Bereshit Rabbah

English

“And God said: Let us make Man” – with whom did He consult? Rabbi Yehoshua said in the name of Rabbi Levi: He consulted with the works of the heavens and the earth. This is analogous to a king who had two members of his council and he would not do anything without their knowledge. Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥman said: He consulted with what was made on each and every day. This is analogous to a king who had an adviser and he would not do anything without his knowledge. Rabbi Ami said: He consulted with His heart. This is analogous to a king who built a palace through the services of an architect, but it was not pleasing for him. At whom should he be angry? Is it not the architect? This is a rhetorical question. That is, “He was saddened in His heart” (Genesis 6:6). Rav Asi said: This is analogous to a king who conducted a business transaction through an intermediary, and he suffered a loss. At whom should he be angry? Is it not the intermediary? This is a rhetorical question. That is, “He was saddened in His heart.”

The Sefaria Midrash Rabbah, 2022 · sefaria-midrash-rabbah

Hebrew / Aramaic

Bereshit Rabbah 8:3 (Vilna numbering) · daat-br

Notes

⚠ Anchor note: this is a comment on Gen 1:26, not on Gen 1:1–5. It is on the daf under the second clause of the anchor rule — it argues the same philological question the Elohim of Gen 1:1 raises, whether a plural form of speech about God implies a plurality in God — and is anchored on Gen 1:2 beside that material. The rabbinic bench asks the Latin bench's question in three words — be-mi nimlakh, with whom did he take counsel — and then, instead of answering it, prints four answers side by side and lets them stand. R. Yehoshua in R. Levi's name: he took counsel with the work of heaven and earth, and the parable is of a king with two sanqlitin, the Greek synklētikoi, senators, without whose knowledge he did nothing. R. Shmuel bar Naḥman: with the work of each day, like a king with one counsellor. R. Ami: be-libbo nimlakh, he took counsel with his own heart — and the parables that follow are about blame rather than about counsel, the architect and the broker who lose the king's money, so that 'he was saddened in his heart' (Gen 6:6) explains the counsel backwards from the regret. Rav Asi repeats the second. Note what is not here and is in every Latin witness on this daf: nobody suggests that the plural could point to a plurality in God. The question is whom God consulted, not who spoke; and the two extremes the midrash offers, a senate and a soliloquy, are the two Rupert of Deutz will name in Latin at Liège six hundred years later — non tam senatu quam soliloquio — choosing the soliloquy, as R. Ami does, and meaning by it the opposite thing.

Threads

• ← parallel · Remigius of Auxerre
  The same question in one word each. Remigius: 'quasi quodam concilio dicit: Faciamus' — as though by a kind of council he says, let us make. Bereshit Rabbah: 'be-mi nimlakh', with whom did he take counsel. Both take the change of formula to imply a consultation and then have to say with whom; and Remigius adds the line that shows the Latin bench knew there was more than one answer available — 'quod, licet quidam ad angelos referendum dicant, melius tamen ad sanctam Trinitatem refertur'. Some do refer it to the angels, at Auxerre about 890, and he neither names them nor refutes them.
• ← parallel · Rupert of Deutz
  Bereshit Rabbah 8:3 sets out two extremes and does not choose: R. Yehoshua in R. Levi's name has God consult the work of heaven and earth, with a parable of a king and his two sanqlitin — Greek synklētikoi, senators — and R. Ami has him take counsel be-libbo, with his own heart. Rupert names both in Latin and chooses: the counsel of the Trinity was 'non tam senatu quam soliloquio venerando … habitum'. The Roman word for the one and the Augustinian word for the other, six hundred years later, at Liège, with no contact; and the soliloquy that proves for R. Ami that nobody else was present proves for Rupert that three persons were.
• ← parallel · Peter Abelard
  R. Ami's answer with a bibliography. 'Quasi ergo aliquis secum loquens se et rationem suam quasi duo constituit cum eam consulit, sicut Boetius in libro De consolatione Philosophiae, vel Augustinus in libro Soliloquiorum' — a man who consults his own reason sets up himself and his reason as two. That is be-libbo nimlakh, he took counsel with his heart, made into a philosophical model; and where the midrash uses the inward counsel to show that no second party was present, Abelard uses it to show how a real plurality speaks with one mouth.
• ← echoes · Babylonian Talmud
  Bereshit Rabbah asks with whom God took counsel and gives four answers without choosing; the Bavli tells the story that answers it and lets the answer cost something. Rav Yehuda in Rav's name has God create a company of ministering angels and put the verse to them as a question — retzonkhem na'aseh adam be-tzalmenu — and burn them when they object, and the second company after them, until the third says that the world is his and he may do as he wishes. The consultation is real, in the words of the verse; the partnership is destroyed in the telling.