55. Bereshit — Abarbanel on the Torah, Section 55

Every Word Has a Purpose

Previous section → The Waters That Are Not Water

¹The second question concerns the words: “And let it separate between the waters.” For once Scripture has said, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters,” it is already evident that this firmament will separate the waters above it from the waters below it. Otherwise, one body would occupy the same place as another.

The third question concerns the statement: “And God made the firmament”² (Genesis 1:7). Our Sages said that this is one of the verses over which Ben Zoma “shook the world,” asking in astonishment³: “‘And God made’? But is it not written: ‘By the word of the Lord the heavens were made’⁴ (Psalm 33:6)?”⁵

Nachmanides wrote that Ben Zoma’s astonishment was not directed merely at the expression “And God made,” since the same phrase also appears on the fourth and sixth days. Rather, it arose because on the other days the narrative proceeds immediately from the divine command to the statement, “And it was so.” Here, however, after “And God said,” Scripture inserts, “And God made the firmament,” before stating, “And it was so.” According to Ramban, this was Ben Zoma’s difficulty. He adds that Ben Zoma may have had some esoteric interpretation in mind but chose not to reveal it⁶.

Yet since Ben Zoma himself did not explain his meaning, I wonder why Ramban interpreted the verse according to its plain sense, explaining the phrase “And God made the firmament,” when Scripture had already said, “Let there be a firmament.” Furthermore, why is it not said, “And God made,” on the first, third, or fifth day, but only on the second, fourth, and sixth? Were not all the works of the six days the works of God?

One might also argue that Ben Zoma did not “shake the world” because the words “And it was so” follow the act of making rather than immediately following the command, as Ramban suggests. If that had been his concern, his astonishment should have been directed at the words “And it was so,” rather than at the words “And God made.” Indeed, his very expression—“‘And God made’? But is it not written: ‘By the word of the Lord the heavens were made’?”—shows that his difficulty centered on the phrase “And God made.” And if that is the reason for his astonishment, we must ask why he did not likewise raise the same objection regarding “And God made the two great luminaries” (Genesis 1:16), or “And God made the beasts of the earth” (Genesis 1:25)⁷.

The fourth question concerns the statement: “And He separated between the waters...” (Genesis 1:7)⁸.

For one of two possibilities must be true. Either the One who separated the waters was the Holy One, blessed be He, or the firmament itself was the agent of that separation. According to the latter view, the firmament, through its power and motion, brought about the differentiation of the waters beneath it, clothing one portion with the form of fire, another with the form of air, and likewise with the forms of the remaining elements. In the same manner, it also distinguished the waters above the firmament in their very substance and form. Thus, according to Rabbeinu Nissim, the firmament itself produced the distinctions both below and above, according to the degree of proximity or distance from it. Indeed, he took great pride in this explanation⁹.

Now, if the words “And He separated” refer to the Holy One, blessed be He, then the statement is truly superfluous. After Scripture has already declared, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it separate,” it would have been sufficient simply to say, “And it was so. And God made the firmament.” Why repeat the act of separation and attribute it once more to God, when that separation would naturally have followed from the creation of the firmament within the waters?

On the other hand, if “And it separated” refers to the firmament itself—that is, if the firmament was the agent of the separation—then the statement is equally superfluous. Once Scripture has said, “Let there be a firmament... and let it separate,” there is no need to add, “And it was so,” which, according to those commentators, merely testifies that the divine command had been carried out.

Moreover, the very idea is exceedingly difficult to conceive. Even if one grants that the firmament, through its motion, could produce different forms in what lies beneath it, how can it be imagined that it should likewise produce different forms in what lies above it? It is understandable that what is higher should act upon what is below, since it is the cause of what lies beneath. But it is inconceivable that what is lower, being itself an effect, should generate forms and natures in that which is above it and serves as its cause.

The fifth question concerns the statement, “And it was so.”¹⁰ If these words are intended to inform us that the thing came into existence exactly as God had decreed, then this has already been made clear by the verse, “And God made the firmament.” What purpose, then, is served by adding once again, “And it was so”?

The difficulty is greater still because the account of the firmament differs from the order followed on the other days. On the fourth day, Scripture first declares, “Let there be lights,” then immediately adds, “And it was so,” and only afterwards explains how this came to pass by saying, “And God made the two great lights.” Likewise, on the sixth day, it first states, “And it was so,” and then proceeds to explain how this was accomplished: “And God made the beasts of the earth.” In both instances, the phrase “And God made…” serves as an explanation of the preceding statement, “And it was so.”

In the account of the firmament, however, the order is reversed. Scripture first says, “Let there be a firmament,” then continues, “And God made the firmament,” and only afterwards adds, “And it was so.” Why does the narrative depart from the pattern observed on the other days?

(Parashat Bereshit — Genesis 1:6, Every Word Has a Purpose in the Commentary of Don Isaac Abarbanel)

Next section →