Jewish philosophy -- Early works to 1800; Judaism -- Works to 1900; Philosophy, Medieval -- Early works to 1800
It is necessary to inquire into the reason why the declaration “that it
was good” is not found in the account of the second day of the
Creation. The various Midrashic sayings of our Sages on this point are
well known; the best of them is the explanation that the creation of
the water was not completed on that day. According to my opinion the
reason is likewise clear, and is as follows: When the creation of any
part of the Universe is described that is permanent, regular, and in a
settled order, the phrase “that it is good” is used. But the account of
the firmament, with that which is above it and is called water, is, as
you see, of a very mysterious character. For if taken literally the
firmament would appear at first thought to be merely an imaginary
thing, as there is no other substance but the elements between us and
the lowest of the heavenly spheres, and there is no water above the
air; and if the firmament, with that which is over it, be supposed to
be above the heavens, it would a fortiori seem to be unreal and
uncomprehensible. But if the account be understood in a figurative
sense and according to its true meaning, it is still more mysterious,
since it was considered necessary to make this one of the most hidden
secrets, in order to prevent the multitude from knowing it. This being
the case, how could it be said [of the creation of the second day]
“that it was good”? This phrase would tell us that it is perfectly
clear what share the thing to which it refers takes in the permanent
existence of the Universe. But what good can people find in a thing
whose real nature is hidden, and whose apparent nature is not real?
Why, therefore, should it be said in reference to it, “that it was
good”? I must, however, give the following additional explanation.
Although the result of the second day’s creation forms an important
element among the existing things, the firmament was not its primary
object in the organization of the Universe, and therefore it could not
be said “that it was good”; it was only the means for the uncovering of
the earth. Note this. Our Sages have already explained that the herbs
and trees, which God caused to spring forth from the ground, were
caused by God to grow, after He had sent down rain upon them; and the
passage beginning, “And there went up a mist from the earth” (ii. 6),
refers to that which took place before the creative act, related in the
words, “Let the earth bring forth grass,” etc. (i. ii.). Therefore
Onkelos translates it: “And there had gone up a mist from the earth.”
It is also evident from the text itself, where it is distinctly said,
“And every plant in the field before it was in the earth,” etc. (ii.
5). This question is now explained.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account