The Elucidation of the Passage from Chulin 64a The passage begins: “R. Shimon ben Azzai – or ben Pazi – pointed out a contradiction between the verses: One verse says: “And God made the two great luminaries,” but it is also written, “the great luminary” and “the small luminary.”
The contradiction on which the passage focuses is not that initially Scripture equates the luminaries and calls both the sun and the moon “great”, and afterwards refers to the sun as “great” and the moon as “small.” For the author of this passage is no less of a Sage than the authors of the other three passages mentioned at the outset. Just as they did not see this point as significant enough to highlight as an apparent contradiction between the verses, neither did the author of this passage. For in truth this apparent contradiction is not a contradiction at all, as both of the luminaries are indeed greater sources of light than all the other heavenly bodies, as is apparent to any observer. Nevertheless, in relation to each other, the sun is greater than the moon in both size and light. This is also an obvious fact. Accordingly, the author of this passage certainly would realize that there this is no contradiction between the verses.
Instead, according to my humble understanding, the apparent contradiction stems from a fundamental question: Why did the verse use the terms “the great luminaries,” “the great luminary,” and “the small luminary,” which require explanation? It is true, the explanation is obvious, but still the verse could have been worded in a manner which did not require any explanation. Scripture could have simply referred to the luminaries by name, i.e., Scripture could have referred to the luminaries as “the sun” and “the moon,” as Yosef did, in the verse:1Bereishis 37:9. “Behold, the sun and the moon bowed to me,” and as Moshe Rabbeinu did in Parshas Va’Eschanan, in the verse:2Devarim 4:19. “and you see the sun and the moon,” and in Parshas Shoftim, which speaks of serving other gods including3Ibid. 17:3. “the sun or the moon.” Similarly, here, the narrative should have stated, “God made the sun and the moon, the sun to rule during the day and the moon to rule during the night.” It cannot be said that Scripture intends to teach the concept that the light of the sun and the moon is greater than that of the other luminaries, and that the light of one is greater than the other. That would certainly be of no purpose. Why would Scripture need to tell us something that is obvious?
If so, the difficulty the author of the passage is highlighting is that the verse uses wording that requires explanation, instead of using wording that does not require explanation. Clearly, then, the intent of the verse in mentioning “the great luminaries,” “the great luminary,” and “the small luminary,” is to teach us a concept. This conclusion is desirable, for if one would maintain that the verses should be understood simply, as teaching that the light of the sun and the moon is greater than that of the other luminaries, and that the light of one is greater than the other, the unusual wording in the verse would be unnecessary because we can observe the amount of light ourselves. All this is correct and understandable to me. Hence, there is a basis for our Sages to comment on this Scriptural passage, and explain the lesson to be derived from it.
The passage begins to explain the allusions in this verse, saying that the moon asked: “Is it possible for two kings to wear one crown?” It appears to me that a support for the interpretation advanced by the author of the passage can be taken from an explicit verse that alludes to this complaint, and to God’s response, “Go and diminish yourself.”
One should not object, asking how I can make such a statement, suggesting a prooftext that the author of the passage himself did not cite in support of his words. After all, I have mentioned4See question xxiv, p. 67-68. that the final point in this teaching, “Bring an atonement offering for Me because I diminished the moon,” is problematic. The author of this passage makes that statement without citing a prooftext, even though the prooftext is obviously the one cited by Reish Lakish. If so, why did the author of the passage not mention this teaching? Because this was the manner in which the author of this passage offered instruction – to make a statement, and present it to the students, sharpening their intellectual acumen, so they could find the desired verse that can serve as a source for the teaching. If this is true with regard to the concluding words of the author of this passage – and we are forced to say that this is his intent there – then it can be said that the conclusion indicates the pattern followed at the outset, and, indeed, throughout the entire passage: that the concepts presented have support in Scripture even though the author of the passage did not explicitly mention them.
Even without the proof from the conclusion of the passage, it is not implausible to make such a statement. In several instances in the Talmud, we find that a given Sage makes a statement, and a second Sage cites a verse that serves as a source for the first Sage’s statement. This pattern is seen throughout the Midrashim and the Aggadic passages of our Sages: support for a concept stated by one Sage is brought by other Sages who cite different verses. This is the familiar pattern in Midrashic works. Even though the conceptual building blocks of an idea are interrelated in a unified picture, the verses cited as support are scattered in several contexts and in different books of the Tanach. Indeed, this very passage follows that pattern, beginning with verses from the book of Bereishis and concluding with verses from the book of Bamidbar. And so too do not be surprised that I bring verses from various books of the Tanach as prooftexts and supports for the words of the passage.
8
וְהִנֵּה אוֹמֵר לִי לִבִּי, שֶׁטַּעֲנַת הַיָּרֵחַ וְשֶׁהַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא הֵשִׁיב לָהּ לְכִי וּמַעֲטִי כו' רָמוּז בְּדִבְרֵי אִיּוֹב במפרשי המקרא פירשו דברי איוב (אשר נשא משלו שם בטענתו למה באו עליו יסורים בעולם, והלא היה ישר בדרכי השם ולא חטא נגדו) בענין שלא עבד את השמש והירח ואף לא במחשבה ח"ו, וז"ל מצודת דוד: (כו) אם אראה - האם כאשר ראיתי אור השמש אשר יזהיר ביותר והירח המאיר והולך ומוסיף אורה: (כז) ויפת - וכי בעבור אורם הרב היה נפתה לבי בסתר המחשבה לומר שיש בהם אלהות ואך שמתי את ידי לפי לסותמה לבלי הוציא את הדבר הרע הזה מן השפה ולחוץ ור"ל וכי כן היה בתמיה הלא כמו שלא דברתי בפי מאומה רע כן לא היה לבי נפתה במחשבה: (כח) גם הוא עון פלילי - כי אמרתי גם המחשבה לבדה הוא עון הראוי להשפט עליו כי בזה הייתי מכחיש בהאל היושב ממעל לתלות האלהות במעשה ידיו: (ל״א כו-כח), אָמַר "אִם אֶרְאֶה אוֹר כִּי יָהֵל, וְיָרֵחַ יָקָר הֹלֵךְ. וַיִּפְתְּ בַּסֵּתֶר לִבִּי, וַתִּשַּׁק יָדִי לְפִי. גַּם הוּא עָוֹן פְּלִילִי, כִּי כִחַשְׁתִּי לָאֵל מִמָּעַל". הִנֵּה כָּל דְּבָרָיו שֶׁל אִיּוֹב, בְּתַרְעוֹמוֹת עַל הַשֵּׁם יִתְבָּרֵךְ, בְּמַה שֶּׁהֶעֱנִישׁוֹ בָּעֹנָשִׁים הָהֵם הַמָּרִים וְהַקָּשִׁים עַל חִנָּם, כִּי אֵין עָלָיו שׁוּם חֵטְא עָוֹן וְאַשְׁמָה.
My heart tells me that the complaint of the moon and God’s response to it, “Go and diminish yourself,” are alluded to in Iyov’s words:5Iyov 31:26-28. אִם אֶרְאֶה אוֹר כִּי יָהֵל, וְיָרֵחַ יָקָר הֹלֵךְ. וַיִּפְתְּ בַּסֵּתֶר לִבִּי, וַתִּשַּׁק יָדִי לְפִי. גַּם הוּא עָוֹן פְּלִילִי, כִּי כִחַשְׁתִּי לָאֵ-ל מִמָּעַל, which literally mean: “If I ever saw the light shining, the moon proceeding on its course with glory, and I was lured in the secret reaches of my heart to regard them as Divine and therefore covered my mouth with my hand so as not to utter such words, this too would have been a punishable sin, for I would have denied God above.” According to their simple meaning, all of Iyov’s words are expressions of grievance against God for punishing him severely and rigorously without any apparent cause, for his conduct was not marred by sin, transgression, or guilt.
9
וְאָמַר כָּאן לְפִי דַרְכֵּנוּ גרבינו מפרש לפי דרכו שהמדובר כאן אינו ענין לעבודה זרה (כמו שפירשו המפרשים) אלא למחשבת פסול בדבר טענת הירח המסופר במאמר חז"ל דידן., "אִם אֶרְאֶה אוֹר שֶׁמֶשׁ כִּי יָהֵל" לְעוֹלָם, "וְיָרֵחַ יָקָר הֹלֵךְ". וּפֵרֵשׁ הָרַב אַבְרָהָם בֶּן עֶזְרָא "וְיָרֵחַ יָקָר הֹלֵךְ" בַּחֲצִי הַחֹדֶשׁ. עַד כָּאן דז"ל אבן עזרא: (כו) אם אראה אור - הוא השמש: וירח יקר - בחצי החדש: עכ"ל. ובפשטות ר"ל שבחצי החודש אור הירח גדול וחזק.. וְתֵבַת 'הֹלֵךְ' לֹא יִצְדַּק כּוּלֵי הַאי השהרי לפירושו שבחצי החדש אור הירח "יקר" (גדול וחזק) מה מוסיף תיבת "הולך"? ועייין פרש"י וז"ל: וירח יקר הולך - מגיה והולך כמו אור יקרות (זכריה י״ד:ו׳) כיקר כרים (תהילים ל״ז:כ׳) ומשמע שמפרש שהוא מוסיף והולך באורו, וכן פירש המצו"ד הובא לעיל.. לְכָךְ, יָכוֹלְנִי לוֹמַר כִּי מָצִינוּ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר "וּדְבַר ה' יָקָר". הֲרֵי שֶׁעַל הַדִּבּוּר יִפּוֹל עָלָיו שֵׁם 'יָקָר', וְיֹאמַר, שֶׁעִם הַיָּרֵחַ דִּבְּרָה דָּבָר יָקָר, וְיֶחְסַר הַמְּתֹאָר שֶׁהוּא דִּבּוּר, וְנִמְצָא כֵּן בַּכְּתוּבִים. וְיִרְמֹז בְּ׳דָבָר יָקָר׳ שֶׁל הַיָּרֵחַ, עַל מַאֲמָרָהּ שֶׁטָּעֲנָה כַּהֹגֶן, אֶפְשָׁר לִשְׁנֵי מְלָכִים כו׳. וּבַעֲבוּר זֶה הוּא הוֹלֵךְ וּמִתְמַעֵט. אִם כֵּן, הָיָה לִי מָקוֹם לִטְעוֹן, וְזֶה שֶׁכָּתוּב "וַיִּפְתְּ בַּסֵּתֶר לִבִּי", כִּי בַּלֵּב נִתְפַּתֵּיתִי לְהַרְהֵר עַל זֶה, שֶׁאֵין מִשְׁפָּטֶיךָ נְכוֹחִים וִישָׁרִים.
However according to our understanding, Iyov’s words can be understood here as follows: If I ever saw the light of the sun shining on the world, and the moon proceeding on its course with glory. Rav Avraham ibn Ezra explains that the latter phrase describes the moon’s progress “in the half of the month” (i.e. when the moon becomes full). Now, the word הֹלֵךְ, “proceeds,” is not entirely appropriate here.6The verse seems to say that in the first half of the month, the moon’s glory grows. That concept, however, could have been understood from the word יָקָר without the word הֹלֵךְ. Hence, the term הֹלֵךְ implies that there is a further concept to be learned from this verse. Accordingly, I think that the verse can be interpreted as referring to an additional concept. Although we have translated the word יקר as “glory”, it can also be translated as “rare” or as “valuable”. Indeed, we find the term יָקָר, “rare”, used in association with speech, in the verse,7 I Shmuel 3:1. ודבר ה' היה יקר, “The word of God was rare.” It could thus be said that Scripture alludes to the fact that the moon spoke of a matter that is יָקָר, “valuable.” This can be understood as a reference to the moon’s statement cited in the passage – i.e. “Is it possible for two kings to wear one crown?” that the moon described as “proper,” and as a result of which it was הֹלֵךְ – progressively diminished. Seemingly, the moon has a valid complaint. This relates to the continuation of Iyov’s words: וַיִּפְתְּ בַּסֵּתֶר לִבִּי – “I was lured in the secret reaches of my heart.” This phrase could be understood as meaning, “I was lured to think within my heart that Your judgments are not correct and just.”
10
אָמְנָם עִם כָּל זֶה, "וַתִּשַּׁק יָדִי לְפִי". פֵּרֵשׁ הָרַב אַבְרָהָם בֶּן עֶזְרָא, מִין מִמִּינֵי עֲבוֹדָה לַשֶּׁמֶשׁ וְלַיָּרֵחַ שֶׁעָבְדוּ הַקַּדְמוֹנִים וכו׳. עַד כָּאן. וּלְפִי דַרְכֵּנוּ יֹאמַר, שֶׁעִם כָּל זֶה הָיָה מְנַשֵּׁק וּמֵשִׂים יָדוֹ עַל פִּיו, שֶׁלֹּא יֹאמַר מִן הַשָּׂפָה וְלַחוּץ, כִּי הוּא "עָוֹן פְּלִילִי". לֹא פֵרְשׁוּ הַמְּפָרְשִׁים וכגון פירוש רש"י ואבן עזרא, שהיו לפני רבינו. ובמצודות, שחי כמאה שנה אחריו, פירש כמו שכתב רבינו. כְּלוּם עַל 'פְּלִילִי'. וְהַנִּרְאֶה, שֶׁעִנְיָנוֹ לָשׁוֹן "וְנָתַן בִּפְלִילִים" (שמות כא כב). כְּלוֹמַר, שֶׁהוּא עָוֹן שֶׁרָאוּי לִהְיוֹת נִשְׁפָּט עָלָיו זעיין באלשיך שם שהביא ראיה מהפסוק (יחזקאל יד ה) למען תפוס את בית ישראל בלבם וגו' שממנו למדו חז"ל (קידושין מ.) שבעבודה זרה הקב"ה מצרף המחשבה למעשה.. וּלְפִי דַרְכֵּנוּ חשכוונת איוב היה שלא חשב מחשבת פסול על "משפטי" הקב"ה, ומשפטיו ישרים ונכוחים. יֹאמַר עוֹד, שֶׁהוּא עָוֹן בְּמִשְׁפְּטֵי הַשֵּׁם יִתְבָּרֵךְ. וְאִם כֵּן, "כִּחַשְׁתִּי לָאֵל מִמַּעַל" אִם אָשִׂים פְּגָם בְּמִשְׁפָּטָיו.
The passage from Iyov continues: Despite these thoughts וַתִּשַּׁק יָדִי לְפִי – “I covered my mouth with my hand.” Rav Avraham ibn Ezra explains that covering one’s mouth with one’s hand was “a type of worship to the sun and the moon carried out by the people of early generations.” However, according to our interpretation of the passage, Iyov was saying, “I covered my mouth with my hand,” so as not to make a statement that would express a lack of faith, for this would be an עָוֹן פְּלִילִי – “a punishable sin.” The commentaries8Tosfos Yom Tov is referring to Rashi and Rav Avraham ibn Ezra, who lived before Tosfos Yom Tov. Metzudas David and Malbim,who both lived after Tosfos Yom Tov, interpret the term פלילי in a similar manner as Tosfos Yom Tov. do not offer an interpretation of the term פלילי. Apparently, the term means “liable for judgment,” as in the phrase,9Shmos 21:22. וְנָתַן בִּפְלִילִים – “He must give as dictated by the judges.” According to our interpretation, the phrase עון פלילי can be understood as also meaning that the sin would be entertaining thoughts regarding the justice of God’s judgments.10In a similar vein, in his commentary to the verse, Rav Moshe Alshich cites Kiddushin 40a, which states that one is liable for merely entertaining thoughts of worshiping other deities. Thus, the continuation of the verse, כִּי כִחַשְׁתִּי לָאֵל מִמָּעַל should be interpreted as, “I would have questioned the validity of God’s judgments.”
Nevertheless, after enduring such suffering, Iyov could not restrain himself any further. This reflects our Sages’ teaching11Bava Basra 16a. on the verse,12Iyov 2:10. “Despite all this, Iyov did not sin with his lips.” Our Sages explain that although Iyov did not question God’s judgments verbally, he did question God’s judgments within his heart. Rav Avraham ibn Ezra comments on that verse, “Ultimately, Iyov would sin with his lips and would speak words that reflect a lack of faith because of the great anguish he experienced.” The verse leaves room for such an interpretation.
To relate the above verse to the passage from Chulin 60b: The verse from Iyov serves as a support for the statement in the passage, that as a result of the moon’s complaint, “Is it possible for two kings to wear one crown?”, the moon was compelled to “proceed on its course,” i.e., to diminish itself. Later on, I will comment further on the relevance of this interpretation of the verse, “If I ever saw the light shining….”
The question was raised: Instead of God telling the moon: “Go diminish yourself,” why did He not diminish the moon Himself? In truth, this is not such a challenging question, because God did not desire to harm the moon Himself, for “Bad will not emerge from the mouth of the Most High,”13Eichah 3:38. and certainly God will not perform a negative act. In this instance, God’s negative statement resulted from the moon’s own complaint, “Is it possible for two kings to wear one crown?”
14
אָמְנָם עוֹד מִלִּין, כִּי נִרְאֵֶה בְּעֵינַי, שֶׁעִם זֶה תִּתְיַשֵּׁב הַשְּׁאֵלָה שֶׁשָּׁאַלְתִּי גַּם כֵּן, לָמָּה לֹא הָיָה זֶה מִפְעַל הַשֵּׁם יִתְבָּרֵךְ עַצְמוֹ, וְכִי לֹא הָיְתָה דֵּעָה בָּעֶלְיוֹן לָדַעַת, שֶׁאִי אֶפְשָׁר לִשְׁנֵי מְלָכִים כו׳? אֶלָּא שֶׁבֶּאֱמֶת כָּךְ הָיָה הָעִנְיָן, שֶׁהַשֵּׁם יִתְבָּרֵךְ עֲשָׂאָם גְּדוֹלִים מִתְּחִלָּה, וְעַל מְנָת שֶׁאַחַר כָּךְ יִתְמַעֵט הָאֶחָד, וְאוּלַי מֵחֹק הַבְּרִיאָה הָיָה כֵן, שֶׁתְּקַבֵּל אוֹר הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ אַחֲרֵי הִתְמַעֲטָהּ, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁכְּבָר הָיְתָה דְּבוּקָה בּוֹ, וּמִי יַעֲמוֹד בְּסוֹד ה' וְיַחְקֹר תַּעֲלוּמוֹת חָכְמָתוֹ יִתְבָּרֵךְ. וְנִמְצָא שֶׁהַדְּבָרִים שֶׁדִּבְּרָה הַיָּרֵחַ אֶפְשָׁר לִשְׁנֵי מְלָכִים כו׳, לֹא הָיָה נֶעְלָם מֵאִתּוֹ יִתְבָּרֵךְ, אֲבָל כְּבָר הִמְצִיא חָכְמָתוֹ יִתְבָּרֵךְ לְשֶׁיִּהְיוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם גְּדוֹלִים וְאַחַר כָּךְ יִתְמַעֵט אֶחָד מֵהֶם. וּמִיָּד, קֹדֶם שֶׁיָּצָא לַפֹּעַל מִעוּטוֹ שֶׁל הָאֶחָד, אָכְלָה הַיָּרֵחַ פַּגָּהּ יעל פי תלמוד בבלי מסכת סנהדרין (קז.): ראויה היתה לדוד בת שבע בת אליעם, אלא שאכלה פגה. ופרש"י שאכלה פגה - שקפץ את השעה ליזקק על ידי עבירה. ובתורת חיים (שם) כתב וז"ל: לכך אמר שאכלה פגה דתאנה שאינה מבושלת קרויה פגה כמו שנאמר התאנה חנטה פגיה ובלשון משנה שלשה סימנים באשה בחלה פגה וצמלה. ונראה כוונת רבינו שהירח אכלה מה שהיתה כוונת הקב"ה אלא שהקדימה זמנה., וְטָעֲנָה אֶפְשָׁר כו׳.
However, I will attempt to answer this question, because it appears to me that my answer will also resolve the question raised before, i.e., why did God not diminish the moon Himself at the outset? Did God not know that it is impossible for two kings to wear one crown? In truth, however, God’s original intent was as follows. He initially made both the sun and the moon great, with the intent that one of them would be diminished afterwards. Perhaps it was implicit in the law of Creation that the moon would be able to receive the light of the sun after it was diminished because at the outset the moon had cleaved to the sun. Who can know the mysteries of God’s wisdom and understand its hidden intricacies! Thus, the truth of the moon’s words was not hidden from God. Instead, God’s wisdom had ordained that initially both the sun and the moon would be great luminaries, and then one luminary would be diminished. However, before one luminary was actually diminished, the moon acted prematurely,14We have translated the words אכלה הירח פגה as “the moon acted prematurely.” אכלה פגה literally means “ate an unripe fig.” Our Sages use this expression in Sanhedrin 107a to describe King David’s taking of Batsheva. Although Batsheva was intended to be King David’s wife from the outset, King David nevertheless took Batsheva prematurely, in an undesirable manner, rather than wait for Divine providence to unroll. and complained, “Is it possible….”
A hint of support for the statement that at the outset both the sun and the moon were made great with the intent that one of them would later be diminished can be drawn from the verse,15 Bereishis 1:14. “Let there be luminaries.” In that verse, the word מארת, “luminaries,” is written chasair, without vavim.16The word מארת would ordinarily be written as מאורות. Our Sages17See Rashi’scommentary to Bereishis 1:14, which is based on Taanis 27b. took notice of that fact and commented, “It is a cursed (מארה) day when children become ill with croup.” According to my understanding, the fact that the word מארת, “luminaries,” was written chasair, lacking the two vavim, as it were, when relating the Divine utterance leading to the creation of the luminaries, alludes to the concept that God created the luminaries with the intent that one would be diminished. Initially, God’s decree was that a curse, i.e., a מארה, and a diminishment would affect one of the luminaries. I will expound more on this point later, in further explanation of the passage, with God’s help.
16
וּלְפִי שֶׁהָיָה בְּלָאו הָכִי הָעִנְיָן שֶׁיִּתְמַעֵט, הָיָה אוֹתוֹ הָעִנְיָן גַּם כֵּן בְּעִנְיַן זֶה, שֶׁאַחַר דִּבּוּקָם וְשִׁוּוּיָם, יִתְפָּרְשׁוּ זֶה מִזֶּה, וְיֵלֵךְ הָאֶחָד מִמְּקוֹמוֹ, וּבְהִלּוּכוֹ יִתְמַעֵט, כִּי כֵן הוּא כָּל הַקָּרֵב קָרֵב לְגַבֵּי דָּהִינָא וְאִידְהָן יאעל פי דברי הגמרא מסכת שבועות (מז:). ופרש"י קרב לגבי דהינא ואידהן - אם נגעת במשוח בשמן תהא גם משוח בנגיעתו ... דהינא לשון שמן ומשיחה (ישעיהו ל״ד:ו׳); הודשנה מחלב מתרגמינן אתדהינא., וְהַמִּתְרַחֵק הוּא בְּהֵפֶךְ. אִם כֵּן, כְּבָר בְּאָמְרוֹ "יְהִי מְאֹרֹת", הָיְתָה הַשְׁתֵּי יְצִירוֹת אֵלּוּ בְּמַשְׁמַע. דְּהַיְנוּ, שֶׁיִּהְיוּ שָׁוִים וְיֶחְסַר הָאֶחָד בְּאוֹרוֹ וּבְגוּפוֹ. וְזֶה עַל יְדֵי הַפְרָשָׁה וְהַהִלּוּךְ מֵרָחוֹק הַרְבֵּה מְאֹד. שֶׁהֲרֵי נִתְרַחֲקָה שְׁנֵי רְקִיעִים וּשְׁלֹשָׁה מֶרְחָקִים שֶׁמִּן רָקִיעַ לְרָקִיעַ, הַיְנוּ מֶרְחָק מִבֵּין כַּדּוּר הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ לְבֵין כַּדּוּר נֹגַהּ וְכַדּוּר נֹגַהּ עַצְמוֹ, וְהַמֶּרְחָק שֶׁבֵּינוֹ לְבֵין כַּדּוּר כּוֹכָב וְכַדּוּר כּוֹכָב עַצְמוֹ, וְעוֹד הַמֶּרְחָק שֶׁבֵּין כַּדּוּר כּוֹכָב לְכַדּוּר הַלְּבָנָה. נִמְצָא הָרִחוּק שֶׁנִּתְרַחֲקָה, הוּא חֲמִשָּׁה פְעָמִים מַהֲלָךְ ת״ק שָׁנָה, כְּפִי חֶשְׁבּוֹן חֲכָמֵינוּ זִכְרוֹנָם לִבְרָכָה (פסחים צד:) יבוכן הוא בחגיגה (יג.) וז"ל: מן הארץ עד לרקיע מהלך חמש מאות שנה, ועוביו של רקיע מהלך חמש מאות שנה, וכן בין כל רקיע ורקיע.. וְגַם הוּא קָרוֹב לְחֶשְׁבּוֹן בַּעֲלֵי הַתְּכוּנָה בְּמִדַּת כָּל רָקִיעַ וְרָקִיעַ. עַד שֶׁנִּמְצֵאתָ אוֹמֵר, שֶׁעַל יְדֵי הִלּוּךְ לְמֵרָחוֹק בָּא הַמִּעוּט מִמֵּילָא.
Even though initially the moon was formed in a manner that enabled it to cleave to the sun and be equal to it, God’s initial intent was that the moon would be diminished. From the outset, God envisioned that the luminaries would be separated from each other, that the moon would go forth from its place, and be diminished in the process of doing so. This pattern reflects the opposite of the motif alluded to by our Sages in their statement,18Shevuos 47b. Our Sages use this concept to explain why the Euphrates is described in Bereishis 15:18 as “the great river,” even though it is not that large a river. Since the Euphrates serves as the border of Eretz Yisrael, it is given prominence and is referred to as “great.” Tosfos Yom Tov is emphasizing that the converse is also true. Once the moon diverged from the sun, which is truly great, the moon’s prominence diminished because it no longer benefitted from the sun’s greatness. “Come near an oily substance, and oil will be smeared on you.” The converse is also true; one who distances himself from greatness will be diminished. Thus, from the outset, when God said, “Let there be luminaries,” writing the word מארת chasair, without the vavim, it was implied that there would be two stages in the formation of the moon. Initially, the sun and the moon would be equal, and then the moon would be diminished in both size and light through being separated from the sun and being distanced from it, i.e., the moon was forced to descend two heavens and three spaces between one heaven and the next. To explain: Based on the passage from the Raya Mehemna cited above,19See p. 34ff. the moon was originally positioned directly below the sun, and then distanced to its present position beneath the planet Kochav. Thus, the moon descended the distance between the sun and the orbit of the planet Nogah, the orbit of the planet Nogah itself, the distance between the orbit of the planet Nogah and that of the planet Kochav, the orbit of the planet Kochav, and the distance between the orbit of the planet Kochav and the present position of the moon. Our Sages reckoned each of these orbits and spaces as being the distance of a journey of 500 years. This is close to the calculation given by the astronomers. Thus, in its process of separation, the moon was distanced five times the distance of a journey of 500 years from its original position. As a result of being distanced to such a degree, the moon was diminished.
Although we have difficulty understanding this concept, that difficulty can be resolved through an analogy given by Rambam in his Moreh Nevuchim.20Moreh Nevuchim, Vol. 2, ch. 17. A child was born in a place where there were no people other than his parents. The child’s mother died before he was able to recognize her, and his father raised him. Thus, the child never saw a woman. When the child asked his father how he came into being, his father explained the process of pregnancy. However, the child didn’t believe his father. Indeed, the child brought proofs from his present state of existence that such a process was impossible.21Since a fetus is unable to breathe or eat naturally inside the womb, the son, familiar only with existence as he sees it, will not believe that the process of pregnancy is physically possible. The analogy teaches us that it is impossible to bring a proof from the present state of being regarding the state of existence at the time of Creation. Similarly, in our context, the fact that at present traveling a long distance will not cause a body to be diminished in size or to lose its capacity to generate light, does not refute the possibility that because the moon was forced to separate itself from the sun, its size became diminished and it lost its power to generate light. This is because the state of existence at the time of Creation is not the same as the state of existence after Creation.
This explanation also clarifies why God instructed the moon, “Go and diminish yourself.” As explained above, the moon’s diminishment was dependent on its being distanced from its original position. Rambam’s analogy also clarifies why God did not retract His instructions to the moon after the moon presented its complaints. On the surface, it seems that the moon had yet to be diminished. After the moon complained, “Because I have suggested something that is proper must I diminish myself?” God apparently offered several gestures of consolation. This implies that God accepted the moon’s arguments. Why then did God not retract His decree that the moon be diminished? In resolution, initially, from the very beginning of Creation, God’s intent was that the moon be diminished. Hence, the decree was not retracted. This resolution, however, raises a stronger question: If God’s initial intent was that the moon be diminished, why did He offer the moon several gestures of consolation? That question can be answered through the resolution of another question I raised: Why did the moon protest against being diminished? If the moon was not to be diminished, the question it raised, “Is it possible for two kings to wear one crown?” would still apply! Therefore, the moon had to be diminished, by the force of its own argument.Instead, the moon’s response reflected a different intent. As explained above, the moon’s distancing itself from the sun brought about its diminishment. On that basis, the moon’s response, “Because I have suggested something that is proper must I diminish myself?” can be understood as follows: God’s decree, “Go and diminish yourself,” was twofold: “Go” – distance yourself from your present place, “and diminish yourself.” Hence, the moon protested: “Would not one of these acts be sufficient? Let me go, but why must I diminish myself? Once I have descended from the sun’s plane, even though I am not diminished, there will no longer be ‘two kings wearing one crown.’“ Instead, because of the change in the moon’s position, the situation would resemble, to borrow our Sages’ words,22Sanhedrin 98b. “an emperor and a deputy emperor.” Since the sun would be several levels above the moon as stated above, the change in position would bring about a change in their prominence, and they would no longer be “two kings wearing one crown.” The moon hinged this request on the argument that it “suggested something that is proper.” Thus, the moon was arguing that it is not appropriate that it should suffer a twofold punishment: that it should descend from a high place to a lower place, and also be diminished as a result. The moon admitted that it deserved punishment because of its original complaint – for the moon’s intent was that the sun be diminished. Nevertheless, since the moon’s statement was ultimately justified, it was proper for the moon to be pitied and not to be forced to suffer a twofold punishment.
Alternatively, the moon’s response can be interpreted in a different way. The words הוֹאִיל... אֲמַעֵט כו׳ can be understood as having been said in partial acquiescence to God’s instruction. It is as if the moon said: “Since I suggested something that is proper, it is not befitting that I suffer a twofold punishment. I consent to ‘diminish myself’ in my present position, but why must I go to a lower place? It is sufficient that I be diminished.” This second interpretation enables a resolution of another question raised above: Why did God respond, “Go and ‘rule during the day and during the night’”? The question was raised: Why was it necessary for God to say “Go” a second time? The above interpretation explains that point. Since the moon desired only to diminish itself, but not to descend, God instructed it to also descend, implying that it was necessary to do both: to change from the manner in which the moon was created and to diminish itself, and also for the moon to change its position.
Nevertheless, even according to the first interpretation given above, the instruction “Go” is appropriate. For the moon had yet to heed God’s instructions, and was still questioning whether it should be diminished. Therefore, God had to repeat the instruction “Go,” from which it could be understood that the moon was also to diminish itself.
21
וְהִנֵּה, אָמַר "לִמְשׁוֹל בַּיוֹם וּבַלַּיְלָה", לָתֵת לָהּ תַּשְׁלוּמִין עַל דָּבָר הָגוּן, כִּי אֵין מִדָּתוֹ יִתְבָּרֵךְ לְקַפֵּחַ שְׂכַר כָּל בִּרְיָה (פסחים קיח.). וּכְמוֹ שֶׁהַצְּעִירָה שֶׁבִּבְנוֹת לוֹט קִבְּלָה שָׂכָר עַל שֶׁקָּרְאָה בְּנָהּ בְּלָשׁוֹן נְקִיָּה, כִּדְפֵרֵשׁ רַשִׁ"י בִּמְקוֹמוֹ ידוַתֵּלֶד הַבְּכִירָה בֵּן וַתִּקְרָא שְׁמוֹ מוֹאָב הוּא אֲבִי מוֹאָב עַד הַיּוֹם. ובפרש"י: מואב - זו שלא היתה צנועה פירשה שמאביה הוא, אבל צעירה קראתו בלשון נקיה, וקבלה שכר בימי משה, שנאמר בבני עמון (דברים ב יט) אל תתגר בם כלל, ובמואב לא הזהיר אלא שלא ילחם בם, אבל לצערן התיר לו. (בראשית יט לז). וְזוֹ הַמֶּמְשָׁלָה שֶׁבַּיּוֹם וּבַלַּיְלָה שֶׁאָמַר בַּעַל הַמַּאֲמָר אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לִמְצוֹא פֶּתַח וְסַעַד, שֶׁמְּבֹאָר מִן הַכָּתוּב עַצְמוֹ שֶׁהוּא מְיֻתָּר, שֶׁכְּבָר נֶאֱמַר "וּלְהַבְדִּיל בֵּין הָאוֹר וּבֵין הַחֹשֶׁךְ", וּמַה לּוֹ עוֹד לוֹמַר "וְלִמְשֹׁל וגו׳". וְגַם הָיָה לוֹ לוֹמַר ׳וְלִמְשֹׁל אֶחָד בַּיּוֹם וְאֶחָד בַּלַּיְלָה׳, אִם הַהַבְדָּלָה שֶׁבֵּין הָאוֹר וְהַחֹשֶׁךְ הוּא עִנְיָן אֶחָד.
God then made a consolatory gesture to the moon, giving it a measure of sovereignty during the day and at night as recompense for it having made a proper statement. For God’s attributes are such that He does not withhold reward from any created being.23Cf. Pesachim 118a. For example, Lot’s younger daughter received a reward for naming her son in a manner that reflected modesty, as Rashi states.24See Rashi’s commentary to Bereishis 19:37. The comparison to Lot’s daughter adds a further insight: Her act was far from a modest one. Nevertheless, because Lot’s younger daughter named her son in a modest manner, she was granted a certain measure of reward. Similarly, as a whole, the moon’s conduct reflected jealously. Nevertheless, “since it made a proper statement,” the moon was granted a measure of appeasement. The fact that sovereignty was granted the moon during the day and the night, as the author of the passage in Chulin states, does not require support from additional verses, for it is obvious from the narrative itself. If the intent of the verse “to rule during the day and during the night” was that the sun would rule during the day and the moon would rule during the night, the phrase, “to rule during the day and during the night,” would be superfluous, for the verse already stated that the sun and the moon were created “to separate between the light and the darkness.” Why then is it necessary to further state that the sun and the moon were placed in the heavens “to rule during the day and during the night”? Also, were the passage’s intent that the sovereignty referred to in the verse reflects the same concept as the separation between light and darkness, the verse should have stated that one luminary would rule during the day and one luminary would rule during the night.
The question why the moon’s complaint, “Of what use is a candle in broad daylight?” was not obvious to God, is not a valid question at all. For the sovereignty granted the moon during the day and the night does not refer to its being visible during the day. Were that to be the intent, why would the verse use the phrase “to rule”? If that were the meaning, the verse should have stated, “to be seen”. However, the intent is that since the moon is also seen during the day, it has a measure of sovereignty during the day as well, according to the powers granted it, as Ramban writes:25See Ramban’s commentary to Bereishis 1:18. We have corrected a printing error. The standard version of the text cites Rambam, rather than Ramban. It is possible that the “sovereignty” granted the moon also includes the power of emanation, that sovereignty radiates from them. The sun and the moon are the governors of the lower realms, and through their power every reigning power and constellation rules; the mazal i.e., the “spiritual source” that causes growth during the day governs the day, and the mazal that causes growth during the night governs the night, as reflected in the interpretation of the phrase,26Devarim 4:19. “which God, your Lord, apportioned to all the nations.” This was God’s intent in instructing the moon to “rule during the day and during the night,” that the sovereignty granted the moon also be an active force during the day.
The moon’s reply, “Of what use is a candle in broad daylight?” is not a complaint regarding the sovereignty granted it, because that sovereignty does not involve shining light. Instead, the moon’s argument was, as explained above, that it is proper that the moon receive compensation for having made a correct statement, i.e. that God should repay the moon by not causing it to suffer a twofold punishment: that it be diminished, undergoing a change in deed, and that it be forced to descend, undergoing a change in position. God had not answered that argument directly; therefore, the moon sought to advance the same argument in a different manner. The actual diminishment of the moon was also twofold: The moon was diminished in size, and its light was diminished. The moon was now asking that at least its light not be diminished. The moon felt that this argument could be advanced since it was promised sovereignty during the day. Accordingly, the moon argued, “Of what use is a candle in broad daylight?” i.e., the moon was arguing, “Even though I will have a measure of sovereignty during the day, I will nevertheless face the ongoing displeasure of being merely ‘a candle in broad daylight’.” Therefore, the moon argued, God should compensate it for making a proper suggestion by not reducing its light, even though He reduced its size.
24
וְהַסַּעַד מִן הַכָּתוּב לְטַעֲנָה זוֹ, דִּשְׁרַגָּא כו׳, נִרְאֶה בְעֵינַי מִמַּה שֶּׁאָמַר בִּלְדַּד הַשֻּׁחִי (אִיּוֹב כ׳׳ה (ד-ה)) "וּמַה יִּצְדַּק אֱנוֹשׁ עִם אֵל וּמַה יִּזְכֶּה יְלוּד אִשָּׁה הֵן עַד יָרֵחַ וְלֹא יַאֲהִיל" טזוז"ל האלשיך: הן עד ירח כו', והנה מלת הן עד משוללת הבנה, אך יאמר כמה דאת אמר עד דיבון שהוא לשון ביזה ושידוד, והענין איך יצדק אנוש עם אל, כי הנה ירח משולל יצה"ר ושודד ולא יאהיל, כי מיעטה את עצמה, והוא כי אמרה אי אפשר לשני מלכים להשתמש בכתר אחד, ואמר לה לכי ומעטי את עצמך והפסיד אורה, וזהו הן עד ושודד ירח והפסיד שלא יאהיל, הנה כי עם שאין לה יצה"ר לקתה כי חטאה: וכיו"ב פירש במצודת דוד שם וז"ל: הן עד ירח - הנה העביר והסיר אור הירח לבל תאיר כשעור האורה אשר שם בה כשבראה והוא על שקנאה בשמש ואמרה א"א לשני מלכים וכו' ואם כי היה מעט מן המרי ומעלתם הלא גדלה מ"מ כמוה כאין מול המקום ואף המעט תחשב לרב.. שֶׁהַוא״ו שֶׁל "וְלֹא" אֵינָהּ מְקֻשֶּׁרֶת יָפֶה. וְלָכֵן אֲפָרְשֵׁהוּ בִּשְׁנֵי פָנִים. הָאֶחָד, שֶׁיִּהְיֶה ׳עַד׳ מִלְּשׁוֹן שָׁלָל, כְּמוֹ "בַּבֹּקֶר יֹאכַל עַד" (בראשית מט כז) יזוברש"י שם: בבקר יאכל עד - לשון ביזה ושלל, המתורגם (במדבר לא יב) עדאה. ועוד יש לו דומה בלשון עברית (ישעיה לג כג) אז חולק עד שלל מרבה, ועל שאול הוא אומר שעמד בתחלת פריחתן וזריחתן של ישראל., יֹאמַר, הֵן שֻׁלַּל הַיָּרֵחַ מִגָּדְלוֹ יחמדברי רבינו נראה שלומד פירוש תיבת "שלל" משורש שלילה דהיינו לקיחה בכח, וכן משמע מזה שתיבת "מלקוח" (במדבר לא יב) היא מלה נרדפת ל"שלל" (ועיין שם במפרשי התורה למה כתוב גם מלקוח וגם שלל)., וְגַם לֹא יַאֲהִיל. שְׁמַע מִנָּהּ, שֶׁהָיָה לַטּוֹעֵן לִטְעוֹן שֶׁיַּהֵל אוֹרוֹ אַף שֶׁיֻּקְטַן בְּגוּפוֹ. וְאֵין לְךָ טוֹעֵן יוֹתֵר מִבַּעַל הַדָּבָר עַצְמוֹ, אִם כֵּן הַיָּרֵחַ טָעַן כֵּן.
It appears to me that support for this interpretation of the complaint, “Of what use is a candle in broad daylight?” can be taken from the words of Bildad the Shuhite,27Iyov 25:4-5. See the commentaries of Alshich and Metzudas David there, which also point to the diminishment of the moon. “How can man justify himself before God and with what may one born of woman gain purity? Even the moon does not shine brightly.” The verse uses the phrase עד ירח ולא יאהיל, which we have translated as, “even the moon does not shine brightly.” The vav in the phrase ולא יאהיל appears superfluous, and seemingly does not fit the context of the verse. Therefore, it is possible to offer two interpretations of the verse. The first is that the word עד refers to something taken by force, like the spoils of war, as in the verse,28Bereishis 49:27. See Rashi’s commentary there. “In the morning he will eat his spoils.” Thus, Bildad is saying, “Even some of the moon’s size was taken from it, and it also does not shine brightly.” It can be derived from this that the moon should have argued that its light should continue to shine brightly even though its size was diminished. Since this is a logical argument and the plaintiff will plead his own case better than others, it can be assumed that the moon indeed raised this argument.
25
אוֹ יִהְיֶה ׳עַד׳ מִלְּשׁוֹן "עֶדְיוֹ לִבְלוֹם" (תהלים לב ט), הַיְנוּ פִּיו. וְכֵן פֵּרֵשׁ הָרַדַ״ק "הַמַּשְׂבִּיעַ בַּטּוֹב עֶדְיֵךְ" (שם קג ה) יטוז"ל: (ה) המשׂביע בטוב עדיך. עֶדְיֵךְ, כמו פיך, וכן (מזמור לב, ט): עֶדְיוֹ לִבְלוֹם. ואמר זה כנגד החולה, כי החולה ימאס כל מאכל, כמו שכתוב (איוב לג, כ): וְזִהֲמַתּוּ חַיָּתוֹ לָחֶם וְנַפְשׁוֹ מַאֲכַל תַּאֲוָה, והנה האל יתברך עושה חסד גדול עם האדם שנותן לו התחלואים לכפרת עונותיו, ורופא אותו מן החולי, וזהו שנאמר: המשׂביע בטוב עדיך, הפה שהוא מואס המאכל הוא משׂביע אותו בטוב עם הבריאות.. וְהַפֶּה הֻשְׁאַל לְכַנּוֹת בּוֹ הַדִּבּוּר, כְּמוֹ "עַל פִּי ה׳" (ויקרא כד יב), "וְעַל פִּיךָ יִשַּׁק" (בראשית מא מ), וְרַבִּים כָּאֵלֶּה. וְיֹאמַר, הֵן פִּי יָרֵחַ, כְּלוֹמַר דִּבּוּרוֹ הוּא, וְלֹא יַאֲהִיל, בִּתְמִיָּה, כְּלוֹמַר, תִּתְמַעֵט בַּגּוּף אֲבָל לָמָּה לֹא יַהֵל אוֹרוֹ גַּם כֵּן.
Alternatively, the word עד can be interpreted as in the verse,29Tehillim 32:9. The word עדיו in this verse is rooted in the word עד. עדיו לבלום, “shut their mouths;” i.e., עד means “mouth.” In that vein, Radak interprets the word עדיך as “mouth” in the verse,30Ibid. 103:5. המשביע בטוב עדיך, “Who sates your mouth with generosity.” Now, the term “mouth” may also refer to speech. Thus, we find the expression,31Vayikra 24:12, et al. על פי ה', “according to the word of God,” and it is written,32Bereishis 41:40. ועל פיך ישק כל עמי ‒ “according to your word, will all my people be directed.” There are many similar examples. According to this understanding, Bildad was saying,] “The moon spoke, ‘Why shall I not shine?’“ i.e., the moon was willing for its body to be diminished, but it asked ‘Why should my light not shine brightly?’
Nevertheless, God also did not consent to the moon’s request that its light not be diminished, and instructed the moon, “Go, Israel will reckon by the days and the years according to you.” God told the moon, “Go,” i.e., descend as you were instructed. This was necessary, for the moon had yet to fulfill that instruction. Were God to have accepted the moon’s request, the moon would not have had to descend that much in order that its light would not be diminished, so that the light of the sun would rule over it to a greater degree, for the moon would still be on one of the higher levels instead of being entirely below the lower sphere. Even the moon did not say that it refused to go and descend; it merely complained, “Of what use is a candle...” and from that it is understood as a matter of course that the moon would not have to descend as much as implied by God’s previous instruction. Therefore, when God did not desire to fulfill the moon’s request, He told it “Go,” i.e., “Descend entirely to the lower plane where I instructed you to go.” God expressed the instruction in Aramaic as a further gesture of consolation to the moon, for the angels do not understand Aramaic.33See our Sages’ statements: Shabbos 12b, Sotah 33a. Thus, they would not understand that God was persisting in His command that the moon go and diminish itself.
In response to the moon’s lack of satisfaction with the dimension of] sovereignty granted it during the day and during the night, as reflected by the moon’s complaint, “Of what use is a candle?...” and the moon’s grievance that due to its lesser role, it would feel ongoing displeasure, God answered, “Israel will reckon the days and the years according to you.” God did not mention the festivals, because the sun also plays a role in setting the dates of the festivals, for the festivals are also dependent on the sun’s seasons, as is well known to the experts in the establishment of the calendar.
28
אֲבָל אָמַר ׳יָמִים וְשָׁנִים׳, אַף שֶׁעִקַּר הַיָּמִים וְעִקַּר הַשָּׁנִים הוּא לַחַמָּה וְלֹא לַלְּבָנָה, כְּמוֹ שֶׁהִזְכַּרְתִּי בַּקֻּשְׁיָא (הי״ד) [הט"ז]. אֶלָּא שֶׁבְּכָאן הַכַּוָּנָה בְּיָמִים וְשָׁנִים לְעִנְיָן אַחֵר. וְהוּא זֶה שֶׁהַמּוֹעֲדִים יִהְיוּ נִקְבָּעִים לְיָמִים שֶׁל חָדְשֵׁי הַלְּבָנָה, לֹא לְמִסְפַּר הַיָּמִים שֶׁל חָדְשֵׁי הַחַמָּה. וְכֵן לְשָׁנִים, שֶׁבַּעֲבוּר קְבִיעוּת הַמּוֹעֲדִים יִתְחַיְּבוּ לִמְנוֹת שָׁנִים גַּם לַלְּבָנָה, כְּדֵי לְחַבֵּר הַמְּאוֹרוֹת בְּמַחֲזוֹרוֹת כבז"ל הרמב"ם (קידוש החודש פ"ו ה"י)׃ כל תשע עשרה שנה שיהיו מהן שבע שנים מעוברות ושתים עשרה פשוטות נקרא 'מחזור', ולמה סמכנו על מנין זה, שבזמן שאתה מקבץ מנין ימי שתים עשרה שנה פשוטות ושבע מעוברות ושעותיהן וחלקיהן ותשלים כל אלף ושמונים חלקים שעה, וכל ארבע ועשרים שעות יום, ותוסיף למנין הימים תמצא הכל תשע עשרה שנה משני החמה שכל שנה מהן שלש מאות וחמשה וששים יום ושש שעות בשוה, ולא ישאר ממנין ימי החמה בכל תשע עשרה שנה חוץ משעה אחת וארבע מאות ושמונים וחמשה חלקים, סימן להם אתפ"ה., כַּיָּדוּעַ גַּם כֵּן לְבַעֲלֵי הָעֶבְרוֹנוֹת.
However, God mentioned “the days and the years,” even though, as mentioned in the sixteenth question, fundamentally the days and the years are dependent on the sun. Here, however, the phrase “the days and the years” does not refer to the passage of a day or a year, but rather to the concept that the festivals will be determined according to their dates in lunar months, not solar months. Similarly, with regard to years, although the concept of a year is dependent on the sun, since the festivals must be celebrated in the proper seasons, the determination of the years must be integrated with the lunar months. On this basis, the Rabbis determined a multi-year cycle of leap years, as is well known to the experts in the establishment of the calendar.
This new development was brought about because the moon was diminished and forced to descend to a much lower plane, to the extent that both its size and its light were diminished. As a result, it was necessary to calculate lunar years and create a cycle that would juxtapose the lunar years with the solar years, for we are commanded to reckon the festivals according to the dates of the lunar months, as written in the Torah given to us by Moshe. Nevertheless, with regard to establishing the festivals themselves, God did not tell the moon that the Jews would date their festivals according to it. The opposite is true. The timing of the festivals is dependent on the solar seasons, for the festivals must be celebrated in the spring and the fall, as reflected in the words of our Sages.34See Sanhedrin 12a-13a, which emphasize the necessity for celebrating Sukkos in the fall and Pesach in the spring. In contrast to this, days are calculated exclusively according to the moon, i.e., the festivals are celebrated on a specific date in a specific lunar month. Similarly, with regard to years, although as mentioned above, in and of itself, there is no concept of a lunar year, since the festivals must be calculated according to the dates of the lunar months, it was necessary to develop a concept of a lunar year. Thus, the Jewish people fix their days and years according to the moon. This is an expression of honor and glory for the moon.
An explanation is necessary regarding why the passage in Chulin mentions God only telling the moon that the Jews would reckon “days and years” according to it, while the verse explicitly refers also to “signs” and “appointed times.” This point will be clarified shortly with God’s help.
The moon responded to God, “That is impossible without the sun, for the reckoning of the seasons is dependent on it.” The meaning of this statement is that in response to God’s willingness that the Jews should reckon the days and the years by the moon, there were grounds for the moon to counter according to the following reasoning: God generously agreed to grant the moon the honor of having the festivals reckoned according to dates of the lunar months, and to also have the years calculated in coordination with the moon’s cycles even though in truth there is no concept of a lunar year. The moon wished to forego being considered with regard to calculating the years, since regardless it is impossible to reckon the years without the sun. Even when a lunar year is calculated, it is only calculated in relation to the sun. Therefore, since fundamentally, the reckoning of the years is dependent on the sun, what honor is there for the moon by also being considered in this reckoning? Accordingly, the moon requested that God’s generous gesture not be a futile one, and that instead, God grant the moon another generous gift, one that is hidden and not stated openly in the passage instead of the gesture of having the years coordinated with the lunar cycles that is mentioned here. Thus, the moon’s response was not an expression of its jealousy of the sun, but rather a request for an exchange. Since God generously offered the moon two gestures – that the days and the years be reckoned according to it – the moon responded that it wished that God grant it another gift in place of the years. The rationale for this is that with regard to years, the benefit to the moon is not that great, because ultimately, the years are dependent on the sun.
Nevertheless, the support that the author of the passage mentions – since it is from the very passage that he is explaining – also serves as support for the concepts mentioned previously, i.e., that the verse, “And let them be for signs, and for appointed times, and for days and years,” relates to the concepts stated directly before it and those stated earlier in the passage. To explain: This verse contains two anomalies that require analysis:
33
חֲדָא: שֶׁלֹּא בָאוּ הָעִנְיָנִים כְּסִדְרָן, שֶׁבֵּין שֶׁיִּהְיֶה "לְאוֹתוֹת", כְּדִבְרֵי רַשִׁ״י כדוז"ל: והיו לאותות - כשהמאורות לוקין סימן רע הוא לעולם, שנאמר (ירמיה י ב) "מאותות השמים אל תחתו", בעשותכם רצון הקדוש ברוך הוא אין אתם צריכין לדאג מן הפורענות., עַל לְקוּת הַמְּאוֹרוֹת בַּחֲצִי חֹדֶשׁ לַלְּבָנָה כהשהרי ליקוי לבנה הוא כשהחמה מסתירה על הלבנה, וזמן מקרה זה הוא באמצע החודש, בזמן מילוי הלבנה. וּבַמּוֹלָד לַחַמָּה כוליקוי חמה הוא כשהלבנה מסתירה על השמש, וזמן מקרה זה הוא בתחילת החודש, בעת מולד הלבנה., הִנֵּה הַ"יָּמִים" מֻקְדָּמִים. וּבֵין שֶׁיִּהְיֶה כְּדִבְרֵי מִדְרַשׁ הָרַבּוֹת (בראשית פ"ו א), "לְאֹתוֹת" אֵלּוּ הַשַּׁבָּתוֹת, "וּלְמוֹעֲדִים" אֵלּוּ שָׁלֹשׁ הָרְגָלִים, "וּלְיָמִים" אֵלּוּ רָאשֵׁי חֳדָשִׁים, מִכָּל מָקוֹם, הַ"יָּמִים" מֻקְדָּמִים לַ"מּוֹעֲדִים".
a) The verse states that “the luminaries will serve four purposes: for signs, for appointed times, for days and years.” However, the purposes are not mentioned in order, i.e., of the four purposes mentioned, “for days” is mentioned third, even though seemingly, it should be first. This applies according to Rashi’s interpretation that “for signs” refers to an eclipse. If a lunar eclipse occurs, it takes place on the fifteenth of the lunar month. If a solar eclipse occurs, it takes place on the first day of the lunar month. Similarly, the four purposes are mentioned out of order according to the interpretation in Midrash Rabbah.35BereishisRabbah 6:1. According to Midrash Rabbah, “for signs” refers to the Shabbasos, “for appointed times” refers to the three pilgrimage festivals, and “for days” refers to the Rashei Chodashim. Thus, according to either interpretation, “for days” should precede “for festivals”, i.e., according to Rashi’s interpretation, “for days” should be the first point mentioned, and according to Midrash Rabbah, “for days” should be second, preceding the festivals.
b) In the verse, three of the four terms are prefaced by the letter lamed, which we have translated as “for.” Only with regard to years is that prefix omitted. Why is this prefix omitted from the term “years”?
These two anomalies serve as allusions to the two concepts mentioned above: a) that, as the author of the passage relates, God promised the moon that “Israel will reckon the days and the years according to you.” This concept is alluded to by the fact that the verse36I.e., Bereishis 1:14, the second verse mentioned. mentions “days” later than it should, juxtaposing “days” with “years,” thus linking the two. This juxtaposition teaches us that God promised the moon that “Israel will reckon the days and the years according to you.”37I.e., even though according to the way the world was created, there is no such concept as a lunar year, nonetheless God was promising the moon that the Jewish people would “create” a lunar year, which the Jewish calendar would follow.
b) The second point raised by the author of the passage – that the moon declined the offer that the years would be reckoned according to it – is alluded to by the fact the word שנים, “years,” is not preceded by a lamed which we have translated as “for”. This indicates that “years” stands alone, separate from the other purposes mentioned. This alludes to the fact that the moon said, “and years,” as in, “and the years, what will be with them?” Thus, the word שנים “years” without the preceding lamed, “for”, refers to the moon’s unwillingness to accept that promise, because years are primarily dependent on the sun.
37
וְאֵין לִתְמֹהַּ כְּלָל, עַל שֶׁבְּתוֹךְ דִּבְרֵי כָּתוּב אֶחָד יוּבְנוּ שְׁתֵּי מַאֲמָרוֹת, וְגַם יְיֻחַס לִשְׁנַיִם הָאוֹמְרִים, כִּי רַבִּים כֵּן, שֶׁמִּי שֶׁאָמַר זֶה לֹא אָמַר זֶה (יְעֻיַּן בַּיַּלְקוּט פ׳ שׁוֹפְטִים רֶמֶז נ״ח) כזוז"ל: 'מדוע בושש רכבו לבוא', שלשה דברים זה בצד זה, מי שאמר זה לא אמר זה, 'מדוע בושש רכבו לבוא' אמרה אמו של סיסרא, 'הלא ימצאו יחלקו שלל' אמרה אשתו וכלותיו, ורוח הקודש אומרת: 'כן יאבדו כל אויביך', כיוצא בו הזקנים אומרים 'ידינו לא שפכו את הדם הזה', הכהנים אומרים 'כפר לעמך ישראל', ורוח הקדש אומרת 'ונכפר להם הדם'. כיוצא בו 'הכר נא למי החותמת' אמרה תמר, 'צדקה ממני' אמר יהודה, 'ולא יסף עוד לדעתה' אמרה רוח הקדש, כיוצא בו 'באנו אל הארץ אשר שלחתנו' אמר יהושע, 'עלה נעלה' אמר כלב, 'אפס כי עז העם' אמרו מרגלים, כיוצא בו 'מי יצילנו מיד הא-להים האדירים' אמרו כשרים שבהם, רשעים שבהם אמרו: 'אלה הם המכים את מצרים', עשר מכות היו לו ושלמו. (אמר להם הקדוש ברוך הוא: אין לי מכה?! מעתה אני מביא עליכם מכה שלא נהיתה מעולם, אלו עכברים שהיו שומטים את מעיהם.) גבורים שבהם היו אומרים 'התחזקו והיו לאנשים'. כיוצא בו ׳מיכה המורשתי וגו'... וינחם ה' על הרעה' עד כאן אמרו כשרים שבהם, רשעים שבהם אמרו 'גם איש מתנבא בשם ה'...' - אמרו כשם שנהרג אוריה כך ירמיה חייב ליהרג, 'אך יד אחיקם בן שפן היתה את ירמיה לבלתי תת אותו ביד העם'. כיוצא בו 'תחת התפוח עוררתיך' עד כאן אמרה רוח הקדש, וישראל אומרים 'שימני כחותם על לבך', ואומות העולם אומרים 'כי עזה כמות אהבה'. כיוצא בו 'בלתי אל המן עינינו' אמרו ישראל, והמקום מפייס 'והמן כזרע גד הוא'. כיוצא בו 'ואתה עיף ויגע' אלו ישראל, 'ולא ירא א-להים' זה עמלק. וכה"א 'חי ה' שכבי עד הבקר': 'חי ה'' ליצרו נשבע, ולאשה אמר 'שכבי עד הבקר'..
The fact that this interpretation causes the verse to be divided into two, as if it were related by two people, should not be seen as problematic. There are many examples of such verses. In several instances, our Sages would analyze a verse and divide it, saying “The one who related these words, did not relate these.” (See Yalkut Shimoni, Shoftim, sec. 58.)38That source quotes the Sages’ interpretation of Shoftim 5:28-31: “ ‘Why is his chariot so long in coming?’… ‘Surely, they have found and are dividing the plunder…’ So may all Your enemies perish, O God.” Our Sages state: Three statements are found, one next to another. The one who made one did not make the other. “Why is his chariot so long in coming?” was said by Sisera’s mother. “Surely, they have found and are dividing the plunder,” was said by Sisera’s wife and daughters-in-law, and the spirit of prophecy concluded, “So may all Your enemies perish, O God.” Similarly, regarding Devarim 21:7-8: “Our hands have not shed this blood… Atone for Your people Israel… and the blood will be atoned for them.” The elders say, “Our hands have not shed this blood.” The kohanim say, “Atone for Your people Israel.” And the spirit of prophecy says, “The blood will be atoned for them.” In the same vein, regarding Bereishis 38:25-26: “‘Please, recognize whose seal…’ ‘She is correct. It is because of me…’ He did not cease knowing her.” Tamar said, “Please recognize whose seal.” Yehudah said, “She is correct. It is because of me,” and the spirit of prophecy said, “He did not cease knowing her.” The Midrash continues to provide several other examples of Scriptural verses that involve different speakers.
The passage in Chulin continues, relating that God told the moon, “‘Go. The righteous will be called by your name.” Although God had previously told the moon, “Go and diminish yourself,” the moon had yet to do so, because it had advanced an argument on which basis it hoped God’s decree would be averted. The fact that the moon had yet to diminish itself is indicated by its statement, “Must I diminish myself,” which uses the future tense. God responded to the moon by telling it to “go and rule,” i.e., go and do as I instructed you and carry out a twofold diminishment, as I explained previously. The moon then requested that one of the two aspects of the Divine decree be rescinded, i.e., the moon was hoping that it would not be forced to diminish its light. God replied again, “Go…” indicating that His decree would not be nullified. However, God offered the moon consolation – that the days and the years would be calculated according to it. The moon did not accept the gesture of the years and requested that God give it something else instead. It is reasonable to assume that while the dialogue between God and the moon was going on, the moon had yet to diminish itself. Therefore, at this stage, God again told the moon, “Go,” i.e., God instructed the moon to carry out the instructions it was given and descend drastically. As a result of the wondrous descent, it would suffer a twofold diminishment, both in size and in light. God nevertheless accepted the moon’s complaint that the years are really dependent on the sun. Hence, God granted the moon another conciliatory gesture, saying, “The righteous will be called by your name.”
39
וְהִנְנִי תּוֹפֵס לְעִקָּר גִּרְסַת הַיַּלְקוּט כחרבינו כותב שבילקוט לא גרס שמואל הקטן, אולם בדפוסים שלנו בילקוט שמעוני (בראשית רמז ח) איתא גם שמואל הקטן, ועיין מ"ש לעיל שער א סוף פרק א בהערה על מאמר חז"ל זה., דְּלֹא גָרַס אֶלָּא יַעֲקֹב וְדָוִד, שֶׁהֵם הָאֲמוּרִים בַּמִּקְרָאוֹת. כִּי רָחוֹק וְזָר מְאֹד הַגִּירְסָא דְּגָרַס "שְׁמוּאֵל הַקָּטָן", כִּי לֹא נִמְצָא בַּכְּתוּבִים. וְנִצְטָרֵךְ לוֹמַר שֶׁיִּרְמֹז אֶל מִשְׁנַת "שְׁמוּאֵל הַקָּטָן אוֹמֵר בִּנְפֹל וגו׳" (אבות ד יט) כטוז"ל רבינו בתוספות יום טוב שם: שמואל הקטן - במדרש שמואל, בשם ירושלמי: לפי שהיה מקטין עצמו. אי נמי שהיה (מעט) קטן משמואל הנביא שאף הוא ניבא בשעת מיתתו והיה ראוי שתשרה עליו שכינה [סוטה מ"ח ע"ב] אלא שאין דורו ראוי לכך ונמצא שזה השם הוא לו לתהלה ולתפארת:. וְגַם הָיָה לוֹ לִגְרֹס אוֹתוֹ אַחַר דָּוִד. אֶלָּא טָעוּתָא הוּא מֵאֵיזֶה תַּלְמִיד טוֹעֶה שֶׁהִגִּיהּ כֵּן בַּסְּפָרִים מֵאֵיזֶה שִׁבּוּשׁ דַּעַת שֶׁהָיָה בוֹ.
I maintain that the proper version of the passage is the one found in Yalkut Shimoni,39Yalkut Shimoni (Bereishis, sec. 8) quotes the passage from Chulin under discussion. The text of Yalkut Shimoni possessed by Tosfos Yom Tov did not mention Shmuel among those who are small. The standard published text of Yalkut Shimoni does, however, mention Shmuel. which mentions only Yaakov and David, for verses referring to them as “small” are found in Scripture. The version of the text that mentions Shmuel HaKatan i.e.”Shmuel the small” is far-fetched and strange, for such a phrase is not found in Scripture, and one is forced to say that it refers to Shmuel HaKatan mentioned in Pirkei Avos as quoting the verse, “Do not rejoice at the downfall of your enemies.”40Avos 4:19, citing Mishlei 24:17. Also, were that the case, Shmuel HaKatan should be mentioned after David, not before. Thus, the inclusion of Shmuel is obviously an error, which must have been made by a student who erroneously edited the text of the Talmud in his confusion.
40
וְיָדוּעַ שֶׁעִנְיַן הַשֵּׁם וְגִדְרוֹ הוּא הַמַּהוּת, כִּי עַל כֵּן נִשְׁתַּבַּח הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא בְּאָדָם הָרִאשׁוֹן לְמַלְאֲכֵי מַעְלָה, לְהוֹדִיעָם חָכְמָתוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם הָרִאשׁוֹן עַל יְדֵי מַה שֶּׁקָּרָא שֵׁמוֹת לְכָל הַבְּהֵמוֹת וְהַחַיּוֹת, כִּדְאִיתָא בְּמִדְרַשׁ רַבָּה (בראשית רבה יז ד) לוז"ל: א"ר אחא: בשעה שבא הקדוש ברוך הוא לבראות את האדם נמלך במלאכי השרת. אמר להן: נעשה אדם. אמרו לו: אדם זה מה טיבו? אמר להן: חכמתו מרובה משלכם. הביא לפניהם את הבהמה ואת החיה ואת העוף, אמר להם: זה מה שמו? ולא היו יודעין. העבירן לפני אדם, אמר לו: זה מה שמו? אמר זה שור, זה חמור, זה סוס וזה גמל. ואתה מה שמך? אמר לו: אני נאה להקרא אדם שנבראתי מן האדמה. ואני מה שמי? א"ל: לך נאה להקראות אדני שאתה אדון לכל בריותיך.. וְכָל זֶה, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהָיָה חָכָם בְּחָכְמַת הַבְּרִיאָה, לָדַעַת מַהוּת כָּל בְּרִיָּה וּבְרִיָּה.
Naming the righteous after the moon is significant, for a name reflects the fundamental nature of an entity. Accordingly, God praised Adam to the angels, highlighting his wisdom as expressed in his ability to name all the animals and beasts, as stated in Midrash Rabbah.41Bereishis Rabbah 17:4. See Tanya, Shaar HaYichud VehaEmunah, ch. 1, which explains that every entity’s name is a channel through which its life-force is drawn down to it. Naming the animals and beasts reflected Adam’s knowledge of the wisdom of Creation, illustrating that he knew the nature of every created being.
41
וְכֵן הָרַמְבַּ״ן בְּפָרָשָׁה זוֹ שֶׁאָנוּ בָהּ (פסוק יח), כָּתַב בַּפָּסוּק "לְמֶמְשֶׁלֶת וגו׳", שֶׁמַּה שֶּׁאָמַר הַכָּתוּב (תהלים קמז ד) "מוֹנֶה מִסְפָּר לַכּוֹכָבִים לְכֻלָּם שֵׁמוֹת יִקְרָא", וְכֵן (ישעיה מ כו) "לְכֻלָּם בְּשֵׁם יִקְרָא", כִּי קְרִיאַת הַשֵּׁמוֹת הִיא הַהַבְדָּלָה בְּכֹחוֹתָם. עַד כָּאן. אִם כֵּן, עִנְיַן הַצַּדִּיקִים שֶׁיִּהְיוּ נִקְרָאִים עַל שְׁמָם, הוּא עַל מַהוּתָם. וּמָצָא שְׁנַיִם אֵלּוּ, יַעֲקֹב וְדָוִד, וְנִקְרְאוּ 'קָטָן' כָּל אֶחָד בַּעֲבוּר קַטְנוּתָם וְצָרוֹת שֶׁהִגִּיעוּ עֲלֵיהֶם. שֶׁכֵּן יַעֲקֹב אָמַר "יְמֵי שְׁנֵי מְגוּרַי וגו' מְעַט וְרָעִים" (בראשית מז ט), וְכֵן מְעִידִים הַסִּפּוּרִים שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה עָלָיו. וְכָמוֹהוּ דָּוִד, תִּרְאֶה בַּסִּפּוּרִים שֶׁעָלָיו כַּמָּה הִשִּׂיגוּהוּ צָרוֹת רַבּוֹת וְרָעוֹת, וּבְמִזְמוֹרָיו כְּמוֹ כֵן. הִנֵּה שֶׁיִּהְיוּ בְּמַהוּתָם גַּם כֵּן עוֹלִים וְיוֹרְדִים וּמְסוֹבָבֵי הַתְּלָאוֹת דֻּגְמַ(ו)ת הַיָּרֵחַ, פַּעַם זוֹרַחַת פַּעַם נִסְתֶּרֶת. וְהִנֵּה, דָּבָר גָּדוֹל אָמַר לָהּ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, כִּי כְּפִי קַבָּלָתֵנוּ לאממטבע לשון זה נראה שהיה זה קבלה לרבינו שמעלת האדם (הצדיק) גדלה על המלאכים, ואולי הכוונה שכן קיבל מרבותיו, ואכן רבו הגדול המהר"ל מאריך מאוד בכמה מקומות להוכיח כן נגד דעת הרבה מגדולי ישראל, ויתכן שכן הוא על פי חכמת האמת הנקרא "קבלה". (ועיין בהערות הבאות להלן). מַעֲלַת הַצַּדִּיק גָּבְרָה מִמַּעֲלַת מַלְאָכִים לבבענין זה ישנו ויכוח גדול בין חכמי הדורות הראשונים, א: רב סעדיה גאון (אמונות ודעות תחילת מאמר ד) כותב שתכלית הבריאה הוא האדם ומעלתו גדלה על הכל. ב: באבן עזרא (בראשית פסוק ראשון) האריך בראיות לחלוק עליו שצבא השמים נעלים והמלאכים נעלים יותר מהאדם אפילו מהנביאים עיי"ש. ג: דעת הרמב"ם ( יסודי התורה פ"ג ה"ט) ברור מללו כהראב"ע דמעלת הגלגלים נעלה מהאדם והמלאכים מהגלגלים. ד: דעת העקידת יצחק (שער ה) האריך בראיות לחלוק על הרמב"ם והרלב"ג שנמשכו לפי דעתו אחר דע הפילוסופים ואולם הוא נגד אמונתינו עם ה' מאמיני החידוש., כָּל שֶׁכֵּן מִמַּעֲלַת גְּרָמִים הַשְּׁמֵימִים וּצְבָאֵיהֶם לגוז"ל המהר"ל (תפארת ישראל פי"ב) דע ... ודבר זה נמשך לדעת חיצוני שיש להם, מה שהם אומרים כי האדם פחות היצירה, שפל הבריאה מן הגלגלים, ומכל שכן מן המלאכים, כמו שהאריכו הם בספור שבח המלאכים ובגלגלים, ובגנות הבריאה של אדם. והמשיכו לזה פשטי הכתוב (תהלים ח, ה) "מה אנוש כי תזכרנו ובן אדם כי תפקדנו". ושאר ראיות פשטי הכתוב. והמושכל הראשון כי האדם בעל חומר ובעל הויה והפסד, ומפני זה חושבים כי ראוי לאדם השפל לקנות מעלה והצלחה בידיעת החשוב, המה המלאכים והגלגלים. וכאשר ידע אלו, יש לו מעלה. וכבר התבאר בחבור גבורות ה' כי אין רוח חכמים נוחה בזה, והוא הפך האמונה לגמרי. ולא תמצא דבר זה בדברי חכמים, רק ההפך, כמו שהתבאר בחבור גבורות ה'. וגלו דבר זה במקומות הרבה מאד, ודרשו זה (ב"ר עח, א) מן הכתוב (תהלים צא, יא) "כי מלאכיו יצוה לך לשמרך בכל דרכיך", מי הוא גדול - השומר או הנשמר. וזהו באמת דעת חכמים. וקראו המלאכים והגלגלים שהם עבדים משמשים אל הנבראים, וכדכתיב בקרא (בראשית א, יז) "ויתן אותם אלהים ברקיע השמים להאיר על הארץ", הרי כי תחלת בריאתם היה כדי לשמש את העולם, ולא נבראו לעצמם כלל. והאדם הוא עיקר הבריאה, שהכל נברא בשבילו, והוא בלבד כל המציאות, לא זולת זה. ועם שהאדם הוא בעל חומר, הנה מצד צלם אלהים שנברא בו (בראשית א, כז) יש לו מעלה, מושגח מן העליונים, וכמו שמבואר במקום אחר. עיי"ש שהאריך בזה.. וְאִם כֵּן, כְּשֶׁיִּהְיוּ הַצַּדִּיקִים נִקְרָאִים בִּשְׁמָהּ, וְיִהְיוּ בְּמַהוּתָהּ וְתִתְדַּמֶּה הִיא לָהֶם וְהֵם לָהּ, עִנְיָן גָּדוֹל וְשֶׁבַח וְרוֹמְמוּת נִתַּן לָהּ.
Similarly, Ramban in his commentary on the passage under discussion, comments on the verse mentioning the sovereignty of the sun and the moon,42See Ramban’s commentaryto Bereishis 1:18. and explains that naming the celestial beings distinguishes and defines the nature of their power. Thus, it is written:43Tehillim 147:4. “He counts the sum of the stars, naming them all,” and “He calls them all by name.”44Yeshayahu 40:26. Similarly, in the present context, calling the righteous by the moon’s name reflects their nature. In particular, these two – Yaakov and David – are described as small because of their humility and the difficulties that they underwent. Thus, Yaakov declared,45Bereishis 47:9. “The days of the years of my sojourning… were few and aggravating.” Indeed, the narratives concerning Yaakov related in the Torah confirm this statement. In the same vein, David was continually beset by many wearisome troubles, as reflected in the stories concerning him. This theme is also expressed in his psalms. Similarly, both Yaakov and David experienced continuous ascents and descents, and were beset by hardships. This reflects the pattern of the moon, which sometimes shines and sometimes is hidden. By identifying the moon with the righteous, God granted it a significant honor, for according to the tradition we have received, the level of the righteous exceeds that of the angels,46See Sanhedrin 93a. and certainly that of the celestial beings and their hosts.47For the level of the celestial beings is lower than that of the angels. See Rambam, Hilchos Yesodei HaTorah 3:9. Therefore, by identifying the righteous with the moon – causing them to share the moon’s nature, with the moon resembling them and them it – God granted the moon a significant honor, praiseworthy quality, and exaltation.
Scriptural support for the proposition that God made this statement to the moon appears clear to me from the Midrashic passage48Shmos Rabbah 15:27. cited previously49P. 74 above. when quoting the author of the Akeidah, who uses the sun and the moon as metaphors for Esav and Yaakov. Extending this analogy, a unique interpretation can be given to Yosef’s dream. Yosef told his father and brothers that he dreamt that50Bereishis 37:9. “the sun, the moon, and eleven stars are bowing down to me.” Yaakov appeared to reject the dream, questioning,51Ibid. 37:10. “Will I and your mother come…,” ostensibly because he thought that the sun referred to him and the moon to Yosef’s mother. However, according to the understanding of the passage in Chulin, the sun refers to Esav and to all the nations like him. Esav’s descendants and all these nations bowed down to Yosef when they came to him to purchase grain. Do not negate this interpretation because it includes all the nations that resemble Esav together with him, for these twins, Yaakov and Esav, represent all humanity, since there is no one distinct from all other men except Yaakov. All mankind aside from Yaakov are fundamentally the same – a single entity. True, at present, distinctions have arisen between nations. However, in earlier eras – and certainly, in the time of the Patriarchs – Esav can be understood as representing all the nations like him. Thus, in Yosef’s dream, the moon refers to Yaakov. According to this understanding, the prophecy in Yosef’s dream was fulfilled. Rashi52See Rashi’s commentary to Bereishis 37:10. explains that the moon in Yosef’s dream refers to Bilhah. That is incorrect, for as Ramban states,53See Ramban’s commentary to the above verse. Bilhah and Zilpah had already died. (Ramban derives this from the verse54Bereishis 46:26. that describes the 70 individuals who descended to Egypt with Yaakov. That verse mentions the individuals who descended “in addition to the wives of Yaakov’s sons.” Since the verse explicitly mentions “the wives of Yaakov’s sons” but makes no mention of Yaakov’s wives, it implies that although the wives of Yaakov’s sons descended to Egypt, Yaakov’s wives did not.)55Ramban is positing that Yaakov’s wives did not descend to Egypt with him because they were no longer alive. Nevertheless, the prophecy of Yosef’s dream was fulfilled because the moon in the dream refers to Yaakov and not Bilhah. True, Yaakov protested to Yosef, “Will I and your mother come….” However, that was only to calm Yosef’s brothers, to reduce their jealousy by intimating that the dream was untrue because Yosef’s mother had already died. In truth, however, Yaakov knew that the dream referred to Esav and himself. We thus have support from Yosef’s dream for the concept that Yaakov is identified with the moon.
The connection of King David with the moon requires more explanation. It is written:56Tehillim 89:36-38. “One thing have I sworn by My holiness, that I will not fail David. His seed will endure forever and his throne is like the sun before Me. Like the moon, his line will be established forever; and they are a faithful witness in the sky, eternally true.” These verses are problematic, because they use both the sun and the moon as analogies for David’s line. First, it is written, “His throne is like the sun before Me,” and then it says, “Like the moon, his line will be established.” The sequence seems to imply a decline in the rule of David’s dynasty, for the sun is mentioned before the moon.
Also requiring explanation is the subject of the phrase, “and they are a faithful witness in the sky.” Rashi interprets this phrase as meaning, “The sun and the moon are witnesses for David; as long as they exist, David’s sovereignty will exist, as it is written,57Yirmeyahu 33:20-21. ‘If you will be able to break My covenant with the day and My covenant with the night… so will My covenant with David My servant be broken.’” Rashi’s interpretation concurs with our Sages’ statement,58Sotah 31b; Sanhedrin 30a. “Whenever Scripture uses the term ‘witness,’ the intent is that there are two, unless the verse explicitly mentions that there is only one witness.” However, according to this interpretation, the verses are repetitious, for it was already promised, “His throne is like the sun… like the moon, his line will be established.”
Rav Avraham ibn Ezra offers a different interpretation, stating that “the moon will be a faithful witness.” According to that understanding, it is possible to interpret the verses as follows:59The interpretation that follows represents Tosfos Yom Tov’s original understanding, not that of Ibn Ezra. The words “His throne” refer to David’s dynasty, which will be like the sun. However, David himself – i.e. not his dynasty – will “be established like the moon.” Thus, the phrase “be established” is referring back to the phrase, “I will not fail David.” Rav Avraham ibn Ezra interprets David’s seed – and not his throne, the subject of the preceding phrase – as the subject of the phrase “be established.” I similarly maintain that the phrase “be established” can refer back to David himself, the subject of the still earlier phrase. Thus, the verses can be explained as follows: One thing I have sworn, and this oath that God made to David is threefold: a) his seed will endure forever, b) David’s dynasty, i.e. his throne will rule like the sun, the great luminary which rules the hosts of heaven, and c) David himself will be established forever. The word “forever” as it is used here should be understood in a personal sense, i.e., David will rule throughout his life. In other words, David himself, and not his dynasty, will undergo phases of waxing and waning like the moon. This corresponds with the interpretation of Rav Avraham ibn Ezra, that the words, “it is a faithful witness in the sky,” refer to the moon, which serves as a faithful witness to David’s personal history.
46
הִנֵּה כְּבָר מָצָאנוּ מַה שֶּׁבִּקַּשְׁנוּ, שֶׁמְּבֹאָר הוּא שֶׁיַּעֲקֹב נִדְמֶה לַיָּרֵחַ וְכֵן דָּוִד, שֶׁשְּׁנֵיהֶם נִקְרָאִים קָטָן כְּמוֹתָהּ, וְכָל זֶה שֶׁהֵם דּוֹמִים לְמַהוּתָהּ וְכָאָמוּר. וְלָזֶה תִרְאֶה, שֶׁמְּתַקְּנֵי הַבְּרָכוֹת (מס' סופרים פ"כ ה"ב) תִּקְּנוּ אַחַר בִּרְכַּת הַלְּבָנָה לֵאמֹר, "בָּרוּךְ י״וֹצְרֵךְ בָּרוּךְ ע״וֹשֵׂךְ בָּרוּךְ ק״וֹנֵךְ בָּרוּךְ בּ״וֹרְאֵךְ", שֶׁרָאשֵׁי תֵּבוֹת יַעֲקֹ״ב לדז"ל הטור או"ח סימן תכו: ואומר ג"פ סימן טוב תהיה לכל ישראל ברוך בוראך ברוך יוצרך ברוך מקדשך, ורוקד ג"פ כנגדה וכו', וי"א בזה הסדר ברוך יוצרך ברוך עושך ברוך קונך ברוך בוראך וסימן יעקב והיא רמז לו. ע"כ. ובתשב"ץ קטן סימן רכ כתב וז"ל: ולאחר הברכה אומר ברוך יוצרך ברוך עושך ברוך קונך ברוך בוראך זהו ר"ת יעק"ב מפני שצורתו של יעקב חקוקה בלבנה. ע"כ. וכ"כ אבודרהם ברכת הראייה, השבח וההודאה. וז"ל: ואחר הברכה אומר ברוך יוצרך ברוך עושך ברוך קונך ברוך בוראך בר"ת יעקב מפני שנמשל ללבנה. ע"כ.. כְּאִלּוּ יֹאמַר שֶׁהַבּוֹרֵא יִתְבָּרֵךְ עֲשָׂאָהּ בְּאַרְבַּע אוֹתִיּוֹת אֵלּוּ, שֶׁהֵם יַעֲקֹב, שֶׁכְּשֵׁם שֶׁשֵּׁם יַעֲקֹב מוֹרֶה עַל מַהוּתוֹ, כְּכָל הַשֵּׁמוֹת אֲשֶׁר שָׂם הַשֵּׁם יִתְבָּרֵךְ בָּאָרֶץ, לֹא דֶּרֶךְ אֲרָעִי כִּשְׁמוֹתָן שֶׁל הֶדְיוֹטוֹת, וְכָכָה מַהוּתָהּ שֶׁל הַלְּבָנָה בְּאֵלּוּ הָאוֹתִיּוֹת, שֶׁשֵּׁם זֶה, יַעֲקֹב, נִבְנֶה מֵהֶם. כִּי מַהוּת הַלְּבָנָה וּמַהוּת יַעֲקֹב אֲחָדִים הֵם להכאן המקום להעיר ממה שכתב הב"ח אורח חיים סימן תכו וז"ל: ומ"ש וי"א בזה הסדר וכו' וסימן יעקב והיא רמז לו. נראה דלפי שיעקב נקרא שמש כמ"ש רז"ל (ב"ר פרשה ס"ח, י"ב) על פסוק (בראשית כ"ח י"א) 'כי בא השמש' וכתיב (שם ל"ז ט') 'והנה השמש והירח' והלבנה מאירה מאור השמש על כן צורת הלבנה מתוקנת בצורת יעקב ועיין לעיל בסי' רפ"א (ס"ד). וז"ל שם: קרא לשמש וכו'. לפירוש הראשון קשה דה"ל לומר ראה והתקין הלבנה וליש אומרים גם כן קשה דה"ל לומר ראה והקטין הלבנה, אבל יש עוד לפרש על פי דברי רבותינו ז"ל (תקו"ז תקון י"ח לו ע"ב) שצורתו של יעקב נראית בלבנה שעל כן תקנו בברכת הלבנה ברוך יוצרך וכו' ראשי תיבות יעקב כפי הנוסחא שבידינו (עי' טור סוס"י תכו) ובבראשית רבה (פרשה סח ס"י) אמרו על פסוק (בראשית לז ט) והנה השמש והירח אמר יעקב מי גילה לו ששמי שמש שנאמר (שם כח יא) כי בא השמש ואמרו רבותינו ז"ל לשם שהמלאכים אמרו זה לזה אתא שמשא, והנה על פי זה אמר קרא לשמש ויזרח אור פי' אור של שכינה השרויה על זיו איקונין של יעקב ששמו שמש ראה והתקין צורת הלבנה כדי שיהא אור של השמש מכה ומאיר על הלבנה שע"י כן הגיע צורתו של יעקב מצויירת בלבנה לפי שהלבנה מקבלת אורה מן השמש שהיא צורתו של יעקב ממש., כְּפִי מַה שֶּׁנִּרְאֶה מֵעִנְיְנֵיהֶם. וְכֵן אוֹמְרִים אַחַר כָּךְ "דָּוִד מֶלֶךְ יִשְׂרָאֵל חַי וְקַיָּם", גַּם לְכַוָּנָה זוֹ. וְלָכֵן אוֹמְרִים "מֶלֶךְ יִשְׂרָאֵל", כְּלוֹמַר, וְלֹא מֶלֶךְ עֵשָׂו וְדוֹמָיו, שֶׁהֵם מְיֻחָסִים לַשֶּׁמֶשׁ. וְאוֹמְרִים "חַי וְקַיָּם", כִּי הוּא, הַמֶּלֶךְ דָּוִד, מַהוּתוֹ כְּמַהוּת הַלְּבָנָה עַד שֶׁנִּמְצָא בִּרְאוֹתֵנוּ הִתְחַדְּשׁוּתֵךְ, הֲרֵי כְּאִלּוּ הוּא חַי וְקַיָּם. וְגַם כֵּן, מֵהִתְחַדְּשׁוּתֵךְ לָמַדְנוּ שֶׁהוּא חַי וְקַיָּם, לְהִתְחַדֵּשׁ כְּמוֹתֵךְ. וּכְעִנְיָן שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בִּנְבוּאַת יְחֶזְקֵאל (לז כד) עַל הֶעָתִיד "וְעַבְדִּי דָוִד מֶלֶךְ עֲלֵיהֶם" וְחָזַר וְשָׁנָה לְהַחֲזִיק הָעִנְיָן (שם כה) "וְדָוִד עַבְדִּי נָשִׂיא לָהֶם לְעוֹלָם". וְיִצְדַּק עַכְשָׁו מַה שֶּׁאָמַר הַכָּתוּב "וְעֵד בַּשַּׁחַק נֶאֱמָן סֶלָה", כִּי סֶלָה שֵׁם עַל הַזְּמַן הֶעָתִיד. וְדָבָר זֶה שֶׁאוֹמְרִים "דָּוִד מֶלֶךְ יִשְׂרָאֵל וכו׳", לְמַדְנוּהוּ מֵרַבֵּנוּ הַקָּדוֹשׁ שֶׁאָמַר לְר׳ חִיָּא (ראש השנה כה.) "זִיל לְעֵין טָב וְקַדְּשֵׁיהּ לְיַרְחָא וּשְׁלַח לִי סִימָנָא דָּוִד מֶלֶךְ יִשְׂרָאֵל חַי וְקַיָּם". וּפֵרֵשׁ רַשִׁ"י, דָּוִד מֶלֶךְ יִשְׂרָאֵל נִמְשָׁל כַּלְּבָנָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בּוֹ "כִּסְאוֹ כַשֶּׁמֶשׁ נֶגְדִּי כְּיָרֵחַ יִכּוֹן עוֹלָם". עַד כָּאן. בְּפֶרֶק ב' דְּמַסֶּכֶת רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה:
We have thus supported the thesis we sought to substantiate – that Yaakov and David resemble the moon. They are called small like the moon and personify its qualities. On this basis, an insight into the work of the liturgists who ordained60See Sofrim 20:2. that after reciting the blessing for the sanctification of the moon, we recite בָּרוּךְ יוֹצְרֵךְ בָּרוּךְ עוֹשֵׂךְ בָּרוּךְ קוֹנֵךְ בָּרוּךְ בּוֹרְאֵךְ (“Blessed be He Who formed you; blessed be He Who made you; blessed be He Who brought you into being; blessed be He Who created you”).61The order in which these phrases are recited varies according to custom. The order cited by Tosfos Yom Tov is cited in Tashbetz Katan (responsum 220) and by Rav David Avudraham. Both Tashbetz Katan and Avudraham highlight the association with Yaakov. The first letters of the descriptive terms for God mentioned here spell out יעקב – Yaakov. It is as if the verse is saying that God created the moon with these four letters that spell out the name Yaakov. The name Yaakov reflects our patriarch Yaakov’s fundamental nature, like all the names that God brought about within the world,62See p. 108 above which are not arbitrary like the names given by common people. Similarly, the nature of the moon is reflected by these letters which form the name Yaakov, for the nature of the two are the same.63See Bach (Orach Chayim 426), who makes similar statements. See also Tikkunei Zohar, Tikkun 18. For similar reasons, the phrase, “David, King of Israel, is alive and enduring,” is recited after the blessing for the sanctification of the moon. In this phrase, David is described as “King of Israel,” to emphasize that he is ”King of Israel” and not “King of Esav” and the like, who are identified with the sun. David is also described as “alive and enduring,” for King David’s nature resembles that of the moon. Seeing the moon’s renewal teaches us that David is still “alive and enduring” like the moon that can be seen at present, and he also will be renewed as the moon is renewed. The process of renewal is reflected in Yechezkel’s prophecy of the future, in which he states,64Yechezkel 37:24. “My servant David will be king over them.” Yechezkel then emphasizes the matter by repeating,65Ibid. 37:25. “My servant David will be prince over them forever.” This concept substantiates Ibn Ezra’s interpretation of the phrase, “They are a faithful witness in the sky, eternally true.” The term selah, translated as “eternally true,” refers to the Ultimate Future, when the moon will be renewed in a complete sense. The expression, “David, King of Israel, is alive and enduring,” was derived from the words of our Holy Teacher Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi, who told Rabbi Chiya:66Rosh HaShanah 25a. “Go to Ein Tav.67Ein Tav is the name of a place. Sanctify the moon there and send me the message, ‘David, King of Israel, is alive and enduring’ as a sign that you did so.” Rashi explains that Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi chose this message because “David King of Israel is described with the analogy of the moon as it is written, ‘His throne is like the sun before Me. Like the moon, his line will be established forever.’”
The passage in Chulin continues: “He saw that the moon would not be appeased.” God reached that conclusion from the fact that the moon remained silent and did not respond further. It does not appear that the moon remained silent because it accepted God’s words, as our Sages frequently commented:68Yevamos 87b, Bava Metzia 37b, et al. “Remaining silent is like acceptance,” in which instance, the moon would have been at peace and comfortable because of the conciliatory gestures God granted it. Instead, the opposite appears true, for were the moon to have been appeased by God’s conciliatory gestures, it would have been appropriate for the moon to have given thanks and praise to God for responding to its complaints. This is the appropriate course of action to take in response to a king, and how much more so in response to the King of kings, the Holy One, blessed be He. Since the moon did not do this, it is obvious that the moon was not appeased. Perhaps one could say that the opposite conclusion could be reached, for if the moon was not appeased, why did it remain silent and not make further requests? Since both conclusions could be reached, why say that the fact that the moon did not express thanks and praise indicate that it was not appeased? Why not say that the fact that the moon remained silent indicates that it was appeased?
This is not a question. For if one would say that the moon was not appeased, it is understandable why the moon did not offer praise and thanks to God. If, however, the moon was appeased, it would be difficult to understand why the moon did not offer praise. The question which would lead to the opposite conclusion – If the moon was not appeased, why did it not make further requests of God? – can be resolved in two ways: a) The moon did not wish to trouble its Maker excessively. That is undesirable, as reflected by the statements of the Mishnah regarding the message Shimon ben Shetach sent Choni HaMe’agel.69The Mishnah, Taanis 3:8, relates that Shimon ben Shetach told Choni HaMe’agel that he deserved to be rebuked for making continued requests of God. b) Even though it was not appeased, the moon did not make further requests because it did not desire to make light of the honor of the righteous God had mentioned, for their power is great. The moon knew that the righteous could issue a decree and exert their rule over the heavens and all their hosts.
I can find support from Scripture also for this concept, that the moon remained silent so as not to make light of the honor of the righteous. This concept is reflected in the verse describing Menashe and Efraim,70Bereishis 48:19. “Nevertheless, his younger brother will be greater than him and the renown of his seed will fill…” On the surface, it was not necessary to refer to Efraim as קטן, “younger.” It would have been sufficient to say, “his brother,” since the beginning of Yaakov’s words, “I know… also he will be…” are obviously referring to Menashe. Thus, by saying “his brother,” it would have been clear that Yaakov’s intent is to refer to Efraim. Why then should Efraim have to be described superfluously as קטן, younger?
50
אֲבָל בִּבְרֵאשִׁית רַבָּה (פ"ו ט פצ"ז ד) אָמְרוּ לוובילקוט שמעוני יהושע רמז כב הגירסא: ואולם אחיו הקטן יגדל ממנו וזרעו יהיה מלא הגוים, אפשר כן?, אלא זה יהושע שעומד ממנו שהוא מעמיד גלגל חמה ולבנה שהם שליטים מסוף העולם ועד סופו. ע"כ. עַל "וְזַרְעוֹ וגו׳", אֶפְשָׁר כֵּן? אֶלָּא זֶה יְהוֹשֻׁעַ שֶׁעוֹמֵד מִמֶּנּוּ, שֶׁהוּא מַעֲמִיד גַּלְגַּל חַמָּה וּלְבָנָה, שֶׁהֵם שַׁלִּיטִים מִסּוֹף הָעוֹלָם וְעַד סוֹפוֹ. עַד כָּאן. לָכֵן אָמַר "וְאוּלָם אָחִיו הַקָּטֹן", הֲלֹא שְׁמוֹ נִקְרָא עַל שֵׁם הַצַּדִּיקִים שֶׁנִּקְרָאִים 'קָטָן'. כִּי אַף זֶה שֶׁיַּעֲמֹד מִמֶּנּוּ, יִשְׁלוֹט בָּעֶלְיוֹנִים, עַד שֶׁיִּגְזֹר אֹמֶר עַל גַּלְגַּל חַמָּה וְעַל גַּלְגַּל לְבָנָה כו׳. וּבְתוֹךְ מַה שֶּׁבַּעֲבוּר כֵּן קְרָאוֹ "הַקָּטֹן", הֲרֵי שֶׁשֵּׁם ׳קָטֹן׳ הַמְּכֻנֶּה בִּבְנֵי אָדָם יֵשׁ בִּכְלָלוֹ רֶמֶז עַל שֶׁיִּהְיֶה שַׁלִּיט עַל הָעֶלְיוֹנִים. וְלָכֵן שָׁתְקָה הַיָּרֵחַ מִלְּזַלְזֵל בִּכְבוֹד הַצַּדִּיקִים, מִפְּנֵי הַיִּרְאָה גַּם כֵּן, לֹא מִפְּנֵי הַכָּבוֹד בִּלְבָד.
This questioned can be resolved on the basis of the Midrash,71BereishisRabbah 6:9, 97:4. which comments on the words “and the renown of his seed” in this verse: Is this possible that Efraim’s seed will fill all the nations? Rather, this refers to Yehoshua, who will descend from Efraim and who will bring to a halt the orbits of the sun and the moon, which rule over the world from one end until its other end. For this reason, the verse refers to Efraim as קטן, to emphasize that he is one of the righteous who are identified with that attribute. Hence, Efraim’s descendant will rule over the celestial beings and have the potential to halt the sun and the moon in their orbits. Thus, when referring to people, the term קטן implies that one has the power to rule over the celestial beings. Accordingly, the moon remained silent so as not to make light of the honor of the righteous, not only as an expression of respect for the righteous, but also out of fear.
The passage in Chulin 60b continues: “The Holy One, blessed be He, said: ‘Bring an atonement offering for Me because I diminished the moon.’” It appears to me that this statement should be understood according to its simple meaning: God commanded the Jews to bring an atonement offering, i.e., a sin offering, which will atone for them like all other sin-offerings. Nevertheless, it could be considered “for Me,” i.e., that the atonement offering was brought on behalf of God. As explained, throughout this passage, God is described as seeking to appease the moon, for God conducts Himself when relating to His created beings as He commands them to conduct themselves with each other. For that reason, the Midrash relates72Vayikra Rabbah 35:3. that God does not issue decrees for man to observe unless God fulfills them first Himself. This is reflected in the verse,73Vayikra 19:32. “Rise before the elderly… I am God,” which is interpreted in the Jerusalem Talmud, at the end of the first chapter of Rosh HaShanah,74Talmud Yerushalmi, Rosh HaShanah 1:3 (p. 7b). as meaning, “I am He Who was the first to carry out the mitzvah of rising before the elderly.”
52
וְהִנֵּה בְּסוֹף מַסֶּכֶת יוֹמָא (פז.) אִיתָא, אָמַר ר׳ יִצְחָק: כָּל הַמַּקְנִיט אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ אֲפִלּוּ בִּדְבָרִים צָרִיךְ לְפַיְּסוֹ. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (משלי ו א-ג) "בְּנִי אִם עָרַבְתָּ לְרֵעֶךָ וגו׳ [נוֹקַשְׁתָּ בְאִמְרֵי פִיךָ נִלְכַּדְתָּ בְּאִמְרֵי פִֽיךָ, עֲשֵׂה זֹאת אֵפוֹא בְּנִי וְֽהִנָּצֵל כִּי בָאתָ בְכַף רֵעֶךָ לֵךְ הִתְרַפֵּס] וּרְהַב רֵעֶיךָ" לזועל מוקש אמרי פיך, אם הקנטתו - רהב רעיך, הרבה רעים לבקש הימנו מחילה, רעיך בתרא דקרא מלא כתיב, לפי שהוא לשון רבים. (רש"י) - הַרְבֵּה עָלָיו רֵעִים. וְאָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא, וְצָרִיךְ לְפַיְּסוֹ בְּשָׁלֹשׁ שׁוּרוֹת שֶׁל שָׁלֹשׁ בְּנֵי אָדָם לחבשלש שורות - שלש פעמים יפייסוהו בשלשה אנשים בכל פעם, שנאמר ישור - לשון שורה ואין שורה פחותה משלשה בני אדם. (רש"י), שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר "יָשֹׁר עַל אֲנָשִׁים וַיֹּאמֶר חָטָאתִי וגו׳" (איוב לג כז).
On this basis, it can be understood why God asked the Jews to bring an atonement offering for Him. At the end of Tractate Yoma, it is stated:75Yoma 87a. Rabbi Yitzchak said: “Anyone who offends his fellowman, even merely verbally, must appease him, as reflected by the verses:76Mishlei 6:1-3. ‘My son, if you have committed yourself as a guarantor for your fellow… you have been trapped by the sayings of your mouth… Do this then, my son, and be saved… humble yourself and give your fellow superiority.’ Bring many friends to appease him.” Rav Chisda said: “It is necessary to appease the offended person with three rows of three people each, as reflected by the verse,77Iyov 33:27. ‘He makes a row of men and says, I sinned.’”
Similarly, the Holy One, blessed be He, saw that the moon was not appeased by all He had said. Therefore, God fulfilled the injunction to “bring many friends” by commanding the Jewish people to bring an atonement offering on the day of the moon’s renewal. Thus, the moon was appeased by the Jewish people who are called God’s friends, as reflected by the verse,78Shir HaShirim 5:16. “This is my beloved and this is my friend.” God states that the atonement offering is to be brought “because I diminished the moon,” i.e., and it has yet to be appeased. Therefore, God said: “Bring your atonement offering on the day of the moon’s renewal so that the atonement offering will serve as an appeasement for the moon on My behalf. In this way, I will have fulfilled My obligation by appeasing the moon through you, sending many of My friends and loved ones to it.” In this manner, the concluding statement of the passage can be understood without any difficulty at all. Blessed is God Who has led me on the true path.79Cf. Bereishis 24:48.
The passage in Chulin continues: “Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said, ‘Why is the wording describing the goat offered on the new moon distinguished?’” This statement reflects a wondrous intent, as is evident from a passage from the Mishnah in Tractate Shevuos.80Shevuos 1:4. In that source, our Sages discuss the sins for which the goats offered on Yom Kippur, the festivals, and Rosh Chodesh atone. The Mishnah mentions three Sages – Rabbi Yehudah, Rabbi Meir, and Rabbi Shimon, who offer varying opinions on this issue. Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Meir agree that the goats offered on the festivals and on Rosh Chodesh atone for entering the Beis HaMikdash or partaking of sacrificial offerings when one did not know that he was impure, neither before he did so, nor afterwards.81These offerings also atone for an impure person who entered the Beis HaMikdash without knowing that it was the Beis HaMikdash, or an impure person who partook of a sacrifice without being aware of its consecrated nature. This concept is derived from the fact that with regard to the goat brought as a sin-offering on Rosh Chodesh, the Torah states: חַטָּאת לַה;82Bamidbar 28:15. “a sin-offering for God.” This phrase implies that this sin-offering atones for a sin of which only God is aware.83I.e., even the person himself did not know that he had sinned. Moreover, these Sages agree that the Torah implies that the same concept also applies with regard to the goat offered as a sin-offering on the festivals. This is derived from the Torah’s use of the word ושעיר, “and the goat” when discussing the goat offered on the festivals. The vav at the beginning of the word שעיר, meaning “and”, hints at a connection between this sin-offering and the other two sin-offerings. Rabbi Meir maintains that this concept also applies to the goats offered on Yom Kippur. Rabbi Shimon differs and maintains that the goats offered on Rosh Chodesh atone only for the sin of a pure person who ate impure sacrificial food.
Thus, Rabbi Shimon does not interpret the phrase, “a sin-offering to God,” which is used in connection with the Rosh Chodesh sin-offering, as referring to atonement for a sin of which only God is aware. If so, what inference does he derive from that phrase? In Tosfos Yom Tov, I wrote that Rabbi Shimon derives the same inference as Reish Lakish i.e., that the phrase “a sin-offering for God” alludes to God’s request that an atonement offering be brought for Him for diminishing the moon. Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Meir can also accept that concept, because if the Torah wanted to teach only that the offering atoned for God’s diminishing the moon, it would have stated חַטַּאת ה׳, “a sin-offering of God.”84The wording in the standard texts of Tosfos Yom Tov is slightly different. Since the Torah states חַטָּאת לַה׳, both concepts can be derived from the phrase. From this, we can appreciate that Rabbi Shimon maintains that both concepts cannot be derived from the phrase, and only the concept taught by Reish Lakish can be derived from it. I merited to understand that this was Reish Lakish’s intent. This is reflected by the wording Reish Lakish used: “Why is the goat offered on the new moon distinguished?” and not: “Why is the sin-offering offered on the new moon distinguished?” This wording is appropriate because this goat serves a different purpose than all the other goats mentioned in the passage. According to whose opinion is this goat different? Only according to Rabbi Shimon, for according to Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Meir, all the goats mentioned in the passage share the same purpose, i.e., that of atoning for one who did not know that he was impure, neither before entering the Beis HaMikdash or before partaking of sacrificial foods, nor afterwards. Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Meir interpreted the phrase חַטָּאת לַה׳, “a sin-offering for God”, as teaching that the offering atones for a sin of which only God is aware. Rabbi Shimon, by contrast, maintains that this goat is unique and does not bring about atonement for a sin of which only God is aware, like the other goats mentioned in this passage. Instead, this goat atones for the sin of a pure person who eats impure sacrificial foods. The phrase חַטָּאת לַה׳, “a sin-offering for God,” is not necessary to teach this concept. Why then is the wording referring to this goat different than that used with regard to the other goats brought as offerings? To teach that God was asking for an offering to be brought because He diminished the size of the moon.
56
וְאַף עַל גַּב דְּנוּכַל לוֹמַר דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה וְרַבִּי מֵאִיר נַמִּי סְבִירָא לְהוּ, וְכִדְכָתַבְתִּי בְּתוֹסְפוֹת יוֹם טוֹב, דְּתַרְתֵּי מַשְׁמַע לְהוּ, מִכָּל מָקוֹם אֵינוֹ מֻכְרָח כָּל כָּךְ, דַּהֲרֵי אֶפְשָׁר שֶׁלֹּא סְבִירָא לְהוּ אֶלָּא חֲדָא, הַיְנוּ הָא דְּחֵטְא שֶׁאֵין מַכִּיר כו', שֶׁזֶּה מְפֹרָשׁ מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם מִמַּה שֶּׁאָמְרוּ שֶׁשְּׂעִירֵי רֹאשׁ חֹדֶשׁ מְכַפְּרִים עַל שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ יְדִיעָה כו'. וּמְנָא לְהוּ דְּתַרְתֵּי סְבִירָא לְהוּ? שֶׁאֵין זֶה שֶׁנּוּכַל לוֹמַר דְּתַרְתֵּי סְבִירָא לְהוּ אֶלָּא כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא נֹאמַר שֶׁחוֹלְקִין עַל רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ. אֲבָל, מַאן יֵימַר שֶׁהָאֱמֶת כֵּן, דְּדִלְמָא אֵין הָכִי נַמִּי דְּחוֹלְקִין, וְלֹא סְבִירָא לְהוּ לִדְרָשָׁא דְּרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ, וְנֵיזֵל בָּתַר שְׁנֵי הַתַּנָּאִים וְלֹא אַחַר הָאֲמוֹרָאִים. וְאִי הַגִּירְסָא בַּמַּאֲמָר שֶׁלָּנוּ רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן פָּזִי, דְּהָוֵי נַמִּי אֲמוֹרָא, דִּבְרֵישׁ פֶּרֶק כְּלָל גָּדוֹל, אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן פָּזִי אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻעַ בֶּן לֵוִי. וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי עַצְמוֹ אֲמוֹרָא הוּא לטעיין בשו"ת יוסף אומץ להרב חיד"א סימן מ"ו שהאריך בזה.. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנִּזְכַּר בַּמִּשְׁנָה בְּסוֹף עוּקְצִין (פ"ג מי"ב), הוֹכַחְתִּי שָׁם מוז"ל: אמר ריב"ל - חשבו הרמב"ם עם התנאים בפ"ב מי' פרקיו שהקדים לפי' המשניות. ולקמן אכתוב על זה. ובסוף המשנה כתב וז"ל: והנה אף על פי שר"ש בן חלפתא היה זקן בימי רבי כנראה מתוך דבריו שהשיב לרבי. סלעים נעשו גבוהים. בפכ"ג דשבת דף קנ"ב. ואילו ריב"ל לא חשבוהו בגמרא אלא כאמורא. דבפ"ג דמסכת נדה דף י"ח מתניתא קאמרי שמעתתא לא קאמרי. וקאמר שמעתתא על מימרא דאמר ריב"ל. וכן פירש"י שמעתתא ריב"ל אמורא היה ע"כ. וכן הוא עוד בפרק מרובה ריש (בבא קמא דף פ"ב.) (ומ"מ בימי רבי היה. שהיה גדול מרבן יוחנן) ואף על פי כן ראה רבינו הקדוש להקדים מאמרו של ריב"ל למאמרו של רשב"ח כדי שתהא החתימה בשלום. ובמדרש רבנן אומרין גדול השלום. שכשמלך המשיח יבא. אינו פותח אלא בשלום. שנאמר (ישעיהו נ״ב:ז׳) מה נאוו על ההרים רגלי מבשר משמיע שלום: בְּתוֹסְפוֹת יוֹם טוֹב, שֶׁאֵינוֹ אֶלָּא אֲמוֹרָא. אִם כֵּן, נָפַל הָא דְּרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ בְּבִירָא.
It could be said that Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Meir also accept this concept. As I wrote in Tosfos Yom Tov, it is possible to say that Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Meir understand this phrase as teaching two concepts. Nevertheless, there is no imperative to say that; it is possible that these Sages understand the phrase חַטָּאת לַה׳, “a sin-offering for God,” as teaching only one concept – that the offering atones for a sin of which only God is aware. For these sages explicitly say: “The goats brought on Rosh Chodesh atone for impurity of which one is unaware.” What compels us to say that they understand this phrase as teaching two concepts? The only motive to say that these Sages understand the verse in that manner, is so that they will not be disagreeing with Reish Lakish. But who will say that this is the true interpretation? Perhaps in fact Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Meir do not accept the interpretation of Reish Lakish. If that were the case, why should we accept the interpretation of Reish Lakish? Let us follow the understanding of two Tannaim – Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Meir – rather than that of one Amora – Reish Lakish. Also, according to the version of the passage in Chulin that attributes this teaching to Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi, the passage was authored by an Amora. For Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi was an Amora, as reflected by the fact that in Tractate Shabbos,85Shabbos 75a. It is curious why Tosfos Yom Tov cites this particular teaching. There are several other teachings in Tractate Shabbos (Shabbos 40a, 105b, and 118a), and many others throughout the Talmud (Pesachim 26a, 38b, et al.), where Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi quotes Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi. Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi quotes Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, who was himself an Amora. True, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi is mentioned in the Mishnah at the end of Tractate Uktzin.86Uktzin 3:12. Nevertheless, as I explained there in Tosfos Yom Tov, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi was an Amora and not a Tanna. If so, the teaching of Reish Lakish has no basis.87An Amora’s words are not accepted in place of a Tanna’s words.
Therefore, the passage in Chulin asks “Why is the goat offered on the new moon distinguished?” In this way, the passage is referring to the words of Rabbi Shimon, who maintains that this goat is offered for a different purpose than the other goats mentioned in the passage, in contrast to the understanding of Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Shimon does not interpret the phrase חַטָּאת לַה׳, “a sin-offering for God,” as do Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Meir. How does Rabbi Shimon interpret this phrase? We are forced to say that Rabbi Shimon interprets this phrase as Reish Lakish does, that God was asking that an atonement offering be brought for Him. Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi was thus emphasizing that his understanding has the support of a Tanna, Rabbi Shimon. This is the understanding of the passage that I was able to achieve by the grace of the Most High God, blessed be He.
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן עַזַּאי אוֹ בֶּן פָּזִי רָמִי: כְּתִיב "וַיַּעַשׂ אֱלֹהִים אֶת שְׁנֵי הַמְּאֹרֹת הַגְּדֹלִים וגו׳", וּכְתִיב "אֶת הַמָּאוֹר הַגָּדֹל" "וְאֶת הַמָּאוֹר הַקָּטֹן".
The Elucidation of the Passage from Chulin 64a
The passage begins: “R. Shimon ben Azzai – or ben Pazi – pointed out a contradiction between the verses: One verse says: “And God made the two great luminaries,” but it is also written, “the great luminary” and “the small luminary.”
לָאו רוּמְיָא דִידֵיהּ מִמַּה שֶּׁהִשְׁוָה אוֹתָם שֶׁאָמַר עַל שְׁנֵיהֶם ׳גְּדוֹלִים׳, וְאַחַר כָּךְ אָמַר עַל הָאֶחָד שֶׁהוּא ׳גָּדוֹל׳, וְעַל הַשֵּׁנִי שֶׁהוּא ׳קָטָן׳. שֶׁכְּבָר לֹא הָיָה בַּעַל הַמַּאֲמָר הַזֶּה שָׁפָל מִבַּעֲלֵי הַשְּׁלֹשָׁה מַאֲמָרִים שֶׁהִזְכַּרְתִּי, שֶׁאֵין בְּכָל אֶחָד מֵהֶם שֶׁנִּתְעוֹרֵר לְמִרְמֵי קְרָאֵי אַהֲדָדֵי בְּהָכִי. לְפִי שֶׁמֵּעִיקָרוֹ קֻשְׁיָא זוֹ לָאו קֻשְׁיָא, שֶׁהֲרֵי בְּעֵרֶךְ הָאֲחֵרִים, רוֹצֶה לוֹמַר כּוֹכְבֵי הַשָּׁמַיִם, שְׁנֵיהֶם גְּדוֹלִים בְּאוֹרָם, כַּנִּרְאֶה לָעַיִן. וְשֶׁהֵם, רוֹצֶה לוֹמַר שְׁנֵיהֶם הַלָּלוּ, בְּעֵרֶךְ הָאֶחָד לַשֵּׁנִי, הָאֶחָד גָּדוֹל בְּאוֹר וּבְגוּף מִן הַשֵּׁנִי, וְזֶה נִרְאֶה גַּם כֵּן לָעַיִן. וְאֵיךְ אִם כֵּן, בַּעַל הַמַּאֲמָר הַלָּז לֹא יִהְיֶה יוֹדֵעַ וּמֵבִין מִדַּעְתּוֹ, דְּלֹא קֻשְׁיָא הִיא?
The contradiction on which the passage focuses is not that initially Scripture equates the luminaries and calls both the sun and the moon “great”, and afterwards refers to the sun as “great” and the moon as “small.” For the author of this passage is no less of a Sage than the authors of the other three passages mentioned at the outset. Just as they did not see this point as significant enough to highlight as an apparent contradiction between the verses, neither did the author of this passage. For in truth this apparent contradiction is not a contradiction at all, as both of the luminaries are indeed greater sources of light than all the other heavenly bodies, as is apparent to any observer. Nevertheless, in relation to each other, the sun is greater than the moon in both size and light. This is also an obvious fact. Accordingly, the author of this passage certainly would realize that there this is no contradiction between the verses.
אֲבָל רוּמְיָא דִידֵיהּ הוּא לְפִי עֲנִיּוּת דַּעְתִּי, דִּלְמַאי נָפְקָא מִנֵּיהּ אָמַר הַכָּתוּב כָּךְ, עַד שֶׁבְּהֶכְרֵחַ נִצְטָרֵךְ לַפֵּרוּשׁ, עִם שֶׁהַפֵּרוּשׁ מְבֹאָר מֵעַצְמוֹ מִפְּנֵי מַרְאִית הָעַיִן. מִכָּל מָקוֹם, הֲרֵי הָיָה יָכוֹל הַכָּתוּב לִכְתֹּב בְּלָשׁוֹן שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה צָרִיךְ לְשׁוּם פֵּרוּשׁ, וּלְקָרְאָם בִּשְׁמוֹתָם כִּדְבַר יוֹסֵף (בראשית לז ט) "וְהִנֵּה הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ וְהַיָּרֵחַ", וְכִדְבַר מֹשֶׁה רַבֵּנוּ עָלָיו הַשָּׁלוֹם בַּמִּשְׁנֶה תוֹרָה פָּרָשַׁת (וָאֶתְחַנַּן) (דברים ד יט) "וְרָאִיתָ אֶת הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ וְאֶת הַיָּרֵחַ", וְעוֹד בְּפָרָשַׁת (שׁוֹפְטִים) (שם יז ג) "וְלַשֶּׁמֶשׁ אוֹ לַיָּרֵחַ". וְכָךְ הָיָה לוֹ לוֹמַר גַּם כָּאן, "וַיַּעַשׂ אֱלֹהִים אֶת הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ וְאֶת הַיָּרֵחַ, אֶת הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ לְמֶמְשֶׁלֶת הַיּוֹם וְאֶת הַיָּרֵחַ לְמֶמְשֶׁלֶת הַלַּיְלָה". שֶׁאִם תֹּאמַר שֶׁהַכָּתוּב בָּא לְהוֹדִיעֵנוּ זֶה הָעִנְיָן בְּעַצְמוֹ, שֶׁשְּׁנֵיהֶם בְּעֵרֶךְ הָאֲחֵרִים גְּדוֹלִים בְּאוֹרָם, וְשֶׁבְּעֵרֶךְ הָאֶחָד לַשֵּׁנִי אֶחָד גָּדוֹל וְאַחַד קָטָן - זֶה וַדַּאי מְבֹאָר הַבִּטּוּל, כִּי מַה שֶּׁיִּהְיוּ הָעֵינַיִם עֵינֵי בָּשָׂר וָדָם רוֹאִין, מַה צָּרִיךְ הַכָּתוּב לְהוֹדִיעַ?
Instead, according to my humble understanding, the apparent contradiction stems from a fundamental question: Why did the verse use the terms “the great luminaries,” “the great luminary,” and “the small luminary,” which require explanation? It is true, the explanation is obvious, but still the verse could have been worded in a manner which did not require any explanation. Scripture could have simply referred to the luminaries by name, i.e., Scripture could have referred to the luminaries as “the sun” and “the moon,” as Yosef did, in the verse:1Bereishis 37:9. “Behold, the sun and the moon bowed to me,” and as Moshe Rabbeinu did in Parshas Va’Eschanan, in the verse:2Devarim 4:19. “and you see the sun and the moon,” and in Parshas Shoftim, which speaks of serving other gods including3Ibid. 17:3. “the sun or the moon.” Similarly, here, the narrative should have stated, “God made the sun and the moon, the sun to rule during the day and the moon to rule during the night.” It cannot be said that Scripture intends to teach the concept that the light of the sun and the moon is greater than that of the other luminaries, and that the light of one is greater than the other. That would certainly be of no purpose. Why would Scripture need to tell us something that is obvious?
אִם כֵּן, רוּמְיָא דִידֵיהּ הוּא מִמַּה שֶּׁכָּתַב בְּלָשׁוֹן שֶׁצָּרִיךְ לְפֵרוּשׁ, וְלֹא כָּתַב בְּלָשׁוֹן שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא צָרִיךְ לְפֵרוּשׁ. אֶלָּא וַדַּאי דְּאֵין הָכִי נַמִּי שֶׁכַּוָּנַת הַכָּתוּב לְהַעִירֵנוּ עִנְיַן מָה. וְנִיחָא לֵיהּ בְּמַאי דְּמַסִּיק אוְנִיחָא לֵיהּ = קושיא זו למה נקט ׳מאורות הגדולים׳ במקום ׳השמש והירח׳, בְּמַאי דְּמַסִּיק בהמשך הסוגיא = אמרה ירח לפני הקב"ה וכו'., דְּאִלּוּ לִפְשָׁטֵיהּ, לְהוֹדִיעַ מַהוּת אוֹרָם בְּעֵרֶךְ הָאֲחֵרִים, וּמַהוּתָם בְּעֵרֶךְ שְׁנֵיהֶם זֶה לָזֶה, כָּל זֶה לְמַרְאִית עֵינֵינוּ נִשְׁפֹּט וְלֹא הָיָה צָרִיךְ הַכָּתוּב לְשַׁנּוֹת הַלָּשׁוֹן מִפְּנֵי כֵן. וְזֶה נִרְאֶה בְּעֵינַי נָכוֹן וּמְבֹאָר.
If so, the difficulty the author of the passage is highlighting is that the verse uses wording that requires explanation, instead of using wording that does not require explanation. Clearly, then, the intent of the verse in mentioning “the great luminaries,” “the great luminary,” and “the small luminary,” is to teach us a concept. This conclusion is desirable, for if one would maintain that the verses should be understood simply, as teaching that the light of the sun and the moon is greater than that of the other luminaries, and that the light of one is greater than the other, the unusual wording in the verse would be unnecessary because we can observe the amount of light ourselves. All this is correct and understandable to me. Hence, there is a basis for our Sages to comment on this Scriptural passage, and explain the lesson to be derived from it.
וְהִנֵּה, הִתְחִיל בְּעִנְיָן שֶׁיִּהְיֶה רוֹמֵז אֵלָיו הַכָּתוּב וְאָמַר, אָמְרָה הַיָּרֵחַ אֶפְשָׁר לִשְׁנֵי מְלָכִים כו׳. נִרְאֶה בְעֵינַי לְהָבִיא סַעַד לְבַעַל הַמַּאֲמָר מִתּוֹךְ מִקְרָא מָלֵא. וּבוֹ יִהְיֶה נִרְאֶה הַטַּעֲנָה הַזֹּאת, וּמַאֲמַר הַשֵּׁם יִתְבָּרֵךְ אֵלֶיהָ לְכִי וּמַעֲטִי כו'.
The passage begins to explain the allusions in this verse, saying that the moon asked: “Is it possible for two kings to wear one crown?” It appears to me that a support for the interpretation advanced by the author of the passage can be taken from an explicit verse that alludes to this complaint, and to God’s response, “Go and diminish yourself.”
וְאַל תְּשִׁיבֵנִי, הֵיאַךְ אֲנִי יָכוֹל לוֹמַר כֵּן, וּבַעַל הַמַּאֲמָר עַצְמוֹ שָׁתַק וְלֹא הוֹדִיעַ לָנוּ רְאָיָתוֹ וְסַעַד לִדְבָרָיו? כִּי הֲלֹא הִזְכַּרְתִּי בְּקוּשְׁיָא כ״ד, דְּקַשְׁיָא עָלָיו נַמִּי עִקַּר לִמּוּדוֹ, שֶׁאָמַר הַשֵּׁם יִתְבָּרֵךְ הָבִיאוּ כַּפָּרָה כו׳, חִסְּרוֹ וְלֹא הִזְכִּירוֹ. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא, בְּלִי סָפֵק, מִמִּקְרָא שֶׁבֵּאֵר מִתּוֹכוֹ רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ, וְכִדְאָמְרִינַן, וְהַיְנוּ דְּאָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ. וְאִם כֵּן, לָמָּה סָתַם בַּעַל הַמַּאֲמָר, וְלֹא פֵרֵשׁ? אֶלָּא שֶׁדַּרְכּוֹ כָּךְ הָיָה, שֶׁהָיָה אוֹמֵר דְּבָרִים וּנְתָנָם לִפְנֵי הַתַּלְמִידִים לְחִדּוּדֵי לְהוּ, וְהֵם יִמְצְאוּ חֵפֶץ הַמְּבֻקָּשׁ מִתּוֹךְ אֵיזֶה מִקְרָא. וְאִם כָּךְ בְּסוֹף דְּבָרָיו, וּמֻכְרָח הוּא לוֹמַר כֵּן, אִם כֵּן סוֹפוֹ מוֹכִיחַ עַל תְּחִלָּתוֹ וְעַל כָּל הַדְּבָרִים אֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר, כִּי לְכֻלָּם יֵשׁ סַעַד מִן הַמִּקְרָאוֹת וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא לֹא בֵאֲרָם.
One should not object, asking how I can make such a statement, suggesting a prooftext that the author of the passage himself did not cite in support of his words. After all, I have mentioned4See question xxiv, p. 67-68. that the final point in this teaching, “Bring an atonement offering for Me because I diminished the moon,” is problematic. The author of this passage makes that statement without citing a prooftext, even though the prooftext is obviously the one cited by Reish Lakish. If so, why did the author of the passage not mention this teaching? Because this was the manner in which the author of this passage offered instruction – to make a statement, and present it to the students, sharpening their intellectual acumen, so they could find the desired verse that can serve as a source for the teaching. If this is true with regard to the concluding words of the author of this passage – and we are forced to say that this is his intent there – then it can be said that the conclusion indicates the pattern followed at the outset, and, indeed, throughout the entire passage: that the concepts presented have support in Scripture even though the author of the passage did not explicitly mention them.
וּבְלָאו הָכִי שֶׁל הַהֶכְרֵחַ שֶׁמִּן הַסֵּיפָא, אֵינוֹ רָחוֹק לוֹמַר כֵּן. שֶׁבְּכַמָּה מְקוֹמוֹת תִּמְצָא שֶׁאָמַר ר׳ פְּלוֹנִי דְּבַר מָה, וּבָא ר׳ פְּלוֹנִי וְלִמְּדוֹ מִן הַכָּתוּב, וְקָאָמַר מַאי קְרָא וכו׳. וְכֵן גַּם כָּל הַמִּדְרָשִׁים וְאַגָּדוֹת מְלֵאִים, שֶׁמְּבִיאִים פְּסוּקִים לִרְאָיָה לְדִבְרֵיהֶם, וְכֵן גַּם דָּבָר יָדוּעַ מִדַּרְכֵי מִדְרְשֵׁיהֶם, שֶׁאַף שֶׁהָעִנְיָן כֻּלּוֹ מְאֻחָד וּמְקֻשָּׁר זֶה לָזֶה, הַפְּסוּקִים שֶׁמְּבִיאִים מְפֻזָּרִים בְּכַמָּה מְקוֹמוֹת וּבְכַמָּה סְפָרִים. וְאַף לְזֶה הַמַּאֲמָר עַצְמוֹ קָרָה כֵּן, שֶׁתְּחִלָּתוֹ מִסֵּפֶר בְּרֵאשִׁית וְסוֹפוֹ מִסֵּפֶר בַּמִּדְבָּר. וְכֵן אַל תִּתְמַהּ כְּשֶׁאָבִיא פְּסוּקִים מְפֻזָּרִים מִכַּמָּה סְפָרִים שֶׁיִּהְיוּ רְאָיוֹת וְסַעַד לְכָל דִּבְרֵי הַמַּאֲמָר:
Even without the proof from the conclusion of the passage, it is not implausible to make such a statement. In several instances in the Talmud, we find that a given Sage makes a statement, and a second Sage cites a verse that serves as a source for the first Sage’s statement. This pattern is seen throughout the Midrashim and the Aggadic passages of our Sages: support for a concept stated by one Sage is brought by other Sages who cite different verses. This is the familiar pattern in Midrashic works. Even though the conceptual building blocks of an idea are interrelated in a unified picture, the verses cited as support are scattered in several contexts and in different books of the Tanach. Indeed, this very passage follows that pattern, beginning with verses from the book of Bereishis and concluding with verses from the book of Bamidbar. And so too do not be surprised that I bring verses from various books of the Tanach as prooftexts and supports for the words of the passage.
וְהִנֵּה אוֹמֵר לִי לִבִּי, שֶׁטַּעֲנַת הַיָּרֵחַ וְשֶׁהַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא הֵשִׁיב לָהּ לְכִי וּמַעֲטִי כו' רָמוּז בְּדִבְרֵי אִיּוֹב במפרשי המקרא פירשו דברי איוב (אשר נשא משלו שם בטענתו למה באו עליו יסורים בעולם, והלא היה ישר בדרכי השם ולא חטא נגדו) בענין שלא עבד את השמש והירח ואף לא במחשבה ח"ו, וז"ל מצודת דוד: (כו) אם אראה - האם כאשר ראיתי אור השמש אשר יזהיר ביותר והירח המאיר והולך ומוסיף אורה: (כז) ויפת - וכי בעבור אורם הרב היה נפתה לבי בסתר המחשבה לומר שיש בהם אלהות ואך שמתי את ידי לפי לסותמה לבלי הוציא את הדבר הרע הזה מן השפה ולחוץ ור"ל וכי כן היה בתמיה הלא כמו שלא דברתי בפי מאומה רע כן לא היה לבי נפתה במחשבה: (כח) גם הוא עון פלילי - כי אמרתי גם המחשבה לבדה הוא עון הראוי להשפט עליו כי בזה הייתי מכחיש בהאל היושב ממעל לתלות האלהות במעשה ידיו: (ל״א כו-כח), אָמַר "אִם אֶרְאֶה אוֹר כִּי יָהֵל, וְיָרֵחַ יָקָר הֹלֵךְ. וַיִּפְתְּ בַּסֵּתֶר לִבִּי, וַתִּשַּׁק יָדִי לְפִי. גַּם הוּא עָוֹן פְּלִילִי, כִּי כִחַשְׁתִּי לָאֵל מִמָּעַל". הִנֵּה כָּל דְּבָרָיו שֶׁל אִיּוֹב, בְּתַרְעוֹמוֹת עַל הַשֵּׁם יִתְבָּרֵךְ, בְּמַה שֶּׁהֶעֱנִישׁוֹ בָּעֹנָשִׁים הָהֵם הַמָּרִים וְהַקָּשִׁים עַל חִנָּם, כִּי אֵין עָלָיו שׁוּם חֵטְא עָוֹן וְאַשְׁמָה.
My heart tells me that the complaint of the moon and God’s response to it, “Go and diminish yourself,” are alluded to in Iyov’s words:5Iyov 31:26-28. אִם אֶרְאֶה אוֹר כִּי יָהֵל, וְיָרֵחַ יָקָר הֹלֵךְ. וַיִּפְתְּ בַּסֵּתֶר לִבִּי, וַתִּשַּׁק יָדִי לְפִי. גַּם הוּא עָוֹן פְּלִילִי, כִּי כִחַשְׁתִּי לָאֵ-ל מִמָּעַל, which literally mean: “If I ever saw the light shining, the moon proceeding on its course with glory, and I was lured in the secret reaches of my heart to regard them as Divine and therefore covered my mouth with my hand so as not to utter such words, this too would have been a punishable sin, for I would have denied God above.” According to their simple meaning, all of Iyov’s words are expressions of grievance against God for punishing him severely and rigorously without any apparent cause, for his conduct was not marred by sin, transgression, or guilt.
וְאָמַר כָּאן לְפִי דַרְכֵּנוּ גרבינו מפרש לפי דרכו שהמדובר כאן אינו ענין לעבודה זרה (כמו שפירשו המפרשים) אלא למחשבת פסול בדבר טענת הירח המסופר במאמר חז"ל דידן., "אִם אֶרְאֶה אוֹר שֶׁמֶשׁ כִּי יָהֵל" לְעוֹלָם, "וְיָרֵחַ יָקָר הֹלֵךְ". וּפֵרֵשׁ הָרַב אַבְרָהָם בֶּן עֶזְרָא "וְיָרֵחַ יָקָר הֹלֵךְ" בַּחֲצִי הַחֹדֶשׁ. עַד כָּאן דז"ל אבן עזרא: (כו) אם אראה אור - הוא השמש: וירח יקר - בחצי החדש: עכ"ל. ובפשטות ר"ל שבחצי החודש אור הירח גדול וחזק.. וְתֵבַת 'הֹלֵךְ' לֹא יִצְדַּק כּוּלֵי הַאי השהרי לפירושו שבחצי החדש אור הירח "יקר" (גדול וחזק) מה מוסיף תיבת "הולך"? ועייין פרש"י וז"ל: וירח יקר הולך - מגיה והולך כמו אור יקרות (זכריה י״ד:ו׳) כיקר כרים (תהילים ל״ז:כ׳) ומשמע שמפרש שהוא מוסיף והולך באורו, וכן פירש המצו"ד הובא לעיל.. לְכָךְ, יָכוֹלְנִי לוֹמַר כִּי מָצִינוּ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר "וּדְבַר ה' יָקָר". הֲרֵי שֶׁעַל הַדִּבּוּר יִפּוֹל עָלָיו שֵׁם 'יָקָר', וְיֹאמַר, שֶׁעִם הַיָּרֵחַ דִּבְּרָה דָּבָר יָקָר, וְיֶחְסַר הַמְּתֹאָר שֶׁהוּא דִּבּוּר, וְנִמְצָא כֵּן בַּכְּתוּבִים. וְיִרְמֹז בְּ׳דָבָר יָקָר׳ שֶׁל הַיָּרֵחַ, עַל מַאֲמָרָהּ שֶׁטָּעֲנָה כַּהֹגֶן, אֶפְשָׁר לִשְׁנֵי מְלָכִים כו׳. וּבַעֲבוּר זֶה הוּא הוֹלֵךְ וּמִתְמַעֵט. אִם כֵּן, הָיָה לִי מָקוֹם לִטְעוֹן, וְזֶה שֶׁכָּתוּב "וַיִּפְתְּ בַּסֵּתֶר לִבִּי", כִּי בַּלֵּב נִתְפַּתֵּיתִי לְהַרְהֵר עַל זֶה, שֶׁאֵין מִשְׁפָּטֶיךָ נְכוֹחִים וִישָׁרִים.
However according to our understanding, Iyov’s words can be understood here as follows: If I ever saw the light of the sun shining on the world, and the moon proceeding on its course with glory. Rav Avraham ibn Ezra explains that the latter phrase describes the moon’s progress “in the half of the month” (i.e. when the moon becomes full). Now, the word הֹלֵךְ, “proceeds,” is not entirely appropriate here.6The verse seems to say that in the first half of the month, the moon’s glory grows. That concept, however, could have been understood from the word יָקָר without the word הֹלֵךְ. Hence, the term הֹלֵךְ implies that there is a further concept to be learned from this verse. Accordingly, I think that the verse can be interpreted as referring to an additional concept. Although we have translated the word יקר as “glory”, it can also be translated as “rare” or as “valuable”. Indeed, we find the term יָקָר, “rare”, used in association with speech, in the verse,7 I Shmuel 3:1. ודבר ה' היה יקר, “The word of God was rare.” It could thus be said that Scripture alludes to the fact that the moon spoke of a matter that is יָקָר, “valuable.” This can be understood as a reference to the moon’s statement cited in the passage – i.e. “Is it possible for two kings to wear one crown?” that the moon described as “proper,” and as a result of which it was הֹלֵךְ – progressively diminished. Seemingly, the moon has a valid complaint. This relates to the continuation of Iyov’s words: וַיִּפְתְּ בַּסֵּתֶר לִבִּי – “I was lured in the secret reaches of my heart.” This phrase could be understood as meaning, “I was lured to think within my heart that Your judgments are not correct and just.”
אָמְנָם עִם כָּל זֶה, "וַתִּשַּׁק יָדִי לְפִי". פֵּרֵשׁ הָרַב אַבְרָהָם בֶּן עֶזְרָא, מִין מִמִּינֵי עֲבוֹדָה לַשֶּׁמֶשׁ וְלַיָּרֵחַ שֶׁעָבְדוּ הַקַּדְמוֹנִים וכו׳. עַד כָּאן. וּלְפִי דַרְכֵּנוּ יֹאמַר, שֶׁעִם כָּל זֶה הָיָה מְנַשֵּׁק וּמֵשִׂים יָדוֹ עַל פִּיו, שֶׁלֹּא יֹאמַר מִן הַשָּׂפָה וְלַחוּץ, כִּי הוּא "עָוֹן פְּלִילִי". לֹא פֵרְשׁוּ הַמְּפָרְשִׁים וכגון פירוש רש"י ואבן עזרא, שהיו לפני רבינו. ובמצודות, שחי כמאה שנה אחריו, פירש כמו שכתב רבינו. כְּלוּם עַל 'פְּלִילִי'. וְהַנִּרְאֶה, שֶׁעִנְיָנוֹ לָשׁוֹן "וְנָתַן בִּפְלִילִים" (שמות כא כב). כְּלוֹמַר, שֶׁהוּא עָוֹן שֶׁרָאוּי לִהְיוֹת נִשְׁפָּט עָלָיו זעיין באלשיך שם שהביא ראיה מהפסוק (יחזקאל יד ה) למען תפוס את בית ישראל בלבם וגו' שממנו למדו חז"ל (קידושין מ.) שבעבודה זרה הקב"ה מצרף המחשבה למעשה.. וּלְפִי דַרְכֵּנוּ חשכוונת איוב היה שלא חשב מחשבת פסול על "משפטי" הקב"ה, ומשפטיו ישרים ונכוחים. יֹאמַר עוֹד, שֶׁהוּא עָוֹן בְּמִשְׁפְּטֵי הַשֵּׁם יִתְבָּרֵךְ. וְאִם כֵּן, "כִּחַשְׁתִּי לָאֵל מִמַּעַל" אִם אָשִׂים פְּגָם בְּמִשְׁפָּטָיו.
The passage from Iyov continues: Despite these thoughts וַתִּשַּׁק יָדִי לְפִי – “I covered my mouth with my hand.” Rav Avraham ibn Ezra explains that covering one’s mouth with one’s hand was “a type of worship to the sun and the moon carried out by the people of early generations.” However, according to our interpretation of the passage, Iyov was saying, “I covered my mouth with my hand,” so as not to make a statement that would express a lack of faith, for this would be an עָוֹן פְּלִילִי – “a punishable sin.” The commentaries8Tosfos Yom Tov is referring to Rashi and Rav Avraham ibn Ezra, who lived before Tosfos Yom Tov. Metzudas David and Malbim, who both lived after Tosfos Yom Tov, interpret the term פלילי in a similar manner as Tosfos Yom Tov. do not offer an interpretation of the term פלילי. Apparently, the term means “liable for judgment,” as in the phrase,9Shmos 21:22. וְנָתַן בִּפְלִילִים – “He must give as dictated by the judges.” According to our interpretation, the phrase עון פלילי can be understood as also meaning that the sin would be entertaining thoughts regarding the justice of God’s judgments.10In a similar vein, in his commentary to the verse, Rav Moshe Alshich cites Kiddushin 40a, which states that one is liable for merely entertaining thoughts of worshiping other deities. Thus, the continuation of the verse, כִּי כִחַשְׁתִּי לָאֵל מִמָּעַל should be interpreted as, “I would have questioned the validity of God’s judgments.”
אֲבָל עַכְשָׁו, שֶׁנָּגְעָה בוֹ יַד ה׳ כָּל כָּךְ, לֹא יוּכַל לְהִתְאַפֵּק. וְיִהְיֶה עִנְיָן הַזֶּה דּוֹמֶה לְמַה שֶּׁאָמְרוּ זִכְרוֹנָם לִבְרָכָה (בבא בתרא טז.) עַל "בְּכָל זֹאת לֹא חָטָא אִיּוֹב בִּשְׂפָתָיו" (איוב ב י), לוֹמַר דִּבְלִבּוֹ חָטָא, שֶׁהָיָה מְהַרְהֵר עַל כָּל פָּנִים. וְהָרַב אַבְרָהָם בֶּן עֶזְרָא פֵּרֵשׁ שָׁם לְהוֹרוֹת כִּי עוֹד יֶחֱטָא בִּשְׂפָתָיו וְיוֹצִיא מִפִּיו מִלִּין בְּרֹב צַעֲרוֹ. עַד כָּאן. וְהַפָּסוּק סוֹבֵל זֶה הַפֵּרוּשׁ, עַד כָּאן.
Nevertheless, after enduring such suffering, Iyov could not restrain himself any further. This reflects our Sages’ teaching11Bava Basra 16a. on the verse,12Iyov 2:10. “Despite all this, Iyov did not sin with his lips.” Our Sages explain that although Iyov did not question God’s judgments verbally, he did question God’s judgments within his heart. Rav Avraham ibn Ezra comments on that verse, “Ultimately, Iyov would sin with his lips and would speak words that reflect a lack of faith because of the great anguish he experienced.” The verse leaves room for such an interpretation.
וְהִנֵּה כְּבָר מָצָאתִי פָּסוּק, סַעַד לִשְׁתֵּי אֵלֶּה שֶׁהִזְכִּיר בַּעַל הַמַּאֲמָר עַל הַיָּרֵחַ שֶׁאָמְרָה אֶפְשָׁר לִשְׁנֵי מְלָכִים כו׳. וְשֶׁהֻצְרַךְ מִפְּנֵי כֵן לִהְיוֹת הוֹלֵךְ, מִמַּה שֶּׁהָיָה וְנִתְמַעֵט. וְעוֹד אֲדַבֵּר לְהַלָּן, הֵיאַךְ צוֹדֵק זֶה הַפֵּרוּשׁ, שֶׁפֵּרַשְׁתִּי בַּפָּסוּק הַזֶּה "אִם אֶרְאֶה אוֹר וגו׳":
To relate the above verse to the passage from Chulin 60b: The verse from Iyov serves as a support for the statement in the passage, that as a result of the moon’s complaint, “Is it possible for two kings to wear one crown?”, the moon was compelled to “proceed on its course,” i.e., to diminish itself. Later on, I will comment further on the relevance of this interpretation of the verse, “If I ever saw the light shining….”
וְאָמְנָם, זֶה שֶׁאָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְכִי וּמַעֲטִי כו׳, וְלֹא מִעֲטָהּ בְּעַצְמוֹ וּכְבוֹדוֹ יִתְבָּרֵךְ, עִם שֶׁאֵין בָּזֶה קֻשְׁיָא כּוּלֵי הַאי, כִּי לֹא רָצָה לְהָרֵעַ לָהּ בְּעַצְמוֹ וּכְבוֹדוֹ, כִּי "מִפִּי עֶלְיוֹן לֹא תֵצֵא הָרָעוֹת" (איכה ג לח) טועיין שם בתרגום וז"ל: מפי אלקא לא תיפוק בישתא אלהין על ברת קלא רמיזא בגין חטופין דאתמליאת ארעא ובעידן דבעי למגזר טובא בעלמא מן פום קודשא נפקא:, כָּל שֶׁכֵּן בְּפֹעַל. וְכָאן, שֶׁיָּצָא מִפִּיו, הַהֶכְרֵחַ הָיָה מִפְּנֵי טַעֲנָתָהּ בְּעַצְמָהּ אֶפְשָׁר לִשְׁנֵי מְלָכִים וכו׳.
The question was raised: Instead of God telling the moon: “Go diminish yourself,” why did He not diminish the moon Himself? In truth, this is not such a challenging question, because God did not desire to harm the moon Himself, for “Bad will not emerge from the mouth of the Most High,”13Eichah 3:38. and certainly God will not perform a negative act. In this instance, God’s negative statement resulted from the moon’s own complaint, “Is it possible for two kings to wear one crown?”
אָמְנָם עוֹד מִלִּין, כִּי נִרְאֵֶה בְּעֵינַי, שֶׁעִם זֶה תִּתְיַשֵּׁב הַשְּׁאֵלָה שֶׁשָּׁאַלְתִּי גַּם כֵּן, לָמָּה לֹא הָיָה זֶה מִפְעַל הַשֵּׁם יִתְבָּרֵךְ עַצְמוֹ, וְכִי לֹא הָיְתָה דֵּעָה בָּעֶלְיוֹן לָדַעַת, שֶׁאִי אֶפְשָׁר לִשְׁנֵי מְלָכִים כו׳? אֶלָּא שֶׁבֶּאֱמֶת כָּךְ הָיָה הָעִנְיָן, שֶׁהַשֵּׁם יִתְבָּרֵךְ עֲשָׂאָם גְּדוֹלִים מִתְּחִלָּה, וְעַל מְנָת שֶׁאַחַר כָּךְ יִתְמַעֵט הָאֶחָד, וְאוּלַי מֵחֹק הַבְּרִיאָה הָיָה כֵן, שֶׁתְּקַבֵּל אוֹר הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ אַחֲרֵי הִתְמַעֲטָהּ, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁכְּבָר הָיְתָה דְּבוּקָה בּוֹ, וּמִי יַעֲמוֹד בְּסוֹד ה' וְיַחְקֹר תַּעֲלוּמוֹת חָכְמָתוֹ יִתְבָּרֵךְ. וְנִמְצָא שֶׁהַדְּבָרִים שֶׁדִּבְּרָה הַיָּרֵחַ אֶפְשָׁר לִשְׁנֵי מְלָכִים כו׳, לֹא הָיָה נֶעְלָם מֵאִתּוֹ יִתְבָּרֵךְ, אֲבָל כְּבָר הִמְצִיא חָכְמָתוֹ יִתְבָּרֵךְ לְשֶׁיִּהְיוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם גְּדוֹלִים וְאַחַר כָּךְ יִתְמַעֵט אֶחָד מֵהֶם. וּמִיָּד, קֹדֶם שֶׁיָּצָא לַפֹּעַל מִעוּטוֹ שֶׁל הָאֶחָד, אָכְלָה הַיָּרֵחַ פַּגָּהּ יעל פי תלמוד בבלי מסכת סנהדרין (קז.): ראויה היתה לדוד בת שבע בת אליעם, אלא שאכלה פגה. ופרש"י שאכלה פגה - שקפץ את השעה ליזקק על ידי עבירה. ובתורת חיים (שם) כתב וז"ל: לכך אמר שאכלה פגה דתאנה שאינה מבושלת קרויה פגה כמו שנאמר התאנה חנטה פגיה ובלשון משנה שלשה סימנים באשה בחלה פגה וצמלה. ונראה כוונת רבינו שהירח אכלה מה שהיתה כוונת הקב"ה אלא שהקדימה זמנה., וְטָעֲנָה אֶפְשָׁר כו׳.
However, I will attempt to answer this question, because it appears to me that my answer will also resolve the question raised before, i.e., why did God not diminish the moon Himself at the outset? Did God not know that it is impossible for two kings to wear one crown? In truth, however, God’s original intent was as follows. He initially made both the sun and the moon great, with the intent that one of them would be diminished afterwards. Perhaps it was implicit in the law of Creation that the moon would be able to receive the light of the sun after it was diminished because at the outset the moon had cleaved to the sun. Who can know the mysteries of God’s wisdom and understand its hidden intricacies! Thus, the truth of the moon’s words was not hidden from God. Instead, God’s wisdom had ordained that initially both the sun and the moon would be great luminaries, and then one luminary would be diminished. However, before one luminary was actually diminished, the moon acted prematurely,14We have translated the words אכלה הירח פגה as “the moon acted prematurely.” אכלה פגה literally means “ate an unripe fig.” Our Sages use this expression in Sanhedrin 107a to describe King David’s taking of Batsheva. Although Batsheva was intended to be King David’s wife from the outset, King David nevertheless took Batsheva prematurely, in an undesirable manner, rather than wait for Divine providence to unroll. and complained, “Is it possible….”
וְיֵשׁ לִי כִּדְמוּת רְאָיָה לְמַה שֶּׁאָמַרְתִּי, שֶׁמִּתְחִלָּה הָיוּ גְּדוֹלִים עַל מְנָת שֶׁיֻּקְטַן אֶחָד מֵהֶם, מִמַּה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר "מְאֹרֹת" (בראשית א יד) חָסֵר. וְרַבּוֹתֵינוּ זִכְרוֹנָם לִבְרָכָה (מסכת סופרים פי"ז ה"ה) הִרְגִּישׁוּ, וְאָמְרוּ עַל שֶׁהוּא יוֹם מְאֵרָה לִפּוֹל אַסְכָּרָה בְּתִינוֹקוֹת וכו׳, וּכְמוֹ שֶׁכָּתַב רַשִׁ"י זִכְרוֹנוֹ לִבְרָכָה. וּלְדִידִי חָסֵר כְּתִיב, שֶׁמִּתְּחִלַּת מַאֲמַר פִּיו יִתְבָּרֵךְ הָיָה עַל דְּבַר שֶׁיִּפּוֹל מְאֵרָה וְהַקְטָנָה בְּאֶחָד מֵהֶם. וְעוֹד אֲדַבֵּר בָּזֶה, בְּבֵאוּר הַפָּרָשָׁה בְּסַיְעַתָּא דִשְׁמַיָּא.
A hint of support for the statement that at the outset both the sun and the moon were made great with the intent that one of them would later be diminished can be drawn from the verse,15 Bereishis 1:14. “Let there be luminaries.” In that verse, the word מארת, “luminaries,” is written chasair, without vavim.16The word מארת would ordinarily be written as מאורות. Our Sages17See Rashi’s commentary to Bereishis 1:14, which is based on Taanis 27b. took notice of that fact and commented, “It is a cursed (מארה) day when children become ill with croup.” According to my understanding, the fact that the word מארת, “luminaries,” was written chasair, lacking the two vavim, as it were, when relating the Divine utterance leading to the creation of the luminaries, alludes to the concept that God created the luminaries with the intent that one would be diminished. Initially, God’s decree was that a curse, i.e., a מארה, and a diminishment would affect one of the luminaries. I will expound more on this point later, in further explanation of the passage, with God’s help.
וּלְפִי שֶׁהָיָה בְּלָאו הָכִי הָעִנְיָן שֶׁיִּתְמַעֵט, הָיָה אוֹתוֹ הָעִנְיָן גַּם כֵּן בְּעִנְיַן זֶה, שֶׁאַחַר דִּבּוּקָם וְשִׁוּוּיָם, יִתְפָּרְשׁוּ זֶה מִזֶּה, וְיֵלֵךְ הָאֶחָד מִמְּקוֹמוֹ, וּבְהִלּוּכוֹ יִתְמַעֵט, כִּי כֵן הוּא כָּל הַקָּרֵב קָרֵב לְגַבֵּי דָּהִינָא וְאִידְהָן יאעל פי דברי הגמרא מסכת שבועות (מז:). ופרש"י קרב לגבי דהינא ואידהן - אם נגעת במשוח בשמן תהא גם משוח בנגיעתו ... דהינא לשון שמן ומשיחה (ישעיהו ל״ד:ו׳); הודשנה מחלב מתרגמינן אתדהינא., וְהַמִּתְרַחֵק הוּא בְּהֵפֶךְ. אִם כֵּן, כְּבָר בְּאָמְרוֹ "יְהִי מְאֹרֹת", הָיְתָה הַשְׁתֵּי יְצִירוֹת אֵלּוּ בְּמַשְׁמַע. דְּהַיְנוּ, שֶׁיִּהְיוּ שָׁוִים וְיֶחְסַר הָאֶחָד בְּאוֹרוֹ וּבְגוּפוֹ. וְזֶה עַל יְדֵי הַפְרָשָׁה וְהַהִלּוּךְ מֵרָחוֹק הַרְבֵּה מְאֹד. שֶׁהֲרֵי נִתְרַחֲקָה שְׁנֵי רְקִיעִים וּשְׁלֹשָׁה מֶרְחָקִים שֶׁמִּן רָקִיעַ לְרָקִיעַ, הַיְנוּ מֶרְחָק מִבֵּין כַּדּוּר הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ לְבֵין כַּדּוּר נֹגַהּ וְכַדּוּר נֹגַהּ עַצְמוֹ, וְהַמֶּרְחָק שֶׁבֵּינוֹ לְבֵין כַּדּוּר כּוֹכָב וְכַדּוּר כּוֹכָב עַצְמוֹ, וְעוֹד הַמֶּרְחָק שֶׁבֵּין כַּדּוּר כּוֹכָב לְכַדּוּר הַלְּבָנָה. נִמְצָא הָרִחוּק שֶׁנִּתְרַחֲקָה, הוּא חֲמִשָּׁה פְעָמִים מַהֲלָךְ ת״ק שָׁנָה, כְּפִי חֶשְׁבּוֹן חֲכָמֵינוּ זִכְרוֹנָם לִבְרָכָה (פסחים צד:) יבוכן הוא בחגיגה (יג.) וז"ל: מן הארץ עד לרקיע מהלך חמש מאות שנה, ועוביו של רקיע מהלך חמש מאות שנה, וכן בין כל רקיע ורקיע.. וְגַם הוּא קָרוֹב לְחֶשְׁבּוֹן בַּעֲלֵי הַתְּכוּנָה בְּמִדַּת כָּל רָקִיעַ וְרָקִיעַ. עַד שֶׁנִּמְצֵאתָ אוֹמֵר, שֶׁעַל יְדֵי הִלּוּךְ לְמֵרָחוֹק בָּא הַמִּעוּט מִמֵּילָא.
Even though initially the moon was formed in a manner that enabled it to cleave to the sun and be equal to it, God’s initial intent was that the moon would be diminished. From the outset, God envisioned that the luminaries would be separated from each other, that the moon would go forth from its place, and be diminished in the process of doing so. This pattern reflects the opposite of the motif alluded to by our Sages in their statement,18Shevuos 47b. Our Sages use this concept to explain why the Euphrates is described in Bereishis 15:18 as “the great river,” even though it is not that large a river. Since the Euphrates serves as the border of Eretz Yisrael, it is given prominence and is referred to as “great.” Tosfos Yom Tov is emphasizing that the converse is also true. Once the moon diverged from the sun, which is truly great, the moon’s prominence diminished because it no longer benefitted from the sun’s greatness. “Come near an oily substance, and oil will be smeared on you.” The converse is also true; one who distances himself from greatness will be diminished. Thus, from the outset, when God said, “Let there be luminaries,” writing the word מארת chasair, without the vavim, it was implied that there would be two stages in the formation of the moon. Initially, the sun and the moon would be equal, and then the moon would be diminished in both size and light through being separated from the sun and being distanced from it, i.e., the moon was forced to descend two heavens and three spaces between one heaven and the next. To explain: Based on the passage from the Raya Mehemna cited above,19See p. 34ff. the moon was originally positioned directly below the sun, and then distanced to its present position beneath the planet Kochav. Thus, the moon descended the distance between the sun and the orbit of the planet Nogah, the orbit of the planet Nogah itself, the distance between the orbit of the planet Nogah and that of the planet Kochav, the orbit of the planet Kochav, and the distance between the orbit of the planet Kochav and the present position of the moon. Our Sages reckoned each of these orbits and spaces as being the distance of a journey of 500 years. This is close to the calculation given by the astronomers. Thus, in its process of separation, the moon was distanced five times the distance of a journey of 500 years from its original position. As a result of being distanced to such a degree, the moon was diminished.
וְעוֹד הִמְשִׁיל מָשָׁל יָפֶה הָרַב הַמּוֹרֶה בְּחֵלֶק ב' פֶּרֶק יז, בְּיֶלֶד הַנּוֹלָד בְּמָקוֹם אֵין בּוֹ זוּלַת אִמּוֹ שֶׁיְּלָדַתּוּ וְאָבִיו. אָמְנָם מֵתָה אִמּוֹ בְּטֶרֶם יַכִּיר אוֹתָהּ, וְגִדְּלָהוּ הָאָב. וַיִּגְדַּל, וְלֹא רָאָה אִשָּׁה. וְשָׁאַל עַל מַהוּתוֹ, וְהוּשַׁב כַּאֲשֶׁר הוּא הָעִנְיָן. וּבְלִי סָפֵק יַכְחִישֵׁ(ו)הוּ כִּי יָבִיא רְאָיָה מִמְּצִיא[וּ]תוֹ עַתָּה. וְחָכְמַת הַמָּשָׁל הַזֶּה, עַל שֶׁאֵין לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה מֵהַנִּמְצָא עַתָּה עַל עֵת הַבְּרִיאָה. וְאִם כֵּן, בְּנִדּוֹן דִּידַן, אֵין לְהַכְחִישׁ וְלוֹמַר שֶׁלֹּא מִפְּנֵי הַהִלּוּךְ לְמֵרָחוֹק יִשְׁתַּנֶּה הַגּוּף מִמִּדָּתוֹ וִיבֻטַּל הָאוֹר שֶׁל עַצְמוֹ מִמֶּנּוּ, כִּי עֵת הַבְּרִיאָה אֵינוֹ כְּמוֹ מַה שֶּׁהוּא אַחַר הַבְּרִיאָה.
Although we have difficulty understanding this concept, that difficulty can be resolved through an analogy given by Rambam in his Moreh Nevuchim.20Moreh Nevuchim, Vol. 2, ch. 17. A child was born in a place where there were no people other than his parents. The child’s mother died before he was able to recognize her, and his father raised him. Thus, the child never saw a woman. When the child asked his father how he came into being, his father explained the process of pregnancy. However, the child didn’t believe his father. Indeed, the child brought proofs from his present state of existence that such a process was impossible.21Since a fetus is unable to breathe or eat naturally inside the womb, the son, familiar only with existence as he sees it, will not believe that the process of pregnancy is physically possible. The analogy teaches us that it is impossible to bring a proof from the present state of being regarding the state of existence at the time of Creation. Similarly, in our context, the fact that at present traveling a long distance will not cause a body to be diminished in size or to lose its capacity to generate light, does not refute the possibility that because the moon was forced to separate itself from the sun, its size became diminished and it lost its power to generate light. This is because the state of existence at the time of Creation is not the same as the state of existence after Creation.
וּמְיֻשָּׁב גַּם כֵּן בְּבֵאוּרִי הַזֶּה, עַל שֶׁאָמַר "לְכִי". וְכֵן נַמִּי, מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁלֹּא נִתְמַעֲטָה עֲדַיִן כְּשֶׁאָמְרָה "הוֹאִיל וְאָמַרְתִּי דָּבָר הָגוּן וכו'", וּמִכְּלָל הַפִּיּוּסִים נַמִּי מַשְׁמַע, שֶׁיָּפֶה טָעֲנָה. לָמָּה לֹא חָזַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מִגְּזֵרָתוֹ שֶׁעָלֶיהָ "לְכִי וּמַעֲטִי כו׳"? שֶׁהֲרֵי אָמַרְנוּ שֶׁתְּחִלַּת הַבְּרִיאָה לִמְכֻוָּן הַהַקְטָנָה הָיְתָה מֵעִקָּרָא. אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן תִּפּוֹל הַשְּׁאֵלָה יוֹתֵר חֲזָקָה, עַל מָה בָּאוּ הַפִּיּוּסִים, כֵּיוָן שֶׁכַּוָּנַת הַבְּרִיאָה מִתְּחִלָּה כָּךְ הָיְתָה. וְלָזֶה אוֹמֵר אֲנִי, שֶׁהֲרֵי גַּם הִקְשֵׁיתִי לִשְׁאוֹל, שֶׁאִם לֹא תִתְמַעֵט תֶּהְדַּר הַתֵּימָא לְדוּכְתָּא "אֶפְשָׁר לִשְׁנֵי מְלָכִים כו׳". אֶלָּא שֶׁבֶּאֱמֶת לֹא טָעֲנָה עַכְשָׁו שֶׁלֹּא חָזְרָה לוֹ כְּלוּם, שֶׁהֲרֵי לְפִי מַה שֶּׁאָמַרְנוּ שֶׁתֵּבַת "לְכִי" הֶכְרֵחִי לוֹמַר כֵּן שֶׁעַל יְדֵי הַמַּהֲלָךְ תִּתְמַעֵט. אִם כֵּן, נוֹלְדָה קֻשְׁיָא אַחֶרֶת, שֶׁהִיא גַּם הִיא בְּמֶשֶׁךְ דְּבָרֶיהָ הָיָה לָהּ לוֹמַר "אֵלֵךְ וַאֲמַעֵט כו׳". אֶלָּא כָּךְ טָעֲנָה, "הוֹאִיל וְאָמַרְתִּי כו' אֲמַעֵט כו'", כְּלוֹמַר, אַחַת דִּבַּרְתִּי וּשְׁתַּיִם שָׁמַעְתִּי, וְהוּא שֶׁאֵלֵךְ מִמְּקוֹמִי וְגַם אֶתְמַעֵט. וְלָזֶה אָמְרָה "וְכִי לֹא סַגִּי בַּחֲדָא, שֶׁאֵלֵךְ אֲבָל לֹא אֶתְמַעֵט", שֶׁהֲרֵי לֹא יִהְיֶה עוֹד שְׁנֵי מְלָכִים מִשְׁתַּמְּשִׁים בְּכֶתֶר אֶחָד, אֶלָּא יִהְיֶה כְּעֵין שֶׁאָמְרוּ זִכְרוֹנָם לִבְרָכָה (סנהדרין צח:) קֵיסָר וּפְלַג קֵיסָר יגופי' רש"י: קיסר ופלגי קיסר- מלך ושני לו., מִפְּנֵי שִׁנּוּי הַמְּקוֹמוֹת, שֶׁזּוֹ, רוֹצֶה לוֹמַר הַחַמָּה, כַּמָּה מַעֲלוֹת גְּבוֹהוֹת מֵהַיָּרֵחַ כַּנִּזְכָּר לְמַעְלָה. וְאִם כֵּן, מְלַמֵּד שֶׁהַמָּקוֹם גּוֹרֵם הַשִּׁנּוּי, וְאֵינָם עוֹד שְׁנֵי מְלָכִים מִשְׁתַּמְּשִׁים בְּכֶתֶר אֶחָד. וְתָלְתָה הַדָּבָר בְּמַה שֶּׁאָמְרָה דָּבָר הָגוּן. וּכְלוֹמַר, שֶׁמִּפְּנֵי כֵּן לֹא יָאוּת שֶׁתִּהְיֶה נִלְקֵית בִּשְׁתַּיִם, שֶׁתֵּלֵךְ מִמָּקוֹם גָּבוֹהַּ לְמָקוֹם נָמוּךְ וְשֶׁגַּם תִּתְמַעֵט עַל יְדֵי כֵן. שֶׁאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמִּצַּד הַקִּטְרוּג רְאוּיָה שֶׁתִּהְיֶה נִלְקֵית, כִּי לְמַחֲשַׁבְתָּהּ לְרָעַת הַחַמָּה הָיְתָה. מִכָּל מָקוֹם, הוֹאִיל וְעַל כָּל פָּנִים הַדִּבּוּר מִצַּד עַצְמוֹ הָיָה הָגוּן, רְאוּיָה הִיא, אִם כֵּן, לְשֶׁתְּרֻחַם וְלֹא תִלְקֶה בִּשְׁתַּיִם.
This explanation also clarifies why God instructed the moon, “Go and diminish yourself.” As explained above, the moon’s diminishment was dependent on its being distanced from its original position. Rambam’s analogy also clarifies why God did not retract His instructions to the moon after the moon presented its complaints. On the surface, it seems that the moon had yet to be diminished. After the moon complained, “Because I have suggested something that is proper must I diminish myself?” God apparently offered several gestures of consolation. This implies that God accepted the moon’s arguments. Why then did God not retract His decree that the moon be diminished? In resolution, initially, from the very beginning of Creation, God’s intent was that the moon be diminished. Hence, the decree was not retracted. This resolution, however, raises a stronger question: If God’s initial intent was that the moon be diminished, why did He offer the moon several gestures of consolation? That question can be answered through the resolution of another question I raised: Why did the moon protest against being diminished? If the moon was not to be diminished, the question it raised, “Is it possible for two kings to wear one crown?” would still apply! Therefore, the moon had to be diminished, by the force of its own argument.Instead, the moon’s response reflected a different intent. As explained above, the moon’s distancing itself from the sun brought about its diminishment. On that basis, the moon’s response, “Because I have suggested something that is proper must I diminish myself?” can be understood as follows: God’s decree, “Go and diminish yourself,” was twofold: “Go” – distance yourself from your present place, “and diminish yourself.” Hence, the moon protested: “Would not one of these acts be sufficient? Let me go, but why must I diminish myself? Once I have descended from the sun’s plane, even though I am not diminished, there will no longer be ‘two kings wearing one crown.’“ Instead, because of the change in the moon’s position, the situation would resemble, to borrow our Sages’ words,22Sanhedrin 98b. “an emperor and a deputy emperor.” Since the sun would be several levels above the moon as stated above, the change in position would bring about a change in their prominence, and they would no longer be “two kings wearing one crown.” The moon hinged this request on the argument that it “suggested something that is proper.” Thus, the moon was arguing that it is not appropriate that it should suffer a twofold punishment: that it should descend from a high place to a lower place, and also be diminished as a result. The moon admitted that it deserved punishment because of its original complaint – for the moon’s intent was that the sun be diminished. Nevertheless, since the moon’s statement was ultimately justified, it was proper for the moon to be pitied and not to be forced to suffer a twofold punishment.
וְאִי נַמִּי, טָעֲנָה בְּהֵפֶךְ, וְיִהְיֶה פֵּרוּשׁ "הוֹאִיל כו׳ אֲמַעֵט כו׳", בְּנִיחוּתָא. וּכְלוֹמַר, הוֹאִיל וְאָמַרְתִּי דָּבָר הָגוּן, אֵינֶנִּי רְאוּיָה לִלְקוֹת בִּשְׁתַּיִם, אֲבָל אַמְעִיט אֶת עַצְמִי בְּכָאן, בִּמְקוֹמִי שֶׁאֲנִי בוֹ, וְלֹא יִהְיֶה שׁוּב שְׁנֵי מְלָכִים כְּלָל, אַךְ לֹא אֵלֵךְ לִי אֶל מָקוֹם אַחֵר, וְדַיִּי בַּמֶּה שֶּׁאֶתְמַעֵט. וְיִצְדַּק בְּיוֹתֵר לְפִי פֵּרוּשׁ הַשֵּׁנִי, שֶׁאָמַר עוֹד "לְכִי וּמְשֹׁל כו׳", וּמָה "לְכִי" דְּקָאָמַר. אֶלָּא כְּלַפֵּי שֶׁהַיָּרֵחַ לֹא רָצְתָה אֶלָּא בְּמִעוּט אֲבָל לֹא לֵילֵךְ, לָזֶה חָזַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא וְאָמַר שֵׁנִית "לְכִי", שֶׁגַּם בָּזֶה תִּצְטָרֵךְ לַעֲשׂוֹת, הַיְנוּ שִׁנּוּי מַעֲשֵׂה בְרֵאשִׁית שֶׁתִּתְמַעֵט וְשִׁנּוּי מָקוֹם גַּם כֵּן.
Alternatively, the moon’s response can be interpreted in a different way. The words הוֹאִיל... אֲמַעֵט כו׳ can be understood as having been said in partial acquiescence to God’s instruction. It is as if the moon said: “Since I suggested something that is proper, it is not befitting that I suffer a twofold punishment. I consent to ‘diminish myself’ in my present position, but why must I go to a lower place? It is sufficient that I be diminished.” This second interpretation enables a resolution of another question raised above: Why did God respond, “Go and ‘rule during the day and during the night’”? The question was raised: Why was it necessary for God to say “Go” a second time? The above interpretation explains that point. Since the moon desired only to diminish itself, but not to descend, God instructed it to also descend, implying that it was necessary to do both: to change from the manner in which the moon was created and to diminish itself, and also for the moon to change its position.
וּמִיהוּ, גַּם לַפֵּרוּשׁ הָרִאשׁוֹן מְיֻשָּׁב שַׁפִּיר אָמְרוֹ "לְכִי", שֶׁהֲרֵי מִמַּה שֶּׁאָמְרָה "אַמְעִיט" עֲדַיִן לֹא נַעֲשָׂה דָּבָר, הִלְכָּךְ הֻכְרַח הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לַחֲזֹר לִדְבָרָיו הָרִאשׁוֹנִים וְאָמַר "לְכִי", וּבָזֶה כְּבָר נִשְׁמַע סוֹף דְּבָרָיו הַיְנוּ "וּמַעֲטִי כו'".
Nevertheless, even according to the first interpretation given above, the instruction “Go” is appropriate. For the moon had yet to heed God’s instructions, and was still questioning whether it should be diminished. Therefore, God had to repeat the instruction “Go,” from which it could be understood that the moon was also to diminish itself.
וְהִנֵּה, אָמַר "לִמְשׁוֹל בַּיוֹם וּבַלַּיְלָה", לָתֵת לָהּ תַּשְׁלוּמִין עַל דָּבָר הָגוּן, כִּי אֵין מִדָּתוֹ יִתְבָּרֵךְ לְקַפֵּחַ שְׂכַר כָּל בִּרְיָה (פסחים קיח.). וּכְמוֹ שֶׁהַצְּעִירָה שֶׁבִּבְנוֹת לוֹט קִבְּלָה שָׂכָר עַל שֶׁקָּרְאָה בְּנָהּ בְּלָשׁוֹן נְקִיָּה, כִּדְפֵרֵשׁ רַשִׁ"י בִּמְקוֹמוֹ ידוַתֵּלֶד הַבְּכִירָה בֵּן וַתִּקְרָא שְׁמוֹ מוֹאָב הוּא אֲבִי מוֹאָב עַד הַיּוֹם. ובפרש"י: מואב - זו שלא היתה צנועה פירשה שמאביה הוא, אבל צעירה קראתו בלשון נקיה, וקבלה שכר בימי משה, שנאמר בבני עמון (דברים ב יט) אל תתגר בם כלל, ובמואב לא הזהיר אלא שלא ילחם בם, אבל לצערן התיר לו. (בראשית יט לז). וְזוֹ הַמֶּמְשָׁלָה שֶׁבַּיּוֹם וּבַלַּיְלָה שֶׁאָמַר בַּעַל הַמַּאֲמָר אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לִמְצוֹא פֶּתַח וְסַעַד, שֶׁמְּבֹאָר מִן הַכָּתוּב עַצְמוֹ שֶׁהוּא מְיֻתָּר, שֶׁכְּבָר נֶאֱמַר "וּלְהַבְדִּיל בֵּין הָאוֹר וּבֵין הַחֹשֶׁךְ", וּמַה לּוֹ עוֹד לוֹמַר "וְלִמְשֹׁל וגו׳". וְגַם הָיָה לוֹ לוֹמַר ׳וְלִמְשֹׁל אֶחָד בַּיּוֹם וְאֶחָד בַּלַּיְלָה׳, אִם הַהַבְדָּלָה שֶׁבֵּין הָאוֹר וְהַחֹשֶׁךְ הוּא עִנְיָן אֶחָד.
God then made a consolatory gesture to the moon, giving it a measure of sovereignty during the day and at night as recompense for it having made a proper statement. For God’s attributes are such that He does not withhold reward from any created being.23Cf. Pesachim 118a. For example, Lot’s younger daughter received a reward for naming her son in a manner that reflected modesty, as Rashi states.24See Rashi’s commentary to Bereishis 19:37. The comparison to Lot’s daughter adds a further insight: Her act was far from a modest one. Nevertheless, because Lot’s younger daughter named her son in a modest manner, she was granted a certain measure of reward. Similarly, as a whole, the moon’s conduct reflected jealously. Nevertheless, “since it made a proper statement,” the moon was granted a measure of appeasement. The fact that sovereignty was granted the moon during the day and the night, as the author of the passage in Chulin states, does not require support from additional verses, for it is obvious from the narrative itself. If the intent of the verse “to rule during the day and during the night” was that the sun would rule during the day and the moon would rule during the night, the phrase, “to rule during the day and during the night,” would be superfluous, for the verse already stated that the sun and the moon were created “to separate between the light and the darkness.” Why then is it necessary to further state that the sun and the moon were placed in the heavens “to rule during the day and during the night”? Also, were the passage’s intent that the sovereignty referred to in the verse reflects the same concept as the separation between light and darkness, the verse should have stated that one luminary would rule during the day and one luminary would rule during the night.
וְאָמְנָם מַה שֶּׁלֹּא הִרְגִּישׁ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא בְּמַה דְּאָמְרָה הַיָּרֵחַ דִּשְׁרַגָּא בְּטִיהֲרָא כו׳, אֵינָהּ קֻשְׁיָא כְּלָל. לְפִי שֶׁעִנְיַן "וְלִמְשֹׁל בַּיּוֹם וּבַלַּיְלָה" לֹא עַל שֶׁתִּהְיֶה נִרְאֵית גַּם בַּיּוֹם הוּא שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר, דְּאִם כֵּן מָה "וְלִמְשֹׁל"? "וְלֵרָאוֹת" הָיָה לוֹ לוֹמַר! אֶלָּא שֶׁהָעִקָּר הוּא שֶׁמִּתּוֹךְ שֶׁהִיא נִרְאֵית גַּם בַּיּוֹם, מוֹשֶׁלֶת גַּם בַּיּוֹם בָּעוֹלָם כְּפִי כֹּחוֹתֶיהָ הַנְּתוּנִים לָהּ. וְזֶה לְשׁוֹן הָרַמְבַּ״ם טולכאורה נראה שנפלה כאן טעות וצ"ל לשון הרמב"ן, שלשון זה מועתק מילה במילה מפירושו על התורה על הפסוק (בראשית א יח).׃ וְיִתָּכֵן שֶׁהַמֶּמְשָׁלָה עוֹד כֹּחַ אֲצִילוּת, שֶׁהֵם מַנְהִיגֵי הַתַּחְתּוֹנִים, וּבְכֹחָם יִמְשׁוֹל כָּל מוֹשֵׁל, וְהַמַּזָּל הַצּוֹמֵחַ בַּיּוֹם יִמְשׁוֹל בּוֹ וְהַמַּזָּל הַצּוֹמֵחַ בַּלַּיְלָה יִמְשׁוֹל בָּהּ, כָּעִנְיָן שֶׁכָּתוּב (דברים ד יט) "אֲשֶׁר חָלַק וגו׳" וכו׳. עַד כָּאן. וְזֶהוּ שֶׁרָצָה הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, בְּאָמְרוֹ "וְלִמְשֹׁל בַּיּוֹם וּבַלַּיְלָה".
The question why the moon’s complaint, “Of what use is a candle in broad daylight?” was not obvious to God, is not a valid question at all. For the sovereignty granted the moon during the day and the night does not refer to its being visible during the day. Were that to be the intent, why would the verse use the phrase “to rule”? If that were the meaning, the verse should have stated, “to be seen”. However, the intent is that since the moon is also seen during the day, it has a measure of sovereignty during the day as well, according to the powers granted it, as Ramban writes:25See Ramban’s commentary to Bereishis 1:18. We have corrected a printing error. The standard version of the text cites Rambam, rather than Ramban. It is possible that the “sovereignty” granted the moon also includes the power of emanation, that sovereignty radiates from them. The sun and the moon are the governors of the lower realms, and through their power every reigning power and constellation rules; the mazal i.e., the “spiritual source” that causes growth during the day governs the day, and the mazal that causes growth during the night governs the night, as reflected in the interpretation of the phrase,26Devarim 4:19. “which God, your Lord, apportioned to all the nations.” This was God’s intent in instructing the moon to “rule during the day and during the night,” that the sovereignty granted the moon also be an active force during the day.
וּמַה שֶּׁטָּעֲנָה אַחַר כָּךְ "שְׁרַגָּא בְּטִיהֲרָא מַאי אַהֲנֵי", אֵינוֹ טַעֲנָה עַל "וְלִמְשֹׁל", שֶׁאֵינוֹ עִנְיַן לִשְׁרַגָּא כו׳. אֶלָּא טַעֲנָתָהּ כָּךְ הָיְתָה, שֶׁכְּמוֹ שֶׁאָמַרְנוּ לְמַעְלָה, שֶׁטָּעֲנָה שֶׁהוֹאִיל וְאָמְרָה דָּבָר הָגוּן, רְאוּיָה לִטּוֹל שָׂכָר עַל זֶה וּתְהִי מַשְׂכֻּרְתָּהּ מֵאֵת הַשֵּׁם יִתְבָּרֵךְ שֶׁלֹּא תִהְיֶה נִלְקֵית בִּשְׁתַּיִם, בְּשִׁנּוּי מַעֲשֶׂה לְשֶׁתִּתְמַעֵט, וּבְשִׁנּוּי מָקוֹם לָרֶדֶת מַטָּה, וְלֹא נַעֲנֵית כִּדְאֲמָרָן. חָזְרָה עַכְשָׁו וּבִקְשָׁה עוֹד עַל הַדֶּרֶךְ הָרִאשׁוֹן, וְאָמְנָם בְּאֹפֶן אַחֵר. וְזֶה שֶׁאָנוּ מוֹצְאִים שֶׁעִנְיַן הַמִּעוּט עַצְמוֹ יֵשׁ בּוֹ שְׁתֵּי לְקִיּוֹת, הַיְנוּ מִעוּט הַגּוּף מִמִּדָּתוֹ וּמִעוּט הָאוֹר. וּבִקְשָׁה עַתָּה, שֶׁלְּפָחוֹת לֹא תִתְמַעֵט מְאוֹרָהּ כּוּלֵי הַאי, כִּי מָצְאָה מָקוֹם לְבַקֵּשׁ וּלְחַנֵּן עַל זֶה, הוֹאִיל וְהֻבְטְחָה בְּמֶמְשֶׁלֶת הַיּוֹם. עַל כֵּן טָעֲנָה וְאָמְרָה "שְׁרַגָּא בְּטִיהֲרָא מַאי אַהֲנֵי". כְּלוֹמַר, שֶׁאַף שֶׁאֶמְשׁוֹל בַּיּוֹם, הִנֵּה זֶה יִהְיֶה לִי לְמַפַּח נֶפֶשׁ שֶׁאֶהְיֶה כִּשְׁרַגָּא כו׳. וְשֶׁלָּכֵן יְשַׁלֵּם לָהּ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מַשְׂכֻּרְתָּהּ עַל דָּבָר הֶהָגוּן בְּמַה שֶּׁלֹּא תִתְמַעֵט מֵהָאוֹר, כִּי אִם מֵהַגּוּף.
The moon’s reply, “Of what use is a candle in broad daylight?” is not a complaint regarding the sovereignty granted it, because that sovereignty does not involve shining light. Instead, the moon’s argument was, as explained above, that it is proper that the moon receive compensation for having made a correct statement, i.e. that God should repay the moon by not causing it to suffer a twofold punishment: that it be diminished, undergoing a change in deed, and that it be forced to descend, undergoing a change in position. God had not answered that argument directly; therefore, the moon sought to advance the same argument in a different manner. The actual diminishment of the moon was also twofold: The moon was diminished in size, and its light was diminished. The moon was now asking that at least its light not be diminished. The moon felt that this argument could be advanced since it was promised sovereignty during the day. Accordingly, the moon argued, “Of what use is a candle in broad daylight?” i.e., the moon was arguing, “Even though I will have a measure of sovereignty during the day, I will nevertheless face the ongoing displeasure of being merely ‘a candle in broad daylight’.” Therefore, the moon argued, God should compensate it for making a proper suggestion by not reducing its light, even though He reduced its size.
וְהַסַּעַד מִן הַכָּתוּב לְטַעֲנָה זוֹ, דִּשְׁרַגָּא כו׳, נִרְאֶה בְעֵינַי מִמַּה שֶּׁאָמַר בִּלְדַּד הַשֻּׁחִי (אִיּוֹב כ׳׳ה (ד-ה)) "וּמַה יִּצְדַּק אֱנוֹשׁ עִם אֵל וּמַה יִּזְכֶּה יְלוּד אִשָּׁה הֵן עַד יָרֵחַ וְלֹא יַאֲהִיל" טזוז"ל האלשיך: הן עד ירח כו', והנה מלת הן עד משוללת הבנה, אך יאמר כמה דאת אמר עד דיבון שהוא לשון ביזה ושידוד, והענין איך יצדק אנוש עם אל, כי הנה ירח משולל יצה"ר ושודד ולא יאהיל, כי מיעטה את עצמה, והוא כי אמרה אי אפשר לשני מלכים להשתמש בכתר אחד, ואמר לה לכי ומעטי את עצמך והפסיד אורה, וזהו הן עד ושודד ירח והפסיד שלא יאהיל, הנה כי עם שאין לה יצה"ר לקתה כי חטאה: וכיו"ב פירש במצודת דוד שם וז"ל: הן עד ירח - הנה העביר והסיר אור הירח לבל תאיר כשעור האורה אשר שם בה כשבראה והוא על שקנאה בשמש ואמרה א"א לשני מלכים וכו' ואם כי היה מעט מן המרי ומעלתם הלא גדלה מ"מ כמוה כאין מול המקום ואף המעט תחשב לרב.. שֶׁהַוא״ו שֶׁל "וְלֹא" אֵינָהּ מְקֻשֶּׁרֶת יָפֶה. וְלָכֵן אֲפָרְשֵׁהוּ בִּשְׁנֵי פָנִים. הָאֶחָד, שֶׁיִּהְיֶה ׳עַד׳ מִלְּשׁוֹן שָׁלָל, כְּמוֹ "בַּבֹּקֶר יֹאכַל עַד" (בראשית מט כז) יזוברש"י שם: בבקר יאכל עד - לשון ביזה ושלל, המתורגם (במדבר לא יב) עדאה. ועוד יש לו דומה בלשון עברית (ישעיה לג כג) אז חולק עד שלל מרבה, ועל שאול הוא אומר שעמד בתחלת פריחתן וזריחתן של ישראל., יֹאמַר, הֵן שֻׁלַּל הַיָּרֵחַ מִגָּדְלוֹ יחמדברי רבינו נראה שלומד פירוש תיבת "שלל" משורש שלילה דהיינו לקיחה בכח, וכן משמע מזה שתיבת "מלקוח" (במדבר לא יב) היא מלה נרדפת ל"שלל" (ועיין שם במפרשי התורה למה כתוב גם מלקוח וגם שלל)., וְגַם לֹא יַאֲהִיל. שְׁמַע מִנָּהּ, שֶׁהָיָה לַטּוֹעֵן לִטְעוֹן שֶׁיַּהֵל אוֹרוֹ אַף שֶׁיֻּקְטַן בְּגוּפוֹ. וְאֵין לְךָ טוֹעֵן יוֹתֵר מִבַּעַל הַדָּבָר עַצְמוֹ, אִם כֵּן הַיָּרֵחַ טָעַן כֵּן.
It appears to me that support for this interpretation of the complaint, “Of what use is a candle in broad daylight?” can be taken from the words of Bildad the Shuhite,27Iyov 25:4-5. See the commentaries of Alshich and Metzudas David there, which also point to the diminishment of the moon. “How can man justify himself before God and with what may one born of woman gain purity? Even the moon does not shine brightly.” The verse uses the phrase עד ירח ולא יאהיל, which we have translated as, “even the moon does not shine brightly.” The vav in the phrase ולא יאהיל appears superfluous, and seemingly does not fit the context of the verse. Therefore, it is possible to offer two interpretations of the verse. The first is that the word עד refers to something taken by force, like the spoils of war, as in the verse,28Bereishis 49:27. See Rashi’s commentary there. “In the morning he will eat his spoils.” Thus, Bildad is saying, “Even some of the moon’s size was taken from it, and it also does not shine brightly.” It can be derived from this that the moon should have argued that its light should continue to shine brightly even though its size was diminished. Since this is a logical argument and the plaintiff will plead his own case better than others, it can be assumed that the moon indeed raised this argument.
אוֹ יִהְיֶה ׳עַד׳ מִלְּשׁוֹן "עֶדְיוֹ לִבְלוֹם" (תהלים לב ט), הַיְנוּ פִּיו. וְכֵן פֵּרֵשׁ הָרַדַ״ק "הַמַּשְׂבִּיעַ בַּטּוֹב עֶדְיֵךְ" (שם קג ה) יטוז"ל: (ה) המשׂביע בטוב עדיך. עֶדְיֵךְ, כמו פיך, וכן (מזמור לב, ט): עֶדְיוֹ לִבְלוֹם. ואמר זה כנגד החולה, כי החולה ימאס כל מאכל, כמו שכתוב (איוב לג, כ): וְזִהֲמַתּוּ חַיָּתוֹ לָחֶם וְנַפְשׁוֹ מַאֲכַל תַּאֲוָה, והנה האל יתברך עושה חסד גדול עם האדם שנותן לו התחלואים לכפרת עונותיו, ורופא אותו מן החולי, וזהו שנאמר: המשׂביע בטוב עדיך, הפה שהוא מואס המאכל הוא משׂביע אותו בטוב עם הבריאות.. וְהַפֶּה הֻשְׁאַל לְכַנּוֹת בּוֹ הַדִּבּוּר, כְּמוֹ "עַל פִּי ה׳" (ויקרא כד יב), "וְעַל פִּיךָ יִשַּׁק" (בראשית מא מ), וְרַבִּים כָּאֵלֶּה. וְיֹאמַר, הֵן פִּי יָרֵחַ, כְּלוֹמַר דִּבּוּרוֹ הוּא, וְלֹא יַאֲהִיל, בִּתְמִיָּה, כְּלוֹמַר, תִּתְמַעֵט בַּגּוּף אֲבָל לָמָּה לֹא יַהֵל אוֹרוֹ גַּם כֵּן.
Alternatively, the word עד can be interpreted as in the verse,29Tehillim 32:9. The word עדיו in this verse is rooted in the word עד. עדיו לבלום, “shut their mouths;” i.e., עד means “mouth.” In that vein, Radak interprets the word עדיך as “mouth” in the verse,30Ibid. 103:5. המשביע בטוב עדיך, “Who sates your mouth with generosity.” Now, the term “mouth” may also refer to speech. Thus, we find the expression,31Vayikra 24:12, et al. על פי ה', “according to the word of God,” and it is written,32Bereishis 41:40. ועל פיך ישק כל עמי ‒ “according to your word, will all my people be directed.” There are many similar examples. According to this understanding, Bildad was saying,] “The moon spoke, ‘Why shall I not shine?’“ i.e., the moon was willing for its body to be diminished, but it asked ‘Why should my light not shine brightly?’
אָכֵן, גַּם בָּזֶה לֹא יֵאוֹת לָהּ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, וְאָמַר לָהּ "זִיל וְלִימְנוּ בָךְ כו׳". אָמַר "זִיל", לְפִי שֶׁאִם הָיָה מְמַלֵּא בַּקָּשָׁתָהּ, אִם כֵּן, כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא תִתְמַעֵט מֵהָאוֹר, לְכָךְ לֹא הָיְתָה צְרִיכָה לָרֶדֶת מַטָּה כּוּלֵי הַאי, כְּדֵי שֶׁאוֹר הַחַמָּה תִּהְיֶה שׁוֹלֶטֶת עָלֶיהָ בְּיוֹתֵר. אוֹ שֶׁאוֹר עַצְמָהּ לֹא תַחְשִׁיךְ, הוֹאִיל וְעוֹדָהּ בְּמַעֲלָה מִן הַמַּעֲלוֹת, לֹא לְמַטָּה מִן הַכַּדּוּר הַתַּחְתּוֹן לְגַמְרֵי. וְאַף שֶׁהִיא לֹא אָמְרָה שֶׁלֹּא לֵילֵךְ, רַק טָעֲנָה "שְׁרַגָּא כו׳", אָמְנָם מִמֵּילָא מַשְׁמַע, שֶׁכָּךְ יִהְיֶה, שֶׁלֹּא תֵלֵךְ לְמַטָּה לְגַמְרֵי, כִּדְאֲמָרָן. לְכָךְ כְּשֶׁלֹּא רָצָה הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְמַלֹּאות בַּקָּשָׁתָהּ, אָמַר "זִיל". כְּלוֹמַר, לֵךְ אֶל הַמָּקוֹם שֶׁאָמַרְתִּי לְךָ, לְמַטָּה לְגַמְרֵי. וְאָמַר בִּלְשׁוֹן אֲרַמִּית, שֶׁאֵין הַמַּלְאָכִים מַכִּירִין בּוֹ כואמר רבי יוחנן כל השואל צרכיו בלשון ארמי אין מלאכי השרת נזקקין לו, שאין מלאכי השרת מכירין בלשון ארמי (שבת יב: סוטה לג.).. וְזֶה גַּם כֵּן לְפִיּוּס, שֶׁהַמַּלְאָכִים לֹא יָבִינוּ שֶׁעֲדַיִן אָמַר לָהּ שֶׁתֵּלֵךְ וְתִתְמַעֵט.
Nevertheless, God also did not consent to the moon’s request that its light not be diminished, and instructed the moon, “Go, Israel will reckon by the days and the years according to you.” God told the moon, “Go,” i.e., descend as you were instructed. This was necessary, for the moon had yet to fulfill that instruction. Were God to have accepted the moon’s request, the moon would not have had to descend that much in order that its light would not be diminished, so that the light of the sun would rule over it to a greater degree, for the moon would still be on one of the higher levels instead of being entirely below the lower sphere. Even the moon did not say that it refused to go and descend; it merely complained, “Of what use is a candle...” and from that it is understood as a matter of course that the moon would not have to descend as much as implied by God’s previous instruction. Therefore, when God did not desire to fulfill the moon’s request, He told it “Go,” i.e., “Descend entirely to the lower plane where I instructed you to go.” God expressed the instruction in Aramaic as a further gesture of consolation to the moon, for the angels do not understand Aramaic.33See our Sages’ statements: Shabbos 12b, Sotah 33a. Thus, they would not understand that God was persisting in His command that the moon go and diminish itself.
וּלְעִנְיַן דִּבּוּר הֶהָגוּן שֶׁלֹּא נִתְפַּיַּסְתְּ בְּמֶמְשֶׁלֶת הַיּוֹם עִם הַלַּיְלָה, מֵחֲמַת שֶׁטָּעַנְתְּ דִּשְׁרַגָּא כו׳ וְיִהְיֶה לָּךְ לְמַפַּח נֶפֶשׁ, הִנֵּה לְעֻמַּת זֶה "לִימְנוּ בָךְ יִשְׂרָאֵל יָמִים וְשָׁנִים". וְלֹא אָמַר ׳לְמוֹעֲדִים׳, לְפִי שֶׁכְּבָר גַּם הַחַמָּה מִשְׁתַּתֶּפֶת בִּקְבִיעַת הַמּוֹעֲדִים כאעיין בדברי רבינו לעיל פ"ב בשאלה הט"ז., שֶׁתְּלוּיִים בְּחֶשְׁבּוֹן תְּקוּפַת הַחַמָּה כַּיָּדוּעַ לְבַעֲלֵי הָעֶבְרוֹנוֹת.
In response to the moon’s lack of satisfaction with the dimension of] sovereignty granted it during the day and during the night, as reflected by the moon’s complaint, “Of what use is a candle?...” and the moon’s grievance that due to its lesser role, it would feel ongoing displeasure, God answered, “Israel will reckon the days and the years according to you.” God did not mention the festivals, because the sun also plays a role in setting the dates of the festivals, for the festivals are also dependent on the sun’s seasons, as is well known to the experts in the establishment of the calendar.
אֲבָל אָמַר ׳יָמִים וְשָׁנִים׳, אַף שֶׁעִקַּר הַיָּמִים וְעִקַּר הַשָּׁנִים הוּא לַחַמָּה וְלֹא לַלְּבָנָה, כְּמוֹ שֶׁהִזְכַּרְתִּי בַּקֻּשְׁיָא (הי״ד) [הט"ז]. אֶלָּא שֶׁבְּכָאן הַכַּוָּנָה בְּיָמִים וְשָׁנִים לְעִנְיָן אַחֵר. וְהוּא זֶה שֶׁהַמּוֹעֲדִים יִהְיוּ נִקְבָּעִים לְיָמִים שֶׁל חָדְשֵׁי הַלְּבָנָה, לֹא לְמִסְפַּר הַיָּמִים שֶׁל חָדְשֵׁי הַחַמָּה. וְכֵן לְשָׁנִים, שֶׁבַּעֲבוּר קְבִיעוּת הַמּוֹעֲדִים יִתְחַיְּבוּ לִמְנוֹת שָׁנִים גַּם לַלְּבָנָה, כְּדֵי לְחַבֵּר הַמְּאוֹרוֹת בְּמַחֲזוֹרוֹת כבז"ל הרמב"ם (קידוש החודש פ"ו ה"י)׃ כל תשע עשרה שנה שיהיו מהן שבע שנים מעוברות ושתים עשרה פשוטות נקרא 'מחזור', ולמה סמכנו על מנין זה, שבזמן שאתה מקבץ מנין ימי שתים עשרה שנה פשוטות ושבע מעוברות ושעותיהן וחלקיהן ותשלים כל אלף ושמונים חלקים שעה, וכל ארבע ועשרים שעות יום, ותוסיף למנין הימים תמצא הכל תשע עשרה שנה משני החמה שכל שנה מהן שלש מאות וחמשה וששים יום ושש שעות בשוה, ולא ישאר ממנין ימי החמה בכל תשע עשרה שנה חוץ משעה אחת וארבע מאות ושמונים וחמשה חלקים, סימן להם אתפ"ה., כַּיָּדוּעַ גַּם כֵּן לְבַעֲלֵי הָעֶבְרוֹנוֹת.
However, God mentioned “the days and the years,” even though, as mentioned in the sixteenth question, fundamentally the days and the years are dependent on the sun. Here, however, the phrase “the days and the years” does not refer to the passage of a day or a year, but rather to the concept that the festivals will be determined according to their dates in lunar months, not solar months. Similarly, with regard to years, although the concept of a year is dependent on the sun, since the festivals must be celebrated in the proper seasons, the determination of the years must be integrated with the lunar months. On this basis, the Rabbis determined a multi-year cycle of leap years, as is well known to the experts in the establishment of the calendar.
וְדָבָר זֶה הִתְחַדֵּשׁ לַלְּבָנָה עַל יְדֵי שֶׁנִּתְמַעֲטָה וְיָרְדָה לְגַמְרֵי עַד שֶׁגּוּפָהּ וְאוֹרָהּ נִתְמַעֵט, וְהֻצְרַךְ לְחִשּׁוּב הַשָּׁנִים לַלְּבָנָה לַעֲשׂוֹת חִבּוּר לַמְּאוֹרוֹת לְסוֹף הַמַּחֲזוֹרוֹת. וְכֵן נִצְטַוּוּ לִמְנוֹת לַמּוֹעֲדִים לִימוֹת חָדְשֵׁי הַלְּבָנָה, כַּכָּתוּב בְּתוֹרַת מֹשֶׁה. אֲבָל לְעִנְיַן קְבִיעוּת הַמּוֹעֲדִים עַצְמָם, לֹא אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לַלְּבָנָה שֶׁתִּהְיֶה מְעֻתֶּדֶת לְיִשְׂרָאֵל, שֶׁבָּזֶה אַדְּרַבָּה, הָעִקָּר הוּא בַּחַמָּה בְּעִנְיַן תְּקוּפוֹת הָאָבִיב וּתְקוּפוֹת הָאָסִיף, כַּנּוֹדָע מִדִּבְרֵי חֲכָמֵינוּ זִכְרוֹנָם לִבְרָכָה כגדברי הגמרא בסנהדרין דף יב ודף יג, דחג הסוכות חייב להיות בתקופת תשרי, וחג הפסח בתקופת ניסן, עיי"ש באריכות.. מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן בְּעִנְיַן מִנְיַן יָמִים וְשָׁנִים, שֶׁהַיָּמִים הֵם עַל הַלְּבָנָה לְבַדָּהּ מְנוּיִים, בְּאֵיזֶה יוֹם מִימוֹת חָדְשֵׁי הַלְּבָנָה יִהְיוּ. וְכֵן שָׁנִים, לְפִי עִנְיַן הַלְּבָנָה אֵין לָהּ שָׁנִים, כַּמֻּזְכָּר לְמַעְלָה (שם). אֲבָל מִפְּנֵי שֶׁיְּכַוְּנוּ הַחֶשְׁבּוֹנוֹת לְעִנְיַן קְבִיעוּת הַמּוֹעֲדִים הִשְׁאִילוּ מִדַּת שָׁנָה לַלְּבָנָה גַּם כֵּן. וְנִמְצָא שֶׁיִּשְׂרָאֵל מְחַדְּשִׁים מִנְיַן הַיָּמִים וְהַשָּׁנִים לַלְּבָנָה, וְזֶה לָהּ לְכָבוֹד וּלְתִפְאָרֶת.
This new development was brought about because the moon was diminished and forced to descend to a much lower plane, to the extent that both its size and its light were diminished. As a result, it was necessary to calculate lunar years and create a cycle that would juxtapose the lunar years with the solar years, for we are commanded to reckon the festivals according to the dates of the lunar months, as written in the Torah given to us by Moshe. Nevertheless, with regard to establishing the festivals themselves, God did not tell the moon that the Jews would date their festivals according to it. The opposite is true. The timing of the festivals is dependent on the solar seasons, for the festivals must be celebrated in the spring and the fall, as reflected in the words of our Sages.34See Sanhedrin 12a-13a, which emphasize the necessity for celebrating Sukkos in the fall and Pesach in the spring. In contrast to this, days are calculated exclusively according to the moon, i.e., the festivals are celebrated on a specific date in a specific lunar month. Similarly, with regard to years, although as mentioned above, in and of itself, there is no concept of a lunar year, since the festivals must be calculated according to the dates of the lunar months, it was necessary to develop a concept of a lunar year. Thus, the Jewish people fix their days and years according to the moon. This is an expression of honor and glory for the moon.
אָמְנָם לַעֲשׂוֹת סִמּוּכִים לְבַעַל הַמַּאֲמָר, שֶׁלֹּא אָמַר לָהּ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא אֶלָּא "יָמִים וְשָׁנִים", וְהָא קְרָא קָא צָוַח "לְאֹתֹת וּלְמוֹעֲדִים וגו'", זֶה יִתְבָּאֵר בְּסָמוּךְ בְּסִיַּעְתָּא דִשְׁמַיָּא (פי"א).
An explanation is necessary regarding why the passage in Chulin mentions God only telling the moon that the Jews would reckon “days and years” according to it, while the verse explicitly refers also to “signs” and “appointed times.” This point will be clarified shortly with God’s help.
אָמְרָה לוֹ "דִּידֵיהּ נַמִּי אִי אֶפְשָׁר דְּלָא לִימְנוּ בֵּיהּ תְּקוּפָתָא". שֶׁכְּלַפֵּי שֶׁהַשֵּׁם יִתְבָּרֵךְ אָמַר לָהּ שֶׁיִּמְנוּ בָהּ יִשְׂרָאֵל רַק יָמִים וְשָׁנִים, הָיָה לָהּ מָקוֹם לִטְעוֹן, וּכְלוֹמַר, מֵאַחַר שֶׁנָּדְבָה רוּחֲךָ לָתֶת לָהּ כָּבוֹד זֶה לְהִמָּנוֹת בָּהּ יָמִים שֶׁל הַמּוֹעֲדִים, וְגַם הַשָּׁנִים יִתְחַדְּשׁוּ לִמְנוֹת בָּהּ, אַף שֶׁאֵין לָהּ שָׁנָה, הִנֵּה תִּטְעֹן שֶׁעַל הַשָּׁנִים אֵין לָהּ חֵפֶץ, מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁגַּם אִי אֶפְשָׁר דְּלָא לִימְנוּ בְּדִידֵיהּ נַמִּי. שֶׁהֲרֵי עַצְמָהּ שֶׁל שָׁנָה שֶׁמְּחַשְּׁבִים לַלְּבָנָה, הוּא לְדַמּוֹתָהּ לַחַמָּה. נִמְצָא שֶׁעִקַּר חֶשְׁבּוֹן הַשָּׁנִים חוֹזֵר לַחַמָּה, וּמָה כָּבוֹד יֵשׁ לָהּ בָּזֶה? לָכֵן בִּקְשָׁה שֶׁלֹּא יַחְזֹר דְּבָרוֹ הַטּוֹב רֵיקָם וְלָתֵת לָהּ מַתָּנָה טוֹבָה גְּנוּזָה אַחֶרֶת בִּמְקוֹם הַשְּׁנִיָּה. וְנִמְצָא עַכְשָׁו שֶׁלֹּא טָעֲנָה הַטַּעֲנָה הַזֹּאת בְּדֶרֶךְ קִנְאָה עַל הַחַמָּה, כִּי אִם מִמַּה שֶּׁהִרְחִיב לָהּ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לָתֵת לָהּ שְׁתַּיִם אֵלֶּה, יָמִים וְשָׁנִים, טָעֲנָה שֶׁבִּמְקוֹם שָׁנִים יַחֲלִיף לָהּ טוֹבָה אַחֶרֶת, הוֹאִיל וּבַשָּׁנִים אֵין לָהּ יֶתֶר שְׂאֵת, כִּי נַהֲפוֹךְ הוּא, שֶׁהַכֹּל חוֹזֵר אֶל הַחַמָּה.
The moon responded to God, “That is impossible without the sun, for the reckoning of the seasons is dependent on it.” The meaning of this statement is that in response to God’s willingness that the Jews should reckon the days and the years by the moon, there were grounds for the moon to counter according to the following reasoning: God generously agreed to grant the moon the honor of having the festivals reckoned according to dates of the lunar months, and to also have the years calculated in coordination with the moon’s cycles even though in truth there is no concept of a lunar year. The moon wished to forego being considered with regard to calculating the years, since regardless it is impossible to reckon the years without the sun. Even when a lunar year is calculated, it is only calculated in relation to the sun. Therefore, since fundamentally, the reckoning of the years is dependent on the sun, what honor is there for the moon by also being considered in this reckoning? Accordingly, the moon requested that God’s generous gesture not be a futile one, and that instead, God grant the moon another generous gift, one that is hidden and not stated openly in the passage instead of the gesture of having the years coordinated with the lunar cycles that is mentioned here. Thus, the moon’s response was not an expression of its jealousy of the sun, but rather a request for an exchange. Since God generously offered the moon two gestures – that the days and the years be reckoned according to it – the moon responded that it wished that God grant it another gift in place of the years. The rationale for this is that with regard to years, the benefit to the moon is not that great, because ultimately, the years are dependent on the sun.
וְאָמְנָם, הַסַּעַד הֵבִיא בַּעַל הַמַּאֲמָר לְהֶדְיָא, הוֹאִיל וְהוּא מֵהַפָּרָשָׁה עַצְמָהּ אֲשֶׁר בָּהּ הוּא דּוֹרֵשׁ, וּמִתּוֹךְ זֶה הַסַּעַד נַעֲשָׂה לּוֹ סַעַד גַּם לְדִלְעֵיל מִנֵּיהּ, בְּאֹפֶן שֶׁזֶּה הַכָּתוּב שֶׁמֵּבִיא, הַיְנוּ דִּכְתִיב "וְהָיוּ לְאֹתֹת וּלְמוֹעֲדִים וּלְיָמִים וְשָׁנִים", קָאֵי אַשֶּׁלְּפָנָיו וְאַשֶּׁלִּפְנֵי פָנָיו. וְזֶה, דְּיֵשׁ לְדַקְדֵּק בַּמִּקְרָא הַזֶּה תַּרְתֵּי:
Nevertheless, the support that the author of the passage mentions – since it is from the very passage that he is explaining – also serves as support for the concepts mentioned previously, i.e., that the verse, “And let them be for signs, and for appointed times, and for days and years,” relates to the concepts stated directly before it and those stated earlier in the passage. To explain: This verse contains two anomalies that require analysis:
חֲדָא: שֶׁלֹּא בָאוּ הָעִנְיָנִים כְּסִדְרָן, שֶׁבֵּין שֶׁיִּהְיֶה "לְאוֹתוֹת", כְּדִבְרֵי רַשִׁ״י כדוז"ל: והיו לאותות - כשהמאורות לוקין סימן רע הוא לעולם, שנאמר (ירמיה י ב) "מאותות השמים אל תחתו", בעשותכם רצון הקדוש ברוך הוא אין אתם צריכין לדאג מן הפורענות., עַל לְקוּת הַמְּאוֹרוֹת בַּחֲצִי חֹדֶשׁ לַלְּבָנָה כהשהרי ליקוי לבנה הוא כשהחמה מסתירה על הלבנה, וזמן מקרה זה הוא באמצע החודש, בזמן מילוי הלבנה. וּבַמּוֹלָד לַחַמָּה כוליקוי חמה הוא כשהלבנה מסתירה על השמש, וזמן מקרה זה הוא בתחילת החודש, בעת מולד הלבנה., הִנֵּה הַ"יָּמִים" מֻקְדָּמִים. וּבֵין שֶׁיִּהְיֶה כְּדִבְרֵי מִדְרַשׁ הָרַבּוֹת (בראשית פ"ו א), "לְאֹתוֹת" אֵלּוּ הַשַּׁבָּתוֹת, "וּלְמוֹעֲדִים" אֵלּוּ שָׁלֹשׁ הָרְגָלִים, "וּלְיָמִים" אֵלּוּ רָאשֵׁי חֳדָשִׁים, מִכָּל מָקוֹם, הַ"יָּמִים" מֻקְדָּמִים לַ"מּוֹעֲדִים".
a) The verse states that “the luminaries will serve four purposes: for signs, for appointed times, for days and years.” However, the purposes are not mentioned in order, i.e., of the four purposes mentioned, “for days” is mentioned third, even though seemingly, it should be first. This applies according to Rashi’s interpretation that “for signs” refers to an eclipse. If a lunar eclipse occurs, it takes place on the fifteenth of the lunar month. If a solar eclipse occurs, it takes place on the first day of the lunar month. Similarly, the four purposes are mentioned out of order according to the interpretation in Midrash Rabbah.35Bereishis Rabbah 6:1. According to Midrash Rabbah, “for signs” refers to the Shabbasos, “for appointed times” refers to the three pilgrimage festivals, and “for days” refers to the Rashei Chodashim. Thus, according to either interpretation, “for days” should precede “for festivals”, i.e., according to Rashi’s interpretation, “for days” should be the first point mentioned, and according to Midrash Rabbah, “for days” should be second, preceding the festivals.
אִידָךְ: שֶׁבְּכֻלָּן חוּץ מִ"שָּׁנִים", בָּאָה הַלַּמֶ״ד בְּרֹאשָׁם, וְלָמָּה חֲסֵרָה בַּ"שָּׁנִים"?
b) In the verse, three of the four terms are prefaced by the letter lamed, which we have translated as “for.” Only with regard to years is that prefix omitted. Why is this prefix omitted from the term “years”?
וּמִתּוֹךְ אֵלּוּ שְׁנֵי הַדִּקְדּוּקִים, יֵשׁ סַעַד לִשְׁנֵי אֵלּוּ, רוֹצֶה לוֹמַר, חֲדָא, מַה שֶּׁאָמַר בַּעַל הַמַּאֲמָר שֶׁהַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא אָמַר לָהּ "לִימְנוּ בָךְ יִשְׂרָאֵל יָמִים וְשָׁנִים", וְזֶה מִפְּנֵי מַה שֶּׁאִחֵר הַ"יָּמִים" מִמְּקוֹמָם הָרָאוּי, אֶלָּא לִסְמֹךְ "יָמִים" אֶל הַ"שָּׁנִים". וּלְהוֹרוֹת נָתַן, שֶׁנִּלְמַד מִזֶּה שֶׁכָּךְ אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לַלְּבָנָה, דְּלִימְנוּ בָהּ יִשְׂרָאֵל יָמִים וְשָׁנִים.
These two anomalies serve as allusions to the two concepts mentioned above:
a) that, as the author of the passage relates, God promised the moon that “Israel will reckon the days and the years according to you.” This concept is alluded to by the fact that the verse36I.e., Bereishis 1:14, the second verse mentioned. mentions “days” later than it should, juxtaposing “days” with “years,” thus linking the two. This juxtaposition teaches us that God promised the moon that “Israel will reckon the days and the years according to you.”37I.e., even though according to the way the world was created, there is no such concept as a lunar year, nonetheless God was promising the moon that the Jewish people would “create” a lunar year, which the Jewish calendar would follow.
וְזֶה שֶׁאָמַר בַּעַל הַמַּאֲמָר, שֶׁהַיָּרֵחַ טָעֲנָה "בְּדִידֵיהּ נַמִּי אִי אֶפְשָׁר כו׳" יָצָא לוֹ, מִמַּה שֶּׁלֹּא נֶאֶמְרָה הַלַּמֶ״ד בַּ"שָּׁנִים", לְהוֹרוֹת שֶׁ"שָּׁנִים" הֵם עִנְיָן בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ, לֹא נִמְשָׁךְ לַאֲחֵרִים. וְהוּא כְּדֵי שֶׁיּוּבַן שֶׁהַיָּרֵחַ אָמְרָה "וְשָׁנִים", כְּאָמְרוֹ, "וְשָׁנִים מַה תְּהֵא עֲלֵיהֶם?", שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵין לִי בָּהֶם יֶתֶר שְׂאֵת, כִּי אַדְּרַבָּה, עִקָּרָם לַחַמָּה, כָּאָמוּר.
b) The second point raised by the author of the passage – that the moon declined the offer that the years would be reckoned according to it – is alluded to by the fact the word שנים, “years,” is not preceded by a lamed which we have translated as “for”. This indicates that “years” stands alone, separate from the other purposes mentioned. This alludes to the fact that the moon said, “and years,” as in, “and the years, what will be with them?” Thus, the word שנים “years” without the preceding lamed, “for”, refers to the moon’s unwillingness to accept that promise, because years are primarily dependent on the sun.
וְאֵין לִתְמֹהַּ כְּלָל, עַל שֶׁבְּתוֹךְ דִּבְרֵי כָּתוּב אֶחָד יוּבְנוּ שְׁתֵּי מַאֲמָרוֹת, וְגַם יְיֻחַס לִשְׁנַיִם הָאוֹמְרִים, כִּי רַבִּים כֵּן, שֶׁמִּי שֶׁאָמַר זֶה לֹא אָמַר זֶה (יְעֻיַּן בַּיַּלְקוּט פ׳ שׁוֹפְטִים רֶמֶז נ״ח) כזוז"ל: 'מדוע בושש רכבו לבוא', שלשה דברים זה בצד זה, מי שאמר זה לא אמר זה, 'מדוע בושש רכבו לבוא' אמרה אמו של סיסרא, 'הלא ימצאו יחלקו שלל' אמרה אשתו וכלותיו, ורוח הקודש אומרת: 'כן יאבדו כל אויביך', כיוצא בו הזקנים אומרים 'ידינו לא שפכו את הדם הזה', הכהנים אומרים 'כפר לעמך ישראל', ורוח הקדש אומרת 'ונכפר להם הדם'. כיוצא בו 'הכר נא למי החותמת' אמרה תמר, 'צדקה ממני' אמר יהודה, 'ולא יסף עוד לדעתה' אמרה רוח הקדש, כיוצא בו 'באנו אל הארץ אשר שלחתנו' אמר יהושע, 'עלה נעלה' אמר כלב, 'אפס כי עז העם' אמרו מרגלים, כיוצא בו 'מי יצילנו מיד הא-להים האדירים' אמרו כשרים שבהם, רשעים שבהם אמרו: 'אלה הם המכים את מצרים', עשר מכות היו לו ושלמו. (אמר להם הקדוש ברוך הוא: אין לי מכה?! מעתה אני מביא עליכם מכה שלא נהיתה מעולם, אלו עכברים שהיו שומטים את מעיהם.) גבורים שבהם היו אומרים 'התחזקו והיו לאנשים'. כיוצא בו ׳מיכה המורשתי וגו'... וינחם ה' על הרעה' עד כאן אמרו כשרים שבהם, רשעים שבהם אמרו 'גם איש מתנבא בשם ה'...' - אמרו כשם שנהרג אוריה כך ירמיה חייב ליהרג, 'אך יד אחיקם בן שפן היתה את ירמיה לבלתי תת אותו ביד העם'. כיוצא בו 'תחת התפוח עוררתיך' עד כאן אמרה רוח הקדש, וישראל אומרים 'שימני כחותם על לבך', ואומות העולם אומרים 'כי עזה כמות אהבה'. כיוצא בו 'בלתי אל המן עינינו' אמרו ישראל, והמקום מפייס 'והמן כזרע גד הוא'. כיוצא בו 'ואתה עיף ויגע' אלו ישראל, 'ולא ירא א-להים' זה עמלק. וכה"א 'חי ה' שכבי עד הבקר': 'חי ה'' ליצרו נשבע, ולאשה אמר 'שכבי עד הבקר'..
The fact that this interpretation causes the verse to be divided into two, as if it were related by two people, should not be seen as problematic. There are many examples of such verses. In several instances, our Sages would analyze a verse and divide it, saying “The one who related these words, did not relate these.” (See Yalkut Shimoni, Shoftim, sec. 58.)38That source quotes the Sages’ interpretation of Shoftim 5:28-31: “ ‘Why is his chariot so long in coming?’… ‘Surely, they have found and are dividing the plunder…’ So may all Your enemies perish, O God.” Our Sages state:
Three statements are found, one next to another. The one who made one did not make the other. “Why is his chariot so long in coming?” was said by Sisera’s mother. “Surely, they have found and are dividing the plunder,” was said by Sisera’s wife and daughters-in-law, and the spirit of prophecy concluded, “So may all Your enemies perish, O God.”
Similarly, regarding Devarim 21:7-8: “Our hands have not shed this blood… Atone for Your people Israel… and the blood will be atoned for them.” The elders say, “Our hands have not shed this blood.” The kohanim say, “Atone for Your people Israel.” And the spirit of prophecy says, “The blood will be atoned for them.”
In the same vein, regarding Bereishis 38:25-26: “‘Please, recognize whose seal…’ ‘She is correct. It is because of me…’ He did not cease knowing her.” Tamar said, “Please recognize whose seal.” Yehudah said, “She is correct. It is because of me,” and the spirit of prophecy said, “He did not cease knowing her.”
The Midrash continues to provide several other examples of Scriptural verses that involve different speakers.
אָמַר לָהּ "זִיל לִיקְרוּ צַדִּיקִים בִּשְׁמֵךְ". כְּבָר נִמְשְׁכוּ הַדְּבָרִים שֶׁאַף שֶׁאָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא "לְכִי וּמַעֲטִי כו'", שֶׁמִּפְּנֵי שֶׁמָּצְאָה טַעֲנָה לֹא עָשְׂתָה מִיָּד אַךְ טָעֲנָה תְּחִלָּה, כִּדְמוּכָח מִמַּה שֶּׁאָמְרָה "אַמְעִיט כו׳" בִּלְשׁוֹן עָתִיד. וְכֵן אָמַר לָהּ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא אַחַר כָּךְ "לְכִי כו׳", לֵאמֹר, עֲשֵׂה כַּאֲשֶׁר דִּבַּרְתִּי לָךְ. וּבֵאַרְתִּי זֶה בִּשְׁנֵי פָנִים כְּדִלְעֵיל. וְחָזְרָה וּבִקְשָׁה עַל אַחַת מֵהַמִּעוּטִים שֶׁלֹּא תִהְיֶה, דְּהַיְנוּ עַל הָאוֹרָה. וְאָמַר לָהּ עוֹד "לְכִי כו׳", שֶׁגְּזֵרָתוֹ לֹא תִתְבַּטֵּל. וּפִיְּסָהּ בְּעִנְיַן יָמִים וְשָׁנִים, וְהִיא שָׁאֲלָה עַל הַשָּׁנִים, לָתֵת לָהּ עִנְיָן אַחֵר בִּמְקוֹמוֹ. נִמְצָא, דְּמִסְתָּמָא כָּל עוֹד שֶׁהָיָה הַמַּשָּׂא וּמַתָּן בֵּין הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא וְהַיָּרֵחַ, שֶׁעֲדַיִן לֹא בָא לִכְלַל מַעֲשֵׂה עִנְיַן הַמִּעוּט. נִמְצָא, שֶׁעַכְשָׁו נַמִּי הֻצְרַךְ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לוֹמַר "זִיל". כְּלוֹמַר, כַּלֵּה מְלַאכְתֵּךְ שֶׁעָלָיו נִצְטַוֵּית, שֶׁתֵּלֵךְ מִמְּקוֹמֵךְ מַטָּה מַּטָּה. וּבְמַה שֶּׁתֵּרֵד פְּלָאִים תִּתְמַעֵט בִּשְׁתַּיִם אֵלֶּה, בְּמִדַּת הַגּוּף וּבָאוֹרָה. אָמְנָם קִבֵּל דְּבָרֶיהָ, וְנָתַן לָהּ בִּמְקוֹם "שָׁנִים", כֵּיוָן שֶׁלֹּא נִתְפַּיְּסָה בּוֹ, וּבִקְשָׁה עִנְיָן אַחֵר, אָמַר "צַדִּיקִים יִקָּרְאוּ בִשְׁמֵךְ".
The passage in Chulin continues, relating that God told the moon, “‘Go. The righteous will be called by your name.” Although God had previously told the moon, “Go and diminish yourself,” the moon had yet to do so, because it had advanced an argument on which basis it hoped God’s decree would be averted. The fact that the moon had yet to diminish itself is indicated by its statement, “Must I diminish myself,” which uses the future tense.
God responded to the moon by telling it to “go and rule,” i.e., go and do as I instructed you and carry out a twofold diminishment, as I explained previously. The moon then requested that one of the two aspects of the Divine decree be rescinded, i.e., the moon was hoping that it would not be forced to diminish its light.
God replied again, “Go…” indicating that His decree would not be nullified. However, God offered the moon consolation – that the days and the years would be calculated according to it. The moon did not accept the gesture of the years and requested that God give it something else instead. It is reasonable to assume that while the dialogue between God and the moon was going on, the moon had yet to diminish itself. Therefore, at this stage, God again told the moon, “Go,” i.e., God instructed the moon to carry out the instructions it was given and descend drastically. As a result of the wondrous descent, it would suffer a twofold diminishment, both in size and in light. God nevertheless accepted the moon’s complaint that the years are really dependent on the sun. Hence, God granted the moon another conciliatory gesture, saying, “The righteous will be called by your name.”
וְהִנְנִי תּוֹפֵס לְעִקָּר גִּרְסַת הַיַּלְקוּט כחרבינו כותב שבילקוט לא גרס שמואל הקטן, אולם בדפוסים שלנו בילקוט שמעוני (בראשית רמז ח) איתא גם שמואל הקטן, ועיין מ"ש לעיל שער א סוף פרק א בהערה על מאמר חז"ל זה., דְּלֹא גָרַס אֶלָּא יַעֲקֹב וְדָוִד, שֶׁהֵם הָאֲמוּרִים בַּמִּקְרָאוֹת. כִּי רָחוֹק וְזָר מְאֹד הַגִּירְסָא דְּגָרַס "שְׁמוּאֵל הַקָּטָן", כִּי לֹא נִמְצָא בַּכְּתוּבִים. וְנִצְטָרֵךְ לוֹמַר שֶׁיִּרְמֹז אֶל מִשְׁנַת "שְׁמוּאֵל הַקָּטָן אוֹמֵר בִּנְפֹל וגו׳" (אבות ד יט) כטוז"ל רבינו בתוספות יום טוב שם: שמואל הקטן - במדרש שמואל, בשם ירושלמי: לפי שהיה מקטין עצמו. אי נמי שהיה (מעט) קטן משמואל הנביא שאף הוא ניבא בשעת מיתתו והיה ראוי שתשרה עליו שכינה [סוטה מ"ח ע"ב] אלא שאין דורו ראוי לכך ונמצא שזה השם הוא לו לתהלה ולתפארת:. וְגַם הָיָה לוֹ לִגְרֹס אוֹתוֹ אַחַר דָּוִד. אֶלָּא טָעוּתָא הוּא מֵאֵיזֶה תַּלְמִיד טוֹעֶה שֶׁהִגִּיהּ כֵּן בַּסְּפָרִים מֵאֵיזֶה שִׁבּוּשׁ דַּעַת שֶׁהָיָה בוֹ.
I maintain that the proper version of the passage is the one found in Yalkut Shimoni,39Yalkut Shimoni (Bereishis, sec. 8) quotes the passage from Chulin under discussion. The text of Yalkut Shimoni possessed by Tosfos Yom Tov did not mention Shmuel among those who are small. The standard published text of Yalkut Shimoni does, however, mention Shmuel. which mentions only Yaakov and David, for verses referring to them as “small” are found in Scripture. The version of the text that mentions Shmuel HaKatan i.e.”Shmuel the small” is far-fetched and strange, for such a phrase is not found in Scripture, and one is forced to say that it refers to Shmuel HaKatan mentioned in Pirkei Avos as quoting the verse, “Do not rejoice at the downfall of your enemies.”40Avos 4:19, citing Mishlei 24:17. Also, were that the case, Shmuel HaKatan should be mentioned after David, not before. Thus, the inclusion of Shmuel is obviously an error, which must have been made by a student who erroneously edited the text of the Talmud in his confusion.
וְיָדוּעַ שֶׁעִנְיַן הַשֵּׁם וְגִדְרוֹ הוּא הַמַּהוּת, כִּי עַל כֵּן נִשְׁתַּבַּח הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא בְּאָדָם הָרִאשׁוֹן לְמַלְאֲכֵי מַעְלָה, לְהוֹדִיעָם חָכְמָתוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם הָרִאשׁוֹן עַל יְדֵי מַה שֶּׁקָּרָא שֵׁמוֹת לְכָל הַבְּהֵמוֹת וְהַחַיּוֹת, כִּדְאִיתָא בְּמִדְרַשׁ רַבָּה (בראשית רבה יז ד) לוז"ל: א"ר אחא: בשעה שבא הקדוש ברוך הוא לבראות את האדם נמלך במלאכי השרת. אמר להן: נעשה אדם. אמרו לו: אדם זה מה טיבו? אמר להן: חכמתו מרובה משלכם. הביא לפניהם את הבהמה ואת החיה ואת העוף, אמר להם: זה מה שמו? ולא היו יודעין. העבירן לפני אדם, אמר לו: זה מה שמו? אמר זה שור, זה חמור, זה סוס וזה גמל. ואתה מה שמך? אמר לו: אני נאה להקרא אדם שנבראתי מן האדמה. ואני מה שמי? א"ל: לך נאה להקראות אדני שאתה אדון לכל בריותיך.. וְכָל זֶה, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהָיָה חָכָם בְּחָכְמַת הַבְּרִיאָה, לָדַעַת מַהוּת כָּל בְּרִיָּה וּבְרִיָּה.
Naming the righteous after the moon is significant, for a name reflects the fundamental nature of an entity. Accordingly, God praised Adam to the angels, highlighting his wisdom as expressed in his ability to name all the animals and beasts, as stated in Midrash Rabbah.41Bereishis Rabbah 17:4. See Tanya, Shaar HaYichud VehaEmunah, ch. 1, which explains that every entity’s name is a channel through which its life-force is drawn down to it. Naming the animals and beasts reflected Adam’s knowledge of the wisdom of Creation, illustrating that he knew the nature of every created being.
וְכֵן הָרַמְבַּ״ן בְּפָרָשָׁה זוֹ שֶׁאָנוּ בָהּ (פסוק יח), כָּתַב בַּפָּסוּק "לְמֶמְשֶׁלֶת וגו׳", שֶׁמַּה שֶּׁאָמַר הַכָּתוּב (תהלים קמז ד) "מוֹנֶה מִסְפָּר לַכּוֹכָבִים לְכֻלָּם שֵׁמוֹת יִקְרָא", וְכֵן (ישעיה מ כו) "לְכֻלָּם בְּשֵׁם יִקְרָא", כִּי קְרִיאַת הַשֵּׁמוֹת הִיא הַהַבְדָּלָה בְּכֹחוֹתָם. עַד כָּאן. אִם כֵּן, עִנְיַן הַצַּדִּיקִים שֶׁיִּהְיוּ נִקְרָאִים עַל שְׁמָם, הוּא עַל מַהוּתָם. וּמָצָא שְׁנַיִם אֵלּוּ, יַעֲקֹב וְדָוִד, וְנִקְרְאוּ 'קָטָן' כָּל אֶחָד בַּעֲבוּר קַטְנוּתָם וְצָרוֹת שֶׁהִגִּיעוּ עֲלֵיהֶם. שֶׁכֵּן יַעֲקֹב אָמַר "יְמֵי שְׁנֵי מְגוּרַי וגו' מְעַט וְרָעִים" (בראשית מז ט), וְכֵן מְעִידִים הַסִּפּוּרִים שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה עָלָיו. וְכָמוֹהוּ דָּוִד, תִּרְאֶה בַּסִּפּוּרִים שֶׁעָלָיו כַּמָּה הִשִּׂיגוּהוּ צָרוֹת רַבּוֹת וְרָעוֹת, וּבְמִזְמוֹרָיו כְּמוֹ כֵן. הִנֵּה שֶׁיִּהְיוּ בְּמַהוּתָם גַּם כֵּן עוֹלִים וְיוֹרְדִים וּמְסוֹבָבֵי הַתְּלָאוֹת דֻּגְמַ(ו)ת הַיָּרֵחַ, פַּעַם זוֹרַחַת פַּעַם נִסְתֶּרֶת. וְהִנֵּה, דָּבָר גָּדוֹל אָמַר לָהּ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, כִּי כְּפִי קַבָּלָתֵנוּ לאממטבע לשון זה נראה שהיה זה קבלה לרבינו שמעלת האדם (הצדיק) גדלה על המלאכים, ואולי הכוונה שכן קיבל מרבותיו, ואכן רבו הגדול המהר"ל מאריך מאוד בכמה מקומות להוכיח כן נגד דעת הרבה מגדולי ישראל, ויתכן שכן הוא על פי חכמת האמת הנקרא "קבלה". (ועיין בהערות הבאות להלן). מַעֲלַת הַצַּדִּיק גָּבְרָה מִמַּעֲלַת מַלְאָכִים לבבענין זה ישנו ויכוח גדול בין חכמי הדורות הראשונים, א: רב סעדיה גאון (אמונות ודעות תחילת מאמר ד) כותב שתכלית הבריאה הוא האדם ומעלתו גדלה על הכל. ב: באבן עזרא (בראשית פסוק ראשון) האריך בראיות לחלוק עליו שצבא השמים נעלים והמלאכים נעלים יותר מהאדם אפילו מהנביאים עיי"ש. ג: דעת הרמב"ם ( יסודי התורה פ"ג ה"ט) ברור מללו כהראב"ע דמעלת הגלגלים נעלה מהאדם והמלאכים מהגלגלים. ד: דעת העקידת יצחק (שער ה) האריך בראיות לחלוק על הרמב"ם והרלב"ג שנמשכו לפי דעתו אחר דע הפילוסופים ואולם הוא נגד אמונתינו עם ה' מאמיני החידוש., כָּל שֶׁכֵּן מִמַּעֲלַת גְּרָמִים הַשְּׁמֵימִים וּצְבָאֵיהֶם לגוז"ל המהר"ל (תפארת ישראל פי"ב) דע ... ודבר זה נמשך לדעת חיצוני שיש להם, מה שהם אומרים כי האדם פחות היצירה, שפל הבריאה מן הגלגלים, ומכל שכן מן המלאכים, כמו שהאריכו הם בספור שבח המלאכים ובגלגלים, ובגנות הבריאה של אדם. והמשיכו לזה פשטי הכתוב (תהלים ח, ה) "מה אנוש כי תזכרנו ובן אדם כי תפקדנו". ושאר ראיות פשטי הכתוב. והמושכל הראשון כי האדם בעל חומר ובעל הויה והפסד, ומפני זה חושבים כי ראוי לאדם השפל לקנות מעלה והצלחה בידיעת החשוב, המה המלאכים והגלגלים. וכאשר ידע אלו, יש לו מעלה. וכבר התבאר בחבור גבורות ה' כי אין רוח חכמים נוחה בזה, והוא הפך האמונה לגמרי. ולא תמצא דבר זה בדברי חכמים, רק ההפך, כמו שהתבאר בחבור גבורות ה'. וגלו דבר זה במקומות הרבה מאד, ודרשו זה (ב"ר עח, א) מן הכתוב (תהלים צא, יא) "כי מלאכיו יצוה לך לשמרך בכל דרכיך", מי הוא גדול - השומר או הנשמר. וזהו באמת דעת חכמים. וקראו המלאכים והגלגלים שהם עבדים משמשים אל הנבראים, וכדכתיב בקרא (בראשית א, יז) "ויתן אותם אלהים ברקיע השמים להאיר על הארץ", הרי כי תחלת בריאתם היה כדי לשמש את העולם, ולא נבראו לעצמם כלל. והאדם הוא עיקר הבריאה, שהכל נברא בשבילו, והוא בלבד כל המציאות, לא זולת זה. ועם שהאדם הוא בעל חומר, הנה מצד צלם אלהים שנברא בו (בראשית א, כז) יש לו מעלה, מושגח מן העליונים, וכמו שמבואר במקום אחר. עיי"ש שהאריך בזה.. וְאִם כֵּן, כְּשֶׁיִּהְיוּ הַצַּדִּיקִים נִקְרָאִים בִּשְׁמָהּ, וְיִהְיוּ בְּמַהוּתָהּ וְתִתְדַּמֶּה הִיא לָהֶם וְהֵם לָהּ, עִנְיָן גָּדוֹל וְשֶׁבַח וְרוֹמְמוּת נִתַּן לָהּ.
Similarly, Ramban in his commentary on the passage under discussion, comments on the verse mentioning the sovereignty of the sun and the moon,42See Ramban’s commentary to Bereishis 1:18. and explains that naming the celestial beings distinguishes and defines the nature of their power. Thus, it is written:43Tehillim 147:4. “He counts the sum of the stars, naming them all,” and “He calls them all by name.”44Yeshayahu 40:26. Similarly, in the present context, calling the righteous by the moon’s name reflects their nature. In particular, these two – Yaakov and David – are described as small because of their humility and the difficulties that they underwent. Thus, Yaakov declared,45Bereishis 47:9. “The days of the years of my sojourning… were few and aggravating.” Indeed, the narratives concerning Yaakov related in the Torah confirm this statement. In the same vein, David was continually beset by many wearisome troubles, as reflected in the stories concerning him. This theme is also expressed in his psalms. Similarly, both Yaakov and David experienced continuous ascents and descents, and were beset by hardships. This reflects the pattern of the moon, which sometimes shines and sometimes is hidden. By identifying the moon with the righteous, God granted it a significant honor, for according to the tradition we have received, the level of the righteous exceeds that of the angels,46See Sanhedrin 93a. and certainly that of the celestial beings and their hosts.47For the level of the celestial beings is lower than that of the angels. See Rambam, Hilchos Yesodei HaTorah 3:9. Therefore, by identifying the righteous with the moon – causing them to share the moon’s nature, with the moon resembling them and them it – God granted the moon a significant honor, praiseworthy quality, and exaltation.
אָמְנָם, הַסַּעַד לְהָבִיא עַל זֶה הַמַּאֲמָר שֶׁכָּךְ אָמַר לָהּ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, נִרְאֶה לִי מְבֹאָר מִמַּה שֶּׁכְּבָר הִזְכַּרְתִּי מִדְרַשׁ חֲכָמֵינוּ זִכְרוֹנָם לִבְרָכָה (שמות רבה פט"ו ס"ס כז) שֶׁהֵבִיא בַּעַל הָעֲקֵדָה (שער ל"ז), הַמְמַשֵּׁל מְשַׁל הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ וְהַיָּרֵחַ אֶל עֵשָׂו וְיַעֲקֹב. וּמֵעַתָּה חֲלוֹמוֹ שֶׁל יוֹסֵף שֶׁחָלַם "וְהִנֵּה הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ וְהַיָּרֵחַ וְאַחַד עָשָׂר כּוֹכָבִים מִשְׁתַּחֲוִים לִי" (בראשית לז ט), שֶׁדְּחָאוֹ אָבִיו בְּאָמְרוֹ (שם י) "הֲבוֹא נָבוֹא אֲנִי וְאִמְּךָ", בְּחָשְׁבוֹ כִּי הוּא הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ וְאִמּוֹ הַיָּרֵחַ. וּלְפִי הַדֶּרֶךְ שֶׁל בַּעַל הַמַּאֲמָר שֶׁאָנוּ בוֹ, יִרְמֹז הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ אֶל עֵשָׂו וְכָל הַדּוֹמִים לוֹ, וְהִשְׁתַּחֲווּ לוֹ כָּל אַנְשֵׁי הָאֲרָצוֹת אֲשֶׁר בָּאוּ אֵלָיו לִשְׁבֹּר בָּר. וְאַל תַּרְחִיק אֲמָרַי שֶׁעֵשָׂו בִּכְלָלוֹ כָּל הַדּוֹמִים לוֹ, כִּי בְּוַדַּאי שֶׁהַתְּאוֹמִים הָאֵלּוּ יִכְלְלוּ כָּל אָדָם אֲשֶׁר עַל פְּנֵי הָאָרֶץ. שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵין פֵּרוּד בֵּין כָּל הָאָדָם שֶׁבָּעוֹלָם, כִּי אִם יַעֲקֹב לְבַדּוֹ. אֲבָל זוּלָתָם מִתְאַחֲדִים וְהָיוּ לַאֲחָדִים. וְעִם הֱיוֹת שֶׁבִּזְמַנִּים הַלָּלוּ נִמְצְאוּ הַפְרָשׁוֹת גַּם בֵּינֵיהֶם, הִנֵּה בִּזְמַן הַקּוֹדֵם, כָּל שֶׁכֵּן בִּזְמַן הָאָבוֹת מִיַּעֲקֹב וְאֵילָךְ, לֹא כֵן הָיָה. וְאִם כֵּן, נוּכַל לוֹמַר כְּשֶׁהַמַּאֲמָר אוֹמֵר "עֵשָׂו", שֶׁבִּכְלַל הַזֶּה יוּבְנוּ כָּל הַדּוֹמִים לוֹ. וְיִהְיֶה הַיָּרֵחַ שֶׁבַּחֲלוֹמוֹ שֶׁל יוֹסֵף רוֹמֵז עַל יַעֲקֹב. וּלְפִי זֶה, אַף שֶׁיִּהְיֶה הָאֱמֶת עִם דַּעְתּוֹ שֶׁל הָרַמְבַּ״ן (בראשית שם), שֶׁדִּקְדֵּק מִדְּלָא נֶאֱמַר בְּבוֹא יַעֲקֹב לְמִצְרַיִם 'מִלְּבַד נָשָׁיו', דִּשְׁמַע מִינָהּ שֶׁכְּבָר מֵתוּ בִּלְהָה וְזִלְפָּה, וְלֹא יַגִּיעַ מַרְאוֹת הַיָּרֵחַ אֶל בִּלְהָה, הִנֵּה יַגִּיעַ אֶל יַעֲקֹב עַצְמוֹ, וְנִתְקַיֵּם כָּל הַחֲלוֹם. וְאַף שֶׁיַּעֲקֹב אָמַר "הֲבוֹא נָבוֹא אֲנִי וְאִמְּךָ", כְּבָר יָדַע שֶׁיִּרְמֹז עַל עֵשָׂו וְעָלָיו, אֶלָּא שֶׁלְּהוֹצִיא מִלִּבָּן שֶׁל הָאַחִים אָמַר כֵּן, כְּדֵי שֶׁמִּתּוֹךְ כָּךְ יִמָּצֵא שֶׁאֵין בַּחֲלוֹם מַמָּשׁ, שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵין אִמּוֹ קַיֶּמֶת. הִנֵּה, כְּבָר הִתְבָּאֵר שֶׁיַּעֲקֹב נִקְרָא עַל שְׁמָהּ, בַּמַּרְאֶה שֶׁל הַחֲלוֹם הַזֶּה.
Scriptural support for the proposition that God made this statement to the moon appears clear to me from the Midrashic passage48Shmos Rabbah 15:27. cited previously49P. 74 above. when quoting the author of the Akeidah, who uses the sun and the moon as metaphors for Esav and Yaakov. Extending this analogy, a unique interpretation can be given to Yosef’s dream. Yosef told his father and brothers that he dreamt that50Bereishis 37:9. “the sun, the moon, and eleven stars are bowing down to me.” Yaakov appeared to reject the dream, questioning,51Ibid. 37:10. “Will I and your mother come…,” ostensibly because he thought that the sun referred to him and the moon to Yosef’s mother. However, according to the understanding of the passage in Chulin, the sun refers to Esav and to all the nations like him. Esav’s descendants and all these nations bowed down to Yosef when they came to him to purchase grain. Do not negate this interpretation because it includes all the nations that resemble Esav together with him, for these twins, Yaakov and Esav, represent all humanity, since there is no one distinct from all other men except Yaakov. All mankind aside from Yaakov are fundamentally the same – a single entity. True, at present, distinctions have arisen between nations. However, in earlier eras – and certainly, in the time of the Patriarchs – Esav can be understood as representing all the nations like him. Thus, in Yosef’s dream, the moon refers to Yaakov. According to this understanding, the prophecy in Yosef’s dream was fulfilled. Rashi52See Rashi’s commentary to Bereishis 37:10. explains that the moon in Yosef’s dream refers to Bilhah. That is incorrect, for as Ramban states,53See Ramban’s commentary to the above verse. Bilhah and Zilpah had already died. (Ramban derives this from the verse54Bereishis 46:26. that describes the 70 individuals who descended to Egypt with Yaakov. That verse mentions the individuals who descended “in addition to the wives of Yaakov’s sons.” Since the verse explicitly mentions “the wives of Yaakov’s sons” but makes no mention of Yaakov’s wives, it implies that although the wives of Yaakov’s sons descended to Egypt, Yaakov’s wives did not.)55Ramban is positing that Yaakov’s wives did not descend to Egypt with him because they were no longer alive. Nevertheless, the prophecy of Yosef’s dream was fulfilled because the moon in the dream refers to Yaakov and not Bilhah. True, Yaakov protested to Yosef, “Will I and your mother come….” However, that was only to calm Yosef’s brothers, to reduce their jealousy by intimating that the dream was untrue because Yosef’s mother had already died. In truth, however, Yaakov knew that the dream referred to Esav and himself. We thus have support from Yosef’s dream for the concept that Yaakov is identified with the moon.
וְאָמְנָם, דָּוִד מְבֹאָר מִתְּהִלִּים מִזְמוֹר פ״ט (לו-לח) שֶׁאָמַר "אַחַת נִשְׁבַּעְתִּי בְקָדְשִׁי אִם לְדָוִד אֲכַזֵּב, זַרְעוֹ לְעוֹלָם יִהְיֶה וְכִסְאוֹ כַשֶּׁמֶשׁ נֶגְדִּי, כְּיָרֵחַ יִכּוֹן עוֹלָם וְעֵד בַּשַּׁחַק נֶאֱמָן סֶלָה". וַהֲלֹא יִפָּלֵא, הַאֵיךְ מִתְמַעֵט וְהוֹלֵךְ, שֶׁאָמַר תְּחִלָּה "כִּסְאוֹ כַּשֶּׁמֶשׁ" וְאַחַר כָּךְ יֹאמַר "כְּיָרֵחַ יִכּוֹן"?
The connection of King David with the moon requires more explanation. It is written:56Tehillim 89:36-38. “One thing have I sworn by My holiness, that I will not fail David. His seed will endure forever and his throne is like the sun before Me. Like the moon, his line will be established forever; and they are a faithful witness in the sky, eternally true.” These verses are problematic, because they use both the sun and the moon as analogies for David’s line. First, it is written, “His throne is like the sun before Me,” and then it says, “Like the moon, his line will be established.” The sequence seems to imply a decline in the rule of David’s dynasty, for the sun is mentioned before the moon.
וְעוֹד יֵשׁ לְדַקְדֵּק, אָמְרוֹ "וְעֵד בַּשַּׁחַק" עַל מִי חוֹזֵר? וְרַשִׁ״י פֵּרֵשׁ (שם לח), הַיָּרֵחַ וְהַשֶּׁמֶשׁ עֵדִים לוֹ, שֶׁכָּל זְמַן שֶׁהֵם קַיָּמִים, יִתְקַיֵּם מַלְכוּתוֹ. כְּמוֹ שֶׁאָמַר יִרְמְיָה (ירמי' לג כ-כא) "אִם תָּפֵרוּ אֶת בְּרִיתִי הַיּוֹם וְאֶת בְּרִיתִי הַלָּיְלָה... גַּם בְּרִיתִי תֻפַר אֶת דָּוִד עַבְדִּי". עַד כָּאן לְשׁוֹנוֹ. וְנָכוֹן הַדָּבָר עַל פִּי דִּבְרֵי חֲכָמֵינוּ זִכְרוֹנָם לִבְרָכָה (סוטה לא: סנהדרין ל. ועוד), שֶׁאָמְרוּ, כָּל מָקוֹם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר "עֵד" הֲרֵי שְׁנַיִם אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן שֶׁפֵּרֵט לְךָ הַכָּתוּב ׳עֵד אֶחָד׳. אֶלָּא שֶׁלְּפִי זֶה הָעִנְיָן כָּפוּל, שֶׁכְּבָר הָיְתָה הַהַבְטָחָה "כַּשֶּׁמֶשׁ... וּכְיָרֵחַ יִכּוֹן עוֹלָם".
Also requiring explanation is the subject of the phrase, “and they are a faithful witness in the sky.” Rashi interprets this phrase as meaning, “The sun and the moon are witnesses for David; as long as they exist, David’s sovereignty will exist, as it is written,57Yirmeyahu 33:20-21. ‘If you will be able to break My covenant with the day and My covenant with the night… so will My covenant with David My servant be broken.’” Rashi’s interpretation concurs with our Sages’ statement,58Sotah 31b; Sanhedrin 30a. “Whenever Scripture uses the term ‘witness,’ the intent is that there are two, unless the verse explicitly mentions that there is only one witness.” However, according to this interpretation, the verses are repetitious, for it was already promised, “His throne is like the sun… like the moon, his line will be established.”
וְהָרַב אַבְרָהָם בֶּן עֶזְרָא כָּתַב (שם לח) וְהַיָּרֵחַ עֵד נֶאֱמָן. עַד כָּאן. וְעַל פִּי זֶה [יֵשׁ לִי] לְפָרֵשׁ שֶׁאָמַר "כִּסְאוֹ", שֶׁהוּא רוֹמֵז עַל מֶמְשַׁלְתּוֹ, יִהְיֶה כַּשֶּׁמֶשׁ. אַךְ הוּא בְּעַצְמוֹ, לֹא מִצַּד מֶמְשַׁלְתּוֹ, הִנֵּה כְּיָרֵחַ יִכּוֹן. וְתָשׁוּב תֵּבַת "יִכּוֹן" אֶל "אִם לְדָוִד". וּכְבָר הָרַב אַבְרָהָם בֶּן עֶזְרָא כָּתַב שֶׁמִּלַּת "יִכּוֹן" שָׁבָה אֶל "זַרְעוֹ". עַד כָּאן. הֲרֵי שֶׁלֹּא רָצָה שֶׁתָּשׁוּב אֶל "כִּסְאוֹ" הַסָּמוּךְ לוֹ. אַף אֲנִי אוֹמֵר, שֶׁתָּשׁוּב אֶל "דָּוִד" שֶׁלִּפְנֵי פָנָיו. וִיפֹרַשׁ הַכָּתוּב כָּךְ, "אַחַת נִשְׁבַּעְתִּי לְדָוִד", וְהַשְּׁבוּעָה כּוֹלֶלֶת שְׁלֹשָׁה דְבָרִים, הָא׳, זַרְעוֹ לְעוֹלָם יִהְיֶה, הַב׳, מֶמְשַׁלְתּוֹ, דְּהַיְנוּ כִּסְאוֹ, תִּמְשׁוֹל כַּשֶּׁמֶשׁ, שֶׁהוּא הַמּוֹשֵׁל הַגָּדוֹל שֶׁבְּמֶמְשֶׁלֶת צְבָא הַשָּׁמַיִם. הַג׳, הוּא עַצְמוֹ כְּיָרֵחַ יִכּוֹן לְעוֹלָם. וְשֵׁם "עוֹלָם" יֹאמַר עַל עוֹלָמוֹ שֶׁל הָאָדָם, כְּלוֹמַר, כָּל יְמֵי חַיָּיו. הֲרֵי שֶׁדָּוִד עַצְמוֹ, לֹא בְּעֵרֶךְ מֶמְשַׁלְתּוֹ, דִּמָּהוּ לַיָּרֵחַ! אֶלָּא, כְּמוֹ הֲכָנָתוֹ שֶׁל הַיָּרֵחַ יִכּוֹן הוּא. וְכַאֲשֶׁר אָמַרְתִּי לְמַעְלָה, כִּי הָיָה עוֹלֶה וְיוֹרֵד, יוֹרֵד וְעוֹלֶה, כָּל יְמֵי חַיָּיו. וְיִצְדַּק פֵּרוּשׁ הָרַב אַבְרָהָם בֶּן עֶזְרָא שֶׁאָמַר, "וְעֵד בַּשַּׁחַק" נֶאֱמַר עַל הַיָּרֵחַ לְבַד, שֶׁהוּא עֵד נֶאֱמָן עַל הוֹרָאוֹתָיו שֶׁל דָּוִד עַצְמוֹ.
Rav Avraham ibn Ezra offers a different interpretation, stating that “the moon will be a faithful witness.” According to that understanding, it is possible to interpret the verses as follows:59The interpretation that follows represents Tosfos Yom Tov’s original understanding, not that of Ibn Ezra. The words “His throne” refer to David’s dynasty, which will be like the sun. However, David himself – i.e. not his dynasty – will “be established like the moon.” Thus, the phrase “be established” is referring back to the phrase, “I will not fail David.” Rav Avraham ibn Ezra interprets David’s seed – and not his throne, the subject of the preceding phrase – as the subject of the phrase “be established.” I similarly maintain that the phrase “be established” can refer back to David himself, the subject of the still earlier phrase. Thus, the verses can be explained as follows: One thing I have sworn, and this oath that God made to David is threefold: a) his seed will endure forever, b) David’s dynasty, i.e. his throne will rule like the sun, the great luminary which rules the hosts of heaven, and c) David himself will be established forever. The word “forever” as it is used here should be understood in a personal sense, i.e., David will rule throughout his life. In other words, David himself, and not his dynasty, will undergo phases of waxing and waning like the moon. This corresponds with the interpretation of Rav Avraham ibn Ezra, that the words, “it is a faithful witness in the sky,” refer to the moon, which serves as a faithful witness to David’s personal history.
הִנֵּה כְּבָר מָצָאנוּ מַה שֶּׁבִּקַּשְׁנוּ, שֶׁמְּבֹאָר הוּא שֶׁיַּעֲקֹב נִדְמֶה לַיָּרֵחַ וְכֵן דָּוִד, שֶׁשְּׁנֵיהֶם נִקְרָאִים קָטָן כְּמוֹתָהּ, וְכָל זֶה שֶׁהֵם דּוֹמִים לְמַהוּתָהּ וְכָאָמוּר. וְלָזֶה תִרְאֶה, שֶׁמְּתַקְּנֵי הַבְּרָכוֹת (מס' סופרים פ"כ ה"ב) תִּקְּנוּ אַחַר בִּרְכַּת הַלְּבָנָה לֵאמֹר, "בָּרוּךְ י״וֹצְרֵךְ בָּרוּךְ ע״וֹשֵׂךְ בָּרוּךְ ק״וֹנֵךְ בָּרוּךְ בּ״וֹרְאֵךְ", שֶׁרָאשֵׁי תֵּבוֹת יַעֲקֹ״ב לדז"ל הטור או"ח סימן תכו: ואומר ג"פ סימן טוב תהיה לכל ישראל ברוך בוראך ברוך יוצרך ברוך מקדשך, ורוקד ג"פ כנגדה וכו', וי"א בזה הסדר ברוך יוצרך ברוך עושך ברוך קונך ברוך בוראך וסימן יעקב והיא רמז לו. ע"כ. ובתשב"ץ קטן סימן רכ כתב וז"ל: ולאחר הברכה אומר ברוך יוצרך ברוך עושך ברוך קונך ברוך בוראך זהו ר"ת יעק"ב מפני שצורתו של יעקב חקוקה בלבנה. ע"כ. וכ"כ אבודרהם ברכת הראייה, השבח וההודאה. וז"ל: ואחר הברכה אומר ברוך יוצרך ברוך עושך ברוך קונך ברוך בוראך בר"ת יעקב מפני שנמשל ללבנה. ע"כ.. כְּאִלּוּ יֹאמַר שֶׁהַבּוֹרֵא יִתְבָּרֵךְ עֲשָׂאָהּ בְּאַרְבַּע אוֹתִיּוֹת אֵלּוּ, שֶׁהֵם יַעֲקֹב, שֶׁכְּשֵׁם שֶׁשֵּׁם יַעֲקֹב מוֹרֶה עַל מַהוּתוֹ, כְּכָל הַשֵּׁמוֹת אֲשֶׁר שָׂם הַשֵּׁם יִתְבָּרֵךְ בָּאָרֶץ, לֹא דֶּרֶךְ אֲרָעִי כִּשְׁמוֹתָן שֶׁל הֶדְיוֹטוֹת, וְכָכָה מַהוּתָהּ שֶׁל הַלְּבָנָה בְּאֵלּוּ הָאוֹתִיּוֹת, שֶׁשֵּׁם זֶה, יַעֲקֹב, נִבְנֶה מֵהֶם. כִּי מַהוּת הַלְּבָנָה וּמַהוּת יַעֲקֹב אֲחָדִים הֵם להכאן המקום להעיר ממה שכתב הב"ח אורח חיים סימן תכו וז"ל: ומ"ש וי"א בזה הסדר וכו' וסימן יעקב והיא רמז לו. נראה דלפי שיעקב נקרא שמש כמ"ש רז"ל (ב"ר פרשה ס"ח, י"ב) על פסוק (בראשית כ"ח י"א) 'כי בא השמש' וכתיב (שם ל"ז ט') 'והנה השמש והירח' והלבנה מאירה מאור השמש על כן צורת הלבנה מתוקנת בצורת יעקב ועיין לעיל בסי' רפ"א (ס"ד). וז"ל שם: קרא לשמש וכו'. לפירוש הראשון קשה דה"ל לומר ראה והתקין הלבנה וליש אומרים גם כן קשה דה"ל לומר ראה והקטין הלבנה, אבל יש עוד לפרש על פי דברי רבותינו ז"ל (תקו"ז תקון י"ח לו ע"ב) שצורתו של יעקב נראית בלבנה שעל כן תקנו בברכת הלבנה ברוך יוצרך וכו' ראשי תיבות יעקב כפי הנוסחא שבידינו (עי' טור סוס"י תכו) ובבראשית רבה (פרשה סח ס"י) אמרו על פסוק (בראשית לז ט) והנה השמש והירח אמר יעקב מי גילה לו ששמי שמש שנאמר (שם כח יא) כי בא השמש ואמרו רבותינו ז"ל לשם שהמלאכים אמרו זה לזה אתא שמשא, והנה על פי זה אמר קרא לשמש ויזרח אור פי' אור של שכינה השרויה על זיו איקונין של יעקב ששמו שמש ראה והתקין צורת הלבנה כדי שיהא אור של השמש מכה ומאיר על הלבנה שע"י כן הגיע צורתו של יעקב מצויירת בלבנה לפי שהלבנה מקבלת אורה מן השמש שהיא צורתו של יעקב ממש., כְּפִי מַה שֶּׁנִּרְאֶה מֵעִנְיְנֵיהֶם. וְכֵן אוֹמְרִים אַחַר כָּךְ "דָּוִד מֶלֶךְ יִשְׂרָאֵל חַי וְקַיָּם", גַּם לְכַוָּנָה זוֹ. וְלָכֵן אוֹמְרִים "מֶלֶךְ יִשְׂרָאֵל", כְּלוֹמַר, וְלֹא מֶלֶךְ עֵשָׂו וְדוֹמָיו, שֶׁהֵם מְיֻחָסִים לַשֶּׁמֶשׁ. וְאוֹמְרִים "חַי וְקַיָּם", כִּי הוּא, הַמֶּלֶךְ דָּוִד, מַהוּתוֹ כְּמַהוּת הַלְּבָנָה עַד שֶׁנִּמְצָא בִּרְאוֹתֵנוּ הִתְחַדְּשׁוּתֵךְ, הֲרֵי כְּאִלּוּ הוּא חַי וְקַיָּם. וְגַם כֵּן, מֵהִתְחַדְּשׁוּתֵךְ לָמַדְנוּ שֶׁהוּא חַי וְקַיָּם, לְהִתְחַדֵּשׁ כְּמוֹתֵךְ. וּכְעִנְיָן שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בִּנְבוּאַת יְחֶזְקֵאל (לז כד) עַל הֶעָתִיד "וְעַבְדִּי דָוִד מֶלֶךְ עֲלֵיהֶם" וְחָזַר וְשָׁנָה לְהַחֲזִיק הָעִנְיָן (שם כה) "וְדָוִד עַבְדִּי נָשִׂיא לָהֶם לְעוֹלָם". וְיִצְדַּק עַכְשָׁו מַה שֶּׁאָמַר הַכָּתוּב "וְעֵד בַּשַּׁחַק נֶאֱמָן סֶלָה", כִּי סֶלָה שֵׁם עַל הַזְּמַן הֶעָתִיד. וְדָבָר זֶה שֶׁאוֹמְרִים "דָּוִד מֶלֶךְ יִשְׂרָאֵל וכו׳", לְמַדְנוּהוּ מֵרַבֵּנוּ הַקָּדוֹשׁ שֶׁאָמַר לְר׳ חִיָּא (ראש השנה כה.) "זִיל לְעֵין טָב וְקַדְּשֵׁיהּ לְיַרְחָא וּשְׁלַח לִי סִימָנָא דָּוִד מֶלֶךְ יִשְׂרָאֵל חַי וְקַיָּם". וּפֵרֵשׁ רַשִׁ"י, דָּוִד מֶלֶךְ יִשְׂרָאֵל נִמְשָׁל כַּלְּבָנָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בּוֹ "כִּסְאוֹ כַשֶּׁמֶשׁ נֶגְדִּי כְּיָרֵחַ יִכּוֹן עוֹלָם". עַד כָּאן. בְּפֶרֶק ב' דְּמַסֶּכֶת רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה:
We have thus supported the thesis we sought to substantiate – that Yaakov and David resemble the moon. They are called small like the moon and personify its qualities. On this basis, an insight into the work of the liturgists who ordained60See Sofrim 20:2. that after reciting the blessing for the sanctification of the moon, we recite בָּרוּךְ יוֹצְרֵךְ בָּרוּךְ עוֹשֵׂךְ בָּרוּךְ קוֹנֵךְ בָּרוּךְ בּוֹרְאֵךְ (“Blessed be He Who formed you; blessed be He Who made you; blessed be He Who brought you into being; blessed be He Who created you”).61The order in which these phrases are recited varies according to custom. The order cited by Tosfos Yom Tov is cited in Tashbetz Katan (responsum 220) and by Rav David Avudraham. Both Tashbetz Katan and Avudraham highlight the association with Yaakov. The first letters of the descriptive terms for God mentioned here spell out יעקב – Yaakov. It is as if the verse is saying that God created the moon with these four letters that spell out the name Yaakov. The name Yaakov reflects our patriarch Yaakov’s fundamental nature, like all the names that God brought about within the world,62See p. 108 above which are not arbitrary like the names given by common people. Similarly, the nature of the moon is reflected by these letters which form the name Yaakov, for the nature of the two are the same.63See Bach (Orach Chayim 426), who makes similar statements. See also Tikkunei Zohar, Tikkun 18. For similar reasons, the phrase, “David, King of Israel, is alive and enduring,” is recited after the blessing for the sanctification of the moon. In this phrase, David is described as “King of Israel,” to emphasize that he is ”King of Israel” and not “King of Esav” and the like, who are identified with the sun. David is also described as “alive and enduring,” for King David’s nature resembles that of the moon. Seeing the moon’s renewal teaches us that David is still “alive and enduring” like the moon that can be seen at present, and he also will be renewed as the moon is renewed. The process of renewal is reflected in Yechezkel’s prophecy of the future, in which he states,64Yechezkel 37:24. “My servant David will be king over them.” Yechezkel then emphasizes the matter by repeating,65Ibid. 37:25. “My servant David will be prince over them forever.” This concept substantiates Ibn Ezra’s interpretation of the phrase, “They are a faithful witness in the sky, eternally true.” The term selah, translated as “eternally true,” refers to the Ultimate Future, when the moon will be renewed in a complete sense. The expression, “David, King of Israel, is alive and enduring,” was derived from the words of our Holy Teacher Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi, who told Rabbi Chiya:66Rosh HaShanah 25a. “Go to Ein Tav.67Ein Tav is the name of a place. Sanctify the moon there and send me the message, ‘David, King of Israel, is alive and enduring’ as a sign that you did so.” Rashi explains that Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi chose this message because “David King of Israel is described with the analogy of the moon as it is written, ‘His throne is like the sun before Me. Like the moon, his line will be established forever.’”
חַזְיָהּ דְּלָא קָמִיַּתְבָא דַעְתָּהּ. הִנֵּה מִמַּה שֶּׁשָּׁתְקָה וְלֹא עָנְתָה עוֹד, אֵין נִרְאֶה שֶׁהָיְתָה שׁוֹתֶקֶת כְּמוֹדָה, כִּדְאָמְרִינַן בְּעָלְמָא (יבמות פז: ועוד) "שְׁתִיקָה כְּהוֹדָאָה דָּמְיָא". שֶׁהָיְתָה אִם כֵּן דַּעְתָּהּ נָחָה וּשְׁקֵטָה. אֶלָּא אִיפְּכָא מַשְׁמַע, שֶׁהֲרֵי אִלּוּ הָיְתָה מִתְיַשֶּׁבֶת בְּכָךְ, הָיָה לָהּ לְהוֹדוֹת וּלְשַׁבֵּחַ, לִתֵּן שֶׁבַח וְהוֹדָיָה לוֹ יִתְבָּרֵךְ, עַל שֶׁשָּׁמַע לְקוֹלָהּ, כִּי כֵן יָאוּת לִפְנֵי מֶלֶךְ, כָּל שֶׁכֵּן לִפְנֵי מֶלֶךְ מַלְכֵי הַמְּלָכִים הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, וְהִיא לֹא כֵן עָשְׂתָה. נִרְאֶה מְבֹאָר, שֶׁלֹּא הָיְתָה מִתְיַשֶּׁבֶת בְּדַעְתָּהּ. וְאִם תֹּאמַר, הָא אִיכָּא לְמֵידַק אִיפְּכָא, שֶׁאִם לֹא הָיְתָה מִתְיַשֶּׁבֶת בְּדַעְתָּהּ, אִם כֵּן, לָמָּה שָׁתְקָה וְלֹא בִקְשָׁה עוֹד? וְהוֹאִיל וְאִיכָּא לְמֵידַק הָכִי וְאִיכָּא לְמֵידַק הָכִי, מַה חָזִית דְּאָמַרְתְּ שֶׁלֹּא נִתְיַשְּׁבָה דַּעְתָּהּ מִדְּלֹא נָתְנָה שֶׁבַח וְהוֹדָיָה? אֵימָא אִיפְּכָא, מִדְּשָׁתְקָה הָיְתָה מִתְיַשֶּׁבֶת בְּדַעְתָּהּ? לֹא קַשְׁיָא, דְּאִי אָמַרְתְּ דְּלֹא הָיְתָה מִתְיַשֶּׁבֶת בְּדַעְתָּהּ, אִם כֵּן, מִתְיַשֵּׁב לָמָּה לֹא נָתְנָה שֶׁבַח וְהוֹדָיָה. אֲבָל אִי אָמַרְתְּ שֶׁהָיְתָה מִתְיַשֶּׁבֶת בְּדַעְתָּהּ, תִּקְשֶׁה לָמָּה לֹא נָתְנָה שֶׁבַח?
The passage in Chulin continues: “He saw that the moon would not be appeased.” God reached that conclusion from the fact that the moon remained silent and did not respond further. It does not appear that the moon remained silent because it accepted God’s words, as our Sages frequently commented:68Yevamos 87b, Bava Metzia 37b, et al. “Remaining silent is like acceptance,” in which instance, the moon would have been at peace and comfortable because of the conciliatory gestures God granted it. Instead, the opposite appears true, for were the moon to have been appeased by God’s conciliatory gestures, it would have been appropriate for the moon to have given thanks and praise to God for responding to its complaints. This is the appropriate course of action to take in response to a king, and how much more so in response to the King of kings, the Holy One, blessed be He. Since the moon did not do this, it is obvious that the moon was not appeased. Perhaps one could say that the opposite conclusion could be reached, for if the moon was not appeased, why did it remain silent and not make further requests? Since both conclusions could be reached, why say that the fact that the moon did not express thanks and praise indicate that it was not appeased? Why not say that the fact that the moon remained silent indicates that it was appeased?
אֲבָל לֹא קַשְׁיָא הָא, אִם לֹא נִתְיַשְּׁבָה בְּדַעְתָּהּ, לָמָּה לֹא חָזְרָה וְשָׁאֲלָה, שֶׁהֲרֵי יֵשׁ לוֹמַר שְׁנֵי תֵּרוּצִים. חֲדָא, דְּלֹא רָצְתָה לְהַטְרִיחַ עַל קוֹנָהּ. בֹּא וּרְאֵה מִשְׁנָתֵנוּ בְּפֶרֶק סֵדֶר תַּעֲנִיּוֹת כֵּיצַד (פ"ג מ"ח), מֵעִנְיַן חוֹנִי הַמְעַגֵּל וּמַה שֶׁשָּׁלַח לוֹ שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן שֶׁטַח. אִידָךְ, שֶׁאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא נִתְיַשְּׁבָה דַּעְתָּהּ, לֹא רָאֲתָה לְזַלְזֵל בִּכְבוֹד הַצַּדִּיקִים, כִּי גָּדוֹל כֹּחָם, וְיוֹדַעַת הָיְתָה שֶׁהַצַּדִּיקִים יִגְזְרוּ אֹמֶר וְיִשְׁלְטוּ בַּשָּׁמַיִם וּצְבָאָיו כֻּלָּם.
This is not a question. For if one would say that the moon was not appeased, it is understandable why the moon did not offer praise and thanks to God. If, however, the moon was appeased, it would be difficult to understand why the moon did not offer praise. The question which would lead to the opposite conclusion – If the moon was not appeased, why did it not make further requests of God? – can be resolved in two ways:
a) The moon did not wish to trouble its Maker excessively. That is undesirable, as reflected by the statements of the Mishnah regarding the message Shimon ben Shetach sent Choni HaMe’agel.69The Mishnah, Taanis 3:8, relates that Shimon ben Shetach told Choni HaMe’agel that he deserved to be rebuked for making continued requests of God.
b) Even though it was not appeased, the moon did not make further requests because it did not desire to make light of the honor of the righteous God had mentioned, for their power is great. The moon knew that the righteous could issue a decree and exert their rule over the heavens and all their hosts.
וְיָכֹלְתִּי לַעֲשׂוֹת סַעַד מִן הַכָּתוּב אַף לְזֶה הָעִנְיָן, וְעַל פִּי מַה שֶּׁאָמַרְתִּי דִּלְכָךְ שָׁתְקָה כִּי יָרְאָה מִלְּזַלְזֵל בִּכְבוֹדָן שֶׁל הַצַּדִּיקִים, וְהוּא מַה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (בראשית מח יט) "וְאוּלָם אָחִיו הַקָּטֹן יִגְדַּל מִמֶּנּוּ וְזַרְעוֹ וגו׳". וַהֲרֵי נִרְאֶה, לִכְאוֹרָה, דְּזֶה שֶׁקְּרָאוֹ "הַקָּטֹן", לְלֹא צֹרֶךְ הוּא, שֶׁהָיָה דַי בְּשֶׁיֹּאמַר "וְאוּלָם אָחִיו", כִּי תְּחִלַּת דְּבָרָיו "יָדַעְתִּי וגו׳ גַּם הוּא וגו׳", הַכֹּל בִּמְנַשֶּׁה אָמַר, וּמִמֵּילָא, כְּשֶׁיֹּאמַר "וְאוּלָם אָחִיו" שֶׁהָרָצוֹן בּוֹ אֶפְרַיִם, וְלָמָּה יְכַנֵּהוּ בְּחִנָּם בְּשֵׁם "הַקָּטֹן".
I can find support from Scripture also for this concept, that the moon remained silent so as not to make light of the honor of the righteous. This concept is reflected in the verse describing Menashe and Efraim,70Bereishis 48:19. “Nevertheless, his younger brother will be greater than him and the renown of his seed will fill…” On the surface, it was not necessary to refer to Efraim as קטן, “younger.” It would have been sufficient to say, “his brother,” since the beginning of Yaakov’s words, “I know… also he will be…” are obviously referring to Menashe. Thus, by saying “his brother,” it would have been clear that Yaakov’s intent is to refer to Efraim. Why then should Efraim have to be described superfluously as קטן, younger?
אֲבָל בִּבְרֵאשִׁית רַבָּה (פ"ו ט פצ"ז ד) אָמְרוּ לוובילקוט שמעוני יהושע רמז כב הגירסא: ואולם אחיו הקטן יגדל ממנו וזרעו יהיה מלא הגוים, אפשר כן?, אלא זה יהושע שעומד ממנו שהוא מעמיד גלגל חמה ולבנה שהם שליטים מסוף העולם ועד סופו. ע"כ. עַל "וְזַרְעוֹ וגו׳", אֶפְשָׁר כֵּן? אֶלָּא זֶה יְהוֹשֻׁעַ שֶׁעוֹמֵד מִמֶּנּוּ, שֶׁהוּא מַעֲמִיד גַּלְגַּל חַמָּה וּלְבָנָה, שֶׁהֵם שַׁלִּיטִים מִסּוֹף הָעוֹלָם וְעַד סוֹפוֹ. עַד כָּאן. לָכֵן אָמַר "וְאוּלָם אָחִיו הַקָּטֹן", הֲלֹא שְׁמוֹ נִקְרָא עַל שֵׁם הַצַּדִּיקִים שֶׁנִּקְרָאִים 'קָטָן'. כִּי אַף זֶה שֶׁיַּעֲמֹד מִמֶּנּוּ, יִשְׁלוֹט בָּעֶלְיוֹנִים, עַד שֶׁיִּגְזֹר אֹמֶר עַל גַּלְגַּל חַמָּה וְעַל גַּלְגַּל לְבָנָה כו׳. וּבְתוֹךְ מַה שֶּׁבַּעֲבוּר כֵּן קְרָאוֹ "הַקָּטֹן", הֲרֵי שֶׁשֵּׁם ׳קָטֹן׳ הַמְּכֻנֶּה בִּבְנֵי אָדָם יֵשׁ בִּכְלָלוֹ רֶמֶז עַל שֶׁיִּהְיֶה שַׁלִּיט עַל הָעֶלְיוֹנִים. וְלָכֵן שָׁתְקָה הַיָּרֵחַ מִלְּזַלְזֵל בִּכְבוֹד הַצַּדִּיקִים, מִפְּנֵי הַיִּרְאָה גַּם כֵּן, לֹא מִפְּנֵי הַכָּבוֹד בִּלְבָד.
This questioned can be resolved on the basis of the Midrash,71Bereishis Rabbah 6:9, 97:4. which comments on the words “and the renown of his seed” in this verse: Is this possible that Efraim’s seed will fill all the nations? Rather, this refers to Yehoshua, who will descend from Efraim and who will bring to a halt the orbits of the sun and the moon, which rule over the world from one end until its other end. For this reason, the verse refers to Efraim as קטן, to emphasize that he is one of the righteous who are identified with that attribute. Hence, Efraim’s descendant will rule over the celestial beings and have the potential to halt the sun and the moon in their orbits. Thus, when referring to people, the term קטן implies that one has the power to rule over the celestial beings. Accordingly, the moon remained silent so as not to make light of the honor of the righteous, not only as an expression of respect for the righteous, but also out of fear.
אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא "הָבִיאוּ כַּפָּרָה עָלַי עַל שֶׁמִּעַטְתִּי אֶת הַיָּרֵחַ". נִרְאֶה בְעֵינַי שֶׁהוּא כִּפְשׁוּטוֹ וּמַשְׁמָעוֹ מַמָּשׁ. שֶׁצִּוָּה לְיִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁיָּבִיאוּ כַּפָּרָה, פֵּרוּשׁ קָרְבַּן חַטָּאת, וְהוּא כַּפָּרָה כְּכָל שְׁאָר חַטָּאת, וְעַל יִשְׂרָאֵל. אָמְנָם, שֶׁעִם זֶה יִהְיֶה "עָלַי", וּבְאֹפֶן זֶה, שֶׁהֲרֵי דַּרְכֵי אֱלֹהֵינוּ יִתְבָּרֵךְ בְּכָל הַמְּסֻפָּר בַּמַּאֲמָר הַזֶּה, שֶׁהָיָה מַחֲזִיר לְפַיְּסָהּ, מוֹרֶה עַל שֶׁרְצוֹנוֹ יִתְבָּרֵךְ לְהִתְנַהֵג עִם בְּרִיּוֹתָיו כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוָּה לִבְרִיּוֹתָיו שֶׁיִּתְנַהֲגוּ זֶה עִם זֶה. וְאָמְרוּ בְּמִדְרַשׁ רַבָּה פָּרָשַׁת בְּחֻקּוֹתַי (ויקרא רבה לה ג), שֶׁהַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא גּוֹזֵר גְּזֵרוֹת, וְהוּא מְקַיְּמָם תְּחִלָּה. הָדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב "מִפְּנֵי שֵׂיבָה תָּקוּם וגו׳ אֲנִי ה׳" (ויקרא יט לב). אֲנִי הוּא שֶׁקִּיַּמְתִּי מִצְוַת עֲמִידַת זָקֵן תְּחִלָּה. וְכֵן הוּא בִּירוּשַׁלְמִי בְּמַסֶּכֶת רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה סוֹף פֶּרֶק קַמָּא (הלכה ג).
The passage in Chulin 60b continues: “The Holy One, blessed be He, said: ‘Bring an atonement offering for Me because I diminished the moon.’” It appears to me that this statement should be understood according to its simple meaning: God commanded the Jews to bring an atonement offering, i.e., a sin offering, which will atone for them like all other sin-offerings. Nevertheless, it could be considered “for Me,” i.e., that the atonement offering was brought on behalf of God. As explained, throughout this passage, God is described as seeking to appease the moon, for God conducts Himself when relating to His created beings as He commands them to conduct themselves with each other. For that reason, the Midrash relates72Vayikra Rabbah 35:3. that God does not issue decrees for man to observe unless God fulfills them first Himself. This is reflected in the verse,73Vayikra 19:32. “Rise before the elderly… I am God,” which is interpreted in the Jerusalem Talmud, at the end of the first chapter of Rosh HaShanah,74Talmud Yerushalmi, Rosh HaShanah 1:3 (p. 7b). as meaning, “I am He Who was the first to carry out the mitzvah of rising before the elderly.”
וְהִנֵּה בְּסוֹף מַסֶּכֶת יוֹמָא (פז.) אִיתָא, אָמַר ר׳ יִצְחָק: כָּל הַמַּקְנִיט אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ אֲפִלּוּ בִּדְבָרִים צָרִיךְ לְפַיְּסוֹ. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (משלי ו א-ג) "בְּנִי אִם עָרַבְתָּ לְרֵעֶךָ וגו׳ [נוֹקַשְׁתָּ בְאִמְרֵי פִיךָ נִלְכַּדְתָּ בְּאִמְרֵי פִֽיךָ, עֲשֵׂה זֹאת אֵפוֹא בְּנִי וְֽהִנָּצֵל כִּי בָאתָ בְכַף רֵעֶךָ לֵךְ הִתְרַפֵּס] וּרְהַב רֵעֶיךָ" לזועל מוקש אמרי פיך, אם הקנטתו - רהב רעיך, הרבה רעים לבקש הימנו מחילה, רעיך בתרא דקרא מלא כתיב, לפי שהוא לשון רבים. (רש"י) - הַרְבֵּה עָלָיו רֵעִים. וְאָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא, וְצָרִיךְ לְפַיְּסוֹ בְּשָׁלֹשׁ שׁוּרוֹת שֶׁל שָׁלֹשׁ בְּנֵי אָדָם לחבשלש שורות - שלש פעמים יפייסוהו בשלשה אנשים בכל פעם, שנאמר ישור - לשון שורה ואין שורה פחותה משלשה בני אדם. (רש"י), שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר "יָשֹׁר עַל אֲנָשִׁים וַיֹּאמֶר חָטָאתִי וגו׳" (איוב לג כז).
On this basis, it can be understood why God asked the Jews to bring an atonement offering for Him. At the end of Tractate Yoma, it is stated:75Yoma 87a. Rabbi Yitzchak said: “Anyone who offends his fellowman, even merely verbally, must appease him, as reflected by the verses:76Mishlei 6:1-3. ‘My son, if you have committed yourself as a guarantor for your fellow… you have been trapped by the sayings of your mouth… Do this then, my son, and be saved… humble yourself and give your fellow superiority.’ Bring many friends to appease him.”
Rav Chisda said: “It is necessary to appease the offended person with three rows of three people each, as reflected by the verse,77Iyov 33:27. ‘He makes a row of men and says, I sinned.’”
כָּכָה גַּם רָאָה הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, כְּשֶׁלֹּא נִתְפַּיְּסָה מִכָּל מַה שֶּׁאָמַר וַיַּעַשׂ, הִרְבָּה עָלֶיהָ רֵעִים לְהָבִיא קָרְבַּן כַּפָּרָה בְּיוֹם חִדּוּשָׁהּ, וְעִם זֶה יְפַיְּסוּהָ רֵעִים וַאֲהוּבִים לַמָּקוֹם. שֶׁכֵּן נִקְרְאוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל רֵעִים לַמָּקוֹם בָּרוּךְ הוּא, כְּדִכְתִיב "זֶה דוֹדִי וְזֶה רֵעִי" (שיר השירים ה טז). וְאָמַר "עַל שֶׁמִּעַטְתִּי אֶת הַיָּרֵחַ", וּכְלוֹמַר, וְלֹא נִתְפַּיְּסָה, לְכָךְ הָבִיאוּ כַּפָּרַתְכֶם בְּיוֹם הַחֹדֶשׁ, שֶׁיִּהְיֶה זֶה פִּיּוּס לָהּ בַּעֲבוּרִי. וּבָזֶה יָצָאתִי שׁוּרַת הַדִּין וִידֵי חוֹבָתִי, כְּשֶׁפִּיַּסְתִּי אוֹתָהּ עַל יְדֵיכֶם וְהִרְבֵּיתִ[י] לְפָנֶיהָ רֵעַי וַאֲהוּבַי. וְנִמְצָא לְפִי זֶה, שֶׁאֵין שׁוּם קֻשְׁיָא וְדֹחַק בַּלָּשׁוֹן הַזֶּה כְּלָל וּכְלָל. בָּרוּךְ ה׳ שֶׁהִנְחַנִי בְּדֶרֶךְ אֱמֶת:
Similarly, the Holy One, blessed be He, saw that the moon was not appeased by all He had said. Therefore, God fulfilled the injunction to “bring many friends” by commanding the Jewish people to bring an atonement offering on the day of the moon’s renewal. Thus, the moon was appeased by the Jewish people who are called God’s friends, as reflected by the verse,78Shir HaShirim 5:16. “This is my beloved and this is my friend.” God states that the atonement offering is to be brought “because I diminished the moon,” i.e., and it has yet to be appeased. Therefore, God said: “Bring your atonement offering on the day of the moon’s renewal so that the atonement offering will serve as an appeasement for the moon on My behalf. In this way, I will have fulfilled My obligation by appeasing the moon through you, sending many of My friends and loved ones to it.” In this manner, the concluding statement of the passage can be understood without any difficulty at all. Blessed is God Who has led me on the true path.79Cf. Bereishis 24:48.
וְאָמְנָם רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר, מַה נִּשְׁתַּנָּה שָׂעִיר זֶה כו׳, בְּכַוָּנָה נִפְלֵאת. וְהוּא מִמַּה שֶּׁשָּׁנִינוּ בְּפֶרֶק קַמָּא דִּשְׁבוּעוֹת (ב.), עַל מָה הַשְּׂעִירִים שֶׁל יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים וְשֶׁל רְגָלִים וְשֶׁל רֹאשׁ חֹדֶשׁ מְכַפְּרִים? וּפְלִיגֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה וְרַבִּי מֵאִיר וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה וְרַבִּי מֵאִיר שָׁוִים שֶׁשְּׂעִירֵי רְגָלִים וּשְׂעִירֵי רֹאשׁ חֹדֶשׁ מְכַפְּרִים עַל שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ יְדִיעָה לֹא בִתְחִלָּה וְלֹא בְסוֹף. וְיָלְפִי מִדִּכְתִיב בִּשְׂעִיר רֹאשׁ חֹדֶשׁ "[לְ]חַטָּאת לַה׳",(במדבר כח טו), חֵטְא שֶׁאֵין מַכִּיר בּוֹ אֶלָּא ה׳. וּשְׂעִירֵי רְגָלִים נַמִּי, מִוא״ו נוֹסֶפֶת. אֶלָּא דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר מוֹסִיף אַף שְׂעִירֵי יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים. וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן סְבִירָא לֵיהּ, דִּשְׂעִירֵי רֹאשׁ חֹדֶשׁ אֵינָן מְכַפְּרִין אֶלָּא עַל טָהוֹר שֶׁאָכַל אֶת הַטָּמֵא.
The passage in Chulin continues: “Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said, ‘Why is the wording describing the goat offered on the new moon distinguished?’” This statement reflects a wondrous intent, as is evident from a passage from the Mishnah in Tractate Shevuos.80Shevuos 1:4. In that source, our Sages discuss the sins for which the goats offered on Yom Kippur, the festivals, and Rosh Chodesh atone. The Mishnah mentions three Sages – Rabbi Yehudah, Rabbi Meir, and Rabbi Shimon, who offer varying opinions on this issue. Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Meir agree that the goats offered on the festivals and on Rosh Chodesh atone for entering the Beis HaMikdash or partaking of sacrificial offerings when one did not know that he was impure, neither before he did so, nor afterwards.81These offerings also atone for an impure person who entered the Beis HaMikdash without knowing that it was the Beis HaMikdash, or an impure person who partook of a sacrifice without being aware of its consecrated nature. This concept is derived from the fact that with regard to the goat brought as a sin-offering on Rosh Chodesh, the Torah states: חַטָּאת לַה;82Bamidbar 28:15. “a sin-offering for God.” This phrase implies that this sin-offering atones for a sin of which only God is aware.83I.e., even the person himself did not know that he had sinned. Moreover, these Sages agree that the Torah implies that the same concept also applies with regard to the goat offered as a sin-offering on the festivals. This is derived from the Torah’s use of the word ושעיר, “and the goat” when discussing the goat offered on the festivals. The vav at the beginning of the word שעיר, meaning “and”, hints at a connection between this sin-offering and the other two sin-offerings. Rabbi Meir maintains that this concept also applies to the goats offered on Yom Kippur. Rabbi Shimon differs and maintains that the goats offered on Rosh Chodesh atone only for the sin of a pure person who ate impure sacrificial food.
וְהַשְׁתָּא, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן לֹא יָלִיף "לַה׳" דְּגַבֵּי חַטַּאת רֹאשׁ חֹדֶשׁ לְחֵטְא שֶׁאֵין מַכִּיר בּוֹ אֶלָּא ה׳. וְאִם כֵּן קַשְׁיָא, מַאי עָבִיד בֵּיהּ. וְכָתַבְתִּי בְּתוֹסְפוֹת יוֹם טוֹב (שם), דְּמִסְתַּבְּרָא דְּדָרִישׁ כִּדְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ. וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה וְרַבִּי מֵאִיר, אִם כֵּן, לִכְתּוֹב 'חַטַּאת ה׳', מַאי "לַה׳"? שְׁמַע מִנָּהּ תַּרְתֵּי. כָּךְ כָּתַבְתִּי שָׁם בְּסִפְרִי תּוֹסְפוֹת יוֹם טוֹב. וּמִמֵּילָא, דִּלְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן לֹא מַשְׁמַע לֵיהּ תַּרְתֵּי, אֶלָּא בָּעִי לֵיהּ לִדְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ בִּלְחוּד. וְזָכִיתִי לְדֵין, דְּזֶהוּ עַצְמוֹ כַּוָּנָתוֹ שֶׁל רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ, דְּנָקִיט לֵיהּ "מַה נִּשְׁתַּנָּה שָׂעִיר", וְלֹא "מַה נִּשְׁתַּנָּה חַטָּאת כו׳". אֶלָּא לְהַכְרִיחַ מַאֲמָרוֹ, מִדְּשָׂעִיר זֶה נִשְׁתַּנָּה מִבֵּין שְׁאָר הַשְּׂעִירִים. אֶלָּא, לְפִי שֶׁשָּׂעִיר זֶה נִשְׁתַּנָּה בְּדִינוֹ מִשְּׁאָר הַשְּׂעִירִים שֶׁל הָרְגָלִים הָאֲמוּרִים עִמּוֹ בַּפָּרָשָׁה. וּלְמִי נִשְׁתַּנָּה דִינוֹ? הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. שֶׁלְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה וְרַבִּי מֵאִיר הֲרֵי כֻּלָּם שָׁוִים, בְּכַפָּרוֹת מִי שֶׁאֵין לוֹ יְדִיעָה לֹא בִתְחִלָּה וְלֹא בְסוֹף. וְהֵם לָמְדוּ "חַטָּאת לַה׳" לְעִנְיָן זֶה, חֵטְא שֶׁאֵין מַכִּיר בּוֹ אֶלָּא ה׳. אֲבָל לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, דְּנִשְׁתַּנָּה זֶה הַשָּׂעִיר, וְאֵינוֹ מְכַפֵּר כַּפָּרָתָם זֹאת שֶׁל שְׁאָר הַשְּׂעִירִים הָאֲמוּרִים בַּפָּרָשָׁה, אֶלָּא מְכַפֵּר עַל הַטָּהוֹר שֶׁאָכַל אֶת הַטָּמֵא, וְאֵינוֹ לוֹמֵד "חַטָּאת לַה׳" לְעִנְיָן זֶה, וְאִם כֵּן קַשְׁיָא לְמַאי קָאָתֵי הַשִּׁנּוּי הַזֶּה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בּוֹ "חַטָּאת לַה׳"? אֶלָּא וַדַּאי אָתֵי לִדְרָשָׁא זוֹ דְּהָבִיאוּ כַּפָּרָה כו׳.
Thus, Rabbi Shimon does not interpret the phrase, “a sin-offering to God,” which is used in connection with the Rosh Chodesh sin-offering, as referring to atonement for a sin of which only God is aware. If so, what inference does he derive from that phrase? In Tosfos Yom Tov, I wrote that Rabbi Shimon derives the same inference as Reish Lakish i.e., that the phrase “a sin-offering for God” alludes to God’s request that an atonement offering be brought for Him for diminishing the moon. Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Meir can also accept that concept, because if the Torah wanted to teach only that the offering atoned for God’s diminishing the moon, it would have stated חַטַּאת ה׳, “a sin-offering of God.”84The wording in the standard texts of Tosfos Yom Tov is slightly different. Since the Torah states חַטָּאת לַה׳, both concepts can be derived from the phrase. From this, we can appreciate that Rabbi Shimon maintains that both concepts cannot be derived from the phrase, and only the concept taught by Reish Lakish can be derived from it. I merited to understand that this was Reish Lakish’s intent. This is reflected by the wording Reish Lakish used: “Why is the goat offered on the new moon distinguished?” and not: “Why is the sin-offering offered on the new moon distinguished?” This wording is appropriate because this goat serves a different purpose than all the other goats mentioned in the passage. According to whose opinion is this goat different? Only according to Rabbi Shimon, for according to Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Meir, all the goats mentioned in the passage share the same purpose, i.e., that of atoning for one who did not know that he was impure, neither before entering the Beis HaMikdash or before partaking of sacrificial foods, nor afterwards. Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Meir interpreted the phrase חַטָּאת לַה׳, “a sin-offering for God”, as teaching that the offering atones for a sin of which only God is aware. Rabbi Shimon, by contrast, maintains that this goat is unique and does not bring about atonement for a sin of which only God is aware, like the other goats mentioned in this passage. Instead, this goat atones for the sin of a pure person who eats impure sacrificial foods. The phrase חַטָּאת לַה׳, “a sin-offering for God,” is not necessary to teach this concept. Why then is the wording referring to this goat different than that used with regard to the other goats brought as offerings? To teach that God was asking for an offering to be brought because He diminished the size of the moon.
וְאַף עַל גַּב דְּנוּכַל לוֹמַר דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה וְרַבִּי מֵאִיר נַמִּי סְבִירָא לְהוּ, וְכִדְכָתַבְתִּי בְּתוֹסְפוֹת יוֹם טוֹב, דְּתַרְתֵּי מַשְׁמַע לְהוּ, מִכָּל מָקוֹם אֵינוֹ מֻכְרָח כָּל כָּךְ, דַּהֲרֵי אֶפְשָׁר שֶׁלֹּא סְבִירָא לְהוּ אֶלָּא חֲדָא, הַיְנוּ הָא דְּחֵטְא שֶׁאֵין מַכִּיר כו', שֶׁזֶּה מְפֹרָשׁ מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם מִמַּה שֶּׁאָמְרוּ שֶׁשְּׂעִירֵי רֹאשׁ חֹדֶשׁ מְכַפְּרִים עַל שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ יְדִיעָה כו'. וּמְנָא לְהוּ דְּתַרְתֵּי סְבִירָא לְהוּ? שֶׁאֵין זֶה שֶׁנּוּכַל לוֹמַר דְּתַרְתֵּי סְבִירָא לְהוּ אֶלָּא כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא נֹאמַר שֶׁחוֹלְקִין עַל רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ. אֲבָל, מַאן יֵימַר שֶׁהָאֱמֶת כֵּן, דְּדִלְמָא אֵין הָכִי נַמִּי דְּחוֹלְקִין, וְלֹא סְבִירָא לְהוּ לִדְרָשָׁא דְּרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ, וְנֵיזֵל בָּתַר שְׁנֵי הַתַּנָּאִים וְלֹא אַחַר הָאֲמוֹרָאִים. וְאִי הַגִּירְסָא בַּמַּאֲמָר שֶׁלָּנוּ רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן פָּזִי, דְּהָוֵי נַמִּי אֲמוֹרָא, דִּבְרֵישׁ פֶּרֶק כְּלָל גָּדוֹל, אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן פָּזִי אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻעַ בֶּן לֵוִי. וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי עַצְמוֹ אֲמוֹרָא הוּא לטעיין בשו"ת יוסף אומץ להרב חיד"א סימן מ"ו שהאריך בזה.. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנִּזְכַּר בַּמִּשְׁנָה בְּסוֹף עוּקְצִין (פ"ג מי"ב), הוֹכַחְתִּי שָׁם מוז"ל: אמר ריב"ל - חשבו הרמב"ם עם התנאים בפ"ב מי' פרקיו שהקדים לפי' המשניות. ולקמן אכתוב על זה. ובסוף המשנה כתב וז"ל: והנה אף על פי שר"ש בן חלפתא היה זקן בימי רבי כנראה מתוך דבריו שהשיב לרבי. סלעים נעשו גבוהים. בפכ"ג דשבת דף קנ"ב. ואילו ריב"ל לא חשבוהו בגמרא אלא כאמורא. דבפ"ג דמסכת נדה דף י"ח מתניתא קאמרי שמעתתא לא קאמרי. וקאמר שמעתתא על מימרא דאמר ריב"ל. וכן פירש"י שמעתתא ריב"ל אמורא היה ע"כ. וכן הוא עוד בפרק מרובה ריש (בבא קמא דף פ"ב.) (ומ"מ בימי רבי היה. שהיה גדול מרבן יוחנן) ואף על פי כן ראה רבינו הקדוש להקדים מאמרו של ריב"ל למאמרו של רשב"ח כדי שתהא החתימה בשלום. ובמדרש רבנן אומרין גדול השלום. שכשמלך המשיח יבא. אינו פותח אלא בשלום. שנאמר (ישעיהו נ״ב:ז׳) מה נאוו על ההרים רגלי מבשר משמיע שלום: בְּתוֹסְפוֹת יוֹם טוֹב, שֶׁאֵינוֹ אֶלָּא אֲמוֹרָא. אִם כֵּן, נָפַל הָא דְּרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ בְּבִירָא.
It could be said that Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Meir also accept this concept. As I wrote in Tosfos Yom Tov, it is possible to say that Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Meir understand this phrase as teaching two concepts. Nevertheless, there is no imperative to say that; it is possible that these Sages understand the phrase חַטָּאת לַה׳, “a sin-offering for God,” as teaching only one concept – that the offering atones for a sin of which only God is aware. For these sages explicitly say: “The goats brought on Rosh Chodesh atone for impurity of which one is unaware.” What compels us to say that they understand this phrase as teaching two concepts? The only motive to say that these Sages understand the verse in that manner, is so that they will not be disagreeing with Reish Lakish. But who will say that this is the true interpretation? Perhaps in fact Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Meir do not accept the interpretation of Reish Lakish. If that were the case, why should we accept the interpretation of Reish Lakish? Let us follow the understanding of two Tannaim – Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Meir – rather than that of one Amora – Reish Lakish. Also, according to the version of the passage in Chulin that attributes this teaching to Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi, the passage was authored by an Amora. For Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi was an Amora, as reflected by the fact that in Tractate Shabbos,85Shabbos 75a. It is curious why Tosfos Yom Tov cites this particular teaching. There are several other teachings in Tractate Shabbos (Shabbos 40a, 105b, and 118a), and many others throughout the Talmud (Pesachim 26a, 38b, et al.), where Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi quotes Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi. Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi quotes Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, who was himself an Amora. True, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi is mentioned in the Mishnah at the end of Tractate Uktzin.86Uktzin 3:12. Nevertheless, as I explained there in Tosfos Yom Tov, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi was an Amora and not a Tanna. If so, the teaching of Reish Lakish has no basis.87An Amora’s words are not accepted in place of a Tanna’s words.
הִלְכָּךְ נָקַט לוֹמַר "מַה נִּשְׁתַּנָּה שָׂעִיר כו'", לִתְפֹּס עִם זֶה דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן שֶׁסּוֹבֵר דְּנִשְׁתַּנָּה בְּדִינוֹ, דְּלֹא כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה וְרַבִּי מֵאִיר, וְאֵינוֹ דּוֹרֵשׁ ״חַטָּאת לַה׳״ כְּמוֹתָם. וּמַאי דָּרַשׁ בֵּיהּ? עַל כָּרְחָךְ דּוֹרֵשׁ "הָבִיאוּ כַּפָּרָה כו׳", וּסְבִירָא לִי אֲנָא כְּוָתֵיהּ, וּדְרָשָׁא שֶׁלִּי דְּרָשָׁא גְּמוּרָה הִיא אַלִּבָּא דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, דְּאִיהוּ נַמִּי תַּנָּא. זֶהוּ מַה שֶּׁהֶעֱלֵיתִי בְּחֶסֶד עֶלְיוֹן בָּרוּךְ הוּא בַּמַּאֲמָר הַזֶּה:
Therefore, the passage in Chulin asks “Why is the goat offered on the new moon distinguished?” In this way, the passage is referring to the words of Rabbi Shimon, who maintains that this goat is offered for a different purpose than the other goats mentioned in the passage, in contrast to the understanding of Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Shimon does not interpret the phrase חַטָּאת לַה׳, “a sin-offering for God,” as do Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Meir. How does Rabbi Shimon interpret this phrase? We are forced to say that Rabbi Shimon interprets this phrase as Reish Lakish does, that God was asking that an atonement offering be brought for Him. Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi was thus emphasizing that his understanding has the support of a Tanna, Rabbi Shimon.
This is the understanding of the passage that I was able to achieve by the grace of the Most High God, blessed be He.