45. Bereshit — Abarbanel on the Torah, Section 45
The Purpose Hidden Within a Name
Previous section → The Primordial Light and the Birth of Time
Genesis 1:5
Explanation of the naming of things.
“And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And it was evening and it was morning, one day.”
It is a familiar principle in the writings of Maimonides, in the chapter previously mentioned, that whenever the expression “And God called…” appears in the account of creation, it serves to distinguish one thing from another that is also designated by the same name. Nachmanides, Levi ben Gershon, Nissim of Gerona, and others agreed with him in this principle.
Accordingly, they explained that the “darkness” mentioned earlier—“and darkness was upon the face of the deep” (Genesis 1:2)—was not the same as the darkness separated from the light here. For according to Ramban (and also Maimonides), the earlier darkness refers to the element of fire; according to Ralbag, it refers to the element of earth; and according to Rabbeinu Nissim, it refers to the mixture of the elements. The darkness separated from the light, however, is simply the absence of light. Therefore, they maintain that God called the light “Day” and the darkness “Night” in order to distinguish this darkness from the darkness mentioned earlier. They interpret the other acts of naming in a similar manner.
I do not accept the principle established by the Master concerning these acts of naming. Its weakness is already evident from the verse itself: “And God called the light Day.” Was any other light or any other day previously mentioned such that a distinction of names would now be necessary?
This, however, is not my view.
For the darkness mentioned above and the darkness mentioned here are one and the same: both signify the absence of light. As for the other interpretations of darkness, they themselves are darkness and not light.
Therefore, I do not accept the principle established by the Master concerning these acts of naming. Its weakness is already evident from the verse itself: “And God called the light Day.” Was any other light or any other day previously mentioned such that a distinction of names would now be necessary?
Nor can this principle account for the verse: “And He called the gathering of the waters Seas” (Genesis 1:10). For according to those who hold that the four elements were already mentioned in the second verse, the waters referred to in “the spirit of God hovered over the face of the waters” (Genesis 1:2) are the very same waters later gathered into the seas. What ambiguity of name exists there that would require such a distinction?
I therefore explain the purpose and meaning of these acts of naming differently.
Since the creation of the first light and its cessation at fixed intervals were intended to establish the measurement of time and the reckoning of days, God called the light “Day.” That is, He assigned it this name on account of its purpose, which was to produce the day.
Likewise, He called the darkness “Night.” The term laylah (“night”), in my opinion, derives from the notion of deprivation or absence, as though it were a compound expression meaning lo lah (“it does not possess [light]”). In other words, that fixed duration and measured interval would not possess light1.
This was the purpose of darkness: to interrupt the light, so that through its interruption the days and their distinctions could be measured.
For this reason it is later said concerning the luminaries: “to separate between the day and between the night”2 (Genesis 1:14). That is, the same distinction between day and night that had previously been effected by the first light through its periods of appearance and disappearance would thereafter be accomplished by the luminaries through their motions.
Thus, “And God called the light Day” means that the primordial light was not, strictly speaking, identical with the day. For a day is something that results from the succession of light and darkness; it is not merely light by itself. Nevertheless, the Holy One, blessed be He, decreed that this light should be called “Day,” because it established the measure of the day.
Likewise, He called the darkness “Night,” because it established the measure of the absence of light during that span of time in which no light was present.
“This is the reason for this act of naming, which Scripture attributes to God. The same explanation will apply to the other acts of naming, each in its proper place.
(Parashat Bereshit — Genesis 1:5, The Purpose Hidden Within a Name in the Commentary of Don Isaac Abarbanel)
Next section →
