וְיִנְהֹ֥ם עָלָ֛יו בַּיּ֥וֹם הַה֖וּא כְּנַהֲמַת־יָ֑ם וְנִבַּ֤ט לָאָ֙רֶץ֙ וְהִנֵּה־חֹ֔שֶׁךְ צַ֣ר וָא֔וֹר חָשַׁ֖ךְ בַּעֲרִיפֶֽיהָ׃ (פ)
Pada hari itu mereka akan menggeram terhadapnya seperti gemuruh laut; lalu orang akan memandang ke negeri itu, tetapi lihatlah, yang ada hanya kegelapan; baik yang terdesak maupun yang hendak memberi terang menjadi gelap oleh mendung yang menyelimutinya.
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.
Kli Yakar
“And you shall spread out westward, eastward, northward, and southward.” The reason it mentions the opposing directions facing each other, rather than listing them in order, is because it is said in the Midrash (see Midrash Tehillim 44:2) that salvation comes to Israel only when they are at their lowest point, as it is said (Psalms 44:26) For our soul is bowed down to the dust, and what is written after it? Arise for our help. The reason for this is that as long as they are not at their lowest point, they do not place their trust in God and instead devise human strategies to escape from snares. Therefore, God distances man from Himself and abandonment increases, because they did not trust in God’s salvation. But when they see that their efforts have failed and there is no helper or supporter, then their eyes are lifted to God to call upon Him in their time of distress, and God listens. At that time, salvation comes through an escape from one extreme to the other — from the depths of lowliness to the heights of elevation. Since naturally it would be unbelievable to tell that they would rise from their low state to the highest heights, therefore Jacob was shown in this vision three levels in succession in terms of impressiveness. First it was said your offspring shall be like the dust of the earth — at that time when their soul will be bowed to the dust, at that time you shall spread out — meaning the one who breaks through will rise before them to elevate them to the height of greatness. And if you would say that even if they rise from lowliness to some height, it’s impossible to jump from one extreme to the other to reach such a great level, rather when they stumble they will receive a little help, as in Daniel’s prophecy (11:34) — therefore it says westward and eastward. These two directions are opposite and contradictory, for in the east the sun always rises and in the west it always sets. And after the time when Israel’s sun will set, as Rashi explained on the verse and in the evening he divides spoil (Genesis 49:27), at that time of setting they will flee to the opposite extreme, to have their throne like the sun before Him. And if you would say this will only happen if they are like the western direction where even though the sun sets there, it still has some rising in that direction — so too Israel when they have a little rising they will ascend to be like the eastern direction, for even there the sun doesn’t always shine as in the winter solstice, so too their authority will not be permanent. Therefore it says northward and southward — for even if they will be like the northern direction where it is cold and dark in its clouds (Isaiah 5:30) and has no light at all, so too Israel will be completely devoid of light — from there they will rise to the opposite extreme to be like the southern [dromi] direction, which is called so because it “dwells high [dar rum]” for the sun always shines there and dwells in its heights. So too will Israel’s sun shine permanently, as it is written (Isaiah 60:20) Your sun shall no longer set, and they will forever dwell in the heights of the world. This is a promise about the final redemption.
Ramban
THOU SHALT NOT ‘THEILEICH RACHIL’ (GO UP AND DOWN AS A TALEBEARER) AMONG THY PEOPLE. “I say that because all those who sow discord [among brethren]65See Proverbs 6:19. and speak slander go into their friends’ houses in order to spy out what evil they can see or hear, so that they may tell it in the street — therefore they are called holchei rachil or holchei regilah (‘those who go about spying’) etc. And so did Onkelos translate [the verse before us]: lo theichul kurtzin [literally: ‘thou shalt not eat kurtzin’, which has the same meaning as], ‘va’achalu kartzeihon’ (and they brought accusation against) the Jews;66Daniel 3:8. ‘achlu kurtza (they slandered him) to the king.’67Berachoth 58 a. It appears to me that it was their custom to eat something in the house of him who accepted their slanderous words, this being a sort of final confirmation that the slanderer’s words are well-founded, and that he would stand by them. It was this snack that was called ‘the eating of kurtzin,’ [the word being associated with] the [Hebrew] expression, ‘koreitz’ (he that winketh) with his eyes,68Proverbs 6:13. for such is the manner of all who go about slandering, to wink with their eyes, and to insinuate slanderous matters in order that [others who happen to] hear them should not understand them.” All this is the language of the Rabbi [Rashi].
But his explanation of this rendition of Onkelos has neither rhyme nor reason.69See in Volume I, p. 100, for a similar remark. For one who listens to a slanderer does not swear to him that he will believe his words, and [therefore the slanderer] need not give him a sign or token [to believe him]! Even when one slanders a servant to his master,70See Proverbs 30:10: Slander not a servant unto his master, lest he curse thee, and thou be found guilty. Ramban’s intention is therefore as follows: Even in slandering a slave, where the slanderer runs the risk of incurring his curse, the master nonetheless gives the slanderer no assurance that he will listen to him, and so what sense is there to this “eating” on the part of the slanderer which Rashi mentioned? the master does not assure him that he will listen to him, and so what sense is there to this “eating” [by the slanderer, as Rashi mentioned]? And Nebuchadnezzar did what he decided to do on the basis of his own decision about the righteous ones,71This refers back to the proof Rashi mentioned above from the Book of Daniel 3:8, where it is said ‘va’achalu kartzeihon’ of the Jews, and it is told that certain slanderers came and informed Nebuchadnezzar that Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, were not bowing to his image of gold. As a result he called them and asked them if it was true. When they told him that they had no intention ever of bowing to his image of gold, he had them thrown into a burning furnace. But when they were saved by an act of G-d from the fiery furnace, the king had it proclaimed that no one must henceforth speak against the G-d of these righteous ones. — Ramban now points out that when accepting the words of the slanderers, we find no reference to the king’s offering them any food, a custom which Rashi mentioned as having been the basis for this expression va’achalu kartzeihon. Furthermore, as is evidenced from the story, he did not even believe them at first, for he called Hananiah etc. and asked about it. And yet Scripture says ‘va’achalu kartzeihon’ of the Jews, which shows that this whole interpretation of Rashi in Onkelos’ translation of the verse is not borne out by Scripture. and He did not offer food to the slanderers [to establish the veracity of their report], neither did he swear to them [that he would believe them], nor did he in fact believe them. Instead, he asked [of the righteous ones], Is it true, O Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego etc.,72Daniel 3:14. Shadrach, Meshach, etc. were the Babylonian names that the chief of officers gave to Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah (ibid., 1:7). and he commanded that if henceforth they were to bow to the image of gold that he had made, he would forgive them for their transgressions in the past! [All this shows that va’achalu kartzeihon does not refer to a meal eaten by the slanderers, to serve as the final confirmation that their slander was well-grounded, since in the case of Nebuchadnezzar, where this expression occurs, the king did not accept their report!] Nor did King Darius offer food to the slanderers of Daniel,73Ibid., 6:12-14. except for the wormwood and the gall,74Lamentations 3:19. In other words, he had the slanderers thrown into the lions’ den (Daniel 6:25.). and yet it is written of them, those men that ‘achalu kartzohi’ of Daniel!75In other words, in the same verse where their punishment is mentioned (ibid.,) it refers to them as those men that ‘achalu kartzohi’ of Daniel, which shows that it was not a meal that the king offered them, but quite the contrary. And even if it is true that it was so done in those [later] times, but since Scripture states thou shalt not go up and down as a talebearer among thy people, why should Onkelos have mentioned this foolish custom [of the slanderer eating a little snack in the house of him who listened to his slanderous words], when it does not affect the admonition itself? Instead, the essential meaning of the Aramaic expression here [i.e., lo theichul kurtzin, is not a prohibition against “eating kurtzin,” but] is only a term for the act of making a sound, this usage being common in the language of the Sages:76Baba Bathra 5 a. The story there is told that Ravina had land on all four sides of a field belonging to a man called Runya. When Ravina put up a fence on all four sides separating his fields from that of Runya, the latter refused to pay his share of the expense. Thereupon Ravina at the time of the harvest said to his field laborer, “Bring me a cluster of grapes from Runya’s field when he is present there.” When he was about to do it Runya rebuked him, shouting, “Put it back.” Ravina then said to Runya: “Now you have shown that you are satisfied with the fence I have made. Even if only goats came into your field, would you not need to shout at them? Would you not need to hire a person to shout at them? [Hence you must share in the expense of the fence].” “And even if it were but goats, would they not achluyei michlulei (have to be shouted at)? And would you not have [to hire] a person l’achluyei (to shout) at them?” Jonathan [ben Uziel] translated: Cry aloud77Isaiah 58:1. — ‘achlei;’ and ‘He will hiss’ unto them from the end of the earth78Ibid., 5:26. — ‘v’yachlilei;’ ‘and they shall roar’ against them like the roaring of the sea79Ibid., 5:30. — ‘v’yachlei’ against them. Similarly [Jonathan has translated] in many places. Thus the term achal [in Aramaic] denotes every form of making sound, whereby one makes his wish known without uttering words. Therefore this term was used [by the Sages, as mentioned above] to describe one who shouts at goats that enter a field, and [Jonathan used the same term in translating the Hebrew for] hissing,78Ibid., 5:26. roaring79Ibid., 5:30. and crying aloud.77Isaiah 58:1. Now the way of talebearers is to come amongst a multitude of people, or before a ruler, and utter sounds in a guttural manner, and wink with their eyes, in order to hint that they have heard certain important matters until they press upon them that they tell them. This is why [talebearers in Aramaic] are called ochlei kurtzin, meaning “those who roar with hints.” And Onkelos who translated [the Hebrew] rechiluth (talebearing) [as theichul kurtzin — muttering hints], rendered into Aramaic the idea of the Hebrew, and was not particular to explain the precise meaning of the Scriptural expression. Such is always his style, since his intention is to make the subject understandable [and not necessarily to translate literally]. But in the Sacred Language talebearers are called holchei rachil, from the expressions, all powders of the ‘rachil’ (merchant);80Song of Songs 3:6. ‘rechulatheich’ (thy merchandise).81Ezekiel 26:12. For the rocheil (peddler) goes about the whole day, buying merchandise in various other places, just as the Sages mention,82Maasroth 2:3. “peddlers that go around from town to town,” [and similarly the holchei rachil carry tales as if they were merchandise, from place to place]. And this is the sense of the word b’amecha (among thy people) — Thou shalt not go up and down as a talebearer ‘among thy people’ — since the talebearer walks among many people. To differentiate between the two [the talebearer and the peddler], the talebearer was called rocheil, in a verbal form, [as the term rocheil can also signify the act of talebearing], while the peddler was called rachil, which is an adjectival noun denoting the person himself, just like saris (chief), nazir (a Nazirite), the name rachil thus hinting that peddling is of his essence, and is an act which reflects upon his person.
But his explanation of this rendition of Onkelos has neither rhyme nor reason.69See in Volume I, p. 100, for a similar remark. For one who listens to a slanderer does not swear to him that he will believe his words, and [therefore the slanderer] need not give him a sign or token [to believe him]! Even when one slanders a servant to his master,70See Proverbs 30:10: Slander not a servant unto his master, lest he curse thee, and thou be found guilty. Ramban’s intention is therefore as follows: Even in slandering a slave, where the slanderer runs the risk of incurring his curse, the master nonetheless gives the slanderer no assurance that he will listen to him, and so what sense is there to this “eating” on the part of the slanderer which Rashi mentioned? the master does not assure him that he will listen to him, and so what sense is there to this “eating” [by the slanderer, as Rashi mentioned]? And Nebuchadnezzar did what he decided to do on the basis of his own decision about the righteous ones,71This refers back to the proof Rashi mentioned above from the Book of Daniel 3:8, where it is said ‘va’achalu kartzeihon’ of the Jews, and it is told that certain slanderers came and informed Nebuchadnezzar that Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, were not bowing to his image of gold. As a result he called them and asked them if it was true. When they told him that they had no intention ever of bowing to his image of gold, he had them thrown into a burning furnace. But when they were saved by an act of G-d from the fiery furnace, the king had it proclaimed that no one must henceforth speak against the G-d of these righteous ones. — Ramban now points out that when accepting the words of the slanderers, we find no reference to the king’s offering them any food, a custom which Rashi mentioned as having been the basis for this expression va’achalu kartzeihon. Furthermore, as is evidenced from the story, he did not even believe them at first, for he called Hananiah etc. and asked about it. And yet Scripture says ‘va’achalu kartzeihon’ of the Jews, which shows that this whole interpretation of Rashi in Onkelos’ translation of the verse is not borne out by Scripture. and He did not offer food to the slanderers [to establish the veracity of their report], neither did he swear to them [that he would believe them], nor did he in fact believe them. Instead, he asked [of the righteous ones], Is it true, O Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego etc.,72Daniel 3:14. Shadrach, Meshach, etc. were the Babylonian names that the chief of officers gave to Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah (ibid., 1:7). and he commanded that if henceforth they were to bow to the image of gold that he had made, he would forgive them for their transgressions in the past! [All this shows that va’achalu kartzeihon does not refer to a meal eaten by the slanderers, to serve as the final confirmation that their slander was well-grounded, since in the case of Nebuchadnezzar, where this expression occurs, the king did not accept their report!] Nor did King Darius offer food to the slanderers of Daniel,73Ibid., 6:12-14. except for the wormwood and the gall,74Lamentations 3:19. In other words, he had the slanderers thrown into the lions’ den (Daniel 6:25.). and yet it is written of them, those men that ‘achalu kartzohi’ of Daniel!75In other words, in the same verse where their punishment is mentioned (ibid.,) it refers to them as those men that ‘achalu kartzohi’ of Daniel, which shows that it was not a meal that the king offered them, but quite the contrary. And even if it is true that it was so done in those [later] times, but since Scripture states thou shalt not go up and down as a talebearer among thy people, why should Onkelos have mentioned this foolish custom [of the slanderer eating a little snack in the house of him who listened to his slanderous words], when it does not affect the admonition itself? Instead, the essential meaning of the Aramaic expression here [i.e., lo theichul kurtzin, is not a prohibition against “eating kurtzin,” but] is only a term for the act of making a sound, this usage being common in the language of the Sages:76Baba Bathra 5 a. The story there is told that Ravina had land on all four sides of a field belonging to a man called Runya. When Ravina put up a fence on all four sides separating his fields from that of Runya, the latter refused to pay his share of the expense. Thereupon Ravina at the time of the harvest said to his field laborer, “Bring me a cluster of grapes from Runya’s field when he is present there.” When he was about to do it Runya rebuked him, shouting, “Put it back.” Ravina then said to Runya: “Now you have shown that you are satisfied with the fence I have made. Even if only goats came into your field, would you not need to shout at them? Would you not need to hire a person to shout at them? [Hence you must share in the expense of the fence].” “And even if it were but goats, would they not achluyei michlulei (have to be shouted at)? And would you not have [to hire] a person l’achluyei (to shout) at them?” Jonathan [ben Uziel] translated: Cry aloud77Isaiah 58:1. — ‘achlei;’ and ‘He will hiss’ unto them from the end of the earth78Ibid., 5:26. — ‘v’yachlilei;’ ‘and they shall roar’ against them like the roaring of the sea79Ibid., 5:30. — ‘v’yachlei’ against them. Similarly [Jonathan has translated] in many places. Thus the term achal [in Aramaic] denotes every form of making sound, whereby one makes his wish known without uttering words. Therefore this term was used [by the Sages, as mentioned above] to describe one who shouts at goats that enter a field, and [Jonathan used the same term in translating the Hebrew for] hissing,78Ibid., 5:26. roaring79Ibid., 5:30. and crying aloud.77Isaiah 58:1. Now the way of talebearers is to come amongst a multitude of people, or before a ruler, and utter sounds in a guttural manner, and wink with their eyes, in order to hint that they have heard certain important matters until they press upon them that they tell them. This is why [talebearers in Aramaic] are called ochlei kurtzin, meaning “those who roar with hints.” And Onkelos who translated [the Hebrew] rechiluth (talebearing) [as theichul kurtzin — muttering hints], rendered into Aramaic the idea of the Hebrew, and was not particular to explain the precise meaning of the Scriptural expression. Such is always his style, since his intention is to make the subject understandable [and not necessarily to translate literally]. But in the Sacred Language talebearers are called holchei rachil, from the expressions, all powders of the ‘rachil’ (merchant);80Song of Songs 3:6. ‘rechulatheich’ (thy merchandise).81Ezekiel 26:12. For the rocheil (peddler) goes about the whole day, buying merchandise in various other places, just as the Sages mention,82Maasroth 2:3. “peddlers that go around from town to town,” [and similarly the holchei rachil carry tales as if they were merchandise, from place to place]. And this is the sense of the word b’amecha (among thy people) — Thou shalt not go up and down as a talebearer ‘among thy people’ — since the talebearer walks among many people. To differentiate between the two [the talebearer and the peddler], the talebearer was called rocheil, in a verbal form, [as the term rocheil can also signify the act of talebearing], while the peddler was called rachil, which is an adjectival noun denoting the person himself, just like saris (chief), nazir (a Nazirite), the name rachil thus hinting that peddling is of his essence, and is an act which reflects upon his person.