English translation — בראשית א

1.

From the verse¹

"And God saw the light that it was good, and God separated between the light and between the darkness" — Rashi cites the words "And God saw the light that it was good, and He separated" and explains: "Even regarding this we need the words of Aggadah²,

He saw it³

that it is not fitting⁴

for the wicked to use it, and He separated it⁵

for the righteous in the future to come⁶,

And according to its plain meaning, explain it thus: He saw it that it was good, and it is not proper for it and for darkness that they should be used⁷

in mixture, and He set for this its boundary by day and for this its boundary by night."

The commentators learn⁸,

that that which Rashi needs

("Even regarding this")

to come to words of Aggadah,

is because "and He separated" here cannot be explained according to its plain meaning

(separation <b>between</b> light and darkness),

since "separation" applies only to things that intermingle,

but not by light and darkness which cannot mix together,

for at the time that light shines, darkness cannot then be there⁹

Therefore Rashi must come to aggadic words: "He saw that it was not fitting to use it etc. and He separated it for the righteous,"

and according to this the explanation of "and He separated" is not in its plain sense — a separation between light and darkness — but that which He separated the light for the righteous for the future to come¹⁰.

And in continuation of this Rashi says further "according to its plain meaning — that the separation should be in its plain sense¹¹

— so explain it,

He saw it that it was good and it is not fitting for it and for darkness that they should be used<b> in mixture</b>,"

meaning a mixture

(not in place,

together in one place,

but)

in time — that there was no fixed time when there should be light and when darkness,

but it was sometimes light and sometimes dark.

And the separation consisted in that which "He fixed for this its boundary by day and for this its boundary by night".

2.

According to this, however, it is not understood:

Even though Rashi has not yet said <b>explicitly</b> that "I have come <b>only</b> for its plain meaning"

(He says this only after several verses¹²),

however, the simple interpretation of peshat,

aggadah,

derash — says that to everything first comes the open meaning,

and only afterwards

(and especially — if it is not smooth)

has a place "and go <b>to expound</b>"¹³

to seek what is not openly [visible]

(derash,

aggadah,

a reason,

etc.,

etc.).

And as it is also itself proven from Rashi's language "even in this¹⁴

<b>we need</b> the words of aggadah",

that first and foremost is the plain meaning of Scripture,

only here one must come to the words of aggadah

(as Rashi explains in the above-mentioned verse¹⁵

"and to the aggadah <b>that settles</b> the words of Scripture" — in <b>that</b> Scripture there lacks settlement).

So since according to the aforementioned explanation Rashi has an explanation "according to its simple meaning" according to which the "ויבדל" is "in its literal sense" — why does Rashi need to come at all to the explanation of "words of Aggadah",

that according to this explanation the "ויבדל" is <b>not</b> "in its literal sense"

(a separation between two things¹⁶),

but rather "He separated it for the righteous"?

Even assuming that the explanation "according to its simple meaning" is not so smooth,

because according to this the separation is not between the light and darkness themselves¹⁷,

but rather a separation in the determination of their <b>time</b> — and therefore "we need

the words of Aggadah" — but the explanation according to its simple meaning is closer to the <b>implication</b> of the word "ויבדל"¹⁸

and to the content of the subsequent words of the verse

("ויבדל etc. between the light and between the darkness")

than the explanation of words of Aggadah in "ויבדל" — and according to this Rashi should have at least preceded the explanation "according to its simple meaning" before the explanation of "words of Aggadah".

Also one must understand: since the difficulty in the verse that Rashi comes to answer

(because of which "we need the words of Aggadah")

is — as is appropriate to say separation between light and darkness

(since they do not intermingle),

Rashi should have nevertheless copied

(<b>also</b>)

(also)

the continuation of the verse "

(and He separated)

God between the light and between the darkness",

or at least allude to the words with "etc."?

3.

From this it is understood that the question and the necessity for his interpretation is specifically from the words "And God saw the light that it was good, and He separated" —

What here is not understood¹⁹

— how is "And God saw the light, that it was good" a cause and reason for "and He separated"?

Therefore Rashi says "even regarding this we need the words of Aggadah <b>He saw it</b>

(that it was good — and consequently)

that it is not fitting for the wicked to use it <b>and He separated it</b>".

Based on this, one could also explain why Rashi precedes the interpretation of Aggadic words before the interpretation "according to its simple meaning",

And with the introduction of the precise wording of Rashi in this interpretation "according to its simple meaning" — "He saw it that it was good and it is not &lt;b&gt;seemly&lt;/b&gt; for it and for the darkness that they should function in mixture."

For at first glance it would be more fitting that Rashi should say in the language of the verse "He saw it etc. and it is not &lt;b&gt;good&lt;/b&gt;&lt;sup&gt;20&lt;/sup&gt;

for it and for the darkness that they should function in mixture" —

But according to its "simple meaning" "it is not &lt;b&gt;good&lt;/b&gt; for it and for the darkness" is &lt;b&gt;not&lt;/b&gt; correct

(it cannot be a reason for "and He separated")

— because since there was among them no mixture &lt;b&gt;in actuality&lt;/b&gt;,

each one functioned in a separate time

(there was only not a fixed order in their times),

one cannot say that it is "not good for it",

because it did not harm the light at all

(or the darkness),

but it is merely "not &lt;b&gt;seemly&lt;/b&gt; for it": because "And God saw the light that it was good",

it is not "becoming" that such an important thing as "light" should be "in mixture" with darkness and not have a fixed time for itself.

Based on this it comes out,

at first glance,

that according to "words of Aggadah" "And God saw ..

that it was good" is a more vague reason for "And He separated"

(since that "that it was good" — "it is not &lt;b&gt;worthwhile&lt;/b&gt; for the wicked to use it"&lt;sup&gt;21&lt;/sup&gt;)

than "according to its simple meaning",

that according to this from "that it was good" is only "it is not &lt;b&gt;fitting&lt;/b&gt; for him" and therefore "And He separated".

But also this explanation cannot be accepted in Rashi's commentary as a reason to bring — and even more so,

to precede — the words of Aggadah — because &lt;b&gt;the&lt;/b&gt; reason for "And He separated" is not at all hinted even in the verse,

it is only a matter of "Aggadah".

And especially the explanation according to the continuation of the verse "And God separated between the light and between the darkness" is not smooth.

4.

And one can explain this by prefacing what Rashi <b>repeats</b> in <b>his commentary</b> "according to its simple meaning" — "He saw it <b>that it was good</b>",

after he quotes in that entry <b>the</b> words "And God saw the light <b>that it was good</b>"; in the usual manner he should have begun "He saw it that it was not fitting for him",

exactly as in the commentary on words of Aggadah,

where he says

(not "He saw it that it was good and it is not fitting to use it etc.",

but)

"He saw it that it is not fitting to use it etc.".

And the explanation of this,

that this is indeed one of the differences between the first commentary in Rashi and the second commentary:

Since it says "And God saw the light that it was good, and He separated",

not "And God saw that it was good, and He separated",

it is understood,

that the "and He separated" is connected with the "And God saw &lt;b&gt;the light&lt;/b&gt; that it was good" — and Rashi makes this clear with that which he brings in the beginning of the passage only "And God saw the light that it was good, and He separated"

(not the subsequent words,

and he does not even hint at them with "etc."&lt;sup&gt;22&lt;/sup&gt;),

that the "and He separated"

(according to this interpretation)

does not refer

(only)

to later but only to earlier,

namely,

the separation was in the light itself:

Since "And God saw the light that it was good" He saw

(an additional thing)

that there is in it &lt;b&gt;also&lt;/b&gt; the matter of "good" — [therefore] "and He separated",

He separated&lt;sup&gt;23&lt;/sup&gt;

the "good" from the "light",

and there remained revealed only the luminosity of light,

but not the "good"&lt;sup&gt;24&lt;/sup&gt;.

And to explain the reason why it was necessary to separate the "good" that is in the light,

Rashi brings the interpretation of "words of Aggadah",

"He saw that it was not fitting for the wicked to use it".

Based on this, it is understood:

(a)

Why a child of five years for Mikra does not immediately become a question: What does "He separated it for the righteous"²⁵ mean,

when one sees the "light" now?

(Because,

as above,

only the "good" within the light He separated).

(b)

Why Rashi brings that "He separated it for the righteous <b>for the future to come</b>" and is not satisfied with saying merely "He separated it for the righteous"²⁴

— because with this Rashi indicates that the "good" within the light is not a matter that is relevant to know now,

for²⁷

also for the righteous it will only be in the future to come.

5.

Based on this, it is understood why Rashi precedes "Even in this we need the words of Aggadah" before the explanation "according to its simple meaning",

because specifically according to the explanation of "words of Aggadah" the word "and He separated" is more precise:

Since between light and darkness one cannot translate "ויבדל" literally as one separates two things that are joined together,

therefore in order to explain the interpretation of "ויבדל" and the continuation of the verse "וירא אלקים את האור כי טוב ויבדל" — "we need the words of Aggadah"²⁸.

What with the words of aggadah is answered the plain meaning of the verse,

that the explanation of "vayavdel" is according to its simple meaning²⁹

: a separation in the thing itself — between the good of light and the light of light

(in the manner of "let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters and let it divide between water and water"³⁰).

And therefore the explanation according to its simple meaning comes as second in Rashi,

because although this is "according to its simple meaning" of the content of the verse²⁹,

the division "between the light and between the darkness",

this is however "further" from the simple explanation of the word "vayavdel" as

according to the explanation of "words of aggadah",

because "according to its simple meaning" there was not opened here any division between two connected things

(not in place,

not in time),

but a setting of a boundary for each one.

And from this reason Rashi needs to add in his commentary "according to its simple meaning" — "He saw it &lt;b&gt;that it was good&lt;/b&gt;" — although he bases himself on the language of the verse,

"And God saw the light &lt;b&gt;that it was good&lt;/b&gt;",

And as above,

To emphasize that "according to its simple meaning" the explanation of "that it was good" is according to its simple meaning,

That the "good" is not &lt;b&gt;another&lt;/b&gt; matter in the light,

As according to the first explanation,

But &lt;b&gt;He saw it&lt;/b&gt; — the light &lt;b&gt;itself&lt;/b&gt; — &lt;b&gt;that it was good&lt;/b&gt;.

6.

Based on the above one can also explain the understanding of the Torah in Rashi's language "&lt;b&gt;even in this&lt;/b&gt; we need the words of Aggadah",

Which according to its simple meaning comes in continuation to Rashi's words earlier on "Bereishis"&lt;sup&gt;31&lt;/sup&gt;

— "This verse says nothing but 'expound Me'."

At first glance it is not smooth — what is the practical difference that this that "we need words of aggadah" is it not the first time?

Even if earlier Rashi would not have brought any aggadah,

But since here there is "need for words of aggadah",

Rashi must bring it here.

From the language "even in this we need words of aggadah" it is implied,

that the words of aggadah here have a connection,

similarity to the derash on Bereishit bara.

Is the explanation in this: In the commentary on the first verse "Bereishis bara" Rashi explains "This verse says nothing but darshuni,

For the sake of the Torah which is called³²

Reishis darko and for the sake of Israel who are called³³

Reishis tevuaso".

By this that the Torah precedes <b>Bereishis</b>

Torah and Israel),

Although the Torah speaks here about the creation of the heavens and the earth and all their hosts

(And the Torah was given only later,

And likewise Israel became a nation only after leaving Egypt and when they received the Torah),

It gives the instruction what is the

(True)

Existence of the entire creation: <b>bara</b> Elokim es hashamayim ve'es ha'aretz is not a purpose and matter in itself,

Rather the creation is for the sake of Torah and Israel³⁴.

(That

That

is

is

Drush and aggadah of the Torah,

In which most secrets of the Torah are hidden³⁵,

Reveals the innermost and true [essence] of the creation; this is not an existence for its own sake but for the sake of the Torah and for the sake of Israel.

Thus it is regarding the existence of the light,

that "even in this we need words of aggadah",

one must also reveal the inner aspect of the light: light is not an existence for its own sake —

created beings are an existence in their own right,

set apart from all of them is light,

it is <b>simply</b> only <b>for the sake of</b>,

its essence is <b>solely</b> that through it the things that exist in the creation are revealed and made visible

(without the light they are in hidden darkness)³⁶

"Aggadah" however reveals the innerness of the light,

that the innerness of his existence is not only the matter of the revealer — "the light" within it — but the "good" within it³⁷.

And this is also an introduction which explains Rashi's commentary in the verse after this:

Rashi explains on this verse³⁸

"And it was evening and it was morning, one day" — "According to the order of the language of the passage, it should have written 'first day' etc. Why did it write 'one'? Because the Holy One, blessed be He, was alone in His world, for the angels were not created until the second day."

And at first glance: Even though the angels were created on the second day,

nevertheless, on the first day the creation of light came about — how can one say "that the Holy One, blessed be He, was <b>alone</b> in His world",

which indicates that there was no other creation?

And the answer to this is explained based on the words of Aggadah which reveal the "good" that exists in this light.

7.

The explanation of this:

It is explained in many places&lt;sup&gt;39&lt;/sup&gt;

in the interpretation of the verse&lt;sup&gt;40&lt;/sup&gt;

"See I have placed before you today the life and the good and the death and the evil" and following this one says&lt;sup&gt;41&lt;/sup&gt;

"And you shall choose life" — then life and death does not mean literally,

because "who is so foolish"&lt;sup&gt;42&lt;/sup&gt;

who would not choose life and good instead of the opposite.

Rather the explanation in this is that every created being during its life and existence there is in it life and death.

The physicality of the thing and its materiality is "death" because the thing does not create and enliven itself.

And the spirituality,

the power of the Creator, the G‑dly within it, is the matter of life.

The created being's life and — in general,

in this there is no annihilation,

it is "in the manner of eternal existence"&lt;sup&gt;42&lt;/sup&gt;.

And in this itself there are two levels&lt;sup&gt;43&lt;/sup&gt;

: The life in every created being is the level of G‑dliness that enclothes itself in it to enliven it,

the aspect of immanent; and the good

(about which it is said&lt;sup&gt;44&lt;/sup&gt;

"for Your loving-kindness is better than life")

is the aspect of G‑dliness that is higher than the enclothing to enliven created beings,

the aspect of transcendent that is in the immanent.

And the aggadah of the Torah reveals also the secret and inwardness of "light"⁴⁵,

that the true reality of it is not that which it causes, that the physicality and reality of the created being is revealed,

but rather that which is revealed is the true reality that is in the created being,

the word of God that constitutes it, enlivens it, and sustains it,

up to the level of "good" of Divinity,

the aspect of the Transcendent One that is present in all created beings.

And this matter is "He saw that it was not fitting for the wicked to use it",

because then there would be lacking⁴⁶

the matter of free choice⁴⁷.

<b>Seeing</b> the truth in every created being, that its true reality is the divine life-force,

it is then not possible to choose its opposite,

therefore "He set it apart for the righteous in the future",

when there will be <b>and every being shall know</b> that You have made it etc.⁴⁸,

until "and all flesh shall see⁴⁹

together that the mouth of God has spoken",

the "by the word⁵⁰

of God the heavens were made" etc.⁵¹.

And this is the continuation of "אף בזה אנו צריכין לדברי אגדה" to the homily in בראשית ברא:

Just as in the creation in general — although Torah and Israel are seemingly a matter that comes later in creation — one immediately reveals that this is the <b>purpose</b> of creation,

"For the sake of the Torah and for the sake of Israel",

Regarding this in the matter of the light,

Although that the "good" of the light He separated for the righteous <b>for the future to come</b>,

Is <b>this</b> however the true essence of the light.

And therefore the creation of the light on the first day is no contradiction to that which one says that on the first day "the Holy One, blessed be He, was alone in His world".

Because on the contrary,

The true essence of the light that was created on the first day is

(the encompassing light that is above the chain of descent⁵²)

the aspect of good⁵³

in it,

whose essence is to reveal in the creation itself that there is no existence besides Him⁵⁴,

"the Holy One, blessed be He, is alone in His world"⁵⁵.

8.

With this, Rashi also hints at a directive in the Torah study of a Jew,

Therefore he emphasizes "even in this &lt;b&gt;we&lt;/b&gt; need the words of Aggadah" and does not say simply "even in this we need the words of Aggadah":

A Jew can have a question: Granted, those Jews who are constantly occupied with matters of creation,

"the heavens and the earth",

and in general, the Children of Israel who are businessmen,

they need to arrive at "this verse says nothing but 'seek Me'",

to the exposition in the Torah,

to reveal that "In the beginning, He created" — is "for the sake of the Torah and for the sake of Israel".

Since he has to do with matters of the world,

this can confuse him and disturb him from his service of G‑d,

or at least the existence of the world occupies space for him — he must come to the discourses of the Torah that should reveal to him and remind him that the world is not an independent existence,

but was created for the sake of the Torah and for the sake of Israel.

And this effects upon him that his having to do with matters of the world does not disturb his service of G‑d,

and on the contrary,

through his service for the sake of Heaven⁵⁶

and in all your ways know Him⁵⁷

he makes <b>the world</b> into a dwelling place for Him, blessed be He.

But a Jew, a dweller of the tent,

who has to do only with matters of "light"⁵⁸,

"a candle is a commandment and the Torah is light"⁵⁹,

he is constantly within the luminous four cubits of halachah

(and of prayer),

he does not need to come to the study of aggados and the inner dimension of the Torah.

On this Rashi says the instruction "even &lt;b&gt;in this we&lt;/b&gt; need &lt;b&gt;words of Aggadah&lt;/b&gt;": also in this dealing with matters of the light of the Torah

(until Rashi says "even we" he includes also himself),

must come to words of Aggadah,

and in the language of the old Rebbe in Hilchos Talmud Torah&lt;sup&gt;60&lt;/sup&gt;

that the study must be also "in the homilies of the Aggadot to contemplate from them moral instruction to know God as the Sages said 'Do you wish to know He who spoke and the world came into being? Study &lt;b&gt;words of&lt;/b&gt; &lt;b&gt;Aggadah&lt;/b&gt; for through this you come to know the Holy One, blessed be He, and cleave to His ways, for most secrets of the Torah which is the wisdom of Kabbalah and knowledge of God are hidden in the Aggadot'",

The study of the inner dimension of the Torah&lt;sup&gt;61&lt;/sup&gt;,

which in our time has been revealed in the teachings of Chassidus,

one must have not only for the sake of learning and knowing &lt;b&gt;another&lt;/b&gt; part of the Torah and for the sake of fulfilling the command&lt;sup&gt;62&lt;/sup&gt;

"Know the God of your father",

but it pertains "even in this",

in the matter of the light,

in the study of Torah [which is] light.

It must be that the blessing over the Torah is <b>first</b>⁶³

— then the Torah — Torah is light,

becomes for him an elixir of life⁶⁴,

when he knows and perceives the inner dimension and the truth of Torah,

the good that is in the Torah,

that this is "He gave us <b>His Torah</b>",

the Torah of God,

and through it he connects himself with the Giver of the Torah.

And this is indeed the content of the blessing over the Torah,

as the Baal HaTurim⁶⁵

— the revealed dimension of Torah — explains "so that our soul may be absorbed in the essence and spirituality and holiness of the source of the Torah's origin ..

a chariot and sanctuary for His Shechinah, may He be blessed..

the Shechinah literally within them".

And to this one comes through the study of the inner dimension of Torah,

which is of the aspect of the Tree of Life⁶⁶

— Divinity is revealed in it openly.

And through the study of the inner dimension of Torah

(together with the study of the revealed dimension of Torah"⁶⁷),

says Ra'aya Mehemna that one goes "from exile with mercy"⁶⁸,

in the true and complete redemption,

when there will be revealed the light that was set aside for the righteous for the future to come,

speedily in our days literally,

in our time.

(From the talk of Shabbos Parshas Bereishis 5743)