44. Bereshit — Abarbanel on the Torah, Section 44

The Primordial Light and the Birth of Time

Previous section → A Light Without a Luminary

Genesis 1:4

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Next section →