11. Bereshit — Abarbanel on the Torah, Section 11

The Enigma of the First Light

Previous section → Original Vision, Independent Form

The sixth question

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

The seventh question

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

The eighth question

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

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

The ninth question

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

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

Next section → On the Question of Simultaneous Creation