창세기 1:4의 주석

וירא אלהים את האור כי טוב ויבדל AND GOD SAW THE LIGHT THAT IT WAS GOOD, AND GOD CAUSED A DIVISION — Here, also, we must depend upon the statement of the Agada: He saw that the wicked were unworthy of using it (the light); He, therefore, set it apart (ויבדל), reserving it for the righteous in the world to come (Chagigah 12a). But according to the plain sense explain it thus: He saw that it was good, and that it was not seemly that light and darkness should function together in a confused manner. He therefore limited this one’s sphere of activity to the daytime, and this one’s sphere of activity to the nighttime (see Genesis Rabbah 3:6).

וירא אלוקים את האור, He looked at its appearance and it was good. The statement is similar to Yocheved saying ותרא אותו כי טוב, (Exodus 2,2) although he had been born three months prematurely, just as had Samuel. In practice, the fact that all his vital features including the nails of his toes and fingers and the hairs on his head had grown, gave her the feeling that he was “good,” i.e. a viable human being, so that she proceeded to hide him for three months because she knew that he was not premature in the sense of not being viable.

וירא אלוקים את האור כי טוב, This describes the reason why G’d created the light, not that He “saw”” something new which He had not been aware of previously. It was because it was “good,” that G’d had created the light.

And God saw, etc.: Since He saw and knew that the light was a good and useful thing, hence "He separated, etc." And behold, the Torah spoke like the language of men [here], as their knowledge is only according to experience; and there are many times that a man will make something, thinking that it is for the good, and afterwards he sees that it is not so. Therefore, the Torah tells that in every act of the Creator, He saw afterwards that it was good.

And God saw, etc.: It is not that He did not know before it came to be that it would be good, as he [then] saw after it came to be. But rather also in this did He come to establish the nature [of things], that seeing is better than intellectual belief and understanding of a matter; so much so, that they stated about Moshe in Shemot Rabbah, that Moshe, our teacher, was not energized when the Holy One, blessed be He, said that the Jews had made a calf like [he was] afterwards when he saw [it] with his eyes. Even though it wasn't considered a doubt for him before he saw it; but this is the nature [of things], that seeing with the eyes is more effective than intellectual processes. And here, the Omnipresent, may He be blessed, implanted it into nature in the story of creation, when He saw afterwards that this is how it was.

AND G-D SAW THE LIGHT, THAT IT WAS GOOD. Rabbi Shlomo [Rashi] wrote: “Here too⁷⁵A reference to Rashi’s similar comment on the first word of the Torah — bereshith (see above). The difficulty here in the text is twofold: (a) It is first written, and darkness was upon the face of the deep, and then G—d said, Let there be light. Thus there already was a separation between light and darkness. Why then does Scripture continue by stating, and G—d divided the light from the darkness? (b) Concerning all other acts of creation, the expression “And G—d saw that it was good” is found at the completion of the act of creation, while here this phrase is written (in the beginning of Verse 4) before the completion. The Agadah, which Rashi quotes, answers: (a) vayavdel means here that He set apart the light for the righteous in the world to come. (b) ki tov (that it was good) could not have been written after the separation of the light for the righteous from the ordinary light, since the remaining light was no longer perfect. Therefore, ki tov is mentioned before the setting aside of the light. we must depend on the words of the homiletic Agadah G-d saw that the wicked were unworthy of using the light, and so He set it aside for the righteous in the World to Come. But according to the plain meaning of the verse, explain it thus: He saw that the light was good, and that it was not seemly for it and the darkness to function in a confused manner. He therefore assigned the one’s sphere of activity to the daytime and the one’s sphere of activity to the nighttime.”
And Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra said: “The word vayar (and He saw) has the same meaning here as in Vera’iti ani (And I saw),⁷⁶Daniel 10:7. which refers to the thought in the heart. And He divided refers to His giving them different names.”⁷⁷Ibn Ezra’s opinion is thus that the division was not because it was unseemly that the light and darkness function in a confused manner, but it was for the purpose of assigning each one a separate name.
But the words of both Rashi and Ibn Ezra are incorrect for if they were, it would appear that there was on the part of G-d a change of mind and new counsel, as if to say that after G-d said, ‘Let there be light’ and there was light, He saw that it was good, and therefore He divided between it and darkness just as a human being who does not know the nature of something until it comes into existence! Rather, the order followed in the process of creation is that the bringing forth of things into actual existence is called amirah (saying). Thus: And G-d said, ‘Let there be light;’ And G-d said, ‘Let there be a firmament;’⁷⁸Verse 6. And G-d said, ‘Let the earth put forth grass.’⁷⁹Verse 11. And the permanence of things called forth into existence is called re’iyah (seeing), as And I saw in Ecclesiastes,⁸⁰2:13. and similarly, And the woman saw that the tree was good for food.⁸¹Genesis 3:6. In the language of the Rabbis we also find, “I see the words of Admon.”⁸²Kethuboth 109a. Likewise, And the king said unto Zadok the priest, ‘Seest thou? return into the city in peace.’⁸³II Samuel 15:27. The purport of the word “seeing” is thus to indicate that their continuing existence is at His Will, and if that Will should for a second depart from them, they will turn into nought. Now just as Scripture says in connection with the work of each day, And G-d saw that it was good and on the sixth day when everything was completed it says, And G-d saw everything that He had made, and behold, it was very good,⁸⁴Verse 31. so does it say on the first day when light came into existence, And G-d saw … that it was good, meaning He desired its existence forever. The verse adds “the light” [And G-d saw ‘the light’ that it was good], because had it just said, “And G-d saw that it was good,” it would have referred to the creation of the heaven and the earth, and at that time He had not yet decreed for them permanence, as they did not remain as they were. Instead, from the substance created on the first day, the firmament was made on the second day, and on the third the waters and the dust were separated and the dry land — which He called “earth” — was formed. He then decreed for them permanence, and said concerning them, And G-d saw that it was good.⁸⁵Verse 10.

The light: has a numerical equivalent (gematria) of 'in the Torah' and adds up to six hundred and thirteen (the traditional numerical sum of the Torah's commandments).

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.

וירא אלוקים את האור כי טוב, ”G’d saw that the light was good, etc.” According to Rashi, G’d saw that it was not good to employ light and darkness simultaneously, that this created confusion, and as a result He assigned to both light and darkness specific periods in which each would be sovereign. Nachmanides questions Rashi’s interpretation, saying that if we were to accept this we would have to posit that G’d did not know that light and darkness functioning simultaneously would be unsatisfactory, and that He learned “from experience.” [This would appear heretical, denying G’d being all knowing, and describing Him as reacting to new circumstances and new insights instead of having allowed for them from the start. Ed.] Nachmanides therefore understands the word אמירה, ויאמר, as meaning: “to convert a potential into an actual.” Accordingly, such statements in the Torah as ויאמר יהי אור, ויאמר יהי רקיע, must be understood as a command to at that time convert something which had existed only as a potential, theoretically, being converted into reality. A new reality becoming enduring is called ראייה, seeing. A well known example of the use of the word ראייה in this sense is the phrase רואה אני את דברי אדמון, which means: “I confirm and consider as correct and binding the words of Admon.” Every statement in the Torah describing G’d as “seeing,” means that the manner in which His instructions had materialized was “good,” i.e. וירא אלוקים כי טוב, means that G’d was satisfied that the new reality would endure. On the sixth day we read of G’d “saying” וירא אלוקים את כל אשר עשה והנה טוב מאד, G’d decided that the entire universe as it presented itself to Him upon completion was fit to endure. When the Torah describes G’d as saying on the first day after the light had become a reality, וירא אלוקים את האור כי טוב, adding the apparently superfluous words את האור, the reason is that without these words the reader would have construed the Torah as describing G’d’s reaction to the creation of שמים וארץ instead of the creation of אור. It would have been incorrect to describe G’d as having already decreed that the universe was to endure before He had completed the whole universe as planned. As long as only the raw materials תהו ובהו, the elements used to create heaven and earth existed, no guarantee existed that they would endure. On the days following, the raw materials needed to form an atmosphere, create solid masses of earth, etc., were created, and thus the permanence of the original “embryo” of a universe was assured. What is described during the second day (stage) of creation was incomplete, and therefore the words וירא אלוקים כי טוב is not found until halfway through the third day when that part of creation had been completed.

The Aggadaic explanation is necessary. This is because the verse’s simple meaning implies that light and darkness originally were mingled, for “to divide” is said only about things that are mingled with each other. But this cannot be true here, since darkness disappears the moment there is light. The two cannot exist simultaneously. (Re’m) [Alternatively,] Rashi’s question was as follows: How could Hashem establish that the darkness be bounded by the night, when this division did not actually take place until the fourth day, on which it is written (v. 14): “To divide between the day and the night”? Therefore, the Aggadaic explanation is necessary. (Nachalas Yaakov)

וירא א' את האור כי טוב und so bei den folgenden Schöpfungen: וירא אי כי טוב und am Schlusse des Schöpfungswerkes: וירא א' את כל אשר עשה והנה טוב מאד alle diese den einzelnen Schöpfungen und dem Abschluss des ganzen Schöpfungswerkes nachfolgenden Sätze sollen, wenn wir sie recht verstehen, die große Wahrheit niederlegen: dass nicht nur das Werden der Dinge, sondern auch das Bestehen und die Forterhaltung derselben unmittelbar von dem freien göttlichen Willen und seinem Wohlgefallen bedingt ist. Einem menschlichen Schöpfer entzieht sich meist das Werk nachdem es durch seine Kunst geworden. Es ward durch ihn, allein es besteht fortan durch sich selbst; ja, wie oft wächst der sterblichen Hand das Werk über den Kopf; sie hatte die Macht es zu schaffen, sie konnte Kräfte entfesseln und einen, allein sie vermöchte nicht das Werk, das sie selbst hervorgerufen, wieder zu meistern, vermöchte die Kräfte, die sie entfesselt, nicht mehr zu zügeln, es fehlt ihr der Zauber, die Geister, die sie wach gerufen, wieder zu bannen, das Geschöpf überragt überwältigend den Schöpfer, er ist nicht mehr Meister des eigenen Werkes. Nicht also Gott und seine Welt. Das Einzelne und das Ganze ist nicht nur geworden durch seinen allmächtigen Willen, es besteht, auch nachdem es geworden, nur weil seine Einsicht das Fortbestehen für gut findet; auch nachdem es geworden schaut er sein Werk an und lässt es fortbestehen, weil es ihm wohlgefällt, so lange es ihm wohlgefällt.

וירא אלוקים את האור, “G-d saw the light;” the meaning of the word: וירא in this verse is that He contemplated, understood the impact that this light had made. In other words, this was “seeing” with one’s heart; we find the verb ראה used in this sense also in Exodus 12,13, where G-d is described as “‏וראיתי את הדם,” “When I take note of the blood” (on the entrance of the homes of the Israelites”); we find it used again use in that sense in Exodus 33,12, as well as in Kohelet 2,17. Even though everything in the past present and the future is “visible” to the Lord, it is impossible to explain the word here in the usual sense of seeing with one’s eyes.

ויבדל אלוקים בין האור ובין החושך, He arranged for the day to be divided into 12 hours of daylight and 12 hours of night. The day commences with a period of light and concludes with a period of darkness. The reason is that the beginning of directives issued during the creative process commenced with the command: “let there be light.”

ויבדל אלוקים בין האור ובין החשך, the days (prior to the fourth day when the sun was placed in orbit) during which use was made of the “original light,” periods of light and darkness alternated due to causes other than the revolving of the planet around its own axis, i.e. due to the direct expression of G’d’s desire. He ensured that periods of light alternated with periods of darkness.

And He separated, etc.: He ordained that they should not be mixed in one another, but [rather] when there is light, there should not [also] be darkness, and when there is darkness, there should not [also] be light. And it says this (even though there was no need to say it), because according to the opinion of the ancients, darkness was not only the absence of light, but [rather] it too was a substance. As the matter is stated, "He forms the light and creates the darkness" (Isaiah 45:7); and so [too], "Where is the path [to[ where the light dwells, and darkness, where is its place" (Job 38:19). And hence the nations would attribute the light to one god and the darkness to [another] one. And the Holy One, blessed be He, wanted to inform His people that He, may He be blessed, is the Master of the light and the darkness; and from Him alone are all of their laws.

The light: And it is not written like in every [other] section, "and God saw that it was good." Since there are two understandings of the phrase, "that it was good:" A) That the thing was good for the goal for which it was needed. Even though its main purpose is not for a good goal, nonetheless according to what is needed, the thing is good; B) It is really good. And behold, in all of the creation, there are several things that are not good, like types of pests, but the Holy One, blessed be He, saw that for the sake of the creation, it was necessary that it be this way. But light is definitively good. So much, that [it is said about] any good thing that it is light, as it is found (in Ta'anit 7 and Bereshit Rabbah 26), every [time the word,] light is mentioned with Eliyahu, the verse is speaking about rain. And that is because [rain] brings good to the world. (And Ramban in the beginning of Parshat Miketz gives a forced explanation of the matter.) And so, all success is referred to as a 'bright day' and the lack of success, darkness of night.' To the point where the poet made [it] a metaphor and said (Psalms 121:6), At day, the sun does not dim and the moon at night. And later (Genesis 28:15), we explained that the intention is about the time of success and its lack. And this is the expression of Scripture [that tells us] that the Omnipresent saw that light was intrinsically good.

Et haohr ki tov (the light, that it was good): The last letters [of which] form the acronym, brit (covenant). And God saw the light that it was good and He separated: From here [we learn], that we do not make a blessing on the candle [at the Havdalah (separation) service] until we derive use from its light; and [that last phrase] adds up to the numerical equivalent of 'and He separated - we separate during the year at the end of the Shabbats.'

ויבדל אלוקים בין האור ובין החושך. “G’d separated the light from the darkness.” The word חושך in this verse does not refer to the same חושך as in verse 1. There it had referred to black fire, whereas here it refers to a mere absence of light. This absence of light occurred as G’d had allocated to the light a certain length of time during which it would shine before it would again shine after an interval had elapsed. Nachmanides writes that some commentators believe that the light of which our verse speaks had been created by G’d in anticipation of His creating the universe and that it had been held in “reserve” for the moment when it would be required. It had been created in the “West,” meaning immediately before nightfall, so that it had not actually functioned before the darkness referred to in verse one. This would explain the grammar in the line ויהי ערב ויהי בוקר, an indication that the light had preceded night followed by the first morning of .the first day. [seeing that the terms “day” and “night” prior to the time when the sun and moon were placed in the sky is different from the way we understand these words today, speculations on the subject are no more than natural. Ed.]

He saw that it was not fitting... Ramban objected: This makes it seem that Hashem reconsidered and changed His plan. For Hashem said, “Let there be light” and then “He saw that the light was good” and had to set it apart — implying that at first, He did not know that the light would be good. And this is far from the truth! Re’m deflected this objection, saying that such an idea is mentioned later as well, [regarding Generation of the Flood]: “Adonoy saw that man’s wickedness had increased... and Adonoy’s thought turned...” [as Rashi explains it there (6:5)]. Nachalas Yaakov challenged Re’m: Although Hashem reconsidered in v. 6:5, it is no proof for our issue, since everything is in the hands of Heaven except for the fear of Heaven. [And there they sinned greatly, bringing about Hashem’s change of thought].

AND G-D DIVIDED THE LIGHT FROM THE DARKNESS. This is not “the darkness” mentioned in the first verse⁸⁶“First verse.” It is actually mentioned in Verse 2. However, in view of Ramban’s interpretation above that the first two verses tell of everything else to come, he refers to Verse 2 as “the first verse.” which, as explained above, refers to the element of fire; rather, the “darkness” mentioned here means the absence of light, since G-d gave a length of time to the light and decreed that it be absent afterwards until it returns.
Now some commentators⁸⁷Reference here is to Yehuda Halevi who, in his philosophic work Al Khazari, sets forth this theory: The first light was created at the time of sunset, and it was an illumination which soon passed away, leaving the world in darkness. The established order was then that night preceded day, as it is written, It was evening and it was morning (2:20, Hirschfeld’s translation). See also my Hebrew commentary, 2d edition, p. 547, that Ramban may also refer here to Rabbeinu Zerachyah Halevi, who was of a similar opinion. have said that this light was created in front of the Holy One, blessed be He, that is to say, in the west,⁸⁸In accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Abahu who says, “The Divine Presence is in the West” (Baba Bathra 25a). and He immediately caused it to disappear for the period of the night, and afterwards it gave light for the period of the day. This is the reason for the verse, And there was evening and there was morning, since the night came first and afterwards the day, and both of them came after the existence of the light.
But this is not correct at all, for in this way they might add a short day to the six days of creation.⁸⁹Since night and day were after the creation of light, and light was created at the time of sunset, it follows that there was a short day (that is, light without darkness) preceding the first day. Thus a short day is added to the six days of creation. It is possible, however, to say that the light was created in front of Him, blessed be He, but did not extend over the four elements mentioned [in the second verse, as explained above] and then He divided between it and the darkness by assigning to each a certain period. Light now remained before Him for the length of night, and then in the morning, He caused the light to shine upon the elements. In this way night preceded day.
It is further possible that we should say that when the heavens and the earth came forth from nought into existence, as mentioned in the first verse, time came into being, for although our time consisting of minutes and hours is measured in light and darkness, yet from the moment some substance came into existence time was already part of it. If so, after the heavens and the earth were created they so remained for the length of a night without light. Then He said, ‘Let there be light,’ and there was light, and He decreed that it remain the same period as the first, and that after that it be absent from the elements. Thus, there was evening, and there was morning.

Die Konstruktion aber, in welcher gleich das Anschauen des ersten Werkes vorgeführt wird, tritt noch einen andern kläglichen Wahn zu Boden. Es heißt nicht: וירא א' כי טוב האור, wie ותרא האשה כי טוב העץ למאכל und in allen ähnlichen Sätzen, mit vielleicht nur einer einzigen Ausnahme, sondern: וירא א' את האור כי טוב, nicht: Gott sah, dass das Licht gut sei, sondern: Gott sah das Licht, dass es gut sei. Es ist damit die völlige Objektivität des Geschöpfes dem Schöpfer, der Welt Gott gegenüber, ausgesprochen, und damit allen jenen Wahngedanken entgegen getreten, die den Meister in sein Werk, die den Schöpfer in die Schöpfung, die Gott in die Welt aufgehen lassen, die Immanenz Gottes in der Welt lehren und damit Gott zum Welt-Geist, zur WeltSeele, immerhin zu einer Natur-Kraft hinabziehen, die außer der Welt und ohne die Welt kein Dasein hat. Nicht also. Nachdem Gott das Einzelne und das Ganze geschaffen hatte, schaute er es an. Das Werk befindet sich somit außerhalb des Meisters, Gott außerhalb der Welt. ברא, Er hat sie hinausgestellt, אמר יהי ויהי, Er ließ seine Gedanken körperliche Objektivität gewinnen — (הגה היה חיה, siehe oben) — nicht wie der Leib zur Seele, nicht wie der Organismus zur Kraft, wie das Werk zum Meister verhält sich die Welt zu Gott und — wie wir gesehen haben — in noch unendlich erhabenerer Höhe steht Gott über der Welt. In ewiger Abhängigkeit bleibt sein Werk von Ihm, in ewiger Unabhängigkeit von seinem Werke Er. Nur weil Gott, und so lange er sein geschaffenes Werk anschaut, dass es gut sei, besteht es fort.

ויבדל אלוקים, “G-d made a distinction;” this referred to the earliest point in time that was possible, i.e. on the fourth day, (1,18) after the luminaries had been created. We find a similar example of when the Torah reports something as the ultimate purpose before it could be carried out when the Torah describes G-d as having created man as “male and female” (1,28) זכר ונקבה ברא אותם, although the Torah had not yet told us that G-d took part of Adam’s body to create woman. (2,22) In both instances the Torah reveals G-d‘s ultimate purpose already when it reports G-d as having made the first step in that process. Some commentators understand the word ויבדל as telling us that G-d already named the result of what He did in advance by naming it “day” and “night,” respectively. (verse 5)

And God separated between the light and the darkness: The meaning of separation has two understandings: A) A partition that separates between two things that are the same or different; B) A spiritual separation between two things - that appear to the human eye to be the same - like the separation between a day that is holy and [one that is] profane, since according to how it appears, what is the difference between one day and the next? Or the separation between [something] pure and impure, and many others. And here it should not be explained in the second way. Since light and darkness are anyway different to our sight, and are the opposite of each other. But rather [it should be explained] in the first [way], that he made a screen to separate. Which means [that this screen is found] in the time that is not light and not darkness. And so the Omnipresent, may He be blessed, implanted that the darkness should not come immediately after the light; but rather that the light should diminish continuously until it becomes dark. And behold, we find in Scripture that sometimes it is written "that separates this from that," and sometimes it is written that "separates between this and that." Meaning that where there is not, in the matter of the separation, an attenuated version of this and that, it is written, "from." And where there is an attenuated version of this and that, in the matter of the separation, it is written, "between this and that." (And see Exodus 8:19 and Exodus 26:33 and in several places, and so is it in every place, by the will of the Highest, may He be blessed.) And here it is according to our words; that the hour that separates them is sometimes closer to the light and sometimes closer to the darkness. And so is the nature of creation in all things that are deemed light and darkness, that there is a [gradual] distinction between them. And in this way man is able to tolerate the difference, according to the way of nature.

He set it apart for the righteous. I.e., “good” in our verse refers to the righteous one. Thus Hashem “divided,” to set apart the righteous one, who is light, from the wicked one, who is darkness. (Re’m)

Diese Meisterschaft des Schöpfers über sein geschaffenes Werk, auch nachdem es geworden, bekundet sich sofort, indem Er ויבדל א' בין האור ובין החשך, ordnend und Grenze setzend eintritt zwischen das neu geschaffene Licht und die alte Finsternis. Beide sollen fortan die Erde beherrschen, beide auf Erden wirksam sein: das Alles zum Einzeldasein weckende Licht, und das der innern Durchdringung und erstarkenden Ineinanderwirkung der Kräfte durch reizlose Abspannung Raum gebende Dunkel. Nicht maßlos wirken soll das Licht, beide, Licht und Finsternis, erhalten ihr Gebiet, und Gott ist's wiederum, derselbe Gott, der "Licht!" in die Finsternis rief, der, mit seiner Allmacht ordnend und Grenze setzend eintritt zwischen diese beiden größten und wichtigsten Gegensätze, die fortan die Erdwelt, Stoff sammelnd und Form gestaltend, stärkend und Leben weckend, beherrschen. Gott schied zwischen Licht und Finsternis. Wie die Wurzel der Pflanze ein Kind der Dunkelheit ist, Stamm mit Blatt und Blütenkrone ein Sohn des Lichts, so ist Finsternis und Licht, Nacht und Tag, Mutter und Vater eines jeden organischen Wesens. Alles Leben keimt im lichtlosen nächtlichen Schoße, alles reift zur Selbständigkeit unter dem Strahl des Lichts. Und das ganze hieniedige Dasein hindurch geleitet dieser Wechsel. In unserm zeitlichen Hiersein ertragen wir nicht das ewige Licht. Haben wir zwölf Stunden im Strahle des Lichtes alle unsere Kräfte in selbständigem Streben und Wirken geübt, sinken wir erschlafft in die alte Nacht zurück und trinken wieder, umhüllt von dem mütterlichen Fittig der Nacht, erst neue Kräfte, um wiederum ein neues Lichtdasein entfalten zu können.

In confusion. This means that one territory would have light while another has darkness. Or, it means hours: it would be day for one hour and then night for two hours, and then the opposite; that was the confusion. But it cannot mean light and darkness simultaneously, because this is impossible, as explained earlier (בד"ה צריכין לדברי אגדה). Accordingly, “Elohim divided” means that He divided their times; one to be bounded by the day, and the other, by the night.

בדל ist nicht wie כרת, שבר, פרד einfach: trennen, ein negatives Sondern von dem Andern, sondern zugleich ein positives Gebietanweisen, ein Trennen von dem Andern, um ein gesondertes Gebiet, eine besondere Existenz, eine besondere Bestimmung zu geben. So הבדלת ערי מקלט, הבדלת ישראל, הבדלת קדש, הבדלת פרכת, הבדלת לוים. Verwandt damit ist בתולה :בתל, die noch eine gesonderte Existenz hat, noch nicht mit einem Manne verbunden ist. Auch פתיל, פתל: die zu einer besondern Schnur gedrehten Fäden, und צמיד פתיל: der das Gefäß zu einem von dem ganzen Umraum, somit auch von der טומאה, gesonderten Behälter abschließende Deckel. Daher auch הפתל: um seine Selb- ständigkeit, seine Geltung mit jemandem kämpfen, oder vielmehr: sich seine Selbständigkeit, seine Geltung von jemandem erringen. Im rabb. בטל hat es meist die positive Seite verloren, jedoch in עשרה בטלנים, zur Bezeichnung der für Gemeindeangelegenheiten Mußehabenden, ist das Positive noch vorhanden, ja überwiegend.