In the beginning of Genesis, on the first day of creation, it states:[1] “And G-d said, ‘let there be light!’ and there was light. And G-d saw the light, that it was good, and G-d separated between the light and between the darkness, and G-d called the light day, and the darkness he called night. It was evening, it was morning, one day.” Similarly, on the fourth day, it states:[2] “Let there be luminaries in the expanse of the heavens, to separate between the day and between the night.” The Talmud (Chagigah 12a) poses a question:
And was light created on the first day? But isn’t it written: “And God set them in the firmament of the heaven” (Genesis 1:17), and it is also written: “And there was evening, and there was morning, a fourth day” (Genesis 1:19), indicating that light was created on the fourth day.
The Talmud answers with two opinions, the Rabbis and Rabbi Yaakov, whether the light of day one and four are the same or different:
This is like a dispute between tanna’im: The light that the Holy One, Blessed be He, created on the first day was so profound that man could observe through it from one end of the world to the other; this is the statement of Rabbi Ya’akov. And the Rabbis say: This light is the very same as the lights created on the first day, but they were not suspended in their designated places in the firmament until the fourth day.
In describing the opinion that the light of day one was a different light, the Talmud describes the nature of this light and why it was concealed:
This should be understood in accordance with Rabbi Elazar, as Rabbi Elazar said: The light that the Holy One, Blessed be He, created on the first day was not that of the sun but a different kind of light, through which man could observe from one end of the world to the other. But when the Holy One, Blessed be He, looked upon the generation of the Flood and the generation of the Dispersion and saw that their ways were corrupt and that they might misuse this light for evil, He arose and concealed it from them, as it is stated: “And from the wicked their light is withheld” (Job 38:15). And for whom did He conceal it? For the righteous people in the future, as it is stated: “And God saw the light, that it was good” (Genesis 1:4), and “good” is referring to none other than the righteous, as it is stated: “Say of the righteous that it shall be good for them, for they shall eat the fruit of their actions” (Isaiah 3:10). When the light saw that it had been concealed for the righteous, it rejoiced, as it is stated: “The light for the righteous shall rejoice” (Proverbs 13:9).
In this essay, we will explore the tension between the two statements about the creation of light in creation in more detail, followed by an analysis of the commentary of Rashi, as found in the manuscripts of Rashi at Oxford. We will argue that the different opinions on this subject explains some of the many variants found in the manuscripts of Rashi at Oxford.
Opinions on the light of creation
We will first outline the numerous views about the nature of the light of the first day. According to Yehudah Halevi, there was light at sunset on the eve of the first day, followed by darkness and then light (morning), as it states: ‘There was evening and there was morning, day one.’ This suggests six days, plus a partial day, of creation.
According to Rabbi Mordechai Jaffe (1530-1612), in Levush ha-orah, and Abravanel,[3] on the first day, the light was created, but remained above and did not illuminate on earth until the fourth day, thus there was darkness until the fourth day. According to Nachmanides,[4] on the first day, light was created and illuminated the elements (ha-yesodot), but on the second day, when the heaven was created, separating between the upper and lower, the light was blocked. On the third day there was darkness. On the fourth day, the luminaries began to shine. According to Rabbi Yosef Colon, known as the Maharik, and Rabbi Odaniah Bartenura, in the beginning there was only darkness. On the first day, light was created, separate from the darkness. According to this, the phrase: ‘and He separated’ in Genesis 1:3 is redundant.[5] Alternatively, it is a reflection of the above separation.[6] Thus, the light and darkness were never mixed.
According to the sages in Chagigah 12a and Genesis Rabbah, light was created on the first day but were only fixed in their places, beginning to shine, on the fourth day. This is also the view of Maimonides (Guide for the Perplexed 2:30):
All things were created together, but were separated from each other successively. Our Sages illustrated this by the following simile: We sow various seeds at the same time; some spring forth after one day, some after two, and some after three days, although all have been sown at the same time. According to this interpretation, which is undoubtedly correct, the difficulty is removed, which led R. Jehudah, son of R. Simon, to utter the above saying, and consisted in the doubt as to the thing by which the first day, the second, and the third were determined. In Genesis Rabba, our Sages, speaking of the light created on the first day according to the Scriptural account, say as follows: these lights [of the luminaries mentioned in the Creation of the fourth day] are the same that were created on the first day, but were only fixed in their places on the fourth day. The meaning [of the first verse] has thus been clearly stated.
Accordingly, there was no light until the fourth day, as there was no vegetation until the third day. Maimonides[7] further argues that the separation between light and darkness on the first day is not physical, but a distinction as regards ‘their nature or form’ (hevdel tivi-i).[8] According to Abravanel also natural light was only created on the fourth day, so that one should not think that the vegetation was due to the natural sun light and not an act of G-d in creation. The light of the sun was however necessary for the function of human and animal life as well as for produce to grow.
According to Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish in the midrash[9] (Genesis Rabbah 3:6),[10] and the Jerusalem Talmud (Berachot 8:6), in the beginning there was only darkness. On the first day, light was created, and functioned together, without fixed times. G-d then limited the time that the light functioned and called it day, and similarly the darkness was called night. According to the Sages (Chachamim) in the Midrash[11] and Talmud,[12]in the beginning there was darkness. On the first day, G-d created a supernal light, but hid[13] it away for the righteous in the future.[14] In Genesis Rabbah 3:7, Rabbi Yehudah the son of Rabbi Simon said, ‘He separated it for Himself,’ as the verse states (Daniel 2:22): ‘And the light dwelleth with Him.’ The Zohar follows this view, interpreting the light as[15] referring to: a. the emanation within the spiritual world of ‘Atzilut’ (emanation).[16] b. ‘keter’ (crown),[17] transcending ‘Atzilut.’[18] The light was hidden for the righteous.[19] Alternatively, it was hidden in the Torah.[20] According to R. Judah Loew, according to the view of Rashi in the opinion of the sages in the midrash,[21] the supernal light that was hidden was not a separate light to the natural light that followed, but rather the second light was an extract from the first light. According to Rabbi Menachem M. Schneerson, in the view of Rashi, on the first day, G-d created a supernal light, but hid the ‘good’ that was within the light. The supernal light however remained until it was hidden at the end of the seven days or third day.[22]
How long did the supernal light last?
There are a number of opinions how long the supernal light lasted before it was hidden. According to the Babylonian Talmud (Chagigah 12a), a single opinion in the Jerusalem Talmud (Berachot 8:6:9) and the Zohar, the first light was hidden after the first day. According to a second opinion in the Jerusalem Talmud (Berachot 8:6:9), it lasted seven days, until thirty-six hours after Adam was created on the 6th day, allowing him to benefit from this light. It thus extended over Shabbat - twelve hours during the evening of Shabbat, twelve during the morning of Shabbat, and twelve during the Shabbat day, until nightfall on Saturday, when darkness befell the world.[23] Likewise, according to the rabbis in Genesis Rabbah 11:2, the light lasted all seven[24] days.[25] According to Genesis Rabbah 3:6, the light was hidden after three days, until the creation of the sun and the moon.[26] According to Genesis Rabbah 11:2, the light lasted six days and was hidden at the end of the sixth day, so Adam did not benefit from this light.[27] Jewish law follows the opinion that the first light lasted seven days, and darkness befell Adam for the first time at the conclusion of Shabbat. This is the reason for the custom to recite a blessing over a candle at the conclusion of Shabbat, to commemorate the removal of the light, the fall of darkness and the creation of light from striking a flint stone.
Rashi
From the above overview, there are two divergent views about the nature of the light of the first day: the view of the Rabbis that it was a natural light but suspended on day four or the opinion of Rabbi Yaakov that it was a supernal that was hidden away. We will now explore the view of Rashi on this subject. Rashi’s view is found in two sources. On Genesis 1:3, Rashi writes:
And G-d saw the light that it was good and G-d separated it: here too we need the words of the Aggadah – he saw that it was not proper for the wicked to use, and therefore he separated it for the righteous in the future.
G-d saw that it was good, and it was unseemly that the light and darkness should serve in confusion, so He established for this one its boundary by day, and for that one its boundary by night.
On Genesis 1:14, Rashi writes:
Be there luminaries: They had been created on the first day, but on the fourth He commanded them to be suspended in the firmament (Chagigah 12a). Indeed, all the productions of heaven and earth were created on the first day, but each of them was put in its place on that day when it was so commanded.
To cause a division between the day and the night: This took place after the primeval (divine) light was conserved for the righteous; but during the first seven days of Creation the primeval light and darkness functioned together both by day and by night.
The problem
The problem Rashi is addressing by the midrashic interpretation is subject dispute amongst the commentators. Rabbi Ovadiah Bartenura (1445-1515), Rabbi Elijah Mizrachi (1455-1525), and Rabbi Yosef Colon Trabotto argue the problem is the word ‘separated,’ which usually applies to two mixed items. Light and darkness however by definition are separate. Rabbi Judah Loewe suggests the problem is: why seeing the light that it was good is a reason for it to be separated? Interpreting the light being a primeval light separated for the righteous in the future, due to its goodness, solves these two problems. Rabbi Menachem M. Schneerson argues Rashi is addressing the verse: ‘And G-d saw that the light was good,’ instead of: ‘And G-d saw that this was good,’ as it states on day three, four and five of creation (Genesis 1:10, 1:12, 1:18, 1:21,1:25). The separation of ‘good’ within the primeval light on the first day for the righteous in the future solves this problem.
Two interpretations of Rashi
While the comments of Rashi appear to align with Rabbi Yaakov and the Rabbis in Chagigah 12a, as well as Genesis Rabbah, views differ how Rashi precisely aligns with these views: Nachmanides, while not addressing whether Rashi follows the view of Rabbi Yaakov or the Rabbis, he argues Rashi does not follow the view of the Midrash. When Rashi states: ‘To cause a division between the day and the night: This took place after the primeval (divine) light was conserved for the righteous; but during the first seven days of Creation the primeval light and darkness functioned together both by day and by night’ – the implication is that the primeval light lasted all seven days of creation. This is not the view of the sages in the midrash that the primeval light only lasted three days. This view is found in Genesis Rabbah 17:7: ‘The sphere of the sun is an offshoot of the upper light,’ and Genesis Rabbah 3:6:
‘Seven?’ I wonder! Were they not three? It is like a man who says thus: ‘I am keeping this for the seven days of my wedding feast.’” That is to say, it is common parlance that one say: “I am keeping and guarding this meat for the seven days of my wedding festivity.” It is not that this would suffice him for all seven days, only that he will use it during that time. In the same way the Rabbis explained the expression seven days, meaning as the light which functioned during some of those days.
Rabbi Elijah Mizrachi (c. 1455 – 1525) maintains, the two comments of Rashi – on Genesis 1:4 and Genesis 1:14 - reflect the two opposing views of the Rabbis and Rabbi Yaakov. Rashi on Genesis 1:4 follows the view of Rabbi Yaakov that it was a supernal light, which was hidden, while Rashi on Genesis 1:14 follows the majority view of the Rabbis that it was the same light, suspended on the fourth day.
Rabbi Judah Loew (d. 1609) explains that Rashi follows the view of the Rabbis[28] - and maintains the Rabbis are in fact not arguing with Rabbi Yaakov: they both agree about the concealment of the first light. They argue only about how much of the light was hidden. Rabbi Yaakov maintains the whole light was hidden on the first day for the righteous and another separate light was created on the fourth day. The Rabbis maintain both, the supernal and natural light, were created on the first day, and a part of the light – the supernal light (ohr ha-bahir) was hidden on the first day. The rest of the light however remained, illuminating the natural world.[29] This remaining light was suspended on day four. According to Midrash ha-bahir, only one seventh of the original light remained.
Rabbi Mordechai Jaffe (1530-1612), author of Levush Ha-orah, explains that Rashi follows the view of Rabbi Yaakov,[30] that there were two separate lights: a supernal light was created on the first day that was hidden for the righteous, and a second light was created also on the first day but only suspended on the fourth day. The second light did not shine, however, until the first light was hidden, even after the fourth day, since it was outshined by the first light.[31]
Rabbi Menachem M. Schneerson explains that Rashi follows the view of Rabbi Yaakov, that there were not just two light but three separate aspects of the light: primeval light, its goodness and the natural light. On the first day, there was a ‘separation’ of the ‘good’ (tov) from within the light on the first day, followed by a ‘hiding’ of the first light after the third day or after seven days. In addition, following Rabbi Mordechai Jaffe, on the first day, the lights were created and began to function and illuminate after the primeval light was hidden.[32] Rashi is thus also not following (entirely) the view of Rabbi Yaakov, since according to Rashi there were two stages of the concealing of the primeval light: the ‘good’ (tov) and the ‘primeval light’ itself.[33]
Variants in Rashi
The above discussion helps explain a number of the variants in the text of Rashi on Genesis 1:4 and 1:14. The eleven variants are as follows:
1. In the printed edition of Rashi on Genesis 1:4, the opening of the comment cites from the verse the words: ‘And G-d saw the light that it was good, and He separated (vayavdel),’ omitting the remainder of the verse, that includes ‘E-lokim’ (G-d), and the words: “between the light and the darkness.” He also does not suffice with the words: “and G-d saw the light and it was good,” but a single word from the second half of the verse is added: “and He separated” (vayavdel). This can be found in six Oxford manuscripts: CCC MS 165,[34] Worcester MS 10, MS. Arch. Selden A. 47 (1303 – 1304), MS. Opp. 14 (1340), MS. Opp. 35 (1408), MS. Michael 384, and MS. Opp. 34 (1201-1225). One manuscript has the version: “and G-d separated,” adding “E-lokim” after “vayavdel.” In MS. Can. Or. 80 (1396), it only cites the first half of the verse: “and G-d saw that the light was good,” omitting: “and He separated” (vayavdel). The version cited by Nachmanides also omits: “and He separated” (vayavdel).
2. In the printed version, it states: ‘Here too (gam be-zeh), we need the words of the Aggadah.’ This can be also found in MS. Canon Or. 35 (1401-1425), MS. Arch. Selden A. 47 (1303 – 1304), Worcester MS 10, amongst other manuscripts. In MS. CCC 133, it states: ‘Here too (gam be-zo).’
3. In the printed version, as can be found in CCC MS 165, Worcester MS 10, and others, it states: ‘We need (anu tz’richin) the words of the Aggadah.’ In MS. Arch. Selden A. 47 (1303 – 1304), it changes the word order: ‘We need (tz’richin anu) the words of the Aggadah.’
4. In the printed version, it states: ‘Here too, we need the words (l’divrei) of the Aggadah.’ This can be also found in MS. Canon Or. 35 (1401-1425), Worcester MS 10, amongst other manuscripts. In MS. CCC 165, it states: ‘The words (divrei) of the Aggadah,’ without the prefix ‘lamed.’
5. In most printed versions and all the manuscripts it states: ‘He saw it (ra-ahu) that it was not proper for the wicked to use it.’ In the second printed edition of Rashi (defus sheini) of 1490, held at Oxford - Bod. Inc. Cat, Heb 14, published in Híjar, Aragon, Spain, by Eliezer ben Abraham Alantansi and Solomon Zalmati, it states: ‘He saw in it’ (ra-ah bo).[35]
6. In the printed version, as in MS. CCC 165, it states: ‘it was not (eino) proper for the wicked to us.’ In MS. Arch. Selden A. 47 (1303 – 1304), it states: ‘It was not (ein) proper for the wicked to use.’
7. In the printed version, as in MS. CCC 165, it states: ‘it was not proper (kedai) for the wicked to use.’ In Worcester MS 10 (15th c.), it states: ‘ra-uy’ (proper).
8. In the printed version, it states: ‘so He separated it for the righteous in the future (l’atid lavo).’ This can be also found in MS. Arch. Selden A. 47 (1303 – 1304) and MS. Canon Or. 35 (1401-1425). In MS. CCC 165, it omits: ‘in the future (l’atid lavo).’ The version cited by Nachmanides also omits: ‘in the future (l’atid lavo).’[36]
9. In the printed version and most manuscripts it states: ‘According to its simple meaning, explain it as follows.’ In MS. Opp. 14 (1340), it omits: ‘According to its simple meaning’ (u-lefi pe-shuto), and only states: ‘explain it as follows’ (kach par-she-hu).
10. In the printed version and most manuscripts it states: ‘According to its simple meaning, explain it as follows.’ In MS. Oppenheim 34 (1201-1225), it omits: ‘explain it as follows’ (kach par-she-hu).
11. In the printed version, it states: ‘According to its simple meaning, explain it as follows’ – ‘kach parshehu.’ In MS. CCC 165, it states: ‘ken parshehu’ (explain it as follows).’ In MS. Arch. Selden A. 47 (1303 – 1304), it states: ‘ken pirashtiv’ (I have explained it as follows).[37]
In MS. Canon Or. 35 (1401-1425), it states: ‘ken pirusho’ (its explanation is as follows).[38] In Opp. 35, it states: ‘pirshuhu kach.’ In MS. Michael 384 (1399), it states: ‘tefarshehu.’
12. In the printed version, it states: ‘it was unseemly that it [light] and darkness should serve (mishtamshim) in confusion.’ In MS. CCC 133, it states: ‘should serve (meshamshim).’ In MS. Arch. Selden A. 47 (1303 – 1304), it states: ‘should serve (meshamshin).’ In MS. Canon Or. 35 (1401-1425), and Worcester MS 10, it states: ‘to serve’ (l’hishtamesh).
13. In the printed version and most of the manuscripts, it states: ‘so He established for this one its boundary by day, and for that one its boundary by night.’ In MS. Opp. 14 (1340, it states: ‘so He established for this one its place (mekomo) by day, and for that one its place (mekomo) by night.’
14. In the printed edition of Rashi on Genesis 1:14, it adds the view that the primeval light and darkness functioned together both by day and by night during the first three days of creation. These two versions of the text of Rashi, in the printed edition, reflect the Jerusalem Talmud (Berachot 8:6:9), in a single source, and Genesis Rabbah 11:2, that the first light lasted seven days. The second view reflects Genesis Rabbah 3:6 that the first light lasted three days. This view is found in MS. Canon. Or. 35 (1401-1425), where it states: ‘After the primeval (divine) light was conserved, the primeval light and darkness functioned during the first two days by day and by night. In the Oxford manuscripts, the majority of the manuscripts follow the opinion that the first light lasted seven days, following the Jerusalem Talmud (Berachot 8:6:9).[39] This can be found in: CCC MS. 133, Worcester MS 10, MS. Opp. 34 (1201-1225), MS. Opp. 14 (1340), MS. Arch. Selden A. 47 (1303 – 1304), MS. Michael 384 (1399), MS. Canon. Or. 81 (1396), MS. Opp. 35 (1408), and MS. Canon. Or. 62 (1472). In MS. Canon Or. 35 (1401-1425), there appears the view in the margin, which states: ‘Another interpretation: but during the first six days of Creation the primeval light and darkness functioned both by day and by night,’ suggesting the first light was concealed after the six days of creation. One can thus find all the above five opinions in the different versions of Rashi in the manuscripts, before the text was established,[40] following the opinion that it lasted seven days.
15. In the printed version, it states: ‘but during the seven days of Creation, the primordial light and darkness served together (yachad), both by day and by night.’ In MS. Michael 384 (1399) it states: “b’irbuvia,” instead of: “beyachad,” but omits: ‘both by day and by night.’ In CCC MS. 133, it however omits the word: ‘yachad’ (together), as can be found in Worcester MS 10, MS. Opp. 34 (1201-1225), MS. Arch. Selden A. 47 (1303-1304), MS. Opp. 14 (1340), MS. Canon. Or. 81 (1396) and MS. Opp. 35 (1408). Rabbi Yosef Colon Trabotto, known as the Maharik, (1420 - 1480), writes that this indeed is the correct version of Rashi, that they functioned separately, not how we have it in the printed edition, that the primordial, divine light mixed together with the darkness during the seven days. This is also omitted in the version of Rashi cited by Nachmanides and R. Elijah Mizrachi. The reason for the omission is that it contradicts Rashi’s comment on Genesis 1:4, where it states the opposite: ‘He saw it that it was good, and it was unseemly that it [light] and darkness should serve in confusion.’
16. In bringing this interpretation, Rashi quotes, as mentioned, only the words from the verse: “and G-d saw that the light was good and separated,” omitting the remainder of the verse, that includes G-d’s name, and the words: “between the light and the darkness.” He also does not suffice with the words “and G-d saw the light and it was good,” but adds one word from the second half of the verse: “and He separated.” This version – citing half of the verse “and G-d saw that the light was good and separated,” plus the single word: “vayavdel” can be found in the following Oxford manuscripts: CCC MS 133,[41] Worcester MS 10, MS. Arch. Selden A. 47 (1303 – 1304), MS. Opp. 14 (1340), MS. Opp. 35 (1408), MS. Michael 384, and MS. Opp. 34 (1201-1225). One manuscript has the version: “and G-d separated,” adding “E-lokim” after “vayavdel.” In a further Oxford manuscript, MS. Can. Or. 80 (1396), it only cites: “and G-d saw that the light was good,” omitting: “and He separated.” In the printed edition, it follows the majority of the above manuscripts, reflecting the problem of the juxtaposition of the phrase ‘good’ with the word ‘separated,’ as opposed to separating light from darkness.
Explaining the variants
The above study on the nature of the light of the first day, its duration, followed by the analysis of Rashi’s commentary on Genesis 1:4 and 1:14, explains some of the significant variants in Rashi on Genesis 1:14. Based on the above, there are two ways to understand Rashi: the two interpretations in Rashi on Genesis 1:14 are two separate opinions – Rabbi Yaakov and the Rabbis – one following Aggadah and one following p’shat, which are mutually incompatible, reflecting two levels of biblical interpretation. The first is there were two distinct lights, one primeval that was hidden for the righteous and a second on the fourth day – a natural light. The second interpretations of Rashi is the light was the same light that was fixed in place on the fourth day. This is the view of Rabbi Elijah Mizrachi. An alternative reading of Rashi is, following Judah Loewe, Levush Ha-Orah and Rabbi Menachem M. Schneerson, the two views are not incompatible but complimentary and both connected to p’shat. The first light was a primeval light, which either a part of the light itself was hidden or the good within the light was hidden. In both cases. the primeval remained after a hiddenness of the first day. A natural light was also created on the first day and suspended on the fourth day. Accordingly, the natural light superseded the primeval light, either on the fourth day or after seven days, when the primeval light was conserved.
This explains the following variant: In most printed versions and all the manuscripts it states: ‘He saw it (ra-ahu) that it was not proper for the wicked to use it.’ In the second printed edition of Rashi (defus sheini) - Oxford - Bod. Inc. Cat, Heb 14 (Híjar, 1490), however, it states: ‘He saw in it’ (ra-ah bo).[42] The additional ‘bo’ (in it) clarifies that the hiddenness of the light of the first day was not a complete conservation but a ‘brightness’ within the primeval light, as the Levush, argues, or the ‘good’ within the primeval light, following the Rebbe.
Similarly, the following variant: In the printed version and most manuscripts it states: ‘According to its simple meaning, explain it as follows.’ In MS. Opp. 14 (1340), it however omits: ‘According to its simple meaning’ (u-lefi pe-shuto), and only states: ‘explain it as follows’ (kach par-she-hu). The omission of: ‘according to its simple meaning (u-lefi pe-shuto),’ reflects the lack of distinction between the two interpretations in Rashi, following the second reading of Rashi above: the second interpretation assists and is compatible with the first interpretation.
Conversely, in the printed version and most manuscripts it states: ‘According to its simple meaning, explain it as follows, while in MS. Oppenheim 34 (1201-1225), it omits: ‘explain it as follows’ (kach par-she-hu), suggests, that when it states only: ‘According to its simple meaning’ – without the linking phrase ‘explain it as follows’ - it intends to divide the two interpretations as distinct, following Rabbi Elijah Mizrachi. This distinction may also be derived from the variant between ‘ken’ and ‘kach:’ In the printed version, it states: ‘According to its simple meaning, explain it as follows’ – ‘kach parshehu.’ In MS. CCC 165, it states: ‘ken parshehu’ (explain it as follows).’ In MS. Arch. Selden A. 47 (1303 – 1304), it states: ‘ken pirashtiv’ (I have explained it as follows).[43] In MS. Canon Or. 35 (1401-1425), it states: ‘ken pirusho’ (its explanation is as follows).[44] In Opp. 35, it states: ‘pirshuhu kach.’ In MS. Michael 384 (1399), it states: ‘tefarshehu.’ ‘Ken’ (as follows) may suggest a similarity to the above, whereas ‘kach’ is more punctuating a difference between the former interpretation and the following interpretation.
In the same vain, one may explain the following variant: In the printed version, it states: ‘so He separated it for the righteous in the future (l’atid lavo).’ This can be also found in MS. Arch. Selden A. 47 (1303 – 1304) and MS. Canon Or. 35 (1401-1425). In MS. CCC 165, it omits: ‘in the future (l’atid lavo).’ The version cited by Nachmanides also omits: ‘in the future (l’atid lavo).’[45] The reason for the inclusion of the words: ‘in the future (l’atid lavo)’ may be understood in light of the second reading above of Rashi, whereby the Aggadah interpretation about the conservation of the light is also p’shat. For this reason, to avoid the ‘simple’ question about where and what the nature of this primeval light is, it follows the version that clarifies this light is not something that is accessible or understood un till. The future messianic era, even for the righteous.[46]
[1] Genesis 1:3-5.
[2] Genesis 1:14.
[3] Likkute Sichot 25, p. 4, f.24.
[4] Nachmanides on Genesis 1:4.
[5] Maharik, R. Obadiah Bartenura.
[6] Nachmanides.
[7] Guide for the Perplexed (2:30): the light and darkness were separated in nature in form (hevdel tiv’i be-tzurah). Likkute Sichot 25, p. 2, f.17.
[8] This view is negated by Rashi’s commentary, according to R. Elijah Mizrachi, R. Obadiah Bartenura, Be’er Mayim Chaim, Siftei Chachamim. Likkutei Sichot vol. 25, f. 17.
[9] According to R. Elijah Mizrachi, R. Obadiah Bartenura, Be’er Mayim Chaim, Siftei Chachamim, Maharik, this is the view of Rashi, following p’shat.
[10] The light of the first day and the light of the fourth day are the same light; it was created on the first days but not suspended in the firmament until the fourth day. This opinion is reflected in Genesis Rabbah (3:6): ‘Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, expounded: “[God] distinguished” – this refers to distinguishing in the literal sense. This is analogous to a king who had two commanders, one to be in charge by day and one to be in charge by night. They were arguing with one another. This one said: ‘I will be in charge by day,’ and that one said: ‘I will be in charge by day.’ The king summoned the first one and said to him: ‘So-and-so, the day will be your realm.’ Likewise for the second one, he said to him: ‘So-and-so, the night will be your realm.’ So, too, “God called the light, Day” – He said to it: ‘The day will be your realm.’ “And to the darkness He called Night” – He said to it: ‘The night will be your realm.’ Rabbi Yoḥanan said: That is what the Holy One blessed be He says to Job: “In all your days, have you commanded the morning and apprised darkness of its place?” (Job 38:12) – have you informed it of its place, where it is? This was a rhetorical question. Rabbi Tanḥuma said: I will say the source for this: “He forms light and creates darkness, He makes peace” (Isaiah 45:7) - after they were created, He made peace [between them].
[11] Genesis Rabbah (3:6) states: ‘The light that was created during the six days of Creation cannot illuminate by day, because it would make the orb of the sun seem dim by comparison, nor can it illuminate at night, as it was created to illuminate only during the day. Rabbi Yehudah, the son of Rebbi Simon, said: He separated it for Himself. The Rabbis say he separated it for the righteous in the future, similar to a king who had a beautiful meal and separated it for his son.’ In Genesis Rabbah (11:2), it, similarly, states: ‘When the Holy One blessed be He looked at the people of the generation of the Flood and the people of the generation of the Dispersion, whose actions were to be corrupt, He arose and hid it away and designated it for the righteous in the future. From where is it derived that He hid it away? It is as it is stated: “Their light will be withheld from the wicked, and the upraised arm will be broken” (Job 38:15). And from where is it derived that He designated it for the righteous in the future? It is as it is stated: “But the path of the righteous is like a dawning light, growing brighter until the day is established” (Proverbs 4:18).’ This is also reflected in Genesis Rabbah 17:5: ‘Rabbi Avin adds another two: The orb of the sun is a microcosm of the supernal light.’
[12] The Talmud (Chagigah 12a) states: ‘The light created on the first day was so profound that man could observe through it from one end of the world to the other.’ This statement may be found also in Pesachim 68a, Sanhedrin 91b, and Jerusalem Talmud Berachot 8:6:9. In Genesis Rabbah (11:2): ‘Rabbi Yehuda bar Rabbi Simon said: By the light that the Holy One blessed be He created on the first day, a person could look out and see from one end of the world to the other end.’
[13] R. Elijah Mizrachi interprets the word: ‘and He separated’ in this context: G-d separated the light for the righteous, who are termed ‘light’ and the darkness for the wicked, who are termed darkness. According to this interpretation, the meaning of ‘separated’ one thing from its opposite is retained, while ‘hidden’ by itself does not. See Likkute Sichot 25, p. 2, f. 16.
[14] Chagigah 12a, Jerusalem Talmud Berachot 8:6, Genesis Rabbah 3:6, Genesis Rabbah 11:2, Genesis Rabbah 12:6, and Exodus Rabbah end of ch. 35. The Talmud states (Chagigah 12a, Pesachim 68a, Sanhedrin 91b): The light of ‘the seven days’ was a light that will radiate in the days of Messiah, as it states in Isaiah (30:26): “And the light of the moon will be like the light of the sun; the light of the sun will be seven times like the light of the seven days.” The verse continues: ‘when G-d binds up the wounds of this people and heals the injuries it has suffered.’ The light in the verse (Isaiah 24:23): “Then the moon shall be confounded and the sun ashamed, when the Lord of Hosts shall reign in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem, and before His elders will be His glory,” which indicates in the future there will be no light at all from the sun or the moon, refers to the World-to-Come, which is an entirely different world.
[15] Sefer ha-likutim, ohr, p. 572.
[16] In Parshat Vayetze (p. 163a), Yitro (67b) and Terumah (127b), it explains the light of the first day was the sefira of ‘binah’ (understanding) radiating into ‘chesed’ (kindness) of ‘Atzilut’ (world of emanation). This light drew the light and revelation from ‘ohr ha-sovev’ (the surrounding light). When this light was hidden, and on the fourth day, the sun and the moon began to shine, it refers to ‘za’ (ze’er anpin) and ‘nukvah’ (malchut) of the lowere spiritual worlds of: ‘beriah, yetzirah, asiya’ (by”a). The light of ‘Atzilut’ was then hidden and only the light of ‘malchut’ of ‘Atzilut’ was drawn down, as it became a source to ‘beriah, yetzirah, asiya’ (by”a). According to R. Moses Zacuta (Ramaz), Pikudei, p. 220b, it refers to ‘yesod d’abba’ (wisdom).
[17] In parshat Balak (204b), Bo (35a) and Emor (88a), it explains that the first light was supernal ‘chesed’ (kindness), which is higher than ‘Atzilut.’ This refers to ‘keter’ (crown).
[18] Zohar 1:45b, Zohar 2:224b. The Zohar poses the question about the two lights in creation and answers: the first light was so bright that the world could not endure this light. G-d therefore made another light as a vestment to the first one, and so with all the other lights, until all the worlds could endure the light without being dissolved. In the 17th century, Rabbi Naftali Hertz, in Emek Hamelech (Valley of the King), explained the light of the first day, stored away for the righteous, refers to the ‘or makif’ – the ‘surrounding’ light of the divine. In 1912, Rabbi Sholom Dov Ber Schneersohn (1860-1920), in Ayin Beis, describes this light as the ‘ein sof’ (infinite) - revelation of the essence of G-d that transcends the order of the chain process of the creation of the world (seder hishtalshelut), beyond the limitations of the ‘vessels’ (keilim), and thus emanates to all worlds equally. The light of the fourth day, in this context, is the light of the ten (hidden) ‘sefirot,’ which is the beginning of the emanation of light that relates to the world, while the ‘light of the first day’ transcends the world. The connection between the light of the first day of creation and the ‘keter’ (crown) - the surrounding light - is further alluded to in the gematria (numerical value) of the two Hebrew words. The word ‘keter’ (crown) has the gematria of 620, and the words ‘ba-yom rishon’ (on the first day) also equals 620, reflecting a parallel between the spiritual level of ‘keter’ and ‘or makif’ (surrounding light of G-d), with the light of the first day of creation, as opposed to the light of the fourth day, which was a different light.
[19] Why did G-d create the original light in the world in the first place, only then to conceal it? As explained, R. Shlomo Luntschitz, 1550-1619, R. Judah Loewe, and the Lubavitcher Rebbe explains that the lights of the first day and the fourth day are not different lights, but rather the material light of the fourth day came from the earlier brighter light. Accordingly, without the first light, it could not have been possible to have the second light. The Lubavitcher Rebbe explains (in a discourse in 1981) the reason for the first light is not just to be a source for the second light, but to enable through serving G-d to illuminate the world, not just with a fragment of what remained, but with the original, all-encompassing divine light itself, to illuminate the world itself, as opposed to being detached from the world, allowing this revelation to come into the world itself, through serving G-d.
[20] Midrash Ruth b’Zohar Chadosh 88a, Ba-al ha-Turim on Genesis 1:4. Degel Machaneh Ephraim by R. Moshe Chaim Ephraim of Sudilkov (1748-1800), the grandson of the Baal Shem Tov, Bereishit. Likkute Sichot, vol. 10, p. 10.
[21] Likkute Sichot 25, p. 4, f. 23.
[22] Likkute Sichot 25, p. 4.
[23] Jerusalem Talmud Berachot 8:6:9.
[24] Genesis Rabbah 11:2: Rabbi Shimon bar Yehuda of Kefar Akko says in the name of Rabbi Shimon: Even though the (primordial) lights were cursed on the day before Shabbat, they were not stricken until the conclusion of Shabbat. This is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. The Rabbis say: His glory did spend the night with him, and only at the conclusion of Shabbat was his radiance taken from him, as He expelled him from the Garden of Eden. That is what is written: “You alter his countenance and send him away” (Job 14:20). When the sun set on Shabbat eve, the Holy One blessed be He sought to put away the [primordial] light, but He accorded honor to Shabbat. That is what is written: “God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it” – He blessed it with light. When the sun set on Shabbat eve the [primordial] light continued to function. Everyone began praising [God]; that is what is written: “Under all the heavens they sing His praises, and His light is to the ends of the earth” (Job 37:3). Why was this? Because “His light is to the ends of the earth.”’
[25] The midrash (Genesis Rabbah 11:2) elaborates further about the circumstances of the removal of the light after the seventh day: ‘Rabbi Levi said in the name of Rabbi Ze’eira: That [primordial] light functioned for thirty-six hours – twelve on the day before Shabbat, twelve on the night of Shabbat, and twelve on Shabbat. As the sun set at the conclusion of Shabbat, darkness began approaching, and Adam the first man became afraid, as it is stated: “And I said that darkness will envelop me [yeshufeni]; night for me is light,” (Psalms 139:11) – that one [the serpent] in whose regard it is written: “He will strike you [yeshufekha] with his head, and you will strike him [teshufenu] with your heel” (Genesis 3:15), is now coming to confront me. What did the Holy One blessed be He do? He prepared for him two flint stones and he struck them one against the other. Light emerged from them and he recited a blessing over it. That is what is written: “Night for me is light.” What blessing did he recite over it? [Blessed be God] Who creates the lights of fire.’ This is in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, as Shmuel said: Why does one recite a blessing over light at the conclusion of Shabbat? It is because that time was the beginning of its creation. ‘av Huna in the name of Rav and Rabbi Abahu in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan said: One recites a blessing over it [light] at the conclusion of Yom Kippur, as well, because fire rested all that day.’
[26] Genesis Rabbah 3:6: ‘This is bewildering: “Seven [days]”? Are they not three? Is it not so, that the lights were created only on the fourth day? It is, rather, like a person who says: This and that I am preparing for the seven days of the wedding feast.’ Etz Yosef on Genesis Rabbah 3:6 explains the light of creation is called ‘the light of seven days,’ since creation was for seven days, including Shabbat, though, in reality, it lasted for three days.
[27] Genesis Rabbah 11:2: ‘Rabbi Ami said: Adam the first man, His glory did not spend the night with him. What is the source? “Man [adam] will not go to rest in his splendor; he is like the beasts that perish” (Psalms 49:13).’
[28] Since Rashi cites both views in his commentary on both verses and Rashi would not follow opposing Talmudic opinions in different verses.
[29] This is derived from the fact that Rashi, on one hand, cites both opinions in his commentary on Genesis 1:3, while on Genesis 1:14, he only cites the view of R. Yochanan: ‘To cause a division between the day and the night: This took place after the primeval (divine) light was conserved for the righteous; but during the first seven days of Creation the primeval light and darkness functioned together both by day and by night.’
[30] This is derived from the opening of Rashi on Genesis 1:4: ‘here too we need the words of the Aggadah.’
[31] His proof that Rashi does not follow the Rabbis is that he does not cite the same complete wording of the opinion of the Rabbis as found in the Talmud: ‘This light is the very same as the lights created on the first day, but they were not suspended in their designated places in the firmament until the fourth day.’ The fact that it omits the opening: ‘This light is the very same as the lights created on the first day,’ suggests the view of Rabbi Yaakov that they were in fact two separate lights.
[32] Likkute Sichot 25, p. 4, f. 24. The view of Nachmanides is also that Rashi is not citing the same as the view of the sages.
[33] In summary, according to the Rebbe, there are three parts in Rashi: 1. On Genesis 1:4: Agadah, necessitated by p’shat - separation of the ‘good’ from within the light on the first day (explaining the literal meaning of ‘separation’) (variation of the view of Rabbi Yaakov). 2. On Genesis 1:4: P’shat - separation of the light from the darkness (explaining the flow (tochen) of the verse). 3. Hiding of the light on the fourth day (Rabbi Yaakov). According to this, ‘p’shat’ and ‘agaddah’ are not alternative interpretations but complimentary: the ‘p’shat’ explains the whole, remaining part of the verse, while the ‘aggadah’ explains the literal meaning of the word ‘separated.’
[34] A dot appears between the word ‘tov’ and ‘vayavdel.’
[35] https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=45441&st=&pgnum=3. Likkute Sichot vol. 25, p. 1, f.3. In Venice 1512 printed edition, it states: ‘ra-ahu.’
[36] It also has: ‘the words (l’divrei) of the Aggadah’ and ‘kach’ (as follows)
[37] On Genesis 1:1, MS. Canon. Or. 35 follows the other versions that states: ‘parshehu.’
[38] On Genesis 1:1, MS. Canon. Or. 35 follows the other versions that states: ‘parshehu.’
[39] This follows the literal meaning of the verse in Isaiah that talks about the light of the seven days.
[40] Some printed editions, as mentioned, includes the view that the first light lasted three days.
[41] A dot appears between the word ‘tov’ and ‘vayavdel.’
[42] https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=45441&st=&pgnum=3. Likkute Sichot vol. 25, p. 1, f.3. In Venice 1512 printed edition, it states: ‘ra-ahu.’
[43] On Genesis 1:1, MS. Canon. Or. 35 follows the other versions that states: ‘parshehu.’
[44] On Genesis 1:1, MS. Canon. Or. 35 follows the other versions that states: ‘parshehu.’
[45] It also has: ‘the words (l’divrei) of the Aggadah’ and ‘kach’ (as follows)
[46] Likkute Sichot vol. 25. P. 5.