וּמָת֖וֹק הָא֑וֹר וְט֥וֹב לַֽעֵינַ֖יִם לִרְא֥וֹת אֶת־הַשָּֽׁמֶשׁ׃
Terang itu manis, dan menyenangkan bagi mata untuk melihat matahari.
Ezra ben Solomon
And his fruit is sweet to my mouth: The fruit of the Holy One, blessed be He, are the souls, as it is written: “From me comes your fruit” [Hosea 4:9]. Also “Light is sown for the righteous” [Ps. 97:11] and “Sweet is the light” [Eccles. 11:7].
Radak
וירא אלוקים, He “saw” in His knowledge and wisdom, that the light would be good for the creatures which inhabit the “lower” universe. Even though darkness is also good for them, i.e. useful for them, as we already explained, darkness is not something to which the adjective, attribute טוב, “good,” can be applied. The reason is that darkness entails the removal of light. How can this be described as “good?” Darkness had existed already, was not a new phenomenon, it was therefore appropriate to state that the new phenomenon light was good (in the sense that it added a positive element to the universe which it had lacked.)
Moreover “light” is something evident, as opposed to darkness. That which emanates from darkness is generally evil. Kohelet 11,7 already speaks of “how sweet is the light, what a delight for the eyes to behold the sun!” Whenever he mentions darkness he does so in the context of something evil, whereas he relates to light as something good, if only because it is something in the open, something that is not “ashamed” to be seen. The evil of darkness is “visible,” as opposed to its positive aspects, which are concealed. Similarly, every time the Torah uses the phrase כי טוב in the report of creation it means that the phenomenon which has been so described is good for the creatures in the lower regions, seeing that all the acts of the creative process were good, did not contain a negative element.
The reason for the word ויבדל, “He separated,” after the word וירא, “He saw,” is that once G’d had “seen” that the light was good, He did not want it to be called by the same name as darkness, although both periods are part of the same “day.” This is why the Torah writes afterwards (verse 5) ויקרא, “He called, He named,” to tell us that the separation between light and darkness was confined to their being called by different names.
It is impossible to interpret the word ויבדל as referring to anything else but the change of the name each part of the day is known by. Normally, the expression הבדל is applied to different substances, whereas light and darkness are neither of them a substance, so that the whole expression appears extraordinary at this point. If darkness is nothing more than the absence of light, how could the term “separated, distinguished,” be properly applied to the absence of something? This is why the Torah wrote ויבדל אלוקים וגו' instead of writing ויבדל האור, or ויבדל without adding a subjective or objective which would have meant that the light itself formed the division, the separation, as the Torah had done when describing the separation of the רקיע and the מים in verse 7. G’d effected the separation between darkness and light by calling them by different names.
As to the expression ולהבדיל בין האור ובין החשך, “and to separate between the light and between the darkness,” (verse 18) this refers to the same day, i.e. a separation between parts of the same entity, the daylight hours enjoying the light of the sun, whereas the night receives only the relatively insignificant light of the moon. Relative to the brilliant light of the day such light is minor, whereas relative to the absolute darkness prevailing during the plague of darkness in Egypt it is quite significant.
Moreover “light” is something evident, as opposed to darkness. That which emanates from darkness is generally evil. Kohelet 11,7 already speaks of “how sweet is the light, what a delight for the eyes to behold the sun!” Whenever he mentions darkness he does so in the context of something evil, whereas he relates to light as something good, if only because it is something in the open, something that is not “ashamed” to be seen. The evil of darkness is “visible,” as opposed to its positive aspects, which are concealed. Similarly, every time the Torah uses the phrase כי טוב in the report of creation it means that the phenomenon which has been so described is good for the creatures in the lower regions, seeing that all the acts of the creative process were good, did not contain a negative element.
The reason for the word ויבדל, “He separated,” after the word וירא, “He saw,” is that once G’d had “seen” that the light was good, He did not want it to be called by the same name as darkness, although both periods are part of the same “day.” This is why the Torah writes afterwards (verse 5) ויקרא, “He called, He named,” to tell us that the separation between light and darkness was confined to their being called by different names.
It is impossible to interpret the word ויבדל as referring to anything else but the change of the name each part of the day is known by. Normally, the expression הבדל is applied to different substances, whereas light and darkness are neither of them a substance, so that the whole expression appears extraordinary at this point. If darkness is nothing more than the absence of light, how could the term “separated, distinguished,” be properly applied to the absence of something? This is why the Torah wrote ויבדל אלוקים וגו' instead of writing ויבדל האור, or ויבדל without adding a subjective or objective which would have meant that the light itself formed the division, the separation, as the Torah had done when describing the separation of the רקיע and the מים in verse 7. G’d effected the separation between darkness and light by calling them by different names.
As to the expression ולהבדיל בין האור ובין החשך, “and to separate between the light and between the darkness,” (verse 18) this refers to the same day, i.e. a separation between parts of the same entity, the daylight hours enjoying the light of the sun, whereas the night receives only the relatively insignificant light of the moon. Relative to the brilliant light of the day such light is minor, whereas relative to the absolute darkness prevailing during the plague of darkness in Egypt it is quite significant.
Rabbeinu Bahya
Nachmanides writes as follows concerning the dispute between Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yishmael about the angels’ eating habits. “It is well known that the continued existence of the angels is dependent on the זיו השכינה, “the brilliance of the Divine Presence” as explained by Shemot Rabbah 32,4 in connection with Nechemyah 9,6 ואתה מחיה את כולם, “and You keep them all alive” [the “host of heaven” mentioned in that verse, Ed.]. The Midrash takes its cue from Exodus 23,21 where G’d speaks of the angel He will send with the Jewish people as “My name is בקרבו, inside it.” [We have the same word as we have in Numbers 14 11. In other words, what the manna did for the Jewish people, G’d’s name did for the angels, i.e. it kept them alive. Ed.]
Nachmanides quotes Kohelet 11,7 “sweet is the light” as a source for the assumption that the angels feed on the brilliance of the Presence of the Shechinah. [I suppose the reason is that since “light” cannot be “sweet” in the culinary sense of the word, it represents something equivalent to the sweetness of food in the terrestrial regions. Ed.] At any rate, according to Nachmanides Rabbi Akiva holds that the source of food for the angels and the Jews in the desert was one and the same. He therefore concluded that manna was a derivative of “light,” seeing the angels being disembodied beings do not consume three-dimensional food, however refined. Rabbi Yishmael’s objection concerned consumption of actual light as distinct from derivatives of light. He disagreed that the Israelites had become capable of feeding on actual light. [In fact had they been able to, Moses’ feat of going without food for forty days in the celestial regions would not have been so impressive. Ed.]
Nachmanides quotes Kohelet 11,7 “sweet is the light” as a source for the assumption that the angels feed on the brilliance of the Presence of the Shechinah. [I suppose the reason is that since “light” cannot be “sweet” in the culinary sense of the word, it represents something equivalent to the sweetness of food in the terrestrial regions. Ed.] At any rate, according to Nachmanides Rabbi Akiva holds that the source of food for the angels and the Jews in the desert was one and the same. He therefore concluded that manna was a derivative of “light,” seeing the angels being disembodied beings do not consume three-dimensional food, however refined. Rabbi Yishmael’s objection concerned consumption of actual light as distinct from derivatives of light. He disagreed that the Israelites had become capable of feeding on actual light. [In fact had they been able to, Moses’ feat of going without food for forty days in the celestial regions would not have been so impressive. Ed.]