Previous section → The Unity of the Earth

Explanation of the words tohu and vohu1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ramban himself cited this teaching in support of his interpretation.

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

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

These are the two most sound interpretations of these expressions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Next section →

Read more

Previous section → Shamayim as Fire and Intellect

Explanation of the word “earth”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Next section →

Read more

Previous section → The Unity Behind the Name “Shamayim”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Next section →

Read more

Previous section → One Essence, Many Powers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Next section →

Read more

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Explanation of the word “shamayim”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Next section →

Read more

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Next section →

Read more

Previous section → Elohim and the Architecture of Creation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Next section →

Previous section → The Meaning of the Divine Name Elohim

The First Principle concerns five unique properties of the Name Elohim found in Scripture.

The first: No communication from God to a prophet, nor from a prophet to God, is ever found except with one of two Names—either the Tetragrammaton (Y-H-V-H) or Elohim, or both together. With the other sacred names and appellations, there is no instance of prophecy. We never find “And Shaddai spoke,” or “And Tzevaot spoke,” or “And Merciful,” or “And Gracious.” None of the other names or titles appear in this way.

The second: These two Names, Y-H-V-H and Elohim, can appear in either order, one preceding or one following the other. Thus we read: “O Lord God (Adonai Elohim), You have begun…” (Deuteronomy 3:24), “O Lord God of Hosts, restore us” (Psalms 80:20), and likewise: “My God, the Lord, is my strength” (Habakkuk 3:19). With the other divine names and appellations, this interchangeability is never found.

The third: Just as no other Name ever precedes the Tetragrammaton—we never find “Tzevaot Y-H-V-H,” or “Shaddai Y-H-V-H,” or “Gracious Y-H-V-H”—so too, no other Name ever precedes Elohim. We do not find “Tzevaot Elohim,” or “Shaddai Elohim,” or “El Elohim,” or “Gracious Elohim.” What we do sometimes find—“Gracious and Merciful is the Lord” (Joel 2:13)—is missing the verb “is,” as if to say, “The Lord is gracious and merciful.”

The fourth: When an attribute is attached to the Tetragrammaton, it is joined only by way of Elohim or El: “The Lord, God, merciful and gracious” (Exodus 34:6), “The Lord, God of Hosts” (Psalms 59:6), “The Lord, God of Israel” (Exodus 5:1). In other cases, such as “The Lord of Hosts” (Isaiah 1:9), the word Elohim must be understood as implied.

The fifth: The Tetragrammaton is sometimes written with the vocalization of Elohim and then read aloud accordingly; but Elohim is never written with the vocalization of the Tetragrammaton.

Behold, then, five special properties found with the Name Elohim. This is the first principle.

The Second Principle is that the divine names are essentially three: El, Eloah, Elohim (or Elohai)1. The latter two are the same in meaning, except that Elohai is in the construct form, attached to another word, as in “God of the heavens,” “God of the earth,” “God of Jerusalem.” Elohim, by contrast, is absolute, not attached to another word.

Take note: every occurrence of Elohim in Scripture is written defective (without the vav)2. By contrast, Eloah is always written full, with a vav between the lamed and the heh3—except once, in “They sacrifice to demons that are not God (Eloah), to deities they did not know” (Deuteronomy 32:17), where it is defective, because demons are not truly divine4. As for Elohai and Elohecha (“my God,” “your God”), which are divine names with possessive suffixes, they are always written defective, without the vav. The general rule is consistent across all of Scripture, with only two exceptions in Psalms: “Teach me to do Your will, for You are my Elohai” (Psalms 143:10), and “I will exalt You, my God, the King” (Psalms 145:1). These, according to the sages of the Masorah5, have their own reason.

But aside from these rare exceptions, the rule is constant throughout the Bible. Any wise person should reflect: if El, Eloah, Elohim, Elohai, and the other divine names all derive from the same root and convey the same meaning, why should there be such variation in their written forms? Elohim and Elohai are always written defective, without vav, while Eloah is always written full with vav. And Elohai, which means “my Eloah,” is written defective, when it would seem natural for it to be written full, like Elohai with a vav. There is no doubt that this variation in Scripture is not random or accidental, but the result of deep wisdom6.

This is the second principle.

And what should be said regarding all this is that when we contemplate Him, blessed be He, we perceive in Him two aspects from our perspective—even though in Him they are one.

The first aspect is in relation to His essence and His very being, the Necessary Existent, who is absolute perfection and is incomprehensible to any other as He truly is. This is signified by the four-lettered sacred Name7, the Tetragrammaton8, which is called the Shem HaMeforash9. As the Master [Maimonides in the Guide] wrote, this Name belongs uniquely to Him, and none other shares in it. As our Sages expounded: “And they shall place My Name” (Numbers 6:27)—My special Name, which is Mine alone10.

The second aspect is in relation to His influence upon all other beings, who receive from Him according to His perfection. Since His influence corresponds to His infinite power and capacity, He is designated by the Name Elohim, which signifies the One who bestows and brings forth all things by His power. The Name El conveys the same idea. Thus it is written: “The Lord, God of the universe, Creator of the ends of the earth” (Isaiah 40:28); “I am the first, and I am the last, and besides Me there is no Elohim” (Isaiah 44:6); “Know that the Lord, He is Elohim; it is He who made us” (Psalms 100:3). In all these, and in many others, the names El and Elohim are always mentioned in connection with influence and creation.

Next section →

Read more

Previous section → The True Meaning of Creation

On the essence of the Name Elohim

The Master, the Guide [Maimonides, in the Guide for the Perplexed II:6], wrote that the name Elohim is primarily the designation of judges, as in the verse, “the case of both parties shall come before the Elohim” (Exodus 22:8), and that this name was then borrowed for the angels and for the Creator, blessed be He, since He is Judge over all.

But to me, this is altogether unacceptable. For how could reason tolerate that the name Elohim was originally and essentially assigned to human judges, and only figuratively to the Creator—when, at the very beginning of the Torah, this name is applied to Him repeatedly, and in the Scriptures it appears thousands upon thousands of times with reference to Him? What we occasionally find—that it is applied to judges—is only in a few places, and written much later. It is known that whatever occurs most frequently, and appears first in Scripture, must be the primary designation; what is found but rarely, and secondarily, is not1. Moreover, as I will explain further on, when the verses are rightly understood, the name Elohim is never truly said of judges2.

Furthermore, our Sages explained in Tractate Shevuot, chapter Shevuat Ha-Edut, that the names which may never be erased are: Elohim, Eloha, Ehyeh, Shaddai, Tzevaot—and needless to say, the Tetragrammaton itself, whether written as it is spelled (Y-H-V-H) or read as Adonai or Yah, which are likewise holy names. By contrast, those names that may be erased include: HaGadol, HaGibor, HaNora, Rachum, Chanun, and the like, as Maimonides himself brought in the Book of Knowledge.

And it is known that these appellations were permitted to be erased only because their original designation was not for Him, but for human beings, describing emotions or attributes; they were applied to Him only metaphorically, and therefore erasure of them is permitted, since they are more distant from Him. But those names that were primarily and originally assigned to Him are always understood from the start to refer to Him; therefore, erasing them is forbidden, out of reverence.

It follows necessarily that since El and Elohim may not be erased, their first and primary designation must truly be for Him, not by way of borrowing from judges, contrary to the opinion of the Master.

Ibn Ezra, in his Torah commentary, wrote that El signifies “powerful,” as in the expression “It is in the power (yesh le-El) of my hand” (Genesis 31:29). Since we also find El and Eloha in the singular, he concluded that Elohim is a plural form, and that the plurality is an honorific—since it is our custom, out of respect, to address a great personage in the plural. He further wrote that, because all the acts of God are carried out through the angels who fulfill His will, He is also called Elohim.

But to me, these words of his are likewise unconvincing.

If one were to argue that the name Elohim is plural out of respect—since we find this name in the plural—then why is it also applied to those things which God has forbidden out of contempt: “You shall have no other elohim before Me” (Exodus 20:3), “Whoever sacrifices to elohim shall be destroyed” (Exodus 22:19)? Surely Scripture does not honor idols. Nor can one say that the term is used according to the mistaken thought of their worshippers, in the manner of “the men pursued after them” (Joshua 2:7)—as though it were only adopting their perspective3. For when the Torah warns us not to worship idols, it would not be fitting to speak of them in honorific language, in accordance with the delusions of fools. The proof is in the verse: “They sacrifice to demons that are not God, to deities (elohim) they did not know” (Deuteronomy 32:17). Here, in condemning them, it still calls them elohim—showing that the word is not a plural of honor or glory.

All the more so, the usage of plural honorifics in foreign languages is only when one addresses a great person directly, speaking to him in the plural, as though he were equivalent to many others. But when speaking about him in the third person, they do not use the plural4. Moreover, if the plurality of the divine name were a form of honor, why do we not find it with any of His other names—whether among those which may not be erased or those which may? If plurality were a sign of honor, it should apply to all His names and appellations. Yet it does not; it appears only in Elohim.

And what [Ibn Ezra] said—that because God’s acts are carried out through the angels, He is called Elohim—this too is not correct. For that would imply that the name Elohim in the very first verse of the Torah refers to the angels! But this is plainly false, for the first act of creation came directly from the First Cause, blessed be He, without any intermediary—not from the angels, who themselves are among His creations.

The Chaver [in Judah Halevi’s Kuzari, Book IV, opening] said: Elohim is a title for one who rules over something, or for a judge who exercises authority. Thus, when applied to the supreme Ruler over all existence, it refers to God Himself. But it may also be said, by extension, of a force in the heavens, of a natural power, or of a human judge. The name was formed in the plural because of the practice of the nations, who made images and believed that in each image resided the influence of a celestial power, or something similar. Each one of these they called an eloah, and collectively they called them elim, swearing by them, as though they were their rulers. In their belief, they were many, in accordance with the multiplicity of forces that govern the body, and so on.

From his words it follows that Elohim means “Ruler,” and is said of one who rules. Its primary designation, then, is for God, the absolute Ruler of all; secondarily, it is applied to other beings according to their power. These words, indeed, are clearer than all the others. Still, the proper way to understand this requires lengthy explanation. Therefore, regarding this noble inquiry, I will set forth my own view. Because of its importance, I must expand upon it, and I will begin with two principles that you must first understand, from which you will grasp the meaning and import of this name.

Next section → Elohim and the Architecture of Creation

Read more

Previous section → The Meaning of “Bara”: Creation and the Language of Genesis

The conclusion from all this is that the expression beriah, in its primary and true sense, refers to the bringing into existence of something from absolute nothingness. All other usages are by way of borrowing, to draw an analogy to the first creation, in one form of resemblance or another, as the verses demonstrate. And from what I have recalled here, you may judge concerning what I have not recalled. Yet what remains to be determined is this: when the term beriah is used in its primary sense, do we understand it as the bringing into being of potential existence out of prior non-existence, or only as the production of a complete existence following absolute nothingness?1

You should know that the prince, Rabbi Abraham ben Rabbi Chiyya2, wrote in his book Megillat ha-Megalleh that the Holy One, blessed be He, first brought into existence the beginnings of all things in a potential state, before they emerged into actuality. He explained that when God granted existence in potentiality, Scripture called this beriah (“creation”), but when He brought things into actuality, Scripture called this asiyah (“making”) or yetzirah (“forming”). Concerning this it is written: “These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, on the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven” (Genesis 2:4)—meaning, first they were created in potential existence, and afterwards He made them when He brought them into actuality in their forms. Likewise: “On the day when God created man, in the likeness of God He made him” (Genesis 5:1). And as it is said: “Everyone that is called by My Name, and for My glory I have created him, I have formed him, I have made him” (Isaiah 43:7). For in all cases, beriah refers to granting potential existence, whereas asiyah or yetzirah refers to bringing it forth into actuality.

Similarly, in the words of our Sages (Nedarim 39b): “Ten things were created on the eve of the Sabbath at twilight.” They did not say “were made,” because at that time they were given potential existence, so that they might come forth into actuality at the proper time of need. And concerning this the prophet said: “I form the light and create darkness, I make peace and create evil; I, the Lord, do all these things” (Isaiah 45:7).

For the light, which has form, Scripture used the term yotzer (“fashioned”), while for darkness—which is the absence of light, and its potential to be brought into light—it used the term bara (“created”), for in darkness the light exists in potential. It mentioned the light, which benefits the world by giving illumination, and the darkness, which withholds by concealing3.

And if one should raise a difficulty from what is written, “I made the earth, and man upon it I created” (Isaiah 45:12)—where “made” (asiti) is mentioned first, followed only afterward by “created” (barati)—the answer is this4: the earth, on the first day, had its work completed and had come into actuality; therefore it says, “I made the earth.” But man, who at that time still existed only in potential—for no man was created until the sixth day—about him it says, “And man upon it I created,” to indicate that the earth already existed in actuality while man still remained in the potentiality of creation.

This is the opinion of the Prince (Rabbi Abraham ben Chiyya), together with his proofs. From this he derived that the verse “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” means that, at the start, God gave potentiality and possibility to the higher and lower elements He had brought forth, and afterward, during the six days of Creation, He gave them form and brought them into actuality.

There is no doubt in my mind that Ramban drew from this view when he interpreted this verse, as I mentioned in the first question on the first section. Even though Ramban did not cite him by name, nor reinforce the matter with his proofs as the Prince had done, it is evident.

However, when one examines the Prince’s understanding of the term bara, one finds it neither correct nor true according to the sense of Scripture. For the word bara is used for bringing a thing into existence in its completeness, with its full form and proper beauty, not for something that exists merely in potentiality.

For this reason, the term bara is also borrowed for what is good and pleasing in its kind: beri’ut (health), tovot (good things), “Eglon was a very robust man” (Judges 3:17), “and their flesh appeared healthy” (Daniel 1:15). You will not find it applied to anything deficient or merely potential.

The proof is in the verse: “For on it He rested from all His work which God created to do” (Genesis 2:3)5. This cannot be understood except as meaning that He brought it into existence as a complete reality, such that it might continue in being and perpetuate itself. Likewise: “These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created” (Genesis 2:4)—clearly, their offspring came only after their own perfection6. “Male and female He created them” (Genesis 1:27)7. “I will blot out man whom I have created” (Genesis 6:7)8. “Why did You create all mankind in vain?” (Psalms 89:48)9. “The people that shall be created will praise the Lord” (Psalms 102:19)10. “For He commanded and they were created, and He established them forever and ever” (Psalms 148:5–6)11. “Lift up your eyes on high and see who created these” (Isaiah 40:26)12. And similar verses, none of which can be explained—according to sound understanding—except as referring to a complete, actual creation, not to deficient potentiality.

Therefore I maintain that the term bara, in its primary and proper sense, denotes the bringing into existence, out of nothing, of a complete and actual reality, and nothing else.

Next section → The Meaning of the Divine Name Elohim

Read more

Previous section → The Foundations of Creation: Interpreting the Language of Bereshit

Explanation of the Word Bara (Created)

Concerning the word bara, the Rabbi [Maimonides] wrote that in our language, the only term that indicates the creation of something from nothing (yesh me-ayin) is bara. However, Ibn Ezra and many others disagree with this, bringing as proof the verses: “God created the great sea creatures” (Genesis 1:21) and “God created man” (Genesis 1:27), even though it is known that these beings were formed from the elemental substances, not from nothing1.

Some have attempted to justify the words of Maimonides by arguing that creation from nothing is indeed referred to as briyah, but not every use of briyah implies yesh me-ayin. However, such statements are empty words. For if that is so, what compels us to say that the briyah mentioned in the creation narrative refers to creation ex nihilo, and not to the kind of briyah that refers to forming something from pre-existing matter?

Radak, following this view, wrote in his lexicon2 that the word bara refers to various meanings by way of shared usage. First, the creation of something from nothing, as in “In the beginning God created” (Genesis 1:1); Second, the idea of selecting or choosing, as in “and you shall choose for yourself” (u’verata lekha) (Joshua 17:15); Third, cutting down or destruction, as in “and he cleared them in their youth” (u’vera otan b’tarb’utam) (Psalms 94:6, according to Radak’s interpretive style); And fourth, fatness or beauty, as in “Eglon was a very fat man” (ish shamen u’vari) (Judges 3:17), or “healthy and good” (briyot v’tovot).

However, it seems to me that this is not the case. Rather, the word bara was originally coined to mean the creation of something from nothing, as Maimonides wrote, and it is used occasionally in borrowed senses. This is why the verse says “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth”—He brought them into existence through His power after absolute non-being.

Indeed, in my work Ma‘asei Elohim3, in the second discourse, chapter 5, I explained the proofs from the Torah and the words of the Prophets that strongly indicate the world was created anew, and not from pre-existing matter.

Therefore, the Torah says: “These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created” (Genesis 2:4); and the Psalmist wrote, “For He commanded—and they were created” (Psalms 148:5); and Isaiah said: “Who created these?” (Isaiah 40:26) and “Creator of the ends of the earth” (Isaiah 40:28), and “For My glory I created him” (Isaiah 43:7), and “Creator of the heavens” (Isaiah 45:18). In all these, Scripture consistently uses the term briyah to describe the creation of the heavens and the earth from absolute nothingness, in accordance with its original sense.

Following this same reasoning, it says: “And God created man in His image” (Genesis 1:27). The use of briyah here does not refer to man’s material body, but rather to his intellectual form—his rational soul—which was created then from nothing4.

Since miracles occur according to the simple divine will, and are of the same nature as the original creation—that is, not attributed to any specific material substance from which they come into being—it is therefore very close, by analogy, to the original act of creation, that the language of beriah (creation) is used with regard to wonders. Thus it is written: “Before all your people I will perform wonders such as have not been created in all the earth” (Exodus 34:10)5. Likewise: “If the Lord will create a new creation” (Numbers 16:30)6.

And since the first creation was the bringing into existence of something corporeal from nothing—something most foreign to the human mind to conceive—the Torah borrowed this same expression of beriah for every case of something unusual and beyond the natural order. Thus, “And God created the great sea monsters” (Genesis 1:21), because of their extraordinary size, as our Sages said, that their length spanned many parasangs7.

Therefore, Scripture attributes their creation to God, to declare that the waters had no natural power to produce something so strange and wondrous, but only His power could bring them forth.

Of the same kind is what is said: “And you shall create it there for yourself in the land of the Perizzites” (Joshua 17:15)8. Since that land was a forest, untilled, Joshua told the children of Joseph to prepare it and make it into a place fit for habitation. From this standpoint, the verse uses the term beriah figuratively, because of the novelty of the act. Similarly: “Create in me a pure heart, O God” (Psalms 51:12); “The people that shall be created shall praise the Lord” (Psalms 102:19); “Now it is created and not from before” (Isaiah 48:7)9; “I created the craftsman” (Isaiah 54:16)10; “I created the destroyer” (ibid.)11; “The Creator of the fruit of the lips” (Isaiah 57:19)12, and the like. In all of them, the term beriah is used figuratively, because of the appearance of something new and unexpected, without the preparation of the recipient matter, like creation ex nihilo.

And since the things that God created at the beginning were perfect in their structure and beauty—as it is said, “They were created in their proper form”—the Torah borrowed the term beriah for every pleasing and beautiful thing: “Eglon was a very robust man” (Judges 3:17)13; “Healthy and good” (Genesis 41:2)14; “You will send forth Your spirit, they shall be created” (Psalms 104:30)15; “To persuade David to eat bread” (2 Shmuel 3:35)16; “To fatten yourselves from the choicest of the offerings” (1 Samuel 2:29)17. All of these are expressions of beauty and comeliness, for food makes a person fair and robust. The general idea is that they are likened in beauty to the first creation, which the true Creator fashioned.

However, as for the verse, “And let them create them with their swords” (Ezekiel 23:47)18, I think this too comes from the sense of beautifying, but used ironically in Ezekiel. For thus says the Lord: “Bring up a multitude against them, and give them up to terror and spoil; and the multitude shall stone them with stones, and dispatch them with their swords; their sons and their daughters they shall slay, and their houses they shall burn with fire.” The commentators explained that this was the prophecy of Israel’s destruction and ruin at the hands of Babylon, that great host of Chaldeans who would rise up against them, kill their sons and daughters, and burn their houses with fire. Regarding that destruction and devastation, the prophet used the phrase “they shall create them,” meaning: this is the “creation,” the production, the adornment and beautification that the Chaldeans will effect upon them with their swords—mocking them, just as one says “a man of great light” about a blind person19. In the same way, for the total destruction he used the term beriah.

Next section → The True Meaning of Creation

Read more

Previous section → Time Before the Luminaries

The Sages said that it arose in God’s thought to create the world with the attribute of Justice (midat ha-din), but He saw that the world could not endure through Justice alone, so He combined it with the attribute of Mercy (midat ha-chakhamim)1. They also said that “the full name is mentioned only when the world is full”2. Would that those sayings might also be understood according to their true meaning!3 This question is not limited to this specific portion, but applies to all sections of the account of Creation.

These are the questions I have posed concerning this first portion, and it is fitting to now interpret the verses of this parashah in such a way that all of these questions may be resolved. And because this parashah is the foundation and essence of the account of Creation, and it contains words that are shared in meaning or used metaphorically, I found it appropriate to first explain the key terms that require clarification, and concerning which there is a divergence of opinion among the commentators.

These are twelve terms: The first is ‘Bereishit’ (בְּרֵאשִׁית). The second is ‘bara’ (בָּרָא – created). The third is ‘Elohim’ (אֱלֹהִים). The fourth is ‘shamayim’ (שָׁמַיִם – heavens). The fifth is ‘eretz’ (אֶרֶץ – earth). The sixth is ‘tohu’ (תֹּהוּ – void). The seventh is ‘bohu’ (בֹּהוּ – desolation/emptiness). The eighth is ‘choshekh’ (חֹשֶׁךְ – darkness). The ninth is ‘pnei’ (פְּנֵי – face/surface). The tenth is ‘ruach’ (רוּחַ – spirit/wind). The eleventh is ‘merachefet’ (מְרַחֶפֶת – hovering). The twelth is ‘mayim’ (מַיִם – waters). And behold, I found it necessary to clarify these terms because I have not seen among the commentators a sufficient discussion of them that aligns with the understanding of my heart4.

Explanation of the Word “Bereshit” (בְּרֵאשִׁית)

Maimonides wrote in the aforementioned chapter (Guide for the Perplexed, Part II, Chapter 30) that the word “Bereshit” (In the beginning) does not denote temporal precedence, but rather refers to an initial state or foundation that exists alongside something that is not its beginning, and is in fact part of the thing itself. Therefore, according to him, the verse “Bereshit bara Elohim” should not be understood in terms of chronological priority, because the world was not created in time, since time itself was part of the created order, like motion and the celestial spheres, which are the carriers of time. Thus, he interprets the verse to mean: “At the beginning [of things], God created the upper and lower realms…” However, with all due respect, this explanation is incorrect.

Indeed, the word “reshit“ (beginning) can sometimes denote an internal beginning, a foundational part of something, as Maimonides suggests, but it can also certainly refer to chronological precedence, as in: “From the beginning of the year…” (Deuteronomy 11:12), “From the first of all the fruit of the land…” (Deuteronomy 26:2), “Better is the end of a thing than its beginning…” (Ecclesiastes 7:8), “Declaring the end from the beginning…” (Isaiah 46:10), “In the beginning of the reign of Jehoiakim…” (Jeremiah 26:1) and many others like these in Scripture, all of which clearly indicate temporal priority—whether it be of a year, a month, or a particular time. Furthermore, interpreting “Bereshit bara Elohim“ as referring to temporal precedence does not in any way contradict the doctrine of creation ex nihilo, as Maimonides feared. It is not incorrect to say that: “In the beginning of the newly created time, God created the heavens and the earth,” because this “beginning” was not part of time, but rather the beginning point of time itself.

Thus, the word “Bereshit” should be understood as a construct form, as Rashi says, but the noun it governs omitted. In other words, the verse should be read: “At the beginning [of time], God created the heavens and the earth5. This is similar to verses such as: “He saw a beginning for himself…” (Deuteronomy 33:21), “Declaring the end from the beginning…” (Isaiah 46:10), which also lack their dependent nouns (“beginning of what?”), but the meaning is understood. If it is customary in our language to omit the dependent noun when speaking of tangible, obvious things, how much more so when the subject is time itself, which is hard to conceptualize and has weak tangible existence. The Torah, then, would naturally omit mentioning time explicitly, since it is not a sensory object, except when attached to something more concrete, like “at the beginning of the reign of Jehoiakim,” where the reign is a tangible phenomenon.

Therefore, “Bereshit” can be interpreted in either of two ways: either as referring to chronological precedence, meaning “at the beginning of time”, which itself is not part of time, but the initial moment of time; or, as denoting a cause or principle, as Maimonides claims, in the sense of being an internal part of the thing. Additionally, the letter “bet” (ב) in “Bereshit” can be interpreted in various ways: It might be a “bet” of instrumentality, as in “with a tool” (Exodus 31:4), like: “He appeared in a garment” (Job 38:14), “He formed it with a stylus” (Isaiah 8:1). And since wisdom is the tool by which the Creator acts, the Jerusalem Targum translates Bereshit as “With wisdom, [God] created…”.

Alternatively, it might also be a “bet” of time, as in: “when the Most High gave the nations their inheritance” (Deuteronomy 32:8), or “when the wicked are cut off, you will see it” (Psalms 37:34). The meaning then would be: “Before anything else was created, God created the heavens and the earth”. That’s how Onkelos6 translates it: “In the beginning [lit. at first]” (בקדם). Another possibility might be a “bet” of substance, like: “in gold,” “in silver,” “in copper” (Exodus 25:3), implying that: “With their beginning and their material, God created the heavens and the earth.” That is to say, there was no pre-existent matter, as Plato claimed. Rather, God created the heavens and the earth together with their very substance, which came into being ex nihilo.

I have shown you, with your own eyes, the various interpretive possibilities that arise from the usages of this word (Bereshit), all of which are valid and sound for one who understands, and upright for those who seek knowledge in the plain meaning of the verse. Who could grant that we might know which direction the Rambam truly intended in his interpretation?

Additionally, the bet in “Bereshit” can also be understood as indicating purpose or motive, meaning “on account of” or “for the sake of”, just as in the verses: “And Israel worked for a wife” (Hosea 12:13) – ba’isha (for a wife), “Will You destroy for five?” (Genesis 18:28) – bachamishah (for five). In this spirit, the Sages (Chazal) interpreted Bereshit as: “For the sake of ‘Reshit’ [beginning],” that is: For the sake of Israel, who are called Reshit (first/foremost), for the sake of the terumah (the first portion of the harvest), for the sake of challah (the first portion of dough), for the sake of Moses our teacher, who is also referred to as Reshit.

Next section →

Read more

Previous section → The Debate of the Sages on the Six Days

Refutation of Maimonides’ View

The conclusion of all this is that the words of Maimonides in the Guide for the Perplexed are invalidated, and his opinion on this matter is refuted. However, some have attempted to answer this question in two alternative ways: The first is that while complete time is only measurable through the daily rotation of the celestial sphere, a partial concept of time can still be measured through other motions and transformations. This idea is illustrated by the philosopher’s analogy of people trapped in a cave from birth (a reference to Plato’s Allegory of the Cave). Therefore, when God created the heavens, the earth, and all their components, a sequence of events was already established, creating a framework for before and after, allowing time to be measured even without the movement of celestial bodies1. Thus, the days of creation were determined without requiring the movement of the sun and moon.

The second is that, even if we admit that it is impossible to measure the days without the light of the luminaries, what prevents God—who knows all future events—from foreseeing the structure of time even before its actual existence? Just as complete time measurement was possible after the luminaries were created, so too could God have foretold and measured the days of creation in advance according to what would later be the standard unit of time2. Those who support this view attempt to justify it through Midrashic teachings of the Sages. This, in general, is their response to this question.

However, in truth, these explanations are vain delusions, mere illusions. Regarding the first approach, it is flawed because: private (non-celestial) motions, even if they establish some concept of sequential time (before and after), do not create full-fledged days, nights, evenings, or mornings, nor the cycles that distinguish them. Furthermore, if the first three days had only an incomplete form of time, while the last three days followed the complete measurement of time based on the movement of celestial bodies, then why does the Torah use the exact same phraseology for all six days—“And there was evening, and there was morning, one day”? Could an incomplete, non-celestial time be equivalent to the complete time measured by the heavenly bodies? Clearly not. The Torah, however, does not differentiate between them, which contradicts this theory.

As for the second approach, it is also untenable, because what exists solely in thought cannot measure or define something external to it. How could a future time—one merely conceived in God’s foreknowledge—be referred to in the Torah as an actual “evening and morning” for a specific day? This phrase (“And there was evening, and there was morning, one day”) was written after “Let there be light, and there was light.” I have already demonstrated that “Let there be light” must refer to something that actually existed, not merely a divine concept or plan. It was this actual light that was designated as “day,” and it was this light that determined the evening and morning—not a divine mental projection. This interpretation would necessitate the conclusion that nothing that occurred during the first three days existed in actuality, which would amount to a total denial of creation ex nihilo.

The words of our sages, of blessed memory, which they thought supported their position, were not intended to align with their arguments at all. You can clearly see for yourself how weak and flawed these arguments are in attempting to answer this question. Thus, it is proper that we seek to understand how the first three days were truly measured, and what “evening and morning” meant before the creation of the luminaries.

The tenth question

Why is it that throughout the entire Creation narrative, the name “Elohim” is always used, while the Tetragrammaton (YH-V-H) is never mentioned3? Would it not have been more appropriate for the Tetragrammaton to be used, since this divine name signifies existence (havayah), which is directly related to the act of creating the world? After all, we see that the prophets consistently attribute the act of creation to the sacred name YH-V-H, as it is written in Isaiah: “Thus said the Almighty YH-V-H, Creator of the heavens and the One who stretches them forth” (Isaiah 42:5). “Do you not know? Have you not heard? The Eternal God, YH-V-H, is the Creator of the ends of the earth” (Isaiah 40:28). Similarly, King David stated: “Praise YH-V-H from the heavens… for He commanded, and they were created” (Psalms 148:1-5).

There are many other verses where the original act of creation is attributed to this sacred name. Why, then, is the name YH-V-H never mentioned in the entire Creation narrative—meaning, in the account of the six days of creation and in Parashat VaYechulu (Genesis 1:1 – 2:3)? Instead, only the name “Elohim” is used. Yet, beginning from the verse: “These are the generations of the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 2:4), we find both divine names combined—YH-V-H Elohim. However, in the words of the serpent and the woman, only the name Elohim is mentioned. Later, in the section “And Adam knew his wife Eve” (Genesis 4:1-25), the name YH-V-H appears alone, while Elohim is absent—except again in the words of Eve, when she says: “For Elohim has given me another offspring in place of Abel” (Genesis 4:25).

In the narrative detailing the succession of generations, only the name Elohim is mentioned, and not the Tetragrammaton (YH-V-H)—except in the words of Lamech, where it is written: “from the ground which YH-V-H has cursed” (Genesis 5:29)4. And in the section “And YH-V-H saw that the wickedness of man was great” (Genesis 6:5), the name YH-V-H appears throughout, and not the name Elohim. But in the portion describing the flood, only the name Elohim is mentioned. Who will grant me the knowledge to understand the reason behind these major shifts?5

Next section → The Foundations of Creation: Interpreting the Language of Bereshit

Read more

Previous section → On the Question of Simultaneous Creation

Moreover, numerous statements of the Sages confirm this interpretation, supporting the plain meaning of the Torah ! For instance, in Bereshit Rabbah they said: “The Holy One, Blessed be He, created three things on each day.” This is the statement I mentioned earlier. They also said there: For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth—these three things form the very foundation of the covenant of the world, and they each took three days before producing three types of offspring. The earth on the first day (according to Beit Hillel), and it waited three days before bringing forth trees, grasses, and the Garden of Eden. The firmament on the second day, and it waited three days before bringing forth the sun, the moon, and the constellations. The sea on the third day, and it waited three days before bringing forth birds, fish, and the Leviathan.

However, Rabbi Azariah disagreed, saying: “Rather, ‘on the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens’ (Genesis 2:4)—these two things are the foundation of the covenant of the world.” According to him: the heavens were created on the first day, as Beit Shammai maintains, and they waited three days until their work was completed on the fourth day with the luminaries. The earth was primarily created on the third day, as it is written: “And the earth gave forth...” (Genesis 1:12)1, and it waited three days until its creation was completed on the sixth day with man, as it is written: “I have made the earth, and upon it I have created man...” (Isaiah 45:12)2. Thus far.

See, and see again, how this statement clearly explains the distinction between the days, their number, and the differentiation of the creations made within them, without any dispute against it. Even the passages cited by Maimonides, which I myself have also brought as support for his view, when carefully examined, do not truly contradict this interpretation. For when the Sages said: “All things created in the Six Days of Creation were created in their full stature and in their ideal form,” this does not mean that they were all created at once. Rather, it means that when each thing was created in its designated day, it was created in its complete and perfected form. Similarly, when the Sages said: “These are the luminaries that were created on the first day but were not placed in the firmament until the fourth day,” this explicitly acknowledges that there was a progression across the days and distinct actions taken within them. Thus, the luminaries were created on the first day but were not set in place in the firmament until the fourth day.

Likewise, when they said: “The heavens and the earth were created together,” they did not mean that the heavens, the earth, and all their offspring were created at the same time. Rather, they meant that both were created simultaneously on the first day, but that all other things were formed over the following days.

Now, regarding the dispute between the Sages—which I mentioned earlier—about whether everything was created at once or whether each thing was created on its respective day, I will now explain the root of their disagreement. It was the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda that the heavens, the earth, and all other things created during the Six Days of Creation were each brought into existence from absolute nonexistence (yesh me’ayin) on the very day they were created. Accordingly, on each of the six days, a new act of creation ex nihilo took place. But Rabbi Nechemia held that only on the first day was there absolute creation from nothing (ex nihilo), when God created the heavens out of absolute nothingness. On that first day, God instilled within creation the potential to generate all its future offspring—for example, the luminaries, which emerged on the fourth day as a result of this initial act. Likewise, the earth was also created from nothing on the first day, and God placed within it the power to bring forth its offspring—meaning vegetation, animals, and man—on their respective days. Thus, according to Rabbi Nechemia, the only true act of creation ex nihilo took place on the first day, and all subsequent creations emerged from that initial act, rather than being created from absolute nothingness on their respective days.

This is the meaning of the seeds mentioned by the Sages: these seeds already existed in actuality from the beginning, and the planter placed them in the ground so that they would bring forth their offspring in the following days. Thus, not everything was created on the first day, but rather the initial foundations were created in actuality, while their offspring existed only in potential. This concept is reflected in what Rabbi Akiva taught in the name of Nachum Ish Gamzu: “[The verse says]‘The heavens’—to include their offspring, or to include the sun, moon, and constellations.” “‘The earth’—to include grasses, trees, and the Garden of Eden.” The expansion (ribui) mentioned here refers to the potential within these primordial foundations, but does not deny that their actual emergence took place over the subsequent days.

A similar idea is expressed by Rabbi Eliezer the Great: “Everything that belongs to the heavens was created from the heavens, and everything that belongs to the earth was created from the earth.” Likewise, the passage from Midrash Tanchuma that I previously mentioned aligns with this idea. None of these sources can be used to deny the multiplicity of days in creation, nor the distinction between the various things created on different days. For this reason, Ramban wrote with sincerity and intellectual integrity: “Know that the days mentioned in the account of creation were actual days, composed of hours and moments, and that they were truly six days, as is plainly stated in the Torah.” To this I respond: “May my soul die the death of the righteous, and may my end be like his” (Numbers 23:10)3.

Next section → Time Before the Luminaries

Read more

Previous section → The Enigma of the First Light

To support his position, Maimonides drew from the analogy given by the Sages, comparing creation to a farmer sowing seeds all at once—even though different plants sprout at different times, some in a single day and others over the course of many days. Maimonides considered this a deep secret of the Creation account, concealing it carefully, as can be observed from his writings. However, those who reveal secrets—such as Ralbag, Narboni1, and other commentators of his work—exposed his true opinion and publicly disclosed his hidden teaching.

Before I present my own view on this matter, I must first point out that similar ideas can be found in the words of the Sages—even more explicitly stated than in Maimonides’ writings. For instance, in Bereshit Rabbah, the following debate is recorded:

Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Nechemia disagreed2. Rabbi Yehuda said: “The heavens and the earth, and all their hosts, were completed in their time” (Genesis 2:1) Rabbi Nechemia replied: “But is it not written, ‘These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created’ (Genesis 2:4)? This teaches that everything was brought forth on the very day it was created.” Rabbi Yehuda countered: “But does it not say, ‘And there was evening and there was morning, the second day… the third day… the fourth day… the fifth day… the sixth day’” (Genesis 1:5, etc.)? Rabbi Nechemia responded: “It was like a person gathering figs—each ripened at its own time, and he gathered each one in its proper season.” Rabbi Berechiah, commenting on Rabbi Nechemia’s view, explained: ‘And the earth brought forth…’ (Genesis 1:12)—this refers to something that was already entrusted to it.”

Similarly, in Midrash Tanchuma: Rabbi Yehuda said: “The world was created over six days, as it is written in the account of each day’s creation.” However, Rav Nachman said: “On the first day, the entire world was created,” citing as proof the verse ‘And the earth brought forth…’ (Genesis 1:12), referring to something that had been prepared since the beginning.

From this, it appears that Rabbi Nechemia, Rabbi Berechiah, and Rav Nachman all agreed with Maimonides’ view that everything was created simultaneously on the first day. It is therefore appropriate to examine whether this view, as presented by Maimonides, is correct and valid or not. If it is incorrect, we must then ask: did the Sages in these statements actually intend to support Maimonides’ view, or did they mean something entirely different?

As for Maimonides’ opinion—aside from the greatness of his Torah—it is a manifest falsehood3. This will become clear for several reasons:

First, that the Torah explicitly states six times: “And there was evening, and there was morning, a [specific] day.” How, then, can anyone who follows the Torah deny that there was an actual count of days, and that evening and morning truly existed? If one claims that everything was created at once, is this not a complete denial and contradiction of the Torah’s words?

Second, Maimonides claimed that the enumeration of the days serves to symbolize the hierarchy of existence, and he himself enumerated six levels. The first: light and darkness. The second: the rain (or waters). The third: the minerals (or land and its produce). The fourth: the plants. The fifth: the living creatures (animals). The sixth: man. He further wrote at the end of his discussion: “Thus, Scripture follows this same order in the account of Creation, without deviating from it in any way.”

However, you will see that the sequence of the six days does not align with these so-called ‘hierarchical levels’ that Maimonides described: minerals and plants are assigned to a single day, not two separate days as his system suggests. Animals and man, which he considers two distinct levels, were actually created on the same day (the sixth day). Conversely, marine animals and terrestrial animals, which he combined into a single category, were actually assigned two separate days in the Torah (the fifth and sixth).

Even more problematic is the fact that the fourth day was designated for the creation of the luminaries, yet these do not even appear in Maimonides’ hierarchical levels! He made no mention of them, nor did he attempt to account for their place in the hierarchy. He completely overlooked them. This clearly proves that the six days of Creation do not symbolize hierarchical levels, as Maimonides claimed.

The third argument is based on what is stated in the Mishnah (Avot 5:1): “With ten utterances the world was created. And why does it say so? Could it not have been created with a single utterance? And this Mishnah is undisputed, and it proves that all things were not created together nor with one utterance, but rather with ten utterances that are mentioned across the six days, each day expressing its own utterance (Tehillim 19:3). As it is written regarding the Ten Commandments: ‘For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth.’” (Shemot 20:11)

The fourth argument is that if we deny that the six days of creation were truly separate days, then it would follow that the seventh day could not have been a day of rest. For if everything was created at once, then God would not have “rested” on the seventh day, but rather on the same day that He created everything, meaning that He acted and rested on the first day simultaneously. However, the truth of the matter is what the simple reading of the verses indicates—that there was a distinction between the days and between the things created in them, and that the alternation of evening and morning was real.

Next section → The Debate of the Sages on the Six Days

Read more

Previous section → Original Vision, Independent Form

The sixth question

Why, in the creation of light, does the Torah not say “And God made” (Vaya’as Elokim) nor “And it was so” (Vayehi Ken), as it does in the acts of creation on the other days? For example, on the second day, regarding the firmament, after the verse states “Let there be a firmament”, it follows with: “And God made the firmament”. Additionally, the phrase “And it was so” appears there as well. Likewise, on the fourth day, after it says “Let there be luminaries”, it follows with: “And God made the two great luminaries”, and the phrase “And it was so” also appears. In the other days of creation, after the initial divine command (yehi), sometimes the Torah says only “And God made”, and sometimes only “And it was so”. However, in the creation of light, the Torah neither states “And God made the light” nor “And it was so.” Instead, it says “And there was light” (Vayehi Or), which deviates from the Torah’s usual language in describing the creation of other entities.

The seventh question

Regarding the verse: “And God saw the light, that it was good, and God separated between the light and the darkness” (Genesis 1:4). This is problematic for the following reasons. First, why does the Torah not state “And God saw that it was good” in a general and absolute sense, as it does in the other acts of creation? Second, what is the meaning of this separation attributed to God? Reality itself is already distinct from non-existence by its very nature, without the need for an external separator. Light is existence, while darkness is merely its absence1—and two opposites cannot coexist simultaneously. Third, what does the verse mean by stating that “because the light was good, God separated it from the darkness”? Does this imply that if the light had not been good, He would not have separated them? Would they have remained together in harmony? This is false, for existence and non-existence cannot coexist—one can only exist through the negation of the other. Fourth, the structure of the verse seems improper based on logical sequencing. It should have said first: “And God separated between the light and the darkness,” and then: “And God saw that it was good.” This would imply that both the light itself and its separation from darkness were good and fitting. Instead, the verse first states that God saw that the light was good and only then states that He separated it from darkness.

The eighth question

Regarding the verse: “And there was evening, and there was morning, one day” (Genesis 1:5). This is problematic for three reasons. First, why does the verse mention evening before morning, when in reality, day logically and naturally precedes night? Evening occurs only as a result of the daylight receding beneath the earth and being replaced by its shadow. Indeed, earlier in the Torah, the order is consistent: first, it describes the creation of light, and only afterward, it states that God separated between light and darkness. Second, why does the verse use the phrase “And there was evening, and there was morning”? Would it not have been more appropriate to say “And there was night, and there was day” or “And there was darkness, and there was day”? Why use evening and morning instead? Third, why does the verse say “one day” (יום אחד) instead of “the first day” (יום ראשון)? For all the other days, the Torah follows a numerical sequence: “second day, third day, fourth day, fifth day, sixth day.” Why, then, does it not say “the first day” in this instance?

Let us [now] discuss whether all things were created according to the order of the days or not.

The ninth question

Regarding what Maimonides wrote at length regarding the sequence of creation. He raised a significant difficulty regarding the first three days—first, second, and third: If the motion of the celestial sphere (tenu’at ha-galgal), which generates time, did not yet exist, and if the luminaries were not created until the fourth day, then how were the first three days measured?2 Maimonides sought to answer this by asserting that the luminaries were actually created on the first day, and the celestial sphere was already set in motion3. Thus, the first three days were measured in the same way as the later days. Maimonides based this explanation on the principle that all of creation—both the upper and lower realms—was formed simultaneously. He also relied on the statement of the Sages (Chagigah 12a): “The heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1) includes all their offspring (i.e., everything they would produce)4. Likewise, they said: “All of the acts of creation were formed in their full stature and in their ideal form.” This means that everything was created complete and in its most perfect state. The Sages also stated that the heavens and the earth were created together, as it is written: “I call to them, and they stand together.” (Isaiah 48:13)5

Maimonides held that the acts of creation were not separate and distinct on each of the six days. Rather, everything was created at once, in a single moment. However, the Torah describes the six days of Bereshit to symbolize the hierarchical levels of existence, which came into being according to their natural order. According to him, these were not actual days, nor was there any chronological precedence of one creation over another. Instead, he maintained that although everything was created simultaneously, certain elements became manifest and their functions were revealed later. This, he believed, was the purpose of the six days of creation—not to describe an actual sequence of events, but to present the gradual appearance of things that had already been created. This aligns with what I previously mentioned regarding his interpretation of the luminaries (see question 5).

Next section → On the Question of Simultaneous Creation

Read more

Previous section → Why the First-Day Light Is Not the Light of the Luminaries

However, this opinion in its entirety contradicts the testimony of the Torah’s writings, distorts, and opposes the words of our sages, and this is for several reasons. First, the verse says, “Let there be light” (Yehi Or) cannot be interpreted as referring merely to God’s thought or decree. The word “Yehi” (let there be) always signifies actual existence, as seen in “Let there be a firmament” (Yehi Rakia) and “Let there be luminaries” (Yehi Me’orot). Thus, it must refer to the actual creation of light, not just its conception in divine thought1. Furthermore, our Sages taught (Avot 5:1): “The world was created with ten utterances,” and the first of these is “Let there be light.” If nothing was actually created at that moment, then this would not be one of the ten utterances by which the world was created, since all the other utterances brought something into actual existence2. Moreover, God’s knowledge of light prior to its creation, and His intention to create it, should not have been recorded in the Torah, nor should it be assigned to the first day of creation. If one were to speak of God’s prior knowledge, then even before the creation of time itself (if such a measurement is even possible), every part of creation was already known and conceived in His wisdom. Why, then, would the Torah assign God’s knowledge of light before its creation to a specific day and time?

Additionally, why would the act of the first day be only conceptual, while the acts of the other days were actual and tangible? The language of the Torah is identical across all the days of creation, without any distinction between conceptual decrees and actual creation3. Why would the Torah describe two separate utterances regarding light—one referring to its thought before creation, and another to its actual creation? Nowhere else in the creation narrative do we find such a distinction. Moreover, why would God’s decree to create light be placed on day one, while its actual creation would be delayed until the fourth day? Was God’s power insufficient to create it immediately upon His decree4? Finally, if “Let there be light” (Yehi Or) merely expressed God’s thought of creation, what would be the meaning of “And there was light” (Vayehi Or)? Even though the phrase “And it was so” (Vayehi Ken) is not used here, the wording necessitates that “And there was light” refers to actual creation. Otherwise, “And there was light” would be entirely redundant, an unnecessary repetition.

Furthermore, if there was no actual light in existence on the first day, how could there have been evening and morning, as it is stated: “And there was evening, and there was morning, one day”? This same phrase appears for all the days of Bereshit. The only way to justify this would be to claim that everything was imaginary or purely intellectual, without actual reality—which would imply that the entire creation of the world was an illusion. There is no greater heresy than this! All of this demonstrates that the claim of this scholar—according to Maimonides’ interpretation—has no validity, and “the helper has stumbled, and the aided one has fallen” (Isaiah 31:3). Additionally, there is a third difficulty regarding Maimonides’ view, namely, the verse: “And God separated, etc.” If the distinction between light and darkness was merely a result of the motion of the celestial sphere, then the Torah should not have attributed this action to God. Notice that in the creation of the luminaries, the light is explicitly assigned to them, as it is written: “To separate between the light and the darkness.” They were the true agents of separation, not the Blessed Creator.

Moreover, as I have previously explained, the Torah always attributes events to their immediate causes, not to their remote ones, because knowledge of distant causes does not provide a complete understanding. It is astonishing that these scholars sought support from the Talmudic statement: “These are the same luminaries that were created on the first day but were not suspended until the fourth day.” This source clearly states that the luminaries were actually created on the first day, but they were not placed and did not function in their orbits until the fourth day. How can this be reconciled with their claim that it refers only to the manifestation of their effects, or to some imagined concept?

Furthermore, it is evident that this contradicts the view of the Sages, as explained in Bereshit Rabbah5. Rabbi Levi, in the name of Rabbi Chama bar Chanina, taught: “The Holy One, Blessed be He, created three things on each day: On the first day: the heavens, the earth, and light. On the second day: the firmament, the angels, and Gehinnom. On the third day: grasses, trees, and the Garden of Eden. On the fourth day: the sun, the moon, and the constellations. On the fifth day: birds, fish, and the Leviathan. On the sixth day: Adam, Eve, and creeping creatures.” This explicitly states that light was created in actuality on the first day, just as the heavens and earth were, while the luminaries were created only on the fourth day. All of this proves that the light mentioned on the first day is not the same as the light of the luminaries. What, then, is its nature? Who will give me wisdom to understand?

Next section → The Enigma of the First Light

Previous section → Beyond the Four Elements: Reconsidering Darkness, Ruach, and the Light of the First Day

The second position, which holds that this light was physical, must be examined in accordance with the view of Maimonides and his followers. Maimonides and all later scholars who followed his path believed that at the creation of the heavens, the celestial luminaries were also created at the very beginning. Immediately, a radiance emanated from them—nothing more than a luminous emission extending from a shining physical body (gashmi me’ir) in a translucent medium (gashmi s’firiy). This, they say, is the light mentioned in this passage.

And He said of it, “that it was good,” because existence and goodness are interchangeable in a given subject1. God distinguished between light and darkness through the motion of the celestial sphere, which He set in motion to create a natural separation in form2, making them opposites—just as existence and non-existence are opposite concepts. God’s naming of light as “day” and darkness as “night” was based on human perception, for names are conventional. These phenomena were attributed to God because He is the First Cause of all things. Since light and darkness functioned through the rotation of the celestial sphere, moving from east to west and then returning to the east, this constituted a single day—meaning a unified period where darkness and light together formed a full 24-hour cycle.

The fact that the verse first mentions “evening” and then “morning” suggests that the great luminary (the sun) was, at the moment of its general influence, positioned directly opposite the center of the earth, beneath the dry land3. In that instant, darkness spread over the visible part of the land, until the sun rose over the entire earth. According to this view, light itself was not created as a separate entity; rather, when the celestial sphere was created, God commanded it to move, and from its motion, light naturally followed.

Since this view (that the light of the first day is the light of the luminaries) faces the difficulty that the Torah explicitly mentions the creation of the luminaries on the fourth day, Maimonides was compelled to address this issue. From his words in Guide for the Perplexed (Part II, Chapter 30), it appears that his response is as follows: On the first day, the celestial sphere (galgal), the luminaries, and the light emanating from them were created. However, on the fourth day, their effects became manifest in the process of plant growth, since this would not occur except through the falling of rain, and the rain would not fall unless vapors rose from the earth, the cause of which is the heat derived from the solar light. Nothing new was created then—neither in the sphere, nor in theluminaries, nor in the light emanating from them. This is what appears from the Rabbi’s words and his opinion on this matter, as those who interpret his book have explained on his behalf. To support this, Maimonides relied on the Talmudic statement I previously mentioned (Chagigah 12a): “These are the same luminaries that were created on the first day but were not suspended until the fourth day.”

It is possible that Ramban was referring to the same idea when he cited this view as the opinion of “some commentators”, as he said at the end, and his words are: “If so, the verse alludes to what would occur on the fourth day, after the luminaries had been placed in the firmament of the heavens.” This means that the light mentioned on the first day is the very same light of the luminaries mentioned on the fourth day, but the Torah referenced it on the first day in anticipation of what would later be revealed on the fourth.

This entire view contradicts the explicit testimony of the words of the Torah, distorts its meaning, and opposes the statements of the Sages for the following reasons. First, the verse says: “And God said, ʿLet there be lightʾ” (Genesis 1:3). If light was not created independently but was merely a result of the movement of the celestial sphere, then what is the meaning of this divine utterance (Vayomer Elokim Yehī Or)? The light would not have been created as an independent entity, yet the Torah does not say “Let the sphere move”, but rather, “Let there be light.” Furthermore, if the celestial sphere had already been created in its spherical form, there would have been no need for God to command its movement, since it would necessarily move on its own—its very nature demands perpetual motion, while rest is impossible for it. What, then, is the significance of “Let there be light,” if light was merely a byproduct of this motion? Second, the verse says: “Let there be luminaries in the firmament of the heavens,” and “And God made the two great luminaries,” and “And God placed them in the firmament of the heavens.” (Genesis 1:14-17). All these verses clearly indicate that the Torah is speaking about their coming into existence, not of the revelation of their functions.

Additionally, if the text referred merely to the revelation of their function, then this should have been attributed to the third day, when vegetation appeared, not to the fourth day. One of the wise men of our generation attempted to resolve this problem differently, suggesting that things have a tangible existence outside the soul and an intellectual existence within the soul of the one who brings them about. Thus, he proposed that “Let there be light” on the first day means that God conceived it in His wisdom, determining its future creation. Then, on the fourth day, He brought it into actual existence. For this reason, he argued, the Torah did not say on the first day, “And it was so” (Vayehi ken), since the light did not yet exist in actuality. Instead, it says “And there was light” (Vayehi Or), meaning that light would come into actual existence at its appointed time. Similarly, the phrase “And God separated” (Vayavdel Elokim) is explained as meaning that God, in His wisdom, decreed to separate light from darkness, but that nothing of this actually took place at that time, for it did not come into actual existence until the fourth day.

Next section → Original Vision, Independent Form

Previous section → The Singular Language of the First Day and the Meaning of “Tohu va’Vohu”

The truth is that if darkness is sometimes observed in the fire that burns within wood, it is due to the opacity of the material itself. This is not the case with primordial fire, which is not entangled with dense and coarse matter. Some of the ancient philosophers1 even claimed that there is no distinct element of fire at all, but rather that everything from the earth up to the celestial spheres consists of air. Its parts vary in their qualities—denser or more refined—based on their proximity to the center or to the outer spheres, but they do not differ in form. They are all ethereal (sphiriyim), neither luminous nor dark. Indeed, this view is the one most aligned with rational understanding, as will be explained later.

Even those who thought that fire was a distinct element from air still considered it to be more refined and ethereal than air. This would explain why the stars are visible at night and the sun during the day, for the farther a substance is from the earth and the closer it is to the heavenly sphere, the more refined and luminous it becomes. All of this proves that “darkness” in this verse does not refer to the element of fire2.

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

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

Similarly, regarding “the spirit of God was hovering over the face of the water,” Maimonides interpreted “spirit” as referring to the element of air, but this is incorrect. Nowhere in Scripture is “ruach” (spirit) used to denote the pure element of air; rather, it always refers to the moving wind, as is stated in the Book of Signs (Sefer HaOtoth)3, or to other things to which the Torah attributes the term “ruach.” as will be explained. If “ruach” here referred to the element of air, then why would it be attributed specifically to God, as in “the spirit of God was hovering”, whereas the other elements mentioned in creation are not similarly ascribed to Him? Moreover, the verses Maimonides cited to support his view—such as “A wind went forth from the Lord” (Numbers 11:31), or “You blew with Your wind” (Exodus 15:10)—all refer to the moving wind, not to the static element of air.

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

The Fifth Question

What is the light mentioned in this passage, according to the plain meaning of the text, and what is its nature? You should know that Maimonides, Ibn Ezra, and all who follow their approach believed that the light mentioned here is the very same light of the celestial luminaries that were created in the heavens. Nicholas de Lyra4, who interpreted the Torah for the nations, held this view as well. Ramban also referenced this interpretation as the opinion of “some commentators,” perhaps because he had not seen it explicitly stated in Guide for the Perplexed, and thus did not attribute it directly to Maimonides. Furthermore, you will find that even among the Sages of the Talmud, some wise scholars upheld this view. In Tractate Chagigah, the Sages stated that ten things were created on the first day, and among them, they counted light. They then raised the objection: “Was light really created on the first day? But it is written, ʿAnd God placed them in the firmament of the heavensʾ (Genesis 1:17), and it is written, ʿAnd it was evening, and it was morning, the fourth dayʾ (Genesis 1:19)!” The Talmud concludes with a dispute between Rabbi Yaakov, who stated that “the light that God created on the first day enabled man to see from one end of the world to the other; but the Sages say that these are the same luminaries that were created on the first day but were not suspended until the fourth day.” Thus far.

The simple reading of this passage suggests that some sages held that this light was an intellectual concept, referring to separate intellects (sechalim nivdalim)5, while others believed that the light was a physical phenomenon. However, as I have already demonstrated in the second question, it is inappropriate to interpret that the light in this passage as referring to angels.

Next section → Why the First-Day Light Is Not the Light of the Luminaries

Previous section → Four Objections to Identifying the First-Day Light with the Angels

The third question

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

This difference manifests in three aspects. The first is that in the work of each of the remaining five days, the phrase “And God said” appears, as in “And God said, ʿLet there be…ʾ” Why, then, did the Torah not state on the first day as well, “In the beginning, God said, ʿLet there be heavens and earthʾ”? Especially considering that our Sages explicitly taught that the heavens and the earth were created through an utterance, to the extent that they included “Bereshit” as one of the ten utterances in Tractate Rosh Hashanah, saying, “Bereshit is also an utterance.” The second difference is that in the acts of creation on the other days, the name of the Creator is mentioned before His action, as in “And God said, ʿLet there be a firmament,ʾ” or “And God said, ʿLet there be luminaries,ʾ” and so forth. However, on the first day, the act itself is mentioned before the name of the Creator, as it says, “In the beginning, He created—God,” rather than “God created in the beginning.” Because of this, the translators who rendered the Torah for King Ptolemy2 had to modify the wording and translate it as “God created in the beginning,” as recorded in the Talmud (Megillah)3. The third difference is that in the creation of the heavens and the earth, the phrase “Let it be so” (yehi ken) does not appear, whereas in all other acts of creation, this phrase was included.

The fourth question

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

Thus, in this verse, “the earth” refers specifically to the element of earth, while “darkness” refers to the element of fire, for primordial fire is dark4. If it were luminous, it would be visible at night. Moreh Nevukhim (Maimonides) proves that darkness refers to fire from the verse regarding Mount Sinai: “When you heard the voice from withinthe darkness” (Deuteronomy 5:20), which is also expressed as “And His words you heard from within the fire” (Deuteronomy 4:36). Similarly, it is stated: “A fire not blown shall consume him” (Job 20:26). Likewise, “the spirit of God” refers to the element of air, and “upon the face of the waters” refers to the element of water5.

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

Further proof of this distinction is found in the verse: “These words the Lord spoke to your entire assembly on the mountain, from within the fire, the cloud, and the thick darkness” (Deuteronomy 5:19). Here, the Torah clearly differentiates between the fire and the darkness surrounding it. Similarly, the verse “Total darkness is laid up for his treasures; a fire not blown shall consume him” (Job 20:26) refers to two distinct entities—light and darkness—not a single thing. Moreover, the claim that “primordial fire is dark, for if it were luminous, it would be visible at night” is, with all due respect to the wisdom of its author, incorrect. Fire is neither inherently dark nor inherently luminous; rather, it is a spiritual entity (sphiriy)6. The fact that it is not luminous does not mean it must be classified as darkness. Consider, for example, air: it is neither luminous nor dark, yet no one would call it “darkness.”

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

Next section → Beyond the Four Elements: Reconsidering Darkness, Ruach, and the Light of the First Day