Previous section → Ten Witnesses to the Nature of the Firmament
The second opinion is that this rakia (“firmament”) refers to the totality of the celestial bodies. All of them together are regarded as a single sphere and a single firmament.
This appears to be the view toward which Rashi inclined when he wrote: “These are the heavens that were created on the first day, but they were still moist, and on the second day they congealed.”
Accordingly, he explained the words yehi rakia (“let there be a firmament”) as meaning that the firmament should be strengthened or solidified, following the teaching of Bereishit Rabbah, as will be explained.
To this view also inclined Nachmanides and Nissim of Gerona. They interpreted the verse as meaning that God decreed that from the higher substance created on the first day there should emerge the firmament—that is, the entire celestial sphere.
Levi ben Gershon likewise understood the firmament in this manner. At first glance, several of the witnesses seem to support this opinion.
The first and second witnesses do so, since birds fly upward toward the heavens, and the luminaries are situated there.
The third witness, from the vision of Ezekiel, may also seem to support it, since the firmament he saw was among the celestial spheres.
Likewise, the sixth and seventh witnesses appear compatible with this view.
Nevertheless, serious difficulties arise.
The first is that if the firmament refers to the totality of the celestial bodies, then what are the waters above it?
Above the celestial spheres there are neither elemental waters nor heavenly spheres that could be called “waters.” Nor does Scripture designate the separate intellects by the name “waters,” as will be explained later. What, then, are these waters?
If Ramban may be accused here of ignorance through lack of knowledge, then Ralbag may be accused of a positive error, whose absence would have been preferable to its presence.
Ramban wrote that this is a mystery that cannot be explained, and Rabbeinu Nissim followed him in this. But if they themselves did not explain it, then the difficulty remains unresolved.
Ralbag attempted to answer this question through his theory of a prime matter that does not retain a fixed form. Yet if Ramban may be accused here of ignorance through lack of knowledge, then Ralbag may be accused of a positive error, whose absence would have been preferable to its presence1.
For by positing a matter that does not preserve its form, he abandons sound belief. This mistaken opinion led him to maintain that the world was created from pre-existing matter rather than from nothing, together with many other objectionable and false consequences, as I have explained in my work Mif’alot Elohim.
A further difficulty for this view arises from the testimony of Ezekiel, the third witness. His description suggests that the term rakia does not refer to the totality of the spheres, but rather to the highest sphere situated above them.
The fifth witness from Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer also presents a difficulty. There it is asked: “Which is the firmament that was created on the second day?” and the answer is: “The firmament above the heads of the living creatures.” From this it appears that rakia is not merely another name for “heavens.”
Finally, the tenth witness also creates a problem, namely the rabbinic statement: “The Holy One, blessed be He, took all the waters of creation, placing half in the firmament and half in the Ocean Sea.” Thus, this second opinion also cannot be sustained.
(Parashat Bereshit — Genesis 1:6, The Celestial Spheres on Trial in the Commentary of Don Isaac Abarbanel)
Next section →
Drawing on Aristotelian terminology, Abarbanel distinguishes between ‘privative ignorance’ (the mere absence of knowledge) and ‘positive ignorance’ (the possession of a false belief). He argues that Ramban’s failure to explain the problem is less serious than Ralbag’s attempt to solve it through a theory that Abarbanel considers fundamentally mistaken.