In the Beginning of the Beginning

By Alter Tzvi Amdurer

Alter Tzvi Amdurer's collected shiurim on the first eighty verses of Bereishit are an enlightening read for any student of Torah. In his clear, concise style, Amdurerer collects the opinions of our Sages of blessed memory on a host of important issues arising from these seminal verses, and his erudition and scope of reference invite the reader into the world of Torah scholarship and faith.

The study of Bereishit, in the breadth and depth presented so ably by Amdurer, is the gateway to the understanding of life according to divine teaching. By combining our Torah knowledge and wisdom with the best and most accurate science available at any given time, we are giving witness to He Who spoke and created natural law and process, and created Man—spiritual Man—is His image.

• Language: English
• Publisher: BookBaby
• Release date: Mar 12, 2018
• ISBN: 9789659000630

Book preview

בו.

PROLOGUE

The Torah as the Blueprint of Creation

THE TALMUD (Pesachim 54a, Nedarim 39b¹) declares that the Torah preceded the creation of the world.

Midrash Bereishit Rabah 1:1², takes this one step further, citing Mishlei (Proverbs) 8:30: "I [the Torah] was to HaShem as an "Amon"—״אָמוֹן״. The Midrash explains: The Torah said, I was the tool (״אוּמָן״—"tool", rather than ״אָמוֹן״—"protector") for HaShem’s craftsmanship."

"In the physical world, a king of flesh and blood does not build his palace on his own, but he does it through craftsmen and architects. They in turn, do not build it on their own, but rather through plans and blueprints which outline how to construct the chambers, entrances, and exits.

So too, HaShem looked into the Torah [the blueprint] and created the world."

The Midrash claims the word ״רֵאשִׁית״ refers to the Torah; therefore, the word ״בְּרֵאשִׁית״ means: from inside, [or "with] the Torah, hence, the Torah’s first verse would read: "From [looking] inside the Torah, HaShem created the heavens and the earth". The Midrash demonstrates that ״רֵאשִׁית״ means the Torah by way of Mishlei 8:22, "HaShem created me [The Torah] as the beginning (״רֵאשִׁית״) of His way".

So the Torah not only preceded the creation, but actually was the blueprint through which HaShem constructed the entire universe.

The question that arises is: How can it be true that the Torah preceded Creation, when it describes events that, pre-Creation, hadn’t yet taken place?

The answer begins with an enigmatic Talmudic text (Bava Batra 15a³) discussing who wrote the Torah’s last eight verses.

"Yehoshua wrote his book [The Book of Yehoshua] and the last eight verses of the Torah". This statement accords with the opinion that Yehoshua wrote the final eight verses in the Torah, as the verse states (Devarim 34:5): "Moshe, the servant of HaShem, died there in the land of Moab".

Is it possible that Moshe died and then wrote this [or indeed wrote that he died while he was alive]? The verse clearly states, Moshe died there. Rather, up to this point, Moshe wrote, and from this point on, Yehoshua wrote. This is the view of R. Yehudah, and some say it was R. Nechemiah.

R. Shimon said to him, Can the Torah be missing even a single letter that was not written by Moshe? After all, the verses in Devarim 31:24-26 state; "And it was, when Moshe finished writing the words of this Torah in a scroll, until their total completion, that Moses commanded the Levites, who carried the ark of the covenant of the Lord, to say: ‘Take this Torah scroll and place it alongside the Ark of Covenant of HaShem, and it will be there as a witness.’"

Therefore, says R. Shimon, up until the last eight verses, HaShem dictated the Torah and Moshe repeated [HaShem’s words] and wrote, and from that point, HaShem dictated and Moshe [merely] wrote the words in tears (״בדמע ״)".

This Talmudic text engages the challenge of the conclusion of the Torah, reconciling two basic principles of Judaism.

On the one hand, we hold dear the notion that ״משה אמת ותורתו אמת״, Moshe is [objectively] true and his Torah is [objectively] true. Moshe was the only conduit through which HaShem gave the Torah; this is problematic if you follow the opinion of R. Yehudah/R. Nechemiah that implies that Yehoshua wrote the last eight verses.

On the other hand, the Jewish people insist that the entire Torah is the undiluted Divine truth; this is problematic if you follow R. Shimon’s opinion that implies Moshe could not be telling the truth when he wrote the words Moshe died there.

To sum up: if we accept R. Yehudah/R. Nechemiah’s view, that Moshe did not author the Torah’s last eight verses, then we acknowledges the Torah’s objective truth but relinquish the idea of Moshe’s singular authorship.

Conversely, if we accept R. Shimon’s position, we can preserve Moshe’s role as sole author but seemingly at the price of the Torah’s objective truth. Because if Moshe describes his own death, then his words were an extrapolation and not objectively accurate.

The Vilna Gaon⁴ in his Kol Eliyahu reconciles this apparent paradox—and, in doing so, answers our primary question: How can the Torah have preceded the Creation when it describes events that, pre-Creation, didn’t yet happen?

He writes (paraphrased):

"The questions on this Talmudic text are astounding, creating a paradox between the opinions of R. Yehudah/R. Nechemiah and R. Shimon. Either Moshe wrote a lie [that he died when in fact he was still alive], or the Torah was not written entirely by Moshe [as the last eight verses were written by Yehoshua].

Furthermore, neither R. Shimon, on the one hand, nor R. Yehudah/R. Nechemiah on the other, address the problems inherent in the alternate rabbi’s accounts.

Therefore, one has to conclude that both the opinion of R. Yehudah/R. Nechemiah and the opinion of R. Shimon are correct; they do not disagree with each other’s dissertation, and there is no paradox.

Since the Torah itself was written 2,000 years before the creation of the universe, there is no need to be concerned about the Torah’s last eight verses alone [If you ask about the authorship of the last eight verses, the same question would apply to the rest of the Torah].

Therefore, if the problem revolves around the Torah’s authorship and the possibility that the Torah is in some way a lie, that question could be asked against the Torah as a whole: if it was written before Creation, how could it include an account of Creation and all the stories contained in the text, if the text preceded the actual events?

Therefore, one must realize that the whole Torah, in its entirety, is the Name of HaShem. By arranging all the Torah’s letters together (in a way known to only very few) one can "glimpse a picture of name of HaShem" from the totality of the letters. Consequently, before the Creation, the Torah’s letters and words were arranged in accordance with a formula that reflected the secrets contained in those letters and words, not as the format in which we see the Torah today [Our version of the Torah was decrypted from its original form into the text that we see, read, and learn today].

Therefore, that the Torah pre-existed the world does contradict the fact that [in the form we see it today] the Torah records events that had not occurred when the Torah was written, because at the time it was written it looked and read differently from our format today [though the letters were the same].

At Mount Sinai, when the Torah was given to Israel, the original secret text needed to be decrypted into the form that we have today to reflect the stories, Mitzvot [commandments] and all the moral and ethical messages contained therein. This decryption was done through Moshe. HaShem dictated the original secret letters and words of the Torah to Moshe; he then said them aloud and transposed them from their original format to the text we see today.

But when it came to the Torah’s last eight verses, Moshe was unable to convert this original text to the current format, because if he would write Moshe died there, it would appear a lie [because he was still alive].

Therefore, he wrote that verse, and the other seven that conclude the Torah, in the original unintelligible format.

That is what the Talmud means when it says Moshe wrote the last eight verses, ״בדמע״. The word ״בדמע״ does not mean "in tears but rather, mixed up. Moshe, wrote the last eight verses in the original mixed up version and Yehoshua converted these from their esoteric original format to the text of the Torah we see today.

As a result, all the questions on this problematic Talmud text are resolved:

R. Yehudah/R. Nechemiah is indeed correct. Yehoshua did write the Torah’s last eight verses, yet Moshe was the author of the whole Torah. Yehoshua simply decrypted the last eight verses that Moshe wrote in their original form but could not decode, lest appear a liar

R. Shimon is also correct in saying that up to the last eight verses, HaShem dictated the Torah and Moshe repeated (HaShem’s words) and wrote, and from that point on, HaShem dictated and Moshe (merely) wrote the words ״בדמע״. Not with tears in his eyes, but in their original "mixed up" secret format.

The Vilna Gaon’s analysis, brilliant in its simplicity, answers our original question in so many ways. The Torah did indeed precede Creation, but not in the format in which we see it today. Our version of the Torah is the decrypted rendering by Moshe, up until the last eight verses. Those last eight verses were written by Moshe (in the primary, secret format) and decoded by Yehoshua.

The final word on this issue goes to Ramban⁵, who writes this in his introduction to the Torah (paraphrased):

It appears that the Torah that was [originally] written with black fire on white fire occurred in this manner; the text was continuous without gaps between the letters. It was therefore possible for the Torah to be read in accordance with the Divine Names and [at the same time] be read as we read it today, relating to our" Torah and Mitzvot.

It was given to Moshe according to the [order of the] reading of the Mitzvot, but was transmitted to him orally in accordance with its original [one-string] text of the Divine Name(s).

The Great Name of HaShem (to which I referred earlier) is written as a continuous string, divided into words of three letters each. There are also many other types of groupings, that are utilized by the Masters of Kabbalah".

ENDNOTES

¹ פסחים (נד.), נדרים לט:

והא תניא שבעה דברים נבראו קודם שנברא העולם אלו הן תורה ותשובה גן עדן וגיהנם כסא הכבוד ובית המקדש ושמו של משיח

² בראשית רבה (א:א)

רבי הושעיה רבה פתח: (משלי ח): ואהיה אצלו אמון . . . אומן. התורה אומרת אני הייתי כלי אומנתו של הקב"ה.בנוהג שבעולם, מלך בשר ודם בונה פלטין אינו בונה אותה מדעת עצמו, אלא מדעת אומן. והאומן אינו בונה אותה מדעת עצמו, אלא דיפתראות ופינקסאות יש לו, לדעת היאך הוא עושה חדרים, היאך הוא עושה פשפשין.כך היה הקדוש ברוך הוא, מביט בתורה ובורא את העולם.והתורה אמרה: בראשית ברא אלהים ואין ראשית אלא תורה.היאך מה דאת אמר (משלי ח) ה' קנני ראשית דרכו:

³ בבא בתרא (טו.)

אמר מר יהושע כתב ספרו ושמונה פסוקים שבתורה תניא כמאן דאמר שמונה פסוקים שבתורה יהושע כתבן דתני' (דברים לד) וימת שם משה עבד ה' אפשר משה מת [חי] וכתב וימת שם משה אלא עד כאן כתב משה מכאן ואילך כתב יהושע דברי רי ואמרי לה ר' נחמיה אמר לו רש אפשר סת חסר אות אחת וכתיב (דברים לא) לקוח את ספר התורה הזה אלא עד כאן הקבה אומר ומשה אומר וכותב מכאן ואילך הקב"ה אומר ומשה כותב בדמע

⁴ קול אליהו (פרשת וזאת הברכה)

בגמרא במס׳ ב׳׳ב טו. תניא כמ״ד שמונה פסוקים שבתורה יהושע כתבן דתניא וימת שם משה וגו. אפשר משה חי וכתב וימת שם משה אלא עד כאן כתב משה, מכאן ואילך כתב יהושע דברי ר״י וכו׳ אמר ליה ר״ש אפשר ספר תורה חסר אות אחת וכתיב לקוח את ספר התורה הזה, אלא עד כאן הקב״ה אומר ומשה אומר וכותב, מכאן ואילך הקב״ה אומר ומשה כותב בדמע וכר ע״ש, והנה הקושיא נגלית לכל האיך תירץ ר״ש קושית ר״י דקאמר אפשר משה חי וכתב וימת שם משה, דמיחזי כשיקרא ח״ו.

ומה תירץ שהיה כותב בדמע, ואף דלכאורת תיקן רש״י ז״ל הקושיא כי כל התורה אמר הקב״ה כל תיבה למשה: והוא חזר ואמר כל תיבה כדי שלא יטעה ואח״כ כתב והיינו עד וימת שם משה אבל מכאן ואילך לא הי׳ אומר משה כלל כי הוא כשקר שהי׳ עדיין חי, ולכך היה כותב בלא אמירה כלל, אך אכתי קשה כי אף בלא אמירה כלל חלילה לקדוש ישראל אשר ,כתב עליו ולא קם נביא וכו לכתוב שקר ח׳׳ו אף בלא אמירה), וא׳׳כ אכתי הקושיא במקומה עומדת על דברי ר״ש איך אמר כי משה כתב בדמע, ועוד קשה איך אמר ר״י שמכאן ואילך כתב יהושע ולא חשש כלל לקושית ר״ש, היתכן שיכתב תורת ה אפילו אות אחת שלא ע״י משה הלא מקרא מלא דבר הכתוב זכרו תורת משה עבדי וגו, ושני הדעות של ר׳׳י ור״ש המה קשה ההבנה מאד.

אמנם יש לפרש כי שניהם דברי אלקים חיים ומר אמר חדא וכו׳ ולא פליגו כי לכאורה קשה בדברי הגמרא מה מקשי על ח׳ פסוקים אחרונים שבתורה היאך נכתבו אם משה היה עדיין חי, הלא כל התורה כולה היתה נכתבת אלפים שנה קודם בריאת העולם. א״כ לא היה עדיין השמים והארץ וכל אשר בה ודור המבול ודור הפלגה ויציאת מצרים ודומיהם, ואיך נכתבו בתורה קודם שהיו בעולם, אמנם זאת ידוע כי כל התורה הוא שמותיו של הקב״ה והיינו ע״י צירופים של אותיות ותיבות, ולפני בריאת עולם היתה התורה אמון אצל הקב׳׳ה על פי צירופים וסודות נעלמים ולא היתה נקראת כמו עתה רק עפ״י שמותיו של הקב״ה ואחר שברא השי׳ת את העולם ונתן את התורה לישראל וסיבבם במצות הצריכין לעשות בגבולי מקום וזמן כתב את התורה באר היטב איך לעשות כל המצות, וחלק כל התורה לתיבות ואותיות לגלות ולפרש את כל דברי התורה הזאת, וסודות התורה עפ״י צירופים ניתנה ליודעי חן.

מה שאין מודיעים אלא לחכם ומבין מדעתו, ועתה מתורץ דברי הגמרא כי כוונת ר״ש איך אפשר להיות ס״ת חסר אפילו אות אחת וגם שלא להיות כשקר ח״ו. לכך הוא אומר עד כאן הקב״ה אומר ומשה אומר וכותב. ר״ל שאמר משה כל תיבה ותיבה כאשר היא כתובה בידנו בגילוי המצות אבל מכאן ואילך לא היה יכול לכתוב בגילוי וימת שם משה דמיחזי כשיקרא. וגם לא היה יכול לגמור ע״י יהושע. כי אפשר ס׳ת חסר אות אחת לכן הוא אומר שהיה כותב בדמע, והפי, הוא מלשון מלאתך ודמעך, ר׳ל מדומע וערבוב אותיות, שהיה כותב מכאן ואילך על פי צירופי תיבות והם שמותיו של הקב״ה ולא היה נקרא כלל וימת שם משה. רק תיבות אחרות על פי סודות התורה, ולאחר מיתתו כתבם יהושע כפי שניתן לו רשות לגלות את התורה״ וא״כ השני הדיעות לא פליגי בי באמת כתבן משה ולא חסר אפילו אות אחת, רק כי ח׳ פסוקים אלו לא היה יכול לכתוב את הנגלה וכתב כפי הצירופים וזהו בדמע. ויהושע כתבן כפי הנגלה וכדעת ר״י, ושניהם מסכימים לדעה אחת כי נכתבו ע״י שניהם, ע׳י משה הנסתר והסוד. ועל ידי יהושע הנגלה, כאשר היא כתובה בידינו לדור דור:

⁵ הקדמת רמב"ן לספר בראשית

ונראה שהתורה הכתובה באש שחורה על גבי אש לבנה, בענין הזה שהזכרנו היה, שהיתה הכתיבה רצופה בלי הפסק תיבות, והיה אפשר בקריאתה שתקרא על דרך השמות, ותקרא על דרך קריאתנו בענין התורה והמצוה, ונתנה למשה רבינו על דרך קריאת המצות, ונמסר לו על פה קריאתה בשמות. וכן יכתבו השם הגדול שהזכרתי כולו רצוף, ויתחלק לתיבות של שלוש שלוש אותיות, ולחלוקים אחרים רבים, כפי השימוש לבעלי הקבלה.

CHAPTER 1.1

THE FIRST TWO VERSES OF THE TORAH

א. בְּרֵאשִׁית בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִם וְאֵת הָאָרֶץ

In the beginning of, HaShem created the heavens and the earth [i.e. the dry land]. (Literal translation)

In the beginning of HaShem’s creating the heavens and the earth [i.e. the dry land]. (Rashi’s translation)

In the beginning, HaShem created the heavens and the earth (i.e. the dry land). (Ramban’s translation)

ב. וְהָאָרֶץ הָיְתָה תֹהוּ וָבֹהוּ וְחשֶׁךְ עַל פְּנֵי תְהוֹם וְרוּחַ אֱלֹהִים מְרַחֶפֶת עַל פְּנֵי הַמָּיִם

And [at that point] the earth was astonishingly empty/void, and darkness was on the face of the deep, and the spirit/breath of HaShem was hovering/floating on the face of the water.

The Torah’s First Letter

THE TORAH BEGINS with a Beit (ב), the second letter of the Hebrew alphabet, rather than the first, Aleph (א). Many reasons are proposed for this. Here are a few traditional responses:

Midrash Bereishit Rabah 10:1¹:

"Just as the ב is closed from all sides and open in front, so you may not speak of that which is below, above, before or after, only about the day the world was created and onward. Bar Kapara cited [as support for this] Devarim 4:32, "When you inquire about the first days which were before you, from the day HaShem created man on earth and from one end of heavens to the other. This verse teaches that you may analyze anything after the time that you were created, but not matters that pertain before Creation.

Similarly, the Talmud, Chagigah 11b² discusses studying the esoteric nature of Creation.

"Anyone who looks into one of four things is better off not having been created: What is above the world [above the רקיע, firmament in the realms of the Holy Angels, "Chayot), what is below the world [below the realm of the Holy Angels, Chayot"), what is before the world [beyond the eastern edge of the רקיע firmament), what is behind/after the world [beyond the eastern edge of the רקיע, firmament). Anyone who delves into these matters does not have consideration for the honor of his Creator. [The Talmud quotes Devarim 4:32 [cited above) as a prooftext to this idea.]

Bereishit Rabah 10:1 part 23:

"The letter Beit signifies two, while Aleph signifies one. The Torah begins with Beit to signify that two worlds were created by HaShem in the beginning: this world and the World to Come."

Bereishit Rabah 10:1 part 3⁴:

The letter Beit represents Berachah ברכה—blessing, while the Aleph, א, represents "Arirah, ארירה, meaning curse". Thus, the first letter of the Torah is a Beit, representing blessings and not an Aleph, representing curses, so the heretics could not say, "How could the world endure, if it was created with an expression of Arirah, curse?" HaShem therefore declared, "I created the world with Berachah, blessing, in the hope that it would endure".

But this explanation is difficult to understand. Aleph is also the first letter of words such as "Emet" אמת—"truth or objective reality, or Ahavah" אהבה meaning "love," while Beit is also the first letter of words such as "Beli’ya’al" בליעל—evil/boorishness. Why does the Midrash offer an explanation that seems easy to disprove by simply inserting other words to corrupt its desired impact?

The Midrash therefore refers to how the letters of the Hebrew alphabet also represent numerical values. Each letter has a number associated with it.

The Aleph, א, equates to the number 1, the Beit to the number 2. Thus the Aleph, א,can cause one to believe that one has to care only about number 1, oneself and forget about others. The Beit, ב, however, implies harmony, sensitivity, and the obligation to keep others in mind at all times. The Torah, therefore, begins with a Beit to teach humanity that caring about others is "Baruch", ״ברוך״,—blessed. The Aleph, on the other hand, would have implied the negative trait of being egocentric and caring only about oneself, which is "Arur", ״ארור״, a cursed trait.

Bereishit Rabah 10:15 part 4:

The Aleph complained before HaShem’s throne for twenty-six generations: Master of the Universe, I am the first letter of the alphabet and You did not create Your world [begin the Torah] with me. HaShem replied, The entire universe was created only in the merit of Torah. Tomorrow I will give the Torah [to Israel] at Mount Sinai, and I will begin with your letter, ״אָנֹכִי ה' אֱלֹהֶיך״, I am HaShem.

The Talmud Yoma

The Torah consists of two parts, the Written Torah (תורה שבכתב) and the Oral Torah (תורה שבעל פה) which contains the Oral law and the Oral tradition).

The Written Torah starts with "Bereishit, (בראשית)" and the Oral Torah (the first word of the Talmud, in Tractate Berachot) begins with "Mei’ei‘matai (מאימתי").

When you combine the first letter of the Written Torah ("Beit) with the first letter of the Oral Torah (Mem) it spells out Bam (בם").

The Talmud in Yoma 19b⁶, commenting on the words of the Shema, "Vedibarta Bam ודברת בם, And you shall speak of them," stresses that a person should use his speech [as much as possible] for the study of the Torah [the Written Torah, the ב and the Oral Torah, the ם] and not for pointless or prohibited conversation.

Rashi’ s First Comment in his Commentary to the Torah

Rashi⁷, in his very first comment on the Torah, asks a question in the name of R. Yitzchak:

It was not necessary [for HaShem] to commence the Torah other than from the verse This month is for you, (Shemot 12:2, about the law of the Jewish calendar] which was the first Mitzvah (commandment) that the Israelites were commanded [other Mitzvot appear in the Book of Bereishit, for example the commandments of procreation and circumcision, and the prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve sinew—גיד הנשה, but they could have easily been included with the later commandments). So why did HaShem begin the Torah with the word בְּרֵאשִׁית—In the beginning of?

The answer, Rashi says, is because of the verse, "He (HaShem) declared to His people the power of His endeavors, in giving them the estates of the [other) nations" (Tehilim 111:6).

So that if the nations of the world should say to Israel, You are thieves, because you forcibly conquered the lands of the seven nations [of Canaan), they [Israel) would reply to them that the entire earth belongs to the HaShem; He created it [as narrated in the story of the Creation) and He gave it to those that were appropriate in His eyes. He gave it to them [the seven nations), and when He willed it, He took it away from them and gave it to Israel.

Sifsei Chachamim⁸, a super-commentary to Rashi, writes that Rashi is really asking this:

"The Torah was given to Israel because of the commandments contained therein, so that they could be observed. Therefore, why aren’t all the extraneous stories in the Book of Bereishit [the creation story, the story of the Flood, the stories of Avraham, his children and grandchildren, etc.] that do not relate directly to the commandments, not appear in separate books [of stories] like the ones that are found with the books of Joshua or Judges?"

To this, Rashi answers that it was important for the Torah to mention the story of Creation to give the reader an insight into the concept of HaShem’s ownership of everything in general and the Land of Israel in particular, so that the Jewish claim to the land could be defended by the fact that it was a divine gift from its Creator and owner.

R. Yehudah HaLevi in his Kuzari⁹ adds an intriguing insight into Rashi’s question in asking this:

How is it that when Moshe spoke to Pharaoh and informed him he was the emissary of HaShem, did he not preface his introduction by informing Pharaoh that he had been sent by the Creator of the universe? Furthermore, when the Israelites stood at Mount Sinai to receive the Torah, why did HaShem introduce himself as the One Who redeemed them from the land of Egypt and not as the One that created Heaven and Earth?

After all, redeeming the Israel from Egypt is impressive, but pales in comparison to creating the entire universe?

R. Yehudah HaLevi answers that at Sinai, HaShem was dealing face-to-face [so to speak] with Israel. When they, as a nation, accepted the Torah, they accepted upon themselves the laws it contained. Their responsibility to HaShem began then, because they had witnessed the Exodus from Egypt with their own eyes.

The act of redemption by HaShem for them created an obligation to He Who redeemed them. That obligation was acknowledged by Israel with their acceptance of the laws contained in the Torah. It was that acceptance of the Torah at Sinai that created the relationship between HaShem and His people, Israel.

Now, R. Yehudah HaLevi says, contrast the revelation at Sinai with the creation of the universe. That revelation, witnessed by millions, created an eternal relationship between HaShem and Israel. The creation of the universe was witnessed by no one—and created no such relationship. We (Israel) cried out to HaShem to be redeemed from Egypt. But we never asked HaShem to create the universe.

Because the revelation at Sinai, the acceptance of the Torah and its laws was the historical moment that consummated the eternal relationship between the Israel and HaShem and not the story of creation, it would have been appropriate to begin the Torah in Shemot 12:2. Hence Rashi’s question, in the name of R. Yitzchak, and his answer, regarding HaShem’s ownership and the Israel’s divine claim to the Land.

Another slant on Rashi’s question as to why the Torah begins at Bereishit and not in Shemot 12 can be inferred by comments of the R. Yosef Dov HaLevi Soloveitchik in his Beit HaLevi¹⁰

He poses a question (paraphrased) based on the Talmud, Shabbat 88a¹¹ that: "R. Simlai explained, that at the time the Israelites formulated their response to being offered the Torah i.e. by saying ״נעשה ונשמע״ (We shall do and we shall listen), but more importantly, the fact that they said ״נעשה״ before ״נשמע״), 600,000 angels descended from heaven and tied two crowns to the heads of each Israelite, one for ״נעשה״ and one for ״נשמע״.

The Beit HaLevi asks: it would appear from the text of the Talmud that the reason the Israelites were rewarded with these two crowns was not their saying the words ״נעשה ונשמע״ but rather the order in which they proclaimed them: ״נעשה״ before ״נשמע״. Why was the order in which they articulated their willingness to accept the Torah so crucial as to merit two angelic crowns? Had they answered ״נשמע ונעשה״, would they not have received those crowns?

The Beit HaLevi proposes an answer based on the Zohar Chadash¹² which states that "נעשה (We shall do") means performing the Mitzvot we are commanded to execute. while ״נשמע״ (We shall listen) means learning Torah.

In order to correctly fulfill a Mitzvah:. ״נעשה״, it is necessary to learn all the laws relating to that Mitzvah to perform it optimally. One cannot perform the Mitzvah of Tefilin correctly without knowing the laws of its requirements.

Learning the laws of Tefilin therefore, may appear to fit into the category of לימוד תורה (studying and learning the Torah) but the reality is that it is something else entirely. It is the study necessary to fulfill a Mitzvah and is not categorized as לימוד תורה but rather הכשרה לקיום המצוות (preparation in order to fulfill Mitzvot).

״נשמע״ on the other hand, is the act of studying Torah for the Mitzvah contained in that learning itself. The difference between these two ideas could be presented this way: Learning the laws of Shabbat is: ״נעשה״. Since all Jews are required to observe Shabbat, learning its laws is a part of the obligation to observe the Mitzvot pertaining to Shabbat.

By contrast, however, when a man who is not a Kohen (priest) learns the laws of priesthood, that would be true לימוד תורה because he would not be learning in order to perform, but to fulfill the Mitzvah of learning Torah: ״נשמע״.

When the Israel said ״נעשה״, they essentially that "All the Mitzvot that relate to me as a Jew and to us as a People, we will study in order to perform those Mitzvot optimally. When they said ״ונשמע״, the message was more profound. They were accepting upon themselves to study, purely to fulfill the Mitzvah of learning Torah, including all those laws not directly pertaining to them as individuals.

The fact that ״נעשה״ preceded ״נשמע״ was a statement by the Israel of the complete acceptance of all the Mitzvot, as well as the commitment to study those commandments that otherwise would be extraneous to their everyday lives. HaShem was so impressed, so to speak, with this double commitment that He sent two sets of angelic crowns for each Israelite.

Had they merely said ״נשמע ונעשה״, it would imply "We will listen to the whole Torah, but we will study only and perform those Mitzvot that relate directly to us," a much lower level of acceptance.

We could use the Beit HaLevi’s analysis to answer Rashi’s the question this way:

If the Israel, when offered the Torah, merely stated: ״נעשה״, or even ״נשמע ונעשה״, then the Torah would perhaps have started in Shemot 12:2, because they would have been expressing an interest only in learning the laws as they pertained to them. The response of ״נעשה ונשמע״, indicated to HaShem a commitment to as much Torah as HaShem was prepared to give them, whether it related to them directly or not.

Therefore, HaShem, so to speak, changed his mind, expanded the parameters of the Torah to include the entire book of Bereishit, increasing the volume of Torah that could be learned and studied.

This extra learning would be simply for the sake of attaining the hallowed level of learning the Torah לשמה because learning Torah itself with no utilitarian motive, is the holiest means to the holiest end, in and of itself.

Finally, Ramban¹³ writes that he has a question—on Rashi’s question!

It is absolutely imperative that the Torah begin with ״בְּרֵאשִׁית״ because the principle of creation ex nihilo by HaShem is a core element and a foundation of the belief system of the Jewish people. One who doesn’t believe that HaShem preceded all Creation and was the Architect of that creation is a heretic who denies the entire essence of the Torah. So, the Ramban asks, what is Rashi’s question?

He answers his own question on Rashi :

Since the nature of the Creation contains such deep, mysterious and secretive concepts, the nature of Creation or the Creator is not understandable from the verses themselves. Any information to which we are privy [about Creation and the Creator] has been gleaned from the tradition directly from HaShem by Moshe Rabbeinu. Since these traditions about the Creation and the Creator are of such an esoteric nature, anyone who is in the chain of tradition and understands these fundamental ideas is obliged to keep them hidden. For everyone else they remain a mystery.

That is why Rashi asks why the Torah starts at ״בְּרֵאשִׁית״. Since the concepts and the mechanics of the Creation and the Creator cannot be divined from the verses that deal with the formation of the Man and the Woman, the creation of light etc., it would surely be sufficient for those who study the Torah to understand simply that HaShem was the Creator, without the mysterious verses of the creation narrative.

Indeed, this fundamental notion is recounted in the Ten Commandments in Shemot 20:10, "In six days HaShem made the heaven and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them is, and then He rested on the seventh day; therefore, HaShem blessed the Shabbat day, and made it different in kind from all other days (holy)".

That statement of Shemot 20:10 alone would be sufficient to demonstrate the fundamental nature of the belief that HaShem was the First Being, and was responsible for the creation of the universe.

Thus, Ramban agrees with Rashi that the creation narrative was necessary, not to give insights into the creative process itself [those ideas are for unique individuals in each generation], but in order to express the idea of HaShem’s ownership.

Ramban, though, elaborates on the idea of HaShem’s ownership and uses Rashi’s answer to introduce his readers to one of HaShem’s modus operandi in running the world in general, but the land of Israel in particular.

He writes ¹⁴ (paraphrased)

"Originally the land of Canaan was given to the seven nations, but they sinned, became pagans, and were removed [as Rashi points out]. The land of Canaan, now known as the Land of Israel, has special properties. It was designed by the Creator to be different from all other places on the planet in that the Land itself will not tolerate a resident nation on its soil that is not monotheistic.

Any nation living in the Land of Israel who rebels against the Creator will be removed by the Owner and by the Land, and be replaced with another nation that is prepared to use the Land for the purpose for which the Owner created it, i.e. to serve Him. This is a warning to all nations that live in the Land of Israel—including the Jews."

The idea outlined by Ramban here is profound. Yes, it is true that HaShem is the ultimate Owner, and it is true that HaShem promised the Land to the Jewish people. The promise, however, is contingent on the Jewish people’s acceptance to use the Land for the purpose for which the Creator/Owner designed it. That purpose is the service of HaShem, the keeping of the Torah and the commandments in it.

Failure to comply with this precondition could result in Jewish residency in the land of Israel being temporary, rather than permanent, as has been witnessed twice in Jewish History—the destruction of the First Temple by Nebuchadnezzar and exile of the Jews in approximately 422 BCE, and the Second Temple’s destruction by the Romans and the ensuing exile in 70 CE.

Who was R. Yitzchak?

R. Yitzchak appears in the first Rashi in the Torah and does not appear again. So who is R. Yitzchak to whom Rashi shows so much deference to him, that he forms the basis of his first comment in the Torah?

There are three opinions:

1.R. Yitzchak was Rashi’s father

2.R. Yitzchak was Rashi’s teacher (in Worms) and his relative, R. Yitzchak b. Eliezer HaLevi.

3.R. Yitzchak was not related to Rashi: it is a coincidence that Rashi’s first comment on the Torah is from a rabbi that shares the same name as his father and uncle.

So which opinion is fact and which is fiction?

R. David HaLevi Segal writes in his Divrei David¹⁵ that he saw in an extremely old manuscript relating to Rashi’s commentary on the Torah that R. Yitzchak was indeed Rashi’s father and that he was not a great scholar. Rashi, though, in deference to his father, asked his father to ask any question he might have about the creation of the world and he would preface his commentary to the Torah with his question, out of love and respect for his father.

R. David HaLevi Segal writes that this cannot be correct since we know of a comment of Rashi in the Talmud, Avodah Zarah 75a, explaining a Talmudic text according to my fathers and teacher’s interpretation. Rashi’s father must have been a scholar. He doesn’t say that the R. Yitzchak that Rashi cites is or is not his father, but that the idea cannot be dismissed or accepted on the basis of that manuscript.

However, the comment in Avodah Zarah R. David HaLevi Segal cites may not have been written by Rashi himself, but by one of his grandchildren (probably Rashbam, R. Shmuel b. Meir) and the "father and teacher" may have been Rashbam’s father (Rabbeinu Meir), Rashi’s son-in-law.

Interestingly, the Yalkut Shimoni¹⁶ (whether the Midrash that this 13th-century cites was known to Rashi is a moot point) uses exactly the same terminology as Rashi, perhaps indicating that R. Yitzchak was in fact, not Rashi’s father or teacher, but an earlier rabbi, perhaps of the times of the Amoraim (2nd-6th centuries) or an even earlier Tana (pre-2nd-century rabbi).

Rashi and the United Nations!

While Rashi does indeed present an insightful reason as to why the Creation narrative is necessary, it is doubtful whether Rashi’s commentary to the Torah would be persuasive enough to convince the gentile nations or the United Nations that the Land of Israel is a gift from HaShem, the Owner, and thus, the Jews are the Land’s legal owners by divine will, and not occupiers, as claimed by many across the world. Indeed, the vast majority of the world’s population does not accept the Torah’s divine authorship, much less the commentary of an eleventh-century French wine maker/rabbi.

So why would anyone, outside of the Orthodox Jewish community (about 0.05% of the world’s population), be persuaded by Rashi’s contention that the message of the narrative is to establish the ownership credentials of a Divine Being which most of the population says doesn’t exist?

This is addressed by R. Simchah Zissel Ziv Broida ("the Alter of Kelm")¹⁷. He writes (—almost in prescient prophecy) that there will come a time when some Jews will deny the claim that the Land of Israel is rightfully theirs and reject the idea of a return to the Land, because that would entail occupation of other people’s property.

Therefore, R. Simchah Zissel says, Rashi’s comments are not designed to remind gentile nations of the rights of the Jews to return and settle in their own land. But rather, they are to remind the Jewish people themselves, and the many naysayers among them, that HaShem is the Creator and the Owner, and that He has chosen to give the Land to the Jewish people as a gift, and therefore when they return, they would be neither thieves, interlopers, or occupiers.

What is the Nature of HaShem’s Ownership?

Rashi intimates that the story of Creation was recorded to establish HaShem’s ownership of everything in Creation. What exactly does Rashi mean by ownership?

Imagine a human being capable of producing a motor car ex nihilo using no materials at all, just manufacturing it from thin air. I think if a human being were capable of such a feat, everyone would agree that the motor car belonged to him. If he gave another person permission to use it, that would be his prerogative. If, however, another person chose to make use of it without the owner’s permission, he would certainly be a thief.

When we transpose this simple example to the idea of HaShem’s ownership, some very surprising conclusions result.

We know HaShem created the entire universe ex nihilo and commanded the Jewish people to observe 613 (365 negative and 248 positive) Mitzvot and the Gentiles to observe the seven Mitzvot given to the sons of Noach (they actually equate to about sixty-six regulations when we include derivative laws).

One of the most powerful messages in this legislative structure is this: "I am HaShem, I created everything in the entire universe and thus everything contained therein belongs to Me (as we say clearly in our daily Amidah prayer, that HaShem is ״קונה הכל״, the Owner of everything).

If you (the human race) choose to make use of My creations as I have instructed, you may enjoy them with My permission. But if you make use of My creations in a manner I have not prescribed, you become a thief, because you are using another’s property contrary to the owner’s instructions".

If we look at the Mitzvot this way, it becomes clear that every infraction of any of these commandments constitutes theft.

Let’s take the example of the law of Shaatnez (the law prohibiting wearing of wool and linen combined in a garment, based on Devarim 22:1118, You shall not wear combined yarns, wool and linen together).

This law is a ״חוק״ (a statute for which no reason is given). Yet, if we introduce this idea, we are able to rationalize the prohibition on the basis that HaShem has provided us with wool and linen for our use, but on condition that the two yarns not be embedded in the same garment.

Failure to adhere to that condition constitutes misuse of the Owner’s possessions and necessarily involves theft by the individual who combines the materials.

We may not understand why HaShem prohibited this combination, but we certainly can appreciate that not adhering to the conditions of use is theft.

This rationale applies to every commandment in the Torah. By misusing the environment HaShem provided, or abusing the tools He supplied for our well-being and comfort in a way contrary to His terms and conditions, the laws of the Torah, we become thieves.

If the understanding that HaShem is the owner/landlord of everything in existence would be foremost in our minds, the incidence of infractions of HaShem’s rules would surely diminish.

(Tangentially, Midrash Tanchuma¹⁹ suggests a reason as to why combining wool and linen, the law of Shaatnez, is forbidden. In the story of Bereishit, Adam and Chavah’s sons brought sacrifices to HaShem. The firstborn, Kayin’s, sacrifice was rejected and the younger son, Hevel’s, sacrifice, found favor in His eyes. The Midrash comments that Kayin was a farmer, and his sacrifice was flax, raw linen. Hevel was a shepherd and his sacrifice was wool. Since the consequence of the sacrifices was that Kayin killed his brother Hevel, HaShem did not want the offering of the guilty to be mixed with that of the innocent. As a result, the mixture was outlawed by the Torah).

The Problem with Literal Translation

As can be seen clearly, a literal translation of the Torah’s first three words yields an unexpected and confusing message. The words literally translate into English as "In the beginning of, HaShem created" which makes no syntactical sense in either English or Hebrew. The word ״בְּרֵאשִׁית״ means in the beginning of and should necessarily be followed by a noun, as in in the beginning of the film―and not by a verb!

This grammatical anomaly needs to be explained.

Rashi, in his second comment on the Torah addresses this problem and suggests two solutions, the first, a Midrashic interpretation and the second, based on Rashi’s usual methodology, that of פשט i.e. the plain meaning of the words:

According to the Midrashic method²⁰ the word "רֵאשִׁית should be translated as either the Torah or the Jewish people" and the letter ב as abbreviation for the word "בשביל" (for the sake of). Consequently the first verse of the Torah should be read as follows; "For the sake of the Torah/Jewish people, HaShem created the heavens and the earth [i.e. the dry land].

Rashi’s source for this Midrashic explanation is the Midrash Tanchuma²¹.

(There are other Midrashic ideas along similar lines to the Midrash cited by Rashi. For example, Midrash Bereishit Rabah 1:4²² cites two alternative thoughts as to what was behind the use of the word ״רֵאשִׁית״.

R. Berachiah said the world was created for the sake of Moshe as Devarim 33:21 says, "And He saw the first (״רֵאשִׁית״) portion (Moshe) for Himself. R. Huna said in the name of R. Matna that the world was created for the sake of three things; for the sake of Chalah, as Bamidbar 15:20 says, The first (״רֵאשִׁית״) of your dough; for the sake of Ma’aser (tithes), Devarim 18:4 says, "The first (״רֵאשִׁית״) of your grain; for the sake of Bikurim (first fruits), as Shemot 23:19 says, "The first (״רֵאשִׁית״) of your choice fruits".

We might ask: If Rashi cites a Midrashic answer about the word ״בְּרֵאשִׁית״, why ignore the alternative approaches in the Bereishit Rabah, and cite the Tanchuma?

R. Eliyahu Mizrachi23, a super-commentary to Rashi, raises the question and answers: Rashi did not cite Moshe, Chalah, Ma’aser and Bikurim described as ״רֵאשִׁית״ because of Yirmiyahu 33:25, If the covenant (the Torah) would not be studied day and night, I would not have created heaven and earth. R. Eliyahu Mizrachi notes that the first and last two letters of ״בְּרֵאשִׁית״ create the word ״ברית״ (covenant i.e. the Torah). The middle two letters א and ש stand for ״ארץ״ (the earth) and ״שמים״ (heavens). The existence of heaven and earth depend on the Jewish people learning the Torah, hence Rashi’s use of the Tanchuma which alludes to this idea.)

The literal understanding of the text²⁴ i.e. the פשט, is explained by Rashi this way:

Read ״בָּרָא״ [created] as ״בְּרֹא״ [creating] to produce a translation that reads: "In the beginning of HaShem’s creating of the heavens and the earth ]i.e. the dry land[".

After all, as Rashi points out, the story of Creation doesn’t begin at the very start of the creative process, because if that were true, the Torah would employ the word ״בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה״ ("at the very beginning") and not ״בְּרֵאשִׁית״ ("in the beginning of").

Rashi is indicating that the Torah’s opening two verses are, so to speak, an introduction to the creative process that follows in the ensuing verses and that some creations had preceded the opening verses (water, for example, which is mentioned in Verse 2).

The first two verses of the Torah are therefore not indications of creation ex nihilo; this would begin only with the creation of light in Verse 3.

Why Does Rashi First Present a Midrashic Interpretation in Explaining Verse 1’s Grammatical Anomaly?

Rashi’s methodology in explaining the Torah, as he himself points out, is that of Peshat, i.e. the literal/plain/simple meaning of the words. Yet in the first verse in the Torah he chooses to present a Midrashic interpretation before a more basic literal explanation which is more apposite to his customary approach.

Why does Rashi do this?

To answer this, we must delve deeper to ask an even more fundamental question: Exactly what is the Torah?

The answer may surprise some people, but the fact is that the Torah is a book of communication. It is the method HaShem chose to communicate information together with a methodology that allows the reader to understand His intention(s), when he reads the text.

HaShem communicates on many levels/layers through the text of the Torah. This idea is summed up by R. Moshe Chaim Luzzato in his Ma’amar HaIkarim²⁵:

"HaShem did not wish to write the Torah to require no explanation(s). On the contrary, He wrote it containing many difficult/sealed ideas, whose intentions Man would be unable to decipher without the aid of appropriate elucidation(s). The only explanation(s) of these ideas [and therefore the intention(s) of the Creator] are the traditional methods [of deciphering the text] transmitted directly by HaShem, the author".

Once we understand the Torah is a book of communication containing many levels/layers of intention which the author, HaShem, wished to convey, it is appropriate to ask: "Which methods are appropriate to use in order to understand HaShem’s intentions"?

Certainly most students of the Torah who have studied Rashi’s commentary assume (correctly) that Peshat is an appropriate method, but there is a tendency among many to assume that the way that חז"ל (the Rabbis of blessed memory) interpret the verses (by way of Midrash, Remez, allusion etc.) is somehow less valid than the peshat meaning.

Rashi, therefore, in one of his first comments on the Torah deliberately uses a Midrashic explanation to inform the reader that ALL methods that are part of the tradition going back to Mount Sinai (and those methods alone) are equally valid in interpreting the intention in a particular verse. In essence, Peshat is no more valid a method of understanding the text than any of the other traditional methods listed below.

The four primary methods of understanding HaShem’s intentions in communicating information in the Torah can be summed up by the word פרד״ס, an acronym for:

1. פ: פשט The plain/straightforward meaning of the words. It represents the ordinary interpretation of the text and context based upon the proper understanding of the words. It also explains the Law as it is written, in compliance with the rules of language, constitution, and the teachings of the Oral Law. The Talmud, Shabbat 63a²⁶ comments that, The simple/literal meaning of the verse is likewise always true.

2. ר: רמז Allusion, hints, deeper meanings, hinted at through numerical values of letters, acronyms and the like, that lie just behind the literal/plain/straightforward meaning of the text. An example of this method is outlined by the Vilna Gaon in his Aderet Eliyahu 1:1. He writes that all the commandments of the Torah are hinted at and alluded to in the first word of the Torah. For instance, Pidyon HaBen, redemption of the first-born can be divined by using the letters of בְּרֵאשִׁית to form the words ״בן ראשון אחר שלושים יום תפדה״, a first (born) son, you must redeem after thirty days.

3. ד: דרש Midrashic, homiletic exegesis divined by the Rabbis to uncover underlying and sometimes comparative information from different texts to reveal the legal or ethical intentions of HaShem not clearly visible in the literal text.

R. Yehoshua Boaz b. Shimon Baruch²⁷ in his Shiltei Giborim cites R. Yeshayahu b. Eliyahu di Trani’s analysis of how Midrash expounds:

"Know and appreciate that there are three roads to understanding the Midrash:

1. Some Midrashim exaggerate, as the Talmud in Chulin 90b says, The Torah spoke words of emptiness, [exaggeration], the prophets spoke words of emptiness, the Rabbis spoke words of emptiness, or as in Devarim 1:28 "Great, fortified cities in the heavens," and Melachim I 1:40, "The earth split because to their voice". There are many of these, like the words of Rabba bar Bar Chanah in the Talmud, Bava Batra 73b; these are exaggerations, because this is the way people speak.

2. Some Midrashim depict miracles, in which HaShem demonstrates His power displaying astonishing and stunning actions, as in Daniel 10:7, And I, Daniel alone, saw the vision, and the people with me did not see. and Yonah ben Amitai who was swallowed by the fish and was spat out. And many others like this. Many of these are found in the words of the sages, such as the Talmud, Bava Batra 58a, regarding R. Benai’ah marking caves and a magician digging in the caves of the dead. All of those were miracles, performed and revealed to the prophets, but not for other people.

3. In some Midrashim the sages analyze the text by any possible means, relying on Tehilim 62:12, "HaShem said one thing, but I heard two". Similarly in Yirmiyahu 23:29, "For My words are like fire; this is the word of HaShem, and they are (also) like a hammer, splitting stone." The Rabbis learned from this verse that one verse may lead to many meanings, as explained in the Talmud Sanhedrin 31a. This should not be shocking; one often sees that normal people speak complex messages with multiple meanings, how much more so words of wisdom spoken with Divine inspiration.

Accordingly, the Rabbis analyze passages in any way they can while bearing in mind the Talmudic saying in Shabbat 63a, The plain meaning of the verse is likewise always true.

Regarding all of the Midrashim, some of them are close to the literal text and some of them are based on a hint in the text.

The Rabbis taught in the Talmud, Ta’anit 5b, Yaakov our ancestor did not die. One rabbi asked, Did the eulogizers eulogize him and embalmers embalm him and buriers bury him for nothing? The response was, "I am elucidating the passage. His meaning was that, I know that he died, but I mean to elucidate the verses in any way it can be elucidated, and if the Midrash cannot be totally accurate, the passage still offers a hint that one could say, He did not die, as the Talmud in Berachot 18a says, The righteous live even in their death, for their names and memory and deeds live forever.

A similar case is seen in Shabbat 30b, which teaches that The land of Israel will produce cakes and fine clothes. A student mocked him, noting that Kohelet 1:9 says there is nothing new under the sun, to which he replied, Come and I will show you an example of these items in this world." He went out and showed the student mushrooms.

The sage was informing him that the Midrash could be explained in a manner which was close to it; the original verse was teaching that HaShem would provide great kindness to the world. Similar statements occur in other Midrashim.

It is explained that the Rabbis did not state the Midrashim as matters of faith [אמונה] and as the principle explanation, but to increase the meanings of the text and analyze all of its facets, such that they might include even a hint.

Links to text and hints are among the paths of Torah study, about which it is said, Elucidate them and receive reward.

Regarding one who mocks their words, Divrei HaYamim II 36:16 says, "And they mocked the messengers of HaShem, and made light of His prophets." In various places we find that people were punished for mocking the words of the Rabbis.

Learn from the student in the Talmud, Sanhedrin 100a who mocked the words of the rabbi who elucidated the verse from Yeshayahu 54:12, And I will make for you windows of jewels, and they showed him from Heaven, for the honor of that rabbi, that his words were accurate and one should not mock them, and the student (who mocked him) was punished."

ס: סוד Secret, esoteric, Kabbalistic and mystical part of Torah.

The use of these methodologies (and their myriad subsections), are the only way one may glean the intention of HaShem, the Author, in the text of the Torah. As R. Luzzato²⁸ further explains (paraphrased):

"We know from our tradition that HaShem, the Author of the Torah, wrote [the text] in a particular way, incorporating unique rules for understanding His intentions. Therefore, when reading the text, it is vital that one uses one of HaShem’s own Divine methodologies to understand His intention(s) correctly.

Though it may be possible to understand and explain the text in a way that deviates from one of the traditional methodologies above, nevertheless that type of interpretation will prove to be incorrect.

This is true even when one’s own interpretation seems to fit the words of the text more straightforwardly than the interpretation divined through the prescribed methods. This is because HaShem, the Author, necessarily had an alternative intent".

The four methodologies outlined above are alluded to in Midrash Bereishit Rabah 1:1²⁹ that states (citing Mishlei 8:30; "I (the Torah) was to HaShem as an "Amon"—אמון. The word "Amon" אמון has four meanings):

1. "Amon―אמון" means a tutor: A tutor protects his students, but in a way that allows them to see the world around them and interact with it. He does not completely cut them off from their surroundings.

This is the nature of פשט, the literal meaning of the words of the Torah. They are protected, but can be divined relatively easily.

2. "Amon―אמון" covered: A parent will swaddle his young son in a blanket, creating an extra layer of clothing to protect him.

This is the idea of רמז, allusion and hints that lie hidden just under the layer of the literal meaning of the text.

3. "Amon―אמון" means stored away: Sometimes one wraps up a valuable item but wants to give it an extra level of protection and therefore stores it away in a safe place out sight.

This is דרש, the Midrashic understanding of the text divined by the Rabbis to uncover intentions/meanings hidden in the text.

4. "Amon―אמון means great": "Great" here refers to a city surrounded by two rivers like Alexandria. The two rivers afford the city almost total impregnability.

This is the idea of סוד, the secret, esoteric and mystical part of Torah that is decipherable only by the few that reach a level of understanding that allows them to penetrate the secrets of the Torah.

Ramban vs. Rashi

As we discussed previously, in Rashi’s second explanation of the Torah’s first verse (using the Peshat method), he translated it as, "In the beginning of HaShem’s creating of the heavens and the earth (i.e. the dry land)". Rashi’s implication is twofold.

First, we are not reading the story of Creation at the very start (otherwise the Torah would begin with the word "בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה—at the very start), and second, that the Torah’s first two verses introduce the ensuing creative process, beginning in verse 3 with the creation of light. Rashi therefore indicates that no actual creative activity is taking place in those first two verses.

Rashi’s opinion is vehemently opposed by Ramban³⁰, who outlines Rashi’s interpretation and its implications and comments (paraphrased):

"Now that you have heard what Rashi has said, listen to the correct interpretation of the plain sense (Peshat) of these first two verses. HaShem fashioned the entire creation from absolute nothingness. The only word in Hebrew to describe this process of Creation ex nihilo is ברא.

Consequently, HaShem brought forth from total nothingness a piece of primal matter that was imperceptibly small/thin that contained no mass but had the potential power to develop into physical forms and to transform potential [energy] into actuality (matter). This primal matter, with no mass, was the first material in existence [the Greeks called it "hayuli [hyle"]).

After HaShem created this original primal matter, He created nothing else. Everything that came into existence following this original creation ex nihilo, was a result of the original matter developing, from potential into reality, and through the instructions given by HaShem, into the physical realities of Creation [described in the ensuing verses]. Both the heavens and the earth were created from pieces of this original primal matter that was imperceptibly small/thin. Everything that we categorize now as existing sprung forth from this ex nihilo creation.

This material the Greeks call "hayuli [hyle"] is called תֹהוּ in Hebrew. The process that configures the potential of the material into the reality that we categorize as existence is called בֹהוּ (that is, בו הוא : it comes from this).

Thus, Ramban translates the first verse in the Torah as:

"In the beginning HaShem created the heavens [from material created ex nihilo] and the earth [from material created ex nihilo].

Ramban’s elucidation of the Torah’s first verse diametrically opposes Rashi’s.

Ramban sees only the first verse as describing creation ex nihilo; the ensuing verses describe the transition of that creation from potential to reality.

Rashi sees the first (two) verse(s) as an introduction to the creations that would ensue in the verses that follow that describe the first seven days of Creation.

(Warning: it should not be assumed that what Ramban describes is in any way analogous to current scientific theories about the Big Bang. The Big Bang theory implies that as the primal matter expanded, the universe expanded as well. Ramban makes no such claims.)

It should be noted that Rashi and Ramban’s disagreement on the essential nature of the Torah’s first verse (i.e., is it an introduction to Creation or the solitary act of creation?), predates both of these great rabbis.

Midrash Tanchuma³¹ records exactly this argument between R. Yehudah (the primary source of Rashi’s opinion) and R. Nechemiah (the primary source of Ramban’s opinion).

There is support for the opinion of Ramban and R. Nechemiah from the Talmud in Rosh HaShanah 32a³² which explains a Mishnah from Pirkei Avot (Ethics of the Fathers) 5:1³³.

The