7. Bereshit — Abarbanel on the Torah, Section 7

The Singular Language of the First Day and the Meaning of “Tohu va’Vohu”

Previous section → Four Objections to Identifying the First-Day Light with the Angels

The third question

The third question is as follows: If everything that was created during the days of Bereshit came into existence through a divine utterance—as it is stated (Psalms 33:6), “By the word of the Lord, the heavens were made,” and as the Mishnah (Avot 5:1) teaches, “With ten utterances, the world was created”—why, then, was the work of the first day different from the work of the other days?¹

This difference manifests in three aspects. The first is that in the work of each of the remaining five days, the phrase “And God said” appears, as in “And God said, ʿLet there be…ʾ” Why, then, did the Torah not state on the first day as well, “In the beginning, God said, ʿLet there be heavens and earthʾ”? Especially considering that our Sages explicitly taught that the heavens and the earth were created through an utterance, to the extent that they included “Bereshit” as one of the ten utterances in Tractate Rosh Hashanah, saying, “Bereshit is also an utterance.” The second difference is that in the acts of creation on the other days, the name of the Creator is mentioned before His action, as in “And God said, ʿLet there be a firmament,ʾ” or “And God said, ʿLet there be luminaries,ʾ” and so forth. However, on the first day, the act itself is mentioned before the name of the Creator, as it says, “In the beginning, He created—God,” rather than “God created in the beginning.” Because of this, the translators who rendered the Torah for King Ptolemy² had to modify the wording and translate it as “God created in the beginning,” as recorded in the Talmud (Megillah)³. The third difference is that in the creation of the heavens and the earth, the phrase “Let it be so” (yehi ken) does not appear, whereas in all other acts of creation, this phrase was included.

The fourth question

The fourth question concerns the meaning of the verse: “And the earth was tohu va’vohu (formless and void), etc.” You are already aware of the interpretation given by the Rav haMoreh (Maimonides) in Guide for the Perplexed (Part II, Chapter 30), which was followed by Ramban. Their general intent is that after the verse mentioned the creation of the heavens and the earth, it then informs us that the earth which was created contained within it the four fundamental elements—earth, water, air, and fire.

Thus, in this verse, “the earth” refers specifically to the element of earth, while “darkness” refers to the element of fire, for primordial fire is dark⁴. If it were luminous, it would be visible at night. Moreh Nevukhim (Maimonides) proves that darkness refers to fire from the verse regarding Mount Sinai: “When you heard the voice from withinthe darkness” (Deuteronomy 5:20), which is also expressed as “And His words you heard from within the fire” (Deuteronomy 4:36). Similarly, it is stated: “A fire not blown shall consume him” (Job 20:26). Likewise, “the spirit of God” refers to the element of air, and “upon the face of the waters” refers to the element of water⁵.

However, in my view, this interpretation is incorrect for several reasons. One of them is the verse states: “And the earth was tohu va’vohu, and darkness was upon the face of the deep.” If darkness referred to the element of fire, why would it be mentioned before the water and air? This would contradict the natural order of elements. Another reason is that darkness is not fire. The verses cited by Moreh Nevukhim to prove that “darkness” refers to fire do not actually support his claim. The darkness mentioned at Mount Sinai refers to the cloud and thick mist that surrounded the visible fire. This is the meaning of the phrase: “When you heard the voice from within the darkness”—the divine voice emerged from within the surrounding darkness. But this is not the same as the fire mentioned in “And His words you heard from within the fire.” Rather, these were two separate entities: the visible fire at the summit of the mountain, which was seen by the children of Israel, and the dense, dark cloud surrounding it. The divine voice emerged from the fire, but through the medium of the surrounding darkness. Thus, both verses are correct, and “darkness” does not refer to fire, nor does “fire” refer to darkness.

Further proof of this distinction is found in the verse: “These words the Lord spoke to your entire assembly on the mountain, from within the fire, the cloud, and the thick darkness” (Deuteronomy 5:19). Here, the Torah clearly differentiates between the fire and the darkness surrounding it. Similarly, the verse “Total darkness is laid up for his treasures; a fire not blown shall consume him” (Job 20:26) refers to two distinct entities—light and darkness—not a single thing. Moreover, the claim that “primordial fire is dark, for if it were luminous, it would be visible at night” is, with all due respect to the wisdom of its author, incorrect. Fire is neither inherently dark nor inherently luminous; rather, it is a spiritual entity (sphiriy)⁶. The fact that it is not luminous does not mean it must be classified as darkness. Consider, for example, air: it is neither luminous nor dark, yet no one would call it “darkness.”

And if it (fire) were dark, it would darken our daylight as well, even before the element of earth had received a distinct name—for only on the third day does it say, “And God called the dry land Earth” (Genesis 1:10). Thus, the term “earth” mentioned here refers to the entirety of the lower realm.

Next section → Beyond the Four Elements: Reconsidering Darkness, Ruach, and the Light of the First Day

1. Abarbanel notes a unique feature of the first day: other days begin with “And God said,” but not Genesis 1:1. The Mishnah (Avot 5:1) says the world was created with ten utterances, yet “Bereshit” lacks an explicit command. This suggests a fundamental distinction between the creation of existence itself and the formation of its details.

2. The Talmud relates that when King Ptolemy II of Egypt ordered the Torah to be translated into Greek, seventy-two Jewish sages were placed in separate rooms and asked to produce the translation independently. According to the tradition recorded in Megillah 9a, they all made several identical adjustments to the text to prevent misunderstandings by Greek readers. One of these concerned Genesis 1:1: instead of translating the verse literally as “In the beginning God created,” which might suggest that “Beginning” was itself a divine being, they rendered it “God created in the beginning.” Abarbanel cites this episode to illustrate how the wording of the verse could affect its interpretation.

3. The Septuagint altered Genesis 1:1 to “God created in the beginning” (Elokim bara bereshit) to avoid ambiguity in Greek. Abarbanel highlights this to show how language affects interpretation, reinforcing his argument that Bereshit describes a distinct creative act.

4. In medieval philosophy, the four elements (earth, water, air, fire) were understood in their primordial forms. Aish yesodi (“elemental fire”) was conceived as a substance defined by heat but not by light; visible flames and brightness arise only when it combines with other matter. Hence Abarbanel refers to “primordial fire” as dark.

5. Maimonides and Ramban claim that “darkness” in Genesis 1:2 refers to primordial fire (yesod ha-esh). Abarbanel refutes this, arguing that the Sinai verses they cite distinguish between fire and darkness. Fire is neither dark nor luminous—like air, its nature is neutral.

6. The term sphiriy (ספירי) here does not refer to the Kabbalistic sefirot. It is the medieval Hebrew rendering of the Greek word sphaera (“sphere”), used in Aristotelian cosmology to describe the celestial spheres. The resemblance to sefirah (from the Hebrew root safar, “to count, to radiate”) is purely coincidental; the two terms have different origins and meanings, though both came to describe higher, intangible realms.