Bereshit (8)

(To read the previous part, click here.)  

The fourth question concerns the meaning of the verse: "And the earth was tohu va’vohu (formless and void), etc." You are already aware of the interpretation given by the Rav haMoreh (Maimonides) in Guide for the Perplexed (Part II, Chapter 30), which was followed by Ramban. Their general intent is that after the verse mentioned the creation of the heavens and the earth, it then informs us that the earth which was created contained within it the four fundamental elements—earth, water, air, and fire.

Thus, in this verse, "the earth" refers specifically to the element of earth, while "darkness" refers to the element of fire, for primordial fire is dark1. If it were luminous, it would be visible at night. Moreh Nevukhim (Maimonides) proves that darkness refers to fire from the verse regarding Mount Sinai: "When you heard the voice from within the darkness" (Deuteronomy 5:20), which is also expressed as "And His words you heard from within the fire" (Deuteronomy 4:36). Similarly, it is stated: "A fire not blown shall consume him" (Job 20:26). Likewise, "the spirit of God" refers to the element of air, and "upon the face of the waters" refers to the element of water.

However, in my view, this interpretation is incorrect for several reasons2. One of them is the verse states: "And the earth was tohu va’vohu, and darkness was upon the face of the deep." If darkness referred to the element of fire, why would it be mentioned before the water and air? This would contradict the natural order of elements. Another reason is that darkness is not fire. The verses cited by Moreh Nevukhim to prove that "darkness" refers to fire do not actually support his claim. The darkness mentioned at Mount Sinai refers to the cloud and thick mist that surrounded the visible fire. This is the meaning of the phrase: "When you heard the voice from within the darkness"—the divine voice emerged from within the surrounding darkness. But this is not the same as the fire mentioned in "And His words you heard from within the fire." Rather, these were two separate entities: the visible fire at the summit of the mountain, which was seen by the children of Israel, and the dense, dark cloud surrounding it. The divine voice emerged from the fire, but through the medium of the surrounding darkness. Thus, both verses are correct, and "darkness" does not refer to fire, nor does "fire" refer to darkness.

Further proof of this distinction is found in the verse: "These words the Lord spoke to your entire assembly on the mountain, from within the fire, the cloud, and the thick darkness" (Deuteronomy 5:19). Here, the Torah clearly differentiates between the fire and the darkness surrounding it. Similarly, the verse "Total darkness is laid up for his treasures; a fire not blown shall consume him" (Job 20:26) refers to two distinct entities—light and darkness—not a single thing. Moreover, the claim that "primordial fire is dark, for if it were luminous, it would be visible at night" is, with all due respect to the wisdom of its author, incorrect. Fire is neither inherently dark nor inherently luminous; rather, it is a spiritual entity (sphiriy)3. The fact that it is not luminous does not mean it must be classified as darkness. Consider, for example, air: it is neither luminous nor dark, yet no one would call it "darkness."

And if it (fire) were dark, it would darken our daylight as well, even before the element of earth had received a distinct name—for only on the third day does it say, "And God called the dry land Earth" (Genesis 1:10). Thus, the term “earth” mentioned here refers to the entirety of the lower realm.

The truth is that if darkness is sometimes observed in the fire that burns within wood, it is due to the opacity of the material itself. This is not the case with primordial fire, which is not entangled with dense and coarse matter. Some of the ancient philosophers4 even claimed that there is no distinct element of fire at all, but rather that everything from the earth up to the celestial spheres consists of air. Its parts vary in their qualities—denser or more refined—based on their proximity to the center or to the outer spheres, but they do not differ in form. They are all ethereal (sphiriyim), neither luminous nor dark. Indeed, this view is the one most aligned with rational understanding, as will be explained later.

Even those who thought that fire was a distinct element from air still considered it to be more refined and ethereal than air. This would explain why the stars are visible at night and the sun during the day, for the farther a substance is from the earth and the closer it is to the heavenly sphere, the more refined and luminous it becomes. All of this proves that “darkness” in this verse does not refer to the element of fire5.

Some have explained “and darkness was upon the face of the deep” (tohom) to mean that the “deep” refers to the depths of the waters, whereas fire is not located adjacent to water, but rather above the air, not directly upon the water. Maimonides himself wrestled with this difficulty and suggested that since darkness (which he identified with fire) is above the air, and the air is above the waters, one could say that the darkness was upon the waters through the medium of the air.

However, this is an unfounded claim, for the Torah does not present distant causal relationships but rather immediate ones. If darkness were fire, it should have said, “And darkness was upon the face of the air,” for that is its natural place without any intermediary, not “upon the face of the deep.” And if the words of the Torah came through intermediaries, then one could just as well argue that darkness was upon the earth via the medium of air and water. Thus, darkness cannot refer to fire.

Similarly, regarding “the spirit of God was hovering over the face of the water,” Maimonides interpreted “spirit” as referring to the element of air, but this is incorrect. Nowhere in Scripture is “ruach” (spirit) used to denote the pure element of air; rather, it always refers to the moving wind, as is stated in the Book of Signs (Sefer HaOtoth)6, or to other things to which the Torah attributes the term “ruach.” as will be explained. If “ruach” here referred to the element of air, then why would it be attributed specifically to God, as in “the spirit of God was hovering”, whereas the other elements mentioned in creation are not similarly ascribed to Him? Moreover, the verses Maimonides cited to support his view—such as “A wind went forth from the Lord” (Numbers 11:31), or “You blew with Your wind” (Exodus 15:10)—all refer to the moving wind, not to the static element of air.

For all these reasons, I find no satisfaction in interpreting this verse as referring to the four elements. This raises the question: why are the elements not mentioned explicitly in the account of creation, given that they are the foundations of all physical existence? Furthermore, what is the meaning of this verse? The phrases “upon the face of the deep” and “upon the water” are not descriptions of creation, for they do not include the phrase “Let there be...”, as is used for all other created entities.

. . . 

(1) In medieval philosophy, the four elements (earth, water, air, fire) were understood in their primordial forms. Aish yesodi (“elemental fire”) was conceived as a substance defined by heat but not by light; visible flames and brightness arise only when it combines with other matter. Hence Abarbanel refers to “primordial fire” as dark.

(2) Maimonides and Ramban claim that "darkness" in Genesis 1:2 refers to primordial fire (yesod ha-esh). Abarbanel refutes this, arguing that the Sinai verses they cite distinguish between fire and darkness. Fire is neither dark nor luminous—like air, its nature is neutral.

(3) The term sphiriy (ספירי) here does not refer to the Kabbalistic sefirot. It is the medieval Hebrew rendering of the Greek word sphaera (“sphere”), used in Aristotelian cosmology to describe the celestial spheres. The resemblance to sefirah (from the Hebrew root safar, “to count, to radiate”) is purely coincidental; the two terms have different origins and meanings, though both came to describe higher, intangible realms.

(4) This idea can be traced to certain Greek philosophers who challenged the classical four-element theory. Notably, Aristotle maintained that fire was a distinct element, but later thinkers, including John Philoponus (6th century CE), questioned its independence, suggesting that fire might be a property of air rather than a separate substance.

(5) In Aristotelian natural philosophy, the four elements (earth, water, air, fire) are arranged in layers, with fire considered more refined and luminous than air. Some philosophers held fire to be a distinct element, others as a quality of heated air, but all agreed it was ethereal and light-bearing. Thus Abarbanel argues that “darkness” in Genesis 1:2 cannot mean fire, since fire was by definition associated with light rather than obscurity.

(6) Sefer HaOtoth (“The Book of Signs”) is a lesser-known work sometimes attributed to early Jewish scholars, but its precise authorship and contents remain unclear. It may refer to a medieval philosophical or mystical text discussing natural phenomena and divine signs.

(7) Nicholas de Lyra (c. 1270–1349) was a Franciscan biblical scholar whose commentary on the Bible was deeply influenced by Rashi. His Postillae Perpetuae became one of the most widely used biblical commentaries in medieval Christian Europe. He sought to explain the Torah in a way that aligned with Christian theological perspectives while relying on Jewish exegesis. 

To be continued... 

(As part of our Genesis project, we bring you this newly translated excerpt from Abarbanel’s Torah commentary.)