְ]הָעֵדִים הַלָּלוּ, הֲלֹא הֵמָּה שְׁלֹשֶׁת הַמַּאֲמָרִים שֶׁהֵבֵאתִי קֹדֶם לַמַּאֲמָר הַלָּזֶה. שֶׁהֲרֵי מַאֲמַר זֹהַר שִׁיר הַשִּׁירִים, בְּפֵרוּשׁ אִתְּמַר בֵּיהּ כַּלָּשׁוֹן הַזֶּה, "לָאו דַּהֲוַת סִיהֲרָא בְּקַדְמָיְתָא רַב וְעִלָּאָה אֶלָּא דְּכָל זִימְנָא דְּסִיהֲרָא בְּשִׁמְשָׁא בְּרָזָא חֲדָא בְּגִינֵיהּ אִתְקְרִי אִיהִי בַּהֲדֵיהּ גְּדוֹלִים וכו׳".
These three “testimonies” are the three passages that I cited before this passage from Chulin. The passage from the Zohar Chadash, Shir HaShirim, explicitly states: “The intent is not that the moon was originally greater and superior to its present state. Instead, as long as the moon would stand together with the sun in one mystical bond, as a result of this, it was called ‘great’ along with it.”
וְיַגִּיד עָלָיו רֵעוֹ, מַאֲמַר זֹהַר רַעֲיָא מְהֵימְנָא, שֶׁגַּם דַּעְתּוֹ דְּלֹא קָשֶׁה וְלֹא מִידִי מִשֵּׁם 'גְּדוֹלִים', דְּהָא אִיהוּ אַסְבְּרָ[הּ] לֵיהּ, דִּשְׁנֵי מְלָכִים הֵם הָרָאשִׁים שֶׁתַּחַת הַיָּרֵחַ, אוֹ שֶׁעַכְשָׁו עַל הַיָּרֵחַ, וְלֹא עַל הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ וְהַיָּרֵחַ כְּפִי הַנִּרְאֶה מִפְּשַׁט הַמַּאֲמָר דְּאֵלּוּ טְרֵפוֹת שֶׁאָנוּ בְּבֵאוּרוֹ. וְאִם כֵּן, מַנִּיחַ ׳הַגְּדוֹלִים׳ שֶׁהֵם הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ וְהַיָּרֵחַ בְּוַדַּאי כִּפְשׁוּטוֹ וּמַשְׁמָעוֹ, שֶׁהֵם גְּדוֹלִים בַּמָּאוֹר שֶׁלָּהֶם בְּעֵרֶךְ שְׁאָר הַכּוֹכָבִים. רַק מִדִּקְרָאוֹ אַחַר כָּךְ קָטָן, וְלֹא סַגִּי לֵיהּ בְּמַה שֶּׁיֹּאמַר "אֶת הַמָּאוֹר הָאֶחָד לְמֶמְשֶׁלֶת הַיּוֹם וְאֶת הַמָּאוֹר הָאֶחָד לְמֶמְשֶׁלֶת הַלַּיְלָה", מִזֶּה יָצָא לוֹ שֶׁרָמַז לָנוּ הַכָּתוּב עִנְיַן הַהַקְטָנָה, וְעַל דֶּרֶךְ שֶׁמְּבָאֵר וְהוֹלֵךְ, וּכְמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְתִּיו בְּסִימָן ב׳. הֲרֵי שְׁנַיִם מְעִידִין עַל פֵּרוּשׁ הָרַב אַבְרָהָם בֶּן עֶזְרָא.
The passage from its companion, the Raya Mehemna, also supports this view. The description of both the sun and the moon as “great” does not create a difficulty for the Raya Mehemna, as it refers to “the two kings” as being the planets Nogah and Kochav which were originally below the moon and which are now above the moon. According to the understanding of the Raya Mehemna, “the two kings” are not the sun and the moon, as the passage from Chulin infers. If so, according to the Raya Mehemna, the term “great luminaries” can refer to the sun and the moon, as is the simple interpretation, for their light is great when compared to the light of the other stars. Nevertheless, since the Torah later refers to the moon as “small” and does not suffice its reference to the moon by saying, “one luminary to rule the day and another to rule the night,” the Raya Mehemna understood that the verse alluded to the diminishment of the moon in the manner which was explained in section 3. Thus, there are two passages that support the approach of Rav Avraham ibn Ezra.
וְהַשְּׁלִישִׁי הוּא מַאֲמַר הָרַבּוֹת, שֶׁגַּם הוּא לֹא קָשֶׁה לֵיהּ אֶלָּא עַל שֶׁפּוֹגֵם בְּאָמְרוֹ 'קָטָן' אַחַר שֶׁבַּתְּחִלָּה הֶחְשִׁיבוֹ וּקְרָאוֹ 'גָּדוֹל'. נִמְצָא שֶׁגַּם לִדְבָרָיו, שֵׁם 'הַגְּדוֹלִים' אֲשֶׁר בַּתְּחִלָּה, לֹא שֶׁהָיוּ שָׁוִים מַמָּשׁ, אֶלָּא בְּעֵרֶךְ הָאֲחֵרִים הוּא שֶׁקְּרָאָם 'גְּדוֹלִים', רַק הוֹאִיל וּכְבָר נִקְרָא בְּשֵׁם 'גָּדוֹל', אַף אוֹתוֹ שֶׁהוּא 'קָטָן' בְּעֵרֶךְ הַשֵּׁנִי לוֹ, לֹא הָיָה לוֹ לְהַכָּתוּב לְקָרְאוֹ אַחַר כָּךְ כְּלָל בְּשֵׁם 'קָטָן', כִּי הוּא לוֹ לִפְגָם.
The third passage that] supports the approach of Rav Avraham ibn Ezra is the passage in Midrash Rabbah which points out the difficulty in the Scriptural passage in that God demeaned the moon by calling it “small” after He originally gave the moon prominence and called it “great.” However, according to Midrash Rabbah, the description of the sun and the moon as “great” does not mean that they were formerly equal in size, but rather that both the sun and the moon were of greater prominence than the other celestial bodies. Nevertheless, Midrash Rabbah felt that an explanation was necessary, since once the moon had been described as “great” – even though it is smaller than the sun – Scripture should not have referred to it as “small,” for that is demeaning.
הֲרֵי לָנוּ שְׁלֹשָׁה עֵדִים נֶאֱמָנִים מֵחֲכָמֵינוּ זִכְרוֹנָם לִבְרָכָה עַצְמָם, הַמְּעִידִים עַל כַּוָּנָתָם בְּפֵרוּשׁ הַפָּסּוּק כִּפְשׁוּטוֹ וּמַשְׁמָעוֹ, וְכָךְ מַנִּיחִים אוֹתוֹ. אִם כֵּן, אֵין לְהִתְמַרְמֵר כְּלָל נֶגֶד מַחֲזִיק זֶה הַפְּשָׁט וְאוֹמֵר דְּזוֹ אֵינָהּ קֻשְׁיָא מַה שֶּׁקְּרָאוֹ תְּחִלָּה 'גְּדוֹלִים' וְאַחַר כָּךְ כו׳. אֶלָּא שֶׁשְּׁלֹשֶׁת הַמַּאֲמָרִים הָאֵלּוּ עָשׂוּ קֻשְׁיָא אַחֶרֶת, וְהַיְנוּ מִמַּה שֶּׁקְּרָאוֹ אַחַר כָּךְ 'קָטָן'. וּמִנָּהּ נַמִּי, שֶׁזּוֹ הַסְּבָרָא שֶׁכָּתַב בְּגוּר אַרְיֵה, דְּיָצָא לְבַעַל הַמַּאֲמָר מִדְּנִבְרְאוּ כְּאֶחָד אִם כֵּן שָׁוִים הָיוּ מִכָּל צַד, לֵיתָא לְכָל אֵלּוּ הַשְּׁלֹשָׁה. וְלָמָּה זֶה יַחֲזִיק בָּהּ וְיַגְדִּילָהּ לִסְבָרָא זוֹ, וְלוֹמַר שֶׁמִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְפָרֵשׁ כֵּן לֹא יָדַע דֶּרֶךְ הַחֲכָמִים? וַהֲרֵי הַחֲכָמִים יֵשׁ מֵהֶם שֶׁאֵינָם סוֹבְרִים לְזוֹ הַסְּבָרָא, מִדְּלָא רָמוּ קְרָאֵי אַהֲדָדֵי כִּדְרָמֵי לֵיהּ מַאֲמָר דְּפֶרֶק אֵלוּ טְרֵיפוֹת.
Thus, there are three faithful testimonies from the works of our Sages that indicate they understand that the verse should be understood according to its simple meaning and left at that. Therefore, there are no grounds for reproach against one who accepts this interpretation and does not see any contradiction between the fact that Scripture first referred to both the sun and the moon as “great” and afterwards called the moon “small”. Instead, these three passages present a different question: Why was it necessary for Scripture to call the moon “small” after first calling it “great”? From the interpretation of the narrative in these sources, it is obvious that they do not accept the rationale cited by Gur Aryeh – that the fact that the sun and the moon were created at the same time shows that they were created as equals in all matters. Why must Gur Aryeh hold to this rationale so forcibly and say that someone who does not accept it does not know the way of the Sages? We see that there were Sages who did not accept this rationale, as is evident from the fact that they did not see the contradiction between the two verses as presented in the passage in Chulin.
וְתוּ, שֶׁסְּבָרָא זוֹ הֲרֵי מָצִינוּ פְּסוּקִים הַמִּתְנַגְּדִים לָהּ אובחידושי אגדות הש"ס למהר"ל (שבועות ט:) הרגיש בקושיא זאת ויישב שם שבכל מקום ששני הנבראים משלימים זה את זה, אף שאינם ממש שוים, גם כן נבראו בעשייה אחת., שֶׁכֵּן נֶאֱמַר (בראשית א כא) "וַיִּבְרָא אֱלֹהִים אֶת הַתַּנִּינִם הַגְּדֹלִים". וּבֵין שֶׁיִּהְיֶה כְּפִי פְשׁוּטוֹ שֶׁרוֹצֶה בּוֹ דָּגִים גְּדוֹלִים שֶׁבַּיָּם, כִּדְפֵרֵשׁ רַשִׁ״י, אִם כֵּן וַדַּאי שֶׁאֵין כֻּלָּם שָׁוִים, וְכַאֲשֶׁר עוֹבְרֵי אָרְחוֹת יַמִּים יָעִידוּ וְיַגִּידוּ עַל עִנְיְנֵי הַדָּגִים שֶׁבַּיָּם. אוֹ שֶׁיִּהְיֶה כְּפֵרוּשׁ הָאַגָּדָה שֶׁהֵבִיא רַשִׁ״י זִכְרוֹנוֹ לִבְרָכָה, שֶׁרוֹצֶה לוֹמַר עִנְיַן הַלִּוְיָתָן וּבֶן זוּגוֹ, וְלָמְדוּ בְּפֶרֶק הַמּוֹכֵר אֶת הַבַּיִת )ב"ב עד:) מִדִּכְתִיב (ישעי' כז א) "יִפְקוֹד ה׳ בְּחַרְבּוֹ הַקָּשָׁה וְהַחֲזָקָה עַל לִוְיָתָן נָחָשׁ בָּרִחַ וְעַל לִוְיָתָן נָחָשׁ עֲקַלָּתוֹן", תַּרְתֵּי - חַד זָכָר וְחַד נְקֵבָה. וּפֵרֵשׁ רַשְׁבַּ״ם זִכְרוֹנוֹ לִבְרָכָה, נָחָשׁ בָּרִיחַ הוּא הַזָּכָר שֶׁזָּקוּף כְּבָרִיחַ, וְלִוְיָתָן נָחָשׁ עֲקַלָּתוֹן הוּא הַנְּקֵבָה שֶׁמַּקִּיף אֶת הָעוֹלָם. עַד כָּאן. וַהֲרֵי בְּתַרְתֵּי אֵינָם שָׁוִים, שֶׁזֶּה זָכָר וְזוֹ נְקֵבָה, וְזֶה זָקוּף וְזֶה מְעֻקָּל. וְכֵן אַתָּה מוֹצֵא בְּאָדָם וְחַוָּה, לְמַאן דְּאָמַר דּוּ פַּרְצוּפִים נִבְרְאוּ, שְׁנַיִם שֶׁנִּבְרְאוּ כְּאֶחָד וּמְדֻבָּקִים יַחַד, הֲרֵי הָיוּ שְׁתֵּי יְצִירוֹת - פַּרְצוּף זָכָר וְכֻלּוֹ, וּפַרְצוּף נְקֵבָה וְכֻלָּהּ. וְעוֹד, בְּרִיאַת הַשָּׁמַיִם, עִם שֶׁהוּא מַה שֶּׁנֶּאֱמַר "בְּרֵאשִׁית בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִם", אוֹ הוּא מַה שֶּׁנֶּאֱמַר "וַיַּעַשׂ אֱלֹהִים אֶת הָרָקִיעַ", כְּפִי חִלּוּקֵי דֵּעוֹת הַמְּפָרְשִׁים זללה״ה בכוונת רבינו נראה שמתייחס למה שהתחבטו מפרשי התורה לבאר מה שבתחילה כתוב בראשית ברא את השמים וזה היה ביום הראשון, ושוב ביום השני נאמר ויאמר אלקים יהי רקיע, משמע שהשמיים (רקיע) נברא רק ביום השני, ותירצו כל אחד באופן אחר. עיין רמב"ן ורד"ק בראשית א, א., הֲרֵי מִכָּל מָקוֹם לְכָל הַשָּׁמַיִם נִתְכַּוֵּן הַפָּסוּק, בִּבְרִיאָה אוֹ בַּעֲשִׂיָּה אַחַת. וּלְפָחוֹת יֵשׁ שְׁנֵי שָׁמַיִם, כְּמוֹ שֶׁהֵבֵאתִי לְעֵיל סִימָן הַקּוֹדֵם. וְאֵינָם שָׁוִים, בְּלִי סָפֵק, שֶׁהֲרֵי הָעֶלְיוֹן מַקִּיף אֶת הַתַּחְתּוֹן, וּבְהֶכְרֵחַ הוּא גָּדוֹל מִמֶּנּוּ.
Furthermore, we find several verses that appear to contradict this principle.9Maharal was aware of this question, and offers the following explanation (Chiddushei Aggados, Shevuos 9b): when the created beings are complementary, like heaven and earth, it is possible that they were created at the same time even though they are not identical. For example, “God created the great sea-creatures.”10Bereishis 1:21. There are some who, like Rashi, interpret the verse simply, as referring to the various large fish in the sea. Now, certainly, not all the large fish are of the same size, as any sea-farer will relate. Even if one would say that – as is the Aggadic interpretation11Bava Basra 74b. that Rashi also cites – the verse refers to the Leviathan and its mate, the male and female Leviathan were not identical, as is evident from that Talmudic passage which cites the verse,12Yeshayahu 27:1. “On that day, God will focus the attention of His hard and strong sword upon Leviathan, the extended serpent, and upon Leviathan, the crooked serpent.” The Talmud notes that the word Leviathan is mentioned twice, once referring to the male and once to the female. Rashbam explains that the words “the extended serpent” refer to the male, which is straight, like a door-bolt.13The Hebrew describes the first Leviathan as nachash bariach, which we translated as, “an extended serpent.” Rashbam interprets the word bariach as meaning “a door-bolt”, for the reason Tosfos Yom Tov gives in the main text. The words “the crooked serpent” refer to the female Leviathan that surrounds the entire world. Thus, even according to this interpretation, the two were not identical: one was male, the other female; one straight, the other crooked. The same principle applies with regard to Adam and Chavah, according to the interpretation14Berachos 61a. that they were created together as a two-faced entity. According to this interpretation, although Adam and Chavah were created together and fused as one being, they were nevertheless formed differently – one was entirely male, and one was entirely female. The same is true regarding the creation of the heavens. First, it is written:15Bereishis 1:1. “In the beginning, God created the heavens,” and then it is written:16Ibid 1:7. “God made the firmament,” as explained by the commentaries.17The commentaries see an apparent contradiction between these two verses, and many of the commentaries have proposed resolutions. See, for example, the commentaries of Ramban and Radak to Bereishis 1:1. As cited in the previous section, there are at least two heavens, and they are not identical. Since the higher heaven encompasses the lower one, it must be greater than the lower one. In any event, the verses refer to all the heavens, which were created or made with one act.
וְעוֹד, הֲרֵי דָּוִד הַמֶּלֶךְ עָלָיו הַשָּׁלוֹם אָמַר (תהלים קלו ז) "לְעֹשֵׂה אוֹרִים גְּדֹלִים" בִּלְשׁוֹן הוֹוֶה, וּכְמוֹ שֶׁאָמַר (שם ה) "לְעֹשֵׂה הַשָּׁמַיִם בִּתְבוּנָה", "לְרֹקַע הָאָרֶץ עַל הַמָּיִם" (שם ו). וְהָעִנְיָן בְּלִי סָפֵק, לְפִי שֶׁהוּא "מְחַדֵּשׁ בְּכָל יוֹם תָּמִיד מַעֲשֵׂה בְרֵאשִׁית" (נוסח ברכת יוצר) גהנה ראשונים פירשו 'המחדש בטובו בכל...' קאי על חידוש זריחת השמש בכל יום מחדש (וכמו שנאמר חדשים לבקרים רבה אמונתך) וכמ"ש באבודרהם בברכות קריאת שמע וז"ל: ובטובו מחדש בכל יום תמיד מעשה בראשית. רוצה לומר על זריחת האור בכל יום שנאמר בו כי טוב. ואמר 'מעשה בראשית', כי כמו שהבדיל בין האור ובין החשך בששת ימי בראשית, כמו שנאמר (בראשית א, ד) ויבדל אלהים בין האור ובין החשך, כך הוא מתמיד אותה הויה בכל יום. אמר 'תמיד', על שם (שם ח, כב) ויום ולילה לא ישבותו. עכ"ל. ולפי פירוש זה מובן שפיר הכוונה במילים "בכל יום", אמנם מילת "תמיד" יש בו קושי בהבנתו, שהרי משמעותו הוא שבנוסף על החידוש של המחזור היומי ישנו חידוש מעשה בראשית בכל רגע. בזה מפרש רבינו כאן שהחידוש הזה מוכרח, מצד שאילו היה השי"ת מסיר שפעו לרגע אחד מהנבראים הרי היה הכל חוזר לאין ואפס. ועיין לקוטי אמרים תניא שער היחוד והאמונה פ"א שהאריך ברעיון זה בשם הבעש"ט לפרש הפסוק לעולם ה' דברך נצב בשמים.. כִּי אִלּוּ יְצֻיַּר שֶׁיָּסִיר הַשֵּׁם יִתְבָּרֵךְ שִׁפְעוֹ מֵהַבְּרוּאִים דהנה פירוש זה שפירש רבינו, אף שנמצא בספרי חסידות וכנ"ל בהערה הקודמת, הרי שדברי רבינו הם מהמקורות הראשונים לפירוש זה, ומצינו חבר לו (בן דורו ומוקדם בשנים) בשל"ה הקדוש (עשרה מאמרות מאמר שלישי ורביעי) וז"ל: וכן פירוש 'ואתה מחיה את כולם', והכל ענין אחד. כי מאחר שהוא היוה אותם והמציאם מן האין, יוכרח שיושפעו ממנו, ושואבים כולם ממנו חיות[ם]. ואחר שהוא מחיה אותם, נמצאו שהוא ממציאם ומהוום בכל עת ובכל רגע ובכל שעה. והנה 'מהווה' ו'מחיה' הכל ענין אחד להם. ובענין זה יובן 'ובטובו מחדש בכל יום תמיד מעשה בראשית', שהוא שפע השופע להחיותם ולהעמידם ולהציבם בצביונם. ואם חס ושלום יעלה על הדעת הסתלקות שפעו מהם כרגע יספו, ואינם אלא מחודשים בסוד חידוש אורו, עכ"ל., יַחְדָּו יִכְלוּ אַף יָסוּפוּ כְּרֶגַע הומה שתיקנו חז"ל דווקא לומר ולהזכיר החידוש של מעשה בראשית המתחדשת בכל יום מחדש אף שהם מתחדשים בכל רגע, הוא מפני שאז נראה בחוש לעיני כל איך שמעביר יום ומביא לילה וחדשים לבקרים (ליקוטי תורה לבעל התניא פרשת אחרי דף כו ע"א).. וְהַשְׁתָּא, אִי אָמַרְתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא שֶׁנִּקְרְאוּ 'גְּדוֹלִים' אַף שֶׁאֵינָם שָׁוִים אֲבָל בְּעֵרֶךְ אֲחֵרִים, אִם כֵּן שַׁפִּיר קָאָמַר "לְעֹשֵׂה אוֹרִים גְּדֹלִים", הַיְנוּ אוֹתָם שֶׁבְּמַעֲשֵׂה בְרֵאשִׁית, שֶׁמְּחַדְּשָׁם בְּכָל יוֹם. אֲבָל אִי אָמַרְתְּ שֶׁבְּמַעֲשֵׂה בְרֵאשִׁית הָיוּ שָׁוִים מִכָּל צַד, וּמִפְּנֵי הַקִּטְרוּג נִתְמַעֲטָה, אֵיךְ יֹאמַר דָּוִד הַמֶּלֶךְ עָלָיו הַשָּׁלוֹם "לְעֹשֵׂה אוֹרִים גְּדֹלִים"? וַהֲרֵי אֵינָם עַתָּה כֵּן כַּאֲשֶׁר הָיוּ בַּתְּחִלָּה! הֲרֵי שֶׁגַּם הַפָּסוּק הַזֶּה עוֹמֵד כְּנֶגֶד הַסְּבָרָא הַזֹּאת שֶׁל הַגּוּר אַרְיֵה.
Furthermore, King David praises God “Who makes the great luminaries,”18Tehillim 136:7. using the present tense. King David similarly uses the present tense in the phrases,19Ibid. 136:5. “Who makes the heavens with understanding,” and, “Who spreads out the land over the waters.”20Ibid. 136:6. Without a doubt, God “renews every day, continually, the work of Creation.”21Tosfos Yom Tov is citing the daily Shacharis liturgy. Unquestionably, were God to withdraw His Creative energy from the created beings, they would all cease to exist immediately.22Tosfos Yom Tov is emphasizing that Creation is not a historical event that happened at the beginning of time, but an ongoing process. This concept is explained in Shalah (Asarah Maamaros, Discourse 3 and 4) and at length in Tanya (Shaar HaYichud VehaEmunah). The underlying concept is that since the world was created yesh me’ayin, i.e., existence came into being from an absolute void, its fundamental state is nothingness. Therefore, were God not to continually renew His creative energy, all of existence would return to that initial state of absolute nothingness. Accordingly, it can be said that if the sun and the moon could both be considered as great luminaries even though they are not identical, because they are “great” in comparison to other celestial bodies, then the words of praise “Who makes the great luminaries” are appropriate, the intent being that the “great luminaries” brought into being at the time of Creation are renewed each day. If, however, one postulates that the sun and the moon were identical at the time of Creation, and the moon was diminished because of its complaint, how could King David praise God as the One “Who makes the great luminaries”? At present, they are not the same as they were originally. Thus, this verse also appears to contradict the logic advanced by Gur Aryeh.
וְכֵן תִּמְצָא כַּמָּה פְּסוּקִים שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בָּהֶם 'גְּדוֹלִים', וְאֵינָם שָׁוִים. אֶלָּא שֶׁעַל זֶה יֵשׁ לוֹמַר, כֵּיוָן שֶׁאֵינָם בִּבְרִיאָה אַחַת, אֵינָם צְרִיכִים לִהְיוֹת שָׁוִים. אַךְ לְפִי זֶה פַּעַם יִהְיֶה שֵׁם ׳הַגְּדוֹלִים׳ כָּךְ, וּפַעַם יִהְיֶה כָּךְ. וְכָל זֶה מַה שֶּׁמַּחְלֶשֶׁת כֹּחַ הַסְּבָרָא הַהִיא. וְהַדְרָא קֻשְׁיָא לְדוּכְתָּא, מָה רוּמְיָא הִיא דְּמַרְמֵי קְרָאֵי אַהֲדָדֵי, וַהֲרֵי לֹא קַשְׁיָא וְלֹא מִידִי: וסיכום שאלה א: בקושיית הגמ' צריך ביאור מה היא הסתירה בין הפסוקים, שהרי יש לפרש "גדולים" ביחס לשאר המאורות (כוכבים), ומ"ש המאור הקטן והגדול הוא ביחס הלבנה לחמה.
Similarly, there are many verses which describe diverse entities as “great” even though they are not identical. True, it can be said that these verses do not represent a contradiction to the above thesis, the rationale being that since the entities mentioned in these verses were not created at the same time, they need not be identical. Nevertheless, according to this logic, at times the term “great” will have one meaning, and at times another. Thus, it weakens the strength of that thesis. Thus, the original question returns: Why are the verses considered as contradictory? In truth, there is no difficulty in understanding them.
הַב׳). אָמְרָה יָרֵחַ וכו'. וְכָל הַוִּכּוּחִים וַדַּאי צְרִיכִים סַעַד. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁיְּכוֹלִין אָנוּ לוֹמַר דְּשֶׁמָּא מִבְּלִי וִכּוּחַ, מִיָּד שֶׁהִקְטִין הַיָּרֵחַ, שֶׁזֶּה מֻכְרָח מִכֹּחַ הָרוּמְיָא, הִנֵּה מֵעַצְמוֹ יִתְבָּרֵךְ [שָׁב] וְרָפָא לָהּ בַּפִּיּוּס הָאַחֲרוֹן. וְאַף טַעֲנַת הַיָּרֵחַ הָרִאשׁוֹנָה, שֶׁמָּא לֹא הִיא, אֶלָּא מֵעַצְמוֹ רָאָה יִתְבָּרֵךְ שֶׁאֵין הָעוֹלָם מִתְקַיֵּם בִּשְׁנֵי מְלָכִים שֶׁיִּשְׁתַּמְּשׁוּ בְּכֶתֶר אֶחָד, הִקְטִין הָאֶחָד וּפִיְּסָהּ עַל שֶׁלֹּא הִקְטִין לַשֵּׁנִי, וּכְמוֹ שֶׁאֶזְכֹּר בַּקֻּשְׁיָא הַד׳. וּכְדֶרֶךְ שֶׁאָמְרוּ זִכְרוֹנָם לִבְרָכָה, בַּתְּחִלָּה בָּרָא הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא הָעוֹלָם בְּמִדַּת הַדִּין, וְרָאָה שֶׁאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהִתְקַיֵּם, וְשִׁתֵּף מִדַּת הָרַחֲמִים וכו׳: זסיכום שאלה ב: מה המקור שהיה טענה וויכוח בכלל מצד הלבנה? הרי יתכן שכל הענין נעשה מצד הקב"ה ללא ויכוח.
ii) The passage in Chulin states that the moon complained. Whenever it is postulated that there was a complaint, proof of such is necessary. This is because if – as a result of the contradiction between the verses – one is forced to say that the moon was diminished, it is possible to say that perhaps God immediately diminished the moon without it complaining at all. Instead, God recognized that the world could not be maintained when two kings use a single crown. Afterwards, because He diminished the size of the moon and did not diminish the size of the sun God might have offered the moon consolation on His own initiative. This idea will be mentioned in the fourth question. A parallel to this idea can be found in our Sages’ words,23Bereishis Rabbah 12:15, cited by Rashi in his commentary to Bereishis 1:1. “Initially, the Holy One, blessed be He, created the world with the attribute of Judgment. He saw that the world would not be able to continue, therefore, He blended the attribute of Mercy with the attribute of Judgment.” Without a complaint having been issued, God realized that an adjustment had to be made to the initial state of Creation, and did so on His own initiative.
הַג'). לְפִי מַה שֶּׁטָּעֲנָה הַיָּרֵחַ, שֶׁאָמְרָה דָּבָר הָגוּן, וְגַם עַל זֶה הִרְבָּה לָהּ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא כַּמָּה פִּיּוּסִים, שְׁמַע מִינָהּ, שֶׁטַּעֲנָתָהּ טַעֲנָה אֲמִתִּית. תִּפּוֹל אִם כֵּן שְׁאֵלָה גְדוֹלָה בְּעִנְיַן הַדְּרוּשׁ, וְהִיא זֹאת, שֶׁאֵיכָכָה נִהְיָה הַדָּבָר הַגָּדוֹל הַזֶּה שֶׁהַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא עֲשָׂאָן 'גְּדוֹלִים', וְלֹא הִרְגִּישׁ בְּעִנְיַן טַעֲנָה הַזֹּאת שֶׁאִי אֶפְשָׁר לִשְׁנֵי מְלָכִים וכו׳?: חסיכום שאלה ג: משמע שהלבנה צדקה בטענתה ולכן פייסה הקב"ה, וא"כ נשאלת השאלה מדוע לכתחילה באמת עשה כן הקב"ה.
iii) The moon’s words imply that its complaint was reasonable and justified. This is also reflected by the fact that God made several conciliatory gestures to the moon after diminishing it. If so, a great question arises: How is it possible that God made both luminaries “great” without realizing that it is impossible for two kings to wear one crown?
הַד׳). וְלוּ הוּנַח שֶׁכָּךְ הָיוּ מִתְּחִלָּה שָׁוִים מִכָּל צַד, וְשֶׁאַחַר כָּךְ נִתְמַעֵט הָאֶחָד, אַכַּתִּי יוֹתֵר מִסְתַּבֵּר שֶׁהַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מֵעַצְמוֹ נִמְלַךְ וְטָעַן אֶפְשָׁר לְב׳ מְלָכִים, וּמִפְּנֵי כֵן מִעֵט הָאֶחָד, וּמְנָא לֵיהּ לְבַעַל הַמַּאֲמָר שֶׁהַיָּרֵחַ קִטְרְגָה? וְאֵין מַכְרִיחַ לוֹמַר שֶׁהַיָּרֵחַ קִטְרְגָה, דְּאִם לֹא כֵן, לָמָּה לֹא מִעֵט הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ, שֶׁזּוֹ וַדַּאי לָאו כְּלוּם, שֶׁאִם מִעֵט הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ, תִּקְשֵׁי לָמָּה לֹא מִעֵט הַיָּרֵחַ: טסיכום שאלה ד: אין להוכיח שהירח קטרגה ולכן נתמעטה (ולא נבראה בתחילה קטנה) מזה שמיעט הירח ולא השמש שהלא אם היה ממעט השמש היו שואלים למה למעט השמש ולא הירח.
iv) If one assumes that originally the sun and the moon were identical, and that afterwards the size of one was diminished, it is more logical to say that God had the change of mind on His own initiative, realizing that it is impossible for two kings to wear one crown, and therefore, diminished one of the luminaries. What prompted the author of this passage to say that the moon issued a complaint? It cannot be said that the fact that the size of the moon was diminished is proof that the moon complained, because otherwise the sun would have been the one diminished. This is certainly not a viable argument: If the sun had been diminished, one would ask why the moon was not diminished?
הַה׳) אָמַר לְכִי וּמַעֲטִי כו׳. מַאי 'לְכִי' שֶׁהוֹסִיף? הָא סַגִּי הָיָה בְּשֶׁיֹּאמַר 'מַעֲטִי' כו׳:
v) The passage quotes God as saying, “Go and diminish yourself.” Why does God say “Go”? Seemingly, it would have been sufficient to say, “Diminish yourself.”
הַו׳). וְהַז׳). וּמַעֲטִי אֶת עַצְמֵךְ. וְלָמָּה לֹא מִעֵט הוּא יִתְבָּרֵךְ אוֹתָהּ בַּמַּאֲמָר פִּיו, כִּי הוּא אָמַר וַיְהִי גָדוֹל, כֹּה יֹאמַר גַּם כֵּן שֶׁתַּקְטִין, וּתְהִי קְטַנָּה? וְעוֹד, וְכִי הֵיאַךְ אֶפְשָׁרוּת הַצִּיּוּר לְצַיֵּר לְשֶׁיּוּכַל הָעֶצֶם לְמַעֵט אֶת עַצְמוֹ? וְכִי תֵּימָא, דְּאֵין הָכִי נַמִּי, זֶה כַּוָּנַת "מַעֲטִי אֶת עַצְמֵךְ", שֶׁמִּן הַדִּבּוּר שֶׁל הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא שֶׁאָמַר כֵּן, וַתֶּהִי - יִקְשֶׁה הַלָּשׁוֹן שֶׁל "אֶת עַצְמֵךְ", שֶׁלֹּא הֲוָה לֵיהּ לְמֵימַר אֶלָּא ׳אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, תִּתְמַעֵט׳: יסיכום שאלה ו' ז': למה אמר הקב"ה ללבנה שתמעט עצמה, ולא מיעטה הקב"ה בדיבורו, ואיך יתכן שעצם ימעט את עצמו.
vi-vii) God commanded the moon to diminish itself. Why didn’t God diminish the moon through a Divine decree? Just as God spoke and the moon was created as “great,” so too God could speak and the moon would be diminished. Moreover, how is it possible for an entity to diminish itself? And if one would answer that the intent is that God would diminish it with His word, the wording used by our Sages is difficult, for the passage states that God instructed the moon to “Diminish yourself.” Instead, the passage should have said, “The Holy One, blessed be He, decreed: you shall be diminished.”
הַח'). וְהַט׳). זֶה שֶׁאָמְרָה הוֹאִיל וְאָמַרְתִּי וכו׳. נִרְאֶה שֶׁגִּלְּתָה דַעְתָּהּ שֶׁכְּבָר הָיָה סָתוּם, שֶׁלֹּא אָמְרָה מִתְּחִלָּה אֶלָּא אֶפְשָׁר כו׳ וְהָיָה בְּמַשְׁמַע דְּבָרֶיהָ שֶׁמָּחֲלָה עַל כְּבוֹדָהּ וְתִתְמַעֵט הִיא, כִּי הֵיכִי שֶׁתְּסֻלַּק הַתֵּימָא שֶׁל אֶפְשָׁר כו׳. וְאִלּוּ עַכְשָׁו, שֶׁאָמְרָה הוֹאִיל כו׳ אֲמַעֵט אֶת עַצְמִי, נִתְגַּלָּה מַצְפּוּנָהּ שֶׁדַּעְתָּהּ וְכַוָּנָתָהּ מֵעִקָּרָא הָיְתָה שֶׁהַשֶּׁמֶשׁ יִתְמַעֵט, לֹא הִיא. וְזוֹ וַדַּאי קִטְרוּג גָּדוֹל וְעַיִן רָעָה. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהָעִנְיָן בְּעַצְמוֹ הָגוּן, מִכָּל מָקוֹם רְאוּיָה לְהֵעָנֵשׁ. וְקַשְׁיָא תַּרְתֵּי. חֲדָא עַל הַיָּרֵחַ, שֶׁאֵין בְּטַעֲנָתָהּ זוֹ כְּלוּם, שֶׁמִּכֵּיוָן שֶׁבְּהוֹדָאַת פִּיהָ הָיְתָה כַּוָּנָתָהּ מִתְּחִלָּה עַל הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ שֶׁיִּתְמַעֵט, אִם כֵּן בְּמִדָּה כְּנֶגֶד מִדָּה נִתְמַעֲטָה הִיא, וּמַה תּוֹעִיל לָהּ הַטַּעֲנָה שֶׁאָמְרָה דָּבָר הָגוּן? אִידָךְ עַל הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, שֶׁאַחֲרֵי שֶׁהוֹדֵית שֶׁתְּחִלַּת הַמַּחֲשָׁבָה שֶׁלָּהּ הָיְתָה עַל הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ שֶׁיִּתְמַעֵט, לָמָּה זֶה אִם כֵּן מֵעַתָּה הָיָה חוֹזֵר עַל פִּיּוּסִים לְפַיְּסָהּ? וַהֲרֵי מִתְּחִלָּה שֶׁעֲדַיִן לֹא נִתְגַּלָּה כַּוָּנָתָהּ, וְאֶפְשָׁר שֶׁעַל עַצְמָהּ נִתְכַּוְּנָה שֶׁתִּתְמַעֵט וּמָחֲלָה עַל כְּבוֹדָהּ, גָּזַר אֹמֶר לָהּ 'לְכִי וּמַעֲטִי' כו'. וְאַף שֶׁנֹּאמַר שֶׁמִּתְחִלָּה גָּזַר עָלֶיהָ הַמִּעוּט מִשּׁוּם מִמָּה נַפְשָׁךְ, שֶׁאִם כַּוָּנָתָהּ עַל עַצְמָהּ וּמָחֲלָה עַל כְּבוֹדָהּ - הֲרֵי כְּבוֹדָהּ מָחוּל וְתִתְמַעֵט, וְאִם הָיְתָה מַחֲשַׁבְתָּהּ מֵעִקָּרָא עַל הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ - כָּל שֶׁכֵּן שֶׁרְאוּיָה הִיא לְשֶׁתִּתְמַעֵט, אַכַּתִּי אֵין אָנוּ נִצּוֹלִים מִן הַקֻּשְׁיָא, לָמָּה חָזַר אַחַר פִּיּוּסִים לְפַיְּסָהּ? וְאַדְּרַבָּה, הִיא גִּלְּתָה מְקוֹרָהּ הַנּוֹבַעַת מִתְּחִלָּה עַל הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ יאסיכום שאלה ח' ט': מטענתה של לבנה 'הואיל ואמרתי דבר הגון וכו'' משמע שבתחלה לא היתה כוונתה למעט עצמה בגלל טענתה שאי אפשר לשני מלכים וכו', וכל כוונתה היתה שצריך למעט השמש, וא"כ מה טענתה כעת שאמרה דבר הגון, ואמאי צריך הקב"ה לפייסה.:
viii-ix) The passage states that after God told the moon to diminish itself, the moon protested: “Because I have suggested something that is proper must I diminish myself?” It appears that with this statement, the moon revealed the intent hidden in its original statement. The moon’s original question, “Is it possible for two kings…,” could have been understood as implying that it was willing to forgo its honor and be diminished. In that way, the difficulty of having two kings using the same crown would have been avoided. However, the moon’s protest: “Must I diminish myself?” indicates that its initial intent was that the sun be diminished and not the moon. This certainly reflects a severe negative trait and a sign of meanness. Even though the issue raised is legitimate, the moon is deserving of punishment. Thus, the moon’s protest, “because I have suggested something that is proper must I diminish myself?” raises two questions:
a) The moon’s claim is a hollow one. Since the moon admitted that its intent was that the sun be diminished, following the pattern that God rewards and punishes His created beings “measure for measure,”24Sanhedrin 90a. it was justified that the moon be diminished. Of what importance then is the fact that the issue raised by the moon was legitimate?
b) God’s response also raises a question: Since the moon admitted that its intent was that the sun be diminished, why did God repeatedly seek to console it? Initially, when the moon’s intent was not apparent, and it was possible to interpret the moon’s statement as implying that it was willing to waive its honor and diminish itself, and hence God decreed that it should be diminished, the need for conciliatory gestures is understood. But once the moon revealed that its intent was that the sun be diminished, why were these gestures necessary? True, one might say that, at the outset, God decreed that the moon should be diminished because either way, it was the appropriate thing to do. For if the moon intended that it be diminished, waiving its honor, the moon’s diminishment would be done according to its own will. And if the moon’s intent was that the sun be diminished, then it was appropriate that the moon be diminished for its meanness. Even so, the question still remains: Why did God repeatedly offer the moon conciliatory gestures? On the contrary, the moon proved it was deserving of being diminished when it revealed its intent that the sun be diminished.
הַי׳). הִנֵּה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאָמְרָה דָּבָר הָגוּן, וְכִי מִפְּנֵי כֵן לֹא תִתְמַעֵט? שֶׁהֲרֵי אִם לֹא כֵן, תַּחְזֹר הַתֵּימָא לְדוּכְתָּא אֶפְשָׁר לְב׳ מְלָכִים כו׳. וְאִם כַּוָּנָתָהּ שֶׁהָיָה לַעֲשׂוֹת כֵּן לַחַמָּה, אִם כֵּן גִּלְּתָה כו׳ כְּדִלְעֵיל:
x) The passage quotes the moon as saying: “because I have suggested something that is proper must I diminish myself?” Is the fact that the moon made a proper suggestion sufficient justification for it not to be diminished? For if the moon would not be diminished, there would still be two kings with one crown. And if the moon’s intent was that the sun should be diminished, then the moon] revealed its flaw in character, and proved that it is fitting that it be diminished anyway, as stated above.
הַי״א). מִתּוֹךְ הַלָּשׁוֹן שֶׁאָמְרָה "אֲמַעֵט אֶת עַצְמִי", וְהַיְנוּ בְּלָשׁוֹן עָתִיד, שְׁמַע מִנָּהּ, שֶׁלֹּא עָשְׂתָה עַד עַתָּה מַאֲמָרוֹ שֶׁל הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא. וּמִמַּה שֶּׁחָזַר אַחַר פִּיּוּסִים, נִרְאֶה שֶׁקִּבֵּל דְּבָרֶיהָ. אִם כֵּן, יַחְזֹר גַּם הוּא יִתְבָּרֵךְ שְׁמוֹ וִימַלֵּא מִשְׁאַלְתָּהּ לְטוֹבָה, כִּי הֲלֹא לֹא יִפָּלֵא מֵה׳ דָּבָר אַחֵר לְהַשְׁלִים זֶה הַחִסָּרוֹן שֶׁל אֶפְשָׁר לִשְׁנֵי מְלָכִים כו׳? וְאֵין טַעַם לוֹמַר שֶׁלֹּא רָצָה לַחֲזֹר, שֶׁהֲרֵי אָמַר יִרְמְיָה (כ״ח ט) "הַנָּבִיא אֲשֶׁר יִנָּבֵא לְשָׁלוֹם בְּבוֹא דְּבַר הַנָּבִיא יִוָּדַע הַנָּבִיא אֲשֶׁר שְׁלָחוֹ ה׳ בֶּאֱמֶת", פֵּרֵשׁ רַשִׁ״י (שם ז) עַל פִּי מִדְרַשׁ תַּנְחוּמָא (פרשת מסעי אות ז), וְאִלּוּ הַמְנַבֵּא עַל רָעָה אַף שֶׁלֹּא תָבֹא הָרָעָה אֵין מִזֶּה הוֹכָחָה שֶׁהוּא נְבִיא שֶׁקֶר, כִּי אֶרֶךְ אַפַּיִם הוּא וְנִחָם עַל הָרָעָה. וְכֵן פֵּרֵשׁ רַדַ״ק (ירמי' שם), וְהֵבִיא רְאָיָה מִנִּינְוֵה. אֲבָל הַטּוֹבָה תָּחוּל עַל כָּל פָּנִים, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁתּוּסַר עַל יְדֵי חֵטְא, כָּעִנְיָן שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שם א י) "וְרֶגַע אֲדַבֵּר וגו׳ לִבְנוֹת וְלִנְטוֹעַ וגו׳ וְעָשָׂה הָרַע בְּעֵינַי לְבִלְתִּי שְׁמֹעַ בְּקוֹלִי וְנִחַמְתִּי עַל הַטּוֹבָה". עַד כָּאן. וְכֵן בִּירוּשַׁלְמִי פֶּרֶק (חלק) [אֵלּוּ הֵן הַנֶּחֱנָקִין] (סנהדרין פי"א ה"ה), שֶׁאָמַר לוֹ הַנָּבִיא לְיִרְמְיָה, תֵּן סִימָן לִדְבָרֶיךָ. אָמַר לוֹ, אֲנִי מִתְנַבֵּא לְרָעָה, וְאֵינִי יָכוֹל לִתֵּן סִימָן לַדָּבָר. שֶׁהַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא א[וֹ]מֵר לְהָבִיא רָעָה וּמִתְנַחֵם. אַתָּה הוּא מִתְנַבֵּא לְטוֹבָה, אַתָּה הוּא שֶׁצָּרִיךְ לִתֵּן סִימָן לִדְבָרֶיךָ וכו׳. עַד כָּאן. מִכָּל הָלֵין דְּמִדָּה רָעָה חוֹזֶרֶת, וְלָמָּה לֹא חָזְרָה גַּם עַכְשָׁו, מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁנִּרְאֶה שֶׁהַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא הוֹדָה לְטַעֲנָתָהּ שֶׁיָּפֶה טָעֲנָה יבסיכום שאלה יא: למה לא חזר בו הקב"ה מהעונש שנתן ללבנה שתתמעט, במקום לפייסה על מיעוט זה? הרי כפי הידוע הקב"ה מתנחם על הרעה ואינו מביאה אף שניבא ע"י הנביא.:
xi) Since the wording, “must I diminish myself,” which the moon used, employs the future tense, it is apparent that the moon had yet to carry out God’s decree and diminish itself. From the fact that God offered the moon several conciliatory gestures, it appears that the moon’s arguments were accepted. If so, why did God not rescind His decree and fulfill the moon’s request? Nothing is beyond God’s capacity, and there is certainly another way that He could have resolved the difficulty of two kings using the same crown. There is no reason to say God did not rescind His decree was because once a Divine decree is issued, God does not desire to retract it, as reflected in the interpretation of Yirmeyahu’s statement:25Yirmeyahu 28:9. “Regarding the prophet who will prophesy promising peace, when the words of the prophet will come to fruition, it will be made known that God truly sent him.” Rashi,26See Rashi’s commentary to Yirmeyahu 28:7. based on the Midrash Tanchuma,27Midrash Tanchuma, Parshas Masei, sec. 7. explains that if a prophet prophesies that negative events will occur, the fact that his prophecy does not materialize is not a proof that he is a false prophet, for God is patient and relents, and may withold harmful consequences. Radak28See Radak’s commentary to Yirmeyahu, loc. cit. offers a similar explanation, supporting his words through the example of God’s retraction of the prophecy of doom for Nineveh. A prophecy for good, by contrast, will certainly materialize. True, it is possible that a prophecy for good will later be annulled as a result of sin, as reflected in Yirmeyahu’s words:29Yirmeyahu 18:9-10. “If at any time, I speak concerning a nation… to build it and to plant it… if they do what is evil in My eyes, I will retract the good.” Nevertheless, at least initially, the positive prophecy will be fulfilled. In a similar vein, the Talmud Yerushalmi states30Talmud Yerushalmi, Sanhedrin 11:5. that when the false prophet Chananyah ben Azur challenged Yirmeyahu to prove his words, Yirmeyahu answered him: I am prophesying concerning harmful events. Therefore, I cannot supply proof for my words, because although God said that the evil would come, He may relent. You are prophesying concerning positive events, so it is you who must give a sign of the truth of your words.” From all this, it is apparent that a negative Divine decree may be abrogated. Why then – if God acknowledged that the moon’s claim was valid – did He not retract?
הַי״ב). אָמַר לָהּ לְכִי וּמְשֹׁל כו׳. כְּמוֹ שֶׁהִקְשֵׁיתִי לְעֵיל, דִּ'לְכִי' נִרְאֶה עִנְיָן מְיֻתָּר, וְנוֹסָף עַל לֹא דָּבָר כְּלָל:
xii) Our Sages relate that God told the moon: “Go and rule.” As mentioned above,31See question v. The command “go” appears unnecessary.
הַי״ג). וּמְשֹׁל בַּיּוֹם וּבַלַּיְלָה. מַאי קָסָבַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, וְכִי חַס וְשָׁלוֹם אֵין דֵּעָה בָּעֶלְיוֹן, וְלֹא יָדַע אֵל דִּשְׁרַגָּא בְּטִיהֲרָא מַאי מְהַנֵּי?
xiii) According to our Sages, God instructed the moon to rule during the day and the night. What was the intent in such an instruction? Did God not comprehend that during the day the moon’s light would be of no avail? It would be like the light of a candle in broad daylight, as the moon objected!
הַי״ד). אָמַר לָהּ זִיל לִימְנוּ בָךְ כו׳. גַּם בְּכָאן קָשֶׁה עַל לְשׁוֹן 'זִיל', שֶׁהוּא נִרְאֶה מְיֻתָּר וְעִנְיָן נוֹסָף. גַּם עַל אָמְרוֹ בִּלְשׁוֹן אֲרָמִית:
xiv) After the moon protested, God offered another conciliatory gesture, saying, “Go. Israel will reckon the days and the years according to you.” Here, too, as above, the question arises: What is the intent of the command, “Go”? Also, here, our Sages begin reporting the dialogue in Aramaic while previously they used Hebrew.
הַט"ו). וְהַט״ז). יגסיכום נקודת שאלה טו טז: מהו תשובת הקב"ה שימנו ימים ושנים ע"י הלבנה, הלא עיקר מנין ימים ושנים הוא ע"י החמה? וגם אמאי השמיט "למועדים", שהרי מועדי ישראל נקבעים, מלבד באסיף ובקציר שהם התקופות, גם בחדשי הירח?. לִימְנוּ בָךְ יִשְׂרָאֵל יָמִים וְשָׁנִים. קַשְׁיָן תַּרְתֵּי. חֲדָא הָא דַאֲמָרָן לְעֵיל בְּקֻשְׁיָא י״ג, דְּמִי לֹא יָדַע קֻדְשָׁא בְּרִיךְ הוּא דְּאַף בַּשֶּׁמֶשׁ מוֹנִים שָׁנִים וְיָמִים?
xv-xvi) The first conciliatory gesture offered the moon was that the Jews would “reckon the days and the years according to you,” to which the moon countered, “That is impossible without the sun.” Here, also, the same issue raised in question xiii could be asked. Seemingly, the objection is obvious. Did God not know that the sun would also be included in the calculation of the days and the years?
וְהָכָא קַשְׁיָא טְפֵי, דְּאַדְּרַבָּה, עִקַּר יָמִים וְשָׁנִים עַל פִּי הַחַמָּה מְנוּיִים, כִּי הַיּוֹם נִמְנֶה מִשְּׁקִיעָה זוֹ שֶׁל הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ עַד שְׁקִיעָה שֶׁאַחֲרֶיהָ, כִּדְבַר הָרַב אַבְרָהָם בֶּן עֶזְרָא ידעיי"ש שהאריך להוכיח שהיום על פי התורה הוא משקיעת החמה עד שקיעת החמה דהיום הולך אחר הלילה. בְּפָרָשַׁת בְּשַׁלַּח בְּפָסוּק (שמות טז כה) "וַיֹּאמֶר מֹשֶׁה אִכְלֻהוּ הַיּוֹם וגו׳". וְהַשָּׁנִים הֲלֹא אֵינָם אֶלָּא לַחַמָּה, מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן לַלְּבָנָה שֶׁאֵין שָׁנָה לָהּ כִּי אִם בְּדֶרֶךְ הַשְׁאָלָה טווז"ל אבן עזרא (שמות יב ב): והנה אין ללבנה שנה כלל כאשר אין לשמש חדש כלל, כי לא יתחדש בשמש דבר, רק דבר החדוש הוא לאור הלבנה, ובעבור זה נקרא חדש גם ירח, בעבור חדוש אור הלבנה, כי אין לה אור בראיות גמורות כי אם מהשמש וכו' (עיי"ש באריכות).. שֶׁהֲרֵי לְשׁוֹן שָׁנָה מִלְּשׁוֹן (מל"א יח לד) "שְׁנוּ וַיִּשְׁנוּ" טזשנו - שפכו פעם שנית ושפכו פעם שנית. (מצ"ד), כְּלוֹמַר, שֶׁעִנְיַן שְׁנַת הַחַמָּה הִיא תַּשְׁלוּם הַקָּפָה אַחַת שֶׁתַּעֲשֶׂה בִּמְרוּצַת גַּלְגַּלָּהּ מִמַּעֲרָב לְמִזְרָח, וְתִשְׁנֶה וְתָשׁוּב לִמְקוֹמָהּ הָרִאשׁוֹן שֶׁמִּמֶּנָּה הִתְחִילָה לְסַבֵּב. מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן בַּלְּבָנָה, שֶׁבְּכָל חֹדֶשׁ סוֹבֶבֶת הוֹלֶכֶת הֶקֵּף אֶחָד מִמַּעֲרָב לְמִזְרָח, וְהַשָּׁנָה מֻשְׁאָל לָהּ, מִצַּד שֶׁבְּי״ב הַקָּפוֹת שֶׁלָּהּ סָבְבָה הָלְכָה כָּל הַי״ב מַזָּלוֹת שֶׁל סִבּוּב הַחַמָּה בְּשָׁנָה אַחַת. סוֹף דָּבָר הַכֹּל נִשְׁמָע, שֶׁמִּנְיַן הַיָּמִים וְהַשָּׁנִים יוֹתֵר מְיֻחָדִים לַחַמָּה מִמַּה שֶּׁמְּיֻחָדִים לַלְּבָנָה. אִידָךְ, אִם כֵּן, אַמַּאי מְדַלֵּג 'מוֹעֲדִים', כִּי "אֵלֶּה מוֹעֲדֵי ה׳" תְּלוּיִים בְּמִנְיַן יָמִים לְחֹדֶשׁ הַלְּבָנָה, כְּמוֹ שֶׁתְּלוּיִים בָּאָבִיב וּבַקָּצִיר וּבָאָסִיף, אַף שֶׁהֵם כְּפִי הַזְּמַן שֶׁמִּצַּד הַחַמָּה, מִכָּל מָקוֹם בַּלְּבָנָה נַמִּי תְּלוּיִים, וְלָמָּה הִשְׁמִיט מוֹעֲדִים, וְלֹא אָמַר רַק יָמִים וְשָׁנִים?
Moreover, in this instance, the complaint is thoroughly justified, for the days and the years are determined primarily by the movement of the sun. The days are determined by the setting of the sun, i.e., the duration of a day is from one setting of the sun to the next, as Rav Avraham ibn Ezra comments on the verse,32Shmos 16:25. In that source, Ibn Ezra elaborates in the explanation of the fact that the determination of a day is dependent on the setting of the sun. “And Moshe said, ‘Eat it today.’” Similarly, the years are solar years. The concept of a lunar year is only a borrowed term,33See Ibn Ezra’s commentary to Shmos 12:2. for the word year, שנה, has the connotation of repetition, as in the verse,34I Melachim 18:34. שנו וישנו, “He instructed them to repeat, and they repeated.” In other words, a solar year is the sun’s completion of its circuit of its orbit from the west to the east, as the sun returns to the place where its orbit began. In contrast, the moon finishes its orbit from west to east every month. The term “lunar year” is adopted because the moon concludes twelve cycles in the time it takes the sun to proceed through the twelve Zodiac constellations. Thus, the reckoning of the days and the years is more closely associated with the sun than with the moon. Conversely, it would have been appropriate to mention that the festivals too are dependent on the moon, because the dates on which the festivals fall are dependent on the days of the lunar months, just as they are dependent on the times of spring, the grain harvest, and the fruit harvest. Although the festivals are dependent on the seasons that are determined by the sun, their celebration is also dependent on the moon. Why then did the passage in Chulin mention only the days and the years and overlook the festivals?
וּבְגוּר אַרְיֵה (במדבר כח טו) כָּתַב יזוז"ל: דע, כי הירח יותר ראוי למנות אליה מן החמה, וזה כי ראוי לזה יותר דבר שיש לו שעור קטן, שהירח שהוא מתחדש בחודש אחד ולכך הוא יותר ראוי לשער בו הזמן. וכמו שיותר ראוי למדידה הכלי שהוא יותר קטן יותר מן כלי שהוא גדול, לפי שאין הכל נמדד בכלי גדול אבל הכל נמדד בקטן. ולפיכך יותר ראוי למנות לירח, שהשעור שלו יותר קצר. ומפני זה יש למנות הכל אל הירח, המדה הקטנה. ומפני זה האריכו חכמי המחקר, ואמרו כי הזמן תולה בגלגל היומי, לפי שהוא סובב יום אחד ומפני שהוא יותר קצר בו משוער הזמן. אבל דעת התורה אינו כך, רק הזמן נמנה אל המאורות. ותחלה נמנה אל הירח, המאור הקטן, שמפני שהוא קטן יש לו זמן קטן, והוא ראוי לשיעור הזמן. ולפיכך אמר 'ימנה בך ימים ושנים', וכל זה נמשך אל הירח מצד הקטנות. ואז השיבה 'בדידה נמי לא סגיא', דהא מנין הירח נמשך אל החמה, שהרי צריך לעבר חודש אחד בשביל תקופות החמה. ואם כן לא סגיא בלא דידה, ואין כאן מעלה מיוחדת לירח בשביל הקטנות. שראוי שיהיה מכריע, כי אם היה הקטנות מצד עצמו עלוי מציאות - ראוי שיהיה מכריע, אבל אין זה כן, ונשאר התרעומת. ודברים אלו ברורים למי שמבין אותם., מִצַּד שֶׁנִּתְמַעֲטָה לְפִיכָךְ יָאוּת הַמִּנְיָן לִמָּנוֹת בָּהּ, שֶׁכֵּן מִדָּה קְטַנָּה רְאוּיָה לְכָל הַמִּדּוֹת, מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן מִדָּה גְדוֹלָה, שֶׁאֵינָהּ רְאוּיָה לְכָל הַמִּדּוֹת וּמְדִידוֹת. וְהָיָה זֶה פִּיּוּס עַל קַטְנוּתָהּ, שֶׁהֲרֵי עִלּוּי זֶה יֵשׁ לָהּ מִכֹּחַ שֶׁנִּתְמַעֲטָה וְנַעֲשֵׂית קְטַנָּה. וַאֲנִי שָׁמַעְתִּי דְּבָרָיו, וְלֹא אָבִין אוֹתָם. כִּי הָעִנְיָן הַזֶּה, לֹא עַל דֶּרֶךְ הַהַקְטָנָה שֶׁהִיא קְטַנָּה נִמְנֶה, אֶלָּא עַל פִּי מְרוּצַת מַהֲלָכָהּ. וּמָה עִנְיָן יֵשׁ, אִם כֵּן, לְהַמִּעוּט הַזֶּה אֶל שֶׁיִּהְיֶה מְיֻחָס לוֹ הָעִלּוּי הַזֶּה שֶׁל הַמְּדִידָה?
Gur Aryeh writes35See Gur Aryeh’s commentary to Bamidbar 28:15. that because the moon was diminished, it is appropriate to measure according to it, for a small measure is fit to be used in all measurements, while a large measure is not. This consolation was granted to the moon because it was diminished. As a result of the moon’s being diminished, this positive dimension came about. I heard the words of that text, but I do not comprehend them. The establishment of the calendar according to the moon has nothing to do with its size, but with the time the moon takes to complete its orbit. If so, what does the diminishment of the moon have to do with the positive quality of having the days and years measured according to it?
וְאֵין לוֹמַר כְּלָל שֶׁמֵּחֲמַת קַטְנוּתָהּ בָּא לָהּ הַמְּהִירוּת, שֶׁהַגֹּדֶל עוֹשֶׂה כְּבֵדוּת וְהַקַּטְנוּת עוֹשָׂה קַלּוּת. שֶׁזֶּה אֵינוֹ מִשְּׁנֵי פָנִים: הָא׳; כְּפִי חַכְמֵי הַטֶּבַע, שֶׁקִּיְּמוּ שֶׁאֵין בַּגֶּשֶׁם הַחֲמִישִׁי יחהוזכר במורה נבוכים (ח"א פע"ב) ובעוד חוקרי ישראל, וכן בשם חכמי יוון, שבנוסף לארבע יסודות ארמ"ע שממנו חומר הארץ, ישנו חומר חמישי נעלה, שאינו חומרי כמותם, וממנו גרמי השמים. ויש חולקים וסוברים שגרמי השמים ג"כ חומרי, והיסוד החמישי הוא "היולי" הידוע והוא אינו נראה, עיין רמב"ן עה"ת בתחילת חיבורו., הַיְנוּ הַגָּרְמִיִּים הַשְּׁמֵימִיִּים, שׁוּם אֵיכֻיּוֹת. וּבַכְּלָל הַזֶּה, שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶם לֹא כְּבֵדוּת וְלֹא קַלּוּת. אִידָךְ, שֶׁאַף שֶׁיִּהְיוּ בַּעֲלֵי אֵיכֻיּוֹת, וְיִהְיֶה נִמְצָא בָהֶם כְּבֵדוּת וְקַלּוּת, מִכָּל מָקוֹם אִי אֶפְשָׁר לוֹמַר שֶׁהַכְּבֵדוּת וְהַקַּלּוּת שֶׁבָּהֶם יִהְיוּ הַגּוֹרְמִים מְהִירוּת וְאִחוּר בִּמְרוּצַת מַהֲלָכָם, מִמַּה שֶּׁמַּהֲלַךְ הַחַמָּה בְּהֶקֵּף אֶחָד בְּשס״ה יוֹם וּרְבִיעַ בְּקֵרוּב. וְהוּא הַגָּדוֹל בְּגוּפוֹ יוֹתֵר מִכָּל א׳ מִכּוֹכְבֵי הַשָּׁמַיִם וּכְסִילֵיהֶם, כְּמוֹ שֶׁתִּמְצָא חֶשְׁבּוֹן כָּל א׳ בְּשִׁעוּר גּוּפוֹ בְּסֵפֶר 'יְסוֹד עוֹלָם' יטחיברו אחד הראשונים, ר' יצחק מטוליטולא תלמיד הרא"ש, והוא ספר נכבד בחכמת התכונה וסוד העיבור על פי התורה. בַּמַּאֲמָר הַשְּׁלִישִׁי סוֹף פֶּרֶק י״ז. וְשַׁבְּתַא״י סוֹבֵב בִּשְׁלֹשִׁים שָׁנָה הֶקֵּף אֶחָד, וְצֶדֶ״ק בִּשְׁנֵים עָשָׂר שָׁנִים, וּמַאֲדִי״ם קָרוֹב לִשְׁתֵּי שָׁנִים. וְגַם גּוּף נֹגַ״הּ גָּדוֹל מִגּוּף הַלְּבָנָה, אֲבָל לֹא שִׁעוּר רַב, כִּי הַיָּרֵחַ גּוּפוֹ בָּאָרֶץ כְּמוֹ ל״ט פַּעַם וּרְבִיעַ מִגּוּף הָאָרֶץ, וְהַנֹּגַ״הּ גּוּפוֹ חֵלֶק א׳ מִל"ז מִגּוּף הָאָרֶץ. וּמַהֲלַךְ הַנֹּגַהּ מִתְאַחֵר הַרְבֵּה יוֹתֵר מֵהַיָּרֵחַ לְפִי עֵרֶךְ הַזֶּה, שֶׁכֵּן הֶקֵּף א׳ עוֹשֶׂה בִּשְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת יוֹם, שֶׁהוּא בִּכְמוֹ מַהֲלַךְ עֲשָׂרָה חָדְשֵׁי הַלְּבָנָה. וְכֵן כּוֹכָב הַנִּקְרָא כּוֹכָ״ב קָטָן מְאֹד, שֶׁהוּא חֵלֶק א׳ מִי״ט אֶלֶף מִגּוּף הָאָרֶץ, וּמִתְאַחֵר קָרוֹב לִשְׁנַת הַחַמָּה, שֶׁהֶקֵּף א׳ מִמֶּנּוּ הוּא של״ו יוֹם. זוֹ הִיא מִדִּבְרֵי הַתּוֹכְנִים. וּבְמִדְרָשׁ הָרַבּוֹת פָּרָשַׁת בְּרֵאשִׁית (פרשה י סימן ד) בְּפָסוּק "וַיְכֻלּוּ", חֶשְׁבּוֹן אַחֵר כוז"ל: יש מזל שגומר הלוכו לי"ב חדש כגון כוכב חמה, ויש מזל שהוא גומר הלוכו לשלשים יום והיא לבנה, ויש מזל שהוא גומר הלוכו שנה והוא צדק, ויש מזל שהוא גומר הלוכו לשלשים שנה והוא שבתי, חוץ מן כוכב נוגה ומאדים, שאין גומרין הלוכן אלא לד' מאות ושמונים שנה, (ובעי שאלה שנוגה מהלכת י"ב מזלות לעשרה חדשים, כל מזל כ"ה יום, ומאדים חדש וחצי, כל מזל מהלך י"ב שנה ומחצה, והיאך אומר כן נוגה ומאדים אין גומרין הלוכן אלא לד' מאות ופ' שנה, חזינא תמיה לפיכך בעי שאלה), עכ"ל.. וּבִקְצָת סְפָרִים יֵשׁ הַגָּהָה כאכנראה כוונת רבינו על המוקף בסוגריים שם, הובא בהערה הקודמת., דְּמַקְשֶׁה עָלָיו מִדִּבְרֵי הַתּוֹכְנִים.
Furthermore, one cannot say that because of its small size, the moon proceeds faster in its orbit, i.e., that a large entity is heavier and a small entity is lighter. This is not true for two reasons:
a) The scholars of natural science have determined that in the fifth type of being, from which the heavenly beings are comprised, does not possess natural characteristics as we know them.36Rambam (Moreh Nevuchim, Vol. 1, ch. 72), cites Greek thinkers who explain that in contrast to earthly existence that is made up of a combination of the four elements: fire, wind, water and earth, the heavenly beings are comprised of a fifth type of matter, hyli, that does not share the characteristics of these four elements. Thus, the concept of being heavier or lighter does not apply with regard to the heavenly beings.
b) Even if the heavenly beings would have natural characteristics and would be characterized by lightness or heaviness, those characteristics would not have an effect on the speed or slowness of their progress in their orbits. This is evident from the fact that the sun concludes its orbit in approximately 365 and ¼ days, yet its mass is larger than that of any one of the other heavenly bodies and their constellations,37Cf. Yeshayahu 13:10. as recorded in the list of the heavenly bodies in the text Yesod Olam,38Yesod Olam is a text on astronomy written by R. Yitzchak of Tulitula, one of the students of Rabbeinu Asher. Discourse 3, ch. 17. Shabbetai (Saturn) completes one cycle of its orbit in 30 years, while Tzedek (Jupiter) takes twelve years to complete one cycle of its orbit, and Ma’adim (Mars) takes slightly less than two years to complete one cycle of its orbit. Similarly, the size of Nogah (Venus) is greater than that of the moon, but not substantially greater. (For the moon is 1/39 and a quarter the size of the earth, and Nogah is 1/37th the size of the earth.) Nevertheless, the time it takes for Nogah to circle the earth is far longer than the time necessary for the moon to make its circuit. For Nogah makes one circuit in 300 days, which is approximately ten times longer than one of the moon’s circuits. Moreover, the planet called Kochav (Mercury) is very small, only 1/19,000 of the size of the earth, and yet it requires 336 days to complete the one circuit of its orbit. The above figures are taken from the works of the astronomers. In its commentary to the verse beginning Vay’chulu,39Bereishis 2:1. Midrash Rabbah to Parshas Bereishis40Bereishis Rabbah 10:4. offers different calculations, and in some texts of Midrash Rabbah those figures are questioned based on the words of the astronomers. Regardless of these details, from all the above, however, it is obvious that the size of a heavenly body is not the conclusive determinant in the speed of its orbit.
וּלְפִי זֶה, גַּם כֵּן, יֵשׁ עוֹד שְׁאֵלָה עַל דִּבְרֵי הַגּוּר אַרְיֵה, שֶׁהָיָה רָאוּי לִהְיוֹת הַמִּנְיָן עַל פִּי כּוֹכָ״ב זֶה הַקָּטָן מְאֹד. וְאוּלַי שֶׁזֶּה עַצְמוֹ הוּא מִכְּלַל הַפִּיּוּס לַלְּבָנָה, שֶׁאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלְּפִי הַמִּנְיָן שֶׁהוּא מְשֹׁעָר יוֹתֵר בְּמִדָּה קְטַנָּה, הָיָה מֵהָרָאוּי אִם כֵּן לְשַׁעֲרוֹ וְלִמְנוֹת אוֹתוֹ בְּכוֹכָב הַנִּקְרָא כּוֹכָב, אֶלָּא שֶׁלְּפַיְּסָהּ עָשָׂה לָהּ הַכָּבוֹד הַזֶּה, שֶׁיִּהְיֶה נִמְנֶה בָּהּ:
Moreover, based on the above, another question arises regarding the words of Gur Aryeh: If the fact that a heavenly body is small makes it fitting that the reckoning of the festivals be made according to it, seemingly, the reckoning should be dependent on the movement of Kochav, for it is very small. Perhaps this itself was part of the conciliatory gesture made to the moon – that even though it is befitting that the reckoning of the festivals be dependent on the movement of Kochav, since reckoning should be made based on the smallest measure, the honor of having the dates of the festivals be based on its movement was given to the moon to appease it.
הַי״ז). אָמְרָה לוֹ דִּידֵיהּ נַמִּי אִי אֶפְשָׁר כו׳ אִם כֵּן חָזְרָה לְסוּרָהּ, בְּקִנְאָתָהּ שֶׁתִּהְיֶה הַחַמָּה כָּמוֹהָ בְּעִנְיַן הַמִּנְיָן שֶׁצְּרִיכִין יִשְׂרָאֵל לִמְנוֹת, וְאֵיךְ לֹא יָרְאָה שֶׁתֵּעָנֵשׁ שֵׁנִית:
xvii) The moon responded to God’s statement that it would feature in the reckoning of the days and the years by saying, “That is impossible without the sun.” This response shows that the moon returned to its undesirable trait of showing jealousy that the sun would also be included in the reckoning that the Jews would make. How could the moon make such statements without fear that it would be punished again?
הַי״ח). וְהַי׳׳ט). כבנקודת השאלה מדוע ומה מוסיף הראיה מן המקרא על זה שמונין תקופות ע"י החמה, הלא דבר פשוט וידוע לכל הוא. דִּכְתִיב "וְהָיוּ לְאֹתוֹת וגו׳" כגאמרה ליה: יומא נמי, אי אפשר דלא מנו ביה תקופתא, דכתיב והיו לאותות ולמועדים ולימים ושנים, (חולין ס: שם).. לֹא יָדַעְתִּי מַה צָּרִיךְ רְאָיָה לָזֶה שֶׁמּוֹנִין תְּקוּפוֹת לַחַמָּה, וַהֲרֵי זֶה בִּכְלַל מַה דְּמַרְגְּלָא בְּפוּמַיְהוּ דְּרַבָּנָן וְתַלְמִידֵיהוֹן וְתַלְמִידֵי תַלְמִידֵיהוֹן, וְלַמְּפֻרְסָמוֹת אֵין צָרִיךְ רְאָיָה. וְאַף אִם נֹאמַר דִּלְרַוְחָא דְּמִילְתָא הֵבִיא רְאָיָה, אִם כֵּן, תִּקְשֶׁה אִיפְּכָא, לָמָּה לֹא הֵבִיא הָרְאָיָה בְּדִבְרֵי הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא שֶׁאָמַר, "לִימְנוּ בָךְ יִשְׂרָאֵל יָמִים וְשָׁנִים", הָיָה לוֹ לוֹמַר, דִּכְתִיב "וְהָיוּ וגו׳ וּלְיָמִים וְשָׁנִים"?
xviii-xix) A prooftext, “And let them be for signs,” is brought by the passage in Chulin in support of the moon’s statements. I don’t understand why it is necessary to bring proof that the seasons are calculated according to the sun. This is a fact well known to the sages, their students, and their students’ students. A point of public knowledge does not require support.41Tosfos Yom Tov is employing an expression frequently used by our Sages. And if one would say that the prooftext was cited merely for supplementary purpose, the question could then be raised from the opposite perspective: Why didn’t the passage bring a prooftext for God’s conciliatory statement that the Jews would calculate the days and the years according to the moon, citing the verse,42Bereishis 1:14. “they shall serve as signs… for days and years”?
וְאֵין לוֹמַר דְּהָתָם לֹא הָיָה רוֹצֶה לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה, לְפִי שֶׁהָרְאָיָה הָיְתָה מִתְנַגֶּדֶת בְּעַצְמָהּ בִּתְשׁוּבָתָהּ, לֹא בְּצִדָּהּ, כִּי אִם בְּעַצְמָהּ, דִּכְתִיב בֵּיהּ "וְהָיוּ" - זוֹ אֵינָהּ קֻשְׁיָא, דִּבְלָאו הָכִי נַמִּי הָא יָדַע הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא דְּמָנוּ גַּם כֵּן לַחַמָּה. וַאֲפִלּוּ הָכִי אָמַר כֵּן לְפַיְּסָהּ. אִם כֵּן, לֹא יַזִּיק בַּעַל הַמַּאֲמָר כְּשֶׁיָּבִיא הָרְאָיָה, שֶׁהֲרֵי הָרְאָיָה אֵינָהּ עַל דִּבְרֵי הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא שֶׁכָּךְ דִּבֶּר אֶל הַיָּרֵחַ, אֶלָּא הָרְאָיָה הִיא עַל הָעִנְיָן, כְּלוֹמַר שֶׁכָּךְ מוֹנִין יִשְׂרָאֵל. דְּאִלּוּ דִּבּוּרוֹ שֶׁל הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא אֶל הַיָּרֵחַ, וּתְשׁוּבַת הַיָּרֵחַ אֶל הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, לֹא שָׁמְעִינָן לְהוּ מִן הַמִּקְרָא הַזֶּה. וּמִכֵּיוָן שֶׁהָרְאָיָה עַל הָעִנְיָן, אִם כֵּן, הָיָה לוֹ גַּם כֵּן לְהָבִיא הָרְאָיָה מֵעִקָּרָא עַל דִּבְרֵי הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, מִדִּכְתִיב "וְהָיוּ וגו׳ וּלְיָמִים וְשָׁנִים", דִּשְׁמַע מִנָּהּ שֶׁכָּךְ מוֹנִים. וּבְכָאן הָיָה לוֹ לוֹמַר דִּכְתִיב "וְהָיוּ וגו׳ וּלְיָמִים וְשָׁנִים".
It is not appropriate to say that a prooftext was not cited because the verse that could serve as the prooftext, not only does not support, but runs contrary to the desired intent, for it states, “they shall serve” which also highlights the importance of the sun. How would this pacify the moon? This does not present a question, because regardless, God knew that the calculations would also include the sun. Even so, God made this statement to the moon to appease it. As such, it would not have harmed the author of this passage to have quoted this proof. For the verse would not be cited as proof that God made these statements to the moon. Rather, the verse would serve as proof with regard to the issue itself: that the Jews would calculate their calendar according to the moon. The dialogue between God and the moon is not derived from this verse: rather, the verse only serves as a proof of the concept itself. If so, the passage in Chulin should also have cited the verse, “they shall serve as signs… for days and years,” when relating God’s words to the moon, because this verse indicates that the reckoning depends on the moon.
וְגַם נִמְשָׁךְ מִתּוֹךְ זוֹ הַקֻּשְׁיָא לְהַקְשׁוֹת גַּם כֵּן עַל דִּלְעֵיל, כְּשֶׁאָמַר "לְכִי וּמְשֹׁל בַּיּוֹם וּבַלַּיְלָה", שֶׁהָיָה לוֹ כְּמוֹ כֵן לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה, מִדִּכְתִיב "וְלִמְשֹׁל בַּיּוֹם וּבַלַּיְלָה". וְכִי תֵּימָא דְּאֵין מִן הַמִּקְרָא הַזֶּה רְאָיָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר עַל הַיָּרֵחַ בִּלְבָד, אִם כֵּן, הִיא גוּפָא קַשְׁיָא, מְנָא לֵיהּ לְבַעַל הַמַּאֲמָר, שֶׁאָמַר לָהּ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לַיָּרֵחַ שֶׁתִּמְשֹׁל בַּיּוֹם וּבַלַּיְלָה, דְּהָא פְּשָׁטֵיהּ דִּקְרָא עַל שְׁנֵיהֶם הוּא אוֹמֵר:
This also leads to another question: The passage in Chulin should have cited a prooftext for God’s instruction to the moon to rule during the day and the night, quoting the verse,43Bereishis 1:18. “to rule during the day and during the night.” If you would say that this verse was not cited since it does not prove that the moon was given authority to rule alone, that will lead to another question: What is the source which led the author of this passage to maintain that God told the moon to rule alone during the day and the night? The simple meaning of the verse is that the charge was delivered to both the sun and the moon.
הַכ׳). אָמַר לָהּ "זִיל לִיקְרוּ צַדִּיקִים כו׳" לְמַאי נָפְקָא מִנָּהּ אָמַר "זִיל", וּכְמוֹ שֶׁהִקְשֵׁיתִי בְּכֻלָּם כְּבָר:
xx) The passage continues, saying that God told the moon, “Go. The righteous will be called by your name.” As above,44Tosfos Yom Tov is referring back to questions v and xiv. the reason why God told the moon to “go” requires explanation.
הַכ״א). "לִיקְרוּ צַדִּיקִים בִּשְׁמֵךְ". צָרִיךְ בֵּיאוּר; מַה עִנְיָן זֶה, לְשֶׁתִּתְפַּיֵּס בָּהּ? וְכָל שֶׁכֵּן, שֶׁלֹּא נִמְצְאוּ אֶלָּא אֵלּוּ שְׁלֹשָׁה, וְגַם הָאֶחָד מֵהֶם שֶׁהוּא שְׁמוּאֵל הַקָּטָן, לֹא נִמְצָא בַּכְּתוּבִים כדעיין בהערה שכתבנו בזה בתחילת הספר על מאמר חז"ל זה.. וְרָחוֹק הוּא לִכְשֶׁיִּרְמוֹז עַל שְׁמוּאֵל הַקָּטָן, הַתַּנָּא שֶׁנִּשְׁנָה בְּמִשְׁנַת פִּרְקֵי אָבוֹת. וְגַם לְפִי זֶה הָיָה לוֹ שֶׁלֹּא לְהַכְנִיסוֹ בֵּין יַעֲקֹב לְדָוִד, אַחֲרֵי שֶׁהָיָה מְאֻחָר לְדָוִד. וּבְסֵפֶר מַעֲשֵׂי ה׳ כְּשֶׁפֵּרֵשׁ הַמַּאֲמָר הַלָּז לְפִי דַרְכּוֹ, בְּפֶרֶק ח מִמַּעֲשֵׂה בְרֵאשִׁית, כְּמוֹ שֶׁאֶזְכֹּר פֵּרוּשׁוֹ לְקַמָּן, הִזְכִּירוֹ לָאַחֲרוֹנָה, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁבְּהַעְתָּקָתוֹ לְהַמַּאֲמָר עַצְמוֹ הֱבִיאוֹ בְּאֶמְצַע. וְאָמְנָם בַּעַל הָעֲקֵדָה בְּשַׁעַר הַל״ז הִשְׁמִיט לְגַמְרֵי שְׁמוּאֵל הַקָּטָן. וְאִם כֵּן, לֹא הָיוּ אֶלָּא שְׁנַיִם בְּנִמְצָא שֶׁנִּקְרְאוּ עַל שְׁמָהּ.
xxi) Explanation is also required as to why God’s statement, “The righteous will be called by your name,” is considered a conciliatory gesture. That question is strengthened by the fact that only three righteous men are mentioned. Moreover, one of the references, Shmuel HaKatan, is not found in Scripture. It is far-fetched to say that the reference is to Shmuel HaKatan, the Tanna mentioned in Pirkei Avos.45Avos 4:19. Especially, since if that was the intent, Shmuel HaKatan should not be mentioned between Yaakov and David, but after David, according to chronological order. Indeed, when the text Maaseh HaShem relates this passage in his own words, in ch. 8 of Maaseh Bereishis, as I will mention later on, it mentions Shmuel HaKatan last. Nevertheless, when quoting the Talmudic passage itself, Maaseh HaShem mentions Shmuel second. When the author of the Akeidah46Tosfos Yom Tov is referring to Akeidas Yitzchak, by R. Yitzchak be Moshe Aramah. This work is often referred to as “the Akeidah”. cited the passage (in Shaar 37), he removed the reference to Shmuel HaKatan altogether. If so, there were only two righteous men associated with the moon.
וְדַע דְּרַשִׁ״י שֶׁפֵּרֵשׁ עַל דָּוִד הַקָּטָן שֶׁהוּא מִקְרָא בְּדִבְרֵי הַיָּמִים כהכן הוא בדפוסים הישנים, ובדפוסים החדשים כתוב שמואל, ואולי תוקן עפ"י הערת רבינו., וְאַגַּב רְהִיטָא לֹא דָק, שֶׁהוּא בִּשְׁמוּאֵל א׳ י״ז:
(Parenthetically, it can be noted that in his commentary to the Talmud, Rashi states that the description of David as “small” is found in Divrei HaYamim. In his haste, Rashi was not careful. The intended reference is in I Shmuel, ch. 17.)47This error is found in many early printings of the Talmud. It has been corrected in most contemporary printings.
הַכ״ב). חַזְיָהּ דְּלָא קָמִיַּתְבָא דַעְתָּהּ. בַּמֶּה רָאָה? דְּאַדְּרַבָּה; מִדְּשָׁתְקָה, שְׁמַע מִנָּהּ דְּמִיַּתְבָא דַעְתָּהּ. וְאִם תֹּאמַר "בּוֹחֵן לִבּוֹת ה׳ יִתְבָּרֵךְ" כוע"פ משלי (יז ג) מַצְרֵף לַכֶּסֶף וְכוּר לַזָּהָב וּבֹחֵן לִבּוֹת ה':, אִם כֵּן, כָּל הַמַּשָּׂא וּמַתָּן שֶׁל הַלְּבָנָה לִפְנֵי הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, לֹא הָיָה לוֹ לְבַעַל הַמַּאֲמָר לִתְלוֹת בְּדִבּוּר לְבָנָה, כִּי אִם דְּכָךְ דַּעְתָּהּ וְכָךְ דַּעְתָּהּ:
xxii) The passage continues, stating that God “saw that the moon would not be consoled.” What lead God to that conclusion? On the contrary, the fact that the moon remained silent could be understood as indicating that it was consoled. And if one would say that “God sees into the hearts”48Cf. Mishlei 17:3. of all beings and thus knew the moon’s feelings, the passage should not have recounted the interchange cited before as a dialogue between God and the moon, but as God’s awareness of the moon’s feelings.
הַכ״ג). אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא "הָבִיאוּ כַּפָּרָה עָלַי". זֶה הַלָּשׁוֹן כֻּלּוֹ מֻקְשֶׁה מֵעַצְמוֹ. הֵיאַךְ שַׁיָּךְ לוֹמַר כֵּן? וּכְבָר הֶרְאֵיתִי לְדַעְתּוֹ שֶׁל הָרִי"ף ז"ל, שֶׁמְּפָרֵשׁ שֶׁכָּךְ הוּא אוֹמֵר, הָבִיאוּ כַּפָּרָה לְפָנַי בְּרֹאשׁ חֹדֶשׁ לְכַפֵּר עֲלֵיכֶם כו'. אָמְנָם לֹא הִצִּיל בַּעַל הַמַּאֲמָר מִידֵי קֻשְׁיָא שֶׁיֵּשׁ לְהַקְשׁוֹת עָלָיו, מָה רָאָה עַל כָּכָה וּמָה הִגִּיעַ אֵלָיו, לוֹמַר בְּלָשׁוֹן דְּלָא מִשְׁתַּמַּע כְּפִי הַמְכֻוָּן. וְגַם מִפְּנֵי כֵן מַשְׁמַע דְּלֹא כְּפִי הָרָאוּי כְּלָל. וְכֵן הִשִּׂיגוֹ בְּגוּר אַרְיֵה שֶׁכָּתַב עָלָיו, וְזֶה לְשׁוֹנוֹ: מְפָרֵשׁ הוּא, זִכְרוֹנוֹ לִבְרָכָה, כִּי 'עָלַי' רוֹצֶה לוֹמַר 'בִּשְׁבִילִי'. וְצִוָּה הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְיִשְׂרָאֵל לְהָבִיא קָרְבַּן כַּפָּרָה עַל יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְהוּא כָּבוֹד לַלְּבָנָה, וּבָזֶה נִתְיַשְּׁבָה דַעְתָּהּ. וּלְפִי דַעְתּוֹ, יִהְיֶה פֵּרוּשׁ "לְחַטָּאת" כָּךְ: שֶׁהַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא צִוָּה לְיִשְׂרָאֵל לְהָבִיא קָרְבָּן זֶה הַחַטָּאת לַה', בִּשְׁבִיל ה' אֲשֶׁר הוּא מִעֵט אֶת הַיָּרֵחַ, וְצִוָּה לְהָבִיא קָרְבָּן חַטָּאת לְיִשְׂרָאֵל לַעֲשׂוֹת לָהּ כָּבוֹד זֶה. וְנָכוֹן הוּא פֵּרוּשׁ זֶה לְהָשִׁיב לַשּׁוֹאֲלִים.
xxiii) The passage continues that God concluded, “Bring an atonement offering for Me because I diminished the moon.” This wording is fundamentally problematic. How can such a statement be made? Is it appropriate to say that God could possibly need atonement?! I have already cited49See page 6. the understanding of Rabbeinu Yitzchak Alfasi, who interprets this statement as meaning, “Bring an atonement offering before Me every Rosh Chodesh to atone for yourselves.” Nevertheless, even in interpreting the statement in this manner, Rav Yitzchak Alfasi did not save the author of the passage from the following question: Why did the author of this passage phrase his statements in a manner that does not reveal his intent? Furthermore, besides obscuring the correct meaning, the text as it is written appears irreverent. Similar statements are found in Gur Aryeh,50See Gur Aryeh’s commentary to Bamidbar 28:15. to quote:
הביאו עלי כפרה The wordעלי , “for Me”, should be understood here as meaning “for My sake.” The Holy One, blessed be He, commanded Israel to bring an atonement offering for themselves. This is an honor for the moon,51Rosh Chodesh is the first day of the lunar month. Hence, having the Jewish people bring a special sacrifice on that day is a form of honor for the moon. and as a result it was appeased. According to the understanding of the author of the passage the meaning of the term “for a sin-offering” is that the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded Israel to bring this sacrifice as a sin-offering to God, for God’s sake because He diminished the moon. And God commanded Israel to bring this sin-offering on Rosh Chodesh as a token of honor to the moon. This interpretation is sufficient to answer those who question the wording of the passage, i.e., that the passage implies that God requires atonement.
וַעֲדַיִן יֵשׁ לְדַקְדֵּק, לָמָה הֻצְרְכוּ לוֹמַר "הָבִיאוּ כַּפָּרָה עָלַי", וְלָמָּה לֹא אָמְרוּ "הָבִיאוּ קָרְבָּן עָלַי"? דְּבָזֶה הַלָּשׁוֹן הָיָה הַלָּשׁוֹן מְרֻוָּח טְפֵי, וּמִי הִכְרִיחָם לוֹמַר "הָבִיאוּ עָלַי כַּפָּרָה"? וְלָמָּה נָתְנוּ פִּתְחוֹן פֶּה לַשּׁוֹאֲלִים? עַד כָּאן לְשׁוֹנוֹ. אָמְנָם, זֶה שֶׁכָּתַב דִּלְהָרִי"ף הָוֵי פֵּרוּשׁ 'עָלַי' 'בִּשְׁבִילִי', כְּבָר כָּתַבְתִּי לְמַעְלָה בְּשֵׁם הָרַשְׁבָּ"א, דִּלְהָרִי"ף הָוֵי כְּמוֹ 'אֵלַי' בְּאל"ף. אַךְ יֵשׁ לוֹמַר, דְּכָל שֶׁכֵּן דְּקַשְׁיָא, שֶׁכָּךְ הָיָה לוֹ לְבַעַל הַמַּאֲמָר לוֹמַר בְּאל״ף כְּמוֹ בְּעי״ן, וּבָזֶה כִּמְעַט אֵין לוֹ יִשּׁוּב. מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן בְּשִׁנּוּי לָשׁוֹן, הַיְנוּ מִ׳קָּרְבָּן׳ לְ׳כַפָּרָה׳, דְּיֵשׁ לוֹמַר הוֹאִיל וְ'חַטָּאת' כְּתִיב, נָקַט לְשׁוֹן כַּפָּרָה. וְגַם קִצּוּר הַלָּשׁוֹן, וְלֹא פֵרֵשׁ 'הָבִיאוּ כַּפָּרָה עַל עֲוֹנוֹתֵיכֶם', יֵשׁ לוֹמַר שֶׁבָּחַר בְּלָשׁוֹן קְצָרָה, וְלֹא חָשׁ עַל הַשּׁוֹאֲלִים. וּכְדֶרֶךְ שֶׁאָמְרוּ גַּבֵּי "נַעֲשֶׂה אָדָם" בַּמִּדְרָשׁ (בְּרֵאשִׁית רַבָּה פָּרָשָׁה ח) שֶׁאָמַר לוֹ מֹשֶׁה רַבֵּנוּ עָלָיו הַשָּׁלוֹם לְהַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא: מָה אַתָּה נוֹתֵן פִּתְחוֹן פֶּה כו׳, אֶתְמְהָא? אָמַר לוֹ: כְּתוֹב, וְהָרוֹצֶה לִטְעוֹת יִטְעֶה. עַד כָּאן. אֲבָל מִכָּל מָקוֹם, לֹא נִיחָא לִי נַמִּי בְּהָכִי, דְּדִבְרֵי תוֹרָה לְחוּד, וְדִבְרֵי חֲכָמִים לְחוּד. וְלוּלֵא שֶׁהַלָּשׁוֹן עַצְמוֹ שֶׁל 'הָבִיאוּ כַּפָּרָה עָלַי' הֻכְרַח לוֹמַר כֵּן, כְּדֵי לְהַשְׁמִיעַ מִמֶּנּוּ דְּבַר מָה מֵעַצְמוּתוֹ שֶׁל זֶה הַלָּשׁוֹן, לֹא הָיָה חָשׁ מִלְּשַׁנּוֹתוֹ וְלֶאֱחֹז בְּלָשׁוֹן אַחֵר, דְּלֹא לִשְׁתְּמַע מִנֵּיהּ שׁוּם פִּקְפּוּק, כִּי הֵיכִי דְּלָא לְמֵיהַב פִּתְחוֹן פֶּה לַשּׁוֹאֲלִים.
Nevertheless, one may still ask: Why did the passage say, “Bring an atonement offering for Me”? Why didn’t it say, “Bring a sacrifice for Me”? This would have been more appropriate wording. Who forced the author of the passage to say, “Bring an atonement offering for Me”? Why use wording that would provoke questions? Although Gur Aryeh states that Rabbeinu Yitzchak Alfasi interprets עלי as meaning “for Me,” I already wrote52See page 7 above. otherwise, in the name of Rashba, that Rabbeinu Yitzchak Alfasi interprets עלי as similar to אלי, “to Me.” This nevertheless provokes the same question, for seemingly the author of the passage should have used the word אלי rather than עלי. Indeed, it is a question that is almost impossible to resolve. On the other hand, the question raised by Gur Aryeh – Why did the passage say “Bring an atonement offering for Me” and not “Bring a sacrifice for Me”? – can be resolved as follows: Since the verse mentions a sin-offering, the author of the passage mentioned atonement, and he also used concise wording. Therefore, the author of the passage did not say, “Bring atonement for your sins.” It is possible to say that the author of the passage chose to use concise wording without worrying about the possibility of questions arising, as we see the Torah did when quoting God as saying,53Bereishis 1:26. “Let us make man.” Concerning that verse, the Midrash54Bereishis Rabbah 8:8. relates that Moshe asked God: “Master of the World, why do You provide heretics with an excuse?”55Moshe was asking why the Torah relates that God said, “Let us make man,” when God alone created man. Using the plural term “us” would allow heretics to claim there is more than one God. God responded: “Write it and whoever wishes to err may err.” Nevertheless, I am not comfortable with that resolution, for the words of Torah are composed in one manner, while the words of the Sages require a different approach. Were the wording “Bring an atonement offering for Me” not necessary to teach a concept that could only be derived from these words, it would certainly have been changed, and it would have been appropriate to use other wording which would not evoke questions.
וְעוֹד קָשֶׁה, וְכִי זוֹ הִיא הַמִּדָּה, שֶׁמִּי שֶׁצָּרִיךְ לְכַפָּרָה, שֶׁזּוּלָתוֹ יָבִיא קָרְבָּן כַּפָּרָה בַּעֲדוֹ? וְאַף שֶׁהַכֹּל שֶׁלּוֹ, בָּרוּךְ הוּא, וּכְעִנְיַן שֶׁאָמַר דָּוִד הַמֶּלֶךְ עָלָיו הַשָּׁלוֹם "כִּי מִמְּךָ הַכֹּל וּמִיָּדְךָ נָתַנּוּ לָךְ". וְעִם הֱיוֹת שֶׁמִּתּוֹךְ לְשׁוֹן הָרִי״ף מִתְיַשֶּׁבֶת זוֹ הַקֻּשְׁיָא, שֶׁלֹּא אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא שֶׁהוּא צָרִיךְ לְכַפָּרָה, אֶלָּא שֶׁיִּשְׂרָאֵל צְרִיכִין כַּפָּרָה, וְלִכְבוֹדָהּ שֶׁל הַיָּרֵחַ יָבִיאוּ הַכַּפָּרָה הַהִיא בְּיוֹם חִדּוּשָׁהּ, אֶפֶס כִּי לְשׁוֹן הַמַּאֲמָר אֵינוֹ כֵן. וְקַשְׁיָא, הֵיאַךְ אָמַר לָשׁוֹן הַזֶּה, שֶׁמִּתּוֹכוֹ יֻקְשֶׁה הַקֻּשְׁיָא הַזֹּאת לְכָל קוֹרְאוֹ, אִם לֹא שֶׁהֻכְרַח לְזֶה הַלָּשׁוֹן, לְאָמְרוֹ כְּפִי הַכַּוָּנָה שֶׁל מַאֲמָרוֹ, וְהִלְכָּךְ לֹא חָשׁ:
Furthermore, the concept of bringing an atonement offering for God is problematic. If one requires atonement, is it appropriate that another bring an atonement offering for him? True, the offering would actually be God’s, for everything belongs to Him, as King David said:56I Divrei HaYamim 29:14. See also the citation of the verse in Pirkei Avos 3:7. “For everything is from You, and it is Your gift that we have given to You.” Nevertheless, having man bring the offering is inappropriate. True, Rabbeinu Yitzchak Alfasi’s interpretation resolves the latter question. For according to this interpretation, the Holy One, blessed be He, did not say that He required atonement, but that the Jews require atonement and, as a means of honoring the moon, they should bring the atonement offering on the day of the moon’s renewal. Nevertheless, this is not the simple meaning of the wording of the passage. It is problematic that the passage employs this wording which evokes a question, unless these specific words help convey the intent of the passage and without these words, the intent of the passage would not be understood. Only for such a reason would the author of the passage use such wording.
הַכ״ד). הֵיאַךְ לֹא הֵבִיא בַּעַל הַמַּאֲמָר הָרְאָיָה, שֶׁמִּמֶּנּוּ לָמַד לוֹמַר כֵּן, כִּדְעָבִיד רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ? וַהֲלֹא אֲפִלּוּ עַכְשָׁו דְּרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ מִקְרָא הוּא דּוֹרֵשׁ, אַכַּתִּי צְרִיכִין לְמוֹדָעִי וּמוֹדָעִי דְמוֹדָעִי, לָדַעַת לְהָבִין וּלְהוֹרוֹת הַכַּוָּנָה, וְרַבּוּ הַדֵּעוֹת, זֶה בְּכֹה וְזֶה בְּכֹה, כְּמוֹ שֶׁאֶזְכֹּר לְהַלָּן בִּקְצָרָה. וּבָרוּךְ הַיּוֹדֵעַ מִי כִּוֵּן אֶל אֲמִתַּת הָעִנְיָן, שֶׁאֵלָיו הָיְתָה הַכַּוָּנָה שֶׁל בַּעַל הַמַּאֲמָר, וְכָל שֶׁכֵּן כְּשֶׁאוֹמֵר בְּלֹא רְאָיָה, שֶׁתִּהְיֶה הַתֵּימָא יוֹתֵר גְּדוֹלָה.
xxiv) Why did the author of the passage not cite support for his concluding statement, showing the source from which he derived this concept, as Reish Lakish did? Even the verse Reish Lakish cited as a source needs explanation, and is interpreted in various ways, as I will explain below. Indeed, blessed is he who knows the one who can appreciate the true intent of the author of this passage! If so, when the author presents his claim without proof, the difficulty in understanding the passage is even more pronounced.
הַכ״ה) וְהַכ״ו) וְהַכ׳׳ז). שְׁתֵּי קֻשְׁיוֹת הִקְשָׁה בְּגוּר אַרְיֵה, וְהִנְנִי יוֹסִיף שְׁלִישִׁית. וְזֶה לְשׁוֹן הַגּוּר אַרְיֵה: לָמָּה רָמוּז הַכָּבוֹד בְּחַטָּאת, וְלֹא בִּשְׁאָר קָרְבָּנוֹת מוּסָפִין. וְעוֹד, לָמָּה לֹא נִתְיַשְּׁבָה דַּעְתָּהּ בְּשׁוּם דָּבָר, רַק בְּקָרְבָּן. וְכַמָּה דְבָרִים נָתַן לָהּ, וְלֹא נָחָה דַּעְתָּהּ. עַד כָּאן לְשׁוֹנוֹ.
xxv), xxvi), xxvii) Gur Aryeh57See Gur Aryeh’s commentary to Bamidbar, loc. cit. raises two questions, and I will add a third. Gur Aryeh asks: a) why is the honor granted to the moon conveyed through a sin-offering and not through any other of the additional offerings?
b) Why was the moon appeased only through the designation of a sacrifice to be offered in its honor, but not because of anything else? Other gestures were made to the moon, and yet it did not become appeased.
וַאֲנִי שׁוֹאֵל, אִם נִתְיַשְּׁבָה דַּעְתָּהּ בָּזֶה, אִם לֹא. כִּי מִתּוֹךְ מַה שֶּׁבַּעַל הַמַּאֲמָר לֹא אָמַר לְהֶדְיָא, שֶׁנִּתְיַשְּׁבָה דַּעְתָּהּ, הִנִּיחַ אוֹתָנוּ בִּמְבוּכָה הַזֹּאת. שֶׁהֲרֵי יֵשׁ לוֹמַר, שֶׁעֲדַיִן לֹא נִתְיַשְּׁבָה דַּעְתָּהּ, וְהַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לֹא רָצָה לְפַיְּסָהּ יוֹתֵר. כִּי הֲלֹא כָּל אֵלֶּה אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה לָהּ לְפַיְּסָהּ, הַכֹּל כְּפִי הַנִּרְאֶה לִפְנִים מִשּׁוּרַת הַדִּין. דְּהוֹאִיל וְהִיא עַצְמָהּ גָּרְמָה לָהּ בְּקִטְרוּגָהּ, וּכְמוֹ שֶׁמִּן הַמְּפֹרָשׁ בִּדְבָרֶיהָ כְּשֶׁטָּעֲנָה "בְּדִידֵיהּ נַמִּי כו'", שֶׁנִּתְקַנְּאָה וּבִקְשָׁה שֶׁתִּהְיֶה לָהּ עִנְיָן מְיֻחָד שֶׁלֹּא יִהְיֶה כֵן לַשֶּׁמֶשׁ, נִלְמַד לְהַסָּתוּם שֶׁבִּתְחִלַּת דְּבָרֶיהָ, בְּאָמְרָהּ "אֶפְשָׁר לִשְׁנֵי מְלָכִים", שֶׁגַּם זֶה מִפְּנֵי הַקִּנְאָה, שֶׁרָצְתָה שֶׁהַשֶּׁמֶשׁ תִּתְמַעֵט וְהִיא תִּשָּׁאֵר בְּגַדְלוּתָהּ לְבַדָּהּ. וְאִם כֵּן, שׁוּרַת הַדִּין עָשָׂה לָהּ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, וְכָל הַפִּיּוּסִים, הָיָה לִפְנִים מִשּׁוּרַת הַדִּין. וּלְפִיכָךְ, אַף שֶׁלֹּא נִתְפַּיְסָה עִם הַקָּרְבָּן, לֹא רָצָה הַשֵּׁם יִתְבָּרֵךְ לְפַיְסָהּ עוֹד. אוֹ דִלְמָא, אֵין הָכִי נַמִּי שֶׁנִּתְפַּיְּסָה, וּמַה שֶּׁלֹּא אָמַר בַּעַל הַמַּאֲמָר שֶׁנִּתְיַשְּׁבָה, אֶפְשָׁר דְּלֹא חָשׁ לוֹמַר כֵּן, דְּמִמֵּילָא מַשְׁמַע, הוֹאִיל וְלֹא נַעֲשָׂה לָהּ יוֹתֵר שׁוּם פִּיּוּס, דְּמִסְתָּמָא לֹא קָצְרָה יַד הַשֵּׁם יִתְבָּרֵךְ מִלַּעֲשׂוֹת עוֹד פִּיּוּסִים, וְלֹא עָשָׂה, אֶלָּא וַדַּאי דְּמִשּׁוּם שֶׁנִּתְפַּיְּסָה לֹא עָשָׂה עוֹד יוֹתֵר פִּיּוּס. וַאֲנַחְנוּ לֹא נֵדַע, בְּאֵיזֶה מִשְּׁנֵי פָנִים אֵלּוּ נֶאֱחוֹז:
I add: Was the moon in fact appeased by this final gesture? The author of the passage does not explicitly say the moon was appeased. By not doing so, he left us in a quandary. Perhaps the moon was not appeased, and God merely did not desire to make any further gestures to appease it. After all, the moon refused to be appeased despite the previous gestures made to it. Moreover, all of these gestures were beyond the measure of the law, for the moon itself brought about its diminishment through its complaint. That the moon caused its own diminishment is evident from the moon’s words, which reflect how it was jealous and requested to possess a unique quality that the sun would lack. This can be seen from the hidden intent in the beginning of the moon’s words when it asked: “Is it possible for two kings to wear one crown?” It is clear that, because of its jealousy, the moon desired that the sun be diminished and it alone remain great. Therefore, God acted according to the letter of the law by diminishing the moon, and all of the conciliatory gestures made to it were beyond the measure of the law. Thus, it could be said that although the moon was not appeased after the offering of a sacrifice was instituted in its honor, nevertheless God did not seek to appease the moon any further. On the other hand, it could be said that the moon was appeased by this final gesture. The reason that the author of the passage did not mention this is because he did not think that it was necessary, since it is self-evident from the fact that further conciliatory gestures were not made to the moon. Now God is not constrained at all, and could have made further gestures. From the fact that He did not, we can conclude that the moon was appeased. Since the passage does not clarify this point, it is unclear which of these two approaches is correct.
הַכ"ח). מַה נִּשְׁתַּנָּה שָׂעִיר כו׳. לָמָּה נָקַט שָׂעִיר, וְלֹא אָמַר ׳מַה נִּשְׁתַּנָּה חַטָּאת׳? דְּעִקָּרָא דְּמִילְתָא עַל אֵיכוּת הַקָּרְבָן סוֹבֵב הוֹלֵךְ, לֹא עַל מַהוּתוֹ, אִם הוּא מֵאֵיזֶה מִין שֶׁיִּהְיֶה, רַק בְּמַה שֶּׁנַּעֲשָׂה לְקָרְבַּן חַטָּאת הוּא הַמְּבֻקָּשׁ:
xxviii) Reish Lakish emphasizes that a goat is offered as an atonement offering. Why is the word “goat” used? Why didn’t Reish Lakish emphasize the type of offering – namely a sin-offering? Seemingly, the emphasis should be on the type of sacrifice being brought, not on the type of animal being offered. The significance of the animal is that it is being designated as a sin-offering.
אֵלּוּ הֵן הַסְּפֵקוֹת אֲשֶׁר רָאִיתִי לְעוֹרֵר בַּמַּאֲמָר הַזֶּה, שֶׁמִּתּוֹכָם יָאִיר הַבֵּאוּר בְּעֶזְרַת הַשֵּׁם יִתְבָּרֵךְ, וִיהֵא זֶה נִרְאֶה יוֹתֵר מֵאִלּוּ הָיִיתִי מְבָאֲרוֹ בִּלְתִּי הִתְעוֹרְרוּת הַסְּפֵקוֹת. וְגַם מִפְּנֵי זֶה הָעִנְיָן מֵעַצְמוֹ, רָאִיתִי לְקַצֵּר קֹדֶם לָכֵן גַּם כֵּן דֵּעוֹת הַמְפָרְשִׁים שֶׁמָּצָאתִי שֶׁמְּדַבְּרִים בְּפֵרוּשׁ הַמַּאֲמָר הַזֶּה, וְאָשִׁיב עֲלֵיהֶם.
These are the questions and difficulties that I felt necessary to raise regarding this passage. From them, an explanation will emerge, with the help of God. Its truth will become more apparent after having raised these issues than it would have had I presented my commentary without having done so. For this same reason, I also briefly mentioned the opinions of the other scholars who interpreted this passage and my difficulties in comprehending their explanations. Henceforth I will respond to their claims.
וְהִנֵּה כְּבָר הִזְכַּרְתִּי בְּסִימָן א׳ מַה שֶּׁכָּתַב הָרַב אַבְרָהָם בֶּן עֶזְרָא כזדברי האבן עזרא הובאו בעקידת יצחק שם באמצע ד"ה דרש (בדפוס ווארשא בדף מט ע"א)., עַיֵּן שָׁם. וְעַכְשָׁו אֶכְתֹּב מַה שֶּׁהֵשִׁיב עָלָיו בַּעַל הָעֲקֵדָה (שער לז), וְזֶהוּ שֶׁסּוֹף דִּבְרֵי הָרַב אַבְרָהָם בֶּן עֶזְרָא שֶׁסָּתַם דְּבָרָיו בְּזֶה הַלָּשׁוֹן: וְהִנֵּה לֹא נָפַל דָּבָר אַרְצָה מִקַּדְמוֹנֵינוּ זִכְרוֹנָם לִבְרָכָה. וְעַל זֶה הִתְמַרְמֵר בַּעַל הָעֲקֵדָה בְּזֶה הַלָּשׁוֹן: וַאֲנִי רָאִיתִי שֶׁכֵּן הוּא כִּדְבָרָיו, כִּי לֹא נָפַל דָּבָר אֶחָד מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם, כִּי אִם הַכֹּל בִּכְלָלוֹ, אִם מִצַּד הַשְּׁאֵלוֹת וְהַתְּשׁוּבוֹת הַבָּאוֹת בַּמַּאֲמָר, כִּי כֻלָּם הֵם בְּטֵלִים, וּדְבָרִים שֶׁאֵין לָהֶם שַׁחַר. וְאִם מִצַּד (שֶׁלֹּא) נִתְחַדֵּשׁ לוֹ בַּמַּאֲמָר הַהוּא עִנְיָן, וְזֶה כָּל פִּרְיוֹ, שֶׁהַחִסָּרוֹן הַיָּרֵחַ הוּא תֵּכֶף לְמִלּוּאוֹ, כִּי מִי לֹא יֵדַע בָּזֶה? הִנֵּה לֹא נִתְחַדֵּשׁ בּוֹ זוּלָתִי אָמְרוֹ בִּלְשׁוֹן חִידָה. וְזֶה לֹא יִתָּכֵן. וְגַם שֶׁהַהַקְטָנָה הַהִיא אֲשֶׁר אָמַר, אֵינָהּ הַקְטָנָה לְפִי הָאֱמֶת, רַק לָעֵינַיִם. כִּי הִנֵּה הִיא תָּמִיד בְּמִלּוּאָהּ, כָּל חֶצְיָהּ הַנּוֹכְחִי הָרוֹאֶה פְּנֵי הַחַמָּה. וּכְמוֹ שֶׁאָמְרוּ זִכְרוֹנָם לִבְרָכָה, מֵעוֹלָם לֹא רָאֲתָה חַמָּה פְּגִימָתָהּ שֶׁל לְבָנָה כו׳. עַד כָּאן דְּבָרָיו.
I already mentioned the statements of Rav Avraham ibn Ezra in sec. 1, see those words.58In explanation of the Aggadic teachings in Tractate Chulin mentioned above, R. Avraham ibn Ezra writes: “The moon’s protests refer to the time of the alignment of the luminaries. It is as if the luminaries are contesting with each other when they are at opposite ends of their orbits. When both luminaries are filled with light, it is as if the moon raises itself up to say, ‘I will rule.’ From that time onward, as soon as the moon departs from that point in its orbit, its light begins to diminish.” Now, I will cite what the author of the Akeidah (Shaar 37) responded to him. Rav Avraham ibn Ezra concluded his explanation of the passage in Chulin with this statement: “None of the words of the Sages that preceded us have proved futile.” The author of the Akeidah took issue with Rav Avraham ibn Ezra regarding this matter, stating:
I see that his words are true, for none of our Sages’ words have proved futile. On the contrary, they are all-inclusive. It is the questions and the resolutions ibn Ezra proposes regarding the passage that are all futile; they are unfounded. For ibn Ezra did not bring out any new concept in his explanation of the passage, the only insight his explanations produced was that directly after the moon shines in its fullness, its light begins to diminish. Who does not know that? There is no novelty in ibn Ezra’s explanation, except that he offered it worded as a riddle. It is not possible that this is the intent of the Sages. Moreover, the diminishment of the moon of which ibn Ezra speaks is not diminishment in a true sense; it only appears so according to our perception. For in truth, the moon is always full, for the side facing the sun is never diminished, as our Sages said:59Rosh HaShanah 23b, et al. The intent is that we, from the earth’s viewpoint, see the moon’s light as waxing and waning. Were one standing on the sun, however, he would always be able to see the entire orb of the moon. “The sun never saw the moon’s diminishment.60By quoting these statements, Tosfos Yom Tov appears to agree with the rejection of ibn Ezra’s interpretation of the passage presented in the Akeidah.
וְאוּלָם הָרַב בַּעַל הָעֲקֵדָה בְּעַצְמוֹ כָּתַב שְׁנֵי פֵּרוּשִׁים. הָא' שֶׁבַּעַל הַמַּאֲמָר יְכַוֵּן לְהַשְׁמִיעֵנוּ כָּעֵת כחוז"ל עקידת יצחק שם: והוא כי הנה זה החכם שם במאמר הזה פקפוק מציאות ההזדמן וחקירתו ולקח לנושא החקירה הזאת הקטנת הלבנה, רצוני היותה משונה מכל שאר הכוכבים לבלתי היות לה אור מעצמה. אם היה זה בכוונת מכוין אשר כיון לתכלית או תכליות מה כמו שיאות למעשה הגדול ההוא כמו שנתבאר מדברי החוקר (כך נקרא אריסטו ע"י בעל העקדה) והושלם על פי התורה כנזכר. או אם היה זה מההזדמן כמו שחשב אפיקורוס וסיעתו (פילוסוף יווני בשם "אפיקורוס" שסבר שהכל מקרה ח"ו). ויהיה מה שיחקר בזה החלק נאמר על הכל., לִדְחוֹת דַּעַת הָאֶפִּיקוֹרוֹס הָאוֹמֵר שֶׁהַנִּמְצָא בִּכְלָלוֹ וּבִפְרָטוֹ, הַכֹּל עַל צַד הַקֶּרִי וְהַהִזְדַּמֵּן הָיָה. וְלָזֶה הִנִּיחַ מָשָׁל כטכלומר, בעל המאמר בגמרא ברצונו להוכיח איך שכל הבריאה הוא בכוונת מכוון, וע"כ הלביש זאת במשל שכביכול הלבנה שואלת את הקב"ה, מה הכוונה והתועלת בפרטי השינויים בבריאת הקב"ה אותה עצמה, והשאלות והתשובות בכל המשך המאמר הם בעצם הדרכים להבין את כוונת בריאת הירח לכל פרטיה., כְּאִלּוּ הָיְתָה נוֹשֵׂאת וְנוֹתֶנֶת בַּדָּבָר הַזֶּה עִם הַבּוֹרֵא יִתְבָּרֵךְ, בָּזֶה שֶׁרָאֲתָה בְּעַצְמָהּ שֶׁאֵין לָהּ אוֹר כִּי אִם מִזּוּלָתָהּ. וְאָמְרָה, אֶפְשָׁר לִשְׁנֵי מְלָכִים שֶׁיִּשְׁתַּמְּשׁוּ בְּכֶתֶר אֶחָד? כְּלוֹמַר, שֶׁהַכֹּל בְּאֶפְשָׁרוּת בְּלִי כַּוָּנָה לשהרי אם יש שני דברים שמשמשים לאותו תפקיד זאת אומרת שאחד מהם מיותר ונוצר ח"ו במקרה ובלא כוונת מכוון., וְהָיָה אֶפְשָׁר שֶׁיִּהְיֶה הַכֹּל שָׁוֶה בְּמֶמְשָׁלָה וְכָל דָּבָר. וְאִם כֵּן, מַה שֶׁלֹּא אֵרַע לָהּ שֶׁתִּהְיֶה בְּשָׁוֶה עִם הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ, הָיְתָה בְּמִקְרֶה, וְאֵין לָהּ לְהִתְרַעֵם. אוֹ אִם הָיָה בְּכַוָּנָה מִמֶּנּוּ יִתְבָּרֵךְ, אִם כֵּן, תִּשְׁאַל לָמָּה אֵרַע לָהּ כָּכָה. וְהֵשִׁיב יִתְבָּרֵךְ, לְכִי וּמַעֲטִי כו׳. כְּלוֹמַר, בְּכַוָּנָה מִמֶּנִּי הוּא. עָנְתָה וְאָמְרָה, הוֹאִיל וְאָמַרְתִּי לְפָנֶיךָ דָּבָר הָגוּן, כְּלוֹמַר, שֶׁהִסְכַּמְתִּי שֶׁהוּא בְּכַוָּנָה, שֶׁכֵּן הוּא הָגוּן וְלֹא שֶׁיִּהְיֶה בְּמִקְרֶה. אִם כֵּן, תְּבָאֵר לִי כַּוָּנָתְךָ שֶׁמִּעַטְתָּ אוֹתִי דַּוְקָא, שֶׁלֹּא יִהְיֶה לִי אוֹר מֵעַצְמִי. הֵשִׁיב, לֵךְ וּמְשֹׁל בַּיּוֹם וּבַלַּיְלָה, לְכַוָּנָה זוֹ עָשִׂיתִי. עָנְתָה וְאָמְרָה, שְׁרַגָּא בְּטִיהֲרָא מַאי וכו׳? שֶׁאֵין נֶחְשָׁב לָהּ מֶמְשֶׁלֶת הַיּוֹם כו׳. וְהֵשִׁיב, לִימְנוּ בָךְ כו׳. זֶהוּ תּוֹעֶלֶת גְּדוֹלָה וְכַוָּנָה עֲצוּמָה. וְעָנְתָה וְאָמְרָה, בְּדִידֵיהּ כו׳. וְהִלְכָּךְ הָיָה לְךָ לַעֲשׂוֹת כָּל הַמִּנּוּיִים בַּשֶּׁמֶשׁ, וְלָמָּה תִּשְׁתַּנֶּה הִיא בְּהַהַקְטָנָה הָאֲמוּרָה. וְהָיְתָה הַתְּשׁוּבָה, צַדִּיקִים יִקָּרְאוּ כו׳, מִדֶּרֶךְ הַמּוּסָר לְהַקְטִין נֶגֶד גְּדוֹלִים. וְכֵן אַתָּה, הַכַּדּוּר הַקָּטָן, לָכֵן רָאוּי לְהֵעָשׂוֹת כָּךְ, שֶׁיִּהְיֶה הַמֻּשְׁפָּע לְמַטָּה, וְהַמַּשְׁפִּיעַ לְמַעְלָה.
Continuing his exposition, the author of the Akeidah offered two interpretations of the passage in Chulin: a) the author of that passage intended to use this teaching to reject the thought system of Epicurus,61Epicurus was a Greek philosopher who rejected the concept of Divine providence, and believed that there is no order to existence. Instead, Epicurus believed that everything happens by chance. Heretics are therefore often referred to as epikorsim. who believed that existence – as a whole and in its particulars – is governed entirely by chance. To rebut this line of thought, the author of the passage in Chulin offered an analogy of the moon engaging in a dialogue with the Creator.62The Akeidah explains that the entire interchange between the moon and God is merely an analogy employed by the author of the passage in Chulin to illustrate how God’s intent governs every aspect of Creation. Since the moon saw it had no light of its own, but merely reflects the light of the sun, it asked: “Is it possible for two kings to wear one crown?” The implication is that it appears that everything happens by chance without any Divine intent.63According to this explanation, it is as if the moon is saying that if there was a specific Divine intent in all things, two entities would never serve the same purpose. Instead, each purpose would be fulfilled by only one entity. Thus, it is possible that all entities can be equal in sovereignty64I.e., no entity would rule over another. and in all matters. If so, the fact that the moon is not equal to the sun was simply by chance. Accordingly, there would be no basis for the moon to complain. But if the diminishment occurred as a result of a Divine intent, there is room to ask why this was done to it.
God answered: “Go and diminish yourself,” i.e., the diminishment was a result of My intent.
The moon replied, “Because I have suggested something that is proper must I diminish myself?” I.e., since I agreed that the diminishment came as a result of a Divine intent and not by chance, which is a proper statement, explain to me Your intent: Why is it that You diminished me, causing me not to have any light of my own?
God answered: “Go and ‘rule during the day and during the night’.” I.e., that was My intent, for this is the way your influence will be effective both during the day and at night.
The moon then responded: “Of what use is a candle in broad daylight?” I.e., the moon’s sovereignty during the day is not significant.
God answered: “Israel will reckon the days and the years according to you.” I.e., this is a matter of great benefit, and reflects a prodigious intent.
The moon replied: “That is impossible without the sun,” and hence the entire reckoning of the calendar should be made according to the sun. Why was it necessary for the moon to undergo the change and the diminishment?
God’s response was: “The righteous will be called by your name.” I.e., it is ethically correct for those who are small to “diminish” themselves i.e., to make themselves humble in the presence of those who are great. So too, you, the small sphere, should conduct yourself in this manner, accepting the fact that the recipient of influence should be below and the one who conveys influence should be above.
וּלְפִי שֶׁכָּל אֵלּוּ הַטְּעָנוֹת וְהַתְּשׁוּבוֹת, לֹא יַסְפִּיקוּ לְמִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ "פּוֹרֶה רֹאשׁ וְלַעֲנָה" מִקֶּרֶב לִבּוֹ, לָכֵן אָמַר, הָבִיאוּ כַּפָּרָה עַל מַה שֶׁחֲטָאתֶם עָלַי עַל יְדֵי הִרְהוּרֵיכֶם, מִצַּד מַה שֶּׁמִּעַטְתִּי אֶת הַיָּרֵחַ, כִּי אָנֹכִי כִּוַּנְתִּי לְטוֹב הָעוֹלָם, וְאַתֶּם חֲשַׁבְתֶּם עָלַי כְּזָבִים. וְלִישְׁנָא 'עָלַי', דַּוְקָא, כְּמָה דְאַתְּ אָמַר "מֵאֲשֶׁר חָטָא עַל הַנֶּפֶשׁ". וְזֶהוּ מַאֲמַר הַכָּתוּב "וּשְׂעִיר עִזִּים אֶחָד חַטָּאת לַה׳", עַל מַה שֶּׁחָטְאוּ לַה׳. עַד כָּאן דְּבָרָיו בְּקִצּוּר מֻפְלָג.
Nevertheless, since all these responses will not satisfy one whose heart is characterized by “a root that bears gall and wormwood,”65Cf. Devarim 29:17. God therefore said, “Bring an atonement offering for sinning against Me through such thoughts that came as a result of My diminishing the moon. My intent was for the benefit of the world, but you developed misconceptions about Me.” The wording עלי in the Talmudic passage is used in the same manner as the word על in the phrase,66Bamidbar 6:11. “who sinned against the soul.” This is also the intent of the verse,67Ibid. 28:15. “a goat as a sin-offering to God,” i.e., the goat is brought as a sin-offering for having sinned against God. This is a short synopsis of the words of the Akeidah.
וְלִבִּי אוֹמֵר לִי, שֶׁהַקּוֹרֵא מֵעַצְמוֹ יַשְׂכִּיל אַף יָבִין, אֵיךְ שֶׁכָּל זֶה רָחוֹק מִמַּשְׁמָעוּת הַמַּאֲמָר. שֶׁהֲרֵי תְּחִלָּתוֹ 'עִקָּר חָסֵר מִן הַסֵּפֶר', שֶׁהִנִּיחָה הַיָּרֵחַ אִם בְּמִקְרֶה וְאִם לֹא, אֶלָּא בְּכַוָּנָה. וְהַצַּד הַשֵּׁנִי לֹא בֵאֲרָהּ לאהרי לפי פירוש העקדה יש כאן ויכוח של שני צדדים, א. ח"ו הכל דרך מקרה ולכן הירח קטן והשמש גדול, ב. שהכל בכוונת מכוון. לפי זה קודם כל צריך לתת הקדמה של שני הצדדים, 'שֶׁהֲרֵי תְּחִלָּתוֹ 'עִקַּר חָסֵר מִן הַסֵּפֶר''. שנית, מהלך הויכוח צריך להציע שני הצדדים ולהוכיח את הנכון, וזה לא מצינו כלל בכל מהלך הסוגיא "וְהַצַּד הַשֵּׁנִי לֹא בֵאֲרָהּ". יותר מזה, הצד המופיע בכל מהלך הסוגיא אינו הצד שרוצים להוכיח אמיתותו, רק הצד שכנגד - הצד הלא נכון, "וְאַף שֶׁהַצַּד הַהוּא נִשְׁאָר קַיָּם״., וְאַף שֶׁהַצַּד הַהוּא נִשְׁאָר קַיָּם, אֵיךְ יִתָּכֵן שֶׁאַחֲרֵי שֶׁכְּבָר נַעֲשֵׂית מִבְּלִי הֶאָרָה מֵעַצְמָהּ, שֶׁיֹּאמַר "לְכִי וּמַעֲטִי כו׳", וְזֶה כְּבָר הָיָה. וְכֵן נַמִּי אִם רְצוֹנָהּ לָדַעַת מֶה הָיְתָה הַכַּוָּנָה, לָמָּה לֹא אָמַר לָהּ הַשֵּׁם יִתְבָּרֵךְ מִיָּד "לִימְנוּ בָךְ כו׳", שֶׁהוּא עִקַּר הַכַּוָּנָה, מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן מֶמְשֶׁלֶת הַיּוֹם, דְּלֹא כְּלוּם הִיא. וּמְשַׁל הַצַּדִּיקִים רָחוֹק רָחוֹק מֵהָעִנְיָן הַזֶּה שֶׁל חִקּוּר דִּין הָעוֹלָם, אֵיךְ נִתְהַוָּה אִם בְּמִקְרֶה אוֹ בְּכַוָּנָה, שֶׁיָּבִיא רְאָיָה אֶל שֶׁהַכַּוָּנָה הִיא נָכוֹנָה, מִמַּה שֶּׁנִּמְצָא כֵּן בַּצַּדִּיקִים שֶׁמַּקְטִינִים עַצְמָם. וְגַם, שֶׁמְּהַפֵּךְ הַלָּשׁוֹן מַמָּשׁ מֵהַכַּוָּנָה הַנִּרְאֵית, שֶׁ"עַל שֶׁמִּעַטְתִּי כו'", מְבֹאָר הַמַּשְׁמָעוּת שֶׁתָּלָה כִּבְיָכוֹל חִסָּרוֹן בְּעַצְמוֹ, וְהוּא מְפָרְשׁוֹ שֶׁהֵם חוֹטְאִים בְּהִרְהוּרֵיהֶם עַל שֶׁהַמִּעוּט אֵינוֹ לְטוֹב וְהוּא רַק בְּמִקְרֶה:
My heart tells me that any reader will himself understand that the words of the Akeidah are far from the simple meaning of the Talmudic passage, for the fundamental point of his thesis – that the moon questioned whether everything occurs accidentally or by Divine intent – is not stated in the narrative itself. Moreover, the other position – that everything happens by chance – is not explained at all, even though that option seemingly remains tenable. Also, how is it possible that after the moon was brought into being without having light of its own, God ordered it, “Go and diminish yourself”? That was already the situation; i.e., the moon was already less important than the sun. Furthermore, since the moon’s desire was to know the reason for its diminishment, why did God not answer at the outset that the moon’s diminishment was for the purpose of establishing the calendar, which was His fundamental intent? Why did God first reply, “So that you will rule…,” which is not a feasible answer? Also, the explanation that the righteous will follow the pattern of the moon is very far from the original question: Is the world governed by chance or by Divine providence? The comparison to the righteous who diminish themselves does not seem related to the concept that the world is governed by Divine providence. In addition, the explanation of the conclusion of the passage according to the Akeidah’s interpretation reverses the obvious meaning of God’s statement, “Let this goat be offered as atonement for Me for diminishing the moon.” The phrase “for diminishing” implies that God attributed the fault to His act, as it were, while the Akeidah explains that the intent is that there are people who sin and think that the diminishment of the moon was not a positive act and that the diminishment happened only by chance.
וְהַפֵּרוּשׁ הַשֵּׁנִי שֶׁל בַּעַל הָעֲקֵדָה, עַל פִּי מִדְרָשׁ אַחֵר, שֶׁמְמַשֵּׁל 'מְשַׁל הַיָּרֵחַ' לְיִשְׂרָאֵל וּ'מְשַׁל הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ' לְעֵשָׂו, שֶׁעַל זֶה כִּוֵּן גַּם כֵּן בַּעַל הַמַּאֲמָר הַלָּז, שֶׁיִּשְׂרָאֵל הַמְּשׁוּלִים לַיָּרֵחַ טוֹעֲנִין, "אִי אֶפְשָׁר לִשְׁנֵי מְלָכִים", רוֹצֶה לוֹמַר, יַעֲקֹב וְעֵשָׂו שֶׁיִּהְיוּ שָׁוִים לִנְחֹל שְׁנֵי עוֹלָמוֹת, שֶׁעַצְמוּתָם מְחֻלָּפִים, יִמְשׁוֹךְ מִזֶּה, שֶׁגַּם בְּהַצְלָחָתָם יְחֻלְּפוּ. וְאָמַר לָהּ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְכִי וּמַעֲטִי כו׳, אַתָּה לֹא תִמְשֹׁל בָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה. וְהִיא הֵשִׁיבָה, לָמָּה לֹא תִצְלַח בָּזֶה וּבַבָּא. וְעָנָה הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, לְכִי וּמְשֹׁל כו׳, כִּי רַבִּים יִזְכּוּ לִשְׁנֵי עוֹלָמוֹת. וְהִיא טָעֲנָה, שְׁרַגָּא וכו׳, שֶׁאֵין נִכָּר מֶמְשַׁלְתָּהּ כְּנֶגֶד שְׁאָר הַמַּמְלָכוֹת. וְאָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, לִימְנוּ בָךְ יִשְׂרָאֵל כו׳, כְּלוֹמַר, אַתֶּם קוֹבְעִים חֳדָשִׁים וּמוֹעֲדִים וּפָמַלְיָא שֶׁל מַעְלָה מְקַיְּמִים, כְּמוֹ שֶׁדָּרְשׁוּ לבאמר רבי אבין, "אקרא לאלהים עליון לאל גומר עלי", בת שלש שנים ויום אחד, ונמלכין ב"ד לעברו, הבתולין חוזרין, ואם לאו אין הבתולין חוזרין: (ירושלמי כתובות פ"א ה"ב ועוד) עַל פָּסוּק (תהלים נז ג) "אֶקְרָא לֵאלֹהִים עֶלְיוֹן לָאֵל גֹּמֵר עָלָי". וְזֶה גְּדֻלָּה וְכָבוֹד לָכֶם. וְהֵשִׁיבָה, שֶׁגַּם הַמּוֹנִים לַחַמָּה, מֻסְכָּמִים מִפָּמַלְיָא שֶׁל מַעְלָה לְעִנְיַן הָאָבִיב. וְאָמַר לָהּ, צַדִּיקִים כו׳, כָּךְ הִיא הַמִּדָּה לָבוֹא לִירֻשַּׁת עוֹלָם הַבָּא, כְּשֶׁיֻּקְטַן בָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה, וּרְאָיָה מִיַּעֲקֹב וְדָוִד. וְרָאָה שֶׁלֹּא נִתְיַשְּׁבָה דַּעְתָּהּ מִפְּנֵי קְשִׁי עָרְפָּהּ, אָמַר שֶׁיָּבִיאוּ כַּפָּרָה עַל קַשְׁיוּת עָרְפָּם נוֹסָף עַל שֶׁמִּעֲטָם. כִּי לוּלֵא שֶׁמִּעֲטָם הָיוּ עוֹד יוֹתֵר רָעִים, וַהֲרֵי עַכְשָׁו מַקְשִׁים עָרְפָּם וּצְרִיכִים כַּפָּרָה. אוֹ יֹאמַר דֶּרֶךְ הֲלָצָה, הָבִיאוּ עָלַי כַּפָּרָה אִם מִעַטְתִּי אֶתְכֶם שֶׁלֹּא כַדִּין, כִּי הֲלֹא לְתוֹעֶלֶת לָכֶם עָשִׂיתִי זֹאת, כְּדֵי שֶׁתִּירְשׁוּ עוֹלָם הַבָּא. אֵלּוּ דְּבָרָיו ז״ל בַּפֵּרוּשׁ הַשֵּׁנִי. וְגַם הוּא רָחוֹק מִכַּוָּנַת הַלָּשׁוֹן לְגַמְרֵי:
The second interpretation offered by the author of the Akeidah is based on another Midrash, which understands the moon as an analogy for the Jewish people, and the sun as an analogy for Esav.68In a broader sense, the analogy refers to all non-Jewish nations, and specifically Rome and Christianity. Using these analogies, the author of the passage in Chulin is explaining that the Jewish people (who are compared to the moon) protest, “Is it possible for two kings to share one crown?” i.e., is it possible for Yaakov and Esav to be equal and for both to inherit two worlds, i.e., this world and the World to Come, for their essences are different. As a result of this essential difference, success should also alternate between them.
The Holy One, blessed be He, told the moon (i.e., the Jewish people), “Go and diminish yourself,” i.e., you will not rule in this world.69I.e., Yaakov’s success (and that of the Jewish people) will be apparent only in the World to Come.
The moon responded, “Why will I not be successful in this world and in the next?”
God responded, “Go and rule during the day and during the night,” i.e., there will be many Jews who will merit success in both worlds.
The moon replied, “Of what use is a candle in broad daylight?” I.e., the dominion of those select few is of no consequence in relation to that of the ruling kingdoms at large.
God answered, “Israel will reckon the days and the years according to you,” i.e., the Jewish people will establish the calculation of the months and the festivals, and the Heavenly Company will carry out their decision, as our Sages stated70See Shmos Rabbah 15:2, which cites this verse as a prooftext for the concept that God told the Jewish people, “There are no festivals before Me except those which you declare.” in their interpretation of the verse,71Tehillim 57:3. We have translated the verse according to its interpretation in the above Midrash. The simple explanation of the verse is different. “I will call upon the supreme Judge, to the God Who carries out the rulings according to me.” This is an expression of greatness and honor for the Jewish people.
The moon responded: The Heavenly Company also carries out the decisions of those who calculate their calendar according to the sun, as is evident from the spring and the other seasons.
God answered: “The righteous will be called by your name,” i.e., the willingness to be diminished in this world is the attribute that enables one to inherit the World to Come, as reflected in the conduct of Yaakov and David. Even so, God saw that because of its stubbornness, the Jewish people (referring back to the analogue) were not appeased. Therefore, God ordained that the Jewish people bring an atonement offering on account of their stubbornness, in addition to their being diminished. Had the Jewish people not been diminished, their conduct would have been even more perverse. Even in their present diminished state, the Jewish people behave stubbornly.72I.e., the Jews should have understood that their diminishment came as a result of a Divine decree and accepted it graciously instead of protesting. Therefore, they are in need of atonement. Alternatively, God’s words can be understood as a jest, as if He said: “Bring an atonement offering for Me if I acted improperly by diminishing you. In truth, however, I acted for your benefit, so that you would inherit the World to Come.”
This summarizes the second interpretation offered by the author of the Akeidah. It too is very distant from the obvious intent of the words of the Talmudic passage.
וְרָאִיתִי לְבַעַל מַעֲשֵׂי ה׳ (מעשי בראשית פ"ח) שֶׁפֵּרֵשׁ גַּם כֵּן קָרוֹב לְזֶה הַפֵּרוּשׁ הַשֵּׁנִי, וּבִמְעַט שִׁנּוּי, שֶׁאָמַר שֶׁבַּקָּשַׁת הַיָּרֵחַ הָיְתָה שֶׁתִּמְשֹׁל לְבַדָּהּ. וְהֵשִׁיב הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, שֶׁלֹּא תִמְשׁוֹל כְּלָל. וְהֵשִׁיבָה הִיא, שֶׁהָגוּן הוּא מַה שֶּׁדִּבְּרָה, וְלָמָּה, אִם כֵּן, תִּתְמַעֵט וְתִהְיֶה תַּחַת מֶמְשֶׁלֶת הַמַּלְכֻיּוֹת? וְהֵשִׁיב, שֶׁיִּהְיֶה לָהּ גַּם כֵּן קְצָת מֶמְשָׁלָה. וְהֵשִׁיבָה הִיא, שְׁרַגָּא כו׳, וְשֶׁבָּטֵל בְּמִעוּטָן. וְאָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, לִימְנוּ בָךְ יִשְׂרָאֵל כו׳. כְּלוֹמַר, שֶׁמּוֹנִין לְמַלְכֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל. וְהֵשִׁיבָה, שֶׁגַּם לְמַלְכֵי אֻמּוֹת הָעוֹלָם מוֹנִים, כְּמוֹ שֶׁמּוֹנֶה דָּנִיֵּאל בְּסִפְרוֹ, וְכֵן הָיוּ מוֹנִין לְמַלְכֵי יָוָן, וְהִשְׁלִימוּ הַחִידָה, שֶׁהַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא אָמַר 'צַדִּיקִים יִקָּרְאוּ בִשְׁמֵךְ'. כְּלוֹמַר, הַצַּדִּיקִים יִהְיוּ מְרֻצִּים בָּעוֹלָם הַבָּא, וְיִהְיוּ קְטַנִּים בָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה. וְאָמַר עוֹד, שֶׁזֶּה שֶׁמִּעֵט אוֹתָם, הוּא לְכַפָּרָה לָהֶם עַל תַּאֲוָתָם וּתְשׁוּקָתָם עַל הַגּוּפָנִיּוּת. וְצִוָּה שֶׁיָּבִיאוּ עוֹד כַּפָּרָה גַּם כֵּן, עַל עֲוֹנוֹתֵיהֶם זֹאת שֶׁל חֶמְדַּת וּתְשׁוּקַת הַגּוּפָנִיּוּת. עַל שֶׁמִּעַטְתִּי כו׳, רוֹצֶה לוֹמַר נוֹסָף עַל מַה שֶּׁכְּבָר עָנַשְׁתִּי אוֹתָם, בְּהַמְעִיטִי אוֹתָם לְהַשְׁפִּילָם בָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה, עוֹד יִצְטָרְכוּ גַּם כֵּן לְקָרְבַּן כַּפָּרָה. אֵלּוּ דְּבָרָיו. וְגַם בָּזֶה אֵין צָרִיךְ לְהַאֲרִיךְ וּלְהַזְכִּיר הַדֹּחַק, שֶׁכְּבָר אֲמַרְנוּהוּ עַל פֵּרוּשׁ שֵׁנִי שֶׁל בַּעַל הָעֲקֵדָה. שֶׁזֶּה הַפֵּרוּשׁ נִרְאֶה כְּלָקוּחַ מִמֶּנּוּ בְּשִׁנּוּי מְעַט קָט, אוֹ שֶׁהָרַב, כְּחָכָם עָדִיף מִנָּבִיא, שֶׁכִּוֵּן לוֹמַר מַה שֶּׁנִּתְכַּוֵּן אֵלָיו גַּם זוּלָתוֹ וַאֲמָרוֹ:
I saw that the author of the text Maaseh HaShem73Maaseh HaShem is a text authored by Rabbi Eliezer Ashkenazi 5273 (1513 CE) – 5346 (1586 CE). also offers an explanation similar to the second interpretation offered by the author of the Akeidah, containing only slight changes. Maaseh HaShem74Maaseh HaShem, Maaseh Bereishis, ch. 8. explains that the moon’s request was that it be the sole ruler. God responded, telling the moon that it would not reign at all. The moon replied that its complaint was justified. If so, the moon asked, why must it diminish itself and be subjugated to the rule of the non-Jewish kingdoms? In response, God offered to grant the moon a certain dimension of sovereignty. The moon, however, countered, “Of what use is a candle in broad daylight?” I.e., because the power granted to the moon is minimal, it will be of no consequence. God then answered, “Israel will reckon the days… according to you,” i.e., the years will be reckoned according to the rule of the kings of Israel. The moon responded that the Tanach also reckons the years according to non-Jewish kings, as recorded in the Book of Daniel, and the Sages reckoned according to the years of Greek kings.75The Sages often date events by referring to the number of years after the start of Alexander the Great’s rule that the event occurred. At the conclusion of the parable, God declares, “The righteous will be called by your name,” i.e., the righteous will be satisfied in the World to Come, although they will be of small stature in this world. God further states that this reduction in stature serves as atonement for the desire and yearning of the righteous for physical matters. And as an additional measure, God commanded that the righteous bring an atonement offering for this sin of material desire. This is implied by the words, “Bring an atonement offering for Me because I diminished the moon,” i.e., it is as if God said “In addition to the punishment already meted out to you, i.e., My lowering of your stature in this world, you also must bring an atonement offering.”
These are the words of Maaseh HaShem. In this instance as well, it is not necessary to elaborate on the difficulty in correlating this interpretation with the simple meaning of the passage in Chulin, for we have already mentioned this point with regard to the second interpretation in the Akeidah. The interpretation in Maaseh HaShem appears to be taken from the Akeidah with only slight variations. Alternatively, the author of Maaseh HaShem – as “a wise man who is superior to a prophet”76Bava Basra 12a. – independently arrived at the same understanding as did the author of the Akeidah.
וְזֶה הָרַב הִנִּיחַ עוֹד הַמַּאֲמָר בִּפְשָׁטוֹ לְגַמְרֵי, וְשֶׁתְּחִלַּת הַפֵּרוּשׁ שֶׁאָמַר "וּמְשֹׁל בַּיּוֹם וּבַלַּיְלָה", הָיָה עַל הַקְטָנַת אוֹרָהּ. וְהַפִּיּוּס, בְּאָמְרוֹ "צַדִּיקִים יִקָּרְאוּ עַל שְׁמֵךְ", הוּא פִּיּוּס עַל עִנְיַן שֵׁנִי, שֶׁקְּרָאָהּ קָטָן. וְזֶה רָמְזָה, בְּאָמְרָהּ "שְׁרַגָּא בְּטִיהֲרָא מַאי אַהֲנֵי". שֶׁהֲרֵי יִקְרְאוּ אוֹתָהּ קָטָן, הוֹאִיל וְאֵין אוֹרָהּ נֶחְשָׁב לִכְלוּם. וְעַל זֶה פִּיְּסָהּ, שֶׁגַּם צַדִּיקִים יִקָּרְאוּ כֵּן. וּכְשֶׁלֹּא נִתְפַּיְּסָה, אָמַר שֶׁיָּבִיאוּ קָרְבַּן כַּפָּרָה בְּחִדּוּשָׁהּ. שֶׁאִלּוּלֵי נִתְמַעֲטָה, וְהָיְתָה זוֹרַחַת בַּשַּׁחַר וְשׁוֹקַעַת בָּעֶרֶב כְּמוֹ הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ, וּכְמוֹ שֶׁבִּזְרִיחָה וּבִשְׁקִיעָה שֶׁל הַחַמָּה מַקְרִיבִין יִשְׂרָאֵל קָרְבַּן תָּמִיד, וְזֶה לֹא יוּכַל לִהְיוֹת לַיָּרֵחַ אַחַר שֶׁנִּתְמַעֲטָה, וְאֵין לָהּ זְרִיחָה וּשְׁקִיעָה בְּכָל יוֹם, הִנֵּה יַקְרִיבוּ קָרְבָּן בְּחִדּוּשָׁהּ. וְאָמַר, שֶׁלְּכָךְ לֹא נִמְצָא תֵּבַת "מִלְּבַד" גַּבֵּי עוֹלַת הַתָּמִיד בְּמוּסַף רֹאשׁ חֹדֶשׁ, כְּמוֹ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בִּשְׁאָר הַמּוּסָפִים. אֶלָּא כְּתִיב "עַל עוֹלַת הַתָּמִיד", וְהָוֵי כְּאִלּוּ אָמַר לְסִבַּת עוֹלַת הַתָּמִיד, וְכָאָמוּר.
The author of Maaseh HaShem begins by focusing on the simple meaning of the passage as opposed to the Akeidah who views the text as an analogy. Thus, at the beginning of his interpretation, Maaseh HaShem stated that when the verse mentions the moon’s ruling during the day and the night, it is referring to the diminishment of the moon’s light. The appeasement granted the moon, that “the righteous will be called by your name,” focuses on another factor – that the moon was called “small.” This is hinted at in the moon’s statement, “Of what use is a candle in broad daylight?” With this statement, the moon is stating that it will be called “small” because its light is not considered significant. For this, God attempted to appease the moon through the explanation that this pattern is also reflected in the righteous, who are called “small”. When this explanation failed to appease the moon, God declared that an atonement offering should be brought every time the moon is renewed. Were it not to have been diminished, the moon would have rose in the morning and set in the evening like the sun. The Jewish people offer a daily burnt-offering at the rising and setting of the sun. Such a pattern is not appropriate for the moon after it was diminished, since a full moon does not rise and set every day. Hence, it was determined that a sacrifice be offered when the moon was renewed. The author of Maaseh HaShem states that it is for this reason the phrase מלבד עולת התמיד, “aside from the daily offering,” is not stated in the passage concerning the additional offering of Rosh Chodesh, as it is stated concerning the other additional offerings. Instead, concerning Rosh Chodesh, the passage states, על עולת התמיד, “in addition to the daily offering,” as if to say, “because of the daily offering.”
אֵלּוּ דְּבָרָיו שֶׁל זֶה הֶחָכָם, כְּפִי הַפְּשַׁט, וְגַם הוּא רָחוֹק בְּעֵינַי. שֶׁאִם כֵּן, יִהְיֶה הַקָּרְבָּן שֶׁבִּמְקוֹם הַתְּמִידִין, גַּם כֵּן עוֹלָה כְּמוֹתָם לגוהרי הוא שעיר לחטאת.. וְגַם, מַה יִּהְיֶה פִּיּוּס בָּזֶה עַל תַּרְעֻמְתָּהּ שֶׁנִּקְרֵאת ׳קָטָן׳, כִּי עֲדַיִן קַטְנוּתָהּ נִכָּר, שֶׁבַּעֲבוּר זְרִיחַת וּשְׁקִיעַת הַחַמָּה מַקְרִיבִין יִשְׂרָאֵל לְהַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא שְׁתֵּי פְעָמִים בְּיוֹם אֶחָד, וּבַעֲבוּרָהּ אַחַת לִשְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם? וְאוּלַי שֶׁהָרַב הִרְגִּישׁ עַצְמוֹ בְּחֻלְשַׁת זֶה הַפֵּרוּשׁ, וּלְכָךְ אָמַר שֶׁאֵין זֶה הַפֵּרוּשׁ אֶלָּא לְהָשִׁיב לַשּׁוֹאֲלִים שֶׁאֵינָם מִתְפַּיְּסִים בְּמַה שֶּׁעוֹשִׂים הַמַּאֲמָר, שֶׁהוּא דֶּרֶךְ חִידָה. וְהִסְכִּים הוּא יוֹתֵר לְפָרֵשׁ בְּדֶרֶךְ חִידָה, וְכַאֲשֶׁר כָּתַבְתִּי בִּשְׁמוֹ:
As mentioned above, the words of this scholar are, in my eyes, distant from a simple interpretation of the texts. Were this interpretation to be true, the additional offering of Rosh Chodesh would be – like the daily offering – a burnt-offering.77In fact, the additional offering is a sin-offering. Also, how does this offering serve as an appeasement for the moon’s complaint that it was called “small”? Even though this additional sacrifice is offered, the diminishment of the moon is evident, for the Jewish people offer sacrifices to God twice a day in connection with the rising and setting of the sun, while a sacrifice is brought only once in thirty days in connection with the renewal of the moon. Perhaps the author of Maaseh HaShem recognized the weakness of his interpretation, and that is why he said that this interpretation was offered only in response to those who raise questions and do not agree with the passage’s intent. Maaseh HaShem then sets out to explain the passage as a parable, as I explained in his name.
וְאָמְנָם, בְּסֵפֶר גּוּר אַרְיֵה הַנִּזְכָּר, בְּפָרָשַׁת פִּנְחָס, הֶאֱרִיךְ בְּפֵרוּשׁ הַמַּאֲמָר, כְּמוֹ דַּף בִּפְנִים וּבַחוּץ מִשְּׁנֵי עֲבָרָיו, וּכְלַל דְּבָרָיו שֶׁמִּצַּד הָעוֹלָם יִהְיֶה מַנְהִיג אֶחָד, וְלֹא יַנְהִיגוּהוּ שְׁנַיִם, אֲבָל מִצַּד עֶצֶם הַבְּרִיאָה נִבְרְאוּ שָׁוִים, וְלָזֶה טָעֲנָה שֶׁאַף שֶׁמִּצַּד מֶמְשֶׁלֶת הָעוֹלָם אִי אֶפְשָׁר שֶׁיִּהְיוּ שָׁוִים, לָמָּה תִּתְמַעֵט מִמַּה שֶּׁהִיא רְאוּיָה לוֹ מִצַּד עֶצֶם הַבְּרִיאָה?
The text entitled Gur Aryeh cited above, on Parshas Pinchas, elaborates in the interpretation of this passage, expounding upon it for more than a folio page. To summarize his words: From the perspective of the world, it is appropriate that there be only one ruler and not two. Nevertheless, the sun and the moon were created as equal. Therefore, the moon complained: True, with regard to sovereignty over the world, it is impossible for the two celestial bodies to be the same. Nevertheless, there is justification to ask: Why should the moon be diminished and reduced to a lesser state than it was when originally created?
וְהֵשִׁיב לָהּ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, שֶׁהַמִּעוּט הַזֶּה אֵין בּוֹ פְּחִיתוּת, כִּי עַכְשָׁו תּוּכַל לִהְיוֹת גַּם בַּיּוֹם כְּמוֹ שָׂר שֶׁיֵּשׁ עִם מֶלֶךְ, מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן בְּמֶלֶךְ עִם מֶלֶךְ, שֶׁזֶּה לֹא יוּכַל לִהְיוֹת. אִי נַמִּי, שֶׁכָּל מַה שֶּׁהוּא בְּמַעֲלָה, אִי אֶפְשָׁר לוֹ בְּלֹא חִסָּרוֹן (זוּלַת עִלַּת כָּל הַמַּעֲלוֹת בָּרוּךְ הוּא), וְלָכֵן הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ תֵּעָדֵר בַּלַּיְלָה, שֶׁזֶּהוּ חֶסְרוֹנָהּ, אֲבָל דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא קָטָן אֶפְשָׁר בְּלֹא הֶעְדֵּר גָּמוּר, כִּי קַטְנוּתוֹ הוּא חֶסְרוֹנוֹ.
God responded to the moon, explaining that its diminishment did not imply inferiority. On the contrary, in its present, reduced state, during the day the moon could be like an officer in the presence of a king. In its original state, by contrast, there would be two kings – and that cannot be. Alternatively, God was explaining that no superior entity can exist without a deficiency. (The exception, of course, is the Ultimate Cause of causes, blessed be He.) Therefore, the sun does not shine at night, for this is its deficiency. Nevertheless, a small entity need not suffer a similar limitation, for its smallness is its deficiency.78Thus, after being diminished in size, the moon would not need to suffer a further deficiency.
וְהֵשִׁיבָה הִיא, שֶׁאֵין זֶה עִלּוּי מְצִיאוּת, דְּבָטְלָה לְגַבֵּי חַמָּה דִּשְׁרַגָּא כו׳, וְאָמַר לָהּ שֶׁמִּצַּד שֶׁהִיא נַעֲשֵׂית קְטַנָּה, הִיא רֹאשׁ לָעוֹלָם הַשָּׁפֵל, שֶׁמִּתְדַּמִּין אֵלֶיהָ בְּכִלָּיוֹן וְהֶפְסֵד וְהִתְחַדְּשׁוּת. וְלָכֵן מוֹנִין לָהּ, כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁמּוֹנִים לַמְּלָכִים, וְנִמְצָא שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּזֶה עִלּוּי מְצִיאוּת.
The moon replied that such a state does not represent a positive quality, for it will be secondary to the sun, like a candle in daylight.God sought to comfort the moon by explaining that by becoming small, the moon receives prominence in this lower world, which – like it – is characterized by dissolution, degeneration, and renewal. Therefore, the calendar will be reckoned according to the moon, as one reckons according to kings.79In the era when Jews had a king, events would be recorded according to the year of the king’s reign, e.g., the famine of the fifth year of King Such-and-Such’s reign. God was saying that in a similar fashion, the calendar would be set according to the moon, because it would be the king, as it were, of the lower realm. Thus, the moon will possess a superior quality.
וְהֵשִׁיבָה הִיא, שֶׁהֲרֵי מֻכְרָחִים לִמְנוֹת גַּם כֵּן לַחַמָּה, וְנִמְצָא שֶׁהוּא מֶלֶךְ יוֹתֵר גָּדוֹל מִמֶּנָּה. וְאִי נַמִּי שֶׁהַקַּטְנוּת עוֹשֶׂה שֶׁיִּהְיוּ מְשַׁעֲרִים בּוֹ יוֹתֵר מִן הַגְּדֻלָּה (וּכְמוֹ שֶׁכְּבָר כְּתַבְתִּיו לְעֵיל), הֵשִׁיבָה כֵּיוָן שֶׁסּוֹף דָּבָר מוֹנִין גַּם כֵּן לַחַמָּה, נִמְצָא שֶׁאֵין עִלּוּי מְצִיאוּת לָהּ לְבָד.
The moon did not accept that response, replying that since ultimately the calendar will also be reckoned according to the sun, it is a greater king. Or, according to the alternate explanation given above, the moon’s smallness is a reason people will reckon by it i.e., as a result of its small size, the moon completes its orbit in less time than the other celestial bodies, and is thus more easily used as a measurement. According to this explanation, the moon responded that since the reckoning of the calendar also involves the sun, the moon’s prominence is not exclusive.
וְאָמַר לָהּ, צַדִּיקִים יִקָּרְאוּ בִשְׁמֵךְ. כִּי הַצַּדִּיקִים הֵם הָעוֹמְדִים עַל נְקֻדָּה, וְאֵינָם מִתְפַּשְּׁטִים מִנְּקֻדָּתָם לָצֵאת חוּץ מִגִּדְרָם שֶׁהוּא הַצֶּדֶק, וְלָכֵן נִקְרָאִים קְטַנִּים כְּמוֹ הָאָרֶץ, שֶׁהִיא הַקְּטַנָּה שֶׁבִּיסוֹדוֹת, לָכֵן עוֹמֶדֶת בְּאֶמְצַע וְאֵין לָהּ הִתְפַּשְּׁטוּת, וְכֵן מִדַּת הַצַּדִּיקִים. וְנִמְצָא, שֶׁהַקַּטְנוּת רָאוּי לַנִּמְצָאוֹת.
God persisted in trying to appease the moon, saying, “The righteous will be called by your name.” The righteous are those who never lose focus of the fundamental point, and never expand and inflate themselves beyond that fundamental point. Thus, the righteous never deviate from their fundamental character trait, which is justice. Therefore, the righteous are called “small”, and are comparable to the earth, which as the least of the four elements remains in the center, without expanding and inflating itself. Not expanding or inflating oneself to reach beyond one’s rightful place is the attribute of the righteous. Thus, smallness is befitting to the existence of all beings in their present state. Hence, having its size diminished establishes the moon as the ruler of the lower plane.
וְלֹא נִתְיַשְּׁבָה דַּעְתָּהּ, מֵאַחַר שֶׁהָיָה לָהּ מַעֲלָה וְנֶחְסְרָה. לָזֶה אָמַר, הָבִיאוּ כַּפָּרָה כו׳. וְאֵין לְשׁוֹן כַּפָּרָה בְּכָאן כְּמוֹ כַּפָּרַת חֵטְא, שֶׁכְּשֶׁנּוֹדַע לוֹ שֶׁחָטָא וְיִתְחָרֵט וּמֵבִיא קָרְבָּן וְשֶׁיִּמְחֹל לוֹ מִי שֶׁחָטָא כְּנֶגְדּוֹ. שֶׁכָּל זֶה וַדַּאי אִי אֶפְשָׁר לְאָמְרוֹ כְּלַפֵּי מַעְלָה, אֲבָל בְּכָאן הוּא לְשׁוֹן קִנּוּחַ וְסִלּוּק, וּכְמוֹ שֶׁפֵּרֵשׁ רש״י בְּפָרָשַׁת וַיִּשְׁלַח עַל "אוּלַי אֲכַפְּרָה פָנָיו" (בראשית לב כא). וְגַם שֵׁם 'חַטָּאת' עִקָּרוֹ מִלְּשׁוֹן "אֲנִי וּבְנִי שְׁלֹמֹה חַטָּאִים" (מלכים א א כא) וְ"אָנֹכִי אֲחַטֶּנָּה" (בראשית לא לט), שֶׁהֵם לְשׁוֹן חִסָּרוֹן. וְכֵן נִקְרָא הַקָּרְבָּן ׳חַטָּאת׳, עַל שֵׁם הַחִסָּרוֹן שֶׁנַּעֲשָׂה, כִּי כָּל עֲבֵרָה חִסָּרוֹן. וּבְכָאן אָמְרוּ, שֶׁאָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא שֶׁיָּבִיאוּ כַּפָּרָה, הַיְנוּ קִנּוּחַ וְסִלּוּק הַתַּרְעוֹמוֹת עַל הַחִסָּרוֹן שֶׁחִסֵּר וְהִמְעִיט מַעֲלַת הַיָּרֵחַ.
This did not satisfy the moon, since it originally possessed a superior quality and had lost it. Therefore, God said that kaparah, translated as “an atonement offering,” should be brought for Him. Here, however, the intent of the term kaparah is not “atonement for sin,” i.e., that a person becomes aware that he has sinned, feels regret, and brings an offering so that the one against whom he has sinned will forgive him. All of this is not appropriate when speaking about God. In this context, the term kaparah means to wash away and remove, as Rashi explains in his commentary to the verse,80Bereishis 32:21. אולי אכפרה פניו “Perhaps I will cause his mien to change.” Moreover, even the fundamental meaning of the term chatas, “sin,” is “lack,” as in the verses,81 I Melachim 1:21. אני ובני שלמה חטאים, “I and Shlomoh my son will be lacking,” and אנכי אחטנה, “I would compensate for the lack.”82Bereishis 31:39. Similarly, a sin-offering is called a chatas because of the deficiency created, for every sin is due to a lack. On this basis, the passage can be understood as stating that God asked that a kaparah – i.e., a cleansing and a removal of the complaints – be brought to appease the moon because of the lack brought about by its diminishment.
וְאִם תֹּאמַר, מִכָּל מָקוֹם קַשְׁיָא הֵיאַךְ עָבִיד קֻדְשָׁא בְּרִיךְ הוּא בְּלָא דִינָא? הָא לֹא קַשְׁיָא. שֶׁהֲרֵי כָּל הַבְּרוּאִים עַל צַד הַחֶסֶד נִבְרְאוּ, וְאֵין לָהֶם מִן הַדִּין שֶׁיִּהְיוּ נִבְרָאִים אֶלָּא לְפִי שֶׁנִּבְרְאוּ. וְטָעֲנָה הַיָּרֵחַ שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה לוֹ לְמַעֵט אוֹתָהּ, אַחֲרֵי שֶׁנִּבְרֵאת גְּדוֹלָה, הִנֵּה לְפִי דְבָרֶיהָ הָוֵי תַּרְעוֹמוֹת, אֲבָל לֹא לְפִי הָאֱמֶת, כִּי הוּא בְּחֶסֶד בָּרָא עוֹלָמוֹ, וְאֵין לִבְרוּאָיו דִּין עָלָיו לְהִבָּרְאוֹת. וְהָיָה יָכוֹל לְהַקְטִין כְּדֵי שֶׁהָעוֹלָם יִהְיֶה מֻנְהָג מִמֶּלֶךְ אֶחָד. רַק כְּנֶגֶד טַעֲנַת הַיָּרֵחַ אָמַר הָבִיאוּ כו׳. וְהַשְׁתָּא, אֲפִלּוּ שֶׁתֹּאמַר כַּפָּרָה וְחַטָּאת מַמָּשׁ, לֹא מִשְׁתַּבֶּשֶׁת, שֶׁכְּלַפֵּי טַעֲנַת הַיָּרֵחַ נֶאֱמַר כָּךְ, וְהוּא לָהּ לְכָבוֹד כְּדִבְרֵי הָרִי״ף זִכְרוֹנוֹ לִבְרָכָה.
If one will ask: How could God act unjustly toward the moon? This is not a valid question. All of the created beings were brought into existence as an expression of kindness. Fair judgment would not dictate that they be created any other way than the way they were created. The complaint of the moon that it should not have been diminished after being created as great is, from its perspective, a justified claim. However, in truth, the moon’s claim is not justified. For God created His world with kindness, and the created beings have no inherent right to be brought into existence. Therefore, God was justified in diminishing the moon so that the world would be ruled by one sovereign body. Merely to satisfy the complaints of the moon did God instruct that a kaparah be brought. Carrying that line of reasoning further, the terms kaparah and chatas can even be understood literally as “atonement offering” and “sin”, as they are usually used. For if these terms are understood literally, the incident is being understood from the moon’s perspective, that God made this request to appease the moon, as a gesture of honor to it, as Rabbeinu Yitzchak Alfasi explains.83See page ???
וְעוֹד יוּבַן הָעִנְיָן בְּמַה שֶּׁבְּלִי סָפֵק מֵחֶסְרוֹן הַיָּרֵחַ נִמְשָׁךְ חִסָּרוֹן בָּעוֹלָם שֶׁלְּמַטָּה מִמֶּנּוּ, הַמֻּנְהָג מִמֶּנּוּ. וְכַאֲשֶׁר תִּתְחַדֵּשׁ הַיָּרֵחַ, תִּתְחַדֵּשׁ גַּם כֵּן טוֹבָה בָּעוֹלָם, כַּמֻּזְכָּר, שֶׁהוּא מֻנְהָג מִמֶּנּוּ. וְלָכֵן מְבִיאִין קָרְבָּן, שֶׁהוּא הַהִתְקָרְבוּת אֵלָיו יִתְבָּרֵךְ, בְּהִתְחַדֵּשׁ עוֹלָמוֹ. וְאִי נַמִּי, הוּא יִתְבָּרֵךְ רָאָה תְּחִלָּה לְבָרְאָם בְּשִׁוּוּי, וְאַחַר כָּךְ רָאָה לְמַעֵט הַיָּרֵחַ לְהַנְהָגַת הָעוֹלָם בְּיֹשֶׁר. וְאַחַר כָּךְ רָאָה שֶׁיַּקְרִיבוּ קָרְבָּן לְהִתְקָרֵב לְמִדַּת טוּבוֹ, הַמְחַדֵּשׁ בּוֹ הָאוֹרָה בַּלְּבָנָה, וְהַטּוֹבָה הַנִּמְשֶׁכֶת מִמֶּנּוּ בָּעוֹלָם.
Another concept can be understood from this incident: that without a doubt, the state of lack brought about within the moon caused a state of lack to be created in the world below, i.e., our physical existence, which is influenced by the moon. Conversely, when the moon is renewed, goodness is renewed throughout the world which is influenced by it. Therefore, a sacrifice – which is a means of drawing close to God – is brought at the time of the renewal of the world. Alternatively, initially, God thought to create the sun and the moon] as equals. Afterwards, God decided to diminish the moon in order for the world to be conducted justly. God then saw fit for the Jewish people to bring a sacrifice to facilitate their ability to draw close to and elicit His attribute of goodness, which brings about a renewal of light for the moon and, as a result, of the goodness drawn down from it to the world.
הֵן הֵנָּה דִּבְרֵי הַגּוּר אַרְיֵה. וְהִנְנִי תּוֹלֶה הַחִסָּרוֹן בִּי, מֵחֶסְרוֹן הַיְדִיעָה וְהַהֲבָנָה מַה הוֹעִילוּ חֲכָמִים בְּמַאֲמָרִים אֵלּוּ בְּדֶרֶךְ חִידָה וְרֶמֶז, וְהָיוּ יְכוֹלִים לְאָמְרָם בְּפֵרוּשׁ, וְיָבִינוּ הַקְּטַנִּים עִם הַגְּדוֹלִים לדלפי פירוש הגור אריה הרי ׳הביאו עלי כפרה׳ אינו כפשוטו ומרמז לדברים אחרים, וא"כ אינו מובן למה היו חז"ל צריכים לדבר באופן כזה, אם לא שיש כאן סוד על פי נסתר, אלא שעפ״י נגלה קשה הפירוש של הגו"א, וכל מגמת רבינו בחיבור זה הוא לפרש האגדה על פי פשוטו וכדלהלן.. וְכָל שֶׁכֵּן שֶׁמְּדַבְּרִים בְּעִנְיָן שֶׁיּוּכְלוּ הַשּׁוֹמְעִים לִטְעוֹת בִּלְשׁוֹנָם, שֶׁאָמְרוּ "הָבִיאוּ כַּפָּרָה כו׳", וּלְפָחוֹת לְהַאֲשִׁימָם עַל שֶׁמְּדַבְּרִים עָתָק נֶגֶד הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא חַס וְשָׁלוֹם, וּמַה לָּהֶם וּלְצָרָה זוֹ.
These are the words of the text Gur Aryeh. I assume that the fault is with me, but I do not understand the benefit gained by the Sages speaking in riddles and allusions, when they could have stated their points directly, and thus have these points understood by those of lesser potential as well by those of great potential.84I.e., if this was the intent of the passage in Chulin, its author should have stated it straightforwardly rather than clothing it in the parable of a dialogue between God and the moon. This is certainly true when speaking about a matter that could cause others to err regarding the wording they used when saying, “Bring an atonement offering.” At the very least, these Sages might cause some to think they are speaking insolently about God, Heaven forbid. Why should these Sages engage in such a matter?
וְאָמְנָם כֵּן, שֶׁכָּתַב בְּסוֹף דְּבָרָיו, שֶׁאֵין זֶה עִקַּר עֹמֶק הֲבָנַת מִעוּט הַיָּרֵחַ וְסִלּוּק תְּלוּנָתָהּ בְּקָרְבָּן, דְּדָבָר זֶה אִי אֶפְשָׁר רַק בְּהַעֲמִיק בְּחָכְמָה נִפְלָאָה שֶׁאֵין כָּאן מְקוֹמָהּ. עַל כֵּן יִרְמֹז בְּלִי סָפֵק לְחָכְמַת הַקַּבָּלָה.
The failure to relate to the simple meaning of our Sages’ words is evident from the conclusion of Gur Aryeh’s statements, where he writes that this interpretation does not communicate the fundamental depth of the understanding of the diminishment of the moon and the removal of its complaint via a sacrifice, for this matter cannot be understood except by deeply delving into wondrous wisdom, the study of which is not relevant here. Without question, with these words Gur Aryeh is alluding to the wisdom of the Kabbalah.
וַאֲנִי אוֹמֵר, שֶׁכְּמוֹ שֶׁתּוֹרָה שֶׁבִּכְתָב, דִּפְשִׁיטָא מִלְּתָא שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ רְמָזִים וְסוֹדוֹת הַקַּבָּלָה, וַאֲפִלּוּ הָכִי אֵין מִקְרָא יוֹצֵא מִידֵי פְשׁוּטוֹ לְעוֹלָם, כְּמוֹ שֶׁהֵבֵאתִי מַאֲמַר חֲכָמֵינוּ זִכְרוֹנָם לִבְרָכָה לְעֵיל. כָּל שֶׁכֵּן וְעַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה, שֶׁחֲכָמֵינוּ זִכְרוֹנָם לִבְרָכָה כְּשֶׁאָמְרוּ מַה שֶּׁאָמְרוּ וְכִוְּנוּ אֶל סוֹדוֹת וּרְמָזִים, מִכָּל מָקוֹם כַּוָּנָתָם הָרִאשׁוֹנָה, שֶׁדִּבְרֵיהֶם כִּפְשׁוּטָם, יִהְיוּ עַל נָכוֹן, וְלֹא יִהְיֶה בָּהֶם נִפְתָּל וְעִקֵּשׁ, חַס וְשָׁלוֹם. וְלָכֵן אַחֲזִיק אֲנִי בִּפְשַׁט הַמַּאֲמָר, כְּפִי שִׁטְחוּת לְשׁוֹנוֹ, לְפָרְשׁוֹ בְּאֹפֶן שֶׁיִּהְיֶה פָּשׁוּט וּמְבֹאָר, וִיסֻלְּקוּ מֵעָלָיו כָּל הַתַּרְעוֹמוֹת וְהַתְּלוּנוֹת וְהַסְּפֵקוֹת שֶׁהִזְכַּרְתִּי:
I, by contrast, maintain that our Sages emulate the pattern of the Written Torah. Certainly, it is obvious that its text contains allusions to the Kabbalah and its mystical secrets. Nevertheless, as stated in the above-quoted statement of our Sages,85Shabbos 63a. See page 9. “The interpretation of a Scriptural phrase never departs from its simple, literal meaning.” How much more so does this guidance apply to the statements of the Sages themselves. Certainly, when our Sages made their statements they undoubtedly had in mind mystical secrets and allusions. Nevertheless, their original intent was that their words would be understood simply so that they be perceived correctly, without the possibility of error, Heaven forbid. Therefore, I will hold true to the simple meaning of the passage in Chulin, following the straightforward connotation of its words, explaining it in a manner that it will be simple and understandable, removing all the difficulties, questions, and doubts that I mentioned.
וְדֶרֶךְ כְּלָל אֲנִי אוֹמֵר שֶׁמַּה שֶּׁאֶפְשָׁר לְהָבִין שֶׁהַמַּאֲמָר הַזֶּה כָּל עִנְיָנָיו הֵם אֲמוּרִים כְּפִי הָאֱמֶת, שֶׁכָּךְ הָיוּ שְׁאֵלוֹת וּתְשׁוּבוֹת בֵּין הַיָּרֵחַ לְבֵין הַמָּקוֹם בָּרוּךְ הוּא, אוֹ שֶׁאֵינוֹ כִּי אִם עַל צַד הַדִּמְיוֹן וְדֶרֶךְ אַסְמַכְתָּא לְשֶׁיִּהְיֶה נִמְשָׁךְ מִמֶּנּוּ עִנְיְנֵי תּוֹעָלוֹת;
As a foundation, I maintain that there are two paths to the comprehension of this passage: either there was in fact such a dialogue between the moon and the Omnipresent, or that the conversation presented in Chulin 60b is an allusion and a metaphor with which to convey a useful message.
כָּל זֶה, רוֹצֶה לוֹמַר, אַחַת מֵאֵלּוּ שְׁתֵּי דְרָכִים, נִתְלֶה בְּחִלּוּקֵי הַדֵּעוֹת שֶׁיֵּשׁ עַל הַגְּרָמִים הַשְּׁמֵימִיִּים וְצִבְאוֹתָם אִם הֵם חַיִּים מַשְׂכִּילִים להכדעת הרמב"ם (יסודי התורה פ"ג ה"ט) וז"ל: כל הכוכבים והגלגלים כולן בעלי נפש ודעה והשכל הם, והם חיים ועומדים ומכירין את מי שאמר והיה העולם, כל אחד ואחד לפי גדלו ולפי מעלתו משבחים ומפארים ליוצרם כמו המלאכים, וכשם שמכירין הקדוש ברוך הוא כך מכירין את עצמן ומכירין את המלאכים שלמעלה מהן, ודעת הכוכבים והגלגלים מעוטה מדעת המלאכים וגדולה מדעת בני אדם. וכן כתב במורה נבוכים (ח"ב פ"ה) וכפי שכתב רבינו בשמו בסמוך., אִם לֹא לוכדעת רב סעדיה גאון (האמונות והדעות מאמר א הדעת השמינית), ועוד.. שֶׁכְּבָר מִפְּשַׁט הַכָּתוּב שֶׁל מִזְמוֹר "הַשָּׁמַיִם מְסַפְּרִים וגו׳" (תהלים יט) מְבֹאָר בִּטּוּל דַּעַת הָאוֹמֵר שֶׁהֵם חַיִּים מַשְׂכִּילִים לזהסוברים כדעת הרס"ג וסייעתו מוכיחים מפסוק "אין אומר ואין דברים" שאין צבא השמים בעלי דעה, ומה שכתוב "השמים מספרים" אין הכוונה סיפור בפועל אלא רק שעצם מהלכם "מספרים"., שֶׁהֲרֵי אָמַר "אֵין אוֹמֶר וְאֵין דְּבָרִים וגו׳" רַק "בְּכָל הָאָרֶץ יָצָא קַוָּם", וּמִזֶּה נוֹדַע כְּבוֹדוֹ יִתְבָּרֵךְ.
These two positions revolve around a difference of opinion among our Rabbis regarding whether the heavenly bodies are living and conscious beings or not.86I.e., if the heavenly bodies are living, conscious beings, it is appropriate to speak of a dialogue between God and the moon. Otherwise, the passage must be understood as an analogy. The negation of the contention that the heavenly bodies are living, conscious beings is reflected in the simple meaning of the verses in the psalm beginning,87Tehillim 19:2. “The heavens relate the glory of the Almighty.” For that psalm states explicitly,88Ibid. 4. The verse implies that the celestial bodies communicate God’s glory by passing through the heavens and not by speaking. “Without speech or words, without their voice being heard,” merely because “their course spans the entire earth,”89Ibid:5. man is able to realize God’s glory.
אָמְנָם, כְּבָר הָרַב הַמּוֹרֶה, בְּפֶרֶק ה׳ מֵחֵלֶק ב' בֵּאֲרָם לחהרמב"ם שם מתייחס לשאלה זו (השמים מספרים) ומבאר איך שאדרבא מתאים לשיטתו, וברד"ק (תהלים יט) הביאו תמצית דבריו וז"ל: השמים מספרים כבוד אל. יש מפרשים (התרגום וזולתו) כדרך אוֹ שִׂיחַ לָאָרֶץ וְתֹרֶךָ (איוב יב, ח), וכן שאל נא בהמות וְתֹרֶךָּ (שם פסוק ז), וכן השמים מספרים, כי מהנפלאות והמעשים הגדולים שאדם רואה בשמים יספר האדם כבוד האל. וזהו שאמר אין אומר ואין דברים בלי נשמע קולם, כלומר, לא שהם מספרים בדברים, אלא ממה שרואה אדם בהם מספרים בני אדם כבוד אל. ונוכל לפרש ׳מספרים׳ על השמים ועל הרקיע עצמם, כי במהלכם ובסיבובם על סדר נכון יֵרָאֶה כבוד האל יתברך, ואותו הוא הסיפור וההגדה, על דרך השולח אמרתו ארץ עד מהרה ירוץ דברו (תהלים קמז, טו). ומה שאמר: אין אומר ואין דברים, אין דברים כדברי בני אדם, אלא המעשה שיעשו הם הדברים והם הסיפור וההגדה, וכן אמר: ובקצה תבל מליהם. והרב מורה צדק החכם הגדול רבינו משה (מו"נ ב, ה) פירש ׳מספרים׳ על השמים, כי דעתו ודעת הפילוסופים, כי הגלגלים חיים משכילים עובדים לאל ומשבחים אותו שבח גדול ומהללים אותו מַהֲלָלִים עצומים וגדולים. ועל כן אמר: השמים מספרים כבוד אל ומעשה ידיו מגיד הרקיע, ואם כי הסיפור וההגדה אינם בפה ובלשון, וזהו שאמר: אין אומר ואין דברים בלי נשמע קולם, אלא הסיפור וההגדה להם כמו ציור שֶׁיְּצַיֵּר האדם בלבבו מדברי שבח והודאה מבלי שיוציאם בשפה., וּמַסְכִּימִים לְאוֹתָהּ הַדַּעַת וְהַחֲלִיטָה. אַךְ בַּעַל הָעֲקֵדָה, בִּנְעִילַת שַׁעַר הָרִאשׁוֹן, הִשִּׂיג עָלָיו הַרְבֵּה בָּזֶה. וְהָיָה הָאֱמֶת עִם מִי שֶׁהוּא, כִּי אֵינֶנִּי עַכְשָׁו מִתְעַסֵּק בַּחֲקִירָה הַהִיא לטלהרחבה בנושא ויכוח זה עיין בספר האדם על הירח פרק ד., אֲבָל הִקְדַמְתִּיו, לוֹמַר שֶׁאֶפְשָׁר וְיָכוֹל לִהְיוֹת, לְפִי דַעְתּוֹ שֶׁל הָרַמְבַּ״ם, הָאוֹמֵר שֶׁהַשָּׁמַיִם וְכָל צְבָאָם חַיִּים מַשְׂכִּילִים, שֶׁהָיוּ, אִם כֵּן, כָּל אֵלּוּ הַשְּׁאֵלוֹת וְהַתְּשׁוּבוֹת כְּמוֹת שֶׁהֵם בְּפֹעַל וְלֹא בְּדִמְיוֹן מִן בַּעַל הַמַּאֲמָר כְּדֵי לְהוֹעִילֵנוּ לְאֵיזֶה תּוֹעֶלֶת אוֹ תּוֹעָלוֹת, וּכְמוֹ שֶׁיְּבוֹרְרוּ בִּסִיַּעְתָּא דִשְׁמַיָּא.
Nevertheless Rambam, in his Moreh Nevuchim,90Moreh Nevuchim, Vol. 2, ch. 5. subscribes to and expounds upon the view that the heavenly bodies are conscious entities, and explains the aforementioned psalm according to this viewpoint. The author of the Akeidah91Akeidas Yitzchak, Shaar 1. differs at great length with Rambam on this matter. Let the truth reside with the one who is correct. I do not desire to enter a discussion of that issue. I mentioned it only as a preface to point out that according to Rambam, who maintains that the heavenly bodies are conscious entities, it is possible that the entire dialogue between God and the moon actually took place as the passage relates, and that the conversation is not merely an allusion and a metaphor with which to convey useful messages, as will be clarified with God’s help.
וְכֵן, גַּם כֵּן אִם אֵינָם חַיִּים מַשְׂכִּילִים, אֶלָּא שֶׁדִּבֶּר בַּעַל הַמַּאֲמָר בְּדִמְיוֹן, וְלִהְיוֹת עִם זֶה נִמְשָׁךְ תּוֹעָלוֹת, מִכָּל מָקוֹם הַכֹּל כַּאֲשֶׁר לַכֹּל יִהְיֶה כִּפְשׁוּטוֹ מִבְּלִי מַכְרִיחַ אֶל רְמָזִים אֲשֶׁר רָמְזוּ הַמְפָרְשִׁים הַנִּזְכָּרִים לְמַעְלָה, אֲשֶׁר כְּבָר הָרְאֵיתָ לָדַעַת, לָמָּה וְעַל מָה לֹא יָשְׁרוּ בְּעֵינַי הַדְּרָכִים הָהֵם. מְצֹרָף לָזֶה, שֶׁכָּל הַקֻּשְׁיוֹת הָעֲצוּמוֹת וְהָרַבּוֹת שֶׁהַעִירוֹתִי עַל הַמַּאֲמָרִים שֶׁנִּמְצְאוּ בִּלְתִּי מְיֻשָּׁבִים לְפִי דַרְכֵיהֶם, מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן לְפִי דַרְכִּי, בְּעֶזְרַת ה' יִתְבָּרֵךְ צוּרִי וְגוֹאֲלִי. וְזֶה הַחִלִּי:
Furthermore, even if the heavenly bodies are not living, conscious entities, and the author of the passage used an allusion and a metaphor in order to convey useful messages, the entire narrative can be understood according to its simple meaning without resorting to such allusions as those suggested by the commentaries mentioned above. For as already demonstrated, there are ample reasons why the explanations offered by those commentaries are not sufficient. Furthermore, all of the many severe objections I raised previously to the approaches of these commentaries will be resolved – with the help of God, my Rock and Redeemer – according to my approach. With that, I will begin: