Likkutei Sichos Vol. 25 – Bereishis 1
1. From the verse[1] "And G‑d saw the light, that it was good, and G‑d separated between the light and the darkness," Rashi quotes the words "And G‑d saw the light, that it was good, and He separated," and explains: "Here too we need the words of the Aggadah[2]: He saw[3] that it was not fitting[4] for the wicked to make use of it, and He separated it[5] for the righteous in the time to come[6]. According to its plain meaning, explain it thus: He saw that it was good, and it was not proper that it and the darkness should serve[7] in confusion, so He fixed for this one its domain by day and for that one its domain by night."
The commentators[8] explain that Rashi must ("here too") resort to the words of the Aggadah because "and He separated" here cannot be explained in its literal sense (a separation between light and darkness), since "separation" applies only to things that are mixed together, not to light and darkness, which cannot mix: when light shines, there cannot be darkness there at that time[9].
Rashi therefore must resort to the words of the Aggadah: "He saw that it was not fitting for the wicked to make use of it… and He separated it for the righteous." According to this, "and He separated" does not have its literal meaning — a separation between light and darkness — but means that He set the light apart for the righteous in the time to come[10].
Following this, Rashi continues: "According to its plain meaning" — so that the separation has its literal sense[11] — "explain it thus: He saw that it was good, and it was not proper that it and the darkness should serve in confusion." This means confusion not in place (together in one spot) but in time: there was no fixed time for light and for darkness, but sometimes it was light and sometimes dark. The separation consisted of this, that "He fixed for this one its domain by day and for that one its domain by night."
2. According to this, however, it is not understood:
Although Rashi has not yet said explicitly, "I have come only to explain the plain meaning" (he says this only a few verses later[12]), the simple order of peshat, aggadah and derash is that first comes the plain, open meaning; only afterwards (especially if it is not smooth) is there room to "go and seek"[13] what is not openly stated (derash, aggadah, a reason, and so on). This is also evident here from Rashi's own words, "Here too[14] we need the words of the Aggadah": first of all comes the plain meaning of Scripture, only here one must resort to the words of the Aggadah (as Rashi spells out regarding the verse mentioned above[15], "and to the Aggadah that settles the words of Scripture" — in this verse something needs settling).
Now since, according to the above, Rashi does have an explanation "according to its plain meaning," in which "and He separated" has its literal sense, why does Rashi need to resort at all to the explanation of "the words of the Aggadah," in which "and He separated" does not have its literal sense (a separation between two things[16]), but means "He separated it for the righteous"?
Even granting that the explanation "according to its plain meaning" is not entirely smooth — since according to it the separation is not between the light and the darkness themselves[17] but a separation in the fixing of their times, and that is why "we need (also) the words of the Aggadah" — still, the plain-meaning explanation is closer to the meaning of the word "and He separated"[18] and to the content of the following words of the verse ("and He separated… between the light and the darkness") than the Aggadah's explanation of "and He separated." Accordingly, Rashi should at least have placed the explanation "according to its plain meaning" before the explanation of "the words of the Aggadah."
We also need to understand: since the difficulty in the verse that Rashi comes to resolve (for which "we need the words of the Aggadah") is how one can speak of a separation between light and darkness (since they do not mix), Rashi should have quoted (also) the continuation of the verse, "(and He separated) G‑d between the light and the darkness," or at least alluded to these words with "etc."
3. From this it is clear that the question, and what compels Rashi's explanation, come specifically from the words "And G‑d saw the light, that it was good, and He separated" —
which are not understood[19]: how is "And G‑d saw the light, that it was good" a cause and reason for "and He separated"?
That is why Rashi says: "Here too we need the words of the Aggadah: He saw (that it was good — and consequently) that it was not fitting for the wicked to make use of it, and He separated it."
Based on this, one could also explain why Rashi places the explanation of the Aggadah before the explanation "according to its plain meaning." First, a point of precision in Rashi's wording in the plain-meaning explanation: "He saw that it was good, and it was not proper that it and the darkness should serve in confusion." Seemingly it would have been more fitting for Rashi to say, in the language of the verse, "He saw… and it was not good[20] that it and the darkness should serve in confusion."
But according to the "plain meaning," "it was not good for it and the darkness" would not be correct (it could not be a reason for "and He separated"). Since there was no actual mixing between them — each one served at a separate time (only there was no fixed order to their times) — one cannot say that "it was not good," for it did no harm at all to the light (or to the darkness). It was only "not proper": since "G‑d saw the light, that it was good," it is not "fitting" that something as important as "light" should be "in confusion" with darkness, without a fixed time of its own.
It would seemingly follow that according to "the words of the Aggadah," "And G‑d saw… that it was good" is a weightier reason for "and He separated" (since "that it was good" means "it was not fitting for the wicked to make use of it"[21]) than according to the "plain meaning," in which "that it was good" yields only "it was not proper," and therefore "He separated."
But this explanation too cannot be accepted as the reason, in Rashi's commentary, for bringing — and all the more so for putting first — the words of the Aggadah. For the reason for "and He separated" is not even hinted at in the verse; it is purely a matter of "Aggadah." And especially since this explanation does not fit smoothly with the continuation of the verse, "and G‑d separated between the light and the darkness."
4. The explanation of this may be given by first noting that in his explanation "according to its plain meaning," Rashi repeats "He saw that it was good," after he has already quoted in the heading the words "And G‑d saw the light, that it was good." Ordinarily he should have begun, "He saw that it was not proper…," just as in the explanation of the Aggadah, where he says (not "He saw that it was good, and it was not fitting for the wicked to make use of it…," but) "He saw that it was not fitting for the wicked to make use of it…"
The explanation is that this is indeed one of the differences between the first explanation in Rashi and the second:
Since the verse says "And G‑d saw the light, that it was good, and He separated," and not "And G‑d saw that it was good, and He separated," it is understood that "and He separated" is connected with "And G‑d saw the light, that it was good." Rashi makes this clear by quoting in the heading only "And G‑d saw the light, that it was good, and He separated" (not the following words, and not even alluding to them with "etc."[22]): "and He separated" (according to this explanation) refers not (only) to what follows but to what precedes it. That is, the separation was within the light itself:
When "G‑d saw the light, that it was good" — He saw (something additional) that it also contains the quality of "good" — "He separated": He set apart[23] the "good" from the "light," and only the brightness of the light remained revealed, but not the "good"[24]. And to explain why it was necessary to set apart the "good" within the light, Rashi brings the explanation of "the words of the Aggadah": "He saw that it was not fitting for the wicked to make use of it."
This explains: (a) Why a five-year-old beginning Chumash does not immediately ask: what does "He separated it for the righteous"[25] mean, when we see the "light" now? (Because, as explained, only the "good" within the light was set apart.) (b) Why Rashi says "He separated it for the righteous in the time to come," and is not satisfied with saying only "He separated it for the righteous"[26]: with this Rashi indicates that the "good" within the light is not something that can be known now, since[27] even for the righteous it will be only in the time to come.
5. Accordingly, it is understood why Rashi places "Here too we need the words of the Aggadah" before the explanation "according to its plain meaning": it is specifically according to the explanation of "the words of the Aggadah" that the word "and He separated" is more precise.
Since between light and darkness one cannot explain "and He separated" in its plain sense, as one separates two things that are joined together,
in order to explain the meaning of "and He separated" and its connection with the verse, "And G‑d saw the light, that it was good, and He separated," "we need the words of the Aggadah"[28].
With the words of the Aggadah the plain sense of the verse is settled, so that "and He separated" has its plain meaning[29]: a separation within the thing itself — between the good within the light and the light within the light (just as "Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it separate between water and water"[30]).
That is why the explanation according to the plain meaning comes second in Rashi. Although it is "according to the plain meaning" of the content of the verse — the separation "between the light and the darkness" — it is "further" from the plain meaning of the word "and He separated" than the explanation of "the words of the Aggadah." For "according to its plain meaning," no separation was effected between two things joined together (neither in place nor in time); there was only the fixing of a domain for each.
For this reason Rashi must add in the explanation "according to its plain meaning" the words "He saw that it was good" — even though, as said above, he relies on the wording of the verse, "And G‑d saw the light, that it was good" — to emphasize that "according to its plain meaning," "that it was good" has its plain sense: the "good" is not an additional quality within the light, as in the first explanation; rather, He saw it — the light itself — that it was good.
6. Based on the above, one can also explain the "wine of Torah" in Rashi's commentary — in Rashi's words, "Here too we need the words of the Aggadah," which in their plain sense continue Rashi's earlier words on "In the beginning"[31]: "This verse says nothing but 'Expound me.'"
Seemingly this is not smooth: what difference does it make that this is not the first time "we need the words of the Aggadah"? Even if Rashi had not brought any Aggadah earlier, since here "we need the words of the Aggadah," Rashi would have to bring it here.
The wording "Here too we need the words of the Aggadah" implies that the Aggadah here is connected to, and resembles, the exposition on "In the beginning G‑d created."
The explanation is as follows: On the first verse, "In the beginning G‑d created," Rashi explains: "This verse says nothing but 'Expound me': for the sake of the Torah, which is called[32] 'the beginning of His way,' and for the sake of Israel, who are called[33] 'the first of His produce.'" By opening with "In the beginning" (that is, Torah and Israel), even though the Torah is speaking here of the creation of heaven and earth and all their hosts (and the Torah was given only later, and likewise Israel became a nation only after leaving Egypt and receiving the Torah), the Torah teaches what the (true) reality of all Creation is: "G‑d created the heavens and the earth" is not a purpose or an end in itself; Creation exists for the sake of Torah and Israel[34].
That is, the derash and Aggadah of the Torah, in which most of the secrets of the Torah are hidden[35], reveal the inner dimension and truth of Creation: that it is not an existence for its own sake, but for the sake of the Torah and for the sake of Israel.
So it is with the existence of light: "Here too we need the words of the Aggadah" — the inner dimension of light must also be revealed. Light is not an existence for its own sake.
All other creatures are independent existences; set apart from them all is light, which, in its simple sense, exists only for the sake of something else: its whole function is that through it the things that exist in Creation are revealed and seen (without light they are hidden in darkness)[36].
The "Aggadah," however, reveals the inner dimension of light: the inner core of its existence is not only the quality of revealing — the "light" in it — but the "good" in it[37].
This is also a preface that explains Rashi's commentary on the following verse:
On the verse[38] "And there was evening and there was morning, one day," Rashi explains: "According to the order of wording in the passage, it should have written 'the first day'… 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."
Seemingly: although the angels were created on the second day, light was created on the first day. How then can one say "the Holy One, blessed be He, was alone in His world," which implies that there was no other creation at all?
The answer is explained by the words of the Aggadah, which reveal the "good" that is in the light.
7. The explanation of this:
It is explained in many places[39] regarding the verse[40], "See, I have set before you today life and good, and death and evil," followed by[41] "and you shall choose life," that life and death here are not meant literally, for "who is such a fool"[42] who would not choose life and good rather than the opposite? Rather, the meaning is that every creature, while it lives and exists, has in it life and death. The physicality and materiality of the thing is "death," for the thing does not create and give life to itself. Its spirituality — the G‑dly power of the Creator within it — is "life." In the creature's life — and in general — there is no cessation; it is "in the state of eternal existence."
Within this itself there are two levels[43]: the "life" in every creature is the level of G‑dliness that clothes itself in it to give it life — the level of memaleh kol almin (which fills all worlds); and the "good" (of which it is said[44], "for Your kindness is better than life") is the level of G‑dliness that is higher than clothing itself in order to give life to creatures — the level of sovev kol almin (which encompasses all worlds) within it.
The Aggadah of the Torah also reveals the secret and inner dimension of "light"[45]: its true reality is not that it reveals the physicality and existence of the creature, but that through it the true existence within the creature is revealed — the word of G‑d that brings it into being, gives it life and sustains it — up to the level of "good" in G‑dliness, the level of sovev kol almin, which is present in all creatures.
And this is "He saw that it was not fitting for the wicked to make use of it"[46]: for then free choice would be lacking[47]. Seeing the truth in every creature — that its true existence is the G‑dly life-force — one could not possibly choose its opposite. Therefore "He separated it for the righteous in the time to come," when "every creature will know that You made it…"[48], until "all flesh together shall see[49] that the mouth of G‑d has spoken" — that "by the word[50] of G‑d the heavens were made…"[51].
This is how "Here too we need the words of the Aggadah" continues from the exposition on "In the beginning G‑d created":
8. Just as with Creation in general — although Torah and Israel seem to be something that enters Creation only later, it is revealed at the very outset that they are the purpose of Creation, "for the sake of the Torah and for the sake of Israel" —
so too with light: although the "good" within the light was set apart for the righteous in the time to come, it is the true essence of light.
Therefore the creation of light on the first day does not contradict the statement that on the first day "the Holy One, blessed be He, was alone in His world." On the contrary: the true essence of the light created on the first day (the encompassing light that is above the chain of worlds[52]) is the "good"[53] within it, whose function is to reveal within Creation itself that there is no existence apart from Him[54] — "the Holy One, blessed be He, was alone in His world"[55].
9. With this, Rashi also alludes to a lesson for a Jew's study of Torah. That is why he stresses "Here too we need the words of the Aggadah," and does not simply say "Here too there is need for the words of the Aggadah":
A Jew may ask: it is understandable that Jews who are constantly involved with the matters of Creation, "the heavens and the earth" — in general, people engaged in business — need to resort to "This verse says nothing but 'Expound me,'" to the derash of the Torah, to reveal that "In the beginning G‑d created" is "for the sake of the Torah and for the sake of Israel."
Since he deals with worldly matters, they could confuse him and disturb his service of G‑d, or at least the existence of the world takes up a place in his mind. He therefore needs the expositions of the Torah to 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. This affects him so that his involvement with worldly matters does not disturb his service of G‑d; on the contrary, through his service "for the sake of Heaven"[56] and "in all your ways, know Him"[57], he makes the world into a dwelling place for G‑d.
But a Jew who "sits in the tent," who deals only with matters of "light"[58] — "a mitzvah is a lamp and the Torah is light"[59] — who is constantly within the bright four cubits of halachah (and of prayer), does not need to resort to the study of Aggadah and the inner dimension of the Torah.
On this Rashi gives the lesson, "Here too we need the words of the Aggadah": even in this occupation with the matters of light in the Torah (to the point that Rashi says "we," including himself), one needs to resort to the words of the Aggadah. In the words of the Alter Rebbe in Hilchos Talmud Torah[60], one's study must also include "the expositions of the Aggados, to contemplate from them moral lessons, to know G‑d, as the Sages said: 'If you wish to know Him who spoke and the world came into being, study Aggadah, for through this you will come to know the Holy One, blessed be He, and cleave to His ways' — for most of the secrets of the Torah, which is the wisdom of Kabbalah and the knowledge of G‑d, are hidden in the Aggados."
The study of the inner dimension of the Torah[61], which in our time has been revealed in the teachings of Chassidus, must be undertaken not only in order to learn and know another part of the Torah, and to fulfill the command[62] "Know the G‑d of your father." Rather, it concerns "here too" — the matter of light, the study of Torah, which is light.
There must be "blessing the Torah first"[63]; then the Torah is a Torah of light, and "it becomes for him an elixir of life"[64] — when he knows and senses the inner dimension and truth of the Torah, the good within the Torah: that He gave us His Torah, the Torah of G‑d, and through it he binds himself with the Giver of the Torah. This is the very content of the blessing over the Torah, as the Bach on the Tur[65] explains regarding the revealed part of the Torah: "so that our souls should cleave to the essence, spirituality and holiness of the source from which the Torah comes… a chariot and sanctuary for His Shechinah… the Shechinah itself within them."
One reaches this through the study of the inner dimension of the Torah, which is the level of the "Tree of Life"[66] — in it G‑dliness shines openly. And through the study of the inner dimension of the Torah (together with the study of its revealed part[67]), the Raya Mehemna says, we will go "out of exile with mercy"[68], in the true and complete Redemption, when the light that He set apart for the righteous in the time to come will be revealed, speedily in our very days.
(From a talk of Shabbos Parshas Bereishis, 5743)