Previous section → The Rhythm of the Heavens

The Second Benefit: Signs, Appointed Times, Days, and Years

The second benefit is expressed in the words “And they shall be for signs, and for appointed seasons, and for days and years”1 (Genesis 1:14). You have already seen how greatly the commentators differ in their interpretations of this verse.

What we may say is that this benefit concerns generation and corruption. In particular, the sun sets the element of fire in motion, the moon sets the element of water in motion, the other five wandering stars—that is, the planets—set the air in motion, and the fixed stars in the eighth sphere set the earth in motion, as the Master of the Guide explained in Part II, chapter 102.

This benefit did not exist in the primordial light, for that light neither brought things into existence through natural generation nor set the other elements in motion. These effects arose instead through the movements of the luminaries.

For this reason, Scripture says, “And they shall be for signs,” because the combinations of the elements are signs of the activity of the celestial bodies.

The expression “for signs” also includes eclipses of the luminaries and the movements of the stars, which are heavenly signs, as Scripture says, “And from the signs of the heaven be not dismayed”3 (Jeremiah 10:2).

Scripture calls these causes “signs” because they indicate what will occur in the world in the form of heat, cold, and other qualities. Through such indications, human beings can take precautions against their effects.

For example, if we know that at a particular time the sun will be joined by other celestial bodies that set the element of fire in motion, thereby producing excessive heat, a person may go and dwell in cooler places to escape the harmful effects of that heat.

Thus, Scripture says “for signs,” because these celestial bodies are signs indicating the effects of their own causal powers. U

The fifth question is thereby resolved.

By saying “and for appointed times,” Scripture alludes to the four seasons of the year, which are appointed periods during which the qualities of the air and other things undergo changes according to the signs of the zodiac through which the sun passes at those seasons.

By saying “and for days,” Scripture alludes to the lengthening and shortening of the days, which likewise result from the movements of the heavenly bodies. These changes also contribute to the processes of generation and to the predominance of one element over another.

And by saying “and years,” Scripture indicates that the years themselves vary through the influence of the luminaries. One year may be hot and dry or rainy, while another may be a year of drought, together with the other variations that occur from year to year as a result of the celestial motions and the movements of the luminaries.

The Celestial Bodies as Signs of Divine Providence

The interpretation that appears most correct to me, however, is that the Torah intends to explain that the heavenly bodies do not, through their own independent nature and power, bring about events in the lower world. This applies both to occurrences in the world generally and to events affecting human beings, contrary to the powers attributed to them by the astronomers and astrologers. Rather, the true Agent is God, blessed be He, acting through His providence.

The stars, moving along their appointed paths, through their conjunctions and aspects, indicate and announce what the divine will and wisdom have decreed shall occur in the lower world: the events and changes that will take place over days and years, according to the divine order conceived in His wisdom, blessed be He.

For this reason, Scripture says that the stars and luminaries shall be “for signs,” indicating what is destined to occur by God’s decree, and “for appointed times,” indicating the periods during which those changes and events will take place.

The expression “appointed times” also refers to the four seasons of the year, which arise from the sun’s inclination toward the north and south. It likewise refers to the appointed periods of the months, which are determined by the moon through its particular motion.

The reference to “days” concerns the daily motion of the first and all-encompassing celestial sphere, which carries the sun along with it and causes it to complete a revolution around the center in twenty-four hours, constituting a complete day. When the sun illuminates the earth, it is day; when it sets, it is night.

The expression “and years” refers to the sun’s particular motion, through which it traverses the entire belt of the twelve signs of the zodiac in 365 days, constituting a complete year.

Parashat Bereshit — Genesis 1:14-19, The Heavens as Signs of Providence in the Commentary of Don Isaac Abarbanel)

Next section →

Read more

Previous section → The Unfolding of Primordial Light

Why the Light Was Confined to Particular Parts of the Celestial Spheres

But why was that wondrous light not spread throughout all the celestial spheres, instead of being confined to particular portions of them? And why was there one star in one sphere, while another sphere contained many stars, some close together and crowded against one another, and others separated by a distance of a cubit or more?

All this demonstrates that the arrangement was the work of an Agent acting with intention and will, who did whatever was right in His eyes. For the human intellect is incapable of providing a satisfactory and firmly established explanation for these matters, as the Master of the Guide has already observed.

The Meaning of “In the Firmament of the Heavens”

As for the expression “luminaries in the expanse of the heavens”1 (Genesis 1:14), it does not mean “in the luminaries, which are the heavens,” as the commentators have explained.

Rather, because the appearance of the dry land is also described by the term rakia, or “spreading out,” as Scripture says, “To Him who spread out the earth above the waters” (Psalms 136:6), and, “Who spread out the earth and its offspring” (Isaiah 42:5), Scripture needed to clarify which firmament was intended as the location of the luminaries. It therefore specified the heavenly firmament, rather than the earthly one.

Nor does Scripture simply say, “Let there be luminaries in the heavens,” because the first and all-encompassing celestial sphere is called “heavens,” and it contains no luminaries.

Instead, Scripture says “in the expanse of the heavens,” meaning the firmament situated within the heavens and adjacent to them—that is, the enclosed celestial spheres created on the second day.

For it was within these spheres, or more precisely within certain portions of them, that the noble primordial light was to spread and become established. Those illuminated portions would then constitute the luminaries.

The third question is thereby resolved.

How the Luminaries Separate Day from Night

As for the words “to separate between the day and between the night”2 (Genesis 1:14), they do not mean that no distinction between day and night had previously existed.

Rather, the distinction which the primordial light had produced through its presence and absence during day and night, together with the appearances of morning and evening that it brought about through its varying degrees of intensity in a wondrous manner, would henceforth be produced by the celestial sphere through its continuous motion, once the light had become established permanently within certain portions of it.

From this you may understand that the expression “to separate” does not refer to the luminaries, nor to any one of them, as the commentators supposed. Rather, it refers to the firmament previously mentioned. For once the light had become established within portions of the firmament, that firmament, through its motion, would separate day from night. This is why Scripture employs the singular expression “to separate.” The fourth question is thereby resolved.

This separation is attributed to the firmament by virtue of the luminaries. For when the illuminated portion, namely the sun, is above the horizon, it gives light and there is day; when it is below the horizon, its light is absent and there is night.

Nevertheless, this separation may also be attributed to the moon and the stars, because the Torah does not define day and night in the same way as astronomers do.

According to the astronomers, day extends from the moment the sun becomes visible above the earth until it disappears, while all the remaining time is considered night.

But this is not the Torah’s definition. According to the Torah, day encompasses the entire period during which there is light upon the earth as a result of the sun’s illumination, even when the sun itself is not above the horizon.

And the time at which night begins can be determined only by means of the stars. For when they become visible, it is evident that the sun’s light has perceptibly departed from the earth, and this marks the beginning of night.

For this reason, our Sages said that, for all the laws of the Torah, the day extends from dawn until the appearance of the stars.

As Ibn Ezra wrote, morning light begins an hour and a third before sunrise, and likewise, for an hour and a third after sunset, it is not yet night.

For this reason, Scripture attributes the distinction between day and night to the firmament, which moves in a circular motion, bringing the sun, moon, and stars into view.

Moreover, the words “to separate between the day and between the night” have a broader meaning. The luminaries also produce distinctions between the various parts of the day itself and between the various parts of the night itself. For these periods differ in their natural characteristics according to the progression of day and night, as well as according to their particular hours, in relation to the celestial bodies that govern each hour, as maintained by the practitioners of judicial astrology.

This distinction, which the Torah attributes to the luminaries, constitutes the first benefit arising from their existence.

Parashat Bereshit — Genesis 1:14-19, The Rhythm of the Heavens in the Commentary of Don Isaac Abarbanel)

Next section →

Read more

Previous section → When the Heavens Became Luminous

Why Scripture Says “Let There Be”

This also explains why Scripture employs the expression “Let there be” [yehi] in connection with light, the firmament, and the luminaries.

Since Scripture first employed the expression “Let there be” concerning the primordial light, it subsequently used the same expression for things related to that light: the firmament, which was to serve as its bearer, and the portions of the celestial spheres in which the light was permanently established.

Thus, the meaning of “Let there be luminaries” is that the primordial light should be established within the firmament of the heavens, so that those portions in which it became fixed would themselves become luminaries. But concerning the other things brought into existence, which were not related to that primordial light, Scripture does not employ the expression “Let there be.”

Accordingly, the expression “Let there be” is used in connection with the celestial bodies, in which existence and being are more essential and noble. It is employed both with respect to a subject existing in its own right, as in “Let there be a firmament,” and with respect to something existing in a subject, as in “Let there be light.”1 Whether in a subject existing in its own right, as in “Let there be a firmament”; in something existing within a subject, as in “Let there be light”; or in the union of a property with its subject, as in “Let there be luminaries.”

For this reason, Scripture employs the singular expression yehi, “Let there be,” and writes me’orot, “luminaries,” defectively, because it was the primordial light that was decreed to become established within certain portions of the celestial spheres.

The Testimony of Psalm 136

The truth of what I have explained concerning the formation of the luminaries is further demonstrated by the words of the chief of poets, David, peace be upon him, in the psalm beginning, “Give thanks to Hashem, for He is good, for His kindness endures forever” (Psalms 136:1).

That is to say, it is fitting to give thanks to Him and praise His exalted greatness because He is absolutely good and perfect. Moreover, His works likewise testify to His goodness, for “His kindness endures forever,” referring to His creation of the beings of the world.

The psalmist begins with the separate intellects, saying, “Give thanks to the God of gods” (Psalms 136:2)2, for they too are called elohim, by way of figurative expression, as I have explained.

Concerning the first celestial sphere, which encompasses everything, he says, “Give thanks to the Lord of lords” (Psalms 136:3), for it exercises dominion over all physical bodies through its daily motion. He uses the plural expression “lords” for the same reason I explained above concerning the designation of the heavens in the plural.

Regarding the works of the remaining days, he says, “To Him who alone performs great wonders”3 (Psalms 136:4), for these wonders involve the production of something from something already existing, although they are nevertheless accomplished in a wondrous manner.

Concerning the firmament, which was made on the second day and called “heavens,” he says, “To Him who made the heavens with understanding”³ (Psalms 136:5).

Corresponding to the appearance of the dry land on the third day, he says, “To Him who spread out the earth above the waters”³ (Psalms 136:6).

And corresponding to the formation of the luminaries on the fourth day, he says, “To Him who made the great lights”³ (Psalms 136:7).

From the fact that he says “lights” [orim], rather than “luminaries” [me’orot], we learn that the formation of the luminaries did not consist in the making of celestial spheres or portions of celestial spheres, but rather in the establishment of lights within portions of spheres that already existed.

With what I have explained, the second question is resolved.

It also becomes clear that Scripture’s expression “luminaries” does not refer exclusively to the sun and moon, but includes all the other stars as well. Thus, the Gemara states in Pesachim (2a): “This teaches us that the light of the stars is also considered light.”

Parashat Bereshit — Genesis 1:14-19, The Unfolding of Primordial Light in the Commentary of Don Isaac Abarbanel)

Next section →

Read more

Previous section → The Riddles of the Fourth Day

The ninth question is that you will observe that the Torah mentions six benefits that the luminaries confer upon the lower world. The first is the division of time: “to separate between the day and the night” (Genesis 1:14). The second is “and they shall be for signs”; the third, “and for appointed times”; the fourth, “and for days”; the fifth, “and years”; and the sixth, “to give light upon the earth” (Genesis 1:15).

Yet in the account of their actual formation, only two of these benefits are mentioned: “to give light upon the earth” (Genesis 1:17) and “to separate between the light and the darkness” (Genesis 1:18). Why, then, does Scripture omit the other benefits concerning signs, appointed times, days, and years? Furthermore, why is the function of ruling, which is mentioned in the account of their formation, entirely absent from the divine command?

Another difficulty concerns the order in which these benefits are mentioned, both in the command and in the account of their formation. In the command, Scripture mentions “days” after “appointed times,” which refer to the seasonal cycles, and only afterward mentions “years.” Yet it would have been more appropriate to list them in the order of days, appointed times, and years.

Likewise, in the account of their formation, Scripture mentions illumination first, although it appears last in the divine command, while the separation of light from darkness is mentioned last, although the corresponding distinction between day and night appears first in the command. All this seems strange and contrary to a proper and logical order.

The tenth question concerns a difficulty that troubled all the earlier philosophers: How can it be that the purpose for which the luminaries were created was to serve the beings of this lower world, “to give light upon the earth,” and so forth? For this would imply that the noble celestial bodies exist for the sake of the lowly and insignificant beings below, which is false.

Indeed, the prophets have already made clear the lowly status of man, saying, “O Lord, what is man that You should know him, the son of man, that You should consider him? Man is like a breath; his days are as a fleeting shadow.” (Psalms 144:3–4), and, “How much less, man, who is a worm, and the son of man, who is a maggot” (Job 25:6), together with other similar statements.

The Master of the Guide, in chapters 12 and 13 of the third part of the Guide of the Perplexed, strongly rejected the notion that the heavens exist for the sake of the things created beneath them. He emphasized the immense heights of the heavens and the wonders of their extraordinary magnitude to demonstrate that man bears no proportion or comparison to those noble celestial bodies, much less do the other beings of the lower world.

He therefore interpreted the Torah’s expressions “to separate” and “to give light” as not meaning that the luminaries were created for these purposes as their primary intention. Rather, Scripture is describing their nature and the effects that follow from it as secondary consequences. This is comparable to what Scripture says concerning man, “And they shall rule over the fish of the sea”1 (Genesis 1:26). For dominion over the fish is not the ultimate purpose for which man was created, but something that follows from his nature.

This was also the opinion of Abu Hamid in his work on metaphysics2. Gersonides likewise inclined toward this view, as did the other commentators and authors generally.

For the present, however, let us set aside the philosophical refutation of this opinion and turn instead to the verses of the Torah. In truth, the case under discussion is not comparable to the proof brought by the Master of the Guide. For in the creation of man, Scripture does not say, “Let us make man in order to rule over the fish of the sea,” which would indicate a final cause or purpose. Rather, it says, “And they shall rule.” The expression can therefore bear the interpretation given by the Master of the Guide: that Scripture is describing something that follows from man’s nature, rather than the purpose for which he was created. There is no difficulty in that interpretation.

In the case of the luminaries, however, Scripture does not say, “And let them separate” or “And let them give light.” Instead, it says, “to separate” and “to give light.” This language indicates that these were the very purposes for which the luminaries were created. Consequently, the Master of the Guide has not resolved the difficulty presented by the biblical verses.

Parashat Bereshit — Genesis 1:14-19, The Purpose of the Heavens in the Commentary of Don Isaac Abarbanel)

Next section →

Read more

Previous section → From Earth to the Heavens

The fourth question concerns the words “to separate between the day and the night”1 (Genesis 1:14), which seem to imply that until the fourth day, when the luminaries were created, there had been no distinction between day and night in the world. Yet this is not so, for concerning the primordial light Scripture says, “And God called the light day, and the darkness He called night” (Genesis 1:5), and on each successive day it says, “And there was evening and there was morning.”

Ramban wrote that the light created on the first day illuminated the elements, but when the firmament was made on the second day, that light was cut off and prevented from illuminating the lower elements. When the earth was formed on the third day, therefore, it was enveloped in darkness rather than light. Now, on the fourth day, God willed that the light of the luminaries should reach the earth. This, according to Ramban, is the meaning of the words “in the firmament of the heavens, to give light upon the earth” (Genesis 1:14–15).

This explanation, however, is not correct. For Scripture says concerning each of the preceding days, “And there was evening and there was morning,” which demonstrates that the primordial light functioned throughout those days in the same and consistent manner. Moreover, there was no need for light above the firmament, since no further acts of generation took place there after the creation of the primordial light, nor did God, blessed be He, have any need of that light2.

Furthermore, if the primordial light was situated above the firmament, it would necessarily have passed through the firmament and illuminated the elements below. For even today, the light of the sun passes downward through the three celestial spheres beneath it, owing to their transparency. Consequently, the primordial light, even if situated above the firmament, must necessarily have illuminated the earth.

The fifth question concerns the words “And let them be for signs” (Genesis 1:14). For the luminaries are the efficient causes of the things that occur here below, whether in generation and corruption, according to the principles of natural philosophy, or in all other matters, according to the teachings of those who practice judicial astrology3. How, then, can Scripture say, “And let them be for signs”? For signs are things that indicate causes; they are not themselves the causes. Perhaps it was to escape this difficulty that Ibn Ezra interpreted “And let them be for signs” as meaning “And let them be for moments of time.” But this does not accord with the plain meaning of Scripture, nor, in my judgment, is his explanation acceptable.

Moreover, the expression “to separate between the day and the night” is in the singular, whereas “And let them be for signs” is in the plural, and the two expressions do not agree. Some commentators explain that “to separate” refers to the sun, while “And let them be for signs” refers to all the stars. But this amounts to dividing the verse arbitrarily, assigning different parts of it to different subjects. Rabbeinu Nissim interpreted “to separate” as referring to each of the luminaries individually. Yet neither the moon nor the stars distinguish between day and night.

The sixth question is this: If Scripture intends to explain the benefits that the luminaries and stars confer upon the lower world, why does it omit their most essential function—namely, the combination of the elements and the generation of the things that come into existence? For it is well known that the celestial bodies are indeed the agents responsible for these processes, whether in the case of plants, as Scripture says, “And with the precious produce of the sun” (Deuteronomy 33:14), or in the case of man, whose generation is brought about by vapors, the sun, and the other stars through their motions. The same applies to all other living creatures4.

The seventh question concerns the words “And let them be for luminaries in the firmament of the heavens, to give light upon the earth” (Genesis 1:15). For this entire verse appears to be superfluous. The words “And let them be for luminaries in the firmament of the heavens” merely repeat what has already been stated: “Let there be luminaries in the firmament of the heavens” (Genesis 1:14). And as for the words “to give light upon the earth,” this purpose has already been expressed. Moreover, if Scripture has already said “to give light upon the earth,” to what does the subsequent declaration “And it was so” refer?

The eighth question concerns the expression “the two great luminaries”5 (Genesis 1:16), which presents two difficulties. First, Scripture calls both luminaries “great,” but immediately afterward appears to contradict this by referring to “the lesser luminary to rule the night.” Second, as those versed in mathematical astronomy have established, all the other planets are larger than the sphere of the moon6. How, then, can Scripture describe the moon as great in comparison with them?

Parashat Bereshit — Genesis 1:14-19, The Riddles of the Fourth Day in the Commentary of Don Isaac Abarbanel)

Next section →

Read more

Previous section → The Order Within Diversity

Creation, Making, and Bringing Forth

From what I have explained, you may understand why Scripture says concerning the creeping creatures and the fish, “And Hashem created”. The sensitive soul found in them is, according to the continuing natural order of generation, bestowed by a separate intellect. Since their forms, when first bestowed upon them at the beginning of Creation, came into existence not from any preexisting thing—that is, the sensitive soul was bestowed for the first time—Scripture employs the language of creation and attributes their formation to God, blessed be He. This indicates that their forms will always proceed from the agency of a separate intellect.

In the case of the land animals, their forms are likewise attributed to Him, blessed be He, to indicate that they too will always receive them from a separate intellect. Scripture says concerning them, however, “And Hashem made”, rather than “And Hashem created”, because the sensitive soul had already come into existence before the formation of the land animals, in the fish and the birds. Thus, when the sensitive form first appeared in existence, Scripture employed the language of creation; when it was bestowed a second time upon the land animals, Scripture says, “And Hashem made”1.

In the creation of man, however, since his rational soul was created from absolute nonexistence, Scripture once again employs the language of creation. Concerning the firmament and the luminaries, by contrast, their formation is attributed to God, blessed be He, because of the exalted nature of their subjects; yet since they were made from something already existing, Scripture says, “And Hashem made the firmament” (Genesis 1:7), and, “And Hashem made the two great luminaries” (Genesis 1:16).

Thus, the upper beings are attributed to Him, blessed be He, because of their exalted status, while beings possessing a sensitive soul are attributed to Him because of the nobility of that soul. The vegetative soul, however, since according to the ordinary course of nature it is bestowed through the stars rather than through a separate intellect, is not directly attributed to Hashem. Nevertheless, a divine declaration accompanied the first production of plants, for He, blessed be He, imparted to the earth the power to bring them forth by itself. As for the gathering of the waters, since it involved neither creation nor the coming into existence of anything new, no act of creation or making is stated concerning it. The seventh and final question is thereby resolved.

Genesis 1:14

The Questions Concerning the Luminaries

“And God said, ‘Let there be luminaries...’” (Genesis 1:14) until “the fourth day” (Genesis 1:19).

Several questions arise concerning this section.

The first question is why the luminaries were created on the fourth day, when the primordial light was already functioning. If, as Rashi wrote, the primordial light served throughout all seven days of Creation, one must ask: Why, then, were the luminaries created on the fourth day, when that light was still functioning? It would have been more appropriate for them to be created only at the end of that period, since until then there was no need for them. But if the truth is as Ramban maintains—and as appears from the words of our Sages—that the primordial light functioned for only three days, the question remains: Why did God arrange matters in this way, so that this noble and wondrous light served for no more than three days? It would have been more fitting either for the luminaries to have been created on the first day, in which case there would have been no need for the primordial light at all, or for that light to have served equally throughout all six days, with the luminaries being created at their conclusion.

The second question is why the expression “Let there be” [yehi] is used in the entire account of Creation only three times: “Let there be light” (Genesis 1:3), “Let there be a firmament” (Genesis 1:6), and “Let there be luminaries” (Genesis 1:14). With the other things brought into existence, this expression is not used; rather, Scripture says, “Let the earth bring forth vegetation” (Genesis 1:11), “Let the waters swarm” (Genesis 1:20), and “Let the earth bring forth” (Genesis 1:24). If “Let there be” denotes coming into existence, why was it not used concerning everything that came into existence during the days of Creation?

Included within this question is another difficulty: Why does Scripture say yehi, “Let there be,” in the singular when the luminaries are plural? In Bereshit Rabbah, some understood this to mean that all the light of the upper realms emanates from the sun, which illuminates both the entire host above and the creatures below. Accordingly, Scripture uses the singular expression “Let there be luminaries,” and the word me’orot, “luminaries,” is written defectively, alluding to the sun alone2. They understood this also to be the intention of Rabbi Yochanan when he said in Bereshit Rabbah, “Only the sphere of the sun was created to give light.” Yet the difficulty remains: Why, then, does Scripture subsequently speak of them in the plural—“and let them be for signs” and “and let them be for luminaries”—and indeed refer to them consistently throughout the passage in the plural?

The third question concerns the expression “in the firmament of the heavens” [birki’a ha-shamayim] (Genesis 1:14). At times the Torah calls the celestial bodies the “firmament,” as in “Let there be a firmament” (Genesis 1:6) and “God made the firmament” (Genesis 1:7), which, as I have explained, refer to the celestial spheres. At other times it calls them “heavens,” as in “God called the firmament heavens” (Genesis 1:8). Why, then, does Scripture here combine the two terms and call them “the firmament of the heavens”?3

Parashat Bereshit — Genesis 1:14-19, From Earth to the Heavens in the Commentary of Don Isaac Abarbanel)

Next section →

Read more

Previous section → Before Seed and Rain

“Each According to Its Kind”

Scripture then relates that, at Hashem’s command, the earth brought forth all the degrees of vegetation that He, blessed be He, had commanded: vegetation and plants yielding seed according to their kinds. Our Sages found it difficult that in the divine command the expression according to its kind does not appear explicitly with respect to the vegetation and plants, and on this basis they offered the interpretation recorded in tractate Chullin, as Rashi mentions in his commentary1. According to the plain meaning, however, it seems to me that there is no difficulty at all. For the command says, “vegetation, plants yielding seed, fruit trees producing fruit according to their kind” (Genesis 1:11), and the expression “according to its kind” does not refer exclusively to the fruit of the tree, but also to the vegetation and plants: concerning each of them Scripture says, “according to its kind”. In recounting what the earth actually brought forth, however, Scripture states according to its kind twice for greater clarity—once concerning the vegetation and plants, which are the produce of the earth, and once concerning the fruit of the tree.

Concerning the trees, Scripture says, “a tree producing fruit”, rather than repeating “fruit tree”, as it had in the command2. This clarifies what I explained above concerning the words “fruit trees producing fruit”: their meaning is that the fruit contains within itself the seed through which its species is perpetuated. God therefore providentially fashioned the fruit in such a manner that the fruit itself, independently of the tree from which it came, can produce another fruit according to its kind.

Ramban has already asked why Hashem issued no command concerning the generation of non-fruit-bearing trees, since Scripture mentions only fruit trees producing fruit. Rabbeinu Nissim endeavored to answer this question. In my opinion, however, there is no real question here, nor consequently any need for such an answer, for there is no tree in the world that does not produce some kind of fruit. Even trees commonly regarded as non-fruit-bearing have fruits, such as galls3. Some trees bear edible fruit, while others bear fruit that is not edible but is nevertheless useful for other purposes and for medicinal preparations. In any event, every tree produces fruit. The sixth question is thereby resolved by what I have explained.

Why Scripture Says, “And Hashem Saw That It Was Good”

Scripture does not say concerning the vegetation, “And Hashem made”, or “And God created”, as it does concerning creeping creatures and the beasts of the earth. This teaches us that the vegetative form does not proceed from a separate agent in the same manner as the forms of sentient creatures and man, to which the language of creation and making is attributed, as will be explained4.

As for the statement concerning vegetation and plants, “And Hashem saw that it was good” (Genesis 1:12), it seems to me that it may be understood in either of two ways. First, Scripture may be teaching that the Holy One, blessed be He, saw in His wisdom that it was good for plants to come into existence before the luminaries, and for the coarse material earth to bring forth the vegetative soul without an external agent. Although all this was contrary to the ordinary course of nature, He saw that it was good for it to be so at the beginning of Creation, in order to make known that the hand of the Lord had done this and to distinguish the primordial Creation from subsequent natural generation.

Alternatively, Scripture may be teaching that although plants differ greatly in their size, powers, and longevity, He, blessed be He, saw that these differences were good and beneficial to the world and therefore made them so. Some are like Jonah’s kikayon, which came into being in a night and perished in a night (Jonah 4:10); others are like the green grass, which withers away, blossoming and flourishing in the morning but fading and drying by evening5. At the opposite extreme are the date palm and the carob tree, each of which may take seventy years to bear fruit6. Despite these great differences, Hashem saw that this order was good and beneficial for the world.

Scripture then says, “And there was evening and there was morning, a third day” (Genesis 1:13). This may indicate that all these things were accomplished within that continuous period of twenty-four hours comprising light and darkness. Alternatively, it may be because two different kinds of event occurred on this day: one associated with the evening, namely the appearance of the dry land, and the other with the morning that followed, namely the production of vegetation. A separate day was not assigned to each of them because vegetation is connected with and dependent upon the appearance of the dry land. Moreover, at the beginning of Creation it emerged from the earth itself and not through the agency of any external cause.

Parashat Bereshit — Genesis 1:11-13, The Order Within Diversity in the Commentary of Don Isaac Abarbanel)

Next section →

Read more

Previous section → The Lamp Kindled by God

The Three Degrees of Vegetation

Scripture distinguishes three degrees among plants. The first it calls deshe, vegetation: plants that are not sown or cultivated by human beings, but grow spontaneously from the earth without cultivation, as Scripture says, “He causes grass to sprout for the animals”1 (Psalms 104:14), and, “Like a flower of the field, so does he sprout.”2 (Psalms 103:15). It is concerning this first degree that Scripture says, “Let the earth sprout vegetation”, meaning that the whole earth should clothe itself in vegetation.

The second degree is esev, plants that are sown, such as wheat, barley, and the various kinds of vegetables whose stalk does not renew itself year after year, as Scripture says, “And plants for the service of man, to bring forth bread from the earth”3 (Psalms 104:14). Concerning this degree Scripture says, plants yielding seed. It is also possible to understand the words upon the earth as connected with the preceding expression, “Let the earth bring forth”, as though Scripture were saying: Let the earth bring forth vegetation and plants upon the earth—that is, let them emerge upon the surface of the earth.

The third degree of vegetation consists of trees bearing edible fruit, whose trunks endure for many years. Concerning these Scripture says, “fruit trees producing fruit according to their kind”. According to the plain meaning, the expression fruit trees means that the fruit itself will produce fruit. A walnut, for example, is itself a fruit, yet it also produces another fruit by generating one like itself when it is planted in the earth. Scripture therefore adds, “whose seed is within it, upon the earth”, to explain how that fruit produces another fruit like itself: it does not do so by itself, but when the seed contained within it is placed in the earth through planting, that fruit then produces another fruit truly resembling it4.

Alternatively, “fruit trees producing fruit according to their kind” may mean that the fruit corresponds to the particular tree that bears it, for a tree does not produce whatever fruit might happen to arise. The words “whose seed is within it” would then teach that the seed is preserved within the fruit. The Creator of all things wisely ordained this so that the seed, which is the foundation for the continuation of the species, should be protected within it. Scripture then says, “And it was so, meaning”, as I have explained, that God decreed that this order should remain so permanently, so that plants would continue to reproduce throughout all the days of the earth.

From this you may understand that the formation of plants during the work of Creation differed from their subsequent formation according to the natural order in two respects. The first is that, in the natural generation of plants today, their forms derive from the influence of the celestial bodies. During the work of Creation, however, this was not so. Plants were created before the luminaries, through the power that He, blessed be He, imparted to the earth to bring them forth in their respective forms and according to their kinds, without any other external agent.

The second difference is that, in the ordinary course of nature, the generation of plants from seed always depends upon a preexisting seed, whether it was sown by one who cultivates the soil or remained in the ground and sprouted of itself. In the first and absolute Creation, however, this was not so. All plants came into being without any preexisting seed. The earth itself, through the power Hashem, blessed be He, had imparted to it, was sufficient to produce them without seed, without the influence of the stars, and even without any preceding rain. It brought forth its composite forms, the earth yielded its produce, and the tree of the field gave its fruit.

It follows from this that we should not accept the opinion mentioned in Bereshit Rabbah, according to which the vegetation created on the third day remained poised at the surface of the ground and did not actually grow until the sixth day, after God caused rain to fall upon the earth5. Ramban likewise departed from that opinion, and I too maintain that all the works of Creation were created in their full stature and complete form. Why should plants have been any less than the other created beings, so that in their case alone the divine command was not immediately fulfilled, as it was in all the other acts of Creation, without the intervention of their ordinary natural causes? As for the verse that led the Sages to this interpretation, “Now no shrub of the field was yet on the earth...” (Genesis 2:5), it will be properly explained in its place, and I shall demonstrate that no such conclusion necessarily follows from it.

Parashat Bereshit — Genesis 1:11-13, Before Seed and Rain in the Commentary of Don Isaac Abarbanel)

Next section →

Read more

Previous section → The Soul Beyond the Stars

Ibn Ezra has already written that the term neshamah properly applies only to the intellectual soul. How fitting, then, that Scripture says, “the souls I have made”, in the past tense, while saying, “the spirit from before Me shall be enwrapped”, in the future tense. This teaches that the Holy One, blessed be He, Himself made the intellectual souls at the beginning of Creation, whereas the vital spirits continue to arise from that which is before Him, since such spirits are continually coming into being with the generation of living creatures.

It was concerning this that the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Job in His rebuke, “and whose breath emerged from you?”1 (Job 26:4). Solomon likewise said, “Man’s soul is the Lord’s lamp...”2 (Proverbs 20:27), indicating that souls proceed from Him: He Himself kindles those lamps, and not some other separate intellect. For this reason you will find that Elijah and Elisha did not pray concerning any of the other miracles they performed as they prayed for the resurrection of the son of the woman of Zarephath and the son of the Shunammite woman3. For the bestowal of intellectual forms belongs specifically to God, blessed be He, and those prophets had no power to restore them to bodies. They therefore prayed to Him, blessed be He, that He should bestow those souls there once more.

One should not object to this from the words of the prophet Isaiah, “Who gave a soul to the people upon it and a spirit to those who walk thereon”4 (Isaiah 42:5), where both the giving of the spirit and that of the soul are attributed alike to Hashem. For there the prophet is speaking specifically from the perspective of the original Creation, as the beginning of the verse itself demonstrates: “So said God the Lord, the Creator of the heavens and the One Who stretched them out, Who spread out the earth and what springs forth from it”. That is to say: when He created the heavens and those who stretch them out—the separate intellects—He Himself, without any intermediary, bestowed the soul upon the people who would inhabit the earth, namely human beings; and He likewise bestowed the vital spirit upon those who walk upon it, namely all living creatures.

This is indeed so, for all the souls bestowed upon living creatures and human beings during the work of Creation were bestowed by the Holy One, blessed be He, Himself. Thereafter, however, the natural order of generation was established by His decree: the bestowal of vital spirits upon living creatures was entrusted to a separate intellect that stands before Him, blessed be He, whereas the rational soul always proceeds directly from Him, blessed be He, as I have explained. This is the second philosophical principle.

The Gathering of the Waters and the Appearance of the Dry Land

After explaining these two philosophical principles, I shall now interpret the verses and answer the questions raised concerning them. After the First Cause, blessed be He, decreed the gathering of the waters and the appearance of the dry land, He decreed concerning the composite beings that were to arise upon it, for He did not create it to remain desolate; He formed it to be inhabited5.

Scripture makes no mention of the formation of vapors and exhalations or of the things generated from them in the air, because these arise solely from the nature of earth and water. Neither does it mention inanimate substances and metals, since the elements themselves, through their inherent powers, were sufficient to generate them. No divine declaration was therefore made concerning their formation, for all their forms arise from the power of matter and not from an external agent, as has been explained. A distinct divine declaration was required only for the first principles of generated things or for the formation of beings possessing a soul.

Since all plants possess a soul, the earth, through its matter and inherent power alone, was not sufficient to produce them without a divine declaration imparting to it the power to bring forth its vegetation. Hence Scripture says, “And God said, Let the earth bring forth vegetation”6 (Genesis 1:11). Since the luminaries did not yet exist, Hashem imparted His power to the earth so that it might itself bring forth plants and vegetation without the assistance of any external agent. After the luminaries had been made, however, they became the agents that bestowed the forms of all plants, as has been explained. The fifth question is thereby resolved7.

Parashat Bereshit — Genesis 1:11-13, The Lamp Kindled by God in the Commentary of Don Isaac Abarbanel)

Next section →

Read more

Previous section → From Matter to Life

Indeed, differing opinions are found concerning this question. In his Epitome of On the Soul, [Averroes] sometimes states that the Agent Intellect is the giver of forms to all beings possessing a soul. Elsewhere, in his work On Animals, he says that the agent which generates these beings is not an intellect but a vital power borne in the seed, while the separate agent is that which brings this vital power into being. And in the seventh treatise of his work on natural science he writes that the generative power resides in the seed and is produced jointly by the parent from which the seed comes and by the celestial bodies, and that this power is not separate1. Thus Averroes was so perplexed by this question that he turned from one position to another, wavering between two opinions without firmly adhering to either. Yet on one point his mind remained settled throughout his writings: the rational soul proceeds from a separate agent and is not potentially contained in the seed.

When I saw that the opinions of the philosophers were beset by numerous difficulties, I adopted a different approach, following what the sacred writings—the Torah and the Prophets—have taught me. The forms belonging to the first two degrees of composite beings—namely, the formation of vapors and exhalations and of the things generated from them in the air, and the formation of inanimate substances and metals generated within the depths of the earth—arise from the power of matter and from the blending of the elements. This is why their degree is deficient and low, remaining close to the nature of earth and water and requiring no separate external agent.

Scripture itself bears witness to this when it says, “A mist rose from the earth” (Genesis 2:6), attributing the rising and formation of vapors to the earth. Concerning metals and other inanimate substances, Job likewise says: “For silver has a mine, and there is a place where gold is refined. Iron is taken from the earth, and copper is smelted from stone.” (Job 28:1–2).

In other words, all metals partake of the nature of earth, and their forms derive from it. The form of plants, however, because of the multiplicity of their powers and activities, does not arise from the power of matter but from the motions of the celestial spheres and the influence of the stars. It is for this reason that our Sages said, “There is no herb below that does not have a constellation in the firmament that strikes it and says to it, Grow!”2 They did not make a similar statement concerning sentient living creatures, because it is specifically the vegetative form that derives from the celestial spheres. Indeed, our Sages went so far as to say that the number of species of plants corresponds to the number of individual stars, as the author of the Guide has mentioned3. For this reason Scripture says concerning Joseph, “His land shall be blessed by the Lord, with the sweetness of the heavens with dew, and with the deep that lies below, and with the sweetness of the produce of the sun, and with the sweetness of the moon’s yield.” (Deuteronomy 33:13–14).

The forms of living creatures, however, arise neither from the power of matter nor from the motions of the celestial spheres, but from the agency of the separate intellect that they called the Agent Intellect4. This is why animals possess sensory and imaginative apprehension, and why we find among them forms of cunning and contrivance, all of which are effects of thought.

The rational soul, by contrast, just as it does not arise from the power of matter, neither proceeds from the influence of the celestial spheres nor is it bestowed by the Agent Intellect. Rather, it comes from God, blessed be He, Himself. This is the opinion of the Chaver in the Kuzari5. For it was Hashem who created the souls at the beginning of Creation, during the work of Genesis, according to the true opinion, bringing them into being from absolute nonexistence, just as the spiritual angels were created, since souls share their intellectual nature. Thus the Torah says, “He breathed into his nostrils the soul of life”6 (Genesis 2:7).

The prophet Isaiah likewise explained this when he said, “When a spirit from before Me humbles itself, and souls [which] I have made”7 (Isaiah 57:16). His meaning is that the vital spirit, which is specifically called ruach—as in the expression, “the spirit of all flesh”8 (Numbers 16:22)—proceeds from the separate intellect that is before God. Onkelos likewise understood the expression “My face shall not be seen”9 (Exodus 33:23) as referring to the separate intellects, translating it, “Those who are before Me shall not be seen”, as the author of the Guide has explained10. The intellectual souls, however—these, Hashem says, “I Myself have made”.

Parashat Bereshit — Genesis 1:11-13, The Soul Beyond the Stars in the Commentary of Don Isaac Abarbanel)

Next section →

Read more

Previous section → The Wisdom of the Names

“And God said...” (Genesis 1:11) until “And there was evening and there was morning, the third day.” (Genesis 1:13).

In order that you may understand the intention of these verses, I have thought it appropriate to acquaint you with two philosophical principles, as they have been explained by the philosophers. The first is that there are five degrees among the things generated through the combination of the elements.

The first degree consists of the vapors drawn forth from the earth and the waters through the heat of the sun. These arise from only two of the elements: earth and water. The second degree consists of the things generated from those vapors. For the vapors either remain within the depths of the earth or rise into the air, according to their density or fineness. If they rise into the air, they produce there, according to their quality and quantity and according to the region to which they ascend, various phenomena, such as shooting stars, lightning, ice, frost, hail, clouds, thunder, snow, rain, dew, and the like. If, however, the vapors remain confined within the depths of the earth, they sometimes become the cause of earthquakes; from them are also generated metals and sulfur, as well as stones and quicksilver, which is the principle from which the seven kinds of metals are formed: lead, tin, copper, verdigris, iron, gold, and silver1.

These first two degrees of generated beings possess a very low degree of existence. The first remains close to the nature of the water and earth from which it is produced. The same is true of the second, since the things belonging to it possess no soul—neither a vital, vegetative, nor sensitive soul. Their form is present equally throughout the whole composite and in each of its parts, so that a part may be called by the same name as the whole, since the entire substance is homogeneous. Nor do they possess a principal organ or a diversity of organs and parts distinguished from one another by their forms. Furthermore, in the natural process of generation they do not generate one another, since they possess no formative power and no power to reproduce their own likeness, faculties that belong specifically to living beings. For this reason, these first two degrees occupy a low level of existence, close to the nature of the vapors and exhalations from which they arise, and ultimately to the nature of earth and water themselves2.

The third degree of composite beings is that of plants. These possess a soul encompassing the powers of nutrition, growth, and reproduction of their own kind. Nutrition is carried out by four faculties: attraction, retention, digestion, and expulsion. Of all the senses, only touch is found in plants, by virtue of which they extend their branches toward rivers and other moist places. Plants generate other plants, and after the process of generation the parts of the generated plant return to that from which they originated—namely, the seed. At the beginning of this generation the root is formed, which occupies in plants the place corresponding to the heart in living creatures. Plants can be generated only from something containing a formative and fashioning power: the seed, which in plants occupies the same position as the egg in animals3.

The fourth degree of composite beings consists of sentient living creatures. They possess the vegetative soul and its faculties, which stand in the relation of matter to the sensitive soul; the latter encompasses sensation and voluntary movement. The fifth degree is the human composite, which includes the powers of growth and sensation together with their faculties, proceeding through successive degrees in the perfection of forms until reaching the final perfection of intellect. This is the first philosophical principle.

The second philosophical question concerns the agent that bestows and brings into being the forms of composite beings in the lower world. There are only three possibilities. Either we say that all forms arise from the power of matter and that there is no separate intellect outside it that bestows them; or that they all proceed from a separate agent external to the matter undergoing generation, and that no form arises from the power of matter itself; or, finally, that some forms proceed from a separate agent while others arise necessarily from the power of matter.

It is false to say that all forms arise from the power of matter, for the rational human form does not arise from matter and is not mingled with it, as has been demonstrated by clear proofs in the work On the Soul. Moreover, the other souls—the vegetative and the sensitive—must likewise necessarily depend upon a separate agent, as Themistius explained in the treatise designated by the letter alef of the work on natural science4.

Yet it is equally false to say that all forms proceed from a separate agent. For insofar as that agent is an intellect, it cannot bestow a form that possesses no kind of apprehension, whether external and sensory or internal. Consequently, inanimate things and plants, which possess no apprehension or sensation at all, cannot derive their forms from the separate agent. It remains, therefore, that some forms proceed from the separate agent and others from the power of matter. But which forms belong to each? Would that I knew!

Parashat Bereshit — Genesis 1:11-13, From Matter to Life in the Commentary of Don Isaac Abarbanel)

Next section →

Previous section → Before Nature Took Its Course

In the first and absolute Creation, however, since everything came about through the simple divine will, He, blessed be He, desired that the dry land should appear and that plants should come into being before the existence of the luminaries and stars that, within the natural order, move and bring about these lower phenomena. In this way it would be known that these things were not originally produced by nature, but that the divine will first brought them about without the celestial causes through which they are now produced. And since God, blessed be He, desired that they should continue and endure, He endowed the celestial bodies and their motions with such a nature that they would serve as intermediaries for perpetuating the things He had originally brought into existence by His will. Thus, in this respect, the sun is a preserving and perpetuating cause, not the original efficient cause. He, blessed be He, was the true agent, while the sun and the stars became instruments for perpetuating His will1. Living creatures, however, were not created before the luminaries, because after coming into existence they immediately required them, as will be explained in the appropriate place.

For this reason the work of the third day begins, “Let the waters beneath the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear” (Genesis 1:9). Since the firmament by itself, without the stars, had no power to accomplish this, God exalted in His power and commanded by His word that the element of water should of itself gather into one place, rather than spreading over the earth and surrounding it. For according to its nature, the watery element ought to have encompassed the entire element of earth and covered it, since the higher element naturally surrounds that which lies beneath it on every side2.

Scripture therefore says, “Let the waters be gathered”, to teach that the dry land was not exposed because the waters were dried up through the heat of the sun, nor because God caused His wind to pass over the earth so that the waters subsided3. Rather, He, blessed be He, decreed by His word that the waters themselves should move toward one side, leaving the other side exposed. This is the meaning of, “And let the dry land appear”: Scripture does not say that the earth should become dry, but that it should become visible as the waters withdrew to their limits and receded from upon it. By specifying the waters beneath the heavens, Scripture excludes the waters above the firmament, which were not included in this command.

This declaration also confirms what I explained concerning the first day: the elements had already been differentiated according to their respective forms; they were not merely potential matter from which the elements would subsequently be generated. This is why Scripture says here, “And let the dry land appear”: it already existed in its proper form and perfection, and nothing was now done to it except that it was made visible.

In Bereshit Rabbah they interpreted “Let the waters be gathered” [yikkavu ha-mayim] to mean: Let a measure be established for the waters, as in the verse, “And a plumb line [ve-kav] shall be stretched out over Jerusalem”4 (Zechariah 1:16)5. By this they intended what the philosophers have written: that among the greatest proofs of the creation of the world and of continuing divine providence is the exposure of the dry land. Thus the Lord said to Job: “Where were you when I founded the earth?... Who determined its dimensions, if you know? Or who stretched the measuring line over it?... And [who] enclosed the sea with doors?” (Job 38:4–10). Jeremiah likewise said: “Hear this now, foolish people without understanding, who have eyes but do not see, who have ears but do not hear. Will you not fear Me? says the Lord; will you not tremble before Me, who placed the sand as a boundary for the sea, an everlasting ordinance that it cannot transgress?” (Jeremiah 5:21–22). This, then, is likewise the meaning of “Let the waters be gathered”: a boundary was established for them beyond which they could not pass and once again cover the dry land.

As for the words “into one place”, their meaning is not that all the waters were to be gathered into one particular, bounded location, but rather that they should no longer spread over the entire earth. By saying into one place, Scripture alludes to the sea, which is the place proper to water. The Philosopher has already explained in his work on meteorology that each of the elements has both a common place and a place proper to itself. The common place is the region enclosed by the sphere of the moon, which encompasses all the elements, while the particular place proper to an element is that toward which the parts of that element naturally move. For the element of water, this is the sea, since all the rivers issue from it and return to it, as the wisest of men said, “All the rivers flow into the sea”6 (Ecclesiastes 1:7)7.

Thus, into one place means into a particular or proper place, just as “one nation on earth” (II Samuel 7:23) means a unique nation. The entire meaning, then, is that the waters should gather into the place proper to them—namely, the seas and rivers, which collectively constitute the proper place of water. The first question is thereby resolved. To indicate the permanence of the dry land’s exposure, Scripture adds, “And it was so”, meaning that from then onward a portion of the dry land remained continually exposed above the waters.

(Parashat Bereshit — Genesis 1:9, The Boundaries of the Sea in the Commentary of Don Isaac Abarbanel)

Next section →

Read more

Previous section → The Earth Takes Form

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Next section →

Read more

Previous section → The Riddles of the Sages

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Next section →

Read more

Previous section → The Mystery of the Upper Waters

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Next section →

Read more

Previous section → The Permanent and the Perishable

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Next section →

Read more

Previous section → Heavens, Waters, and the Firmament

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Next section →

Read more

Previous section → The Testimony of Scripture

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Sages on the Nature of the Firmament

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

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

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

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

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

Next section →

Read more