Previous section → Bereshit as Principle and Beginning

The second principle concerns the nature and reality of creation itself. The philosophers were unable to conceive that something could come into being except from something else; in their view, the coming-into-being of something from nothing was false. But the divine Torah bears witness to the existence of such a reality in stating: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth”—that is, although within the course of natural generation nothing comes into being except from something else, at the beginning of time and its origin, the Holy One, blessed be He, brought into existence not from anything, but after absolute non-being. This is what is indicated by the term bara, according to the interpretation I have given: that the higher and lower realms were all brought into existence by His absolute power, after complete non-existence1.

I have already explained in my work Mif‘alot Elohim2 that the coming-into-being of something from nothing, when considered philosophically, is not in itself impossible with respect to the divine Agent, blessed be He; and likewise, that it is not impossible for there to exist a first “now” that is the beginning of time without being its end. There, I have responded, on philosophical grounds, to the arguments advanced by the philosophers against these principles. This is the second principle.

The third principle is that the philosophers held that, since God is One, only one effect can proceed directly from Him. According to them, He produces only the first of the separate intellects, from which proceeds the second, then the sphere, and so on, such that beings multiply through a chain of emanation, as is reported in their name by Maimonides (Part II, chapter 2). Even according to the view found in Bereishit Rabbah, which distances itself somewhat from the strict path of emanation, there is no doubt that the Holy One, blessed be He, exercises providence and influence first in the world of the separate intellects, then secondarily—through them—in the celestial world, and thirdly—through all of these—in the lower world3.

And it was regarded by them all as false that anything material could proceed directly from the First, blessed be He, without an intermediary4. To refute this view, the Torah testifies: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1)—that is, God, the First Emanator, possessing absolute power, created bereshit—that is, in a primary and direct manner, not secondarily and not through a chain of emanation—the heavens, a term that includes the separate intellects according to their levels, as well as the celestial sphere, which is the abode of the spiritual beings; and also the earth, which is exceedingly material, encompassing the four elements.

Thus, the relation of the earth to the First Cause, blessed be He, in its coming-into-being after non-existence, is the same as that of the intellectual heavens—the first movers and moved beings—in their creation: both were brought into existence by Him directly, from absolute nothingness, without any intermediary.

Accordingly, in this interpretation, the word bereshit refers to the first “now,” which is the beginning and not the end of time; and it also expresses the relation of the effect to its cause—that is, that it proceeds from Him directly and primarily, without intermediary. The term bara indicates the bringing-into-being of existence from nothing, and the emergence of actuality after complete non-existence, as I have established at the outset. The name “Elohim” signifies the “First Emanator”, endowed with absolute power and all capacities. “The heavens” refers to the separate intellects in their various levels, as well as to the first moving celestial sphere; and “the earth” includes the encompassing material body that contains the four elements, both light and heavy, all of which are designated by the name “earth.”

With this interpretation of the verse, the first question is resolved5. For when it is said, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth,” this does not mean that all upper and lower beings—simple and composite—were created in their complete actuality, nor does it refer to primordial potential matter alone. Rather, the verse teaches that at the beginning of time, the Holy One, blessed be He, brought into existence from absolute nothingness the separate intellects, the celestial sphere, and likewise the four elements contained within it, all in a state of mixture and without differentiation.

The other spheres, the luminaries, and the composite beings formed from the elements were not created in their actualized state on the first day. Rather, He implanted within those initial principles created at the beginning the power to bring forth, in the subsequent days, the rest of the generated beings, as will be explained.

In this way, the second question is also resolved6: as I have explained, the term “heavens” includes all the separate intellects as well as the highest sphere that serves as their abode. I have already demonstrated that this was the view of some of the Sages of Israel. It follows, then, that the creation of the angels is mentioned in the Torah as having taken place on the first day, prior to all other things—although some Sages held that they were created on the second or the fifth day, and were led to that view in order to avoid saying that they assisted in the making of the heavens and the earth, as I have already explained.

(Parashat Bereshit — Genesis 1:1, Creation from Nothing and the Refutation of Emanation in the Commentary of Don Isaac Abarbanel)

Next section →

Read more

Previous section → The Twofold Nature of Ruach: Wind and Intellect

At times, however, the term mayim is used more specifically for the lower luminous substance, namely the element of water, as in: “Let the waters swarm” (Genesis 1:20), “and the waters prevailed” (Genesis 7:24), and similar expressions. These are called mayim in the plural—either because the term mayim, in its general usage, includes multiple distinct natures, namely the upper and lower waters; or because the upper waters themselves differ in their nature, referring to the spheres and the stars, and are therefore expressed in the plural.

As for the lower waters, they too are called mayim in the plural because of their divisions into parts, their droplets, and their movements as they flow and intermingle. Likewise, “He called the gathering of the waters seas” (Genesis 1:10) uses the plural, even though we also find “sea” in the singular—either because there are different seas that flow into one another, as explained by the Ephodi1, or because of the multiplicity of their parts and their constant motion.

And since, within the region of the air, rain is generated, the chief of the poets said: “He roofs His upper chambers with water” (Psalms 104:3). And because great dangers occur in seas and waters, Scripture borrows the term mayim to signify distress: “We went through fire and through water” (Psalms 66:12); “I have come into the deep water, and the current has swept me away.” (Psalms 69:3).

From this, the term mayim is also metaphorically applied to sound counsel by which one may be saved from distress, as it is said: “Counsel in man’s heart is like deep water, but a man of understanding will draw it out” (Proverbs 20:5).

From all this, it becomes clear what is indicated by the term mayim: at times it is used in a general sense for all bodies, both upper and lower together; at times for the celestial bodies alone; at times for the four elements; and at times for elemental water alone. Thus it is said: “And God made the expanse and it separated between the water that was below the expanse and the water that was above the expanse, and it was so.” (Genesis 1:7).

And after clarifying these shared usages and meanings of the term, I shall proceed—with the help of the Lord God—to explain the verses of this section according to the different approaches, and to resolve the questions I have raised.

And now he comes to explain the passage:

“In the beginning, God created…” (Genesis 1:1).

According to what I have explained regarding the equivocal use of the word bereshit (“in the beginning”), which may refer either to a principle or foundation—being a part of the thing itself, as explained by Maimonides—or to the “now,” which is the beginning of time, even though it is not itself time, this verse may be explained in one of two ways.

The first approach is that the bet of bereshit serves in the sense of “with.”2 Thus, the verse would mean: “the heavens and the earth, together with their beginning and their initial principle, were all created”—that is, brought into existence from absolute nothingness, as is indicated by the term bara (“created”), according to the first interpretation I have set forth. Elohim refers to the First Emanator, acting with absolute power.

The divine Torah found it necessary to establish this statement at its very beginning, because among those who denied the creation of the world, some rejected it entirely, claiming that the heavens and the earth are eternal, having no temporal beginning—this being the view of Aristotle and his followers. Others admitted that the heavens and the earth were brought into existence, but maintained that they were formed from pre-existing matter—this being the opinion of Plato and the earlier thinkers.

In order to refute both of these false positions, the Torah testifies: “In the beginning, God created…”—that is, together with their beginning and their very principle, which is their matter, God created both the higher and the lower realms, without there being any pre-existent reality whatsoever apart from Him. This is the first interpretation.

The second approach is that the divine Torah establishes in this verse three fundamental principles that overturn and destroy three erroneous doctrines held by the philosophers.

The first is their claim that time cannot have a beginning. For they argued that every “now” that might be designated as the beginning of future time is necessarily also the end of past time, and therefore it is impossible for there to be a “now” that is truly the beginning of time without also being the end of what preceded it3.

But the Torah testifies that this is not so. Rather, there was indeed a “now” that constituted an absolute beginning of time, without being the end of any prior time. It is that “now” in which time itself began to exist, and in which the Blessed One created the heavens and the earth. Concerning this it is said: “In the beginning, God created…”—for reshit (beginning) refers to that first “now,” which is called a beginning because it alone is the beginning of future time, without being the end of any past time. This is not the case with all other moments, each of which is both a beginning and an end from different perspectives. It is as if the verse said: “At that moment which was a beginning and not an end, God created the heavens…” This is the first principle4.

(Parashat Bereshit — Genesis 1:1, Bereshit as Principle and Beginning in the Commentary of Don Isaac Abarbanel)

Next section →

Read more

Previous section → The Twofold Nature of Ruach: Wind and Intellect

Explanation of the word merachefet (“hovering”)

This word merachefet was explained by Levi ben Gershon1 as deriving from the idea of rest. He was led to this interpretation because he understood “the spirit of God” as referring to the element of air, following the approach of Maimonides. And since the air, in his view, was resting upon the surface of the waters without moving in its natural place, he was compelled to interpret merachefet as an expression of stillness2.

But this is not correct.

Rather, the word is derived from the expression “ my bones shake”3 (Jeremiah 23:9), where it denotes agitation and irregular motion. Likewise, “hovering over its fledglings”(Deuteronomy 32:11) conveys movement and trembling, as explained by the grammarians. The context of the verse itself confirms this, for it states: “As an eagle awakens its nest, hovering over its fledglings, it spreads its wings, taking them and carrying them on its pinions” (Deuteronomy 32:11). All of these are actions of motion, not of rest.

The general meaning, therefore, is that merachefet signifies movement—or more precisely, the causing of movement, an awakening into motion. This is the sense of “As an eagle awakens its nest, hovering over its fledglings”: when the eagle comes upon them, it beats its wings in such a way that it rouses and awakens them from their sleep, so that it may take them and carry them upon its wings.

So too, when it is said that “the spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the water” (Genesis 1:2), the meaning is that it was setting the waters in motion and stirring them. This is the type of action attributed to the separate intellects—that is, not motion itself, but the imparting of motion, for they are not corporeal beings.

This interpretation is supported by the words of our Sages in Bereishit Rabbah (and likewise in Talmud Bavli Chagigah 15a), where Shimon ben Zoma expounded: “It does not say ‘blowing,’ but rather ‘hovering’—like a bird that flutters its wings, touching and yet not touching.” As will be explained further.

The conclusion that emerges from all this is that, if we interpret “the spirit of God” as referring to the separate intellects, then the word merachefet indicates the awakening and the imparting of motion that it produces in the waters—which are here a metaphor for that which is acted upon.

Explanation of the word mayim (“water”)

The term mayim should be understood as being used both in a general sense and in a more specific one, under the broader designation of “earth.” For in the account of Creation, the word “water” is mentioned at times with reference to every kind of luminous substance—whether the higher ones, such as the celestial bodies, as in the verse “the water that was above the firmament”4 (Genesis 1:7), as will be explained in the section on the second day; or whether the lower luminous waters. Concerning the upper waters, the Psalmist likewise says: “and the water that is above the heavens”5 (Psalms 148:4).

In the words of our Sages as well, these are called the “upper waters.” For, due to the limitation of our understanding in grasping the nature of the celestial bodies, Scripture designates them by the names of physical substances familiar to us.

And just as it refers to the separate intellects by the terms “fire” and “spirit,” as I have already mentioned, so too it designates those exalted bodies by the name mayim (“waters”). This may be for several reasons: either because, in the order of existence, they stand below the separate intellects, just as water stands below air; or because they are set in motion by the separate intellects, just as water is moved by the surrounding air; or again, because of their luminous and refined nature, resembling water in relation to the earth.

And I would suggest that the upper bodies were called mayim (“waters”) on account of the word shamayim (“heavens”), with the letter shin—though it is a root letter in shamayim—having been omitted, just as in the verse “I will leave you over for good”6 (Jeremiah 15:11), whose root is she’er, yet the aleph falls away. Thus, mayim would be like shamayim, and the Torah concealed the shin in the name mayim in order to conceal the true nature of those upper waters7.

Nor should it seem surprising that Scripture calls “waters” that which is not elemental water8. For we find that the term mayim is applied to other things that are not literally water, as in: “From the waters of Judah they came forth” (Isaiah 48:1); “then the wicked waters would have passed over our soul” (Psalms 124:5); “drink water from your own cistern” (Proverbs 5:15); “Ho, everyone who thirsts, come to the waters” (Isaiah 55:1). And our Sages said: “There is no water but Torah.”

Since, according to the testimony of these verses and others, the term mayim can denote anything great and powerful in a general sense, what would prevent it from being used, from this perspective, for those noble and essential bodies?

(Parashat Bereshit — Genesis 1:1, The Twofold Nature of Ruach: Wind and Intellect in the Commentary of Don Isaac Abarbanel)

Next section →

Read more

Previous section → The True Meaning of Ruach

Thus, according to this usage, ruach refers to a subtle, moving substance generated from the refinement of material elements. The moving wind and the vital spirit are therefore identical in meaning with respect to this usage, and should not be counted as two separate meanings. For both are of one nature in all respects, although there are many differences between them depending on the materials from which they are generated, to the extent that there is even a “spirit” called the psychic faculty, which the other kinds of spirit do not share. Nevertheless, these are not two distinct meanings, since they all belong to the same category.

Accordingly, these two meanings listed by the author of the Guide have been added improperly.

Moreover, you will see that he has omitted other meanings of ruach that ought to have been included. The grammarians have already mentioned that ruach can denote speech, as in: “my breath is strange to my wife” (Job 19:15), and: “with the breath of his lips he shall slay the wicked.” They have also noted that ruach can refer to anger, as in: “he who rules his spirit is better than one who captures a city” (Proverbs 16:32), “do not hasten in your spirit to be angry” (Ecclesiastes 7:9), and: “He has given rest to My spirit in the north country.”

These usages were not mentioned by the author of the Guide.

If it be said that he intended to include only those meanings relevant to his purpose, as he states at the beginning of his work, then we may ask: why did he not include the usage of ruach to denote the motion imparted by a separate intellect to a sphere, or more generally the separate intelligences themselves, as in: “wherever the spirit would go, they went” (Ezekiel 1:12)? And why did he not mention that ruach is also used for the angel that speaks through the prophets, as in: “the spirit of the Lord spoke through me” (II Samuel 23:2)?

These meanings are in fact necessary for him according to his own treatment of the Chariot1 and of prophecy.

Do not suppose that these are included under what he called the “intellectual influx”2 that comes upon the prophets. For the separate intellect that acts and moves is not the same as the influx that reaches the prophet; and the agent is not identical with the action, nor is the source identical with what proceeds from it.

Why then did he omit these meanings, which are so essential to his own system?

For all these reasons, it appears to me more correct to say that the term ruach has only two principal usages.

The first is a physical and perceptible one, existing outside the soul, such as the winds that blow, which are subtle bodies generated from vapors and exhalations. For this reason, upper chambers built for the summer are called meruvachot, since the wind can enter them from all sides. To this category also belongs the vital spirit.

Because the vital spirit becomes inflamed in anger, anger itself is called ruach by analogy with its bearer. Similarly, speech is called ruach, since it proceeds through the breath. For this same reason, smell is called re’ach, because it consists of a subtle vapor rising from an object and reaching the sense.

Likewise, expressions such as relief and deliverance (revachah) derive from this notion. Some, such as Radak, have thought that this is a different meaning, but this is not so. When a person is in distress and agitation, he cannot properly draw in the cool air outside to soothe and temper the heat of his heart. But when he is at rest and at ease, he can take in the cool air as he wishes. Thus it is said that “he has relief” (ravach lo), which also derives from ruach, the physical and perceptible wind existing outside the soul.

This is the first category of the term, namely ruach as something perceptible.

The second category is intellectual: that is, ruach is used for immaterial realities—whether for the separate intellect that bestows influence, or for the human intellect that receives it, or for the influx itself that passes from the agent to the recipient in prophecy. Each of these is called a “spiritual ruach,” as is clear from the verses. Thus, “the spirit of the Lord spoke through me” refers to the intellect that bestows; “when the spirit rested upon them” refers to the influx itself; and “the spirit shall return to God who gave it” refers to the intellect that receives that influx3.

From this you may understand that ruach does not mean “will” or “intention,” as the author of the Guide and other grammarians have claimed. Rather, it refers to a person’s thought and understanding. Thus: “a fool lets out all his spirit” means that his entire inner world is expressed in his thoughts and opinions. Likewise: “He has given rest to My spirit in the north country” refers to the determination of My wisdom and the conclusion of My judgment4.

And so in all similar cases.

(Parashat Bereshit — Genesis 1:1, The Twofold Nature of Ruach: Wind and Intellect in the Commentary of Don Isaac Abarbanel)

Next section →

Read more

Previous section → The Fourfold Meaning of Panim

Explanation of the word ruach (“spirit” / “wind”)

With regard to the term ruach (Genesis 1:2), the author of the Guide also expounded at length on its various meanings in Part I, chapter 40, where he enumerated six distinct usages.

First, he states that it is used to denote the element of air, as in: “and the spirit of God hovered” (Genesis 1:2).
Second, it refers to a moving wind, as in: “and the east wind carried the locusts” (Exodus 10:13–14).
Third, it denotes the vital spirit, as in: “a wind that passes and does not return” (Psalms 78:39).
Fourth, it refers to the human soul that remains after death, as in: “and the spirit shall return to God who gave it” (Ecclesiastes 12:7).
Fifth, it denotes the divine influx that comes upon the prophets, as in: “and the spirit rested upon them” (Numbers 11:25).
And sixth, it signifies will or intention, as in: “a fool vents all his spirit,” and: “who has measured the spirit of the Lord?” (Isaiah 40:13).

Such is, in general, his view and his classification of the term.

However, after asking forgiveness and permission—as a student speaking before his master—it seems to me that he has here transgressed the principle of “you shall not add to it nor diminish from it.”1 For he has included meanings that are not supported by the true sense of the verses, while omitting others that are indeed valid.

To explain: the first meaning he assigns to ruach, namely that it refers to the element of air, is neither correct nor sound. For the simple element of air is nowhere in Scripture called ruach, as I have already explained above.

Moreover, the sages of the nations2 have taught that the Torah does not speak about the natural world in terms that would depend on debated or uncertain theories. Thus, it does not explicitly mention the simple element of fire, since many of the ancients considered it merely a part of air. Likewise, the Torah does not mention the simple element of air at all. Even when speaking of birds in flight, it says “upon the face of the firmament of the heavens,” (Genesis 1:20) and not “in the air,” because air is not perceptible, and many of the ancients held that it did not exist but was mere emptiness. The divine Torah did not come to decide such philosophical disputes.

If, therefore, Scripture nowhere explicitly mentions the simple element of air, how can we interpret “and the spirit of God hovered” as referring to air?

Furthermore, according to his own view, the “waters” mentioned in that verse include both the upper and the lower waters, since the firmament had not yet been made to separate between them. As he himself explains in Part II, chapter 30, the waters in this verse are not the same as those later gathered into the seas, but include the upper waters as well.

If we were to interpret ruach Elohim as air, it would follow that the element of air was positioned above the celestial bodies—which he calls “waters”—and this is false.

All this demonstrates that the first meaning he assigned to ruach has no foundation.

You will also notice an unnecessary multiplication in his classification when he distinguishes between the “moving wind” and the “vital spirit,” for in terms of their shared meaning they are essentially one. The moving wind is nothing other than a subtle body in motion, generated from vapors arising from other material substances. For this reason, the north wind differs from the south wind, due to the differing or opposing materials and regions from which they originate. Hence the directions of the world are themselves called “winds,” as it is said: “I have scattered you to the four winds of heaven” (Zechariah 2:10), because winds come from them.

The same is true of the vital spirit: it too is a subtle, moving body generated from the refinement of moist substances according to the place in which it arises. That which is generated in the heart is called the vital spirit; that which is generated in the liver is called the natural spirit; and that which is generated in the brain is called the psychic spirit.

According to the view of the physicians, this is how it is understood; or, according to the opinion of the chief of the philosophers3, it is all generated in the heart and then extends to the other organs.

(Parashat Bereshit — Genesis 1:2, The True Meaning of Ruach in the Commentary of Don Isaac Abarbanel)

Next section →

Read more

Previous section → Darkness as Privation: Rethinking Choshekh and Panim

Thus, in its primary usage, the term panim refers to the human face. Now, careful observation of language reveals that the human face is associated with four distinct aspects.

First, the face is the place of the senses, and through it a person directs his attention and perceives what he observes.

Second, the face is the part of a person that is seen first, for when one encounters another, one looks first at his face before examining the rest of his body.

Third, the face is the most distinguished part of the person, since it contains the senses, which are the starting point of all perception.

Fourth, the face is the most revealed part of the body, for all other limbs can be concealed by clothing, whereas the face must necessarily be revealed when a person speaks or interacts with others, since it is through it that he is recognized and known.

Based on these four aspects, language extended the term panim by analogy. Thus, in accordance with the first extension, the word is used to denote direction or inclination toward something, or attention given to it, as in: “he turned to other gods,” “whose heart turns this day,” and similarly “toward morning” and “toward evening,” when the morning inclines toward light and the evening toward darkness.

From this same idea comes its use in reference to divine providence: “May the Lord lift up His face toward you,” “Turn toward me and be gracious to me,” “From before You my judgment shall go forth,” and “other gods before Me.”1

“Turn toward me and be gracious to me”; “From before You my judgment shall go forth”; “other gods before Me”; “he is fleeing from before the Lord”; “the face of the Lord is against them”—all these expressions denote providence or attentive regard. Likewise, when applied to a human being in the sense of attending to his affairs, as in: “I have cleared out the house,” and “prepare the way of the Lord,”2 all these are expressions of attention or directed concern, which is designated by the term panim, since a person directs his face and attention toward what he wishes to consider.

According to the second extension, the term panim is used to denote priority or precedence, just as the face is foremost in the body. Thus: “of old You laid the foundations of the earth”; “for the day of the Lord has come”—that is, prior to it. Likewise: “because the Lord descended upon it in fire,”3 meaning: on account of what had occurred previously, namely that the Lord had descended upon it in fire.

According to the third extension, the term panim is used to designate the most distinguished or noble part, just as the face is the most distinguished of a person’s limbs. In this sense it is said: “the inner house and its inner chambers,” “the king’s daughter is all glorious within.” In my view, this is also the meaning of “the Temple before the Lord,” “you cannot see My face,” and “My face shall not be seen.”4

We need not say, as the author of the Kuzari did, that the term panim is a designation of the Divine Name itself. He was led to this by the verse “My face shall not be seen,” but this is not correct. For the Divine Name is not applied metaphorically to anything else. Rather, “My face shall not be seen” should be understood according to this third extension: it refers to the most exalted aspects of the Divine, which a human being cannot apprehend—whether this be the Divine essence, as held by the author of the Guide, or His essential attributes, as held by Rabbi Chasdai.

According to the fourth extension, the term panim denotes the most exposed or visible part of a thing. Thus: “upon the face of the earth,” “upon the face of the firmament of the heavens,” “toward the face of the menorah,” “before the sun his name shall endure”—that is, before what is openly visible of the sun. Similarly: “they are crushed before the worms,” which refers to the visible constellation (‘Ash, as in ‘Oseh ‘Ash, Kesil ve-Kimah)5.

From this same usage it is said in the Scroll: “it was written on the front and on the back,” and “it is better to sit on the corner of a roof,”6 for the “face” of the scroll or of the roof refers to its exposed surface.

In this sense also Scripture says: “upon the face of the deep,” “upon the face of the waters,” meaning the most visible and upper surface of them.

This, then, is the true meaning of the term panim, in its primary sense and in its extended usages.

(Parashat Bereshit — Genesis 1:2, The Fourfold Meaning of Panim in the Commentary of Don Isaac Abarbanel)

Next section →

Read more

Previous section → Three Principles of Creation Against the Philosophers

Explanation of the word choshekh (darkness)

Concerning choshekh, I have already presented to you the opinion of the author of the Guide and that of Ramban as well, namely that the “darkness” mentioned in this verse refers to the element of fire and to what proceeds from it according to their respective explanations.

Ralbag, however, wrote that Scripture here calls “darkness” the element of earth, since it is in itself extremely dark and more deprived of light than the other elements, which are all transparent, unlike the earth. Moreover, the earth is also the body that has received less form than all other sublunary bodies1.

But this view is not correct. For even if the earth is not a transparent body, it should not for that reason be called “darkness.” Furthermore, the verse states: “and darkness was upon the face of the deep,” and it is known that the earth is not described as being upon the face of the deep, which refers to the waters. On the contrary, the waters are upon the earth and cover it.

The scholar was compelled by this difficulty and explained that “upon the face of the deep” means “near the deep,” that is, near the lower surface of the element of water, as in the expression “and upon him the tribe of Manasseh,”2 meaning “next to him.” But this is not correct. Although the word “upon” (al) can sometimes be used in the sense of “near,” the expression “upon the face of” (al penei) is never used in that way. Moreover, the “face of the deep” refers to its upper surface, facing the concavity of the sphere, not to the lower part adjacent to the earth.

Others have explained this “darkness” as a thick mass of moist vapors in the air adjacent to the deep, that is, to the depths of the waters. They added that the word choshekh in Hebrew can have two meanings: either a positive state (a kind of thick substance) or a privative one (the absence of light), and that here it refers to the former – like the expression “a palpable darkness” (וימש חשך), meaning a dense atmosphere – whereas the darkness mentioned on the fourth day is privative.

But this interpretation is also without substance. For the air, in all its parts, is transparent, and it would not be appropriate to call it “darkness,” even if it were thickened by vapors. Moreover, according to this view, the phrase “and darkness was upon the face of the deep” would be redundant, since it would convey the same idea as “and the spirit of God hovered over the face of the waters,” both referring to the lower region of the air adjacent to the waters and the earth. Why then would Scripture state two clauses about the same thing, when one would suffice?

Therefore, I say that all these explanations are themselves darkness and not light.

For in truth, the term choshekh is properly and essentially used only to denote the absence or privation of light, regardless of whether this privation is caused by vapors or by something else. The word always signifies lack and obstruction, as in: “He did not withhold (lo chasakh) anything from me”; “they did not withhold (lo chashkhu) their saliva”; “which I withheld (chasakhti) in the time of trouble”; “also from presumptuous sins withhold (chasokh) Your servant”; “cry aloud, do not withhold (al tachsokh)”3; and similar expressions – all of which denote withholding or absence. Likewise, the darkness of Egypt was simply the absence of light from Egypt.

At the end of this section, in Eleh Pekudei, I will mention another opinion on this matter.

Explanation of the word panim (“face”)

The author of the Guide discussed at length the various meanings of the word panim in Part I, chapter 37. However, his explanations did not seem convincing to me, since I did not find sufficient support for them in the proofs he brings. We may therefore explain the multiplicity of meanings of this term in another way.

The primary meaning of panim, as the author of the Guide himself noted, refers to the human face, as in: “Why has your face fallen?” (Genesis 4:6), and “faces of indignation.” From this root also come expressions such as “they turned toward me” and “Moses turned and went down,” for one who walks directs his face toward the path upon which he travels. Likewise: “it was set before him to eat,” “before all the people I will be honored,” “I will appease him with the gift that goes before me”—and similar expressions. In all these, the meaning is “before him” or “in front of him,” without referring literally to a face in its primary sense. For when a person is saddened or angered, his face changes; and when he fights an enemy, he directs his face toward him.

(Parashat Bereshit — Genesis 1:2, Darkness as Privation: Rethinking Choshekh and Panim in the Commentary of Don Isaac Abarbanel)

Next section →

Read more

Previous section → The Many Meanings of Mayim: Between Language and Creation

The first approach is that the bet of bereshit serves in the sense of “with.”1 Thus, the verse would mean: “the heavens and the earth, together with their beginning and their initial principle, were all created”—that is, brought into existence from absolute nothingness, as is indicated by the term bara (“created”), according to the first interpretation I have set forth. Elohim refers to the First Emanator, acting with absolute power.

The divine Torah found it necessary to establish this statement at its very beginning, because among those who denied the creation of the world, some rejected it entirely, claiming that the heavens and the earth are eternal, having no temporal beginning—this being the view of Aristotle and his followers. Others admitted that the heavens and the earth were brought into existence, but maintained that they were formed from pre-existing matter—this being the opinion of Plato and the earlier thinkers.

In order to refute both of these false positions, the Torah testifies: “In the beginning, God created…”—that is, together with their beginning and their very principle, which is their matter, God created both the higher and the lower realms, without there being any pre-existent reality whatsoever apart from Him. This is the first interpretation.

The second approach is that the divine Torah establishes in this verse three fundamental principles that overturn and destroy three erroneous doctrines held by the philosophers.

The first is their claim that time cannot have a beginning. For they argued that every “now” that might be designated as the beginning of future time is necessarily also the end of past time, and therefore it is impossible for there to be a “now” that is truly the beginning of time without also being the end of what preceded it2.

But the Torah testifies that this is not so. Rather, there was indeed a “now” that constituted an absolute beginning of time, without being the end of any prior time. It is that “now” in which time itself began to exist, and in which the Blessed One created the heavens and the earth. Concerning this it is said: “In the beginning, God created…”—for reshit (beginning) refers to that first “now,” which is called a beginning because it alone is the beginning of future time, without being the end of any past time. This is not the case with all other moments, each of which is both a beginning and an end from different perspectives. It is as if the verse said: “At that moment which was a beginning and not an end, God created the heavens…” This is the first principle3.

The second principle concerns the nature and reality of creation itself. The philosophers were unable to conceive that something could come into being except from something else; in their view, the coming-into-being of something from nothing was false. But the divine Torah bears witness to the existence of such a reality in stating: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth”—that is, although within the course of natural generation nothing comes into being except from something else, at the beginning of time and its origin, the Holy One, blessed be He, brought into existence not from anything, but after absolute non-being. This is what is indicated by the term bara, according to the interpretation I have given: that the higher and lower realms were all brought into existence by His absolute power, after complete non-existence4.

I have already explained in my work Mif‘alot Elohim5 that the coming-into-being of something from nothing, when considered philosophically, is not in itself impossible with respect to the divine Agent, blessed be He; and likewise, that it is not impossible for there to exist a first “now” that is the beginning of time without being its end. There, I have responded, on philosophical grounds, to the arguments advanced by the philosophers against these principles. This is the second principle.

The third principle is that the philosophers held that, since God is One, only one effect can proceed directly from Him. According to them, He produces only the first of the separate intellects, from which proceeds the second, then the sphere, and so on, such that beings multiply through a chain of emanation, as is reported in their name by Maimonides (Part II, chapter 2). Even according to the view found in Bereishit Rabbah, which distances itself somewhat from the strict path of emanation, there is no doubt that the Holy One, blessed be He, exercises providence and influence first in the world of the separate intellects, then secondarily—through them—in the celestial world, and thirdly—through all of these—in the lower world6.

(Parashat Bereshit — Genesis 1:2, Three Principles of Creation Against the Philosophers in the Commentary of Don Isaac Abarbanel)

Next section →

Read more

Previous section → Ruach as Intellect: The Power that Sets All Things in Motion

And I would suggest that the upper bodies were called mayim (“waters”) on account of the word shamayim (“heavens”), with the letter shin—though it is a root letter in shamayim—having been omitted, just as in the verse “I will leave you over for good”1 (Jeremiah 15:11), whose root is she’er, yet the aleph falls away. Thus, mayim would be like shamayim, and the Torah concealed the shin in the name mayim in order to conceal the true nature of those upper waters2.

Nor should it seem surprising that Scripture calls “waters” that which is not elemental water3. For we find that the term mayim is applied to other things that are not literally water, as in: “From the waters of Judah they came forth” (Isaiah 48:1); “then the wicked waters would have passed over our soul” (Psalms 124:5); “drink water from your own cistern” (Proverbs 5:15); “Ho, everyone who thirsts, come to the waters” (Isaiah 55:1). And our Sages said: “There is no water but Torah.”

Since, according to the testimony of these verses and others, the term mayim can denote anything great and powerful in a general sense, what would prevent it from being used, from this perspective, for those noble and essential bodies?

At times, however, the term mayim is used more specifically for the lower luminous substance, namely the element of water, as in: “Let the waters swarm” (Genesis 1:20), “and the waters prevailed” (Genesis 7:24), and similar expressions. These are called mayim in the plural—either because the term mayim, in its general usage, includes multiple distinct natures, namely the upper and lower waters; or because the upper waters themselves differ in their nature, referring to the spheres and the stars, and are therefore expressed in the plural.

As for the lower waters, they too are called mayim in the plural because of their divisions into parts, their droplets, and their movements as they flow and intermingle. Likewise, “He called the gathering of the waters seas” (Genesis 1:10) uses the plural, even though we also find “sea” in the singular—either because there are different seas that flow into one another, as explained by the Ephodi4, or because of the multiplicity of their parts and their constant motion.

And since, within the region of the air, rain is generated, the chief of the poets said: “He roofs His upper chambers with water” (Psalms 104:3). And because great dangers occur in seas and waters, Scripture borrows the term mayim to signify distress: “We went through fire and through water” (Psalms 66:12); “I have come into the deep water, and the current has swept me away.” (Psalms 69:3).

From this, the term mayim is also metaphorically applied to sound counsel by which one may be saved from distress, as it is said: “Counsel in man’s heart is like deep water, but a man of understanding will draw it out” (Proverbs 20:5).

From all this, it becomes clear what is indicated by the term mayim: at times it is used in a general sense for all bodies, both upper and lower together; at times for the celestial bodies alone; at times for the four elements; and at times for elemental water alone. Thus it is said: “And God made the expanse and it separated between the water that was below the expanse and the water that was above the expanse, and it was so.” (Genesis 1:7).

And after clarifying these shared usages and meanings of the term, I shall proceed—with the help of the Lord God—to explain the verses of this section according to the different approaches, and to resolve the questions I have raised.

And now he comes to explain the passage:

“In the beginning, God created…” (Genesis 1:1).

According to what I have explained regarding the equivocal use of the word bereshit (“in the beginning”), which may refer either to a principle or foundation—being a part of the thing itself, as explained by Maimonides—or to the “now,” which is the beginning of time, even though it is not itself time, this verse may be explained in one of two ways.

(Parashat Bereshit — Genesis 1:1, The Many Meanings of Mayim: Between Language and Creation in the Commentary of Don Isaac Abarbanel)

Next section →

Read more

Previous section → The Twofold Nature of Ruach

The second category is intellectual: that is, ruach is used for immaterial realities—whether for the separate intellect that bestows influence, or for the human intellect that receives it, or for the influx itself that passes from the agent to the recipient in prophecy. Each of these is called a “spiritual ruach,” as is clear from the verses. Thus, “the spirit of the Lord spoke through me” refers to the intellect that bestows; “when the spirit rested upon them” refers to the influx itself; and “the spirit shall return to God who gave it” refers to the intellect that receives that influx1.

From this you may understand that ruach does not mean “will” or “intention,” as the author of the Guide and other grammarians have claimed. Rather, it refers to a person’s thought and understanding. Thus: “a fool lets out all his spirit” means that his entire inner world is expressed in his thoughts and opinions. Likewise: “He has given rest to My spirit in the north country” refers to the determination of My wisdom and the conclusion of My judgment2.

And so in all similar cases.

Explanation of the word merachefet (“hovering”)

This word merachefet3 was explained by Levi ben Gershon4 as deriving from the idea of rest. He was led to this interpretation because he understood “the spirit of God” as referring to the element of air, following the approach of Maimonides. And since the air, in his view, was resting upon the surface of the waters without moving in its natural place, he was compelled to interpret merachefet as an expression of stillness5.

But this is not correct.

Rather, the word is derived from the expression “ my bones shake”6 (Jeremiah 23:9), where it denotes agitation and irregular motion. Likewise, “hovering over its fledglings”(Deuteronomy 32:11) conveys movement and trembling, as explained by the grammarians. The context of the verse itself confirms this, for it states: “As an eagle awakens its nest, hovering over its fledglings, it spreads its wings, taking them and carrying them on its pinions” (Deuteronomy 32:11). All of these are actions of motion, not of rest.

The general meaning, therefore, is that merachefet signifies movement—or more precisely, the causing of movement, an awakening into motion. This is the sense of “As an eagle awakens its nest, hovering over its fledglings”: when the eagle comes upon them, it beats its wings in such a way that it rouses and awakens them from their sleep, so that it may take them and carry them upon its wings.

So too, when it is said that “the spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the water” (Genesis 1:2), the meaning is that it was setting the waters in motion and stirring them. This is the type of action attributed to the separate intellects—that is, not motion itself, but the imparting of motion, for they are not corporeal beings.

This interpretation is supported by the words of our Sages in Bereishit Rabbah (and likewise in Talmud Bavli Chagigah 15a), where Shimon ben Zoma expounded: “It does not say ‘blowing,’ but rather ‘hovering’—like a bird that flutters its wings, touching and yet not touching.” As will be explained further.

The conclusion that emerges from all this is that, if we interpret “the spirit of God” as referring to the separate intellects, then the word merachefet indicates the awakening and the imparting of motion that it produces in the waters—which are here a metaphor for that which is acted upon.

Explanation of the word mayim (“water”)

The term mayim should be understood as being used both in a general sense and in a more specific one, under the broader designation of “earth.” For in the account of Creation, the word “water” is mentioned at times with reference to every kind of luminous substance—whether the higher ones, such as the celestial bodies, as in the verse “the water that was above the firmament”7 (Genesis 1:7), as will be explained in the section on the second day; or whether the lower luminous waters. Concerning the upper waters, the Psalmist likewise says: “and the water that is above the heavens”8 (Psalms 148:4).

In the words of our Sages as well, these are called the “upper waters.” For, due to the limitation of our understanding in grasping the nature of the celestial bodies, Scripture designates them by the names of physical substances familiar to us.

And just as it refers to the separate intellects by the terms “fire” and “spirit,” as I have already mentioned, so too it designates those exalted bodies by the name mayim (“waters”). This may be for several reasons: either because, in the order of existence, they stand below the separate intellects, just as water stands below air; or because they are set in motion by the separate intellects, just as water is moved by the surrounding air; or again, because of their luminous and refined nature, resembling water in relation to the earth.

(Parashat Bereshit — Genesis 1:1, Ruach as Intellect: The Power that Sets All Things in Motion in the Commentary of Don Isaac Abarbanel)

Next section →

Previous section → On Direction, Presence, and the Meaning of Ruach

You will also notice an unnecessary multiplication in his classification when he distinguishes between the “moving wind” and the “vital spirit,” for in terms of their shared meaning they are essentially one. The moving wind is nothing other than a subtle body in motion, generated from vapors arising from other material substances. For this reason, the north wind differs from the south wind, due to the differing or opposing materials and regions from which they originate. Hence the directions of the world are themselves called “winds,” as it is said: “I have scattered you to the four winds of heaven” (Zechariah 2:10), because winds come from them.

The same is true of the vital spirit: it too is a subtle, moving body generated from the refinement of moist substances according to the place in which it arises. That which is generated in the heart is called the vital spirit; that which is generated in the liver is called the natural spirit; and that which is generated in the brain is called the psychic spirit.

According to the view of the physicians, this is how it is understood; or, according to the opinion of the chief of the philosophers1, it is all generated in the heart and then extends to the other organs.

Thus, according to this usage, ruach refers to a subtle, moving substance generated from the refinement of material elements. The moving wind and the vital spirit are therefore identical in meaning with respect to this usage, and should not be counted as two separate meanings. For both are of one nature in all respects, although there are many differences between them depending on the materials from which they are generated, to the extent that there is even a “spirit” called the psychic faculty, which the other kinds of spirit do not share. Nevertheless, these are not two distinct meanings, since they all belong to the same category.

Accordingly, these two meanings listed by the author of the Guide have been added improperly.

Moreover, you will see that he has omitted other meanings of ruach that ought to have been included. The grammarians have already mentioned that ruach can denote speech, as in: “my breath is strange to my wife” (Job 19:15), and: “with the breath of his lips he shall slay the wicked.” They have also noted that ruach can refer to anger, as in: “he who rules his spirit is better than one who captures a city” (Proverbs 16:32), “do not hasten in your spirit to be angry” (Ecclesiastes 7:9), and: “He has given rest to My spirit in the north country.”

These usages were not mentioned by the author of the Guide.

If it be said that he intended to include only those meanings relevant to his purpose, as he states at the beginning of his work, then we may ask: why did he not include the usage of ruach to denote the motion imparted by a separate intellect to a sphere, or more generally the separate intelligences themselves, as in: “wherever the spirit would go, they went” (Ezekiel 1:12)? And why did he not mention that ruach is also used for the angel that speaks through the prophets, as in: “the spirit of the Lord spoke through me” (II Samuel 23:2)?

These meanings are in fact necessary for him according to his own treatment of the Chariot2 and of prophecy.

Do not suppose that these are included under what he called the “intellectual influx”3 that comes upon the prophets. For the separate intellect that acts and moves is not the same as the influx that reaches the prophet; and the agent is not identical with the action, nor is the source identical with what proceeds from it.

Why then did he omit these meanings, which are so essential to his own system?

For all these reasons, it appears to me more correct to say that the term ruach has only two principal usages.

The first is a physical and perceptible one, existing outside the soul, such as the winds that blow, which are subtle bodies generated from vapors and exhalations. For this reason, upper chambers built for the summer are called meruvachot, since the wind can enter them from all sides. To this category also belongs the vital spirit.

Because the vital spirit becomes inflamed in anger, anger itself is called ruach by analogy with its bearer. Similarly, speech is called ruach, since it proceeds through the breath. For this same reason, smell is called re’ach, because it consists of a subtle vapor rising from an object and reaching the sense.

Likewise, expressions such as relief and deliverance (revachah) derive from this notion. Some, such as Radak, have thought that this is a different meaning, but this is not so. When a person is in distress and agitation, he cannot properly draw in the cool air outside to soothe and temper the heat of his heart. But when he is at rest and at ease, he can take in the cool air as he wishes. Thus it is said that “he has relief” (ravach lo), which also derives from ruach, the physical and perceptible wind existing outside the soul.

This is the first category of the term, namely ruach as something perceptible.

(Parashat Bereshit — Genesis 1:1, The Twofold Nature of Ruach in the Commentary of Don Isaac Abarbanel)

Next section →

Read more

Previous section → Darkness as Privation, Not Substance

“Turn toward me and be gracious to me”; “From before You my judgment shall go forth”; “other gods before Me”; “he is fleeing from before the Lord”; “the face of the Lord is against them”—all these expressions denote providence or attentive regard. Likewise, when applied to a human being in the sense of attending to his affairs, as in: “I have cleared out the house,” and “prepare the way of the Lord,”1 all these are expressions of attention or directed concern, which is designated by the term panim, since a person directs his face and attention toward what he wishes to consider.

According to the second extension, the term panim is used to denote priority or precedence, just as the face is foremost in the body. Thus: “of old You laid the foundations of the earth”; “for the day of the Lord has come”—that is, prior to it. Likewise: “because the Lord descended upon it in fire,”2 meaning: on account of what had occurred previously, namely that the Lord had descended upon it in fire.

According to the third extension, the term panim is used to designate the most distinguished or noble part, just as the face is the most distinguished of a person’s limbs. In this sense it is said: “the inner house and its inner chambers,” “the king’s daughter is all glorious within.” In my view, this is also the meaning of “the Temple before the Lord,” “you cannot see My face,” and “My face shall not be seen.”3

We need not say, as the author of the Kuzari did, that the term panim is a designation of the Divine Name itself. He was led to this by the verse “My face shall not be seen,” but this is not correct. For the Divine Name is not applied metaphorically to anything else. Rather, “My face shall not be seen” should be understood according to this third extension: it refers to the most exalted aspects of the Divine, which a human being cannot apprehend—whether this be the Divine essence, as held by the author of the Guide, or His essential attributes, as held by Rabbi Chasdai.

According to the fourth extension, the term panim denotes the most exposed or visible part of a thing. Thus: “upon the face of the earth,” “upon the face of the firmament of the heavens,” “toward the face of the menorah,” “before the sun his name shall endure”—that is, before what is openly visible of the sun. Similarly: “they are crushed before the worms,” which refers to the visible constellation (‘Ash, as in ‘Oseh ‘Ash, Kesil ve-Kimah)4.

From this same usage it is said in the Scroll: “it was written on the front and on the back,” and “it is better to sit on the corner of a roof,”5 for the “face” of the scroll or of the roof refers to its exposed surface.

In this sense also Scripture says: “upon the face of the deep,” “upon the face of the waters,” meaning the most visible and upper surface of them.

This, then, is the true meaning of the term panim, in its primary sense and in its extended usages.

Explanation of the word ruach (“spirit” / “wind”)

With regard to the term ruach (Genesis 1:2), the author of the Guide also expounded at length on its various meanings in Part I, chapter 40, where he enumerated six distinct usages.

First, he states that it is used to denote the element of air, as in: “and the spirit of God hovered” (Genesis 1:2).
Second, it refers to a moving wind, as in: “and the east wind carried the locusts” (Exodus 10:13–14).
Third, it denotes the vital spirit, as in: “a wind that passes and does not return” (Psalms 78:39).
Fourth, it refers to the human soul that remains after death, as in: “and the spirit shall return to God who gave it” (Ecclesiastes 12:7).
Fifth, it denotes the divine influx that comes upon the prophets, as in: “and the spirit rested upon them” (Numbers 11:25).
And sixth, it signifies will or intention, as in: “a fool vents all his spirit,” and: “who has measured the spirit of the Lord?” (Isaiah 40:13).

Such is, in general, his view and his classification of the term.

However, after asking forgiveness and permission—as a student speaking before his master—it seems to me that he has here transgressed the principle of “you shall not add to it nor diminish from it.”6 For he has included meanings that are not supported by the true sense of the verses, while omitting others that are indeed valid.

To explain: the first meaning he assigns to ruach, namely that it refers to the element of air, is neither correct nor sound. For the simple element of air is nowhere in Scripture called ruach, as I have already explained above.

Moreover, the sages of the nations7 have taught that the Torah does not speak about the natural world in terms that would depend on debated or uncertain theories. Thus, it does not explicitly mention the simple element of fire, since many of the ancients considered it merely a part of air. Likewise, the Torah does not mention the simple element of air at all. Even when speaking of birds in flight, it says “upon the face of the firmament of the heavens,” (Genesis 1:20) and not “in the air,” because air is not perceptible, and many of the ancients held that it did not exist but was mere emptiness. The divine Torah did not come to decide such philosophical disputes.

If, therefore, Scripture nowhere explicitly mentions the simple element of air, how can we interpret “and the spirit of God hovered” as referring to air?

Furthermore, according to his own view, the “waters” mentioned in that verse include both the upper and the lower waters, since the firmament had not yet been made to separate between them. As he himself explains in Part II, chapter 30, the waters in this verse are not the same as those later gathered into the seas, but include the upper waters as well.

If we were to interpret ruach Elohim as air, it would follow that the element of air was positioned above the celestial bodies—which he calls “waters”—and this is false.

All this demonstrates that the first meaning he assigned to ruach has no foundation.

(Parashat Bereshit — Genesis 1:1, On Direction, Presence, and the Meaning of Ruach in the Commentary of Don Isaac Abarbanel)

Next section →

Read more

Previous section → Between Absence and Form

Explanation of the word choshekh (darkness)

Concerning choshekh, I have already presented to you the opinion of the author of the Guide and that of Ramban as well, namely that the “darkness” mentioned in this verse refers to the element of fire and to what proceeds from it according to their respective explanations.

Ralbag, however, wrote that Scripture here calls “darkness” the element of earth, since it is in itself extremely dark and more deprived of light than the other elements, which are all transparent, unlike the earth. Moreover, the earth is also the body that has received less form than all other sublunary bodies1.

But this view is not correct. For even if the earth is not a transparent body, it should not for that reason be called “darkness.” Furthermore, the verse states: “and darkness was upon the face of the deep,” and it is known that the earth is not described as being upon the face of the deep, which refers to the waters. On the contrary, the waters are upon the earth and cover it.

The scholar was compelled by this difficulty and explained that “upon the face of the deep” means “near the deep,” that is, near the lower surface of the element of water, as in the expression “and upon him the tribe of Manasseh,”2 meaning “next to him.” But this is not correct. Although the word “upon” (al) can sometimes be used in the sense of “near,” the expression “upon the face of” (al penei) is never used in that way. Moreover, the “face of the deep” refers to its upper surface, facing the concavity of the sphere, not to the lower part adjacent to the earth.

Others have explained this “darkness” as a thick mass of moist vapors in the air adjacent to the deep, that is, to the depths of the waters. They added that the word choshekh in Hebrew can have two meanings: either a positive state (a kind of thick substance) or a privative one (the absence of light), and that here it refers to the former – like the expression “a palpable darkness” (וימש חשך), meaning a dense atmosphere – whereas the darkness mentioned on the fourth day is privative.

But this interpretation is also without substance. For the air, in all its parts, is transparent, and it would not be appropriate to call it “darkness,” even if it were thickened by vapors. Moreover, according to this view, the phrase “and darkness was upon the face of the deep” would be redundant, since it would convey the same idea as “and the spirit of God hovered over the face of the waters,” both referring to the lower region of the air adjacent to the waters and the earth. Why then would Scripture state two clauses about the same thing, when one would suffice?

Therefore, I say that all these explanations are themselves darkness and not light.

For in truth, the term choshekh is properly and essentially used only to denote the absence or privation of light, regardless of whether this privation is caused by vapors or by something else. The word always signifies lack and obstruction, as in: “He did not withhold (lo chasakh) anything from me”; “they did not withhold (lo chashkhu) their saliva”; “which I withheld (chasakhti) in the time of trouble”; “also from presumptuous sins withhold (chasokh) Your servant”; “cry aloud, do not withhold (al tachsokh)”3; and similar expressions – all of which denote withholding or absence. Likewise, the darkness of Egypt was simply the absence of light from Egypt.

At the end of this section, in Eleh Pekudei, I will mention another opinion on this matter.

Explanation of the word panim (“face”)

The author of the Guide discussed at length the various meanings of the word panim in Part I, chapter 37. However, his explanations did not seem convincing to me, since I did not find sufficient support for them in the proofs he brings. We may therefore explain the multiplicity of meanings of this term in another way.

The primary meaning of panim, as the author of the Guide himself noted, refers to the human face, as in: “Why has your face fallen?” (Genesis 4:6), and “faces of indignation.” From this root also come expressions such as “they turned toward me” and “Moses turned and went down,” for one who walks directs his face toward the path upon which he travels. Likewise: “it was set before him to eat,” “before all the people I will be honored,” “I will appease him with the gift that goes before me”—and similar expressions. In all these, the meaning is “before him” or “in front of him,” without referring literally to a face in its primary sense. For when a person is saddened or angered, his face changes; and when he fights an enemy, he directs his face toward him.

Thus, in its primary usage, the term panim refers to the human face. Now, careful observation of language reveals that the human face is associated with four distinct aspects.

First, the face is the place of the senses, and through it a person directs his attention and perceives what he observes.

Second, the face is the part of a person that is seen first, for when one encounters another, one looks first at his face before examining the rest of his body.

Third, the face is the most distinguished part of the person, since it contains the senses, which are the starting point of all perception.

Fourth, the face is the most revealed part of the body, for all other limbs can be concealed by clothing, whereas the face must necessarily be revealed when a person speaks or interacts with others, since it is through it that he is recognized and known.

Based on these four aspects, language extended the term panim by analogy. Thus, in accordance with the first extension, the word is used to denote direction or inclination toward something, or attention given to it, as in: “he turned to other gods,” “whose heart turns this day,” and similarly “toward morning” and “toward evening,” when the morning inclines toward light and the evening toward darkness.

From this same idea comes its use in reference to divine providence: “May the Lord lift up His face toward you,” “Turn toward me and be gracious to me,” “From before You my judgment shall go forth,” and “other gods before Me.”4

(Parashat Bereshit — Genesis 1:1, Darkness as Privation, Not Substance in the Commentary of Don Isaac Abarbanel)

Next section →

Read more

Previous section → The Unity of the Earth

Explanation of the words tohu and vohu1

The expressions tohu and vohu admit two principal interpretations. Both meanings find support and confirmation in the statements of our Sages2.

The first interpretation is that tohu and vohu are two synonymous terms that both indicate an incomplete mode of existence, belonging to the category of privation and absence. For this reason Ibn Ezra wrote that tohu is the same as vohu, meaning that both refer in the same way to desolation. In this direction also leans Onkelos, who translated the words as “desolate and empty,” and many commentators likewise explain them in this sense.

According to this view, some explained tohu as deriving from the expression tehom (“the deep”), with the final letter mem being an added element – as in the expression rokem chinnam3. The meaning of the verse would then be that at the beginning of creation the earth was entirely covered with water, which is called tehom.

In Bereshit Rabbah, Rabbi Yehudah bar Simon and Rabbi Abbahu also interpreted tohu va-vohu in this manner. They said that the earth was bewildered and astonished, saying: “The upper beings and the lower beings were created together. Yet the upper beings are sustained without effort, whereas the lower beings, if they do not toil, are not sustained. The upper beings live, while the lower beings die.”4 This is the first interpretation.

The second interpretation is that of Ramban, who distinguished between tohu and vohu. He explained that tohu refers to the primordial matter which the Greek philosophers called hyle. Because this matter is difficult for the mind to grasp, it was called tohu, from the language of bewilderment (toheh). He explained vohu as referring to form – that is, “within it (bo hu) is that by which a thing becomes what it is.”5

According to his interpretation, the verse means that after creation the earth was tohu – namely, matter lacking concrete form, which in his view was created first. Afterwards the Holy One, blessed be He, clothed it with form, and thus it became vohu.

In the statement of the author of Sefer Yetzirah6 it is said: “He made something from tohu, and from what is not He made what exists.” This interpretation is also supported by a passage in the Sefer HaBahir, where Rabbi Berachyah said: “And the earth was tohu va-vohu. What does ‘was’ imply? That it had already been. What is tohu? Something that causes human beings to wonder. And what is vohu? That it was tohu and returned to vohu – something that has substance, as it is written: ‘bo hu’ (‘within it is’).”7

Ramban himself cited this teaching in support of his interpretation.

Yet I am astonished that he did not also cite another passage found there, which explains the matter even more clearly. It states: “What is the meaning of the verse, ‘God made this corresponding to that’8? He made tohu, and its place is in evil; He made vohu, and its place is in peace, as it is written: ‘He makes peace and creates evil.’9 How so? Evil comes from tohu, and peace from vohu.”10

This passage clarifies that tohu refers to matter, from which all deficiency and evil derive, while vohu refers to form, from which peace and perfection proceed.

These are the two most sound interpretations of these expressions.

A third explanation – according to which tohu refers to form and vohu to matter, as interpreted by Gersonides (Ralbag) – is easily dismissed. For the meaning of the words themselves, as well as the statements in Sefer HaBahir, clearly support the interpretation of Ramban.

Ralbag attempted to support his view from the teaching of the Sages: “Tohu is a green line that surrounds the world, and vohu are polished stones.”11 He understood the encircling line as the form that defines and limits things, just as the outline of a structure constitutes its final form, while the stones represent matter.

He further explained that they are called “polished” (mefulamot) in the sense of “hidden” or “obscure,” like the expression “so-and-so,” because primordial matter is itself hidden and difficult to conceive12.

But in truth, this interpretation is itself merely a “line of tohu and stones of vohu.”13 The Sages did not refer to a “green line” except with respect to matter. They likened it to a line because it does not exist in actuality, yet the intellect judges that it must exist. The same is true of matter: it is prepared to receive forms, just as a builder stretches a line before construction to prepare the place for the stones.

They said it is “green” to indicate that it is neither white nor black but capable of receiving all colors. Just as green is not the final stage of color yet is not entirely devoid of color, so the primordial matter does not exist in actuality, yet it is not absolute non-existence. Rather, it stands between existence and non-existence, as green stands between white and black14.

The proof of this interpretation lies in the conclusion of the same teaching – omitted by the aforementioned scholar – where it says: “Tohu is a green line that surrounds the world, from which darkness emerges.” This cannot be explained with reference to form but only to matter, from which darkness, deficiency, and all evil proceed.

As for the “polished stones,” since they are the principal elements of a building, the Sages compared them to form, which gives a thing its strength and actuality. Because the primordial matter underlying all generated beings is one, while the forms that are impressed upon it are many, they spoke of matter as “a green line” in the singular, whereas they described the forms as “stones” in the plural.

The meaning of the term mefulamot is not “hidden” or “concealed,” as that scholar thought. Rather, it refers to large stones – precious, strong, and well-formed stones – which provide a fitting metaphor for forms. This usage appears in the Talmud as well. In the tractate Beitzah we read of “large fish (dagim mefulamim),”15 and in the chapter Eizehu Mekoman it says: “He brings smooth stones, large stones (avanim mefulamot).”16 The author of the Arukh17 explains the expression as meaning stones that are strong and solid.

It may also be explained that mefulamot means “moist,” like “fresh fish,” meaning fish that are still moist immediately after being caught. The intention would then be that those stones are not like the stones familiar to us, which retain their shape permanently. Rather, they are very moist and therefore easily receive impressions from that primordial matter. This is what the Sages meant when they said that “waters emerge from them,” meaning that those forms prepare the matter to receive other forms, just as water flows one after another.

Thus the term mefulamot denotes strength and beauty, not concealment.

Since the forms either rest upon matter or exist potentially within it – as maintained in Bereshit Rabbah – the Sages said that those stones were “sunk in the deep.” For form is borne by matter and exists within it in potentiality; matter is not borne by form.

Indeed, our Sages were accustomed to refer to forms as “stones.” Thus Rabbi Akiva said in the well-known teaching: “When you reach the stones of pure marble, do not say: ‘Water, water.’”18 There he called the “stones of pure marble” the separate forms, not the primordial matter, as will be explained later in the discussion of the firmament.

From all this it becomes clear that the interpretation of Gersonides is untenable, while the first two interpretations remain valid.

The truth of this explanation is also confirmed by the usage of the word tohu in Scripture. The prophet Isaiah says: “They are accounted by Him as nothing and tohu”; “I have spent my strength for tohu”; “The city of tohu is broken down”; “He did not create it for tohu, He formed it to be inhabited”; “I did not say to the seed of Jacob, ‘Seek Me in tohu’”; “They shall ascend into tohu and perish”; “They followed tohu, which cannot profit or save, for they are tohu”; and again: “He stretches out the north over tohu,” “He makes the judges of the earth like tohu,” and “In a tohu, howling wilderness.”19

In all these passages, the word tohu can only signify something that lacks true existence and perfection – a reality deficient by its very nature.

(Parashat Bereshit — Genesis 1:1, Between Absence and Form in the Commentary of Don Isaac Abarbanel)

Next section →

Read more

Previous section → Shamayim as Fire and Intellect

Explanation of the word “earth”

With regard to the word eretz (“earth”) in this first verse as well, the commentators have offered different interpretations.

Ibn Ezra, who tends to interpret the account of creation in a more literal and physical manner, explains that the earth mentioned in this verse refers specifically to the element of earth – the heavy and lowest of the elements. According to his view, eretz and tevel essentially refer to the same thing, except that tevel designates the inhabited part of the earth, as it is said: “The world (tevel) and its fullness You established” (Psalms 89:12)1. By contrast, eretz refers to all the dry land revealed from the waters, whether inhabited or not2.

The grammarians also wrote that the element of earth is called eretz because the celestial sphere runs and revolves around it3.

However, in my opinion it is not correct to interpret eretz in this verse as referring only to the element of earth. For this would imply that the Torah never mentions the creation of the other elements, as I noted in the fourth question. Moreover, why should the earth alone have found favor in the eyes of Scripture so that its creation is mentioned alongside the heavens, while the other elements are not?

Nor is it convincing to say that the earth is called eretz because the sphere runs and revolves around it. For the sphere revolves around the other elements as well. All the more so, the earth is a fixed center; why should it be named with a term that implies motion, when it is the sphere that runs and revolves, not the earth itself? If the name were derived from motion, it would be more fitting for the sphere to be called eretz, not the unmoving center around which it turns.

Ramban and the other Kabbalists4, however – who soar to lofty heights in their interpretation5 – explained that the earth mentioned in this verse refers also to spiritual realities. Some of them say that it refers to the sefirah which they call Eretz HaChayim (“the Land of Life”) or Eretz Cheftz (“the Desired Land”)6. For this reason Ramban wrote that the “heavens and the earth” in this verse allude to the Holy One, blessed be He, and to the Shekhinah of His glory.

But as I already indicated above, such an interpretation cannot be accepted according to the plain meaning of the text, for in that case the Torah would contain no testimony to the creation of the heavens and the earth and their coming into being. Therefore the verse must be understood according to its plain sense.

The Master (Maimonides) took a middle path between these two extremes. According to him, the word eretz here refers to the four elements – fire, air, water, and earth – which exist within the celestial sphere. The primary application of the term is to this collective whole, although afterward God called the element of earth specifically eretz, as it is written: “And God called the dry land earth” (Genesis 1:10). This, in truth, is the correct view.

It is not that the elements were already separated at the moment of the first creation; rather, they were later distinguished during the subsequent days of creation, as will be explained. At the beginning they were all created together and existed in a mixed and confused state, and the Torah called their totality eretz.

Since the Master did not provide proofs that the word eretz can be used in Scripture to denote the totality of the elements, I will bring several passages to support his view.

First, in the account of creation itself it is said: “Let the earth bring forth vegetation,” and “Let the earth bring forth living creatures” (Genesis 1:11, 24). It is evident that the element of earth alone is not sufficient to produce such composite beings without the mixture of all the elements, which are here collectively called eretz.

Likewise in the words of our teacher Moses: “Who is like You among the mighty in heaven and on earth, who can perform such works as Yours?” (Deuteronomy 3:24), and “God of heaven and God of earth,” and similar expressions. These cannot be understood otherwise than that heaven refers to the higher beings and earth to all the lower ones, not merely to the element of earth alone.

Similarly our lord David, peace be upon him, said: “The heavens are the heavens of the Lord, but the earth He gave to the children of men” (Psalms 115:16). Surely he did not mean the element of earth alone, for birds that dwell in the air and fish that live in the waters have also been given into human dominion, as it is said: “Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the heavens” (Genesis 1:28). Rather, earth here refers to the totality of the lower realm.

For this reason Scripture sometimes specifies “the lowest parts of the earth,” as in “I was formed in the lowest parts of the earth” (Psalms 139:15). This shows that there is an earth which is “lowest”– namely the element of earth – and another earth which is not the lowest, meaning the totality of the other elements. Hence Scripture must specify “the lowest parts of the earth.”

I also found a clear explanation in the writings of Ibn Kaspi7. He suggests that the word eretz derives from the root ratzatz, meaning “to crush” or “press,” as in: “prostrate yourself with pieces of silver,” (Psalm 68:31) “whom have I oppressed or crushed?” (1 Samuel 12:3) and “oppressed and crushed” (Deuteronomy 28:33). According to this explanation, all the elements are called eretz because they are compressed and confined within the celestial sphere, pressing and colliding with one another through their motions.

The initial letter aleph in the word eretz8, he says, is an added letter. From this same root come words such as “Run now and find the arrows,” (1 Samuel 20:36) and “the race is not to the swift,” (Ecclesiastes 9:11) because one who moves rapidly crushes and breaks the air as he passes through it. According to this view, therefore, the name eretz is used generally for all the elements, while in the work of the third day it refers specifically to the element of earth.

Thus within the elements collectively called eretz three characteristics may be observed: first, their lowliness, since they are situated beneath the celestial spheres; second, that they form the center around which the spheres revolve; and third, that they are compressed within the sphere and collide with one another in their motions.

(Parashat Bereshit — Genesis 1:1, The Unity of the Earth in the Commentary of Don Isaac Abarbanel)

Next section →

Read more

Previous section → The Unity Behind the Name “Shamayim”

That the Sages referred to the separate intellects as “fire,” just as Scripture calls them so, is evident in many places. Explicitly they said in the chapter Ein Doreshin (Chagigah 14a): “Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachmani said: Every word that goes forth from the mouth of the Holy One, blessed be He, creates an angel,” as it is written: “By the word of the Lord the heavens were made” (Psalms 33:6). This shows that they indeed understood the name shamayim to refer to the angels. Likewise, the Kabbalists call them “the heavens of success.”

That the separate intellects which move the spheres were created together with the first moving sphere is also explained in Bereshit Rabbah (12-8). Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: A human being who builds a ship first brings the beams, then the cedars, then the anchors, and afterward the sailors. But the Holy One, blessed be He, created the heavens and their governors together, as it is written: “Thus says the Lord, who created the heavens and stretched them out” (Isaiah 42:5). The word “stretched them out” (נ֣וֹטֵיהֶ֔ם) is written with a yod, implying those who stretch them. Thus they taught that the movers were created together with the things moved1.

It is therefore fitting to explain why Scripture and the Sages also call the separate intellects by the name “fire.” I say that the name “angel” is applied to the separate beings only insofar as they are messengers, for every angel is a messenger, as the Master wrote in the Guide. But Scripture found no name that would describe them according to their true nature. Therefore, in order to guide the human mind, it compared them to the names of physical elements. And since among the four elements that constitute material things the most elevated and noble is fire, Scripture compared them to fire.

Thus it says: “For the Lord your God is a consuming fire” (Deuteronomy 4:24). Just as fire consumes everything yet is itself not consumed, and just as fire is the true agent of generation, being the source of heat in all things and the form of every living being—for the life of every creature depends upon its vital heat—and just as fire gives heat and light to others without losing anything of itself, so too the First Cause, blessed be He, brings the world into being and can destroy it when He wills. Yet He Himself neither comes into being nor passes away, Heaven forbid. He grants existence and essence to all that exists; He is the life and continuance of the world, its ultimate form. And He bestows light, goodness, and perfection upon all things without lacking anything.

Because of these considerations the prophets compared the form to its Creator and said of Him that He is a consuming fire. And the intellects that flow from Him are likewise called “fire,” because they are like sparks issuing from that first fire. For this reason they are called seraphim, which means “burning ones,” similar to sparks of fire. Thus it is said in the Song of Songs: “Its flashes are flashes of fire, a flame of the Lord” (Song of Songs 8:6). And at the beginning of Moses’ prophecy he saw “the bush burning with fire,” and “the angel of the Lord appeared to him in a flame of fire from the midst of the bush” (Exodus 3:2). Likewise in Isaiah: “One of the seraphim flew to me, having a burning coal in his hand” (Isaiah 6:6). And the Targum of Jonathan renders it: “with a word in his mouth.” For the fire and burning attributed to the separate intellects is only a metaphor for their intellect.

In the book of Daniel (Daniel 7:10) they are also called “sparks of fire” for this reason. See how accustomed the prophets were to designate the separate intellect by the name “fire.” At times they also called them “spirit,” because fire and spirit are the two lightest and least tangible of the elements, unlike water and earth, which are dense. By contrast, the celestial bodies were sometimes called “waters,” as will be explained later, because of their purity and their continual motion.

Thus Rav said: shamayim means “fire and water”—that is, shamayim is a name both for fire (the separate intellects) and for water (the spheres). The Sages also said that the rational souls of human beings were created together with the spiritual angels, for they are indeed of the same nature, and they too are included in the name shamayim. For this reason it is said: “Man’s soul is the Lord’s lamp” (Proverbs 20:27), since it too belongs to the realm of fire and of heaven. Therefore they said in Chagigah that in the highest heaven there are the souls and spirits that are destined to be created. All this clarifies what the name shamayim refers to in the first verse of the Torah.

When the Sages also said in Bereshit Rabbah that shamayim means that “creatures are astonished by them,” they intended the same idea: the continual motion of the celestial sphere without interruption, and the nature of the separate intellects (sechalim nivdalim) that move it, are difficult for the human mind to conceive, and therefore human beings are astonished by them.

As for the terms shechakim (“skies”) and kise (“throne”), these unquestionably refer to the celestial bodies. Yet because the heavens produce rain through their motions, Scripture often attributes rain to the heavens, the skies, or the throne, as in the verse: “He commanded the skies above” (Psalms 78:23), and others like it, as will be explained later.

The shamayim mentioned in the first verse – whether they refer to the totality of the celestial spheres or specifically to the highest sphere that encompasses all – will be explained further in the commentary on the passage concerning the firmament.

(Parashat Bereshit — Genesis 1:1, Shamayim as Fire and Intellect in the Commentary of Don Isaac Abarbanel)

Next section →

Read more

Previous section → One Essence, Many Powers

The third of these opinions is that of Ramban and the Kabbalists. Ramban writes that the shamayim mentioned in the first verse are the upper heavens, which are not included among the celestial spheres, but exist above the Chariot1, as in the verse: “And there was a likeness over the heads of the living beings, of an expanse like the color of the severe frost…” (Ezekiel 1:22).

From these heavens the Holy One, blessed be He, is called “the Rider of the heavens.” Scripture does not describe their creation in detail, just as it does not mention the creation of the angels or the living beings of the divine Chariot, and indeed of anything that does not possess a body. It merely states that these heavens were created, in order to declare that their eternity is nothing. Ramban expands upon this idea with words of profound wisdom.

At the conclusion of his discussion he writes that concerning these heavens the Sages said: “in order that one accept upon himself the yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven.” His intention is clear: the shamayim mentioned in the first verse of the Torah are not the air, as Ibn Ezra explained, nor the celestial bodies, as the author of the Guide explained, but rather a name for the separate intellects that surround the Throne of Glory. Among them there are different ranks, one higher than another, and those who sit closest in the kingdom are called shamayim in this verse.

Similarly it is written in the Sefer HaBahir2: “How do we know that ‘heavens’ refers to the Holy One, blessed be He? For it is said: ‘And You shall hear in heaven.’ Does Solomon pray to the heavens that they should hear his prayer? Rather, their name is called by Your Name.”3

And I say that support for this opinion can indeed be found in Scripture, from what Eliphaz said: “Behold, He puts no trust even in His holy ones, and the heavens are not pure in His eyes”4 (Job 15:15). He repeats the same idea elsewhere: “Behold, He puts no trust in His servants, and in His angels He finds fault” (Job 4:18).

The author of the Guide writes in chapter 13 of the third part that the statement “in His angels He finds fault” is identical in meaning to “the heavens are not pure in His eyes.” From this it follows that the word shamayim there refers to the angels.

But according to this interpretation a great difficulty arises: why would Scripture call the separate intellects (sechalim nivdalim) shamayim, when they are not bodies? They possess neither motion nor rest, neither change of position nor poles. Another difficulty is that Scripture would then mention the angels and the earth in the account of creation, but omit the celestial bodies, even though they precede the earth in every kind of priority.

Therefore my own opinion on this matter is the following. Although the opinion of the author of the Guide is not correct when taken by itself, and the opinion of Ramban is likewise not correct when taken by itself, both become correct when they are combined.

This is so if we say that the word shamayim in this first verse refers both to the first sphere that encompasses all things and to the separate intellects as well, so that the expression “God created the heavens” includes all the upper realities, both spiritual and corporeal. The separate intellects are thus included together with the highest body under a single name.

This may be explained either because those separate intellects are the forms of the celestial spheres, according to the view of Aristotle, or because they are the movers of those spheres. Since they are connected with them in the matter of motion, they are all designated together by the same term, shamayim. In this way the words of both masters are reconciled when joined together.

The truth of this opinion is also suggested by what the Sages said in Bereshit Rabbah: “‘Shamayim’ – Rav said: fire and water. Rabbi Abba bar Kahana said in the name of Rav: the Holy One, blessed be He, took fire and water and mingled them together, and from them the heavens were made.”

Would any wise and discerning person imagine that these perfect sages intended to say that the incorruptible heavens are literally composed of the elemental fire and water, which are opposites and change rapidly?

Rather, Rav held that the name shamayim refers jointly to the celestial spheres and to the separate intellects (sechalim nivdalim). Because the conception of the separate intellects is difficult for the human mind to grasp, Scripture described the angels by the name “fire,” as in the verses: “His ministers are a burning fire” (Psalms 104:4); “Seraphim stood above Him” (Isaiah 6:2); and “A river of fire was flowing and emerging from before Him” (Daniel 7:10). All these verses designate the spiritual angels by the name “fire.”

Rabbi Abba bar Kahana, however, explained why the celestial bodies and the separate intellects are called together by the single name shamayim. He said it is because of their relationship: the separate intellect is the form of the sphere and its mover. Thus when the Midrash says that the Holy One “combined them together,” it means that they were mixed and became shamayim—that is, the substance of the heavens is the sphere, while its form is the separate intellect. For this reason the two were united under the single name shamayim.

Next section →

Read more

Previous section → The Name Elohim and the Order of Divine Power

The truth is that the Name Yah appears in the Name Elohim, which contains both El and Yah. Thus nothing was created without the mention of the Name Yah in the word Elohim.

As for the final mem at the end of the Name, it does not necessarily indicate plurality. For we find words such as Ephraim (אפרים), kilayim (כלאים), Mitzrayim (מצרים), Chushim (חושים), and others, all of which end with yod-mem, yet they do not denote a plural. Similarly, in the Name Elohim, the heh and yod are joined to the Name El to sanctify it, and the final mem is added only to remove it from the construct form. It is therefore a singular Name.

But if you are unwilling to accept this explanation, and instead maintain – as Ibn Ezra asserts – that Elohim and Elohai are always plural in form, then you must say the following: the plurality of this name does not indicate any multiplicity in the Blessed One Himself, for He is absolutely one in every respect. Rather, its meaning is similar to what the philosophers say about the soul – that it is one in its subject, yet multiple in its powers. That is to say, in its essence it is one, but with respect to its actions our knowledge of it reveals a multiplicity of powers.

Thus, because the Blessed One performs many different and even opposing actions, from our perspective and according to our estimation He is called Elohim, that is, the possessor of all influences and powers. For although His influence and power are, in themselves, one, our understanding perceives multiplicity according to the diverse and even contrary character of His actions. In this sense the Torah speaks in the language of human beings.

For this reason you will find in Scripture that sometimes a single action is attributed to Elohim, as in: “In the beginning Elohim created” (Genesis 1:1); “which Elohim created to do” (Genesis 2:3); or “Has elohim attempted…”1 (Deuteronomy 4:34). At other times, however, a plurality of actions is attributed to Him, such as: “Let us make man” (Genesis 1:26); “When Elohim caused me to wander” (Genesis 20:13); and “there Elohim had been revealed to him” (Genesis 35:7), and similar expressions.

For when we consider the Name with respect to His own essence, the action is always one; but when we consider the multiplicity of influences and powers that we infer from the diversity and opposition of His actions, the language shifts into the plural.

From all this it has become clear what is signified by the names El, Eloah, and Elohim. This is what I wished to explain here.

Explanation of the word “shamayim”

Concerning the meaning of the word shamayim in this verse2, I have found that the sages of our people hold three opinions. Their views may be arranged as first, second, and third.

The first of these is the view of Ibn Ezra, who explains that the word shamayim refers to the element of air. This interpretation follows his broader approach, according to which – as I have already informed you – nothing belonging to the upper realms is mentioned in the account of creation until the verse that speaks of “the heavens and the heavens of the heavens.”3 He therefore understands “shamayim” to mean the element of air and the element of fire that is above it, as he writes in his commentary on the Book of Psalms.

The commentators on his work have even brought a proof for this from the verse: “And He had commanded the skies from above, and He had opened the portals of heaven; He had rained upon them manna to eat, and He had given them corn of heaven” (Psalms 78:23–24)4.

But regarding this opinion, I have already explained to you the deficiencies and objections it contains with respect to the law of the Torah. For it would follow from it that the Torah does not testify to the creation of the heavenly bodies, but only to that of the lower things. This is the view of the adherents of the astronomical theory of the spheres. I have already demonstrated in my work “Mifʿalot Elohim”5, which I composed concerning the creation of the world, the falsity of this opinion and its refutation through rational analysis, apart from the fact that it constitutes a grave denial of the doctrine of the divine Torah.

The second opinion on this matter is the view of the author of the Guide and also, apparently, of Rashi, whose words seem to agree with him: namely, that the “heavens” mentioned in this first verse refer to the celestial bodies that move in circular motion. This is the view of the author of the Guide and of Rashi.

Ibn Ezra himself, in a later approach he adopted in his commentary on the Torah, wrote in agreement with this explanation – either in order to reconcile his interpretation with the widely accepted understanding of the verses of the Torah, or because he had reconsidered his earlier opinion6. For he wrote there that the upper heavens are called by a dual form (shamayim) either because of the conjunction of the higher spheres called the “head of the Dragon” and its “tail,”7 or because the heavens are always half above the earth and half beneath it, or because of the foundations which are the poles. Such are his words.

From here the Efodi8 derived his explanation, writing that the spheres are called shamayim from the word shem (“place”), which indicates a fixed and bounded location; for the permanence and delimitation of place are determined by the poles of the daily motion, since they alone remain fixed. These, therefore, are alluded to in the word shem9.

Yet although this interpretation of the word shamayim in the first verse accords better with the plain meaning of the text, there still remains the difficulty I raised in the second question: how is it that the Torah mentions the creation of the primary celestial bodies but does not mention the creation of the separate intellects that move them, even though these precede the heavens both in nature and in rank of existence?”

(Parashat Bereshit — Genesis 1:1, One Essence, Many Powers in the Commentary of Don Isaac Abarbanel)

Next section →

Read more

Previous section → El, Eloah, and Elohim — The Names of Divine Power

Indeed, the Name Elohim is used metaphorically for the angels, since they too exert influence upon what is beneath them1. Yet, because their influence and power are only acquired from Him, blessed be He, and because in their designation of divinity half of the sacred Name (יה) is added, they too are called Elohim—meaning, those who exert influence through the power of His divinity. Thus it is said (Deuteronomy 10:17): “For the Lord your God, He is the God of gods and Lord of lords,” calling the angels Elohim and the heavenly spheres lords, as the Master [Maimonides in the Guide for the Perplexed] wrote, and as is also stated in the Mekhilta2.

And since the heavenly spheres also exert forces in this world, they too are called Elohim. The images that men made in their likeness and form were likewise called elohim, for their worship was not directed to the images themselves, but to the higher powers which, they believed, imparted spiritual forces into them3. Accordingly, the prophet said (Isaiah 1:29): “For you shall be ashamed of the oaks you desired,” meaning that the power of the heavenly beings is entirely in God’s hands; He nullifies and subdues their strength at His will, and therefore those who trust in them will be put to shame, for their hope will vanish.

As for the judges also being called Elohim, in my view this is very doubtful. For although Onkelos, in translating the verses “Then his master shall bring him to the elohim… the case of both parties shall come before the elohim” (Exodus 21:6; 22:8), rendered it as “to the judges” (dayyena), and although all the commentators followed him, to the point that the Master [Maimonides] concluded, as I mentioned earlier, that the primary meaning of the Name Elohim was for judges—it seems to me that this is not so. For the divine Torah always calls the judges by the name shoftim (“judges”), not by the name Elohim, as it is written: “And I commanded your judges” (Deuteronomy 1:16); “Judges and officers shall you appoint” (Deuteronomy 16:18); and, “To the judge who shall be in those days” (Deuteronomy 17:9).

And [the Torah] expounded: “Your elders and your judges” (Deuteronomy 19:12)—for the Torah always calls them shoftim (judges) or zekenim (elders), not Elohim4. As for the verse “those whom Elohim condemns” (Exodus 22:8), Scripture did not mean to call the judges themselves Elohim, but rather to indicate that all judgment is God’s judgment, and that the legal process, being divine in origin through the Torah and its commandments, is called Elohim5. This is like the verse (Psalms 82:1): “Elohim stands in the congregation of El; in the midst of elohim He judges”—meaning, in the midst of the congregation of judges, God Himself judges.

This manner of speaking has even spread among the nations: when the judges of a land judge according to the law of the kingdom, people say that the king commands this and punishes that, and they call the place of judgment “the king’s court,” even though the king himself is not present. So too in the verse, “His master shall bring him to Elohim”6 (Exodus 21:6), and similar phrases: the meaning is that he is brought to God’s judgment.

The clear proof of this is in Parashat Shoftim: “The two men who have the dispute shall stand before the Lord, before the priests and the judges…”7 (Deuteronomy 19:17). Here the place of judgment, where the priests and judges sit, is called “before the Lord.” Could one possibly say that the priests and judges are themselves called by the Tetragrammaton? Surely not! So it is, without doubt, when Scripture says “the case of both parties shall come before Elohim,” and the like.

Even Onkelos had this very intention, for he did not interpret the word Elohim as “judges,” but rather explained that “the place of Elohim” means the place where the judges sit. And rightly so, since judgment belongs to God, as Moses said, “The judgment is God’s”8 (Deuteronomy 1:17), and as King Jehoshaphat said to the judges: “Consider what you do, for you judge not for man, but for the Lord, and He is with you in the matter of judgment”9 (2 Chronicles 19:6). That is, God is with them when they render judgment.

If so, whenever Scripture speaks of Elohim in relation to judgment, its meaning is God Himself, not the human judges. Even for those who say the judges are called Elohim, they must agree it is not the primary sense of the Name, but only a borrowing—because the judges serve as God’s representatives on earth, they are called by His Name, just as a messenger is called by the name of the one who sent him. Since their rulings and governance are in accordance with the divine Torah, they are called Elohim—that is, those who transmit divine governance by His hand.

Ibn Ezra already alluded to this in his commentary, where he wrote on the verse “His master shall bring him to Elohim” that the meaning of Elohim here is “those who uphold the commandments of God on earth.” Thus the matter is the very opposite of what the Master [Maimonides] thought. He held that Elohim was said of the judges in its primary sense, and of God only by borrowing from them. But it is not so: its primary sense is for God, blessed be He; secondarily, it was extended to the spheres; then to the angels; and finally to the human judges.

And because the Patriarchs, more than any men on earth, first apprehended the existence of the First Cause, the absolute Source of all power and influence, Scripture ascribes the divine Name to them, saying: “The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.”

Thus he10 has explained the word Elohim as a plural form11.

It remains for us now to explain why the Name Elohim is in the plural form. Ramban wrote that the meaning of Elohim is “Master of all powers,” for the root of the word is El, and the term is compounded with hem (“they”), to signify that all powers come from the Supreme One, blessed be He. Therefore, everything that possesses power and strength is called Elohim, meaning: “from El they are.” Thus far his words.

Now, in his explanation of the Name, his words were brief. For its meaning is not only “mighty and strong,” but also, primarily and essentially, “the One who bestows influence,” as I have explained. Moreover, in what he wrote—that Elohim means “from El they are”—there is truly nothing substantial. For according to him, the letter mem should have been placed at the beginning of Elohim, to indicate that power is from El. Furthermore, on his view, the yod between the heh and the mem would have no meaning, and the Name ought to have been me-Elohim (מאלהים), not Elohim. And if El is the singular, why should the suffix be hem (הם), in the plural? More fitting would have been the term me-El hu (“from El is he”), not Elohim.

Rather, the truth of the matter, without doubt, is as I explained: the Name Elohim is a joining of the Name El with half of the Tetragrammaton, namely Yah (יה). Because of this, our Sages said that the Holy One, blessed be He, created His world with two letters, as it is written: “For in Yah (יה) the Lord formed the worlds” (Isaiah 26:4).

The statement of our Sages is difficult, for we do not find the Name Yah by itself in the entire account of Creation. This forced some of the kabbalists to say that the Name Yah appears in the words yehi or (“let there be light”) and yehi raqia (“let there be a firmament”). But this is not correct, for the word yehi (יהי) contains two yods and one heh, and this is not the same as Yah. Moreover, yehi is not said regarding every act of Creation. How then could they say that the upper and lower worlds were created with those two letters Yah?

(Parashat Bereshit — Genesis 1:1, The Name Elohim and the Order of Divine Power in the Commentary of Don Isaac Abarbanel)

Next section →

Read more

Previous section → Elohim and the Architecture of Creation

His Name is also called El, meaning the One of absolute capacity in His influence, as it is said: “To whom then will you liken El?” (Isaiah 40:18); “You are the El who works wonders” (Psalms 77:15), meaning: You are the One who influences with such great power that You can alter the natural order in wondrous ways. Accordingly, the phrase El Elohim is equivalent to Elohei ha-Elohim (“God of gods”), and “Who is like You among the elim” (Exodus 15:11) means “There is none like You among those called elim.” For the terms El and Elohim, when applied to the Blessed One, signify the One who influences and brings forth with great and mighty power.

As for the statement, “For all the gods of the nations are idols” (Psalms 96:5), this is of a different kind. For elilim (idols) is not of the same sense as elim (gods) or El, denoting divinity, as I explained. Rather, elilim and elil come from the language of absence and nothingness, as in: “You are all physicians of no value (rofei elil)” (Job 13:4); “a worthless shepherd” (ro‘eh elil, Zechariah 11:17); “a divination of lies” (kesem ve-elil, Ezekiel 21:29). All these signify sheer negation: they have no power at all.

And because these two sacred Names—Y-H-V-H and Elohim—signify His essence and His influence, prophecy or divine speech is attributed only to one of these two Names, as I noted in the first property. For prophecy is His influence, flowing forth from His essence. And the interchange between these two Names in the text, as I noted in the second property, reflects His two aspects which, in Him, are one. Likewise, as I noted in the third property, no other Name is ever placed before Elohim, just as no other Name precedes the Tetragrammaton. These two glorious Names precede all the others in rank and holiness, for they refer directly to His essence and His influence, which are prior to all and have no antecedent.

So too, as I noted in the fourth property, when an attribute is attached to the Tetragrammaton, it is attached only by means of Elohim or El: “The Lord, El merciful and gracious” (Exodus 34:6); “The Lord, Elohei Tzevaot” (Psalms 59:6); “The Lord, Elohei Yisrael” (Exodus 5:1). Other names are never joined directly, for they are applied to Him only in relation to His actions, and since the root of those actions is His divine influence, they are joined only through Elohim or El, which indicate influence.

And because His influence flows forth from His essence, therefore sometimes the Tetragrammaton is vocalized with the vowels of Elohim and read accordingly—as I noted in the fifth property—for His essence is the source of all influence. But Elohim is never vocalized with the vowels of the Tetragrammaton, because even though we can apprehend His influence, we cannot apprehend His essence. Moreover, the Name Elohim can be applied metaphorically to others, whereas the Tetragrammaton is never borrowed or shared with any other1.

And you should also know regarding this, that since the Tetragrammaton is the very essence of holiness and its infinite perfection, and the Name El signifies Him as the One who bestows influence, therefore, when the Holy One, blessed be He, wished to sanctify this divine Name with great sanctity, He joined to it half of the Tetragrammaton—half of its letters—in order to increase the sanctity of that Name. For the complete Tetragrammaton could never be joined to another Name, for two reasons2.

The first: The special Name Y-H-V-H is not associated with any particular action, but designates His essence and being. Therefore it cannot be joined to one of the Names of action, such as the names of divinity, so as to become one compound name.

The second: The other divine Names, even with their added sanctity, are applied metaphorically to others, in accordance with their actions. Therefore it would not be proper to join to them the complete Tetragrammaton, which is unique to Him alone and never applied to another. Only half of it may be joined, a half that does not carry the full sanctity of the complete Name.

Thus, when joined with the Name El, which denotes the One who bestows influence in His power, the letters yod and heh (half of the Tetragrammaton) form Elohai or Elohim—apart from the final mem of Elohim, which is added to remove the sense of the construct form. At times, to the Name El are added the letters vav and heh (the other half of the Tetragrammaton), and then it is said Eloah.

Therefore, these three—El, Eloah, and Elohim—are the roots of all the divine Names. Without addition: El; with one addition: Eloah; with another addition: Elohim. All the other divine Names are included within these, and their variations are according to the appellations, as I explained in the second principle.

For this reason, the Names Elohim (אלהים) and Elohai (אלהי) are always written without the vav. For they already contain the letters yod and heh (יה), which are half of the Tetragrammaton, and it would not be fitting to add to them more letters of the sacred Name beyond this. By contrast, in the Name Eloah (אלוה), a vav had to be explicitly added so that the letters vav and heh, the other half of the Tetragrammaton, would be joined to the Name El. But in Elohai (אלהי) and Elohecha (אלהיך), most occurrences are written without the vav, for they already contain the yod and heh (יה), half of the Tetragrammaton, and it would not be proper to add beyond that3.

From all this it becomes clear that the Name Elohim is not borrowed for Him, blessed be He, from some other usage, but that its primary designation is for Him Himself, as the One who bestows and possesses absolute power. And the Name Elohim, as Ibn Ezra wrote, is a descriptive title, not an essential name.

(Parashat Bereshit — Genesis 1:1, El, Eloah, and Elohim — The Names of Divine Power in the Commentary of Don Isaac Abarbanel)

Next section →