9. Bereshit — Abarbanel on the Torah, Section 9

Why the First-Day Light Is Not the Light of the Luminaries

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

The second position, which holds that this light was physical, must be examined in accordance with the view of Maimonides and his followers. Maimonides and all later scholars who followed his path believed that at the creation of the heavens, the celestial luminaries were also created at the very beginning. Immediately, a radiance emanated from them—nothing more than a luminous emission extending from a shining physical body (gashmi me’ir) in a translucent medium (gashmi s’firiy). This, they say, is the light mentioned in this passage.

And He said of it, “that it was good,” because existence and goodness are interchangeable in a given subject¹. God distinguished between light and darkness through the motion of the celestial sphere, which He set in motion to create a natural separation in form², making them opposites—just as existence and non-existence are opposite concepts. God’s naming of light as “day” and darkness as “night” was based on human perception, for names are conventional. These phenomena were attributed to God because He is the First Cause of all things. Since light and darkness functioned through the rotation of the celestial sphere, moving from east to west and then returning to the east, this constituted a single day—meaning a unified period where darkness and light together formed a full 24-hour cycle.

The fact that the verse first mentions “evening” and then “morning” suggests that the great luminary (the sun) was, at the moment of its general influence, positioned directly opposite the center of the earth, beneath the dry land³. In that instant, darkness spread over the visible part of the land, until the sun rose over the entire earth. According to this view, light itself was not created as a separate entity; rather, when the celestial sphere was created, God commanded it to move, and from its motion, light naturally followed.

Since this view (that the light of the first day is the light of the luminaries) faces the difficulty that the Torah explicitly mentions the creation of the luminaries on the fourth day, Maimonides was compelled to address this issue. From his words in Guide for the Perplexed (Part II, Chapter 30), it appears that his response is as follows: On the first day, the celestial sphere (galgal), the luminaries, and the light emanating from them were created. However, on the fourth day, their effects became manifest in the process of plant growth, since this would not occur except through the falling of rain, and the rain would not fall unless vapors rose from the earth, the cause of which is the heat derived from the solar light. Nothing new was created then—neither in the sphere, nor in theluminaries, nor in the light emanating from them. This is what appears from the Rabbi’s words and his opinion on this matter, as those who interpret his book have explained on his behalf. To support this, Maimonides relied on the Talmudic statement I previously mentioned (Chagigah 12a): “These are the same luminaries that were created on the first day but were not suspended until the fourth day.”

It is possible that Ramban was referring to the same idea when he cited this view as the opinion of “some commentators”, as he said at the end, and his words are: “If so, the verse alludes to what would occur on the fourth day, after the luminaries had been placed in the firmament of the heavens.” This means that the light mentioned on the first day is the very same light of the luminaries mentioned on the fourth day, but the Torah referenced it on the first day in anticipation of what would later be revealed on the fourth.

This entire view contradicts the explicit testimony of the words of the Torah, distorts its meaning, and opposes the statements of the Sages for the following reasons. First, the verse says: “And God said, ʿLet there be lightʾ” (Genesis 1:3). If light was not created independently but was merely a result of the movement of the celestial sphere, then what is the meaning of this divine utterance (Vayomer Elokim Yehī Or)? The light would not have been created as an independent entity, yet the Torah does not say “Let the sphere move”, but rather, “Let there be light.” Furthermore, if the celestial sphere had already been created in its spherical form, there would have been no need for God to command its movement, since it would necessarily move on its own—its very nature demands perpetual motion, while rest is impossible for it. What, then, is the significance of “Let there be light,” if light was merely a byproduct of this motion? Second, the verse says: “Let there be luminaries in the firmament of the heavens,” and “And God made the two great luminaries,” and “And God placed them in the firmament of the heavens.” (Genesis 1:14-17). All these verses clearly indicate that the Torah is speaking about their coming into existence, not of the revelation of their functions.

Additionally, if the text referred merely to the revelation of their function, then this should have been attributed to the third day, when vegetation appeared, not to the fourth day. One of the wise men of our generation attempted to resolve this problem differently, suggesting that things have a tangible existence outside the soul and an intellectual existence within the soul of the one who brings them about. Thus, he proposed that “Let there be light” on the first day means that God conceived it in His wisdom, determining its future creation. Then, on the fourth day, He brought it into actual existence. For this reason, he argued, the Torah did not say on the first day, “And it was so” (Vayehi ken), since the light did not yet exist in actuality. Instead, it says “And there was light” (Vayehi Or), meaning that light would come into actual existence at its appointed time. Similarly, the phrase “And God separated” (Vayavdel Elokim) is explained as meaning that God, in His wisdom, decreed to separate light from darkness, but that nothing of this actually took place at that time, for it did not come into actual existence until the fourth day.

Next section → Original Vision, Independent Form

1. Abarbanel reflects a classical philosophical view—rooted in Aristotelian thought and later adopted by Jewish thinkers like Maimonides—that existence itself is the highest form of goodness. Since light represents the realization of existence, it is described as good.

2. This idea aligns with medieval cosmology, where the motion of the celestial spheres was believed to regulate natural phenomena, including the alternation of day and night. Abarbanel suggests that the rotation of the heavens itself is what caused light to appear, rather than light being an independent creation.

3. Abarbanel implies that the initial state of the universe placed the sun “beneath” the land, meaning its light was blocked, causing the first period of darkness (evening). When the sun rose, it illuminated the earth, marking morning—hence the sequence “and there was evening, and there was morning.”