1. The Textual Challenge in Rashi’s Commentary
On the verse “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 to rely on Aggadic interpretation. He saw that it was not proper for it {the light} to be used by the wicked, so He set it apart for the righteous in the World to Come. And according to its straightforward meaning, interpret it thus: He saw that it was good, and it was not fitting for light and darkness to function in an intermingled state, so He established boundaries—daytime for one and nighttime for the other.”
Commentators explain that Rashi needs to resort to Aggadic interpretation because “separation” in its literal sense couldn’t apply to light and darkness, since separation only makes sense for things that mix together. But light and darkness cannot mix—where light shines, darkness cannot exist simultaneously.
Therefore, Rashi turns to Aggadic interpretation: “He saw that it was not proper for it to be used... and set it apart for the righteous,” meaning the separation was not between light and darkness as simply understood, but rather setting aside the light for the righteous in the future.
Following this, Rashi offers the straightforward interpretation—where separation is understood in its literal sense—explaining: “He saw that it was good, and it was not fitting for light and darkness to function in an intermingled state.” By “intermingled state,” Rashi doesn’t mean they occupied the same space, but rather the same timeframe—there was no fixed time when light would appear and when darkness would prevail; sometimes it was light, sometimes dark. The separation consisted of “establishing boundaries—daytime for one and nighttime for the other.”
2. Why Did Rashi Do It Backwards?
Based on this explanation, however, several questions arise:
Although Rashi hasn’t yet explicitly stated “I’m here only to explain the straightforward meaning” (he only says this several verses later), the basic understanding of the terms “straightforward meaning,” “Aggadah,” and “derash” suggests that the plain meaning comes first. Only afterward—particularly when the plain meaning isn’t readily understandable—is there room for “going to interpret” what isn’t explicitly stated (interpretation, Aggadah, reasons, etc.). This is also evident from Rashi’s phrase “Here too, we need to rely on Aggadic interpretation,” indicating that the straightforward meaning comes first, but here we must resort to Aggadah (as Rashi later elaborates: “Aggadah that reconciles the text” when the current text needs reconciliation).
Given this understanding, why does Rashi need to resort to Aggadic interpretation at all? According to the above explanation, Rashi has a straightforward interpretation where “He separated” is understood in its literal sense (separating between two distinct entities), yet Rashi chooses as initial preference the Aggadic interpretation: “set it apart for the righteous”?
Even if we accept that the straightforward interpretation isn’t fully comprehensible because the separation isn’t between light and darkness themselves but rather in establishing their timing (which necessitates an additional Aggadic interpretation)—still, the straightforward interpretation is closer to the literal meaning of “separated” and to the subsequent wording of the verse (“separated between the light and the darkness”) than the Aggadic interpretation. At the very least, Rashi should have presented the straightforward interpretation before the Aggadic one.
Another question: Since the difficulty in the verse that prompts Rashi to seek Aggadic interpretation is how the concept of separation could apply to light and darkness (since they don’t mix), shouldn’t Rashi (also) have quoted the continuation of the verse, “G-d separated between the light and the darkness,” or at least indicated these words with “etc.”?
3. The Real Problem Hiding in Plain Sight
From the above analysis, we can understand that the question and necessity for Rashi’s interpretation come specifically from the words “And G-d saw the light that it was good, and He separated.”
The specific difficulty here is: How does “G-d saw the light that it was good” serve as a reason or cause for “and He separated”?
Therefore, Rashi says, “Here too, we need to rely on Aggadic interpretation. He saw that it was (good and therefore it) not proper for it to be used by the wicked, so He set it apart.”
Based on this, one might also explain why Rashi places the Aggadic interpretation before the straightforward one. Rashi’s precise wording in the straightforward interpretation is: “He saw that it was good, and it was not fitting for light and darkness to function in an intermingled state.” Seemingly, Rashi should have written, using the verse’s terminology, “He saw that it..., and it was not good for light and darkness to function in an intermingled state.”
Rashi’s choice of words was intentional because according to the straightforward meaning, “it was not good for light and darkness” wouldn’t be valid (as a reason for separation), for since there was no actual mixing (each functioned at a separate time, just without a fixed schedule), one cannot say “it was not good for it,” as this arrangement caused no detriment to either light or darkness. Rather, it was merely “not fitting” (אין נאה): since “G-d saw the light that it was good,” it was not “fitting” for something as important as “light” to be in an intermingled state with darkness and not have its own fixed time.
Following this line of reasoning, it would appear that according to the Aggadic interpretation, “G-d saw... that it was good” provides a stronger reason for separation (because “[the light] was good,” therefore, “it was not proper (אינו כדאי ) for it to be used by the wicked”) than according to the straightforward interpretation, where due to “it was good,” it was merely “not fitting” (אין נאה ) and therefore “He separated” {fixed schedules for light and dark}.
However, this explanation cannot be sustained as Rashi’s reason for presenting—and prioritizing—the Aggadic interpretation, because this reasoning for separation isn’t even hinted at in the verse; it’s purely from “Aggadah.” Furthermore, this interpretation doesn’t fit smoothly with the verse’s continuation, “G-d separated between the light and the darkness.” {which implies that the separation was between light and dark, not merely setting aside light for the righteous.}
4. There’s More To Light Than Just Light
The explanation may be found by examining why Rashi repeats “He saw that it was good” in his straightforward interpretation, after already quoting “And G-d saw the light that it was good” in the heading, (“and G-d saw the light that it was good). Normally, he should have started with “He saw that it was not fitting,” just as in the Aggadic interpretation where he writes “He saw that it was not proper for it to be used by the wicked” (not “He saw that it was good and was not proper for it to be used, etc.”).
The explanation is that this is actually one of the key distinctions between Rashi’s first and second interpretations:
Since the verse states “And G-d saw the light that it was good, and He separated” (not simply “G-d saw that it was good, and He separated”), it’s understood that “He separated” is connected to “G-d saw the light that it was good”—and Rashi makes this clear by including in his heading only “And G-d saw the light that it was good, and He separated” (not the subsequent words, not even hinting at them with “etc.”). This indicates that, according to the {first} interpretation, “He separated” refers not merely to what follows but to what preceded, namely, the separation was within the light itself.
According to this understanding, when “G-d saw the light that it was good,” He perceived not just the light but also an additional element—the quality of “good” (tov) within it. This recognition prompted the act of “He separated”—that is, He separated this “good” from the “light,” leaving visible only the illumination of light, but not the “good” aspect.
To explain why this separation of the “good” aspect from the light was necessary, Rashi brings the Aggadic interpretation, “He saw that it was not proper for it to be used by the wicked.”
Based on this understanding, several questions are resolved: (a) Why a five-year-old student {Rashi’s standard to who he geared his commentary for}, doesn’t immediately question what “set it apart for the righteous” means when we can still see “light” today—because only the {the child understands that it was only the} “good” within light that was set apart, not the light itself. (b) Why Rashi specifies that it was set apart “for the righteous in the World to Come” rather than simply saying “set it apart for the righteous”—because Rashi is indicating that the “good” within light isn’t relevant or accessible now, as even for the righteous, this aspect will only be experienced in the World to Come.
5. When The Light Is Just Too Good
This explains why Rashi presents “Here too, we need to rely on Aggadic interpretation” before the straightforward interpretation, because according to the Aggadic interpretation, the word “separated” is more precise:
Between light and darkness, “separated” cannot be interpreted literally as dividing two things that are joined together {as they never mix}. So to properly explain both the meaning of “separated” and the logical sequence in “G-d saw the light that it was good, and He separated”—“we need to rely on Aggadic interpretation.”
The Aggadic interpretation resolves the plain meaning of the text, explaining that “separated” is used in its literal sense: a separation within the thing itself—between the “good” in the light and the “light” in the light (similar to {the separation implied in the verse:} “Let there be a sky in the midst of the water, and it will separate between [atmospheric] water and [ocean] water”). This represents a true act of separation between two elements that were initially joined.
Therefore, the straightforward interpretation comes second in Rashi, because although it follows the “straightforward meaning” of the verse’s content—the separation between light and darkness—it’s further from the literal meaning of the word “separated” than the Aggadic interpretation. {For as mentioned above:} According to the straightforward meaning, no actual separation occurred between two connected things (neither in space nor in time), but rather what took place was the establishment of boundaries for each distinct element.
For this reason, Rashi needs to repeat the words “He saw that it was good” in the straightforward interpretation—although he’s referring to the verse’s language “G-d saw the light that it was good”—to emphasize that according to the straightforward interpretation, “good” is to be understood as a description of the light itself. The “good” is not another aspect within light as in the first interpretation, but rather he saw the light itself “that it was good.”
6. From Creation to Purpose – The Aggadic View
Based on the above, we can also explain the deeper meaning in Rashi’s wording “Here too, we need to rely on Aggadic interpretation,” which follows Rashi’s earlier comment on {the verse} “In the beginning (Bereishis)”—“This verse says nothing but ‘Interpret me.’”
At first glance, it seems strange: why does it matter that this is not the first time “we need to rely on Aggadic interpretation”? Even if Rashi hadn’t brought any Aggadic interpretation before, if here “we need to rely on Aggadic interpretation,” Rashi should bring it here regardless.
From the wording “Here too, we need to rely on Aggadic interpretation,” it seems that the Aggadic interpretation here is connected to, and resembles, the interpretation {given on the words} of “In the beginning (Bereishis) G-d created.”
The explanation is: When commenting on the first verse “In the beginning (Bereishis) G-d created,” Rashi had already noted “This verse says nothing but ‘Interpret me’”—and then explained that “Bereishis” suggests creation was “for the sake of Torah, which is called ‘the beginning of His way,’” and for the sake of Israel, who are called ‘the first of His harvest.’“
This arrangement is significant. By placing “Bereishis” (i.e., Torah and Israel) first—although the Torah discusses the creation of heaven and earth and all their hosts, while Torah was only given later and Israel only became a nation after leaving Egypt and receiving the Torah—it teaches us the true nature of the entire creation. It reveals that “G-d created the heaven and the earth” is not an end or purpose in itself—rather, creation exists for the sake of Torah and Israel.
In other words, the drash {interpretive methodology} and Aggadah of Torah, in which most of Torah’s secrets are hidden, reveals the inner and true nature of creation. It shows that creation is not an entity that exists for its own sake but for the sake of Torah and Israel.
Similarly with the nature of light—“Here too, we need to rely on Aggadic interpretation”—{here too} we need to reveal the inner nature {of the current matter, namely—} of light: Light is not an entity that exists for its own sake. In fact, among created beings, light stands out in that its essence is simply to reveal and make visible the things that exist in creation (without light, they remain hidden—“darkness”).
But “Aggadah” reveals something deeper about the inner essence of light—that its essence isn’t just the “light” aspect, the revealing quality, but more fundamentally the “good” (tov) within it.
Building on this understanding of light’s inner essence, this also serves as an introduction that explains Rashi’s interpretation of the next verse:
Rashi explains the verse “And there was evening and there was morning, one day” by saying: “According to the order of the passage, it should have said ‘first day’... Why does it say ‘one’? Because the Holy One, Blessed be He, was alone in His world, as the angels were not created until the second day.”
But seemingly this presents a difficulty: Even though angels were created on the second day, on the first day the creation of light was added—so how can we say “the Holy One, Blessed be He, was alone in His world,” a statement suggesting there was no other creation present?
This apparent contradiction finds its resolution through the Aggadic interpretation that reveals the true nature of the “good” that exists within light. {As will be immediately explained}
7. Two Lights Playing One Role
The explanation is:
It’s explained in many places regarding the verse “See, I have set before you today life and good, and death and evil,” followed by “choose life,” that these terms are not meant literally. After all, who would be foolish enough not to choose life and good over their opposites? Rather, the deeper insight here is that within every created being, throughout its existence, two fundamental aspects coexist: life and death. The physical, material dimension of any entity represents “death” because the thing cannot create and sustain itself. Conversely, the spiritual dimension—the Divine creative force animating it—embodies “life.”
This spiritual dimension contains no cessation or destruction. It possesses the quality of eternal existence.
Within this life aspect itself, there are two distinct levels: (a) The “life” (chaim) in every created being is the level of Divinity that clothes itself within it to sustain it—the aspect of “G-d fills all worlds” (memalei kol almin). (b) The “good” (tov) (about which it’s said “For Your kindness is better (tov) than life”) is the aspect of Divinity that is beyond being clothed in created beings—the aspect of “G-d encompasses all worlds” (sovev kol almin) within memalei {kol almin}.
The distinction here is between Divine light that operates within the natural order (referred to here as “chaim”) versus Divine light that transcends all limitations (referred to here as “tov”).
The Aggadah of Torah also reveals the secret and inner nature of “light”—that its true essence isn’t merely functional—to illuminate physical objects—but serves the deeper purpose of revealing the true existence within creation itself: the Divine word that brings all things into being, sustains, and maintains them, up to the level of “good” (tov) of Divinity, the aspect of “encompasses all worlds” (sovev kol almin) present in all created things.
This is precisely the aspect that “He saw that it [the light] was not proper for it to be used by the wicked,” because if this were to be revealed, the element of “choice” would be compromised. {For} if we could perceive that the true existence of every created thing is {its} Divine life-force, it wouldn’t be possible to choose against this reality.
Therefore, “He set it apart for the righteous in the World to Come,” the time when “every creature will know that You are its Maker,” and ultimately “all flesh together will see that the mouth of G-d has spoken”—recognizing the “word of G-d, {by which} the heavens were made.” {At the time of the Redemption, one will be able to clearly perceive the “tov”—Divine life force—in each creation.}
This explains the connection between “Here too, we need to rely on Aggadic interpretation” and the interpretation of “In the beginning G-d created”:
Just as with creation in general: although Torah and Israel seemingly come into existence later in time, we immediately learn that they are the ultimate purpose of creation, “for the sake of Torah and for the sake of Israel.” Similarly with light: although the “good” (tov) within light is “set apart for the righteous in the future,” it nonetheless constitutes the true essence of light.
Therefore, the creation of light on the first day doesn’t contradict the statement that on day one “the Holy One, Blessed be He, was alone in His world.” For on the contrary, the true essence of the light that was created on the first day is (the light of Sovev that transcends the worlds—) the aspect of "good" within it, whose essence is to reveal in creation itself that there is no existence besides Him, "the Holy One, blessed be He, was alone in His world."
