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 → 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

Previous section → The Hidden Light of the First Day

I have also seen in the writings of Abraham bar Hiyya, in the work previously mentioned, that he notes that the word or (‘light’) appears five times in this section, while choshekh (‘darkness’) appears twice. He understands this as an allusion to the divine effluence that proceeds from God1.

The levels of that effluence are five, and therefore the word or is mentioned five times.

The first is the effluence bestowed upon the separate intellects; corresponding to this is: ‘And God said: Let there be light.’

The second is the effluence bestowed upon the celestial spheres when He moves them in their first universal motion; corresponding to this is: ‘And there was light.’

The third is the effluence bestowed upon prophets through prophecy; corresponding to this is: ‘And God saw the light, that it was good.’

The fourth is the effluence bestowed upon the true sages, through which they distinguish truth from falsehood; corresponding to this is: ‘And God separated between the light and the darkness.’

The fifth is the effluence bestowed upon souls after death, whether for reward or punishment; corresponding to this is: ‘And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night.’

For the light of true beliefs and praiseworthy deeds performed according to the Torah becomes ‘day,’ that is, the reward of Paradise; whereas the darkness of false beliefs and shameful deeds becomes ‘night,’ that is, the punishment of Gehinnom.

As for the darkness mentioned earlier in the second verse, it alludes, according to him, to time itself—which has no independent substance or existence except in the human mind.

These are the words of the Nasi. Though they are far removed from the plain meaning of the passage and from the subject of light, there is no doubt that they are the words of a wise and gracious sage. For although the true plain sense of Scripture is one, it is not impossible that it should also allude to other meanings among the seventy faces of the Torah.

(Why the name Elohim is mentioned in Bereishit Rabbah)

It now remains to answer the sixth question: why throughout the account of creation the Tetragrammaton (YHWH) is not mentioned, and only the name Elohim appears.

Although this question applies to all six days of creation, I shall answer it here in general terms.

From what I have already explained concerning the various meanings of the divine names, the name YHWH signifies His essence and being, whereas the name Elohim signifies His influence, through which existence and goodness are bestowed upon things other than Himself.

Therefore, in the account of creation—which narrates His influence in bringing the world into existence—the name Elohim is employed, for it denotes the First Cause, the absolute power, and the possessor of all capacities.

As for why, in the sections following ‘And the heavens and the earth were finished,’ the sacred names are used in a different manner, I shall investigate that matter in its proper place.

(Parashat Bereshit — Genesis 1:5, The Five Lights of Divine Effluence in the Commentary of Don Isaac Abarbanel)

Next section →

Read more

Previous section → Why Night Precedes Day

(Why it says ‘one day’ rather than ‘the first day’)

I would add that this is also why Scripture says ‘one day’ rather than ‘the first day.’ For this was not a characteristic unique to the first day alone. Rather, throughout all the days, these transitions of evening and morning occurred in the same manner.

The Blessed One willed that the character of the days should be uniform throughout the days of creation, with no distinction between the first three days, during which this primordial light served, and the later days, during which the light of the luminaries served. In all of them there was evening and morning in the same manner.

For the rising and setting of that first light during the first days occurred gradually, little by little, just as the light would later appear and disappear through the motion of the celestial sphere. The power of the Creator made their measure and proportion alike in a wondrous way, without variation.

Therefore, throughout the days of creation, Scripture employs the same expression: ‘And there was evening and there was morning, day such-and-such.’

I would further suggest another true meaning in the expressions ‘evening’ and ‘morning.’

For on each of the days of creation, two things were brought into existence, not merely one, as Abraham ibn Ezra supposed. On the first day, for example, both light and its cessation—which is darkness—were brought into existence. Corresponding to these, Scripture says: ‘And there was evening and there was morning,’ relating evening to darkness and morning to light.

Likewise, on each of the remaining days, two things were produced: one corresponding to the level of morning and the other to the level of evening, as I shall explain in each case.

It is also possible to say that Scripture speaks of ‘one day’ because on that day things were created from absolute nothingness. For this reason it was a unique day, belonging especially to God and to His work, for it was awesome in its nature.

Our Sages expounded in Bereishit Rabbah: ‘the day of the One’—that is, the day when the Holy One, blessed be He, was alone in His world. This interpretation follows the opinion of those who maintain that the angels were created on the second day.

Nachmanides offered a different explanation. Since there was not yet a second day, Scripture could not call this day ‘the first day,’ for ‘first’ is a relative term that implies the existence of a second. This too is a sound explanation according to its own reasoning.

With what I have explained, the eighth question is resolved: why Scripture mentions evening before morning. It is because evening alludes to the darkness that was upon the face of the deep before the command ‘Let there be light.’

Likewise, the question of why it says ‘And there was evening and there was morning’ rather than ‘And there was night and there was day’ is resolved, for this teaches that the first light rose and set gradually.

Moreover, evening and morning allude to the two things that came into existence on this day: light and darkness.

And the question of why Scripture says ‘one day’ rather than ‘the first day’ is likewise resolved, according to each of the explanations that I have mentioned.

And with what I have explained, no room remains for the ninth difficulty, which Maimonides treated at great length: namely, by what means the first days were measured if the motion of the celestial sphere had not yet begun.

For that primordial light was a quality diffused through the air by the will of its Creator for a fixed duration, constituting day; and it would then withdraw and cease for a fixed duration, constituting night. Moreover, within that light there were gradations corresponding to morning, evening, and noon. Through it, therefore, days, hours, and moments were measured, just as the later natural days were measured by the motion of the sphere. Indeed, the light of the luminaries was patterned after that first light, being made in its likeness and image.

Perhaps this is what our Sages intended when they said: ‘The light that the Holy One, blessed be He, created on the first day—a person could see and gaze by it from one end of the world to the other.’1

That is, it was of such a nature that one could perceive through it the measure of time—not only for the three days during which it served, but also for the days and years until the end of the world.

And because that light was a divine creation, they exalted its rank by saying that the Holy One, blessed be He, concealed it for the righteous in the world to come2. Is meaning is that the nation will then attain such perfection that it will no longer depend upon ordinary things, nor even upon the luminaries according to the natural order, but rather upon miraculous realities existing through divine providence and absolute will, like the first light.

This is the meaning of the prophet’s words: ‘And the light of the moon shall be as the light of the sun, and the light of the sun shall be sevenfold, as the light of seven days’ (Isaiah 30:26).

(Parashat Bereshit — Genesis 1:5, The Hidden Light of the First Day in the Commentary of Don Isaac Abarbanel)

Next section →

Read more

Previous section → The Purpose Hidden Within a Name

As for the statement, ‘And there was evening and there was morning, one day,’ the commentators have written that when this light was created on the first day, the Holy One, blessed be He, caused it to set according to the measure of the night, and afterwards caused it to rise according to the measure of the day. For this reason, they explain, Scripture says: ‘And there was evening and there was morning, one day’—placing evening before morning.

Likewise, the author of the Kuzari wrote that the light appeared at its appointed time, then gave way to night for habitation and rest, and that from this the order was established by which night precedes day.

But there is no need for this explanation. For Scripture does not say ‘And there was evening’ with reference to the setting of that light. Rather, it refers to the original darkness that existed in the world after the creation of the heavens and the earth, before the creation of this light, as it is written: ‘And darkness was on the face of the deep’ (Genesis 1:2)1.

Abraham ibn Ezra already wrote that night is called erev (‘evening’) because forms become intermixed within it2. Thus, darkness existed first, and afterwards the light came into being. Together they constituted one day.

These are the days that are remembered and observed in the Sabbaths and festivals of the Lord, whose reckoning begins with the night and continues through the illuminated day that follows. For such was the order in the work of creation: first, ‘darkness was upon the face of the deep,’ and afterwards, ‘Let there be light, and there was light.’

For this reason it is also written: ‘From evening to evening shall you keep your Sabbath’3 (Leviticus 23:32). Likewise, the Passover sacrifice was offered toward evening, because from that point the festival had already begun—night followed by day.

There are, however, some commentators who have turned aside and strained the text by claiming that the day begins with the morning and ends with the night that follows. According to them, the meaning of ‘And there was evening and there was morning’ is that a thing receives its name from its end and from the goal toward which it moves. Thus, the day is called ‘evening’ because its end is evening, and the night is called ‘morning’ because its end is morning. Such explanations have indeed been offered for this verse4.

But this is an evident error.

A thing receives its name from its end only when that end remains fixed and permanent within it. But when something is constantly moving toward a future state, it is not named after what will come afterwards. Life is not called death merely because death follows it, nor is death called life because life preceded it.

According to these mistaken interpreters, it would be necessary to call night ‘day’ and day ‘night,’ and indeed to call every thing by the name of its opposite that follows after it. Concerning such reasoning it may truly be said: “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who present darkness for light and light for darkness, who present bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter” (Isaiah 5:20).

Moreover, since a complete day consists of twenty-four hours, half of which is daylight and half night, it would follow from their view that such a complete day should not be called ‘one day,’ ‘a second day,’ and so forth, but rather ‘one night’ or ‘a second night,’ since the night is the latter part. For they make night into day and day into night, treating darkness and light as though they were the same. Consequently, Scripture ought to have said: ‘And there was evening and there was morning, one night,’ rather than ‘one day.’

All of this, however, is confusion and error.

According to the natural order, the night is the beginning of the day that follows, just as the absence that precedes existence is one of its beginnings, whereas the absence that follows existence is not5.

As for why Scripture does not say ‘And there was night and there was day,’ but rather ‘And there was evening and there was morning,’ it is because evening and morning arise through gradual transitions associated with the rising and setting of the sun, occurring little by little as the celestial sphere moves.

One might therefore have thought that the light created on the first day could not have produced evening and morning, since it did not arise through the motion of the sphere. Its appearance and disappearance might have been imagined as instantaneous: as soon as that light appeared, it would have been like full noon, as though the sun were shining in its strength; and as soon as it began to withdraw, it would have vanished completely, as though it were midnight.

Scripture therefore teaches that this was not the case. Even this primordial light had its evening and its morning. Its shining occurred gradually, and its withdrawal likewise took place little by little. This is the meaning of the phrase ‘And there was evening and there was morning,’ instead of simply saying ‘And there was night and there was day.’ It indicates that both illumination and darkness came about by degrees, as Nissim of Gerona wrote.

(Parashat Bereshit — Genesis 1:5, Why Night Precedes Day in the Commentary of Don Isaac Abarbanel)

Next section →

Read more

Previous section → The Primordial Light and the Birth of Time

Genesis 1:5

Explanation of the naming of things.

“And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And it was evening and it was morning, one day.”

It is a familiar principle in the writings of Maimonides, in the chapter previously mentioned, that whenever the expression “And God called…” appears in the account of creation, it serves to distinguish one thing from another that is also designated by the same name. Nachmanides, Levi ben Gershon, Nissim of Gerona, and others agreed with him in this principle.

Accordingly, they explained that the “darkness” mentioned earlier—“and darkness was upon the face of the deep” (Genesis 1:2)—was not the same as the darkness separated from the light here. For according to Ramban (and also Maimonides), the earlier darkness refers to the element of fire; according to Ralbag, it refers to the element of earth; and according to Rabbeinu Nissim, it refers to the mixture of the elements. The darkness separated from the light, however, is simply the absence of light. Therefore, they maintain that God called the light “Day” and the darkness “Night” in order to distinguish this darkness from the darkness mentioned earlier. They interpret the other acts of naming in a similar manner.

This, however, is not my view.

For the darkness mentioned above and the darkness mentioned here are one and the same: both signify the absence of light. As for the other interpretations of darkness, they themselves are darkness and not light.

Therefore, I do not accept the principle established by the Master concerning these acts of naming. Its weakness is already evident from the verse itself: “And God called the light Day.” Was any other light or any other day previously mentioned such that a distinction of names would now be necessary?

Nor can this principle account for the verse: “And He called the gathering of the waters Seas” (Genesis 1:10). For according to those who hold that the four elements were already mentioned in the second verse, the waters referred to in “the spirit of God hovered over the face of the waters” (Genesis 1:2) are the very same waters later gathered into the seas. What ambiguity of name exists there that would require such a distinction?

I therefore explain the purpose and meaning of these acts of naming differently.

Since the creation of the first light and its cessation at fixed intervals were intended to establish the measurement of time and the reckoning of days, God called the light “Day.” That is, He assigned it this name on account of its purpose, which was to produce the day.

Likewise, He called the darkness “Night.” The term laylah (“night”), in my opinion, derives from the notion of deprivation or absence, as though it were a compound expression meaning lo lah (“it does not possess [light]”). In other words, that fixed duration and measured interval would not possess light1.

This was the purpose of darkness: to interrupt the light, so that through its interruption the days and their distinctions could be measured.

For this reason it is later said concerning the luminaries: “to separate between the day and between the night”2 (Genesis 1:14). That is, the same distinction between day and night that had previously been effected by the first light through its periods of appearance and disappearance would thereafter be accomplished by the luminaries through their motions.

Thus, “And God called the light Day” means that the primordial light was not, strictly speaking, identical with the day. For a day is something that results from the succession of light and darkness; it is not merely light by itself. Nevertheless, the Holy One, blessed be He, decreed that this light should be called “Day,” because it established the measure of the day.

Likewise, He called the darkness “Night,” because it established the measure of the absence of light during that span of time in which no light was present.

“This is the reason for this act of naming, which Scripture attributes to God. The same explanation will apply to the other acts of naming, each in its proper place.

(Parashat Bereshit — Genesis 1:5, The Purpose Hidden Within a Name in the Commentary of Don Isaac Abarbanel)

Next section →

Read more

Previous section → A Light Without a Luminary

Genesis 1:4

“And God saw the light, that it was good; and God separated between the light and between the darkness.”

Scripture states that the First Emanator, blessed be He, saw that the light was good for measuring the days. For if all things had remained in perpetual darkness, neither time nor the distinction between the works performed would have been perceptible at all. Yet He also saw that if the light were continuous and unceasing, distinctions within time likewise could not be perceived. Therefore, it was necessary to separate between the light and the darkness, by assigning to the light a fixed duration after which it would cease, and likewise assigning to the darkness—that is, the absence of that light—a fixed duration as well.

In this way, it would be properly recognized and understood that light constitutes the time of day, and night the time of its absence.

It is as though Scripture were saying that God did not decree the cessation of light and the coming of darkness because light was in His eyes something defective or evil. On the contrary, He saw that the light was good for distinguishing time and measuring the days. Nevertheless, He decreed its interruption and established the separation between light and darkness in those intervals, so that “He called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night”1 (Genesis 1:5). For this was the purpose of that primordial light: to distinguish the days of creation and their respective works.

From this you may understand that the separation which God established between the light and the darkness was not a natural distinction of form, as Maimonides wrote. For the distinction between a positive quality and a privation is not attributed in Scripture to the Holy One, blessed be He, since it belongs to the very nature of the thing itself. Rather, this was a temporal distinction: that light should serve during the day and not during the night, according to the intervals He decreed for it2.

Indeed, the two great sages of the world, Rabbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish, interpreted this separation in precisely this way, saying: “The Holy One, blessed be He, said to the light: ‘Day shall be your domain,’ and to the darkness: ‘Night shall be your domain,’” as is found in Bereishit Rabbah.

Included as well in the phrase “and God separated between the light and the darkness” is the idea that He established distinctions within the light itself—greater and lesser degrees—so that it would spread gradually; and likewise distinctions within the darkness itself, so that the withdrawal of light would also occur gradually. Therefore it says: “and God separated between the light and the darkness,” meaning that He established distinctions within each one itself. For this reason it does not say “God separated the light from the darkness,” but rather “between the light and between the darkness.”3

These distinctions are further clarified in the verse: “and it was evening and it was morning” (Genesis 1:5).

I have already explained that this separation did not occur through the motion of any body, nor because of bodily motion. Rather, that light, by divine command, would spread forth and exist, and likewise withdraw and disappear from the air in which it had been present.

(Explanation of the meaning of “seeing” in the expression “And God saw”)

As for the meaning of “seeing” mentioned throughout the account of creation—“And God saw…”—Nachmanides wrote that just as the bringing of things into actuality is called “speech,” so their permanence is called “seeing,” citing expressions such as “And I saw”4 in Ecclesiastes, “And the woman saw”5 (Genesis 3:6), and “I consider the words of Admon correct” in the Mishnah (Ketubot 13:3). Nissim of Gerona agreed with him.

But this does not seem correct to me, for I do not find anywhere that the language of “seeing” means permanence. On the contrary, the very proofs he brought argue against him. For the expressions from Ecclesiastes, from the woman in Genesis, and from the Mishnah in Ketubot do not signify permanence at all. Rather, the true meaning is judgment or discernment in a matter where there are appearances supporting one side and also its opposite. When a person determines one side to be preferable to the other, he says: “I see,” or “it appears to me,” that matters are such-and-such.

This, then, is the meaning of every use of “seeing” in the account of creation, as I shall explain in its proper place.

Thus, concerning the light, Scripture teaches that although this light was not enduring—for it would exist only for a limited number of days, being a property existing without a material bearer and destined soon to cease—nevertheless because of this, one might perhaps think that this light was not truly good or complete in itself. But such was not the case in the eyes of the Creator. For He saw in His wisdom that this light was good and fitting according to the necessity of the work and for the distinction of the days; and therefore He decreed its creation.

With this interpretation, the seventh question is also resolved: why Scripture does not say concerning the light simply “And God saw that it was good,” as it does regarding the works of the other days, but rather: “And God saw the light, that it was good.” The reason is that this light was not absolutely good in itself, since it would not endure permanently. Rather, it was good for the purpose of distinguishing the days, even though it would soon cease to exist. Likewise, the separation established between the light and the darkness was a distinction of time and place.

At the end of the section Eleh Pekudei, I shall present another interpretation, according to deeper speculation, concerning the darkness and the light mentioned in these verses.

(Parashat Bereshit — Genesis 1:4, The Primordial Light and the Birth of Time in the Commentary of Don Isaac Abarbanel)

Next section →

Read more

Previous section → Light Before the Stars

Therefore, I hold that in this divine account, the term “speech” signifies the decree of His wisdom. Just as a person, through speech, determines what shall be done, so the Blessed One, through His wisdom, decreed that something should be. Thus, “Let there be light” means that He decreed that light should come into existence in actuality1.

Observe that through this statement, Scripture refutes two erroneous opinions that had been expressed regarding this light, as I mentioned earlier. First, those who said that it was an intelligible, non-sensory light—against this it says: “Let there be light.” For the expression “let there be” (yehi) is used only of something tangible, brought into actual existence, as in “let there be a firmament,” “let there be lights.” The term yehi denotes coming into existence outside the intellect.

Second, by saying “and there was light,” it refutes the opinion that this light was the light of the luminaries, or that Hashem merely caused some luminous substance or shining body to form, as suggested by Nachmanides. For it does not say “and there was something shining,” but simply “and there was light,” indicating that light itself came into being in the air, without the creation of luminaries or any shining body at that time2.

Thus, this light was an actual quality diffused through the air, not emanating from sparks of a luminous body, but brought into existence by the divine will—not from anything else, as with the other things created on the first day. Nor did this light arise through motion or as a result of motion; rather, it came into being immediately, at once, by the command of God, as affirmed by the Sage in the Kuzari.

For this reason, it is consistently referred to here as “light”: “Let there be light,” “and there was light,” “that the light was good.” But on the fourth day it does not say so; rather, it says: “Let there be lights” (Genesis 1:14), “and they shall be for lights.” For here, light itself was created in an abstract sense, whereas there, the luminous bodies were made.

And why should it be difficult for those who reflect to accept that God created the sphere without stars, or the stars without light, or light without a luminous body—once one accepts the fundamental belief that the world was created after non-existence, and that things were brought into being from nothing? Shall anything be too wondrous for the Lord—to perform signs and wonders in the heavens and on the earth, and to bring about new creations both in substances and in their properties?

Thus, the meaning of “Let there be light” is that God decreed that light should come into existence; and “and there was light” clarifies that this creation did not arise from a luminous body, but that light itself was newly brought into being and diffused through the air in a wondrous manner.

Finally, it does not say here “and it was so,” but rather “and there was light,” because the expression “and it was so” indicates permanence and continued existence in that same state.

And because this light served only until the fourth day, it is not said concerning it “and it was so,” but rather “and there was light,” indicating that this light came into being without a luminous body.

I have already mentioned that the statement of the Sage—“these are the very luminaries that were created on the first day, but were not set in place until the fourth day”—does not contradict this interpretation. For it may indeed be understood that they were created potentially within the sphere on the first day, and that on the fourth day the Creator, blessed be He, brought them into actuality.

It is also possible that the view of that Sage was that the sphere was created independently on the first day, and the luminaries independently as well, and that on the fourth day the luminaries were attached to their spheres. For the opinion underlying this statement is that the stars are not parts of the sphere itself, and that the sphere remains fixed while the constellation returns, according to the view of our Sages.

Another possible interpretation of their words—even if we concede that the stars were already within the spheres—is that the light and rays of the stars were not yet illuminating because the dry land had not yet appeared. For it has already been explained in natural philosophy that a ray shines when it strikes a solid body, such as the earth. This is why the Ocean Sea remains dark: although the sun strikes the waters there, since water is not a body that preserves a stable form, it does not reflect light in a luminous way3.

Thus, at the beginning of creation, when the waters covered the dry land, the rays of the sun could not illuminate, nor could they produce a perceptible reflection, because of the waters. Perhaps for this reason it is said: “and darkness was upon the face of the deep” (Genesis 1:2)—to indicate the cause of the darkness, namely the deep, since the rays striking the waters were not reflected and therefore did not give light.

Because of this, the Blessed One found it necessary to bring forth the first light to serve during those days, until the drying of the waters on the third day. Then, immediately on the fourth day, the rays of light were reflected upon the dry land, and “the earth shone with His glory”4 (Ezekiel 43:2). This, properly understood, is the meaning of the opinion of our Sages, and not as Maimonides understood it.

Thus, the fifth question is resolved: this light was neither an intelligible light nor the light of the sun, but rather a created light brought forth temporarily in order to distinguish the days of creation.

And in this way the sixth question is also resolved: why it is not said concerning the light “And God made.” The reason is that this light was an accident5 without a subject, and the light was entirely uniform and undifferentiated. Therefore, the language of “making,” which is reserved for differentiated things, as will be explained later, was not appropriate here. Nor is it said concerning this light “and it was so,” because its existence did not endure permanently.

At the end of the section Eleh Pekudei6, I shall again set forth my opinion concerning this light more fully.

(Parashat Bereshit — Genesis 1:1, A Light Without a Luminary in the Commentary of Don Isaac Abarbanel)

Next section →

Read more

Previous section → The World Before Completion

The second interpretation is that tohu and bohu both denote desolation, and the verse teaches that the earth—which includes the four elements—was at its creation desolate and void, and was covered with water. For this reason, it says tohu and bohu: tohu deriving from tehom (“deep”), indicating that the entire world was water, with no distinct forms yet in existence. There was also no light spreading over that deep, since the luminaries had not yet been created. Therefore, “the spirit of God”—a term referring to His will and the decree of His wisdom—was hovering and exerting influence over the face of the waters, whether the upper waters, in order later to form the firmament from them, or the lower waters, in order to gather them and reveal the dry land. And since all this required distinct stages, it is said: “Let there be light” (Genesis 1:3), in order to establish the differentiation of days. This, in my opinion, is the meaning of the verse.

Others have interpreted “the face of the deep” as the depth of the waters, with “face” referring to what lies below, at the center. And while the dry land had not yet appeared, the earth was called “darkness” on account of its obscurity, just as Scripture refers to the center of the earth as “a stone of darkness” (Job 28:3)1.

In the Zohar it is written: “How do we know that darkness is earth? As it is said: ‘in darkness his name is covered’ (cf. Kohelet 6:4)2. The Torah thus teaches that just as the depths of the waters received the form of darkness, so the upper waters received the form of spirit—hence: “and the spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters,” referring to the upper aspect. Thus, that single primordial matter received different forms: in its middle part, the form of water; in its upper part, the form of spirit; and in its lower part, the form of darkness. The spirit is attributed to God in order to indicate its greatness, as it is the most elevated of the elements, and also on account of its subtlety.

As for why, according to this interpretation, the element of fire is not mentioned here, it is because the ancient thinkers held that there is no distinct element of fire. Rather, they considered the elements to be three: earth, water, and air, differentiated by their qualities—this one hotter, that one cooler. Thus, these three elements were thought to intermingle, and living beings to arise within each: those that walk upon the earth, those that swim in the water, and those that fly in the air. However, in the element of fire, living beings are not found, for existence does not come into being there. Therefore, the Torah mentions only the three perceptible elements, whose existence no one denies, and does not speak of fire, whose status was uncertain and not firmly established. This will be clarified further later on.

Accordingly, when the elements are mentioned in Scripture, only these three are referred to: earth, water, and spirit. This may be seen in Book of Isaiah, where it says: “Who has measured the waters in the hollow of His hand… and comprehended the dust of the earth… who has directed the spirit of the Lord?” (Isaiah 40:12–13); and similarly in Book of Job, in the verses beginning: “For He looks to the ends of the earth…” (Job 28:24)3.

Genesis 1:3

Explanation of the nature of light and the term “speech”

“And God said: ‘Let there be light,’ and there was light.”

The correct understanding, according to the plain sense of the verses, is that at the beginning of creation, when the Holy One, blessed be He, created the heavens and the earth, He did not wish to create the stars immediately—for a reason that I will explain in the fourth section. Therefore, it was necessary to bring forth another light that would serve during those first days, before the luminaries were created.

This light was needed in order to measure the days in which the works of creation were distinguished, each day according to its task. For a “day” is not defined or differentiated except by light. Moreover, the creation of light alludes to the act of creation itself, which came into being after absolute non-existence—just as light follows darkness, for light is a positive quality, whereas darkness is a privation.

Therefore, the First Emanator said: “Let there be light.”

Saadia Gaon wrote that the term “speech” (amirah) in the account of creation is used metaphorically for the divine will—that He willed it so. Likewise, Maimonides wrote similarly.

But Abraham ibn Ezra objected to this, arguing that if so, it would have been more appropriate to say “And God said that there should be light, and there was,” just as it says: “that every man should be ruler in his house”4 (Esther 1:22), that is, “according to the will of each man.”

Nachmanides wrote that bringing things into actuality is itself called “speech.” But this too is not correct. For if “And God said: ‘Let there be light’” were merely a metaphor for the emergence of light into actuality, then what would be the meaning of “and there was light”? The two expressions would be redundant, both referring to the same act.

(Parashat Bereshit — Genesis 1:1, Light Before the Stars in the Commentary of Don Isaac Abarbanel)

Next section →

Read more

Previous section → Heaven and Earth Created Without Intermediaries

Explanation of the nature of tohu and bohu

“And the earth was tohu and bohu, and darkness…” (Genesis 1:2)1 until the end of the verse.

After Scripture has explained the creation of the heavens and the earth, it now turns to explain what their condition was at the moment of their creation. Were the celestial sphere, together with all the luminaries and stars, already shining and radiant as they are today? And were the elements likewise created together with all their composites, in their full perfection and with their distinct places? Or what, precisely, was their state at the time of creation?

To this it answers that “the earth was tohu”—for the divine Torah did not wish to explain the levels of the separate intellects, their orders, their number, their distinctions, and their chain of emanation; nor did it explain what are the movers that set the heavens in motion, what are the givers of forms, or what are the agents that bestow prophecy upon the prophets and wisdom upon the sages. Nor did it explain the nature of the celestial sphere—its sides, its structure, its center, the manner of its motion, its soul, or its desire.

All these matters, and others like them, are difficult for the human intellect to grasp. Therefore, the Torah did not concern itself with elaborating upon them, once it had testified to their creation in a general way. Instead, it expanded its explanation in regard to things accessible to our senses—whether the lower composite beings, which are close to us by nature and place, or the luminaries and stars, which are perceptible to our senses.

For this reason, it begins by explaining the condition of the earth, which immediately follows in the preceding verse, saying: “And the earth was tohu and bohu.” This may be explained according to the two interpretations I have already given of the terms tohu and bohu.

The first is that tohu refers to prime matter, and bohu to form. According to this, the verse means that the elements included under the name “earth,” at their initial coming-into-being, already possessed within each of them both matter and the specific form that distinguishes each element according to its nature. For this alone constituted their first act of existence and creation—not yet their differentiation in place nor their combinations, for these occurred later, during the subsequent days, as will be explained.

Likewise, although Scripture states that the Holy One, blessed be He, created the heavens, the spheres were not yet complete in their distinctions, nor did they yet contain luminaries. Therefore, there was as yet no light in the world, as it says: “and darkness was on the face of the deep” (Genesis 1:2). The meaning is not the surface of the earthly deep or the waters covering it; rather, “the face of the deep” refers to the concave surface of the sphere—the face of the celestial body turned toward the deep2.

Thus the verse teaches two things. First, that there was as yet no light in the world—for even upon the inner surface of the sphere there was darkness, all the more so upon the earth and the waters, since no ray of light descended upon them. Second, that the elements were still intermixed and not yet separated into their proper places. The lighter elements, air and fire, were mingled with one another, and likewise the heavier ones, water and earth—which are more perceptible to us—were in a state of mixture and confusion. This is called tohu, a term applied to the waters that cover the earth; and therefore the concave surface of the sphere, facing this deep, is called “the face of the deep.”

It further states that although the heavens lacked luminaries and light, “the spirit of God”—a term referring to the separate intellects—was “hovering,” that is, stirring and imparting motion through its influence over the face of the waters; that is, over the upper heavens, which are called “waters,” as I have explained regarding the shared usage of the term, and will explain further. This is said to inform us that the celestial sphere created on the first day was already in motion from the moment of its creation, moving over the elements, with the separate moving intellect acting upon it. From the very moment it was created in spherical form, it was in motion, going wherever the spirit directed it.

According to this interpretation, tohu and bohu refer to matter and form created together within the elements; “darkness” signifies the absence of light, for light had not yet been created; “the face of the deep” refers to the concave surface of the sphere turned toward the deep; and “the spirit of God” refers to the separate intellects with respect to motion—called “spirit” by analogy to the vital spirit that moves the body. The term merachefet (“hovering”) alludes to motion: just as a bird hovers over its young or its eggs to give them life, so the separate intellect, through its influence and motion imparted to the sphere, gives life and sustains it and all that is within it. The surface of the sphere is called “the face of the waters,” because its most visible aspect is its surface, and what is most apparent is fittingly called “face,” as I have explained.

After Scripture has shown that both the upper and lower realms were not yet complete, and that there was as yet no light in the world, it proceeds to explain how the Holy One, blessed be He, brought them to completion through light and through the works of the remaining days.

(Parashat Bereshit — Genesis 1:1, The World Before Completion in the Commentary of Don Isaac Abarbanel)

Next section →

Read more

Previous section → Creation from Nothing and the Refutation of Emanation

And in this way the third question is also resolved: why, in the creation of the heavens and the earth, it is not written “And God said.” The reason is that they were created from nothing; and since there was no subject underlying their coming-into-being, the expression “And God said” is not used with regard to them. By contrast, in the work of the other days—where there is “something from something,” and a subject exists to receive the divine decree and will—the language of speech is employed. For Hashem decreed upon what had already been created that it should become such and such, according to the power He had placed within it.

For this same reason, it is not said concerning the creation of the heavens and the earth, “and it was so.” That expression is used only to indicate the permanence and continued existence of things in the form in which they were created, without change. But from the heavens He made the firmament, as will be explained, and from the earth the elements were differentiated. Since the heavens and the earth did not remain in the same state in which they were created on the first day, the phrase “and it was so” is not used in their creation, for it implies continuity without alteration—as if to say, “and it remained so always.”

In this way, the fourth question is also resolved: why Scripture does not explicitly mention the creation of the four elements, nor say “let there be earth,” “let there be water,” and so on, as it says “let there be a firmament,” “let there be lights.” The reason is that all four elements are already included under the name “earth” in this first verse, and there was no need to mention their creation again in detail, except insofar as to describe what occurred to them after their creation.

Now, the Torah did not say “God created in the beginning,” but rather “In the beginning God created,” for two reasons. First, because the Blessed One is not known to us except through His actions; therefore it first states “In the beginning He created,” and only afterward mentions the name Elohim. For through His creation of the world it becomes known that He is the First Emanator, as the prophet says: “Thus says the Lord, the Creator of the heavens—He is God” (Isaiah 45:18).

Second, had the Torah said “God created in the beginning the heavens,” we might have erred and thought that bereshit referred to a created entity—such as that primordial matter which Nachmanides held to have preceded the formation of the world, and which, being the beginning, could be called reshit—and that from it all other things came into being. We might then have understood the verse to mean: “God created the beginning, and from it the heavens and the earth.” To remove this error, and to make clear that the Holy One, blessed be He, did not create any matter prior to the creation of the heavens and the earth, the Torah says: “In the beginning God created…”

As for why it says “(et) the heavens” rather than simply “heavens and earth,”1 it is taught in Bereishit Rabbah (1:14) that Rabbi Akiva asked Rabbi Ishmael this question, and he answered in the name of Nachum Ish Gamzu: if it had said “In the beginning God created heaven and earth,” we might have said that heaven and earth are themselves divine. To this he replied: “For it is no empty thing for you” (Deuteronomy 32:47)—if it seems empty, it is because you do not know how to interpret it. Rather, “(et) the heavens” includes the sun, the moon, the stars, and the constellations; and “(et) the earth” includes the trees and the vegetation.

Rabbi Akiva, in truth, gave a fine explanation: had the verse said “In the beginning God created heaven and earth,” people might have erred into thinking that the three—God, the heavens, and the earth—were all creators: that God created the heavens, the heavens created the earth, and the earth then produced its composites. Thus one might have understood the verse as describing a chain of creators, each above the other. To remove this error and make known that all things were created by His power alone, without intermediary, it says “(et) the heavens and (et) the earth,” indicating that the heavens and the earth are created beings, not creators.

Rabbi Ishmael, however, offered a different explanation: not only did the Holy One, blessed be He, create on the first day the encompassing heavens and the earth, which includes the four elements, but He also implanted within them, from that moment, the power to bring forth their subsequent developments in the following days, through His decree and command. Thus, the sun, the moon, and the other things mentioned later were not created in their full actuality on the first day, but the potential for their emergence was already placed within the initial creation.

This, then, is the complete explanation of the verse according to its true meaning—although I have interpreted it differently in my commentary on Pirkei Avot, where I followed the opinion of Nachmanides; but here I have examined the matter more precisely according to what is correct.

(Parashat Bereshit — Genesis 1:1, Heaven and Earth Created Without Intermediaries in the Commentary of Don Isaac Abarbanel)

Next section →

Previous section → Bereshit as Principle and Beginning

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Next section →

Read more

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And now he comes to explain the passage:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Next section →

Read more

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

Explanation of the word merachefet (“hovering”)

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

But this is not correct.

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

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

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

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

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

Explanation of the word mayim (“water”)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Next section →

Read more

Previous section → The True Meaning of Ruach

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And so in all similar cases.

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

Next section →

Read more

Previous section → The Fourfold Meaning of Panim

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Next section →

Read more

Previous section → Darkness as Privation: Rethinking Choshekh and Panim

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Next section →

Read more

Previous section → Three Principles of Creation Against the Philosophers

Explanation of the word choshekh (darkness)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Explanation of the word panim (“face”)

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

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

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

Next section →

Read more