Itshaq Abravanel’s commentary on the Book of Genesis (Bereshit), ch.1
Here is the beginning of Itshaq Abravanel’s commentary on the Book of Genesis. Abravanel was a major figure in 15th-century Judaism. Born in Lisbon in 1437, he was initially an advisor and treasurer to King Alfonso V of Portugal. Upon the king’s death, he was forced to flee to Castile in 1483, where, after some time, he entered the service of King Ferdinand II of Aragon. Although highly regarded at the Spanish court, he was forced into exile once again during the expulsion of the Jews from Spain in 1492. He found refuge at the court of the King of Naples and followed him to Messina in 1495, when the French army drove the king out of Naples. He then followed him to Corfu, Monopoli and finally settled in Venice in 1503, where he worked on trade negotiations between Venice and Portugal. Each time, he was an ardent defender of his people and committed his fortune to their defense. Having been educated in classical languages and literature according with the Renaissance interest in antiquity, the biblical commentaries he continued to write throughout his life demonstrate his great erudition. All types of opinion are taken into consideration:
those of philosophers:
Greek (Aristotle, Plato, etc.), Christian (Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, etc.), Arab (Avicenna, Al-Ghazali, Averroes, etc.)
Jewish (Maimonides, Ibn Gabirol, Gersonides (Rav Levi ben Gershon, acronym Ralbag, France 1288-1344)
and also those of Jewish commentators on the Bible who looked at the entire Jewish tradition, starting with the Talmud, the ancient Midrashim, and the sages who followed, such as:
- Saadia Gaon (in Hebrew רב סעדיה בן יוסף גאון סורא Rav Saadia ben Yosseph Gaon Soura, acronym Rassag (רס״ג), Egypt, ~882-Babylonia 942)
- Rav Abraham ben Meir ibn Ezra (in Hebrew אברהם אבן עזרא, Spain ~1092 – ~1167)
- Rabbi Shlomo ben Yitzhak HaTzarfati (Hebrew: רבי שלמה בן יצחק הצרפתי known by the acronym Rashi, born and died in Troyes ~1040-1105)
- Nahmanides (Gerona, 1194 – Acre, 1270, known by the acronym Ramban, for Rabbi Moses ben Nahman) and many others.
Here are some excerpts from the very beginning of his commentary on the first verse of Genesis, where he reviews the opinions of Jews and non-Jews. Other articles will follow to present Itshaq Abravanel’s personal opinion on the first word of Genesis and on the first verse as a whole.
Bereshit
השאלה הראשונה בפסוק ‘בראשית ברא אלהים וגו׳. והיא: שאם בא הכתוב לספר סדר הבריאה ומה הוא אשר קדם בה, היאך יאמר שראשונה ברא את השמים ואת הארץ, כי הנה בהם יוכללו הנמצאים הגשמיים עליונים ותחתונים , ואם כל זה ברא בראשונה מה הוא אשר ברא אחר כך ? ס
First question on the verse “Bereshit bara’ elohim, etc.”: If the Scripture wanted to talk about the order (seder) of creation and what came before it, why would it say that first He created the heavens and the earth, since these include the material things above and below? And if He created all of this first, what did He create after that?
The commentary on the first verse of the Bible begins by discussing the meaning of the word “Bereshit.” If we attribute to it the meaning of “first,” “at first,” and thus think that this text from the book of Genesis is telling us about creation from a chronological perspective, then what follows is no longer understandable. Indeed, if we translate this verse as “At first God created the heavens and the earth,” we see that everything was created in this way, that which is above in the heavens and that which is below on the earth. The commentator then wonders what purpose the rest of the verses would serve if the entire work had already been accomplished in the first verse.
והמפרשים תירצו זה באומרם, שלא בא הכתוב לספר סדר הבריאה, אבל שמילת בראשית היא סמוכה, יאמר: בראשית ברוא אלהים את השמים ואת הארץ, הארץ היתה תהו ובוהו. זהו דרך רש״י והראב״ע. ונמשך אחריהם הרלב״ג, אם לא שהוא עושה גזרת הכתובים במאמר ׳יהי אור׳. ויאמר הכתוב לדעתו: בראשית ברוא אלהים את השמים ואת הארץ, והיות הארץ תהו ובהו וגר’ ויאמר אלהים יהי אור. ס
The commentators justify this by saying that the Scripture does not refer to the order of creation, but that the word “bereshit” is in the constructed state (samukha: a grammatical term meaning attached to the following, supported by the following). It should therefore be read: At the beginning of God’s act of creating the heavens and the earth, the earth was “tohu va vohu.” This is the path followed by Rashi and Rabbi Abraham Ibn Ezra. Rabbi Levi ben Gershon also followed them, but he cut the verses (literally: made a cut in the writings ‘osseh gezerat haketuvim) differently at the words “Let there be light.” So that, according to him, it reads: “In the beginning of God’s creation of heaven and earth, the earth was tohu va vohu, … and God said, ‘Let there be light.’”
In order to better understand these interpretations of the Bible, it is necessary to provide some grammatical explanations. The expression “construct state” indicates the relationship of dependence (genitive) between two words, for example: “the king’s horse,” where the first word is determined by the second, it is attached to the second in order to derive a determination from it. The second word adds something to the meaning of the first. Thus, the famous Bible commentators, Rabbi Shlomo ben Yitzhak HaTzarfati, known as Rashi, and Rabbi Abraham ben Meir Ibn ‘Ezra, offer a particular reading of the first two words of the Bible: they unite them with each other. To do this, the two names placed in a relationship of specification, the construct state (genitive), must be two nouns. However, it should be noted that ancient Hebrew writing omitted vowels, with only consonants sufficient to ensure the reading of a text learned by heart. Therefore, it was only later that a system of vowel notation was added using dots and lines above and below the consonants. According to this notation, the consonants of the first two words (brshyt br’) are read “bereshit bara”, which can be translated as “in the beginning he created.” But by vocalizing differently, we can also read “bereshit bero’.” Here, the word “bero’” is the nominal form of the verb bara’, meaning “to create,” the act of creating. Therefore, these two words can be joined together, the first based on the second, to mean “at the beginning of the act of creating.” Next, to complete the sentence, the act of creating must also be linked to its subject: it is indeed God’s act of creation, accomplished by God, God’s creation. We should therefore understand that the first verse tells us about the beginning of the creation of heaven and earth, when they did not yet exist, and it tells us how, by what means, it all began, by saying, “Let there be light.” This additional explanation is that of Rabbi Levi ben Gershon, known as Gershonide, who links the verses together up to the words: “Let there be light.” That is to say: “At the beginning of God’s act of creating heaven and earth (the earth being ”tohu va vohu“ and darkness on the surface of the abyss and the spirit of God hovering over the surface of the waters), God said, ‘Let there be light.’” Thus, Gersonides brings together these first three verses into one. It should be remembered that we are here in the commentary on the first word of the Genesis account, “bereshit” in the beginning, which, according to this interpretation, is directly linked by its meaning to “Let there be light” so as to be understood as: In the beginning of creation … God said, “Let there be light.”
However, Rabbi Itshaq Abravanel does not agree with this reading and introduces us to many other interpretations of this verse.
ואין הפירוש הזה בכללו נכון אצלי, לפי שיתחייב ממנו, שלא זכר הכתוב בעצם ועל הכוונה הראשונה בריאה לשמים ולארץ, שהוא עיקר פינת החידוש ואמונתו. ואם תאמר שאין בזה ביטול, לפי שנזכרה אחר כך בריאת השמים במעשה הרקיע – מה נאמר לארץ שלא נזכרה בה עוד בריאה. גם שיקשה מאד שיאמר הכתוב שהארץ היתה תהו ובהו קודם שיזכור שהיתה נבראת, ושיודיע הכתוב ענייני הארץ והמים והרוח והחושך, קודם שיזכור בריאת השמים הקודמים לכל
This interpretation is not at all correct in my opinion, for it results that the Scripture does not mention its first intention, the creation of the heavens and the earth, which is the fundamental core of its innovative announcement and its faith. And if one says that this is not so, since after this the creation of the heavens is mentioned in the creation of the firmament, what do we say about the earth, whose creation is no longer mentioned? It would also be very difficult for the text to say that the earth was “tohu va vohu” before mentioning that it was created, and also to reveal what concerns the earth, the waters, and the darkness before mentioning the creation of the heavens and all that precedes them.
According to Rabbi Abravanel, if we interpret the first verse as an introduction to the first act of creation, which is that of light, saying that in the beginning of all this work God said, “Let there be light,” then we will have skipped the essential. According to him, if we do not translate “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,” but “In the beginning of creation… God said, ‘Let there be light,’” then the fundamental message of the Bible is omitted. Indeed, he asserts that the announcement of creation as the work of the Creator is the characteristic of the Bible and of faith. If the Bible no longer asserts that everything that exists was created out of nothing, then we return to the ideas of the ancient philosophers who spoke of a pre-existing and eternal matter (hylé) that was shaped by God, as we shall see in the rest of the commentary.
והראב”ע פירש השמים והארץ הנזכרים בפסוק הזה – על הרקיע, שהוא לדעתו חלק מהאוויר ועל היבשה הנגלית. נמשך לדעתו שלא נזכר במעשה בראשית דבר מהעליונים, אלא מהיסודות ומורכביהם. וכפי דרכו זה אין לנו בכתובי התורה עדויות על בריאת עולם בכללו כי אם על בריאת העולם השפל בלבד […] ס
Rabbi Abraham Ibn Ezrah interprets the sky and the earth mentioned in this verse as (referring to) the firmament, which, according to him, is a part of the air and of (the earth) that appeared. It follows, according to him, that in the work of creation there is no mention of beings above, but only of the basic elements and their compounds. According to this understanding, there is no testimony for us in the writings of the Torah about the creation of the world as a whole, but only about the creation of the lower world. […]
A theme dear to Rabbi Abravanel is that of angels, also called “heavenly armies” in Scripture. It is therefore said that if we see in the heavens and the earth all the elements deployed on the second day, which are above and below the waters, we reduce creation to the visible elements, whereas we can read in the heavens and the earth everything that relates to them and will also come from them, including the heavenly creatures.
אמנם הרמב”ן קיבל, שבא הכתוב לספר סוד הבריאה, וכתב שברא הקדוש ברוך הוא מהאין המוחלט, ביום הראשון לבד, שני חומרים מבלי צורה, כוחניים בטבעם, כענין ההיולי הראשון שזכרו פלוסופים. ושמאחד מהם עשה אחר כך כל הדברים העליונים, ומהאחר עשה כל הדברים התחתונים. ושעל שני החומרים הכוחניים ההם אמר ״בראשית ברא אלהים את השמים ואת הארץ״, שהם אשר נבראו בתחילה […] ס
Indeed, Ramban (Rabbi Moses ben Nahman, known as Nahmanides, a 12th-century rabbi from Girona, 1194 – Acre, 1270), received (the tradition) that Scripture wants to recount the foundation of creation and writes that the Holy One, blessed be He, created from absolute nothingness only on the first day: (He created) two formless substances, in potentiality in their nature, like the “hylé” first named by the philosophers. And that from one of them he made all things above, and from the other he made all things below. And that it is of these two materials in potentiality that Scripture says: “In the beginning Elohim made the heavens and the earth,” for it was these that were created in the beginning. […]
Here we find a rabbi, Nahmanides, who gives voice to a tradition that speaks of a primary matter from which everything was formed. Rabbi Abravanel points out that this corresponds to what the ancient philosophers call “hylé,” matter. However, Rabbi Abravanel, well versed in philosophical concepts and the arguments of philosophers, quotes Aristotle, who tells us that two distinct potential materials cannot exist because “that which is in potentiality cannot be distinguished or recognized from another which is also in potentiality.” He also responds that heaven and earth are realities well endowed with form, defined and visible, which have nothing to do with the pure matter evoked by philosophers.
איך יאמר הכתוב שברא השס השמים והארץ בעבור שברא מהם ההילי בלבד, בהיות ההיולי הדבר וחומרו הוא החלק היותר פחות שבו. ואיך יקרא החומר ההוא הפשוט בשם הנמצא השלם, המורכב מחומר וצורה שהוא שמים וארץ. וכל שכן שיקראם בה”א הידיעה השמים והארץ, שלא תיפול כי אם על הדבר המושג הנראה והידוע מאד, לא על החומר הכוחני הנעלם והחסר שלא עמד בכוחניותו רגע או רגעים. ושני: שאיך אפשר שיהיו נבראים שני חומרים כוחניים בלי צורה, ויהיו נבדלים זה מזה ? כי הנה ההבדל יבוא מצד הפועל והצורה, ומי שאין לו צורה כלל בהיולי לא יצוייר בו הבדל. וכמאמר הפילוסוף שמה שבכוח לא יוכר ויובדל ממה שבכוח
How can Scripture say that the Name (i.e., God) created the heavens and the earth instead of saying that He created from them only the “hylé” (the raw material)? Whereas the “hylé” is the substance, and its matter is the smallest part that is in it. So how can this simple matter be called by the name that encompasses the whole: the composite of matter and form that is the heavens and the earth? Especially since the article for “the” heavens and “the” earth is applied to these terms as well-known things, not to a potential, hidden, and deficient matter that exists in its potentiality for only a moment or two. Secondly: How is it possible that two potential materials without form could be created and be distinct from one another? For here the distinction comes from the agent and the form. What has no form at all in the “hylé,” how can it be distinguished (from another)? As the Philosopher (Aristotle) attests: “That which is in potentiality cannot be recognized or distinguished from that which is in potentiality.”
Rabbi Abravanel states here that what the Scripture says is not compatible with the creation of an unformed matter. The Scripture clearly asserts that “the heaven” and “the earth” which are created correspond to the well known realities which are composed of matter and form. That which is in potentiality is not knowable until it becomes actual. The concept of potentiality is very important in Aristotle’s philosophy. When applied to unformed raw material, it indicates that it can become something, it can take on a form, but this form is not knowable a priori, before it is actual, i.e., before it has actually become this or that existing thing in act. “In act” is the term that applies to something that is effectively, in a determined form, as opposed to something whose form is not yet determined and which is therefore said to be “in potentiality.”
ואין לומר שהיו הצורות בחומרים בכוח, כדעת בן רשד בצורות חומריות כדעת בן רשד בצורות חומריות. כי הוא אינו דעת אמתי, ובפרט בצורה האנושית, שכולי עלמא מודו וגם בן רשד שאינה מכוח ההיולי, כל שכן שירוחק זה מצורות הגלגלים, כי בין שיהיו נפשות בהם או שכלים נבדלים, אי אפשר לומר שהיו בכוח החומר ומהכרחיותו
Nor is it the case to say that the forms were contained in potential matter, as is the opinion of Ibn Rushd (Averroes) on material forms, for his opinion is not true, especially regarding the human form, for everyone acknowledges this, and also Ibn Rushd (Averroes) that it does not come from the power of “hylé,” just as it is far from the forms of the (celestial) spheres, whether they have souls in themselves or are separate intellects, it is not possible that they are in potentiality in matter or that they come from its necessities.
Rabbi Abravanel continues his argument against the philosophers. Ibn Rushd (Averroes), the famous Aristotelian philosopher of Andalusia (1126 Cordoba-1198 Marrakesh), affirmed the creative act while supporting Aristotle’s view on the eternity of the world. Indeed, he asserts, even if the world (and therefore matter) exists eternally, this does not detract from the creative act that created it and has maintains it in the creation since all eternity. It is always up to him, the Creator, to will matter that subsists eternally, and this does not detract from the creative act that brings it into eternal existence. But Abravanel argues against this hypothesis by maintaining that matter can proceed from matter and derive from it, but not the mind, the soul. This comes from a different substrate, whether it be the human soul or that of angels or separate intellects. The ancient philosophers attributed the perpetual motion of the celestial spheres to intellects separate from any bodily form, which kept the spheres in motion eternally, as they were not subject to corruption and death as pure intellects, immaterial and therefore incorruptible. These cannot come from matter, but owe their existence to a creative act, for they obey other laws.
התימה מהמפרשים הקדושים האלה, מי הכיסם בזה הדוחק להניח שנבראו ראשונה חומרים כוחניים מבלי צורות, שמהם נתהוו אחרי כן הדברים כולם. ולמה ברחו להיות נבראים הדברים כולם בצורותיהם בשלמותם. האם מפני שהניחו הפילוסופים חומר היילי בכוח נושא בהויה הטבעית, וילמדו מעשיהם. הנה הם בחרו להניחו, לפי שראו שההוויה לא תהיה מנמצא בפועל אל נמצא בפועל, וקבלו גם כן שההוויה לא תהיה מהעדר. ולכן הוצרכו להניח בהוויה נושא חומרי, נמצא בכוח – אמצעי בין המציאות והעדר. לא כאלה חלק יעקב, כי אנחנו נאמין שנתהווה העולם לא מדבר, אבל אחרי ההעדר הגמור. ואין לנו אם כן להניח היולי קודם בבריאה הראשונה. ס
What astonishment (arouse) these ancient commentators, what could have exerted such pressure on them (that pushed them) to assume that raw materials were created in potentiality without form, that all things were derived from them afterwards? And why did they suppose that all things were created from them with their forms and perfections? Is it because of the philosophers who maintained that the matter of “hylé” in potentiality is the substrate of natural generation and that they learned its works? They chose to uphold their positions (those of the philosophers) because they saw that what comes into existence does not pass from one existing thing “in act” to another existing “in act”, and they also accepted that existence does not come from nothing. That is why they were forced to assume the existence of a material substrate, which lies in potentiality between existence and non-existence. This is not the case for Jacob (that is, for the people of Israel), since we believe that the world did not come into existence from something, but after total nothingness. And so we must not uphold a “hylé” before the first creation.
Here the two positions are summarized in their irreconcilable opposition: those who derive everything from a substrate, a substance, a pre-existing matter by natural generation, and those who affirm the coming into existence from nothing. What is surprising, and at the same time typical of the Renaissance period, is that Abravanel is well aware of his opponents’ opinions, has studied them thoroughly, and has taken the trouble to learn their arguments and reasonings. This is why he engages in dialogue with them, even with those who lived centuries before him. These men, these philosophers whom he opposes, have become his interlocutors, to whom he ultimately addresses his objections. He could have ignored opposing opinions, even those of his fellow believers who adopted them, but instead he spent his life studying them and responding to them. As required by the classical education of his time, he studied the authors of antiquity in all their diversity and followed the evolution of the debate over the centuries, up to his Jewish and non-Jewish contemporaries, as his commentary attests many times.