Did Jacob Really Wrestle With God?

March 25, 2021 - Nisan 12, 5781

Who Was That Man?

Genesis 32 tells us that Jacob encountered and wrestled with "a man" on the return home from Lavan. What was the identity of this man?

Genesis 32:25: And Jacob was left alone, and a man (אִישׁ֙ - ish) wrestled with him until the break of dawn.

Rashi explains that "this was the prince (guardian angel) of Esau." (Genesis Rabbah 77:3, 78:3).

However, Christians maintain that this being was actually God Himself having taken the physical form of a man, known as a "theophany."

Genesis 32:29-31 says:

And he said, "Your name shall no longer be called Jacob, but Israel, because you have commanding power with [an angel of] God (עִם־אֱלֹהִ֛ים) and with men, and you have prevailed." And Jacob asked and said, "Now tell me your name," and he said, "Why is it that you ask for my name?" And he blessed him there. And Jacob named the place Peniel, for [he said,] "I saw an angel (אֱלֹהִים֙) face to face, and my soul was saved."

Notice that the words marked in orange above are the Hebrew words used in the Torah, which in English are translated as "angel," but which in fact say "elohim." Christians who are aware of this translation, typically Messianic Jews, often use it to claim that the Jews are nervously trying to conceal the fact that God can and did materialize in human form in the Tanakh. They claim that the rabbis have tried to hide this fact, because if the Torah says that God takes physical form then more Jews will believe that Jesus was God.

A Hint in Hosea

However, the book of Hosea gives us a clear proof that the being with whom Jacob wrestled was indeed an angel beyond any reasonable doubt.

Hosea 12:3-5 says:

Now the Lord has a contention with Judah, and to visit upon Jacob according to his ways; according to his deeds He shall recompense him.

In the womb, he seized his brother's heel, and with his strength he strove with an angel (אֱלֹהִֽים - elohim).

He strove with an angel (מַלְאָךְ֙ - malach) and prevailed; he wept and beseeched him; In Bethel he shall find Him, and there He shall speak with us.

.רִ֥יב לַֽיהֹוָ֖ה עִם־יְהוּדָ֑ה וְלִפְקֹ֚ד עַל־יַֽעֲקֹב֙ כִּדְרָכָ֔יו כְּמַֽעֲלָלָ֖יו יָשִׁ֥יב לֽוֹ

.בַּבֶּ֖טֶן עָקַ֣ב אֶת־אָחִ֑יו וּבְאוֹנ֖וֹ שָׂרָ֥ה אֶת־אֱלֹהִֽים

.וַיָּ֚שַׂר אֶל־מַלְאָךְ֙ וַיֻּכָ֔ל בָּכָ֖ה וַיִּתְחַנֶּן־ל֑וֹ בֵּֽית־אֵל֙ יִמְצָאֶ֔נּוּ וְשָׁ֖ם יְדַבֵּ֥ר עִמָּֽנוּ

In verse 4 above, the word elohim is once against used to describe the identity of this being that wrestled with Jacob. However, verse 5 explicitly refers to this same being as a malach, an angel. Now come, let us reason; in its generic context as a spiritual being, the word elohim can be used to refer to an angel, but the word "angel" (malach) cannot be used to refer to God (Elokim).

To conclude, the ambiguity present in Genesis 32:29 is not present in Hosea 12:5, and we can be sure that Jacob indeed wrestled with an actual angel and not with anything else.

Jacob, Commander over Angels

There is, however, another proof that Jacob wrestled with an angel and did not encounter a theophany. Genesis 32:4 tells us: Jacob sent angels (מַלְאָכִים֙ - malachim) ahead of him to his brother Esau, to the land of Seir, the field of Edom.

Did he send angels ahead of him, or did he send theophanies ahead of him? Rashi says that Jacob sent literal angels, i.e., that he had commanding power over angels. This is confirmed by what "the man" tells Jacob: "...because you have commanding power with [an angel of] God (עִם־אֱלֹהִ֛ים) and with men, and you have prevailed."

What seems relatively clear is that Jacob's angels went to Esav, and Esav's angel went to Jacob, i.e., they encountered each other's angels. This culminates in Jacob's defeat of Esav's angel, indicating that he finally gained the upper-hand over him in the spiritual realm.

To contrast, what purpose would have there been in Jacob wrestling with God? And if Jacob did wrestle with God, how is it possible for him to have beat Him? Did God let him win like a father lets his son beat him at arm-wrestling? 

Did Abraham Marry His Sister?

March 16, 2021 - Nisan 3, 5781

Did Abraham Marry His Sister?

In Genesis 20:12 Abraham tells Avimelech that Sarah is his sister. However, we see earlier in Genesis 11:29 that Sarah is Avraham's niece. Our tradition tells us that Iscah was actually Sarah (she had two names, a common occurrence in the Torah). If Iscah is Sarah, and Sarah is the daughter of Haran, and Haran is Abraham's brother, then Sarah is Abraham's niece, not his sister. Genesis 11:26 tells us that Abraham and Haran were brothers.

How Do We Know That Iscah is Sarah?

That Iscah is Sarah also makes sense because the name "Iscah" pops out of nowhere suddenly in 11:29; Sarah and Milcah appear as parallels as the respective wives of Abraham and Nahor, both of whom married the daughters of their brother, Haran. We therefore should have expected the text to read as follows:

And Abram and Nahor took themselves wives; the name of Abram's wife was Sarai, and the name of Nahor's wife was Milcah, the daughter of Haran, the father of Milcah and the father of Sarai.

Instead of "Sarah," the Torah uses the name "Iscah," indicating that Iscah was Sarah.

Why Did Abraham Refer to His Wife as His Sister?

If Sarah was Abraham's niece, why did he refer to her as his sister?

According to AskNoah.org, "Note that Abraham said this to appease Abimelech. It was actually only figuratively true in his case, since Sarah was the daughter of Abraham’s brother. They had the same paternal grandfather, whom people often referred to as “father”.

In other words, one is allowed to lie to save his life, and so Abraham was permitted to do so in this case. However, being a person of the moral and spiritual stature that Abraham was, lying was not an ideal course of action for him. When he therefore used the term "sister" in reference to Sarah, he used it in a way commonly used in the Tanakh and in Semitic cultures as a broader term referring to next of kin. 

When studying Torah we generally use earlier verses as the basis for later verses. The genealogies in Genesis 11:29 above precede the interaction with the Pharaoh in Genesis 20:12.

A Brother is Not Always A Brother

Nevertheless, Genesis 14:12 also contains a proof that the word "brother" does not always mean a literal brother. A few verses later Genesis 14:16 refers to Lot as Abraham's brother.

The Torah refers to Lot both as "the son of Abram's brother," i.e., his nephew, and as "his brother," i.e., his brother. It's possible to refer to a nephew as a brother, but not to a brother as a nephew. Therefore Lot was Abraham's nephew. We can therefore also understand that Sarah was not Abraham's sister even though the Torah uses the word "sister" to refer to her.

This also teaches us that Sarah and Lot were actually brother and sister.

We also see the broader context of the word "brother" in Deuteronomy 18:15-19. The context of this verse was God's appointment of Moses' successor and was addressed to the entire nation of Israel. By definition because the entire nation of Israel were not literally brothers, "from your brothers" means "from your kinsmen." The word "brother" or "sister" can double as literal siblings or as extended family, and is determined by context.

Does Genesis 18 Mention the Trinity? Part 2

There is another issue in Genesis 18 that prevents us from believing that it is a reference to God in the form of an angel. That is the word "and," which is used in different ways in the text of the Torah. What we often see in the verses is that the word "and," which is "ve" (ו) in Hebrew, is used first as an introduction to a particular set of events, and then switches to being used as subsequent steps in a sequence. The first place that we see this in the Torah is at the very beginning (no pun intended) in Genesis:

In the beginning of God's creation of the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was astonishingly empty, and darkness was on the face of the deep, and the spirit of God was hovering over the face of the water. (Genesis 1:1-2)

We see here that the word "ve," which I said means "and" in Hebrew, is translated as "Now the earth was..." It is translated this way because it introduces to us a set of events, and if you check the Hebrew you will see that it is in fact the word "ve," which is a word written as one letter, the letter "vav. (ו)" The second and third instances of this word in verses 1-2 are translated as "and," but they are describing the next steps in the sequence, they are describing "Now the earth was astonishingly empty" and what was already occurring at this stage in time.

Immediately following this the word "and" kicks into "subsequent steps" gear and begins describing what happens after verses 1 and 2 in chronological order:

And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. And God saw the light that it was good, and God separated between the light and between the darkness. And God called the light day, and the darkness He called night, and it was evening and it was morning, one day. (Genesis 1:3-5)

We see above that the word "and," the same word "ve," introduces each next step in the sequence:

And God said... and there was light... and God saw the light... and God separated... And God called the light day, and the darkness He called night... and it was evening... and it was morning..."

This usage of the word "and" continues for the majority of the entire chapter.

This usage of the word "and" appears to be the same one in Genesis 18:1-2 when the angels visit Abraham:

Now the Lord appeared to him in the plains of Mamre, and he was sitting at the entrance of the tent when the day was hot. And he lifted his eyes and saw, and behold, three men were standing beside him, and he saw and he ran toward them from the entrance of the tent, and he prostrated himself to the ground. (Genesis 18:1-2)

We first have the word "ve" being translated as "Now" to introduce the set of events. For the record, this occurs again in Genesis 18:11 when the chapter introduces a new set of events separate from 18:1-10:

Now Abraham and Sarah were old, coming on in years; Sarah had ceased to have the way of the women. (Genesis 18:11)

Back to verses 1 and 2, we see that every instance of "and" is the next step in the sequence (except for the first, which introduces the set of events and doubles as the first event):

---

1. Introduction/Event 1: Now the Lord appeared to him in the plains of Mamre, and he was sitting at the entrance of the tent when the day was hot.
2. Event 2: And he lifted his eyes…
3. Event 3: and saw…
4. Event 4: and behold, three men were standing beside him…
5. Event 5: and he saw…
6. Event 6: and he ran toward them from the entrance of the tent…
7. Event 7: and he prostrated himself to the ground.

---

There are two issues with the claim that the angel was God.

The first is the unnatural way, according to the belief that one of the angels was God, that the Torah reports that they were "standing beside him." The first verse says, "Now the Lord appeared to him..." If one of the angels in Event 4 was God in the form of a man, it should not have said, "three men were standing beside him," it should have said, "The Lord and two angels were standing beside him." The reason for this is that Event 1 says only that God appeared to him, but made no references to the angels. However, all appear to him together, which either means that all three appeared in Event 1 (even though the angels aren't mentioned), or that all three angels appeared to Abraham in Event 4 and that the Lord that appeared to him in Event 1 is not one of the angels!

Further, Event 4 says, "three men were standing beside him," not the three men, indicating that these men were altogether different ones than any of the beings that appeared in Event 1. For example, if I say "the eggs are cold," you know which eggs I'm referring to because you have already seen them, or I've already made reference to them. But if say "eggs are cold" you don't know which eggs I'm referring to.

If the angel was God in the form of a man the verse should have read something like the following:

"Now the Lord appeared to him in the plains of Mamre, and accompanying him were two angels, and he was sitting at the entrance of the tent when the day was hot. And he lifted his eyes and saw the three men were standing beside him, and he saw and he ran toward them from the entrance of the tent, and he prostrated himself to the ground."

More simply put, the word "and" in Event 4 indicates that something new happened, which is that the three men suddenly appeared to him in addition to God's appearing to him in Event 1.

Secondly, in Event 5 we get what seems like an incomplete thought, "and he saw." What did he see? His very next action was running towards the angels. Rashi explains according to the plain reading of the text that he saw that they were standing in one place away from him, i.e., that they were not coming any closer to him. He therefore runs toward them.

Further, we said that events 2 through 7 describe Event 1. However, we see that Abraham was in different locations in Event 1 and Event 6; in Event 1 he is "at the entrance of his tent," and in Event 6 he is away from the entrance of his tent near the angels, to whom he had to run given that they were standing some distance away. Event 6 can only be a description of Event 1 if it gives us more information about Event 1, but not if it contradicts Event 1. Take Genesis 1:1-2, which explain how the earth was "astonishingly empty."

In the beginning of God's creation of the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was astonishingly empty, and darkness was on the face of the deep, and the spirit of God was hovering over the face of the water. (Genesis 1:1-2)

If the verses said, "Now the earth was astonishingly empty, and darkness was on the face of the deep, and the people were building a tower," we would know that it was not really astonishingly empty. In this case verse 2 contradicts verse 1, indicating that the people built a tower after the earth had been astonishingly empty. And this is exactly the relationship between Event 1 and Event 6 in Genesis 18. When the Torah says that Abraham "ran toward them from the entrance of the tent," he did so only (a few steps) after God appeared to him at the entrance of the tent, indicating that neither of the angels or men were incarnations of God.

Does Genesis 18 Mention the Trinity? Part 1

The question of whether Genesis 18 refers to the Trinity is based on an analysis of the following verses:

• Now the Lord appeared to him in the plains of Mamre, and he was sitting at the entrance of the tent when the day was hot. And he lifted his eyes and saw, and behold, three men were standing beside him, and he saw and he ran toward them from the entrance of the tent, and he prostrated himself to the ground. (Genesis 18:1-2)
  
  
• And he said, "I will surely return to you at this time next year, and behold, your wife Sarah will have a son." And Sarah heard from the entrance of the tent, and it was behind him. (Genesis 18:10)
  
  
• Is anything hidden from the Lord? At the appointed time, I will return to you, at this time next year and Sarah will have a son." (Genesis 18:14)
  
  
• And the Lord remembered Sarah as He had said, and the Lord did to Sarah as He had spoken. (Genesis 21:1)

The context of Genesis 18:1-2 is right after Abraham performed his own circumcision, and right before God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. Three angels visit Abraham at this point, one of which tells him that Sarah will become pregnant at the same time next year. Some Christians claim that this particular angel was an incarnation of God (as the Second Person in the Trinity). They make this claim because of something interesting that this angel says - "I will surely return to you at this time next year, and behold, your wife Sarah will have a son." The angel speaks of returning in the first person (I will surely return to you, not the angel will surely return to you...), indicating that this angel is in fact an incarnation of God.

There are, however, a few issues with this, perhaps the main one being that God often has angels speaking in His Name when He seeks to relate some important information. See the following examples:

• And the angel of the Lord said to her, "I will greatly multiply your seed, and it will not be counted for abundance." (Genesis 16:10)
  
  
• And he said to him, "Behold I have favored you also as regards this matter, that I will not overturn the city that you have mentioned. (Genesis 19:21)
  
  
• And he said, "Do not stretch forth your hand to the lad, nor do the slightest thing to him, for now I know that you are a God fearing man, and you did not withhold your son, your only one, from Me." (Genesis 22:12)

In the first example the angel promises something that it does not possess the power to perform (I will greatly multiply your seed), and we must therefore understand that the angel is speaking as an emissary of God and not that the angel is God Himself. This verse is a reference to the angel telling Hagar that she will give birth to Ishmael.

In the second example the angel responds to Lot's plea (19:20) and agrees not to destroy the small city to which Lot plans to escape to. In this verse the angel speaks of destroying the city in the first person, yet we see that when it came to destroying the city that it was destroyed by God:

And the Lord caused to rain down upon Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire, from the Lord, from heaven. (Genesis 19:24)

Now, even if we accept that the angel speaking in 18:10 and 18:14 was God, it cannot be that the angel speaking in 19:24 was also God, because both of these angels appeared to Abraham together. In other words, even if we accept the notion that God incarnated Himself we cannot accept the notion that He incarnated Himself as two different and simultaneous incarnations of the Second Person in the Trinity that appeared to Abraham together (along with a third angel).

As a brief tangent, some Christians point to the fact that 19:24 mentions "the Lord" twice. "And the Lord caused to rain... from the Lord..." This is taken to be a reference to two different Persons of the Trinity, the first of which "caused to rain down upon Sodom and Gomorrah," but which was sent "from the Lord, from heaven," which is a separate Person of the Trinity, who remained in Heaven while this was occurring. This indicates that the first "the Lord" refers to the Person that descended to earth, while the second one remained in Heaven while this was occurring.

What this overlooks is the simple reading of the verse, which simply speaks of God in the third person, which is a much plainer reading of the text. For example, it is possible, although a bit awkward, to say, "Daniel went to the store and Daniel bought eggs" while fully intending to speak about the one-and-only Daniel. It would be a much greater stretch of the imagination, "straining out a gnat," to describe this sentence as grammatically referring to two different aspects of Daniel, the first of which went to the store, and the second of which bought the eggs, yet ultimately both of which did each because Daniel exists in two different forms, each of which is him.

In the third example the angel says, "and you did not withhold your son, your only one, from Me." It is evident that Abraham was not intending on sacrificing Isaac to an angel, which as well makes it clear that the angel was speaking as an emissary of God. And just in case we have any doubt as to the identity of this angelic speaker, see the preceding verse:

And an angel of God called to him from heaven and said, "Abraham! Abraham!" And he said, "Here I am." (Genesis 22:11)

This verse explicitly tells us that this was an angel of God, not God in the form of an angel. If we are free to interpret "angel of God" as an implicit reference to "God in the form of an angel" then words cease to convey any inherent meaning in the first place. If "cat" means "dog," and if every time I say "cat" you assume that I'm referring to a "dog," then assigning meaning to words is useless.

Is Genesis 1:26 Talking About the Trinity?

October 2, 2020 - 14 Tishrei 5781

Introduction

Does Genesis describe the Trinity as most Christian apologists claim it to? There are two verses in Genesis that seem demonstrate that this is not the case:

• Genesis 1:26
• Genesis 3:5

Genesis 1:26

The Problem

Genesis 1:26: And God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness, and they shall rule over the fish of the sea and over the fowl of the heaven and over the animals and over all the earth and over all the creeping things that creep upon the earth."

Christian apologists point out that the word "us" in this verse is a reference to the Trinity, or more specifically, to the Persons in the Trinity speaking among themselves.

The first proof that Genesis 1:26 is not referring to the Trinity is the following verse, Genesis 1:27, which says:

And God created man in His image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

Note that although God says Let us make man in our image, when it comes to actually creating Man the Bible does not use the pronoun us, but He.

Ask yourself the following question; if us signifies the Trinity, why does Genesis 1:27 switch to using He? If Genesis 1:26 refers to the Trinity, then it is describing the Persons of the Trinity in the planning stages of creating Man. This also indicates that all three of them created Man as Man is created in the image of all three Persons.

This is confirmed by the following excerpt from the Christian website, Answers in Genesis, which says that "All three Persons are the Creator," as shown below:

---

"But now, O LORD, You are our Father; We are the clay and You our potter; And all we are the work of Your hand." (Isaiah 64:8)

"He (Jesus) is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist." (Colossians 1:15–17)

"The Spirit of God has made me, And the breath of the Almighty gives me life." (Job 33:4)

---

If so, then Genesis 1:27 should say "And God created man in Their image; in the image of God They created him; male and female They created them." In this context "They" would refer to all three Persons of the Trinity.

The Resolution

The Jewish commentators deal with it as a statement made to the administering angels, which can be seen as an act of humility and a model for us to build partnerships with others to embark on our missions, as opposed to "going it alone." God involved them in theory in order to maintain peace in the Heavens, as Job 25:2 says:

"Dominion and fear are with Him; He makes peace in His heights."

This is explained by Rashi as follows:

"When the constellations ascend, each one thinks, 'I will ascend first,' and because he does not see what is before him, he is not envious. So I heard. [Tanchuma Buber ad loc.] Another explanation: 'He makes peace in His heights' - Fire and water are mixed, and the water does not extinguish the fire; I did not hear this."

Genesis 3:5

The second proof can be seen by comparing the following two verses: 

• Genesis 3:5 in which Satan says to Eve: For God knows that on the day that you eat thereof, your eyes will be opened, and you will be like angels, knowing good and evil.

• Genesis 3:22 in which : Now the Lord God said, "Behold man has become like one of us, having the ability of knowing good and evil, and now, lest he stretch forth his hand and take also from the Tree of Life and eat and live forever."
  

Both of the verses above include the phrase "knowing good and evil." The first verse clearly identifies that this refers to the angels. However, the more ambiguous second verse uses it in reference to "us." Without this phrase, one might assume 3:22 as a reference to the Trinity also (like 1:26). However, the phrase in 3:22 "knowing good and evil" explicitly identifies "us" as the angels.

This may be the reason why Christian apologists say that 1:26 is a reference to the Trinity, but not 3:22.

See below for Jews for Judaism's Rabbi Michael Skobac's answer according to four traditional Jewish approaches:

Genesis 2 - What Really Happened on the Third Day?

July 19 2020 - Tammuz 27 5780

The Summary

1. Contradiction between Genesis 2:1 and Genesis 2:5
2. Rashi's resolution of the contradiction
3. The Rabman's refutation of Rashi's resolution
4. The Ramban's resolution
5. Practical application

The Contradiction

Genesis 2 seems to start off with a good old fashioned contradiction between two verses:

---

Now the heavens and the earth were completed and all their host. And God completed on the seventh day His work that He did, and He abstained on the seventh day from all His work that He did. (Genesis 2:1-2)

.וַיְכֻלּ֛וּ הַשָּׁמַ֥יִם וְהָאָ֖רֶץ וְכָל־צְבָאָֽם. וַיְכַ֤ל אֱלֹהִים֙ בַּיּ֣וֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִ֔י מְלַאכְתּ֖וֹ אֲשֶׁ֣ר עָשָׂ֑ה וַיִּשְׁבֹּת֙ בַּיּ֣וֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִ֔י מִכָּל־מְלַאכְתּ֖וֹ אֲשֶׁ֥ר עָשָֽׂה

---

Now no tree of the field was yet on the earth, neither did any herb of the field yet grow, because the Lord God had not brought rain upon the earth, and there was no man to work the soil. (Genesis 2:5)

וְכֹ֣ל | שִׂ֣יחַ הַשָּׂדֶ֗ה טֶ֚רֶם יִֽהְיֶ֣ה בָאָ֔רֶץ וְכָל־עֵ֥שֶׂב הַשָּׂדֶ֖ה טֶ֣רֶם יִצְמָ֑ח כִּי֩ לֹ֨א הִמְטִ֜יר יְהֹוָ֤ה אֱלֹהִים֙ עַל־הָאָ֔רֶץ וְאָדָ֣ם אַ֔יִן לַֽעֲבֹ֖ד אֶת־הָֽאֲדָמָֽה:

---

The former verse says that God completed creating everything by the seventh day (including the trees, which were created on the third day), but the latter verse says that the trees had not yet been created.

Back to the the topics

Rashi's Resolution

Rashi resolves the contradiction as follows:

... neither did any herb of the field yet grow: [I.e.,] had not yet grown. And on the third [day], where it is written: “Let the earth bring forth,” they [the plants] had not yet emerged, but they stood at the entrance of the ground until the sixth day. And why? Because there was no man to work the soil, and no one recognized the benefit of rain, but when man came and understood that they were essential to the world, he prayed for them, and they fell, and the trees and the herbs sprouted. — [from Chul. 60b]

וכל עשב השדה טרם יצמח - עדיין לא צמח, ובשלישי שכתוב ותוצא הארץ, על פתח הקרקע עמדו עד יום ששי: - כי לא המטיר: ומה טעם לא המטיר, לפי שאדם אין לעבוד את האדמה ואין מכיר בטובתם של גשמים, וכשבא אדם וידע שהם צורך לעולם התפלל עליהם וירדו, וצמחו האילנות והדשאים:

Back to the the topics

The Ramban's Refutation

The Ramban notes that Rashi seems to have overlooked the literal reading of the verse:

Neither did any herb of the field grow (Bereishit Rabbah), ibid Chulin 60 says "they stood at the entrance of the ground until the sixth day" after it had rained. In my opinion this verse should be understood according to its literal meaning; on the third day the earth brought forth herbage and fruit-bearing tree in their places and to their types as they were commanded, and now the Torah says that there was nobody to till and sow and that they did not sprout until the mist rose from the ground to water it, and until Man was created to work the land and till and sow and guard it.

וְכֹל שִׂיחַ הַשָּׂדֶה על דעת רבותינו (בבראשית רבה) עיין חולין ס בשלישי עמדו על פתח קרקע הארץ ובששי צמחו לאחר שהמטיר עליהם ועל דעתי כפי הפשט כי בשלישי הוציאה הארץ העשב ועץ הפרי בקומותם וצביונם כאשר צותה בהם ועכשיו יספר הכתוב כי אין נוטע וזורע מהם והיא לא תצמח עד אשר עלה אד ממנה והשקה אותה ונוצר .האדם העובד אותה לזרוע ולנטוע ולשמור

Back to the the topics

The Ramban's Resolution

The Ramban settles the contradiction with the following:

The explanation is as follows: the reason that the verse said "neither did any herb of the field yet grow" instead of "herb of the earth" is that the word field refers to the domain of Man's work. See Exodus 23:16 (... which you will sow in the field...), and Numbers 20:17 (... we will not pass through fields or vineyards...). This is the purpose of the world made after the six days of creation onward forever due to the mist the rain fell from the skies, which caused the earth to sprout forth its seeds.

וזהו טעם "שִׂיחַ הַשָּׂדֶה טֶרֶם יִצְמָח" שלא אמר "שיח האדמה" כי המקום הנעבד יקרא שדה אֲשֶׁר תִּזְרַע בַּשָּׂדֶה (שמות כג טז) לֹא נַעֲבֹר בְּשָׂדֶה וּבְכֶרֶם (במדבר כ יז) וזהו תשמישו של עולם שנהיה מאחרי ששת ימי בראשית והלאה כל ימי עולם כי בסיבת האד ימטירו השמים ובסבתם הארץ זירועיה תצמיח:

In other words, both verses are true (Genesis 1 and Genesis 5). The word "earth" and "field" are two different domains. Earth is occupied by plants and animals, who do not need to pray for rain to receive it - it is a free gift. "Field" is a separate domain occupied by Man and is a sub-set of "earth." It connotes labor and indicates his need to pray for sustenance and can be understood by modern man as "the workplace." Genesis 1 tells us that the rain that fell on the third day was limited to the domain of the earth. God withheld the rain from the field until the 6th day when He created Man, who prayed for it.

Back to the the topics

The Application

The word "field" corresponds to our modern workplace, the way we make our livings. Note that Isaac went to pray in the field, indicating that our livelihood is associated with, and dependent on, our prayers. This may serve to argue against the idea that these two domains (work and spirituality) need to be mutually exclusive.

And Isaac went forth to pray in the field towards evening, and he lifted his eyes and saw, and behold, camels were approaching. (Genesis 24:63)

(בראשית כב:סג) וַיֵּצֵ֥א יִצְחָ֛ק לָשׂ֥וּחַ בַּשָּׂדֶ֖ה לִפְנ֣וֹת עָ֑רֶב וַיִּשָּׂ֤א עֵינָיו֙ וַיַּ֔רְא וְהִנֵּ֥ה גְמַלִּ֖ים בָּאִֽים

Note that the word שִׂ֣יחַ means both "tree/herb" and "discussion," translated as "prayer" in Jewish sources.

Back to the the topics