R' Shimon Ben Pazi posed the following contradiction: First the Posuk says that the sun and moon were equal in size and then the same Posuk calls one great and the other small. R' Shimon Ben Pazi then resolves the contradiction. Having resolved the contradiction, he continues with an amazing dialogue between the moon and Hash-m.
1.The moon starts to protest the unfairness of Hash-m diminishing her; and every time Hash-m answers with His consolation, the moon comes back with a rejoinder to discount Hash-m's act. After performing one consolation after another, Hash-m saw that the moon was not mollified. Therefore Hash-m said 'Bring a Korban Chatas on my behalf'..
My question is not regarding Hash-m having to bring a Korbon, as this is addressed already. My question is on the rejection of Hash-m's acts of consolation by the logic of the moon.
Is it possible to say that whatever Hash-m did, the moon logically rejected and Hash-m conceded to her! And was the moon right when 'shlugging' up every suggestion, right till the very end?
2. Rashi in Bereshis 1.16 D"H. V'es Hakochavim, has an answer that did seem to mollify the moon. The answer lay in the stars! Did Rav Shimon ben Pazi not hold of this? The posuk does seem to indicate that the stars were not created at the time when the sun and the moon were still the same size. Only after the moon was already diminished are the stars mentioned in the Posuk. Can you explain?
3. In the Gem., the moon doesn't object to Hash-m's response that 'Hakaton' is added to Yaakov,Shmuel,David. He could have objected by saying that 'Hagadol' is also added! In fact it is added to 'Hashem's' name! In Devorim 10:17, 11:7. Why doesn't the moon raise this objection?!
Thank you
Alex Lebovits
1. It is possible to explain that the moon's claim was that it was interested in increasing the honor of Hash-m. Now that it would be smaller, it wanted an equal (or greater) merit of increasing the honor of Hash-m in a different fashion.
I think one can look at the ensuing give and take in at least two ways. The first way is that it was not a logical give and take, but rather a question of how much the moon wanted to be Marbeh Kavod Shamayim as a consolation for it becoming smaller. The second way is that this give and take never actually took place, but rather it is what the moon would have said (as many Agadic dialogues are explained). In any event, the consolation that the moon wanted was that it should be the cause of a Korban that was brought by Bnei Yisrael. In this fashion, it would be the direct cause of a Mitzvah done by Ba'alei Bechirah (people with free will), a unique merit for any angel or celestial body. This gave it reason to be consoled.
2. Your questions actually answer each other. Rashi's commentary is based on explaining the Chumash through deductions in the Pasuk, with an emphasis on Peshat first and Agadah second. Accordingly, Rashi often does not quote the Bavli's version of an Agadah when he feels that the simple explanation of the Pasuk is better supported by a different Midrash or Chazal (in this case, a Midrash Rabah, which Rashi quotes very often over the Bavli when he feels it is closer to the Peshat). Rebbi Shimon Pazi's extensive discussion seems to be more of a teaching passed down to him than a derivation, and is certainly not as close to the Peshat in these Pesukim. This is why Rashi quotes the Midrash Rabah.
3. This can be answered by what we explained in question 1, that the moon wanted a merit that was tied to people doing Mitzvos, as this is where the greatest honor of Hash-m lies (when Ba'alei Bechirah serve him).
All the best,
Yaakov Montrose