Abarbanel on the Torah

  (To read the previous part, click here .) The fourth argument is that if the light mentioned on the first day referred to the angels, what then would be the meaning of the darkness mentioned afterward? Why would the Torah call the intellectual light "day" and the darkness "night"? And how could a single day be formed from both light and darkness—how would all of this be justified in relation to the angels? Ralbag answers that the darkness mentioned in the passage symbolizes the existence of the lowly matter, which is at the utmost distance and distinction from the spiritual light. For the intellectual light represents complete form and action, while the primordial lowly matter is merely potential, deficient, and dark in comparison to the nivdalim (separate beings). Because of its existence, God called the light "day" and called the dark, potential matter "night" due to its deficiency. And the phrase "And there was evening, and there w...

  (To read the previous part, click here .) Another opinion is also found in the words of our sages, which states that the angels were created on the first day, along with the creation of light. The reasoning behind this view is that since our intellect is too limited to fully grasp the true nature of spiritual beings, the Torah compares them to light—due to their spiritual essence and their role as a source of intellectual perception. Just as physical light enables vision, so too, these elevated, spiritual beings serve as the source of intellectual comprehension. Because of this, Scripture attributes light to God Himself, as it is written: "The Lord is my light and my salvation." (Tehillim 27:1) In line with this, our sages said in Midrash Tehillim: Rabbi Simon said: 'God set aside the primordial light for Himself. This is like a king who saw a fine portion of food and said, "This is for myself."' So too, when God created light, He said, "No creatur...

  (To read the previous part, click here .) This interpretation is also incorrect. Throughout the entire account of Creation, the name 'Elohim' is consistently used as a designation for the Creator, blessed be He (1). How, then, could the first mention of 'Elohim' at the beginning of the Torah refer to the created angels, while in the subsequent verses, the same name refers to the Creator, the Cause of all causes, blessed be He? Alternatively, if one were to claim that every mention of 'Elohim' in the Creation narrative refers to angels, this would imply that they were the ones who created the world—a notion that is utterly unacceptable. Creation in its entirety is attributed exclusively and directly to the First Cause, blessed be He, without any intermediary, and certainly not to any of His creations. Furthermore, according to this interpretation, the identity of the Creator would be missing from the verse. It would state merely, "In the beginning, [som...

  (To read the previous part, click here .) The second question Why does the creation account in Bereshit not mention the creation of the spiritual angels, when they constitute one-third of existence, and are the first and most elevated part of creation? Should we assume, as some investigators have suggested, that there are no separate intellects ( sechalim nivdalim ), apart from the First Cause ( ha-sibah ha-rishonah , i.e., God)? According to this view: God alone is the only force that moves the celestial spheres. The universe consists of one moving sphere and one Prime Mover ( ha-kadur ha-mitnoa echad veha-mania echad ). However, this idea is not only false from the perspective of true philosophical reasoning, but it is also heresy according to the Torah! The Torah clearly affirms the existence of angels: They appear in the narratives of the forefathers ( Avot ); they are described in prophetic visions ( Nevi’im ); the Book of Daniel explicitly names angels such as Gabri...

( To read the previous part , click here .)   All the more so, what prevents God from creating the four fundamental elements (earth, water, air, and fire) with their specific forms from the outset, allowing them to serve as the shared material for all things that come into existence and perish, as well as for human sustenance? Is God's hand, Heaven forbid, too short to create four distinct elements from absolute nothingness—so much so that He must first create one primordial matter instead? Rather, this entire theory is based on the requirements of natural existence, following the principles of philosophy, rather than on the absolute nature of divine creation, as understood by the Torah. If I were to believe the existence of a primordial matter preceding creation, from which all things later emerged—which is an assertion that is entirely unacceptable from a Torah-based perspective—then I would still prefer to say that a single, unified formless substance was created, from which al...

( To read the previous part , click here .) Difficulties with This Approach First, how can the Torah state that God created the heavens and the earth if it merely refers to the creation of primordial matter ( hyle )? After all, the hyle —the raw substance of a thing—is the lowest aspect of its existence. How can this simple matter be called by the complete and composite name of "heavens and earth"? Even more so, how could it be referred to with the definite article ("the heavens and the earth")? This phrase can only refer to something perceived, tangible, and well-known, not to an abstract, lacking, and imperceptible primordial substance that did not even exist in its formless state for more than a fleeting moment. Second, how is it possible for two separate, formless substances to be created ex nihilo and yet be distinct from one another? Distinction arises from form and function, yet if these substances were entirely without form, how could they be considered s...