Divine Plurals/2

Divine Plurals

Exegetical Approaches

This topic has not yet undergone editorial review

Partnership with Others

The plural form is used because Hashem was including the angels in His speech.

Sources:PhiloOn the Confusion of Tongues 35:179About Philo,¹ Bereshit Rabbah8:3-48:821:5About Bereshit Rabbah, Targum Pseudo-JonathanBereshit 1:26Bereshit 3:22About Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, RashiBereshit 1:26Bereshit 3:22Bereshit 11:7About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki, RashbamBereshit 1:26-27About R. Shemuel b. Meir, Ibn EzraBereshit 1:26Bereshit 3:22Bereshit 11:7About R. Avraham ibn Ezra, R. Yosef Bekhor ShorBereshit 1:26-27Bereshit 3:22About R. Yosef Bekhor Shor,² RadakBereshit 1:26Bereshit 3:22Bereshit 11:7About R. David Kimchi, Abarbanel #2Bereshit 1:26About R. Yitzchak Abarbanel,³ SefornoBereshit 1:26-27Bereshit 3:22About R. Ovadyah Seforno

"נַעֲשֶׂה אָדָם" – What did the angels do?

• Consult – According to Rashi (following Bereshit Rabbah) and R"Y Bekhor Shor, Hashem simply consulted with the angels regarding man's creation, but they did not actually do anything.  As evidence, they point to the verse, "וַיִּבְרָא אֱלֹהִים אֶת הָאָדָם", which presents Hashem as the singular subject of the verb "ברא" and makes no mention of other beings.⁴
• Create – Philo, Ibn Ezra, Abarbanel and Seforno, in contrast, suggest that the angels played an active role in creating man.  Abarbanel asserts that just as Hashem had the land actively draw forth vegetation since the two were naturally similar, he had angels abet him in creating mankind, as the two beings are alike in  having an intellect.

"הָבָה נֵרְדָה וְנָבְלָה" – What did the angels do? Most of these commentators suffice by saying that Hashem spoke with the angels, but do not elaborate as to whether they actively helped in dispersing the nations.  Abarbanel, however, claims that after the people sinned by building the tower,⁵ Hashem decided to remove His providence from the nations and give them into the hands of ministering angels instead.  It is this that Hashem tells the angels when He says, "let us go down".

"הָיָה כְּאַחַד מִמֶּנּוּ לָדַעַת טוֹב וָרָע"

• Ibn Ezra, R"Y Bekhor Shor, and Radak⁶ maintain that here, too, Hashem is speaking with the angels and refers to them when saying "‎‏מִמֶּנּוּ"‎.⁷
• Though Targum Pseudo-Jonathan agrees that Hashem is conversing with the angels, he obviates the problem of the plural differently, by understanding the word "מִמֶּנּוּ" to mean "of him" (of Adam) and not "of us".⁸

Why work with angels?

• Moral lesson – According to Bereshit Rabbah, Rashi,and R"Y Bekhor Shor this is a show of modesty. Hashem consults with the angels, not because He needs their advice,⁹ but to teach a lesson in humility to humans.  If even Hashem asks permission of those lesser than Him before acting, all the more so should mankind.
• Divine duties – Others might more simply suggest that Hashem often has intermediaries fulfill His will,¹⁰ and the cases discussed here are not particularly exceptional except for the fact that the Torah shares the heavenly discussion with the reader.
• Dirty work – According to Philo, Hashem had the angels participate in creating man so that all the errors and wickedness of mankind could be attributed to these subordinate powers and not to Hashem.¹¹

Biblical Parallels – These commentators support the concept that Hashem consults with heavenly beings by pointing to stories elsewhere in Tanakh where this seems explicit, Kings I 22:19, Yeshayahu 6:2-8 and Iyyov 1-2. Cassuto questions these parallels, though, asserting that in all those cases it is explicit with whom Hashem is talking or consulting. Thus, in Bereshit, too, if Hashem was really speaking to another, the verse should have specified as much.

Why specifically in these verses? None of these sources adequately explain why it is only here that Hashem speaks of Himself in the plural.  If He often consults with angels, then why are there not more cases where the fact is shared?

"בְּצַלְמֵנוּ כִּדְמוּתֵנוּ" – One of the motivations of this position is the discomfort with suggesting that Hashem is referring to His own form in the words "בְּצַלְמֵנוּ כִּדְמוּתֵנוּ", for that could suggest an anthropomorphic God.¹²  Having the angels partner with Hashem allows one to explain that it is their form to which humans are similar.¹³  Nonetheless, many of these commentators attempt to understand the terms in non physical ways, and suggest that they refer to the spirit or intellect.¹⁴

Philosophical concerns – angels – These commentators are comfortable with the concept of angels and point to other cases in Tanakh which also assume some sort of heavenly assembly and consultation.¹⁵ Most of them (with the notable exceptions of Rashi and R"Y Bekhor Shor) do not even find it problematic that they might have aided Hashem in creating man.¹⁶

Polemical concerns – R"Y Bekhor Shor explicitly rejects Christian interpretations that the plural form might refer to the Trinity, asking why Hashem would be inviting another to act, if He is "three in one" and all are of one mind.  According to the Christian understanding, the verses should have been consistently in the plural, opening "And they said" rather than "And He said..."¹⁷

Utilized Earthly Elements

Hashem's plural language included the earth, His tool in the creation of man.

Sources:R. Yosef Kimchicited in Radak Bereshit 1:26About R. Yosef Kimchi, RambanBereshit 1:26About R. Moshe b. Nachman, Ralbag, AbarbanelBereshit 1:26About R. Yitzchak Abarbanel, Maasei Hashem,

A partial solution – This approach only accounts for the plural language in Bereshit 1 and would have to explain the other instances ("הָבָה נֵרְדָה" and "כְּאַחַד מִמֶּנּוּ") in a different manner.

"נַעֲשֶׂה אָדָם" – Hashem was speaking of himself and the earthly elements whom He was going to utilize in creating man, as the verse says, "וַיִּיצֶר ה' אֱלֹהִים אֶת הָאָדָם עָפָר מִן הָאֲדָמָה וַיִּפַּח בְּאַפָּיו נִשְׁמַת חַיִּים".  Hashem formed Adam's body from the earth and then infused into him his soul.

What is unique about man's creation? Ramban explains that despite the fact that the animals were also brought forth from the land, Hashem only prefaced man's creation with the statement "נַעֲשֶׂה אָדָם" due to man's high stature.

"בְּצַלְמֵנוּ כִּדְמוּתֵנוּ" – Troubled by the idea that the verse might be saying that Hashem has some physical shape, these commentators assert that these terms can refer to both a physical and spiritual form.  Hashem is saying that man will be similar to the earth in his body, but to Hashem in his soul.

Philosophical concerns - Angels – This approach might be motivated to explain as it does due to a discomfort with the idea that angels helped to create man.¹⁸

Polemical motivations

Rhetorical Flourish

It is a known phenomenon both in everyday speech and in Biblical narrative to sometimes use a plural form to refer to a singular entity, so the usage in these verses is not unusual.

Sources:R. Saadia GaonCommentary Bereshit 1:26HaEmunot VeHaDeot 2:6About R. Saadia Gaon, Lekach TovBereshit 1:26Bereshit 11:7About R. Toviah b. Eliezer, R"Y Bekhor Shor #1Bereshit 1:26-27Bereshit 3:22About R. Yosef Bekhor Shor,¹⁹ Ibn Kaspi, ShadalBereshit 1:26About R. Shemuel David Luzzatto, R. S"R HirschBereshit 1:26Bereshit 3:22About R. Samson Raphael Hirsch, R. D"Z Hoffmann, CassutoBereshit 1:26About Prof. Umberto Cassuto

Way of the text or way of the world?

• Way of the text (דרך המקרא) – R"Y Bekhor Shor asserts that the way of Torah is to sometimes speak of the plural in singular or male as female and vice versa.²⁰ R. Hoffmann, in contrast, explains that the word "אלהים" specifically can be either plural, as it refers to the abundance of Hashem's powers, or singular, since all those powers are subsumed in one entity.²¹
• Way of the world (דרך ארץ) – R. Saadia and R. Hirsch suggest that, as is the way of kings and other honored people, Hashem sometimes speaks of himself using the "royal we".²²  Cassuto proposes instead that when a person exhorts himself into action, he tends to use the plural, saying "let's go" and the like.
• Aramaic - Shadal maintains that this is an Aramaic form, where it is customary to use the plural to refer to a singular entity.²³

Why specifically in these verses? Though this approach has the advantage of easily explaining each of the three cases in the same manner, it still must explain what makes these verses unique:

• Festive statement – R. Hoffmann suggests that Hashem only refers to himself in the plural when He is making some sort of festive or important statement.  Though this would explain the usage by the creation of man, it is not clear why the destruction of Sedom differs from other massive punishments.
• Assurance – R. Hirsch opines that when Hashem acts in a way that might not be viewed as beneficial, but in reality is, He uses the majestic plural, as if to say, "I am doing this for all, not for me." Thus when announcing man's authority over other beings and the dispersal of nations, deeds which might not be understood as positive, Hashem assures the people that they are.²⁴
• Way of the text – According to R"Y Bekhor Shor, Tanakh's switching of number (and gender) is common and somewhat arbitrary, so one need not try to explain each individual case.

"בְּצַלְמֵנוּ כִּדְמוּתֵנוּ"

• Hashem's attributes – According to most of these sources, though these terms refer to Hashem Himself, they speak of His non physical traits:²⁵
• Authority – R. Saadia, R"Y Bekhor Shor and Shadal posit that the terms refer to man's similarity to Hashem in his ability to rule.²⁶  As evidence, they point to the continuation of the verse where man is given the task of ruling over the fish, birds and animals.
• Thought – R. Hoffmann and Cassuto maintain that man's likeness to Hashem is in his ability to think and have a conscience.²⁷

• Hashem's chosen form – R. Saadia also brings an alternative suggestion, that the terms are a way of marking a chosen form.  Just as Hashem will refer to the Mikdash as "my house" or Israel as "ארץ ה‎‏'" since it His choice abode/land, He refers to man as "Our form" or "צֶלֶם אֱלֹהִים" since man is His chosen creation.

Philosophical concerns – angels – R. Saadia disagrees with the possibility above that angels could have created man, claiming that it is not logical that that which was created can in turn create. Moreover, if angels were given the ability, then man, too, should be able to create.  He further argues that such an assertion would undermine proof of Hashem's existence, since His creation is what testifies to His being.²⁸

Polemical Motivations – R. Saadia and R"Y Bekhor Shor both explicitly combat Christian claims that the plural form indicates the Trinity.

• R. Saadia points out that by the creation of Chavvah the verses uses the singular form to refer to Hashem.  As such, according to their understanding, Christians would have to say that Adam was created by the Trinity, but Chavvah was made by only one part thereof which would not be logical.  In addition, since Christians agree that God has no body, they are forced to agree that the clause "בְּצַלְמֵנוּ כִּדְמוּתֵנוּ" is metaphorical and allow that words in the passage were not meant to be read literally.  As such, they should recognize that the phrase "נַעֲשֶׂה" is similarly meant figuratively and really refers to the singular.

¹ This is Philo's understanding in his work, On the Confusion of Tongues.  In On Drunkenness, however, he implies another reading, that Hashem created man together with Wisdom.  See Enoch2:30:10About Enoch similarly.

² This is R"Y Bekhor Shor's second explanation of Bereshit 1:26 and how he understands Bereshit 3:22.  See below for his alternative understanding of Bereshit 1:26.

³ Abarbanel brings two possibilities in his commentary, that Hashem partnered with angels or that he utilized the earthly elements. See below regarding the latter.

⁴ R"Y Bekhor Shor goes further to suggest that the root  "עשה" does not mean to create at all, but rather to fix that which is/will be created. [Cf. His comments to Bereshit 1:7 as well.]  Hashem does not speak to the angels about creating man, only about "fixing" man in their image, i.e. making man a ruler.

⁵ Not all commentators agree that the people who built the tower sinned, nor that the dispersal was a punishment.  For elaboration regarding Abarbanel and others' approaches to the issue, see Deconstructing Migdal Bavel.

⁶ Radak's words are somewhat ambiguous and might suggest that Hashem was simply including the angels in his speech, but not actively speaking with them.

⁷ Since Ibn Ezra and Radak understand the knowledge gained by the "Tree of Knowledge" to pertain to sexual desire, saying that man will be like angels in this trait is somewhat difficult.  However, it is not any more problematic than attributing sexual desire to Hashem to begin with.

⁸ To do so, the Targum must play with the syntax of the verse, setting a pause after the words, "הֵן הָאָדָם הָיָה כְּאַחַד" and attaching the word "מִמֶּנּוּ" to the next phrase, "לָדַעַת טוֹב וָרָע". Accordingly, Hashem is saying that man is like Him, "כְּאַחַד", unique on Earth as Hashem is unique in heaven. From him (man) will emerge generations of people who know good and bad.

⁹ See Radak as well: "כבר פרשנו מלת הבה ואינו אלא על דרך משל, כי אין היוצר נועץ עם הנוצר".

¹⁰ In each of these cases, then, Hashem speaks to the angels because they have a task to do: create man, banish Adam from the garden and guard it, or disperse the builders of the tower.

¹¹ He does not address their necessity by the dispersal of the generation of the Tower of Bavel.

¹² See the opinion of the Karaite Benjamin Nahawandi, brought by R. SaadiaCommentary Bereshit 1:26About R. Saadia Gaon, who is so troubled by the idea that he goes as far as to say that the angels created man totally by themselves.  According to him the words, "נַעֲשֶׂה אָדָם" are spoken by an angel and not by Hashem, and the phrase "וַיִּבְרָא אֱלֹהִים" also refers to an angel.  He then goes further to suggest that all of creation was in fact accomplished by the angels. R. Saadia questions how it is possible that a created being can himself create and brings numerous verses which imply that Hashem (and not angels) created the world.

¹³ Thus Rashbam and Ibn Ezra explain that the word "אֱלֹהִים" in the phrase  "צֶלֶם אֱלֹהִים" refers to the angels.

¹⁴ Rashi, Rashbam, and Seforno all assert that "דמות" refers to the capacity for knowledge, while Radak says both "דמות" and "צלם" can be used to refer to a spiritual form. Ibn Ezra and Seforno also suggest that the similarity between mankind and Hashem/angels might refer to the immortality of the soul.  Only Rashi seems to have no problem with suggesting that maybe the phrase "צלם" might speak of some physical aspect of Hashem Himself.

¹⁵ See King I 22:19, Yeshayahu 6:2-8 and Iyyov 1-2.

¹⁶ See note above, and in more elaboration below, how R. Saadia argues against this position.

¹⁷ Interestingly, R"Y Bekhor Shor himself offers a potential answer to his own argument in his first approach to Bereshit 1:26 where he says that it is the way of the text for Tanakh to switch off between singular and plural or male and female. His argument would have been much stronger if he had not pointed out this tendency in the text and simply read the verse as a consultation with angels.

¹⁸ Ralbag in general prefers to minimize the role of angels in Tanakh, so it not surprising that he might be loathe to introduce them where none are mentioned.

¹⁹ This is the first suggestion brought to understand Bereshit 1:26. See above that R"Y Bekhor Shor also raises the possibility that Hashem was consulting with the heavenly beings, and understands Bereshit 3:22 accordingly.

²⁰ He points to numerous verses as examples, such as "וּבְנֵי פַלּוּא אֱלִיאָב" in Bemidbar 26:8 or "וַתִּקַּח הָאִשָּׁה אֶת שְׁנֵי הָאֲנָשִׁים וַתִּצְפְּנוֹ" in Yehoshua 2:4.

²¹ In addition to the verses here, he points to Bereshit 20:13 as another example where the proper name Elohim takes a plural verb (though not in the speech of Hashem).  Other such examples include Bereshit 35:7, Devarim 4:7 and  Devarim 7:23.

²² As support of the phenomenon in Biblical Hebrew, R. Saadia points to Balak's words, "אולי אוכל נכה בו" and Daniel's "דנא חלמא ופשרה נאמר קדם מלכא".  Ibn Ezra questions these examples, claiming that Balak was likely using the plural because he was referring to his army and that it was unlikely that Daniel would refer to himself in the "royal we" when speaking to a king!

²³ He points to Daniel 2:36 and several cases in the Yerushalmi and midrashic literature as support.

²⁴ As many other actions of Hashem could be similarly questioned by the masses as unjust, this is not an adequate explanation.

²⁵ Shadal, following Rambam, distinguishes between these words and the terms "תואר" and "תבנית" asserting that only the latter refers to a physical form.  Shadal further suggests that the word "צלם" comes from the word "צל", a shadow, and the verse is simply saying that man is similar in some way to Hashem.

²⁶ Shadal words the idea somewhat differently, suggesting that man is similar to Hashem in having multiple powers and it is for this reason that he is tasked with ruling over others.

²⁷ R. Hoffmann distinguishes between between "צלם"  and "דמות" suggesting that the former refers to man's intellectual nature, while the latter refers to his ethical traits in having free will.

²⁸ Others also point to textual issues with the suggestion.  Cassuto points to the tone of the rest of the chapter which seems to emphasize Hashem as sole creator and R. Hoffmann points out that verse 27 says explicitly that Hashem created man in His own image,"בְּצֶלֶם אֱלֹהִים בָּרָא אֹתוֹ", and not that of angels.  See, though, above that Rashbam and Ibn Ezra don't understand the word "אֱלֹהִים" in the verse to be a secular term referring not to Hashem but the angels themselves.