6. Bereshit — Abarbanel on the Torah, Section 6
Four Objections to Identifying the First-Day Light with the Angels
Previous section → Primordial Light and the Question of Angelic Creation
The first is: If this “light” truly referred to angels, why would the Torah avoid calling them by their proper names?1 The text could have referred to them as “angels” (malachim), “seraphim,” or “fiery beings” (eish), as is common in other places. Why instead use the term “light”, which is merely an incidental property that results from motion? Angels, on the other hand, are independent, exalted beings, essential in their own right.
And what is said about Him, may He be exalted he verse, “The Lord is my light and my salvation” (Tehillim 27:1), does not mean that God is literally light, but rather, it is a metaphor for salvation and divine assistance, as seen in verses such as “Arise, shine, for your light has come” (Isaiah 60:1) and “The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light.” (Isaiah 9:1). And the statement “And light dwells with Him” (Daniel 2:22) refers to God’s perfect knowledge, which is fully revealed before Him, rather than referring to angels. This is evident from the beginning of the verse: “He knows what is in the darkness, and light dwells with Him.” The first clause clarifies the meaning of the second—that it speaks of divine knowledge, not angels.
Therefore, since the depiction of separate beings (nivdalim) is difficult for the human intellect, yet their existence is well established in the Torah, it would have been appropriate to name them explicitly.
How could Scripture describe what preceded the creation of the heavens and the earth if it had not yet mentioned the act of creation itself?
The second argument is that if the creation of the angels had preceded the heavens and the earth, why is it mentioned in the Torah only later, in the verse “Let there be light”? The interpretation that explains this as “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth,” followed by “And God said, let there be light,” is incorrect2.
For if that were the case, the creation of the heavens and the earth would not have been mentioned in the Torah as an independent event. And how could Scripture describe what preceded the creation of the heavens and the earth if it had not yet mentioned the act of creation itself? It would have been more fitting for it to state: “In the beginning, God said, ʿLet there be light,ʾ” and only afterward to say, “And God created the heavens and the earth.”
The third argument is that if the verse seeks to recount what occurred before the creation of the heavens and the earth, what then is the meaning of “And the earth was formless and void (tohu va’vohu)”3? For it is known that if light preceded the heavens and the earth, then it must also have preceded the state of the earth being tohu va’vohu.
Since what is antecedent in essence necessarily precedes all its associated descriptions, what then is this verse coming to teach us?
The fourth argument is that if the light mentioned on the first day referred to the angels, what then would be the meaning of the darkness mentioned afterward? Why would the Torah call the intellectual light “day” and the darkness “night”? And how could a single day be formed from both light and darkness—how would all of this be justified in relation to the angels?
Ralbag answers that the darkness mentioned in the passage symbolizes the existence of the lowly matter, which is at the utmost distance and distinction from the spiritual light. For the intellectual light represents complete form and action, while the primordial lowly matter is merely potential, deficient, and dark in comparison to the nivdalim (separate beings). Because of its existence, God called the light “day” and called the dark, potential matter “night” due to its deficiency.
And the phrase “And there was evening, and there was morning—one day” indicates that through this spiritual light, God established different levels of progression toward perfection, just as evening and morning follow one another in gradation, lesser and greater. And at the end of the verse, it says “one day” to indicate that this was the work of the first day.
However, these words are vain and deceptive fabrications. According to him—and according to all—lowly matter is encompassed within the term “earth.” If, according to his view, there was no earth yet, since the creation of light preceded the creation of heaven and earth, how could he claim that a distinction was made between it and the nature of the nivdalim, which is called “light”? Moreover, the primordial matter (hiyulani), which the commentators sometimes refer to as “earth,” sometimes as tohu va’vohu, sometimes as “water,” and sometimes as “darkness,” follows the same interpretative pattern.
Beyond all this, the phrase “And there was evening, and there was morning” cannot be properly reconciled, because even if there were gradations among the angels, the terms “morning” and “evening” would not apply to them4. You will see that this phrase appears on each of the days of Creation, even in cases where no gradations exist. Additionally, the Torah does not say “And there was evening in the light, and there was morning,” but rather “And there was evening, and there was morning” without qualification. How could this be applied to separate intellects (sechel nivdal)?
Even more problematic is the phrase “one day,” which appears without context or logical connection. Since it is not adjacent to “And there was evening, and there was morning,” and does not function as a clause dependent on another phrase. Thus, it misleads the reader who follows the cantillation marks (ta’amim)5.
All of this proves that the opinion that “light” refers to the angels deviates from the truth6. I believe that the Sages7 never intended such an interpretation in their statements about the light. Rather, they referred to the divine light that was created for its moment and then ceased to exist, as will be explained later.
Next section → The Singular Language of the First Day and the Meaning of “Tohu va’Vohu”
Abarbanel questions why, if angels were created before the heavens and the earth, the Torah does not name them directly in the Creation account. Instead, some commentators interpret the verse “Let there be light” as a reference to their creation. Abarbanel finds this problematic, since angels are clearly named elsewhere in the Torah (e.g., as malachim, seraphim, or ishim). He argues that if the Torah wished to speak of their creation, it would have done so explicitly.
Abarbanel rejects the interpretation that “Let there be light” refers to angels, because it does not fit the logical structure of the verse. If angels were created before the heavens and the earth, the Torah should have introduced their creation first, not afterward. The fact that “Let there be light” comes after the creation of the heavens and the earth suggests that it refers to literal light, not angelic beings.
Abarbanel highlights a logical inconsistency: If light (or angels) existed before the heavens and the earth, then it must have also preceded the state of the earth being formless and void. The Tora’s wording, however, places “tohu va’vohu” after the creation of the heavens and earth, which implies that these conditions emerged after creation, not before it. Abarbanel argues that this contradicts the idea that the angels were created before everything else.
“Evening and morning” imply temporal change, which does not apply to angels. Abarbanel argues that if “light” meant angels, the phrase would be meaningless. He sees this as further proof that the Torah refers to physical rather than metaphysical realities.
Abarbanel highlights that ta’amim (cantillation marks) structure biblical verses both musically and syntactically, acting as punctuation. He argues that the natural flow of the ta’amim supports a straightforward reading of yom echad (one day) as a literal day. Any interpretation that disconnects it from the sequence of creation distorts the Torah’s intended meaning.
Abarbanel rejects the view that the light of the first day refers to angels (nivdalim). If so, why would darkness follow, and why call them “day” and “night”? He opposes Ralbag’s philosophical approach and insists on a more literal reading of Torah.
The word “Sages” here translates the Hebrew חז”ל (chakhameinu zikhronam livrakha, “our Sages of blessed memory”). In this passage, Abarbanel uses the term in its standard sense, referring to the Sages of the Talmud and Midrash. Although he often engages with the interpretations of later medieval commentators (Rishonim) such as Ralbag, he always names them explicitly. Here, however, “Sages” clearly refers to the rabbinic authors of the Midrashim he has just cited concerning the creation of light.