Ben Zoma's query on Genesis 1:7: was it what drove him insane?

IN GENESIS RABBAH 4:7 (2), WE FIND AN INTRIGUING midrash regarding Genesis 1:7:

    God made the expanse-this is one of the verses with which Ben
  Zoma (3) shook the world. "He 'made'" [Ben Zoma said.] "I am
  dumbfounded. Were they not created by His word [alone]?" Thus (4) [is
  it stated in Psalms 33:6, which declares,] "By the word of the Lord
  the heavens were made, by the breath of His mouth, all their host."

Put another way, Ben Zoma was challenging the Bible's right to have it both ways. Either God physically manufactured the expanse, as Genesis 1:7 states, or it came into being purely on His say-so, as Genesis 1:6 declares. The midrash does not contain an answer to Ben Zoma's query, unless it is assumed that the quoted verse provides it; i.e., the Sages did not answer the question and used the verse for biblical validation, but rather stated the verse, leaving it to the listener (or reader) to reach his or her own conclusion.

This paper will contend that Ben Zoma "shook the world" because behind his question was the realization that portions of Genesis 1 were conflated texts representing two separate authors--a realization that had the potential of challenging the authority of the Torah itself.

If we assume that Psalms 33:6 is intended to be an answer to Ben Zoma's query, then perhaps [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] (va-ya-as, "and He made") in Genesis 1:7 should be understood as immediate execution of God's word. Psalms 33:6, however, is unsatisfactory as an answer to Ben Zoma's query on several counts:

The text clearly says "and He made ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII])" the expanse, not that it was made ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], v'na-asa). If [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] is to be understood as [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], why is [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] not used (cf. Genesis 1:26)?

Even if Psalms 33:6 is assumed to be the answer, it still leaves unanswered why "and He made" was not used in all days of creation.

Genesis 1:6-7 speaks about the expanse ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], rakiya), while Psalms 33:6 speaks about the heavens ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], shamayim).

If "and He made" indicates immediate execution of God's word, then [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] (vay-hi chen, "and it was so") is redundant.

Classical Jewish commentators do not mention Psalms 33:6 as a possible answer.

If Psalms 33:6 is not the answer to Ben Zoma's query, what is it? Many manuscripts of Genesis Rabbah do not have [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] (havei, "thus"), (5) a word that most often introduces a proof of some kind, or a supporting statement) and these are considered to be the authentic version. In that case, Psalms 33:6 could be part of the query. (6) This would strengthen the premise of the query that God created the expanse "by His word." It is also possible that Psalms 33:6 is a kind placeholder for an answer. It fills the blank spot where an answer should have been, is enigmatic enough to make one think that it is an answer, but it really is not an answer.

Of the classical Jewish commentators, Nachmanides and Abarbanel refer directly to Ben Zoma's query. Nachmanides, known commonly as the Ramban (an acronym for Rabbi Moses ben Nachman), shifts the emphasis in the question from "and He made" to the unusual distance between "He said" and "it was so." Ramban explains (7):

  this upheaval ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], ha-har-asha) [of Ben
  Zoma] was not only by He made, since the term is used in the fourth,
  fifth (8) and sixth day. But it was caused by
  [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] (va-yomer, and He said) not being
  followed closely by [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] (vay-hi chen, and
  it was so) as in the other days, to indicate that it was so
  immediately after the saying. But here after and God said it is
  written He made. This is his query. Perhaps he had a mysterious
  explanation and did not want to reveal his secret. This is the matter
  of the "upheaval."

We notice that Ben Zoma's query never mentions "and it was so." Were the distance of "and it was so" from "and God said" the essence of Ben Zoma's query, he should have more properly stated it on Genesis 1:26, for which the "and it was so" occurs only several verses later, at the end of Genesis 1:30. Ramban cannot imply that the occurrence of "and He made" in two other cases demonstrates that it is not problematic, because Ben Zoma did not mention them. This kind of an implication can be countered by the argument that Genesis 1:6-7 was its first occurrence, and it is here that Ben Zoma expressed his bewilderment.

Moreover, Ramban does not answer Ben Zoma's query even as he understands it. Furthermore, even if "and it was so" is moved from the end of 1:7 to the end of 1:6, as the Septuagint does, still the repetitive nature of the "and He made" statement requires explanation. (9) Also, Ramban is not entirely accurate regarding the use of "and He made." In the six days of creation, "and He made" is used on the second, fourth, and sixth day, but not at all on the fifth. It seems that Ramban tried in this shifting of the focus in Ben Zoma's query to dilute the force of its impact. (10)