Previous section → The Earth Takes Form

“And God said, Let the waters be gathered, etc.” [The discussion extends] until “And God said, Let the earth bring forth vegetation”.

When Ibn Ezra addressed the question of the firmament, he wrote that the appearance of the dry land was the cause of the formation of the firmament. For when the sun’s rays acted upon the hardness and dryness of the exposed earth, the air adjacent to us became clear and crystalline. According to this explanation, however, the sun’s rays and illumination must have preceded the drying of the earth, since they were its cause; and the appearance of the dry land must in turn have preceded the formation of the firmament.

In this, Ibn Ezra followed the opinion of the philosophers in their writings on meteorology, where it is stated that the exposure of the dry land and its remaining uncovered by water are caused by the movements of the sun in its inclined sphere and by the movements of the other stars. In this process the celestial bodies constitute the efficient cause, just as the final cause is the determination of the forms of generation found in plants and living creatures1. The words of the Philosopher, however, pertain to the ordinary course of nature, for the philosophers did not address the creation of the world.

But consider how far the words of Ibn Ezra—under whose shadow we had hoped to live in interpreting the Torah—have departed from the truth of the Torah, and how they contradict the account of the work of Creation2. The sun, moon, and stars were created and made on the fourth day, whereas the dry land appeared on the third day, before them. Moreover, the firmament was made on the second day, before the appearance of the dry land. How, then, could something made on the fourth day be the cause of something that occurred on the third, and something that occurred on the third be the cause of what was made on the second?

Ibn Ezra thought to resolve all this by saying that the expressions “And God said, Let the waters be gathered” and, likewise, “And God said, Let there be luminaries” should be understood as meaning “And God had already said”. He endeavored to bring proofs that the conjunctive vav can sometimes be used in Scripture with the sense of “and already”. Yet this provides no answer concerning the waters or the sequence of the works of Creation. Why should Scripture mention the formation of an effect before mentioning the formation of its cause?

Nor can it be said that all these things came into being simultaneously. The divine Torah separates them into distinct sections and assigns one work to the second day, another to the third, and another to the fourth, thereby indicating that they did not occur as a single event. Neither can it be said, as this scholar maintained, that no creation took place on the third day because the gathering of the waters was not itself an act of creation; for on the third day we find the creation of grasses and trees.

In general, I would say that, according to Ibn Ezra’s view, the declaration “Let there be a firmament” amounts to nothing other than the declaration “Let the waters be gathered”, since both refer only to the separation of that portion of the air in which we live—which, according to him, is the firmament—between the elemental waters that exist potentially and the waters that exist actually, so that there might be an open space in which to dwell upon the earth. There would consequently be neither a genuine distinction between the days nor a distinction between their respective works. All of this amounts to contradicting the verses and distorting their meaning. The truth of the matter, however, is otherwise.

The truth is that, after the Holy One, blessed be He, had made on the second day all the celestial spheres beneath and within the highest sphere, He determined in His wisdom that the waters should be gathered and the dry land revealed, and that grasses and trees should begin to grow. All this took place before the luminaries and stars were made, so that the first and absolute Creation should not be mistaken for natural generation. For in the ordinary course of nature, lower beings are acted upon by the powers of the celestial bodies—both in the continued exposure of the dry land, so that the waters do not overwhelm it, and in the generation of plants. As our Sages said: “There is no blade of grass below that does not have a constellation in the firmament that strikes it and says to it, Grow!”3

(Parashat Bereshit — Genesis 1:9, Before Nature Took Its Course in the Commentary of Don Isaac Abarbanel)

Next section →

Read more

Previous section → The Riddles of the Sages

Genesis 1:9 — “And God said, “Let the water that is beneath the heavens gather into one place, and let the dry land appear,” and it was so.”

“And God said, that is beneath the heavens gather into one place.” [The discussion extends] until the end of the third day. The questions I have identified concerning the verses of this section are as follows:

The first question concerns the words, “Let the water that is beneath the heavens gather into one place” (Genesis 1:9). For the waters are not all in one place: they are found in seas, rivers, and streams. Indeed, Scripture itself says, “And the gathering of the waters He called seas”1 (Genesis 1:10), using the plural. Why, then, does it say that the waters should be gathered into one place?

The second question is why the Holy One, blessed be He, called the dry land eretz, earth, when the term eretz encompasses all four elements. It would have been more appropriate to call it adamah, dry land, or afar, dust, since these are names particular to that element, rather than eretz, which is a general name embracing all the elements. For general terms, as the philosophers have observed, do not disclose the essential nature and essence of a thing. Yet the place of the waters He called seas, rather than waters, since it is not fitting to call the particular by the name of the general.

The third question is why the Torah does not state that the waters were actually gathered together and that the dry land appeared. You cannot answer that this is conveyed by the words, “And it was so”, for on the other days of Creation, even when Scripture says, “And it was so”, it nevertheless goes on to describe how the thing was brought about. Concerning the firmament, it says, “And God made the firmament” (Genesis 1:7); concerning the plants, “The earth brought forth vegetation” (Genesis 1:12); concerning the luminaries, “And God made the two great luminaries” (Genesis 1:16); and concerning the animals, “And God made the beasts of the earth” (Genesis 1:25). Why, then, is the gathering of the waters treated differently?2

The fourth question is why, on the third day, Scripture says twice, “And God saw that it was good” (Genesis 1:10, 12), whereas on every other day of Creation it is stated only once. Moreover, what is the meaning of And God saw that it was good? Did some new knowledge concerning the thing He had made arise in Him, blessed be He, after it had been made—namely, that it was good—when He had not known this beforehand? Such a thing is certainly impossible, for everything is always revealed and known before Him.

The fifth question concerns the words, “and fruit trees producing fruit”3 (Genesis 1:11). For once Scripture has said fruit trees, it is already understood that they produce fruit. If we say that it was nevertheless necessary to add producing fruit, then the expression fruit trees itself would appear superfluous.

Rashi explained that the taste of the tree was to have been like the taste of its fruit. The earth, however, did not do this, for Scripture subsequently says, “And the earth brought forth trees producing fruit” (Genesis 1:12), rather than fruit trees. Therefore, when Adam was cursed for his sin, the earth too was called to account for its transgression. This interpretation is taken from Bereshit Rabbah4. Yet according to the plain meaning of the text, this is exceedingly difficult to conceive. How could the earth fail to do what God had decreed? And how can it be said that the earth sinned, when it possesses no intellect?

Moreover, how could the taste of the tree possibly have been like the taste of its fruit? If that were so, the entire tree would itself be fruit, and the fruits would already be present in the very substance of the tree. For, as the natural philosophers have written, fruit consists of the finest and most excellent moisture produced by the tree. How, then, could the tree have the same taste as the fruit, when the tree is thick and coarse, partaking of the nature of earth, whereas the fruit is soft and pleasant, partaking of the nature of water?

The sixth question is why the Torah makes no mention of the formation of vapors and exhalations and of the things produced from them within the earth and the air, nor of the formation of minerals and metals. These constitute the first processes of generation and combination undergone by the elements, whereas Scripture begins by mentioning the formation of plants, which represents the third degree of combination. We cannot say that Scripture omitted the former because of their inferior status, for among metals and stones there are things of great value and usefulness for human needs, life, and practical purposes.

The seventh question is why Scripture does not employ the same language concerning the work performed on each of the days. Indeed, in the account of these days you will find four different forms of expression concerning the works of Creation. The first is that, in some instances, after the command and decree Scripture says, “And God made”, as on the second day in the making of the firmament, on the fourth day in the making of the luminaries, and on the sixth day in the making of the living creatures. The second is that after the declaration and decree it says, “And God created”, as in the formation of the fish, the great sea creatures, and man.

The third form is that the formation of certain things is not attributed to God, either by the language of making or by that of creation. Instead, Scripture says, “And the earth brought forth vegetation” (Genesis 1:12), as though the earth had produced it of itself and the Lord had not wrought all this. The fourth is that neither making nor creation is mentioned as being performed by God, blessed be He, nor is the effect attributed to the element from which it came about, as in the appearance of the dry land and the gathering of the waters. It is therefore appropriate to explain the reason for these significant variations, since everything is the work of God and the handiwork of His hands.

I shall now explain the verses in such a manner that all these questions will be resolved.

(Parashat Bereshit — Genesis 1:9, The Earth Takes Form in the Commentary of Don Isaac Abarbanel)

Next section →

Read more

Previous section → The Mystery of the Upper Waters

Since Ben Zoma sought to explain the distinction between the upper and lower waters from the verse, “And the spirit of God hovered over the surface of the waters”—taking the upper waters to be spirit and separate intellect, and the lower waters to be body—Rabbi Yehoshua said to his disciples: Ben Zoma is still outside. In other words, he had not yet entered the Pardes of wisdom and truth, but remained outside it. For the upper waters do not refer to the separate forms, but to the celestial bodies. Moreover, the verse Ben Zoma cited as proof cannot refer to the separation at all. On the contrary, on the first day the upper and lower waters had not yet been separated; the separation between them took place on the second day. This itself demonstrates that the words “And the spirit of God hovered over the surface of the waters” cannot refer to the distinction proposed by Ben Zoma.

Rabbi Acha then asked: And how much? That is, how great was the separation between the upper waters—which, according to Rabbi Yehoshua, were the celestial bodies—and the lower waters, which in his view were the lower elements? Four opinions were given in response, corresponding to four groups of Sages. The first said: A hairbreadth; the second: like the boards of a bridge; the third: like two garments spread one over the other; and the fourth: like two cups placed one upon the other.

It appears to me that Rabbi Acha and the Rabbis, who held the first two opinions, understood the distinction between the upper and lower waters as a spatial distinction. Rabbi Acha held that the innermost surface of the sphere of the moon was what separated them. This is what he intended by saying, a hairbreadth. Since a surface has no thickness, he described it figuratively as being only a hairbreadth.

The Rabbis, however, held that it was improper to attribute this separation to a surface, since a surface is merely an accident1; rather, it should be attributed to the entire sphere of the moon, the lowest of the celestial spheres, which separates the celestial bodies from the elements. This is why they compared it to the boards of a bridge. Their comparison was not intended in the sense understood by Rashi. Rather, a bridge-board is itself a distinct corporeal object, with air beneath it and, beneath the air, the water of the river. In the same way, the sphere of the moon is a corporeal entity in its own right; beneath it lies the element of fire, then the air, and beneath them the element of water.

Mar Zutra and Rav Ashi, however, held that the distinction between the upper and lower waters was not spatial, but rather one of nature and form. It should therefore be attributed neither to a surface nor to the sphere of the moon alone. Rather, the upper waters—the celestial spheres in their entirety, together with their nature and form—are distinct from the lower waters. This is the meaning of the comparison to two boards spread one above the other: the two boards allude to the two firmaments, according to the opinion that there are two firmaments. They therefore compared them to two boards of a bridge, one above the other and separate from one another, just as one firmament is distinct from the firmament beneath it.

Since all these opinions employed comparisons involving the boards of a bridge, on account of the air and water beneath them, the final opinion considered this comparison inappropriate to the celestial bodies, because boards are straight, whereas celestial bodies are spherical. It therefore compared them to overturned cups—that is, rounded vessels fitting one within another—for in this respect they resemble the arrangement of the celestial spheres.

It has thus been demonstrated that the words of Rabbi Akiva and those of Rabbi Yehoshua accord in every respect with what I have explained. All these Sages were investigating the upper realms; they were not discussing the element of air, for such a subject would hardly have constituted the mystery of the Pardes. This is how the words of those holy Sages concerning the firmament and the waters above it ought to be understood—not as they have been interpreted by those would-be sophisticates among our people, who have made so fundamental a passage in the Account of Creation depend upon a simple and feeble inquiry into the qualities of the air and the formation of rain2, matters that even the lesser philosophers were able to grasp through superficial investigation.

There can be no doubt that this has caused many to stumble in their belief in creation. For when the accounts of the first and absolute Creation are interpreted as referring merely to processes of natural generation, through forced and contrived explanations, belief in the creation of the universe as a whole is inevitably weakened, and truth is cast to the ground. I therefore say: Fortunate is the one who emerges from the interpretation of the verses of the Account of Creation and the teachings of our Sages concerning them with his faith and learning intact, free of hesitation and doubt; for this is what will enable him to understand the matter in its proper depth and truth.

Nor should one wonder that our Sages spoke of these profound matters through parables and riddles—of stones of pure marble, three fingerbreadths, the boards of a bridge, and their other comparisons. This was the practice of all the ancients, including the sages of the nations: when speaking of profound subjects, they expressed them through parables. The author of the Guide has already mentioned such examples, writing that Plato called prime matter female and form male3. Our own Sages likewise followed this method when treating exalted matters. Solomon therefore admonished us to understand a proverb and a figure, the words of the wise and their riddles (Proverbs 1:6).

I have dwelt at length on the question of the firmament and the waters above it, as well as on the teachings of our Sages concerning them, because these matters are exceedingly profound and appear strange when understood according to their plain meaning. Moreover, some among Israel have fallen into erroneous opinions concerning them and have interpreted them in ways that are not proper. As for me, I have followed the Lord fully4.

(Parashat Bereshit — Genesis 1:8, The Riddles of the Sages. in the Commentary of Don Isaac Abarbanel)

Next section →

Read more

Previous section → The Permanent and the Perishable

It remains for us to explain those difficult teachings found in tractate Chagigah. The Rabbis taught: Four entered the Pardes: Ben Azzai, Ben Zoma, Acher, and Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Akiva said to them: When you reach the stones of pure marble, do not say, Water, water, for it is written, “He who speaks falsehood shall not be established before My eyes”1 (Psalms 101:7)2.

The Rabbis further taught: It once happened that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Chananiah was standing on a step of the Temple Mount. Ben Zoma saw him but did not rise before him. Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: From where and to where, Ben Zoma? He replied: I was contemplating the space between the upper waters and the lower waters, and there is no more than three fingerbreadths between them, as it is said, “And the spirit of God hovered over the surface of the waters”3 (Genesis 1:2)—like a dove hovering over its young, touching yet not touching. Rabbi Yehoshua said to his disciples: Ben Zoma is still outside. For consider: “And the spirit of God hovered over the surface of the waters” was written concerning the first day, whereas the separation took place on the second day, as it is written, “And let it separate between water and water”4 (Genesis 1:6). And how great is the distance between them? Rabbi Acha bar Yaakov said: A hairbreadth. The Rabbis said: Like the space between the boards of a bridge. Mar Zutra—or, according to another version, Rav Ashi—said: Like two garments spread one over the other; and some say, like two cups placed one upon the other. Rashi explained that the comparison to the boards of a bridge means that when boards are laid alongside one another, it is impossible for there not to be a slight space between them. The same applies to the garments and to the overturned cups placed one upon another5.

I am well aware of how the author of the Guide and the other later commentators explained these teachings, interpreting them as referring to the different regions of the air, the formation of rain, and the difficulties that follow from this interpretation6. But the true meaning intended by those holy Sages is as I shall now explain. They were investigating and seeking to determine the nature of the waters above the firmament. Since it was obvious to them that the firmament was a celestial body, or a number of celestial bodies, they were confronted with the question: What, then, are the waters above it? Some of them thought that these upper waters alluded to the separate intellects that move the celestial spheres, and that this was why they were said to be above the firmament.

Those among them, however, who attained the truth of the matter and penetrated more deeply into the mysteries of the Account of Creation recognized that this was not so. The expression upper waters was not applied to the separate forms, for in the language of the Torah and the Prophets these are described as fire or spirit, but never as water. The term water is applied to celestial corporeal substance, not to the separate forms.

This is the meaning of Rabbi Akiva’s statement upon entering the Pardes of intellectual contemplation—that is, when he entered into the investigation of the Account of Creation. He told his companions: “When you reach the stones of pure marble, do not say, Water, water.” He called the separate forms stones because they are the principles and foundations of the world, just as stones are the foundations of a building. It is in this sense that Scripture says, “From there is the Shepherd, the Stone of Israel”7 (Genesis 49:24), calling Him a stone because He is the foundation of the whole structure8.

Rabbi Akiva called them pure marble [shayish tahor] because shayish is related to yesh, being, a term denoting existence. Marble is thus so called because it is a stone that endures and remains for many days. It is as though he were saying: When, in your contemplation and investigation, you reach the separate forms, which constitute the pure and exalted principles of existence, do not say, Water, water—that is, do not suppose that these are the waters mentioned in the Account of Creation, whether the lower waters or the upper waters. For those exalted forms are incorporeal; how, then, could the Torah apply to them the term water, whether upper or lower?

Since Ben Zoma fell into this error, when Rabbi Yehoshua asked him what had occupied his solitary contemplation, he replied: “I was contemplating, and there are only three fingerbreadths between the upper waters and the lower waters.” His meaning was that the waters below the firmament—which, in his view, comprised all corporeal beings—were distinguished from the waters above it—which, in his view, were the intellects separate from matter—only by the three dimensions inherent in every body: length, breadth, and depth. The lower waters thus comprised all corporeal beings, whether eternal or subject to generation and corruption, since all are encompassed by these three dimensions insofar as they are bodies. The upper waters, by contrast, were the separate beings, in which there is no corporeality whatsoever and consequently none of the three dimensions of body.

That this was indeed his intention is evident from the proof he brought from the verse, “And the spirit of God hovered over the surface of the waters” (Genesis 1:2). In his understanding, this indicated that the upper waters were the spirit of God: those spiritual forms constituted the spirit of God hovering over the surface of the waters—that is, the movers of the corporeal beings, which were the lower waters and included the celestial bodies themselves. He explained this hovering by the image of a dove that touches yet does not touch. For since these beings are spirits and forms rather than corporeal entities, they do not physically touch or come into contact with one another, since the notions of physical contact and touching cannot properly be applied to that which is incorporeal.

(Parashat Bereshit — Genesis 1:8, The Mystery of the Upper Waters in the Commentary of Don Isaac Abarbanel)

Next section →

Read more

Previous section → Heavens, Waters, and the Firmament

Thus, all the Rabbis and the other Sages named as holding the first opinion upheld and accepted the position I have presented concerning the firmament: namely, that it comprises all the celestial spheres contained within the encompassing sphere. This is what they meant when they said that the middle drop congealed. They meant that the firmament was not the first sphere, for that had already been created on the first day. Rather, what congealed was the middle drop—that is, the corporeal substance within it—which thereby came to occupy the intermediate region between the first sphere and the elements. From this middle drop were formed the lower heavens and the uppermost heavens above them, extending as far as the eighth sphere. This, in my judgment, is the true interpretation.

Rav, however, held the opinion cited by Rashi, Ramban, Ralbag, and Rabbenu Nissim: that the firmament was the first sphere itself, together with all the other spheres contained within it. All of them were created together on the first day, but they were still fluid and their formation was incomplete; on the second day they solidified and their existence was firmly established. Since the words “Let there be a firmament” would appear to contradict this view, Rav interpreted them to mean: Let the firmament become firm.

Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Simon, by contrast, adopted the first opinion: that the firmament was the uppermost sphere alone, as maintained by the sages of the nations. Accordingly, they said that the firmament was made into a sheet. Their meaning was that the first and encompassing sphere was initially created as a sheet-like surface and was not yet spherical. On the second day it was spread out and became the firmament, for its substance was refined in such a way that it acquired a greater spherical extension. This is comparable to the expression, “They hammered out sheets of gold”(Exodus 39:3): the sheets already existed, but they were beaten out so as to spread them and increase their dimensions.

Rabbi Chananiah, however, followed another approach—the one mentioned, though without attribution to him, by the author of Yesod Olam—namely, that the firmament was the concave surface of the sphere of the moon. This is the meaning of his statement that fire came forth from above and licked the surface of the firmament. The fire alludes to the divine decree, for He is a consuming fire1: it came forth from above and acted upon, or licked, the surface of the firmament—that is, the surface of the lowest sphere, which separates the upper realms from the lower. He supported this opinion with the verse, “By His breath He made the heavens a tent” (Job 26:13), for this makes clear that the fire said to have come forth from above is an allusion to His breath and His will, blessed be He, through which He beautified the surface of the heavens.

You can therefore see clearly that all the opinions mentioned concerning the firmament, insofar as they regard it as belonging to the class of celestial bodies, are encompassed within this teaching of the Sages. Yet since the first opinion is attributed to all the Rabbis, as well as to the other distinguished Sages who were the leaders of Israel, we know that this is undoubtedly the true opinion.

The Sages likewise said that the distance from the earth to the firmament is a journey of five hundred years, and that the same distance separates the firmament from the upper waters; that the thickness of the earth is equal to the thickness of the firmament; and other similar statements2. In all these teachings they intended precisely what I have explained: the depth of the world of the elements and of the composite bodies formed from them corresponds to the distance and measure extending from the earth to the firmament, which is the sphere of the moon. The same applies from one firmament to another, for each of the encompassing celestial spheres may be called a firmament.

So too, when they interpreted “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters” as meaning between one body of water and another, their intention was that the firmament stood between the lower waters, which are among the elements, and the first encompassing sphere, which is the upper waters. Likewise, Rabbi Tanchuma’s statement that the upper waters are suspended by the divine word was intended to teach that the elemental waters found here below are heavy and are supported and sustained by the earth beneath them. This is not so of the upper waters. Scripture does not say that they are upon the firmament, as though their weight required the firmament to support them. Rather, since it says that they are above the firmament, we learn that they stand by themselves, bearing and containing everything else. This is the uppermost sphere, which constitutes the place of the world, and its existence depends solely upon the divine word. Rashi likewise explained the matter in this way in the first chapter of Ta’anit3.

(Parashat Bereshit — Genesis 1:8, The Sages and the Structure of the Heavens in the Commentary of Don Isaac Abarbanel)

Next section →

Read more

Previous section → The Testimony of Scripture

The same distinction appears in Psalm 148. There David says: “Praise the Lord from the heavens...”1 There the name “heavens” designates the highest sphere, while the expression “Praise Him in the heights” refers to the eighth sphere, the sphere of the constellations, which occupies the loftiest position above the spheres of the wandering planets. He then says: “Praise Him, all His angels”2, referring to the separate intellects that move those spheres. Next comes: “Praise Him, all His hosts”, referring to the spheres of Saturn, Jupiter, and Mars, which constitute the heavenly host above the sun. He then continues: “Praise Him, sun and moon”3, naming the two great luminaries, and afterwards: “Praise Him, all stars of the night”, referring to Venus and Mercury, which receive their light from the sun.

Having enumerated these individually, the Psalmist gathers them together once more and gives the reason for their praise: “Praise Him, highest heavens”4 (Psalms 148:4). By “the heavens of heavens” he means the celestial spheres enclosed within the highest sphere, for they are, as it were, the highest heavens. He then adds: “and the waters that are above the heavens”, referring to the all-encompassing sphere that surrounds them all. Each of these praises the Lord for two reasons: first, because He commanded and they were created; and second, because He established them forever and ever. Since He is both their efficient cause and the One who continually sustains their existence, it is fitting that they should praise Him.

From this you may also understand that Scripture sometimes calls the highest sphere shamayim (“heavens”) and at other times mayim (“waters”). The reason is that the word “shamayim” may be understood as a compound of esh (“fire”) and mayim (“water”), signifying the separate intellects together with the highest sphere, the dwelling place of the spiritual beings. At times, however, Scripture omits the initial shin, leaving only mayim, which then refers specifically to the substance of the celestial sphere, without alluding to the fiery nature of the separate intellects. Likewise, the concentric celestial spheres enclosed within the highest sphere are sometimes called the firmament and sometimes the heavens, for the reasons already explained5.

The same usage appears in the final psalm: “Praise God in His holy place; praise Him in the firmament of His might” (Psalms 150:1). In my opinion, “His holy place” refers to the highest sphere that encompasses all the others, because, as the sphere directly moved by Him, it is uniquely associated with His holiness. “The firmament of His might,” however, refers to the remaining celestial spheres enclosed within it, while the following expression, “Praise Him for His mighty deeds...”6, concerns the lower world. Some commentators explain these expressions differently, taking “His holy place” to refer to the first sphere, “the firmament of His might” to the eighth sphere, and “His mighty deeds” to the spheres of the seven wandering planets, maintaining that the Psalmist intended in this passage to enumerate only the heavenly bodies.

The same understanding is found in the words of Daniel: “And the wise shall shine like the brightness of the firmament”“the firmament of His might”7 (Daniel 12:3). There the “firmament” refers to the shining inner surface of the celestial sphere that faces toward us.

It is therefore evident that nowhere in Scripture does the term rakia (“firmament”) appear in a context where it cannot naturally be understood as referring to the celestial spheres enclosed within the highest sphere, each of which performs its own proper activity.

The Sages on the Nature of the Firmament

As for the words of our Sages, when they are carefully examined, you will find nothing in them that contradicts what I have said, either concerning the firmament or concerning the waters above it. Consider what they said in Bereshit Rabbah concerning the words, “Let there be a firmament” (Genesis 1:6):

All the Rabbis, in the name of Rabbi Chananiah; Rabbi Pinchas, Rabbi Yaakov, and Rabbi Bun, in the name of Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachman, said: When the Holy One, blessed be He, declared, “Let there be a firmament”, the middle drop congealed, and from it were formed the lower heavens and the uppermost heavens. Rav said: They were fluid, and on the second day they solidified. “Let there be a firmament” means: Let the firmament become firm. Rabbi Yehudah bar Rabbi Simon said: Let the firmament be fashioned into sheets, as it is said, “They hammered out sheets of gold”8 (Exodus 39:3). Rabbi Chanina said: Fire came forth from above and licked the surface of the firmament. Rabbi Yochanan, whenever he reached the verse, By His breath He made the heavens a tent”9 (Job 26:13), would say: Rabbi Chananiah taught me well.

Now the author of the Guide, Ramban, and Ralbag each cited this teaching and explained it according to his own approach. Yet not one of them took care to determine precisely what these distinguished Sages were disputing. I have seen explanations of their disagreement that are exceedingly remote from the truth.

It appears to me, rather, that these Sages entertained all three of the opinions concerning the firmament that I mentioned in the first question of this section. All of them agreed, however, that the firmament belongs to the class of celestial bodies and is neither air nor anything composed of the terrestrial elements.

(Parashat Bereshit — Genesis 1:8, Heavens, Waters, and the Firmament in the Commentary of Don Isaac Abarbanel)

Next section →

Read more

Previous section → The Unity Hidden Within Diversity

After explaining this passage and answering its questions, it remains for me to demonstrate and confirm that my interpretation of the firmament accords with the testimony of the witnesses—the Torah, the Prophets, the Writings, and the sayings of our Sages—who have spoken concerning it. Given the importance of this subject, and considering how many of the later sages of our nation have stumbled over it, it would be inappropriate to pass over the matter lightly, for this is one of the fundamental principles of the account of Creation1.

First, the firmament mentioned in connection with the birds—“Let fowl fly above the earth, across the face of the firmament of heaven”2 (Genesis 1:20)—does not contradict what I have explained. For birds fly toward the sphere of the moon, which is one of the celestial spheres included under the collective name of the firmament.

Indeed, Scripture’s wording is particularly precise. It says: “across the face of the firmament of heaven,” not simply “in the firmament of heaven,” because fowls do not reach the concave surface of the lunar sphere itself. Rather, they fly opposite its visible face—that is, toward the surface turned toward the earth, which is truly the “face” of the firmament.

Likewise, concerning the luminaries, Scripture says that they were placed “in the firmament of heaven”3 (Genesis 1:14), because they are situated within those celestial spheres collectively called the firmament. Notice that it says “in the firmament of heaven,” not merely “in heaven,” because in this context the name shamayim (“heaven”) refers specifically to the first and all-encompassing sphere, whereas the expression “firmament of heaven” designates the concentric spheres enclosed within that first sphere.

Turning now to the testimony of the Prophets, the firmament mentioned in Ezekiel’s vision is the eighth sphere, the sphere of the fixed stars. It is concerning this sphere that the prophet says: “And above the heads of the living creatures was the likeness of a firmament...”4 (Ezekiel 1:22). According to the opinion of the author of the Guide, the “living creatures” in that passage represent the seven spheres of the wandering planets. The firmament above them is therefore the eighth sphere. Since the Torah applies the name rakia (“firmament”) to all the celestial spheres, it is fitting that the eighth sphere—the noblest of them all, spread out above the others—should likewise bear that name.

This interpretation is confirmed by the continuation of the vision: “And above the firmament that was over their heads was the likeness of a throne, in appearance like a sapphire stone; and upon the likeness of the throne was the likeness, in appearance, of a man above it” (Ezekiel 1:26). That throne can only be the highest sphere—the exalted and lofty throne. Concerning its mover, the prophet says that he saw above it “the likeness... of a man.” It necessarily follows that the firmament is the eighth sphere lying beneath it.

Indeed, according to Maimonides’ interpretation of Ezekiel’s vision of the Chariot, this explanation is unavoidable5. For if you were to interpret the firmament as the first sphere itself, what then would become of the throne situated above it? Shall we say that it is the sphere of the Active Intellect, which the Kabbalists called Shmei Ha-Hatzlachah6, as some commentators on the Guide have imagined?

Such an explanation cannot possibly be accepted by the author of the Guide himself, nor would he affirm it. For he explicitly explains in the chapters of the second part that, according to Aristotle, there are only eight celestial spheres, or, according to Ptolemy, nine—but certainly no tenth sphere whatsoever.

To show that the celestial spheres are indeed the firmament, Rabbi Eliezer the Great said: “Which is the firmament that was created on the second day? It is the firmament above the heads of the living creatures,”7 thereby referring to the eighth sphere, which is the first and most exalted part of the firmament.

The testimony of the Writings likewise supports this interpretation. David, of blessed memory, declared: The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament proclaims the work of His hands (Psalms 19:2). By “the heavens” he intended the first sphere, which encompasses all the others and proclaims the glory of God through its daily motion. By “the firmament,” however, he meant the collective body of the celestial spheres contained within it, which proclaim the work of the Holy One, blessed be He. The expression “the work of His hands” is particularly appropriate, since Scripture itself says: And God made the firmament (Genesis 1:7). David further makes it clear that the firmament refers to the celestial spheres when he continues: Their line has gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world; in them He has set a tent for the sun (Psalms 19:5). The sun, of course, is situated within the celestial spheres.

(Parashat Bereshit — Genesis 1:8, The Testimony of Scripture in the Commentary of Don Isaac Abarbanel)

Next section →

Read more

Previous section → Creation by Wisdom, Not by Necessity

Scripture then says: “And it was so,” after the words: “And God made the firmament,”1 to teach that the ordering and separation established by the Holy One, blessed be He, among both the heavenly and earthly realms remained permanent and unchanged thereafter, even after the appearance of the dry land on the third day. This, indeed, is the constant meaning of the expression: “And it was so”— namely, permanence and enduring stability.

Thus the fifth question is resolved.

Finally, Scripture says: “And God called the firmament Heaven,”2 to teach that although the celestial spheres had been distinguished from the primordial sphere and thereby acquired properties different from it—so that one might have thought it inappropriate to call them shamayim (”heavens”), like that original great sphere—the Holy One, blessed be He, nevertheless gave the firmament the name shamayim.

The meaning of this naming is that all the celestial spheres constitute a single unified system together with the all-encompassing sphere. Despite all their differences, they are united as one organism, whose head is the first and highest sphere and whose extremity is the sphere of the moon. They are also united by the daily motion, for all the spheres participate in that motion together with the first sphere3.

For this reason He called the firmament shamayim, the very name of the first sphere from which all the others emerged. They bear the name of their progenitor, just as children inherit the name of their father.

This, then, is the true meaning of God’s naming the firmament. It was not, as Maimonides maintained, merely to distinguish it from another object bearing the same name. Rather, it serves to reveal the nature of the celestial spheres and their unity with the first sphere.

Thus the sixth question is resolved.

Moreover, the celestial sphere exists for the sake of the star it carries, for the star is its most excellent component. Yet the heavenly luminaries had not yet been placed in the firmament, since this would not occur until the fourth day.

For this reason, the expression: “that it was good” is absent from the second day. Although the celestial spheres were fashioned on that day, they were still without their luminaries and stars.

There is also another reason. The separation of the elements was not yet complete until the third day, when the waters were gathered together and the dry land appeared.

Thus the seventh question is resolved.

Furthermore, since two distinct separations took place on the second day—the separation among the heavenly realms and the separation among the earthly elements, as I have explained—Scripture says: “And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.” Evening corresponds to the ordering of the lower realm, while morning corresponds to the ordering of the heavenly realm.

As for the statement of our Sages that on the second day were created “our light,” “the light of Gehinnom,” and discord, their teaching also possesses a sound foundation.

They understood the words, “And God separated the waters beneath the firmament,” much as I have explained them: namely, that the Holy One, blessed be He, separated the elements from one another so that each might become established in its own proper qualities and thereby exercise its natural power upon the others. While they remained mingled together, none possessed its full strength.

In this sense, discord came into existence, for the separated elements now stood in opposition to one another, each asserting its own nature against the others.

Likewise, once the element of fire had been separated and established in its own place, it became actual light. This, according to the Sages, is the meaning of “our light.” So too with “the light of Gehinnom,” which they understood as a subtle, spiritual fire that punishes souls, as Ramban explains in Sha’ar Ha-Gemul.

It is also possible that they called it “Gehinnom” because it signifies the corruption and dissolution of composite bodies resulting from the struggle among the elements themselves4.

Finally, because the separation of the waters from the earth was not completed until the third day, the Sages were likewise correct in saying that the work of the waters was not completed on the second day but reached its completion only on the third.

Accordingly, none of their words falls to the ground.

(Parashat Bereshit — Genesis 1:8, The Unity Hidden Within Diversity in the Commentary of Don Isaac Abarbanel)

Next section →

Previous section → The Sages and the Structure of the Heavens

They further said that the Holy One, blessed be He, took all the waters of Creation and placed half of them in the firmament and half in the Ocean. They also said that the edges of the firmament are joined to the edges of the Ocean. Their intention was not what Ibn Ezra and those who followed him supposed. Rather, they sought to teach that rain has two causes. The first is the efficient cause: the celestial bodies, which through their motions bring about rain. The second is the material cause: the vapors that rise from the seas, rivers, and other bodies containing moisture. Thus, when they said that He placed half of the waters in the firmament, they meant that the firmament constitutes one of the causes of rain—namely, its efficient cause—while the other half was placed in the Ocean, which constitutes its material cause. And to express the relationship between the agent and that upon which it acts, they said that the edges of the firmament are joined to the Ocean.

This is likewise the meaning of what they said in Midrash Tehillim: that the upper waters are male and the lower waters female; that the males say to the females, Receive us; and that they are the channels of the Holy One, blessed be He, as it is said, “Deep calls to deep to the sound of Your water channels”1 (Psalms 42:8). The same idea underlies their statement in Bereshit Rabbah that the firmament resembles a pool, with a dome above the pool2. The dome alludes to the sphere of the fixed stars, while the firmament consists of the celestial spheres contained within it. When they said that from beneath the pool a drop of moisture trickles down, their meaning was that, according to the configurations of the wandering stars—that is, the planets—which constitute the firmament, together with the dome above them, namely the eighth sphere, rain is brought about, and water is caused to descend upon the earth.

All of this is encompassed by two verses. The first is, “and absorbs water from the rains of heaven”3 (Deuteronomy 11:11), referring to the efficient cause of rain, namely the celestial bodies through their motions. The second is, “A mist rose from the earth and watered [the whole surface of the ground]” (Genesis 2:6), referring to its material cause. The Sages likewise explained this matter in the first chapter of tractate Ta’anit4.

They further said in Bereshit Rabbah: The lower waters were separated from the upper waters only through weeping, as it is said, “He binds the streams from weeping”5 (Job 28:11). Rabbi Tanchuma derived this from the verse, “At the sound of His giving forth a multitude of waters in the heavens”6 (Jeremiah 10:13); and sound signifies nothing other than weeping, as it is said, “A voice is heard on high, lamentation and bitter weeping”7 (Jeremiah 31:14)8.

By weeping they alluded to the corruption that overtakes the lower beings. It is as though they were saying that the celestial bodies, which the Torah calls the upper waters, are distinguished from the lower generated bodies not merely by a difference of location, but by weeping, which alludes to corruption: the lower beings are subject to corruption, whereas the upper beings remain permanent and enduring. This is the most essential distinction between them.

They further said there: Where are the sun and the moon situated? In the second firmament, as it is said, “And God placed them in the firmament of the heavens”9 (Genesis 1:17). For had they been placed in the first firmament, no creature could have endured the heat of the day10. Their opinion was that the sun and the moon occupied a single sphere, namely the second sphere. They did not hold that the sun occupied a middle position among the planetary spheres, but rather that it was in the second sphere and that the moon was there together with it; hence the relationship they perceived between their motions. They said that the Holy One, blessed be He, did not wish to place them in the first sphere—that is, the sphere nearest to us—because, had He done so, no creature could have endured the heat of the sun. On account of its proximity, its heating effect would have been so intense as to consume everything by fire.

You already know that this was the opinion of the early astronomers, who maintained that the spheres of Venus and Mercury were above the sun. The sun would therefore occupy the second sphere, as the author of the Guide explained in Part II, chapter 911. For this reason they likewise said in tractate Chagigah: “Rav Yehudah said, There are two firmaments, as it is said, Behold, to the Lord your God belong the heavens and the heavens of heavens (Deuteronomy 10:14). Reish Lakish, however, said: There are seven firmaments.”12

You have already seen the words of the author of the Guide in the chapter just mentioned and in Part I, chapter 70: those who count seven firmaments refer only to the seven wandering stars, that is, the seven planets. Those who count two took account of the first sphere, which contains no star at all, and called it a firmament because it is spread out and extended over them; while all the depicted spheres that contain stars they collectively called a single firmament. They based this upon the verse, “Behold, to the Lord your God belong the heavens and the heavens of heavens”, calling the first sphere the heavens, just as the Torah calls it in its opening verse, and calling the other enclosed spheres the heavens of heavens—that is, the heavens contained within the heavens.

It appears more correct to me, however, to interpret the two firmaments differently: one is the sphere of the fixed stars, which is the heavens of heavens, and the other comprises the seven wandering stars. For the first sphere, which encompasses everything, should not be called a firmament.

(Parashat Bereshit — Genesis 1:8, The Permanent and the Perishable in the Commentary of Don Isaac Abarbanel)

Next section →

Read more

Previous section → The Firmament from Within the Waters

Scripture then continues: “And God made the firmament,” in order to teach that the great primordial sphere did not possess within itself the power to produce, by its own natural capacity, the various celestial spheres lying beneath it with all their manifold differences and distinctions.

Had the firmament arisen from that first sphere solely by its own inherent nature and power, all the spheres derived from it would necessarily have been alike in their constitution and properties. The outermost sphere would not move from east to west in twenty-four hours while all the remaining spheres move from west to east. Nor would the eighth sphere complete its revolution in twenty-four thousand years, the sphere of Saturn in thirty years, that of Jupiter in twelve years, that of Mars in two years, that of the Sun in one complete year, that of Venus in twelve lunar months, that of Mercury in ten months, and that of the Moon in a single month1.

These differences, together with the many other distinctions among the spheres—their sizes, their centers, and the stars they contain—necessarily demonstrate, as Maimonides explains in Part II, Chapter 19 of the Guide for the Perplexed, that the celestial spheres exist through the will of a willing Creator and the intention of a purposeful Designer, blessed be He, rather than by natural necessity.

For this reason Scripture declares: “And God made the firmament.”

Its formation, with all its profound diversity, bears witness that “the hand of the Lord has done this.” From this you may also understand that whenever Scripture says: “And God made...” in the account of creation, it refers to the production of diverse forms from a single underlying material2.

Such was the case with the firmament. The Holy One, blessed be He, fashioned it not as a uniform body, identical in all its parts and spheres like the primordial celestial sphere from which it came, but with an astonishing variety of forms and properties.

It is for this reason that Scripture says: “And God made the firmament.”

Thus, the third question is resolved.

The explanation given here also clarifies the meaning of the other occurrences of the expression: “And God made...” each in its proper place.

This, moreover, is the meaning of the astonishment with which Ben Zoma “shook the world” over the words: “And God made the firmament.” He marveled that Scripture should speak of God’s making the firmament after having already declared, “Let there be a firmament,” for once the divine command had gone forth, its fulfillment was assured, as it is written: “By the word of the Lord the heavens were made”3 (Psalm 33:6)4.

Ben Zoma did not express the same astonishment over the words: “And God made” on the fourth and sixth days, because the diversity of the things fashioned on those days is evident and readily apparent. The case of the firmament is different. Ben Zoma, whose discourse was expansive and whose wisdom concerning the celestial spheres was profound, found in this expression an opportunity to reveal the remarkable differences among the heavenly bodies—their sizes, positions, motions, stars, centers, and all their other characteristics. It was in this sense that he “shook the world”: by displaying the breadth and grandeur of his knowledge of astronomy.

Nor does Scripture say: “And God made” on the first, third, or fifth days, because the works performed on those days did not involve this extraordinary diversity and differentiation. Scripture immediately explains what is meant by the making of the firmament when it continues: “And He separated between the waters beneath the firmament...”

The One who performs this separation is none other than the Holy One, blessed be He.

The meaning is that, as part of His making of the firmament, He separated the waters beneath the firmament—that is, the elemental substances, which until then had remained mingled together without distinction. It is for this reason that Scripture refers to them collectively as “waters.” Through the motions of the celestial spheres, the Holy One, blessed be He, established the element of fire above, immediately beneath the concave surface of the lunar sphere; beneath it He placed the air, surrounding the waters; and the waters, in turn, surround the earth. Thus, through the motions of the celestial spheres, each element came to occupy its proper natural place.

Likewise, God separated the waters above the firmament. This does not mean that He separated them from the lower waters. Rather, He established distinctions among the upper waters themselves by forming the various celestial spheres in the work of the firmament5.

You now understand that the words: “and let it separate between the waters and the waters” in the first verse of this passage do not refer to the same separation described later in the words: “And He separated between the waters...”

The first passage speaks of the division within the original great celestial sphere itself—that is, the differentiation of its parts when the firmament was formed from it. The later passage, however, describes two further acts of separation carried out by God: first, the differentiation among the lower elemental substances themselves, and second, the differentiation among the upper celestial spheres themselves.

The correctness of this interpretation is further confirmed by the wording of the text. In the first verse Scripture says: “and let it separate between waters and waters,” whereas here it says: “And He separated between the waters beneath the firmament and the waters...” because these are two distinct acts of separation.

Thus the fourth question is resolved.

(Parashat Bereshit — Genesis 1:8, Creation by Wisdom, Not by Necessity in the Commentary of Don Isaac Abarbanel)

Next section →

Read more

Previous section → Why One Heaven Became Many

The third reason concerns the heavenly luminaries and the stars.

Had they all been fixed within a single sphere, their influences would have been stronger than was fitting because of the immense power of the sphere carrying them1. The sun, for example, would have scorched the world with excessive heat, and the other stars likewise would have exercised their influences beyond their proper measure through the added power imparted to them by so mighty a sphere. In that case, either their effects would have exceeded the proper limits, or else, being situated in the highest and outermost sphere, they would have been so far removed from the inhabited world that their influence would have been weakened beyond what the recipients below required.

For this reason, His wisdom decreed that the luminaries should not be placed in the first sphere, whose daily motion encompasses all, but rather in smaller spheres situated beneath it, each within its own sphere. In this way, the influence of each luminary would be precisely measured, limited, and proportioned, neither exceeding nor falling short of what was appropriate.

The fourth reason concerns the affairs of the world below.

It has already been demonstrated by the philosophers that the diversity of motions among the celestial spheres gives rise to the various phenomena and changing conditions of the sublunary world2. Accordingly, the spheres move in different ways: some from east to west, others from west to east; some swiftly, others slowly; some carry a single star, while others bear many; some place their stars along the equator, others near the poles; and they differ in many other respects. All these distinctions exist in order to bring about the perfection of the world below, whether this was intended as the primary purpose or only as a secondary consequence—a question that does not concern us here3.

Had the original celestial sphere remained a single body moving with one uniform motion throughout, it could have produced only a single effect, whereas the lower world requires a rich diversity of influences.

For all these reasons, the Supreme Wisdom saw fit to fashion, from the inner portion of that great celestial sphere created on the first day—which Scripture collectively called shamayim (”heavens”)—all the remaining concentric spheres enclosed within it. These Scripture designates by the name rakia (”firmament”), because they are stretched out and spread forth.

Thus, just as in the realm of the separate intellects, according to the doctrine of emanation, the Holy One, blessed be He, first brought forth the First Intelligence and only afterward the remaining intelligences; and just as in the material world He first created the four elements as its fundamental principles and afterward produced all the beings derived from them; so too in the realm of the celestial spheres He first created that one primordial sphere directly from nothing, and only afterward fashioned from it all the remaining spheres.

Now that all this has been established, we are in a position to explain the verses of this passage according to this principle4.

Scripture relates that, after the measure of light had been completed and its cessation—that is, the night—had come at the close of the first day, the First Cause, blessed be He, decreed: “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the water.” That is, let there come into being something stretched out and extended within the waters.

He called “water,” the great celestial sphere created on the first day. I have already explained the various analogies and figurative senses by which the heavenly sphere may be designated by the name waters. Thus, the verse means: Let a firmament come forth from within the water.

In other words, from the substance and thickness of that primordial celestial sphere, from its inner portion, there should come into being the rakia (”firmament”), that is, the collective name for all the concentric spheres enclosed within the first sphere that embraces and surrounds them all.

The meaning is that the firmament was not formed from the upper, convex surface of that sphere, but from its interior substance and thickness. This is the significance of the words: “in the midst of the water”—namely, that the firmament emerged from its innermost substance and thickness. As a result, what had previously been a single, continuous celestial body became differentiated into distinct parts.

This is the meaning of the words: “and let it be a separation between water and water.”

The verse does not refer to a separation between the upper waters and the lower elemental waters known to us. Rather, the very formation of the firmament brought about a distinction within the celestial sphere itself—between its upper and lower portions. Through this act of formation there arose a distinction of position and place between the outermost sphere, which encompasses all, and the concentric spheres that were fashioned within it.

This, then, is the true meaning of the firmament, and by it the first question is resolved. The second question, concerning the words: “and let it separate between the waters and the waters,” is likewise resolved.

(Parashat Bereshit — Genesis 1:8, The Firmament from Within the Waters in the Commentary of Don Isaac Abarbanel)

Next section →

Read more

Previous section → The True Structure of the Heavens

Thus, just as the earth created on the first day contained within itself the four elementary substances in their entirety, while the subsequent days brought forth the composite beings formed from those elements, so too the heavens created on the first day included both the separate intellects and a single immense celestial sphere, vast in size and thickness, which serves as the abode of the universe. On the second day, from that one great sphere—called shamayim (“heavens”)—God fashioned all the remaining concentric celestial spheres. It is these that Scripture here calls the rakia (“firmament”). Finally, on the fourth day, He placed the heavenly luminaries within them, as will be explained later.

It follows, therefore, that neither the remaining celestial spheres nor the heavenly luminaries were created on the first day. This accords with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov in the tractate Chagigah, which I cited earlier when discussing the fifth question of the first section. Moreover, we have received the tradition that the teachings of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov are invariably kav ve-naki—few in number, yet exceptionally precise and reliable1.

It also follows that the firmament was not created out of absolute nothingness, but from something already created, for it was fashioned from the great sphere brought into being on the first day. For this reason Scripture says: “And God made the firmament,” rather than: “And God created the firmament.”2

I have already explained that the primary principles and origins created on the first day were brought into existence complete with the capacities required to produce the derivative realities that Scripture describes on the subsequent days.

The remaining celestial spheres were not created on the first day because that day was reserved exclusively for the creation of first principles out of absolute nothingness. It would not have been fitting for derivative beings—things produced from something already existing—to belong to the work of that day. Therefore, the Holy One, blessed be He, chose to create directly from nothing only the smallest number of beings necessary, so that everything else might subsequently be fashioned from them. Thus, He created only a single celestial sphere directly from nothing, in order that all the remaining celestial spheres might afterwards be made from it.

As for the lower world, however, He created the four elemental substances as first principles rather than only one, as He had done in the heavenly realm, because the eternal heavenly beings required only a single primordial beginning.

The lower world, however, because of the continual processes of generation and corruption that characterize it, required four elemental principles from which composite beings might be formed and into which they might ultimately dissolve.

Now the Holy One, blessed be He, saw fit to fashion the celestial spheres from that single sphere which He had first created, rather than leaving it forever as one undivided whole. This was for four reasons.

The first reason is that the separate intellects are many, and it was therefore fitting that the celestial spheres should likewise be many, for the multiplicity of movers requires a corresponding multiplicity of things moved.

The second reason is that, as the Philosopher taught, the outermost sphere attains its perfection through a single motion, whereas the remaining spheres cannot attain that same perfection except through many motions. Their multiplicity of motions corresponds to their greater remoteness from the First Mover. Thus, what the highest sphere achieves by a single motion because of its proximity to the First Mover, the lower spheres attain only through a plurality of motions.

Indeed, since the original celestial sphere was created so immense in size and thickness, its convex outer surface was necessarily closer and more directly joined to the separate intellect. For this reason, a single motion was sufficient for it to attain its perfection.

Its lower, concave regions, however, being farther removed from that first circumference and from the influence of the separate intellect, could not attain perfection through that same universal motion. For how could the concave portion of so vast a sphere, more distant from the separate intellect, attain perfection through the very same motion as its convex outer surface, which stands nearer to it?

Although the separate intellect occupies no place in the physical sense, its influence and motion must nevertheless be more immediately related to certain parts of the sphere than to others. Indeed, Aristotle himself wrote that the part of the sphere most perfectly united with its mover is the great circle that girds it midway between its poles, being equally distant from both.

Accordingly, Divine Wisdom ordained that the lower, concave portions of that original sphere should become distinct celestial spheres, each possessing its own motions. Through this multiplicity of motions, some would attain the same perfection reached by the higher convex regions through a single motion, while others, unable to attain that identical perfection, would achieve another perfection appropriate to their own nature.

(Parashat Bereshit — Genesis 1:8, Why One Heaven Became Many in the Commentary of Don Isaac Abarbanel)

Next section →

Read more

Previous section → Every Word Has a Purpose

The sixth question concerns the statement: “And God called the firmament Heaven”1 (Genesis 1:8).

For if the Holy One, blessed be He, fashioned the firmament within the universal watery substance, then the firmament would occupy an intermediate position between the upper and lower realms. Why, then, was it called shamayim (“heaven”), taking its name from the upper realms, rather than from the lower? Or, indeed, should it not rather have been called mayim (“waters”), since it was hewn from the very substance from which it originated?

Why is “it was good” not said on the second day?

The seventh question is why the words: “that it was good” are not spoken on the second day.

Concerning this, our Sages offered various explanations in Bereishit Rabbah. Some said that Gehinnom was created on that day, and so it is likewise written in Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer. Others said that it was because division or discord was created on that day. Still others explained that, since the work concerning the waters was not completed on the second day, the words “that it was good” were omitted there and instead appear twice on the third day: once for the completion of the work of the waters, and once for the sprouting of the vegetation. This, as Maimonides wrote, is the interpretation that comes closest to the plain meaning of the text.

Nevertheless, the difficulty remains.

The work of the second day consisted in making the firmament and in separating the waters—that is, distinguishing the upper waters from the lower. Both of these works were completed on the second day. If so, it would have been appropriate for Scripture to declare concerning that day: “that it was good.”

As for the appearance of the dry land, that was an entirely different work from the separation of the waters accomplished on the second day.

We must also ask: from where did the Sages derive the idea that Gehinnom or discord was created on the second day? Neither the light of this world nor the fire of Gehinnom is ever called “waters.” Upon what scriptural basis, then, did they found these interpretations?

I shall now explain these verses in such a way as to resolve all of the foregoing questions.

And God said, “Let there be a firmament...” (Genesis 1:6–8)

The explanation that seems to me to reflect the true meaning of the firmament and the waters above it is as follows.

The last two opinions that I presented in the first question—namely, that the firmament is a region of the atmosphere, or that it is a body created within the element of water—deserve no consideration, for they contradict both the plain meaning of Scripture and the teachings of our Sages.

Likewise, the first three opinions, all of which identify the firmament with some part of the heavenly bodies—whether with the celestial spheres as a whole, the outermost sphere, or the concave surface of the sphere of the moon—are also untenable because of the difficulties they encounter from Scripture and the words of our Sages, as I have already shown.

I therefore maintain that the shamayim (“heavens”) created on the first day consisted of a single sphere alone, immense in size and thickness. This vast celestial sphere was the first to be created. The firmament made on the second day, however, comprises all the concentric spheres enclosed within that outer sphere. These were fashioned from the great sphere that had been created on the first day.

The explanation is as follows.

As I have already explained, the first day differs from the remaining six days in two fundamental respects. First, everything created on the first day was brought into existence ex nihilo, whereas the works of the subsequent days were produced from preexisting created matter. Second, on the first day God created the primary principles and origins of things, while on the following days He produced the derivative realities that proceeded from them2.

(Parashat Bereshit — Genesis 1:8, The True Structure of the Heavens in the Commentary of Don Isaac Abarbanel)

Next section →

Read more

Previous section → The Waters That Are Not Water

1The second question concerns the words: “And let it separate between the waters.” For once Scripture has said, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters,” it is already evident that this firmament will separate the waters above it from the waters below it. Otherwise, one body would occupy the same place as another.

The third question concerns the statement: “And God made the firmament”2 (Genesis 1:7). Our Sages said that this is one of the verses over which Ben Zoma “shook the world,” asking in astonishment3: “‘And God made’? But is it not written: ‘By the word of the Lord the heavens were made’4 (Psalm 33:6)?”5

Nachmanides wrote that Ben Zoma’s astonishment was not directed merely at the expression “And God made,” since the same phrase also appears on the fourth and sixth days. Rather, it arose because on the other days the narrative proceeds immediately from the divine command to the statement, “And it was so.” Here, however, after “And God said,” Scripture inserts, “And God made the firmament,” before stating, “And it was so.” According to Ramban, this was Ben Zoma’s difficulty. He adds that Ben Zoma may have had some esoteric interpretation in mind but chose not to reveal it6.

Yet since Ben Zoma himself did not explain his meaning, I wonder why Ramban interpreted the verse according to its plain sense, explaining the phrase “And God made the firmament,” when Scripture had already said, “Let there be a firmament.” Furthermore, why is it not said, “And God made,” on the first, third, or fifth day, but only on the second, fourth, and sixth? Were not all the works of the six days the works of God?

One might also argue that Ben Zoma did not “shake the world” because the words “And it was so” follow the act of making rather than immediately following the command, as Ramban suggests. If that had been his concern, his astonishment should have been directed at the words “And it was so,” rather than at the words “And God made.” Indeed, his very expression—“‘And God made’? But is it not written: ‘By the word of the Lord the heavens were made’?”—shows that his difficulty centered on the phrase “And God made.” And if that is the reason for his astonishment, we must ask why he did not likewise raise the same objection regarding “And God made the two great luminaries” (Genesis 1:16), or “And God made the beasts of the earth” (Genesis 1:25)7.

The fourth question concerns the statement: “And He separated between the waters...” (Genesis 1:7)8.

For one of two possibilities must be true. Either the One who separated the waters was the Holy One, blessed be He, or the firmament itself was the agent of that separation. According to the latter view, the firmament, through its power and motion, brought about the differentiation of the waters beneath it, clothing one portion with the form of fire, another with the form of air, and likewise with the forms of the remaining elements. In the same manner, it also distinguished the waters above the firmament in their very substance and form. Thus, according to Rabbeinu Nissim, the firmament itself produced the distinctions both below and above, according to the degree of proximity or distance from it. Indeed, he took great pride in this explanation9.

Now, if the words “And He separated” refer to the Holy One, blessed be He, then the statement is truly superfluous. After Scripture has already declared, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it separate,” it would have been sufficient simply to say, “And it was so. And God made the firmament.” Why repeat the act of separation and attribute it once more to God, when that separation would naturally have followed from the creation of the firmament within the waters?

On the other hand, if “And it separated” refers to the firmament itself—that is, if the firmament was the agent of the separation—then the statement is equally superfluous. Once Scripture has said, “Let there be a firmament... and let it separate,” there is no need to add, “And it was so,” which, according to those commentators, merely testifies that the divine command had been carried out.

Moreover, the very idea is exceedingly difficult to conceive. Even if one grants that the firmament, through its motion, could produce different forms in what lies beneath it, how can it be imagined that it should likewise produce different forms in what lies above it? It is understandable that what is higher should act upon what is below, since it is the cause of what lies beneath. But it is inconceivable that what is lower, being itself an effect, should generate forms and natures in that which is above it and serves as its cause.

The fifth question concerns the statement, “And it was so.”10 If these words are intended to inform us that the thing came into existence exactly as God had decreed, then this has already been made clear by the verse, “And God made the firmament.” What purpose, then, is served by adding once again, “And it was so”?

The difficulty is greater still because the account of the firmament differs from the order followed on the other days. On the fourth day, Scripture first declares, “Let there be lights,” then immediately adds, “And it was so,” and only afterwards explains how this came to pass by saying, “And God made the two great lights.” Likewise, on the sixth day, it first states, “And it was so,” and then proceeds to explain how this was accomplished: “And God made the beasts of the earth.” In both instances, the phrase “And God made…” serves as an explanation of the preceding statement, “And it was so.”

In the account of the firmament, however, the order is reversed. Scripture first says, “Let there be a firmament,” then continues, “And God made the firmament,” and only afterwards adds, “And it was so.” Why does the narrative depart from the pattern observed on the other days?

(Parashat Bereshit — Genesis 1:6, Every Word Has a Purpose in the Commentary of Don Isaac Abarbanel)

Next section →

Read more

Previous section → The Heavenly Meaning of Rakia

The ninth witness also presents a difficulty. Bereishit Rabbah states:

“‘These are the generations of the heavens and the earth’ (Genesis 2:4) refers to what is above. Everything that you see as the generations of heaven and earth proceeds from them. Thus, ‘In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth’; on the second day He created from the upper realms, as it says, ‘Let there be a firmament’; on the third day He created from the lower realms, as it says, ‘Let the earth bring forth vegetation’; on the fourth day He created from the upper realms, as it says, ‘Let there be lights.’”

This clearly shows that the firmament created on the second day belongs to the heavenly bodies, just as the luminaries created on the fourth day belong to the heavenly realm, and not to the atmosphere, which belongs to the lower world1.

All of this demonstrates that this fourth opinion is a fabricated falsehood2.

As for the arguments by which its proponents sought to support it, I shall show, in my commentary on the passage itself, that they misunderstood the texts upon which they relied.

What astonishes me is that such eminent men as Maimonides and Ibn Ezra allowed themselves to be drawn into this mistaken opinion on the basis of so slight and weak a consideration. They were led to it merely because they found it impossible to accept the existence of waters above the heavens, as though the name mayim (“waters”) could refer only to the elemental waters known to us3.

But this is not so.

For we find the word mayim applied to prophecy and to the wisdom of the Torah, as in: “Ho! All who thirst, go to water” (Isaiah 55:1)4.

It is also applied to overwhelming power, as in: “Behold, the Lord is bringing up on them the mighty and massive waters of the river—the king of Assyria and all his wealth”5 (Isaiah 8:7).

Indeed, we even find the name mayim applied to God Himself: “They have forsaken Me, the fountain of living waters” (Jeremiah 2:13; 17:13).

Surely the prophets did not call God, His Torah, or the might of kings “waters” because they possessed the physical nature of water, but because of a figurative resemblance.

In the same way, they ought to have understood the “waters above the heavens.” Thus the falsity and untenability of this fourth opinion are likewise established.

The fifth opinion is that the rakia (“firmament”) mentioned here is a solid, spherical body created on the second day within the element of water. It is fixed in the middle of the universe, with certain waters established above it and other waters beneath it, although human beings are unable to perceive it.

This was the opinion of Saadia Gaon, and it was also held by some of the philosophers among the nations.

This opinion, however, deserves no consideration.

For nothing in observable reality confirms it, nor has any demonstration been offered in its support. It is merely the product of human imagination. When people find themselves unable to understand something, they invent false notions to soothe the ear and quiet the objections raised by their doubts6.

Accordingly, Abraham ibn Ezra wrote concerning this view: “The Gaon said things about the firmament that are not so.”

Since all five opinions that I have presented concerning the firmament prove untenable in light of Scripture and the words of the Sages, the question still remains: What, then, is the true nature of this rakia, and of the waters above it?

Would that I knew!7

(Parashat Bereshit — Genesis 1:6, The Waters That Are Not Water in the Commentary of Don Isaac Abarbanel)

Next section →

Read more

Previous section → The Firmament Beyond Meteorology

Likewise, the third witness is the vision of Ezekiel, who says that he saw a firmament above the heads of the living creatures, and above that firmament he saw the likeness of a sapphire stone, resembling a throne1. Can this possibly be interpreted as referring to the lower region of the atmosphere?

Indeed, all the proponents of this opinion interpret the living creatures as the celestial spheres. It therefore necessarily follows that the firmament above them must itself belong to the heavenly realm, not to the portion of the atmosphere in which we dwell.

The fourth witness is the statement of King David: “The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament proclaims the work of His hands” (Psalm 19:2).

Maimonides himself explains that this declaration and proclamation refer to intellectual apprehension, and from this verse he infers that the heavenly bodies are living, intelligent beings. How then can we say that the firmament is merely the lower atmosphere, close to mankind, dwelling among them amidst their impurities? Can we really claim that it is this atmosphere that proclaims the glory of God?

Likewise, the verse: “Hallelujah! Praise God in His sanctuary; praise Him in the firmament of His power” (Psalm 150:1) clearly refers, in my opinion, to the separate intellects by the expression “His sanctuary,” to the celestial bodies by “the firmament of His power,” and to the entire lower world by the following expression, “His mighty acts.” It is impossible to interpret the firmament mentioned there as the lower atmosphere2.

The fifth witness is found in Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer: “Which is the firmament created on the second day? It is the firmament above the heads of the living creatures.”

This must necessarily refer to something higher than the living creatures themselves, not to the atmosphere.

The sixth witness is the statement in Bereishit Rabbah that the sun and moon are situated in the second firmament. This cannot be interpreted as referring to the atmosphere.

Still less can the seventh witness be reconciled with this opinion. Bereishit Rabbah says: “When the Holy One, blessed be He, said, ‘Let there be a firmament,’ the middle drop congealed, and from it were formed the lower heavens and the highest heavens.”

Maimonides cited only the words: “The middle drop congealed,” interpreting them as referring to the atmosphere, but he omitted the conclusion of the passage: “and from it were formed the lower heavens and the highest heavens,” because he could not explain these words as referring to the atmosphere, for the atmosphere contains neither “the heavens” nor “the highest heavens.”

The eighth witness is the teaching: “From the earth to the firmament is a journey of five hundred years,” and likewise the statement in the Babylonian Talmud (Chagigah 13a) that: “The thickness of the firmament is equal to the distance from the earth to the firmament,” together with the other similar sayings.

Can the firmament mentioned in these passages possibly refer to the lower atmosphere, which reaches the earth and is joined to it? If so, how could the empty space between them amount to a journey of five hundred years?

There is no doubt that Maimonides felt the force of these objections, for they could not have escaped his notice. Seeking to answer them, he wrote in the chapter already mentioned of the second part of the Guide: “Because of this shared designation, the true heavens are likewise called rakia or raki’im, just as the true firmament is called shamayim.”

His meaning is that the primary meaning of rakia is the lower atmosphere. But since that atmospheric firmament is also called shamayim in the verse: “And God called the firmament Heaven” (Genesis 1:8), it follows, according to him, that the true heavens may likewise be called rakia. Thus the word rakia in connection with the luminaries, in Ezekiel, in the Psalms, and in the sayings of the Sages would all refer to the actual heavens.

But you yourself can see how weak this explanation is.

A man is called adam because of his relation to the adamah (“ground”), yet we do not therefore call the ground adam. The same holds true for other names derived from something else: the original term is not in turn called by the derived name.

Accordingly, the difficulty remains. Why should the lower atmosphere be called rakia, and likewise shamayim?

(Parashat Bereshit — Genesis 1:6, The Heavenly Meaning of Rakia in the Commentary of Don Isaac Abarbanel)

Next section →

Read more

Previous section → A Boundary or a Created Reality?

The fourth opinion is that the term rakia (“firmament”) refers to the atmosphere.

According to this view, the air is divided into three regions, as explained in the Book of Meteorology1.

The first is the highest region, adjacent to the element of fire. Because it receives intense heat from it, it becomes hot and dry. Consequently, clouds and rain cannot form there, since there is no cold to condense the vapors. It is in this region, they say, that comets are generated.

The second is the middle region. It is not as hot as the upper region and is therefore moist. Since it is more distant from the source of heat, the vapors that rise into it cool and condense into water. Thus clouds and rain are formed there.

The third is the lowest region of the atmosphere, the one nearest to us. It is warm because of the reflection of the sun’s rays striking the element of earth. From this standpoint it is transparent like a sapphire.

According to this opinion, it is this lowest region of the atmosphere that Scripture calls the rakia. It separates “between waters and waters,” that is, between the lower elemental waters, which are actually water, and the waters that exist only potentially in the middle region of the atmosphere, where rain is formed. For this reason that middle region is also called “waters.”

The proponents of this opinion maintain that these are the “waters” of which the Sages spoke when they said that they were suspended by the divine command and that their fruits are the rains.

Thus: the lower waters are the elemental waters existing in actuality; the rakia is the lowest region of the atmosphere nearest to us; the waters above it are the middle region of the atmosphere, which is “water” only potentially because rain is generated there.

The uppermost region of the atmosphere, however, is neither water in actuality nor even potentially.

They further explain that this is the meaning of the saying of Rabbi Akiva (Babylonian Talmud): “When you reach the place of the pure marble stones, do not say, ‘Water! Water!’”2

That is, one must not say that the upper region of the atmosphere is water—neither potentially nor actually—for whoever does so speaks falsely. This, they say, is why the word “water” is repeated twice.

This opinion appears to receive support from the first witness concerning the birds, since birds fly in the atmosphere nearest to us. Accordingly Scripture says that they fly: “across the face of the firmament of heaven” (Genesis 1:20).

Likewise, they appeal to the tenth witness, according to which the Holy One, blessed be He, took all the waters of creation and placed half in the firmament and half in the Ocean. Half exist in actuality in the ocean, while the other half exist potentially in that atmospheric firmament.

Similarly, the statement that “the edges of the firmament are attached to the Ocean” can, in their view, apply only to the atmosphere called the rakia, not to a celestial sphere.

This was the opinion of Maimonides. After him, Samuel ibn Tibbon, Joseph ibn Kaspi, Shem Tov ibn Falaquera, Moses Narboni, Isaac Albalag, and others enthusiastically embraced this interpretation, accepting it as an established doctrine for themselves and their descendants.

Not so I.

In my judgment, this opinion speaks falsehood and utters deception.

I shall summon faithful witnesses against it from the Torah, the Prophets, the Writings, and the sayings of the Sages, for the hand of the witnesses must be the first against it.

The second witness is the verse concerning the luminaries. Scripture states that they were placed: “in the firmament of heaven” (Genesis 1:14).

They were not placed in the lower region of the atmosphere nearest to us.

Abraham ibn Ezra attempted to escape this difficulty by saying that Scripture merely attributes the luminaries to the firmament because they are seen through it.

But this is truly a distortion and a deception.

For Scripture explicitly declares: “Let there be lights in the firmament of heaven,” and: “God placed them in the firmament of heaven.”

These verses clearly indicate that the luminaries are located in the firmament itself, not merely seen by means of it.

An intervening medium, though it conveys what is perceived and is therefore closest to the senses, is not the place in which the visible object resides. Rather, it merely transmits what is seen.

Moreover, the luminaries are visible through every part of the atmosphere between heaven and earth. Why, then, should Scripture attribute them specifically to the lowest region alone?

(Parashat Bereshit — Genesis 1:6, The Firmament Beyond Meteorology in the Commentary of Don Isaac Abarbanel)

Next section →

Read more

Previous section → The Celestial Spheres on Trial

The third opinion is that the rakia mentioned here is the concave surface of the sphere of the moon. This surface serves as the divider between the lower waters—which are the perishable entities of the sublunar world—and the upper waters, namely the celestial bodies.

According to this view, since the term mayim (“waters”) includes all bodies, both celestial and terrestrial, and since there is a vast difference between the eternal heavenly bodies and the corruptible earthly bodies, God wished to establish a spatial separation between them. He therefore placed the noble celestial bodies above and the inferior perishable bodies below, creating the concave surface of the lunar sphere as the boundary between the two.

This is the meaning of: “And God made the firmament” (Genesis 1:7), namely, that He fashioned and ordered this surface as a properly arranged boundary separating the upper and lower realms.

This opinion is reported by Isaac Israeli in his work Yesod Olam (Book II, chapter 10).

At first glance, it may seem to receive support from the first witness, since birds fly upward toward the concave surface of the lunar sphere.

Nevertheless, this opinion is not acceptable.

For it is impossible that the creation of all the celestial bodies included under the name “heavens” should be attributed to the first day, while the creation of the concave surface of the lunar sphere should be attributed to the second day.

Were the celestial spheres created without enclosing surfaces? Without boundaries? Every body is created together with its surfaces. If the heavens already existed on the first day, then each sphere necessarily possessed both its convex and concave boundaries. How, then, can one imagine that the sphere of the moon was created on the first day but its concave surface was not created until the second?

Moreover, the heavenly bodies were already distinct from the earthly bodies by nature, form, place, and position, since the heavenly bodies encompass while the earthly bodies are encompassed. What need was there, then, for this additional separation created by means of that surface?

I also find it extremely difficult to understand how Scripture could say: “Let there be a firmament,” and: “And God made the firmament,” if the firmament were merely a concave surface, which is an accident and has no independent existence of its own.

Furthermore, the witnesses strongly contradict this view.

The second witness teaches that the luminaries were placed: “in the firmament of heaven” (Genesis 1:14), yet they are certainly not situated merely in the concave surface of the lunar sphere.

The third witness comes from the vision of Ezekiel, who saw the firmament above the heads of the living creatures, not beneath them at the concave surface of the lunar sphere.

Likewise, the fifth witness from Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer states: “Which is the firmament that was created on the second day? It is the firmament above the heads of the living creatures.”

The fourth witness, from the words of King David, points in the same direction. Reason itself suggests that David would not attribute the proclamation of God’s glory and handiwork to the lowly surface of the lunar sphere when he says: “The firmament proclaims the work of His hands” (Psalm 19:2), or: “Praise Him in the firmament of His power” (Psalm 150:1).

Rather, such language properly refers to the celestial spheres themselves.

All the more so do the remaining witnesses from the words of the Sages oppose this interpretation, for it is impossible to explain them as referring to that surface in any reasonable manner. Their contradiction is obvious.

Nor does even the first witness truly support this view. For when Scripture says concerning the birds that they fly: “across the face of the firmament of heaven” (Genesis 1:20), even if penei (“face”) is understood as referring to a surface, rakia itself must still denote the sphere of the moon as a whole, not merely its surface.

This is evident.

(Parashat Bereshit — Genesis 1:6, A Boundary or a Created Reality? in the Commentary of Don Isaac Abarbanel)

Next section →

Read more

Previous section → Ten Witnesses to the Nature of the Firmament

The second opinion is that this rakia (“firmament”) refers to the totality of the celestial bodies. All of them together are regarded as a single sphere and a single firmament.

This appears to be the view toward which Rashi inclined when he wrote: “These are the heavens that were created on the first day, but they were still moist, and on the second day they congealed.”

Accordingly, he explained the words yehi rakia (“let there be a firmament”) as meaning that the firmament should be strengthened or solidified, following the teaching of Bereishit Rabbah, as will be explained.

To this view also inclined Nachmanides and Nissim of Gerona. They interpreted the verse as meaning that God decreed that from the higher substance created on the first day there should emerge the firmament—that is, the entire celestial sphere.

Levi ben Gershon likewise understood the firmament in this manner. At first glance, several of the witnesses seem to support this opinion.

The first and second witnesses do so, since birds fly upward toward the heavens, and the luminaries are situated there.

The third witness, from the vision of Ezekiel, may also seem to support it, since the firmament he saw was among the celestial spheres.

Likewise, the sixth and seventh witnesses appear compatible with this view.

Nevertheless, serious difficulties arise.

The first is that if the firmament refers to the totality of the celestial bodies, then what are the waters above it?

Above the celestial spheres there are neither elemental waters nor heavenly spheres that could be called “waters.” Nor does Scripture designate the separate intellects by the name “waters,” as will be explained later. What, then, are these waters?

Ramban wrote that this is a mystery that cannot be explained, and Rabbeinu Nissim followed him in this. But if they themselves did not explain it, then the difficulty remains unresolved.

Ralbag attempted to answer this question through his theory of a prime matter that does not retain a fixed form. Yet if Ramban may be accused here of ignorance through lack of knowledge, then Ralbag may be accused of a positive error, whose absence would have been preferable to its presence1.

For by positing a matter that does not preserve its form, he abandons sound belief. This mistaken opinion led him to maintain that the world was created from pre-existing matter rather than from nothing, together with many other objectionable and false consequences, as I have explained in my work Mif’alot Elohim.

A further difficulty for this view arises from the testimony of Ezekiel, the third witness. His description suggests that the term rakia does not refer to the totality of the spheres, but rather to the highest sphere situated above them.

The fifth witness from Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer also presents a difficulty. There it is asked: “Which is the firmament that was created on the second day?” and the answer is: “The firmament above the heads of the living creatures.” From this it appears that rakia is not merely another name for “heavens.”

Finally, the tenth witness also creates a problem, namely the rabbinic statement: “The Holy One, blessed be He, took all the waters of creation, placing half in the firmament and half in the Ocean Sea.” Thus, this second opinion also cannot be sustained.

(Parashat Bereshit — Genesis 1:6, The Celestial Spheres on Trial in the Commentary of Don Isaac Abarbanel)

Next section →

Previous section → The Five Lights of Divine Effluence

Genesis 1:6

“And God said: Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters…” until the end of the second day.

The questions that arise concerning these verses, according to their plain meaning and according to the views of the commentators, are as follows:

The first question concerns the nature of this rakia (“firmament”), which was made on the second day, given that the heavens had already been created on the first day. What is this firmament, and what are the waters above it?

You should know that on this matter there has been great confusion and a wide divergence of opinion among the later Jewish philosophers and commentators. From what I have seen in their writings, there are five principal views, corresponding to the five times the word rakia is mentioned in this section. I shall present them to you and point out the difficulties that arise from each.

Know further that we possess ten witnesses testifying to the true nature of the firmament1.

The first witness is the divine Torah itself, which says concerning the creation of the birds: “Let birds fly above the earth across the face of the firmament of heaven” (Genesis 1:20).

The second witness is what Scripture says concerning the luminaries: “Let there be luminaries in the firmament of heaven” (Genesis 1:14).

The third witness is the prophet Ezekiel, who says: “And the likeness above the heads of the living creatures was like a firmament, like the appearance of awesome ice...” (Ezekiel 1:22), and again: “Above the firmament that was over their heads was the likeness of a throne, in appearance like a sapphire stone” (Ezekiel 1:26).

The fourth witness is King David, who says: “The firmament tells the work of His hands” (Psalm 19:2), and: “Praise Him in the firmament of His might” (Psalm 150:1).

The fifth witness is Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus, who says in Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer: “Which is the firmament that was created on the second day? It is the firmament above the heads of the living creatures...”

The sixth witness is the statement in Bereishit Rabbah: “Where are the sun and moon situated? In the second firmament.”

The seventh witness is another statement there concerning the verse “’Let there be a firmament’: ‘The middle drop congealed, and from it the lower heavens and the upper heavens were made.’”

The eighth witness is the teaching of the Sages: “From the earth to the firmament is a journey of five hundred years,”2 and likewise the statement in Bereishit Rabbah: “The distance from the earth to the firmament is equal to the distance from the firmament to the upper waters,” together with other similar sayings.

The ninth witness is the statement in Bereishit Rabbah: “On the second day He created from the upper realms: ‘Let there be a firmament.’”

The tenth witness is the teaching that: “The Holy One, blessed be He, took all the waters of creation and placed half of them in the firmament and half in the Ocean Sea,” and likewise the statement that: “The edges of the firmament are attached to the Ocean Sea.”

Now, the view that is confirmed by all ten of these witnesses is the holy and true view. Any view that does not accord with all of them cannot be true, for all of these witnesses testify together concerning the truth of this matter.

Having set this before you, I shall now present the various opinions of the commentators regarding the firmament.

The first opinion is that the rakia (“firmament”) mentioned here is the highest sphere, encompassing all the others. Some of the ancient sages of the nations inclined toward this view. They maintained that this is the firmament above the heads of the living creatures seen by the prophet Ezekiel, that it is the firmament spoken of by Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus in Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer, and that it is the firmament referred to by the Psalmist when he says: “The firmament tells the work of His hands” (Psalm 19:2), and: “Praise Him in the firmament of His might” (Psalm 150:1).

This opinion, however, is incorrect.

For if the firmament mentioned in this passage were the first and highest sphere, what would be the meaning of the waters above it, as Scripture says: “and between the waters that are above the firmament” (Genesis 1:7)?

Moreover, how could it be imagined that the lower spheres were created on the first day—those included in the verse “In the beginning God created the heavens”—while the highest sphere that encompasses them all was created only afterward, on the second day?

This opinion is also contradicted by the first witness, namely the verse concerning the birds: “Let birds fly above the earth across the face of the firmament of heaven” (Genesis 1:20), for birds do not fly in the highest sphere.

Likewise, it is contradicted by the second witness concerning the luminaries, since the sun, moon, and stars are not situated in the highest encompassing sphere.

It is also contradicted by the seventh witness: concerning the verse ‘Let there be a firmament,’ it is said that ‘the middle drop congealed, and from it the lower heavens and the upper heavens were formed.’

Such a description cannot properly apply to the first celestial sphere—that is, the outermost sphere encompassing all the others.

The eighth witness also stands against this view, for the statement that the distance from the earth to the firmament is equal to the distance from one firmament to another cannot refer to the highest sphere.

Likewise, the tenth witness contradicts it, since the elemental waters are certainly not divided such that half are placed within the highest sphere.

Therefore, this opinion cannot be accepted in light of the testimony of the witnesses.

(Parashat Bereshit — Genesis 1:6, Ten Witnesses to the Nature of the Firmament in the Commentary of Don Isaac Abarbanel)

Next section →

Read more