(ג) ברא אלהים. ולא אמר ברא יקוק, שבתחלה עלה במחשבה לבראתו במדת הדין, ראה שאין העולם מתקים, הקדים מדת רחמים ושתפה למדת הדין, היינו דכתיב (להלן ב ד) ביום עשות יקוק אלהים ארץ ושמים:
(3) And it does not say 'Hashem created' [i.e., the Torah refers to the Creator by the name Elohim, signifying strict justice, rather than by the Ineffable 4-letter Name, signifying mercy], because initially [God] thought to create [the world] with the attribute of strict justice. But [God] saw that the world would not last [if governed only with strict justice], so He had the attribute of mercy precede and partner with the attribute of strict justice, and so it is written: 'In the day that Hashem God created earth and heaven' (Genesis 2:4) [i.e., the name denoting mercy preceding the one denoting strict justice].
(1) 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.
(א) ויעש. יש הבדלה בבין עם למ''ד כמו בין מים למים בין קדש לחול. ויש עם בין ובין כמו פה ויבדל בין המים אשר מתחת לרקיע ובין המים וגו' ויש עם שניהם כמו ביניכם לבין אלהיכם
(1) “And He made” – there is distinction employing [the word] bein with lamed. like “between water and water” (bein mayim lamayim) Genesis 1:6, “between holy and profane” (bein kodesh l’chol) Ezekiel 44:23 and there is [distinction] with bein and bein, as here – “and He separate between bein the waters below the firmament and between bein etc.”, and there is [distinction] with both of them, like “between you and between your G-d” (beineichem l’vein e-loheichem). The meaning of “and it was so” is that it attached to what follows: “when that happened, He called the heavens…”
(א) ותוצא הארץ וגו' . אף על פי שלא נאמר למינהו בדשאין בציווייהן, שמעו שנצטוו האילנות על כך, ונשאו קל וחמר בעצמן, כמפורש באגדה בשחיטת חלין (חולין ס) :
(1) Even though לְמִינֵהוּ.“according to its kind,” was not said regarding the herbs when they were commanded [to grow], they heard that the trees were commanded thus, and they applied an a fortiori argument to themselves, [a קַל וָחוֹמֶר -from the minor to the major], as is explained in the Aggadah of Tractate Chullin 60a.
(א) וְהָיוּ לִמְאוֹרֹת בִּרְקִיעַ הַשָּׁמַיִם לְהָאִיר עַל הָאָרֶץ הוסיף שיהיה אורם מגיע לארץ, כי אפשר שיראה להם אור בשמים ויעשו כל המעשים הנזכרים מבלי שיאירו בארץ. ולכך אמר שיהיו למאורות ברקיע השמים ומביט בארץ ויאירו עליה.
(1) "And they shall be for luminaries in the firmament of the skies to shine upon the earth: It added that their light should reach the earth, since it it possible that they should show light in the heavens and do all of the acts that are mentioned, without their shining upon the earth. And hence it stated that they would be for luminaries in the firmament of the heavens and look down on the earth and shine upon it.
(א) יעופף על הארץ על פני רקיע השמים - אע"פ שיצירתו מן המים גידולו יהיה בארץ.
(1) “will fly upon the earth” – even though the creation of fowls was from the water, their growth and life will be upon the earth.
(א) וירא אלהים את כל אשר עשה והנה טוב מאד. אע"פ שכבר הזכיר כי טוב ביצירת כל יום ויום מ"מ חזר כאן ואמר והנה טוב אחר יצירת האדם, להורות שכל הנבראים הקודמים לא נבראו כי אם בעבור האדם ואע"פ שנאמר בהם כי טוב נאמר על שם העתיד אבל לא היו עדיין במלואם וטובם עד שנברא האדם אשר בעבורו נתהוו כולם אז ראה ויספר והנה טוב מאד ותדע כי יש הפרש בין כי טוב ובין והנה טוב מאד לפי שלשון כי, הוא מסופק כאילו אינו ודאי שהרי בכל מקום לשון כי על הספק לפי שמלת כי, תורה על הזמן כמו כי תצא כי תבוא, ור"ל וירא אלהים כי טוב היינו שהיה מצפה אימתי יבוא הזמן שיהיה נגלה מה טובם, אבל והנה טוב מורה על הוודאי. ורז"ל אמרו במדרש (בר"ר ח.ה) שהיה הקב"ה מתוכח עם המלאכים אם לברוא את האדם או לא ואילו היה הדין נותן שלא לברוא את האדם היה מציאת כל הקודמים לבטלה לכך נאמר בהם כי טוב המורה על הספק אבל כשנברא האדם אז נעשו ודאי טוב לכך נאמר את כל אשר עשה והנה טוב, לשון והנה מורה על הזמן של עתה שבו נראה האדם ואז נראה למפרע מה טובם ומה יפיים של כל הנמצאים הקודמים והוסיף כאן מאד מה שלא הזכיר קודם זה להורות שעל ידי האדם נעשו טוב מאד רמז לדבר מא"ד אותיות אד"ם.
(1) And God saw all that He had made and behold, it was very good: Even though [the Torah] already mentioned "that it was good" in the creation of each and every day, nonetheless, here it repeated it and said, "behold, it was very good" after the creation of man, to teach that all of the creations were not created but for the sake of man. And even though it is stated, "that it was good" for all of them, it was stated based on the future; but they were not yet in their completeness and 'goodness' until man - for whose sake they came into existence - was created. Then [God] saw and said, "behold, it was very good." And you should know that there is a difference between [the phrase,] "that it was good" and [the phrase,] "behold, it was very good;" as the word, that [ki], is one of doubt, as if it is not certain; since behold, in every place the word, ki, relates to a doubt; because the word, ki, relates to time - as in "ki tetseh" ["when you go out"] and "ki tavo" ["when you come in"]; which means to say that [the phrase,] "And God saw that [ki] it was good" means that God was looking ahead, when the time will come that the nature of their goodness would be revealed; but "behold, it was very good" indicates certainty. And our Rabbis, of blessed memory, stated in a midrash [Bereshit Rabbah 8:5] that the Holy One, blessed be He debated with the angels whether or not to create man; and if the judgment had been not to create man, the existence of all the previous [creations] would have been for naught. Hence it states about them, "that it was good" which indicates a doubt, but when man was created, then they became certainly good; that is why it [then] states "all that He had made and behold, it was... good;" the word, behold, indicates the time of the present, at which man appeared; and then the 'goodness' and beauty of all the previous beings became seen retroactively. And it added [the word,] very, here, which was not mentioned earlier, to teach that through man, they were made very good; [and a] hint to this is that [the word,] very [me'od] is [made up of the same] letters [as the word,] man [adam].
Tying it all together: Rab Chanoch Waxman
The difficult phrase and concept, "tzelem Elokim," image of God, constitutes part of the core of "parashat adam," the creation narrative of mankind. The term or a variation on its root appears once in the planning stage: "Let us make mankind in Our image (tzlamainu) " (1:26), and twice in the action stage: "So God created Mankind in His own image (be-tzalmo), in the image of God (be-tzelem Elokim) He created them " (1:27). But what does it mean?
The options suggested by Jewish exegetes span the gamut from the actual form of God (Rashi 1:27), to divine soul (Ramban), to rational intellect (Rambam, Guide of the Perplexed 1:1). In my opinion, an additional interpretation of the concept of "tzelem Elokim" can be formulated in light of the actions of "Elokim" in Chapter One.
While God does indeed create the world out of nothing at the outset of the chapter, creation out of nothing is not the primary occupation of Elokim in Chapter One. Rather, most of God's activity in the chapter is dedicated to the process of fashioning the primordial chaos into a well-ordered and inhabited world (see Ramban 1:1). A quick reference to the text should help confirm this claim. At the start of the narrative, the world is "without form and void" (1:2); it is shapeless, empty of recognizable entities, a "chaotic void" according to some translations. But it is not completely empty. There are "depths," "water" and "darkness" (1:2) - an altogether frightening and dreary picture. But all is not lost. The very same verse also refers to "the wind of God" (ru'ach Elokim), a symbol of God's presence. Elokim subsequently creates light, the antithesis of the dark of 1:2. On Day Two, God creates the firmament, the beginning of the process of "the limitation of the waters," thereby eventually yielding the sky-land-seas structure, the antidote to the shapeless encompassing wateriness of 1:2. By the middle of Day Three, God moves on to the problem of "void" and in the remainder of the six days of active work fills the land with grasses, trees, animals and people; the heavens with birds, sun, moon and stars; and the seas with fish. Elokim of Chapter One is not so much God the creator but perhaps more accurately God the constructor, the shaper, the molder, the conqueror of chaos, who through various means arranges a well-ordered and inhabited world.
The internal structure and interrelationship of the six days of creation support this interpretation. The days and their creation contents may be charted as follows:
Insert chart here
We may well think of column two, the items created on Days One through Three, as resources. If so, the items listed in column four, created on Days Four through Six, constitute the utilizers of these resources. The heavenly bodies "utilize" light, the birds utilize and fill the sky and the animals and people utilize the land, grass and trees. While some details remain to be ironed out (see questions for further study), the basic idea should be clear. Elokim, the conqueror of chaos, structures a well-ordered, balanced and full world.
This brings us full circle to the concept of "tzelem Elokim," the making of mankind in God's image in Chapter One. Let us return to parashat adam.
Let US make mankind in Our image and likeness and they will have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, the cattle and over all the earth and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth. So God created Mankind in His own image, in the image of God He created them. And God blessed them, and God said to them: Be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth and subdue it; and have rulership over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves on the earth. (1:26-28)
Elokim, speaking in the royal we (Sa'adia Gaon), or perhaps to the angels (Rashi), plans and executes the making of a creature in His own image - a creature with the capacity for conquering chaos, for structuring a well-ordered, balanced, full and good world. God charges this being with filling the world and ruling over it. He in fact charges this being to realize the meaning and potential of its own "tzelem Elokim," its own built in divine-like potential - to fashion and maintain a good world.
All of this should help us finally tackle the problem of the lack of "And God saw that it was good" in "parashat adam," a problem we reformulated as the question of mankind's "place" and "completeness." The analysis until this point should make us realize that mankind of Chapter One has no particular "place." Rather, its place in the scheme of things is in the fulfilling of its mission, a mission that involves moving over the world, filling it, ruling it, and when necessary reinforcing, ensuring and remaking the good world wrought by God. Man remains incomplete and out of "place" as long as he has not yet fulfilled his mission.