לקוטי שיחות חלק ה׳ - בראשית ג

Likkutei Sichos Vol. 5 – Bereishis 3

1. On the verse "And G‑d completed on the seventh day His work which He had done…"^[1], Rashi says^[2] on "And G‑d completed on the seventh day"^[3]: "Rabbi Shimon says: A human being, who does not know his times and his moments, must add from the weekday to the holy; but the Holy One, blessed be He, who knows His times and His moments, entered into it by a hairbreadth." And afterward Rashi adds, "and it appeared as if He finished…," as will be explained below in section 2.

This must be understood:

a) From the fact that Rashi first says plainly "He entered into it…," and only afterward "it appeared as if," and also concludes (not "entered" but) "finished," it is evident^[4] that by "He entered into it…" he means that G‑d entered the seventh day by a hairbreadth — and not that it appeared as if He entered Shabbos by a hairbreadth^[5]; and (the statement "He completed on the seventh day" is only "it appeared as if He finished," but) He completed the work in the last "hairbreadth" of the sixth day.

This is puzzling: the Holy One, blessed be He, "knows His times and His moments" is merely an explanation of why He did not need to finish His work before Shabbos (unlike a human being, who, since he "does not know his times and his moments," must add from the weekday to the holy); but it is no explanation of why "He entered into it"!

b) Why does Rashi mention that this explanation was said by Rabbi Shimon?

c) Why does Rashi also mention "His times"? Moreover:

d) The difference between es, "time," and rega, "moment," is that rega denotes a measured (small) quantity of time, whereas es means time in general. This is not understood:

Rashi's saying that a human being "does not know his moments" while the Holy One, blessed be He, "knows His moments" is understandable — for the reason a person must add a little from the weekday to the holy, while G‑d need not, is that in a small quantity of time a person can indeed make a mistake^[6], whereas the Holy One, blessed be He, knows exactly the moment at which Shabbos begins.

But Rashi's saying that a human being "does not know his times" seemingly does not fit. Since es does not denote any fixed quantity of time, it includes a long span of time as well (especially as "his moments" — which includes many moments — is stated here separately), and this a person also knows. Why, then, does Rashi say that a human being "does not know his times"?

e) The example of a "hairbreadth" suits a [very small] quantity in space. But when one wants to denote a [very small] quantity in time, it is more fitting to say "the blink of an eye"^[7] (and the like). It is not understood: Rashi seemingly wants to express how little of the time of Shabbos G‑d "entered" — why, then, does he use the expression "by a hairbreadth"?

2. After Rashi says "He entered into it by a hairbreadth," he adds another point — "and it appeared as if He finished on that very day": the statement "And G‑d completed on the seventh day"^[8] — that G‑d finished the work in (the middle of) the seventh day, and not in its first "hairbreadth" [like the works of the first six days, which He did during (all of) the day, not only in the first moment] — is because it "appeared," it looked "as if He finished on that very day," in the middle of the day^[9].

This is not understood:

a) Rashi explains "He entered into it (by a hairbreadth)" —

— unlike other commentators, who explain that G‑d finished His work in the very last moment of the sixth day, so that it looks as though He finished on the seventh day —

because the plain meaning of "And G‑d completed on the seventh day" is that the "completing" took place on the seventh day, not that it merely "appeared" so.

The difficulty is: since the plain sense of "on the seventh day" is in the middle of the seventh day, and because of the point in "on the seventh day" Rashi must in any case explain that the meaning of "And G‑d completed on the seventh day" is (not that the completing really took place in the middle of the seventh day, but) only that it appeared as if He finished on that very day —

— if so, one could just as well say that (not only "on the day" is merely "appearance," but "He completed" too is merely "appearance"; that is,) at the beginning of the seventh day too G‑d did no work at all, but He finished in the last "hairbreadth" before Shabbos, and the statement "He completed… on the seventh day" is because so it "appeared." Why is Rashi compelled to explain "He entered into it…"?

b) Something that happens at a certain time may appear (to a human being, who "does not know his times and his moments") to have happened somewhat later. But how is it possible that the "completing," which took place in the first "hairbreadth" of the seventh day, should appear to have taken place (not a little later, but) in the middle of the day?

3. Afterward Rashi says "Another explanation" — that there is a second interpretation^[10] of "And G‑d completed on the seventh day": "What did the world lack? Rest. Shabbos came, rest came; the work was finished and completed."

This must be understood:

a) The verse says only "He completed"; why does Rashi say "was finished and completed"?

b) If "was finished" needs an explanation ("and completed"), Rashi should have explained it right at the outset, at the word "finished."

c) Why does Rashi say "the work was finished and completed" and not "His work was finished and completed," in the language of the verse, "He completed… His work"?

4. The explanation of all this is:

The verse relates that G‑d finished His work "on the seventh day." This raises a question for the student: a) It says earlier, "And G‑d saw all that He had made… and it was… the sixth day" — everything was done on the sixth day! b) It already says "And the heavens… were completed"; what, then, does "He completed" mean? c) With "were completed" it speaks without specifying; here it specifies, "And G‑d completed"?

Rashi answers this with the explanation "A human being… He entered into it by a hairbreadth": the finishing (of the work begun earlier)^[11] with which G‑d entered Shabbos ("He entered into it") was "by a hairbreadth." Therefore: a) "He completed… on the seventh day" does not contradict what is said (earlier), that "all that He had made" was already on the sixth day — because "He completed… on the seventh day" was only "by a hairbreadth." b) "He completed…" adds details to the general statement, "And… were completed."

This also explains why Rashi uses the expression "by a hairbreadth," even though "in the blink of an eye" better suits a (small) measure of time (as noted above, at the end of section 1): with these words he describes [not the time during which G‑d "entered" the "seventh day," but] what He did — that the doing was only "by a hairbreadth."

It is still not understood, however: why does the verse specify "And G‑d completed" in connection with "He completed" (unlike "And… were completed," where it says "were completed" without specifying)? Rashi forestalls this question with "A human being…":

Since work is forbidden on the seventh day (Shabbos), such a reality — finishing a work on the seventh day — is possible only for G‑d. For a human being, since he "does not know his times and his moments," not only may he not do any work on Shabbos itself; more than that, he must also add from the weekday to the holy.

The Holy One, blessed be He, however, since He "knows His times and His moments," not only did not need to stop doing work before Shabbos, but could even finish (the work begun earlier) on the seventh day itself^[11*] — because, as explained, the finishing with which He entered Shabbos ("He entered into it") was "by a hairbreadth"; and "by a hairbreadth" is not a forbidden labor and may be done on Shabbos, as will be explained.

5. The example of a "hairbreadth" is given for a very small thing which, on its own, is not noticed, and becomes a visible reality only when it comes together with other things —

— just as, in the plain sense, a single "hair," because of its thinness, is almost impossible to notice^[12], and only when there are many hairs together, as on a head of hair, are they visible and noticeable.

And this is what Rashi means by "He entered into it by a hairbreadth": not only did G‑d create no new things "on the seventh day" — He only "completed," finished (the work of the sixth day, in the words of the verse, "He completed… His work which He had done") —

but more than that, this "completing" itself was very small — only "a hairbreadth"; that is, were it not for the work of the sixth day (whose "completing" it was), it would not have been noticed at all. And such a doing is permitted on Shabbos, as will be explained below in section 12.

6. It should be noted: since "His work which He had done" on the sixth day (whose "completing" was "on the seventh day") is "And G‑d made the beasts of the earth…" and "Let us make man"^[12*], and the "completing" of "Let us make man" took place some hours before the end of the sixth day^[13], one must say^[14] that the "completing" was in the making of the beasts of the earth…^[15] — in their being "perfected in their form, in their completion and their stature"^[16]. This "perfecting" extended until the end of the sixth day and also extended into the beginning of the seventh day.

7. Here, however, the student has a question: since the work that G‑d extended into the seventh day was only "a hairbreadth," it is self-understood that such a small work took up a very small amount of time. That means that at the very beginning of Shabbos G‑d had already finished the "completing." How, then, does the expression "on the seventh day" fit such a short time at the beginning of Shabbos?

Rashi therefore says, "and it appeared as if He finished on that very day": since in the content of each day (by which it is distinguished from other days) there is no difference between the first moment of the day and its very middle (or its end), the "completing" that took place at the beginning of the seventh day appears as if it had been "on that very day."

8. But since this explanation is not smooth — for [besides the fact that the wording "He completed… on the seventh day" implies that it was truly in the middle of the day,] from the fact that on the sixth day it says "And G‑d saw all that He had made," and also that it says "And the heavens and the earth and all their host were completed, and G‑d completed on the seventh day" (which plainly means two separate "completings"), it is implied that the entire making and creation was finished before "He completed," and nothing at all remained in it to be finished — not even "a hairbreadth" —

Rashi therefore brings a second explanation, "What did the world lack? Rest…": the only thing the world lacked before "And G‑d completed on the seventh day" was [not in the making, but] rest^[17], and this G‑d completed on the seventh day — "Shabbos came, rest came."

But this is difficult: rest is the opposite of work; how does it fit to say about rest "He completed…," He finished? Rashi therefore adds, "the work was finished and completed": "He completed…" does not mean that He finished working on the seventh day, but that then the work — the product itself (the "world") — was completed.

This is also the reason Rashi adds "was finished and completed": "was finished" (or "He completed") is a word that means "ceasing," no longer being — as in "And the seven years of plenty came to an end"^[18]; so too here, according to Rashi's first explanation — "His work" is no more. Therefore in this explanation Rashi must add "and completed," indicating that the word "He completed" here means finishing and perfecting what had been lacking — the "completion" and perfection of the world, through the rest of Shabbos.

9. But this explanation too is very difficult: "And G‑d completed" means that G‑d finished something, whereas rest in the world came (as it were) by itself — through G‑d's not doing work.

Rashi therefore returns to the first explanation, "He entered into it by a hairbreadth," according to which the wording "And G‑d completed" is smooth — that G‑d finished the work on the seventh day.

10. The explanation of Rashi's using the two expressions "His times" and "His moments" is that the knowledge of a certain time can come in two ways:

a) Through the number of days, hours and moments that have passed before that time. For example, the time of the onset of Shabbos: after five days and so many hours and moments of the sixth day have passed, one knows that Shabbos is now beginning.

b) Through "sensing" the time itself. As the "five-year-old (beginning Scripture)" remembers: for his first haircut he did not need to make any calculation — that since three years had passed since he was born, the time had come for his haircut; rather, seeing the joyous mood of his parents, he "felt" that it was the time of his haircut. And so too when he was brought to cheder, and so on.

From this he understands that since Shabbos is a holy day, Jews who sense holiness — and all the more so G‑d — can know the time of Shabbos (not only by knowing how many hours and moments of the sixth day have passed, but) by sensing the time of Shabbos.

[As is told of the Ruzhiner: Reb Isaac of Homil was once with the Ruzhiner (at the time when Reb Isaac stood at a "crossroads," after the passing of the Mitteler Rebbe). Being in the inner room with the Ruzhiner on Erev Shabbos, Reb Isaac saw that at the moment Shabbos arrived, the Ruzhiner threw down his pipe and his face was transformed. So great was the change that Reb Isaac said afterward that had he not been in the room the whole time, he would have thought this was not the same person.]

This is what Rashi means by the two expressions "His times" and "His moments":

With regard to knowing of the arrival of Shabbos from the time (the content) of Shabbos itself, what matters is "knows His times": es in the Holy Tongue means a time that is measured and suited for a particular matter, as in "a time to give birth… a time to laugh…" — the twenty-eight "times" enumerated in Koheles^[19];

and with regard to knowing that Shabbos is arriving through the number of hours and moments before Shabbos, what matters is "knows His moments."

11. After all this, however, the student asks (if he is a sharp student^[20]) — one who observes and reflects: he sees that one stops working (not at the time when it is already "possibly night," but) before twilight, when it is still definitely day^[21]. It must follow that the matter of "adding from the weekday to the holy" is not because of a possible prohibition, but a definite obligation.

Now, it is true that adding from the weekday to the holy is required (by way of plain meaning^[22]) because "a human being does not know his times and his moments" (and he must therefore stop a while before Shabbos — for if he were permitted to work until the very last moment, it could happen that he would sometimes err and run over into Shabbos). But since, for this reason, there is a law (as a definite obligation) that one must add from the weekday to the holy, G‑d too should have added from the weekday to the holy, even though He "knows His times and His moments" — for the keeping of Shabbos goes together with "He rested and was refreshed on Shabbos"!

Rashi answers this with "Rabbi Shimon says": Rabbi Shimon "expounds the reason of the verse"^[23]; he holds that laws that come about because of a certain reason (even when the reason is not stated in the Torah) change where the reason does not apply. Consequently, since the Holy One, blessed be He, "knows His times and His moments," and for Him there is no reason to add from the weekday to the holy, the law indeed does not apply to Him.

12. Among the matters of halachah in this comment of Rashi:

The Gemara says, "Anything that involves the completion of a work — one is liable for it as 'striking with a hammer'"^[24]. Accordingly one could seemingly ask: since the "completion of a work," too, is one of the thirty-nine forbidden labors, there is seemingly no minimum measure for how great the completion must be. It should follow that a completion of "a hairbreadth" is also called "striking with a hammer"!

The explanation is: in "striking with a hammer" there are two things: a) the action of the person striking — the blow; b) what is effected in the object struck — its completion. It may be said that the action of "striking with a hammer" is lifting the hammer and bringing it down on the utensil^[25] (or on the stone^[26]). When one performs this action in full, then although what the blow effects in the utensil is only the completion of the work, since the action (the blow) was a complete one, one is liable for it as "striking with a hammer."

But when the action of the blow is incomplete — he lifted the hammer before Shabbos and only the bringing down was on Shabbos — then, although the completion of the utensil is accomplished through the bringing down of the hammer, which he did on Shabbos, it may be said that he is not liable, because on Shabbos he did only half a labor^[27].

And as it is with "striking with a hammer," so it is with other kinds of completing a work — the derivatives of striking with a hammer: liability applies only when the action that brings about the completion of the work is done entirely on Shabbos. If only part of the action was done on Shabbos, there is no liability for it, since it is only half a labor^[28].

In light of all this it is understood how G‑d finished a work on Shabbos — because the action was only "a hairbreadth."

13. Seemingly one could still ask: granted that there is no liability for half a labor, there is still a Rabbinic prohibition^[29]! As we find, for example, regarding the labor of carrying out (the first labor with which Tractate Shabbos begins): when one performs the lifting on Friday and the putting down on Shabbos, he transgresses a Rabbinic prohibition^[30].

In truth, however, this is no question, because the Rabbinic prohibition applies to part of a labor; we do not find it with regard to a minute amount that is (almost) not noticeable. When it is a matter of completing the blow by "a hairbreadth," it may be said (even according to halachah, and all the more so by way of plain meaning) that there is not even a Rabbinic prohibition.

So it is, for example, with "striking with a hammer" (the primary labor itself): if someone lifts the hammer on Erev Shabbos, and the bringing down too — until it is a hairbreadth from the utensil — took place on Erev Shabbos, and then on Shabbos he brought the hammer down to the utensil, closing that gap of a hairbreadth, this is not even in the category of half a labor, and so there is no Rabbinic prohibition on it^[31].

14. Among the "wine of the Torah" in this Rashi:

A Jew who is a ben Torah could seemingly argue: the law is that businessmen fulfill^[32] the mitzvah of "This book of the Torah shall not depart from your mouth, and you shall meditate on it day and night"^[33] by learning only "one chapter in the morning and one chapter in the evening"^[34], and even with only one verse in the morning and one verse in the evening^[35]. Why, then, is he required to have his learning take up the entire day and night? True, having free time, his obligation to learn is far greater than that of someone busy with business or work. Nevertheless — he argues — why should it be so severe for him? The businessman who learns only two verses a day thereby fulfills the mitzvah of Torah study; while if he learns twenty-three hours and fifty-nine minutes a day, and only one minute goes to waste, he is already described as one who "has despised the word of G‑d…"^[36], Heaven forfend. Can this be?

The answer to this is:

"The Holy One, blessed be He, did not create a single thing in His world in vain"^[37]. Everything — including place and time — that G‑d created in the world, however small it may be, has a specific purpose. If G‑d gave him a certain minute of time for learning, and he does not use that moment according to its designated purpose, he causes the time G‑d created for him to be in vain, G‑d forbid.

To this comes the lesson of the verse "And G‑d completed on the seventh day," according to Rashi's first explanation. To preface: how is it, after all, that G‑d "entered" Shabbos with His work? Granted that work of "a hairbreadth" may be done on Shabbos — but why did He need to do the work, even a permitted one, until somewhat into Shabbos?

The reason is that by this very thing G‑d showed man how precious every moment must be held, and how important it is to make use of every moment: as long as there is an opportunity to do the service designated in the world, one should do it to the fullest extent possible, up to the last moment given.

And with the second explanation, "What did the world lack?", Rashi adds to this lesson. He indicates here: the preciousness of every minute is so great that if one had the opportunity to do another "hairbreadth" of service and neglected it, then the completeness of the entire service already done is itself lacking — "the world lacked."

And if this is so with G‑d's work, of which it says "And G‑d saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good," how much more so with the service of a Jew: as long as there remains in his work some "hairbreadth" that he could have accomplished and did not finish, it is a deficiency in his entire work — the completeness of his service hangs on this hair.

15. Just as this is so for each Jew individually, so it is with regard to the generations as a whole. One might think: after all the earlier "rich" generations, with so many great tzaddikim and such lofty souls (from the Avos, Moshe Rabbeinu, the prophets, the Tanna'im and Amora'im, up to my father-in-law, the Rebbe), who have already carried out all the great "labors" and accomplished the vast majority of the service of the Jewish people below — what significance can a "small thing" have that we can accomplish and add in our generation of the very "heels of Moshiach"?

One must know that on these "small jugs" depends, as it were, the completeness of the service of all the earlier great generations. Precisely this "small thing," which we will complete in our generation, will bring the great service of the "six days of work" (the six thousand years^[40]) to its purpose, so that it will be said of it "and… were completed": it will be perfected^[41] and elevated in "the day that is entirely Shabbos and rest for life everlasting"^[42].

(From a talk of Shabbos Parshas Bereishis, 5728)