Bereshit (7)

 

(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 was morning—one day" indicates that through this spiritual light, God established different levels of progression toward perfection, just as evening and morning follow one another in gradation, lesser and greater. And at the end of the verse, it says 'one day' to indicate that this was the work of the first day.

However, these words are vain and deceptive fabrications. According to him—and according to all—lowly matter is encompassed within the term "earth." If, according to his view, there was no earth yet, since the creation of light preceded the creation of heaven and earth, how could he claim that a distinction was made between it and the nature of the nivdalim, which is called "light"? Moreover, the primordial matter (hiyulani), which the commentators sometimes refer to as "earth," sometimes as tohu va’vohu, sometimes as "water," and sometimes as "darkness," follows the same interpretative pattern.

Beyond all this, the phrase "And there was evening, and there was morning" cannot be properly reconciled, because even if there were gradations among the angels, the terms "morning" and "evening" would not apply to them (1). You will see that this phrase appears on each of the days of Creation, even in cases where no gradations exist. Additionally, the Torah does not say "And there was evening in the light, and there was morning," but rather "And there was evening, and there was morning" without qualification. How could this be applied to separate intellects (sechel nivdal)?

Even more problematic is the phrase "one day," which appears without context or logical connection. Since it is not adjacent to "And there was evening, and there was morning," and does not function as a clause dependent on another phrase. Thus, it misleads the reader who follows the cantillation marks (ta’amim) (2).

All of this proves that the opinion that "light" refers to the angels deviates from the truth (3). I believe that the Sages never intended such an interpretation in their statements about the light. Rather, they referred to the divine light that was created for its moment and then ceased to exist, as will be explained later.

The third question is as follows: If everything that was created during the days of Bereshit came into existence through a divine utterance (4)—as it is stated (Psalms 33:6), "By the word of the Lord, the heavens were made," and as the Mishnah (Avot 5:1) teaches, "With ten utterances, the world was created"—why, then, was the work of the first day different from the work of the other days?

This difference manifests in three aspects. The first is that in the work of each of the remaining five days, the phrase "And God said" appears, as in "And God said, 'Let there be…'" Why, then, did the Torah not state on the first day as well, "In the beginning, God said, 'Let there be heavens and earth'"? Especially considering that our Sages explicitly taught that the heavens and the earth were created through an utterance, to the extent that they included "Bereshit" as one of the ten utterances in Rosh Hashanah, saying, "Bereshit is also an utterance." The second difference is that in the acts of creation on the other days, the name of the Creator is mentioned before His action, as in "And God said, 'Let there be a firmament,'" or "And God said, 'Let there be luminaries,'" and so forth. However, on the first day, the act itself is mentioned before the name of the Creator, as it says, "In the beginning, He created—God," rather than "God created in the beginning." Because of this, the translators who rendered the Torah for King Ptolemy had to modify the wording and translate it as "God created in the beginning," as recorded in Megillah (5). The third difference is that in the creation of the heavens and the earth, the phrase "Let it be so" (yehi ken) does not appear, whereas in all other acts of creation, this phrase was included.

. . .

(1) "Evening and morning" imply temporal change, which does not apply to angels. Abarbanel argues that if "light" meant angels, the phrase would be meaningless. He sees this as further proof that the Torah refers to physical rather than metaphysical realities.

(2) Abarbanel highlights that ta’amim (cantillation marks) structure biblical verses both musically and syntactically, acting as punctuation. He argues that the natural flow of the ta’amim supports a straightforward reading of yom echad (one day) as a literal day. Any interpretation that disconnects it from the sequence of creation distorts the Torah’s intended meaning.

(3) Abarbanel rejects the view that the light of the first day refers to angels (nivdalim). If so, why would darkness follow, and why call them "day" and "night"? He opposes Ralbag’s philosophical approach and insists on a more literal reading of Torah.

(4) Abarbanel notes a unique feature of the first day: other days begin with "And God said," but not Genesis 1:1. The Mishnah (Avot 5:1) says the world was created with ten utterances, yet "Bereshit" lacks an explicit command. This suggests a fundamental distinction between the creation of existence itself and the formation of its details.

(5) The Septuagint altered Genesis 1:1 to "God created in the beginning" (Elokim bara bereshit) to avoid ambiguity in Greek. Abarbanel highlights this to show how language affects interpretation, reinforcing his argument that Bereshit describes a distinct creative act.

Read more...

(This passage illustrates the depth of Abarbanel’s commentary, which we are translating systematically for the first time.)