14. Bereshit — Abarbanel on the Torah, Section 14

Time Before the Luminaries

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

Refutation of Maimonides’ View

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

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

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

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

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

The tenth question

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

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

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

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