Tanach · Rishonim on Tanach · Ibn Ezra · Torah
Ibn Ezra on Genesis 1:26/אבן עזרא על בראשית א׳:כ״ו
אנעשה אדם, יש אומרים כי מלת נעשה שם התואר מבנין נפעל, כמו, ואשר היה נעשה ליום אחד" (נחמיה ה יח), ואמרו כי בצלמנו כדמותינו דברי משה ופי' "ויברא אלהים את האדם בצלמו", שהוי"ו שב אל האדם ויפרשו "בצלם אלהים" (בראשית ט, ו) שהאלהים דבק עם עשה כאלו אומר כי האלהים עשה את האדם בצלם, וזה הפירוש חסר לב, כי היה הראשון ראוי להיות כן, ויאמר אלהים יהי נעשה אדם, וכן עשהו בצלמו, גם וי"ו בצלמו איך ישוב אל האדם, והנה יש לו צלם קודם שיהיה, ומה טעם יש "כי שופך דם האדם באדם דמו ישפך" (בראשית ט ו) בעבור שנברא האדם בצלם, גם לכל נפש היה צלם, ויאמר הגאון כי פירוש בצלמנו כדמותינו בממשלה וטעמו בצלם שראה בחכמה כי טובה היא ובעבור כבוד האדם סמכו אל האלהים, וכן ומארצו יצאו (יחזקאל לו כ) כי לד' הארץ ומלואה, ואמר במלת נעשה, ואם היא לשון רבים, שכן מנהג המלכים לדבר, וכמוהו וְנִתְּנָה לך גם את זאת (בראשית כח כז), "נאמר קדם מלכא (דניאל ב לו) "אולי אוכל נכה בו" (במדבר כב ו), ואלה העדים עדי שקר הם, כי "ונתנה לך" בנין נפעל, וכמוהו "והעיר נתנה" (ירמיה לב כד), והוי"ו השיבו לעתיד כמשפט כל פעל עבר, והטעם וַתִנָתַן לך "ונכה בו" הוא ומחנהו, או יהיה שם הפועל כמו "ונקה לא אנקך" (ירמיה מו כח) ואף כי שמצאנו "לא נכו" (שמות ט, לב) כי לא יבוא בנין שלא נזכר שם פועלו, כי אם מהכבד, ור' משה הכהן הספרדי טעה בספרו, ומלת "נאמר קדם מלכא" (דניאל ב לו) ארמית היא ואיך ידבר דניאל בלשון גדולה עם נבוכדנצר שהיה מלך מלכים, ועתה אפרש, דע כי כל מעשה בראשית, לכבוד האדם נברא במצות השם, והצמחים הוציאה אותם הארץ והמים, וכל נפשות החיות, ואח"כ אמר השם למלאכים, נעשה אדם, אנחנו נתעסק בו, ולא המים והארץ,, ואחר שידענו שהתורה דברה כלשון בני אדם כי המדבר אדם גם כן השומע, ולא יוכל לדבר איש דברים בגבוה עליו או בשפל ממנו, רק על דרך דמות האדם, וכן אמר "פי הארץ "יד הירדן" (במדבר יג כט), וראש עפרות תבל (משלי ח) כו), וחלילה חלילה להיות דמות לשם, וכן אמר "אל מי תדמיוני" (ישעי' מ כה), ובעבור שנשמת האדם העליונה שאיננה מתה נמשלת בהיותה לשם, ושאיננה גוף והיא מלאה כולו, וגוף האדם כעולם קטן, יהי השם מבורך אשר בגדול החל ובקטן כלה, וגם אמר הנביא שראה כבוד אלהים כמראה אדם, והשם הוא האחד, והוא ייצר הכל, והוא הכל, ולא אוכל לפרש, ואדם נברא בתחלה בשני פרצופין, והנו אחד, וגם היא שנים, והנה בצלם אלהים מלאך, והוא נברא זכר ונקבה, ומלת פריה ורביה באדם ברכה היא כמו בבריאת המים, רק היא מצוה העתיקוה קדמונינו ז"ל, ושמו זה הפסוק זכר לדבר
1LET US MAKE MAN. Some are of the opinion that na’aseh (let us make) is a nifal participle134 is not a first person plural future kal but rather a nifal participle. This interpretation eliminates the problem of God using a plural form when speaking of Himself. The verse is to be read as follows: And God said, Let a man be made (Cherez). and is to be compared to the same word in Now that which was prepared (na’aseh) for one day (Neh. 5:18).135 is definitely a nifal form. They further say that in our image, after our likeness are the words of Moses.136 They also explain the pronominal suffix “his” in And God created man in His own image (v. 27) as referring to man,137 and connect God (in Gen. 9:6) to made rather than to image. They read this verse as follows: “For God made man in an image,” rather than “for in the image of God made He man.”138. The usual and correct reading is, ki be-tzelem Elohim, asah et ha-adam. Cherez notes that the same interpretation applies to verse 27, i.e., be-tzelem, Elohim bara oto. Now this interpretation is absurd. According to it the first quoted verse should have read, “Let a man be made.”139 means “Let (yehi) a man be made,” then the text should read yehi na’aseh adam. Similarly Scripture should have read, “He made him in his image.”140. 38 reads, “It should have stated, He made him in our image”; i.e., if “our image” relates to man’s image, 9:6 and 1:27 should have so read. Furthermore, how can the his in His image (v. 27) refer to man? If this were the case then man had an image before he was created.141 Finally, what sense would there be to Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed (Gen. 9:6), if the reason for the above is that man was made in an image? All living things have an image.142 Saadiah Gaon explains in our image, after our likeness as referring to the dominion man exercises on earth.143 He explains His image144 for image (Filwarg). as the image that God in His wisdom chose for man because He saw that this image was good for man. The Gaon further notes that Scripture connects image to God (be-tzelem Elohim) to stress man’s glorified state.145) means in the image chosen by God. A very precious image. Similarly Scripture states, and are gone forth out of His land (Ezek. 36:20). The Bible says this to emphasize the importance of the land of Israel because, in reality, The earth is the Lord’s, and the fullness thereof (Ps. 24:1).146 The Gaon also says that the word na’aseh (let us make) has the meaning of the singular even though it is in the plural because it is the plural of majesty.147 really means: I will make. He offers as proof, and we will give thee the other also (Gen. 29:27); and we will tell the interpretation thereof before the king (Daniel 2:36); peradventure I shall prevail, that we may smite (nakkeh) them (Num. 22:6). However, these witnesses are false witnesses.148 First of all, and we will give thee (ve-nittenah) (Gen. 29:27) is a nifal and its meaning is “the other will also be given thee.”149. It is like the word nittenah (is given) in and the city is given (nittenah) (Jer. 32:24). The vav conversive changes nittenah (she was given) to “she will be given (ve-nittenah),” as is the case with every verb in the perfect which becomes an imperfect when a vav conversive is prefixed to it. Similarly nakkeh bo (we may smite them) (Num. 22:6) means, “I and my army will smite them.”150 is not a plural of majesty. Further, nakkeh may be a pi’el infinitive151 of nakkeh (smite) is not the nun of the first person plural but is part of the root of the word nakkeh. The meaning of the word thus is to smite, rather than we will smite. meaning to smite, like nakeh (destroy)152 is a pi’el infinitive. in But will not utterly destroy thee (ve-nakkeh lo anakkekah) (Jer. 46:28). The latter interpretation is supported by the fact that Scripture employs the phrase lo nukku (were not smitten) (Ex. 9:32), and a verb cannot come in the pu’a l unless it also comes in the pi’el.153 (were smitten) is a pu’al. Pu’al is the passive of pi’el. If a verb is found in the pu’al it can also come in the pi’el, Hence smite can be a pi’el (Meijler). For alternate interpretations see Krinsky and Filwarg. Rabbi Moses Ha-kohen, the Spaniard, errs in his book.154 as the plural of majesty. Similarly we will tell (Dan. 2:36) is Aramaic.155 For if we will tell is a plural of majesty, how would Daniel dare to speak in such haughty terms before Nebuchadnezzar who was the “King of Kings”?I will now explain. Note that all the works of creation came into being by God’s command for the sake of man. Scripture relates that the earth and water brought forth plants and all living creatures. After all plants and living creatures had been created, God said to the angels, Let us make man; i.e., We, rather than the earth and water, will occupy ourselves with his creation. We know that the Torah spoke the language of man,156 31b. for it was given to humans who speak and hear. Now a human being cannot speak of things above or below him without employing human terminology. Hence Scripture uses such terms as the mouth of the earth (Num. 16:30), the hand of the Jordan (Num. 13:29),157 and the head158 of the dust of the world (Proverbs 8:26). Far be it from us to believe that God has an image.159. Scripture clearly refutes such a notion by stating, To whom then will you liken Me, that I should be equal (Is. 40:25). It is because man’s upper soul is eternal and is compared in its existence to God and because man’s soul is incorporeal and fills the body, which is a microcosm, in the same way that God fills the universe that Scripture states, in our image, after our likeness. May God’s name be blessed. He commenced with the macrocosm and concluded with the microcosm.160 The prophet also says that he saw God’s glory appear in human form (Ezek. 1:26).161 God is one. He is the creator of all. He is all. I cannot explain further.162 Man was originally created with two faces;163, and then saying, created He them (Meijler). Weiser explains that I.E.’s interpretation is in keeping with the Rabbinic tradition that man was originally androgynous (Erubin 18a). Levine (p. 135) suggests that I.E. speaks of man’s dual nature; i.e., he has a body and a soul. man is thus one but also two. In the image of God means in the image of the angels. Man was created both male and female.164 The words Be fruitful, and multiply are a blessing not a command,165 35a. just as they are with regard to the creatures brought forth by the waters (Gen. 1:22).166 Nevertheless, there is in fact a commandment to be fruitful and multiply transmitted by our sages, of blessed memory, which they attached to this verse in order to remember the commandment.167