What Does It Mean to Create?
Parshat Bereshit - From Genesis to Spinoza, explore what it means to create—from yesh me’ayin and pre-existing matter to a centuries-long conversation between revelation, reason, and human creativity.
Don't miss an episode! Subscribe to the Madlik podcast:
Spotify | Apple Podcasts | YouTube
Link to Substack post: here

(א)בְּרֵאשִׁ֖ית בָּרָ֣א אֱלֹהִ֑ים אֵ֥ת הַשָּׁמַ֖יִם וְאֵ֥ת הָאָֽרֶץ׃

(1) When God began to create heaven and earth—

(ב)בראשית ברא ....וְאִם בָּאתָ לְפָרְשׁוֹ כִּפְשׁוּטוֹ, כָּךְ פָּרְשֵׁהוּ בְּרֵאשִׁית בְּרִיאַת שָׁמַיִם וָאָרֶץ, וְהָאָרֶץ הָיְתָה תֹהוּ וָבֹהוּ וְחֹשֶׁךְ וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים יְהִי אוֹר וְלֹא בָא הַמִּקְרָא לְהוֹרוֹת סֵדֶר הַבְּרִיאָה לוֹמַר שֶׁאֵלּוּ קָדְמוּ, שֶׁאִם בָּא לְהוֹרוֹת כָּךְ, הָיָה לוֹ לִכְתֹּב בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה בָּרָא אֶת הַשָּׁמַיִם וְגוֹ' שֶׁאֵין לְךָ רֵאשִׁית בַּמִּקְרָא שֶׁאֵינוֹ דָבוּק לַתֵּבָה שֶׁלְּאַחֲרָיו, כְּמוֹ בְּרֵאשִׁית מַמְלֶכֶת יְהוֹיָקִים (שׁם כ"ז), רֵאשִׁית מַמְלַכְתּוֹ (בראשית י'), רֵאשִׁית דְּגָנְךָ (דברים י"ח, ד'), – אַף כָּאן אַתָּה אוֹמֵר בְּרֵאשִׁית בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים וְגוֹ', כְּמוֹ בְּרֵאשִׁית בְּרֹא; וְדוֹמֶה לוֹ תְּחִלַּת דִּבֶּר ה' בְּהוֹשֵׁעַ (הושע א'), כְּלוֹמַר תְּחִלַת דִּבּוּרוֹ שֶׁל הַקָּבָּ"ה בְּהוֹשֵׁעַ, וַיֹּאמֶר ה' אֶל הוֹשֵׁעַ וְגוֹ'. וְאִ"תֹּ לְהוֹרוֹת בָּא שֶׁאֵלּוּ תְּחִלָּה נִבְרְאוּ, וּפֵרוּשׁוֹ בְּרֵאשִׁית הַכֹּל בָּרָא אֵלוּ – וְֵישׁ לְךָ מִקְרָאוֹת שֶׁמְּקַצְּרִים לְשׁוֹנָם וּמְמַעֲטִים תֵּבָה אַחַת, כְּמוֹ כִּי לֹא סָגַר דַּלְתֵי בִטְנִי (איוב ג'), וְלֹא פֵּרֵשׁ מִי הַסּוֹגֵר וּכְמוֹ יִשָּׂא אֶת חֵיל דַּמֶּשֶׂק (ישעיהו ח'), וְלֹא פֵּרֵשׁ מִי יִשָּׂאֶנּוּ; וּכְמוֹ אִם יַחֲרוֹשׁ בַּבְּקָרִים (עמוס ו'), וְלֹא פֵּרֵשׁ אִם יַחֲרוֹשׁ אָדָם בַּבְּקָרִים, וּכְמוֹ מַגִּיד מֵרֵאשִׁית אַחֲרִית (ישעיהו מ"ו), וְלֹא פֵּרֵשׁ מַגִּיד מֵרֵאשִׁית דָּבָר אַחֲרִית דָּבָר – אִ"כֵּ, תְּמַהּ עַל עַצְמְךָ, שֶׁהֲרֵי הַמַּיִם קָדְמוּ, שֶׁהֲרֵי כְתִיב וְרוּחַ אֱלֹהִים מְרַחֶפֶת עַל פְּנֵי הַמָּיִם, וְעַדַיִין לֹא גִלָּה הַמִּקְרָא, בְּרִיאַת הַמַּיִם מָתַי הָיְתָה, הָא לָמַדְתָּ, שֶׁקָּדְמוּ הַמַּיִם לָאָרֶץ, וְעוֹד, שֶׁהַשָּׁמַיִם מֵאֵשׁ וּמַיִם נִבְרְאוּ, עַל כָּרְחֲךָ לֹא לִמֵּד הַמִּקְרָא סֵדֶר הַמֻּקְדָמִים וְהַמְאֻחָרִים כְּלוּם: ....

(2) בראשית ברא IN THE BEGINNING GOD CREATED — ...If, however, you wish to explain it in its plain sense, explain it thus: At the beginning of the Creation of heaven and earth when the earth was without form and void and there was darkness, God said, “Let there be light”. The text does not intend to point out the order of the acts of Creation — to state that these (heaven and earth) were created first; for if it intended to point this out, it should have written 'בראשונה ברא את השמים וגו “At first God created etc.” And for this reason: Because, wherever the word ראשית occurs in Scripture, it is in the construct state. E. g., (Jeremiah 26:1) “In the beginning of (בראשית) the reign of Jehoiakim”; (Genesis 10:10) “The beginning of (ראשית) his kingdom”; (Deuteronomy 18:4) “The first fruit of (ראשית) thy corn.” Similarly here you must translate בראשית ברא אלהים as though it read בראשית ברוא, at the beginning of God’s creating. ...

(א)בראשית ... וי"א שהבי"ת נושא (צ"ל נוסף) בלי טעם וטעמם שלא יעלה על לב שאין ראשית לשמים ולארץ ע"כ אמר בראשית, ולפי דעתי שהוא סמוך, כמו, "בראשית ממלכת יהויקים" (ירמי' כ"ו א'),...

(1) IN THE BEGINNING. .... Others say that the bet of bereshit is a preposition. They explain that Scripture intends to preclude the thought that heaven and earth were preexisting. Hence it states, In the beginning. I believe that bereshit is in the construct, as in In the beginning of (bereshit) the reign of Jehoiakim (Jeremiah 26:1). ...

(א)בְּרֵאשִׁית בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים ... צֹרֶךְ גָּדוֹל הוּא לְהַתְחִיל הַתּוֹרָה בִּ"בְרֵאשִׁית בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים", כִּי הוּא שֹׁרֶשׁ הָאֱמוּנָה; וְשֶׁאֵינוֹ מַאֲמִין בָּזֶה וְחוֹשֵׁב שֶׁהָעוֹלָם קַדְמוֹן, הוּא כּוֹפֵר בָּעִקָּר וְאֵין לוֹ תּוֹרָה כְּלָל....

(ג)בְּרֵאשִׁית כָּתַב רַשִׁ"י (רש"י על בראשית א':א'): וְאִם בָּאתָ לְפָרְשׁוֹ כִּפְשׁוּטוֹ כָּךְ פָּרְשֵׁהוּ: בְּרֵאשִׁית בְּרִיַּת שָׁמַיִם וָאָרֶץ, וְהָאָרֶץ הָיְתָה תֹהוּ וָבֹהוּ וְחֹשֶׁךְ, וַיֹּאמֶר הקב"ה יְהִי אוֹר. אִם כֵּן, הַכֹּל נִמְשַׁךְ לִבְרִיאַת הָאוֹר. וְרַבִּי אַבְרָהָם פֵּרֵשׁ כְּעִנְיָן זֶה בְּעַצְמוֹ, אֲבָל תִּקֵּן כִּי הַו"ו בְּמִילַת "וְהָאָרֶץ" אֵינָהּ מְשַׁמֶּשֶׁת, וְרַבּוֹת כֵּן בַּמִּקְרָאוֹת. וְהַטַּעַם, כִּי בְּרֵאשִׁית בְּרִיאַת הָרָקִיעַ וְהַיַּבָּשָׁה לֹא הָיָה בָּאָרֶץ יִשּׁוּב, אֲבָל הָיְתָה תֹהוּ וָבֹהוּ מְכֻסָּה בְּמַיִם, וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים יְהִי אוֹר. וּלְפִי דַּעְתּוֹ, לֹא נִבְרָא בְּיוֹם רִאשׁוֹן רַק הָאוֹר.

וְהַקֻּשְׁיָא לְרַבֵּינוּ שְׁלֹמֹה בַּפֵּרוּשׁ הַזֶּה, כִּי אָמַר, שֶׁאִם בָּא לְהוֹרוֹת סֵדֶר הַבְּרִיאָה בְּאֵלּוּ לוֹמַר שֶׁהֵם קָדְמוּ – הָיָה לוֹ לִכְתֹּב "בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה", שֶׁאֵין "רֵאשִׁית" בַּמִּקְרָא שֶׁאֵינוֹ סָמוּךְ. וְהִנֵּה "מַגִּיד מֵרֵאשִׁית אַחֲרִית" (ישעיהו מו י). וְאִם יִסְמֹךְ אוֹתוֹ לְ"דָּבָר", גַּם זֶה תִּסְמֹךְ אוֹתוֹ. וְעוֹד, "וַיַּרְא רֵאשִׁית לוֹ" (דברים לג כא). וְטָעַן בָּזֶה עוֹד טְעָנוֹת.

וְעַתָּה שְׁמַע פֵּרוּשׁ הַמִּקְרָא עַל פְּשׁוּטוֹ נָכוֹן וּבָרוּר. הקב"ה בָּרָא כָּל הַנִּבְרָאִים מֵאֲפִיסָה מֻחְלֶטֶת. וְאֵין אֶצְלֵנוּ בִּלְשׁוֹן הַקֹּדֶשׁ בְּהוֹצָאַת הַיֵּשׁ מֵאַיִן אֶלָּא לְשׁוֹן "בָּרָא"; וְאֵין כָּל הַנַּעֲשֶׂה – תַּחַת הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ אוֹ לְמַעְלָה – הוֹוֶה מִן הָאַיִן הַתְחָלָה רִאשׁוֹנָה. אֲבָל הוֹצִיא מִן הָאֶפֶס הַגָּמוּר הַמֻּחְלָט יְסוֹד דַּק מְאֹד, אֵין בּוֹ מַמָּשׁ, אֲבָל הוּא כֹּחַ מַמְצִיא, מוּכָן לְקַבֵּל הַצּוּרָה וְלָצֵאת מִן הַכֹּחַ אֶל הַפֹּעַל. וְהוּא הַחֹמֶר הָרִאשׁוֹן, נִקְרָא לַיְּוָנִים "הִיּוּלִי". וְאַחַר הַהִיּוּלִי לֹא בָּרָא דָּבָר, אֲבָל יָצַר וְעָשָׂה, כִּי מִמֶּנּוּ הִמְצִיא הַכֹּל וְהִלְבִּישׁ הַצּוּרוֹת וְתִקֵּן אוֹתָן. וְדַע, כִּי הַשָּׁמַיִם וְכָל אֲשֶׁר בָּהֶם – חֹמֶר אֶחָד, וְהָאָרֶץ וְכָל אֲשֶׁר בָּהּ – חֹמֶר אֶחָד. והקב"ה בָּרָא אֵלּוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם מֵאַיִן, וּשְׁנֵיהֶם לְבַדָּם נִבְרָאִים, וְהַכֹּל נַעֲשִׂים מֵהֶם. וְהַחֹמֶר הַזֶּה, שֶׁקָּרְאוּ הִיּוּלִי, נִקְרָא בִּלְשׁוֹן הַקֹּדֶשׁ "תֹּהוּ", ...

(1) IN THE BEGINNING G-D CREATED. ....it was indeed very necessary to begin the Torah with the chapter of In the beginning G-d created for this is the root of faith, and he who does not believe in this and thinks the world was eternal denies the essential principle of the [Judaic] religion and has no Torah at all. ...

(3) IN THE BEGINNING. Rashi wrote: “If you wish to explain it [the word bereshith] in accordance with its plain meaning, explain it thus: at the beginning of the creation of the heaven and earth, and the earth was formless and void and there was darkness, the Holy One, blessed be He, said, Let there be light.” If so, the whole text leads into the creation of light.
Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra explained it in an identical way. However, he established that the letter vav in the word veha’aretz (and the earth) does not şerve [as a connecting letter as it normally does and which would mean “and,” but it serves rather as the word “when.”] There are many such examples in Scripture. The meaning then according to Rabbi Abraham would be: at the beginning of the creation of heaven and dry land, there was no habitable place on earth; rather, it was unformed and void and covered with water, and G-d said, Let there be light. According to Abraham ibn Ezra’s opinion, only light was created on the first day.
The difficulty which Rabbi Shlomo [Rashi] had which led him to the above interpretation is, as he said: For if Scripture intended to teach the order in which the acts of creation took place, it should have written barishonah [instead of bereshith], since wherever the word reshith occurs in Scripture it is in the construct state. But there is the verse, Declaring the end ‘mereshith’ [from the beginning]. And if one will connect it with the missing word davar [thing — thus making the verse read: “Declaring the end of a thing from the beginning of a thing”—] here too it could be connected to a missing word. There is also the verse, And he chose ‘reshith’ (a first part) for himself. [Here again the word reshith is not used in the construct state.] And Rashi raised other objections.
Now listen to the correct and clear explanation of the verse in its simplicity. The Holy One, blessed be He, created all things from absolute non-existence. Now we have no expression in the sacred language for bringing forth something from nothing other than the word bara (created). Everything that exists under the sun or above was not made from non-existence at the outset. Instead He brought forth from total and absolute nothing a very thin substance devoid of corporeality but having a power of potency, fit to assume form and to proceed from potentiality into reality. This was the primary matter created by G-d; it is called by the Greeks hyly (matter). After the hyly, He did not create anything, but He formed and made things with it, and from this hyly He brought everything into existence and clothed the forms and put them into a finished condition.
Know that the heavens and all that is in them consist of one substance, and the earth and everything that is in it consist of one substance. The Holy One, blessed be He, created these two substances from nothing; they alone were created, and everything else was constructed from them.
This substance, which the Greeks called hyly, is called in the sacred language tohu, ...

ברא רובי המפרשים אמרו שהבריאה להוציא יש מאין, וכן "אם בריאה יברא ד'" (במדבר ט"ז ל'), והנה שכחו "ויברא אלהים את התנינים" (בראשית א כא), ושלש בפסוק אחד, "ויברא אלהים את האדם" (בראשית א כז), "ובורא חושך" (ישעי' מ"ה ו') שהוא הפוך האור שהוא יש,... וטעמו, לגזור ולשום גבול נגזר, והמשכיל יבין:

CREATED. Most Biblical commentators explain that the word bara (created) indicates creation ex nihilo. But if the Lord make (yivra) a new thing (beri’ah) (Num. 16:30) is similar. However, they have overlooked And God created (va-yivra) the great sea monsters (Gen. 1:21) and the three times the word created is used in one verse, viz., And God created (va-yivra) man in His own image, in the image of God created (bara) He him; male and female created (bara) He them (Gen. 1:27). They also failed to consider I form the light, and create darkness (Is. 45:7) wherein darkness, which is the opposite of light, an existing entity, is described by the prophet as being created. ...The meaning of bara is to cut or to set a boundary. The intelligent person will understand what I am alluding to.

† I. בָּרָא
vb. shape, create (cf. Arabic بَرَى, form, fashion by cutting, shape out, pare a reed for writing, a stick for an arrow; بَرَأَ, create (loan-word); Ph. הברא CISi. 347 incisor, a trade involving cutting; Assyrian barû, make, create, COTGloss & Hpt KAT2 Gloss 1 but dub.; Sab. ברא found, build, DHMZMG 1883, 413, synon. בנה; BaZA 1888, 58, comp. Assyrian banû, create, beget, with change of liquid; Aramaic בְּרָא, ܒܪܳܐ, create)—
Qal Pf. Gn 1:1 + 19 times; Impf. יִבְרָא Gn 1:21, 27 Nu 16:30; Inf. בְּרֹא Gn 5:1; Imv. בְּרָא ψ 51:12; Pt. בּוֹרֵא Is 42:5 + 10 times; sf. בֹּרַאֲךָ Is 43:1; בּוֹרְאֶיךָ Ec 12:1;—shape, fashion, create, always of divine activity, with acc. rei, seldom except in P and Is 2.

(יב) לֵ֣ב טָ֭הוֹר בְּרָא־לִ֣י אֱלֹהִ֑ים וְר֥וּחַ נָ֝כ֗וֹן חַדֵּ֥שׁ בְּקִרְבִּֽי׃

(12) Fashion a pure heart for me, O God; create in me a steadfast spirit.

(טו) אֲנִ֥י יְהֹוָ֖ה קְדֽוֹשְׁכֶ֑ם בּוֹרֵ֥א יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מַלְכְּכֶֽם׃ {ס}

(15)I am your Holy One, GOD,
Your Sovereign, the Creator of Israel.

(יז) כִּֽי־הִנְנִ֥י בוֹרֵ֛א שָׁמַ֥יִם חֲדָשִׁ֖ים וָאָ֣רֶץ חֲדָשָׁ֑ה וְלֹ֤א תִזָּכַ֙רְנָה֙ הָרִ֣אשֹׁנ֔וֹת וְלֹ֥א תַעֲלֶ֖ינָה עַל־לֵֽב׃

(17)For behold! I am creating A new heaven and a new earth; The former things shall not be remembered, They shall never come to mind.

The NET Bible: bara describes divine creative activity, but “does not necessarily describe creation out of nothing,”
The linguistic and textual examination of the seven usages of the verb ‭אדב‬ in Genesis 1 leads to the conclusion that the verb ‭אדב‬ in Genesis 1 does not mean ‘to create’ but ‘to separate’. This hypothesis is subsequently tested against external evidence from cognate literature in Mesopotamia. In these Mesopotamian accounts of creation, the opening lines often describe the (divine) acts of separation of heaven and earth. The Sumerian verb bad and the Akkadian verb parāsu employed in these texts designate clearly ‘to separate’. Textual evidence from the Hebrew Bible appears to support this hypothesis, too, for example, the fact that in the Hebrew Bible the noun ‘creator’ is never expressed with the participle of ‭אדב‬, but always with the participle of other verbs. Thus, based on internal and external linguistic and textual evidence and on a controlled argumentation, it is highly plausible and very likely that the type of action expressed by the verb ‭אדב‬ in Genesis 1 is of a very concrete, spatial and physical character, and can be rendered by ‘to separate’. [the process of separation which is expressed by the verb Havdil appears to start from a situation of non-unity. The verb bara,
on the other hand, initiates with some sort of unity: the elements that are not yet separated are conceived as belonging to the same set.]
-------
Does bara mean creating something from nothing?
Does it mean forming something from pre-existing matter?
Does it mean ordering chaos?
Does it mean separating and distinguishing?
And is creation limited to the Divine?
And is creation from nothing an article of faith—or just an irrelevant question of medieval Jewish philosophy?
That's what we're going to find out.
Introducing Harry Austin Wolfson

הבט נא השמים והארץ וכל צבאם, כי כל אלה ברא אלוהים מאין, וגם את בני האדם ידיו יצרו.

I ask you, child, to look at heaven and earth. See everything that is in them and know that God made these things from nothing, and created humankind in the same way. - roughly 124 BCE

Philo: De Opificio §29 - approximately 20 BCE–50 CE
8) But Moses, who had early reached the very summits of philosophy, {1}{this is in accordance with the description of him in the Bible, where he is represented as being learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians.} and who had learnt from the oracles of God the most numerous and important of the principles of nature, was well aware that it is indispensable that in all existing things there must be an active cause, and a passive subject; and that the active cause is the intellect of the universe, thoroughly unadulterated and thoroughly unmixed, superior to virtue and superior to science, superior even to abstract good or abstract beauty; (9) while the passive subject is something inanimate and incapable of motion by any intrinsic power of its own, but having been set in motion, and fashioned, and endowed with life by the intellect, became transformed into that most perfect work, this world.
And those who describe it as being uncreated, do, without being aware of it, cut off the most useful and necessary of all the qualities which tend to produce piety, namely, providence: (10) for reason proves that the father and creator has a care for that which has been created; for a father is anxious for the life of his children, and a workman aims at the duration of his works, and employs every device imaginable to ward off everything that is pernicious or injurious, and is desirous by every means in his power to provide everything which is useful or profitable for them.
But with regard to that which has not been created, there is no feeling of interest as if it were his own in the breast of him who has not created it.
Wolfson: it is clear that the Church Fathers understood it to mean not
only a denial of Aristotle's theory of the eternity of the world but also a denial of Plato's theory of the creation of the world from a preëxistent eternal matter.

(1) AMONG those who believe in the existence of God, there are found three different theories as regards the question whether the Universe is eternal or not.

(2) First Theory.—Those who follow the Law of Moses, our Teacher, hold that the whole Universe, i.e., everything except God, has been brought by Him into existence out of non-existence. In the beginning God alone existed, and nothing else; neither angels, nor spheres, nor the things that are contained within the spheres existed. He then produced from nothing all existing things such as they are, by His will and desire. ...

(6) This is the first theory, and it is undoubtedly a fundamental principle of the Law of our teacher Moses; it is next in importance to the principle of God’s unity. Do not follow any other theory. Abraham, our father, was the first that taught it, after he had established it by philosophical research. He proclaimed, therefore, “the name of the Lord the God of the Universe” (Gen. 21:33); and he had previously expressed this theory in the words, “The Possessor of heaven and earth” (ibid. 14:22).

(7) Second Theory.— The Theory of Plato: Creation from a pre-existing substance: The theory of all Philosophers whose opinions and works are known to us is this: It is impossible to assume that God produced anything from nothing, or that He reduces anything to nothing; that is to say, it is impossible that an object consisting of matter and form should be produced when that matter is absolutely absent, or that it should be destroyed in such a manner that that matter be absolutely no longer in existence. To say of God that He can produce a thing from nothing or reduce a thing to nothing is, according to the opinion of these philosophers, the same as if we were to say that He could cause one substance to have at the same time two opposite properties, or produce another being like Himself, or change Himself into a body, or produce a square the diagonal of which be equal to its side, or similar impossibilities. ...

(9) Third Theory.—viz., that of Aristotle, his followers, and commentators. Aristotle maintains, like the adherents of the second theory, that a corporeal object cannot be produced without a corporeal substance. He goes, however, farther, and contends that the heavens are indestructible. For he holds that the Universe in its totality has never been different, nor will it ever change: the heavens, which form the permanent element in the Universe, and are not subject to genesis and destruction, have always been so; time and motion are eternal, permanent, and have neither beginning nor end;...

(2) ... If we were to accept the Eternity of the Universe as taught by Aristotle, that everything in the Universe is the result of fixed laws, that Nature does not change, and that there is nothing supernatural, we should necessarily be in opposition to the foundation of our religion, we should disbelieve all miracles and signs, and certainly reject all hopes and fears derived from Scripture, unless the miracles are also explained figuratively. The Allegorists amongst the Mohammedans have done this, and have thereby arrived at absurd conclusions. If, however, we accepted the Eternity of the Universe in accordance with the second of the theories which we have expounded above (ch. xxiii.), and assumed, with Plato, that the heavens are likewise transient, we should not be in opposition to the fundamental principles of our religion; this theory would not imply the rejection of miracles, but, on the contrary, would admit them as possible. The Scriptural text might have been explained accordingly, and many expressions might have been found in the Bible and in other writings that would confirm and support this theory.

But there is no necessity for this expedient, so long as the theory has not been proved. As there is no proof sufficient to convince us, this theory need not be taken into consideration, nor the other one; we take the text of the Bible literally, and say that it teaches us a truth which we cannot prove; and the miracles are evidence for the correctness of our view.

(3) Accepting the Creation, we find that miracles are possible, that Revelation is possible, and that every difficulty in this question is removed. We might be asked, Why has God inspired a certain person and not another? Why has He revealed the Law to one particular nation, and at one particular time? why has He commanded this, and forbidden that? why has He shown through a prophet certain particular miracles? what is the object of these laws? and Why has He not made the commandments and the prohibitions part of our nature, if it was His object that we should live in accordance with them? We answer to all these questions: He willed it so; or, His wisdom decided so. Just as He created the world according to His will, at a certain time, in a certain form, and as we do not understand why His will or His wisdom decided upon that peculiar form, and upon that peculiar time, so we do not know why His will or wisdom determined any of the things mentioned in the preceding questions. But if we assume that the Universe has the present form as the result of fixed laws, there is occasion for the above questions; and these could only be answered in an objectionable way, implying denial and rejection of the Biblical texts, the correctness of which no intelligent person doubts.

Owing to the absence of all proof, we reject the theory of the Eternity of the Universe; and it is for this very reason that the noblest minds spent and will spend their days in research. For if the Creation had been demonstrated by proof, even if only according to the Platonic hypothesis, all arguments of the philosophers against us would be of no avail.

If, on the other hand, Aristotle had a proof for his theory, the whole teaching of Scripture would be rejected, and we should be forced to other opinions.

Aristotle: The world is eternal. There is no moment of creation at which the universe passes from nonbeing into being.
Plato: The world is created—but creation means imposing order and form upon preexistent eternal matter. Creation is therefore yesh mi-yesh: something from something.
[Plato’s Timaeus, creation involves roughly three elements:
1. Eternal Forms — the intelligible models or patterns
2. The receptacle (χώρα) — the preexistent “space” or substrate in which becoming occurs
3. The sensible world — physical things fashioned as copies/images of the eternal models]
Meet Harry Austryn Wolfson (1887–1974)
Slobodka Yeshiva → Harvard University
Wolfson began with traditional Talmudic study in Slobodka and became the first Nathan Littauer Professor of Hebrew Literature and Philosophy at Harvard. His life's work attempted to reconstruct the interconnected history of Greek, Jewish, Christian and Islamic philosophy from Plato and Philo through Spinoza.
Wolfson proposed a radically expansive definition of medieval philosophy. He begins it with Philo in the first century and ends it with Spinoza in the seventeenth.
“[We] describe this period as mediaeval, for after all it comes between a philosophy which knew not of Scripture and a philosophy which tries to free itself from Scripture…”
Wolfson: With Plotinus (204/5 – 270 AD), however, a new theory of the origin of the world appeared by the side of the older theories of Plato and Aristotle. The world was no longer conceived, with Plato, as being created from a preëxistent matter which was itself coeternal with God; nor was it conceived, with Aristotle, as being in its completeness coeternal with God; it was now conceived as being eternally generated or emanated from the essence of God. With the appearance of this new conception of the origin of the world the question was raised whether, with the elimination of the element of eternity from the Plotinian theory, the traditional belief in creation ex nibilo could not be interpreted to mean the temporal generation of the world from the essence of God.
The question is whether Plotinus can be used to explain creatio ex nihlo?
Wolfson: John Scotus Erigena. ... maintains that such a "universal negation" applies only to God, inasmuch as only God is He who "cannot be spoken of or thought of.".. he concludes that the expression "the world was created from nothing'' means that the world was created from God: the nothing from which the world was created means God to whom alone may be applied the negation of all that can be spoken of or thought of.
Wolfson: The identification of the religious doctrine of the creation of the world from nothing and Plotinus' doctrine of the emanation of the world from the essence of God is also to be found in Alfarabi. [Abu Nasr Muhammad al-Farabi (Arabic: أبو نصر محمد الفارابي, romanized: Abū Naṣr Muḥammad al-Fārābī; c. 870 – 951ce
[Maimonides had an extraordinarily high opinion of al-Fārābī. The clearest evidence is Maimonides' famous Letter to Samuel ibn Tibbon, the Hebrew translator of the Guide. “As for works on logic, one should only study the writings of Abū Naṣr al-Fārābī. All his writings are faultlessly excellent. One ought to study and understand them. For he is a great man.”
He was so highly regarded that medieval philosophers called him “The Second Teacher” (al-Muʿallim al-Thānī). The First Teacher was Aristotle. Al-Farabi helped absorb, organize and transform Greek philosophy—especially Aristotle, but also Plato and Neoplatonic thought—into the Arabic philosophical world. He wrote on logic, metaphysics, psychology, politics, ethics, language and even music.]
Plotinus' doctrine was known to Alfarabi through the Arabic epitome of the Enneads, which appeared under the title of The Theology of Aristotle. Referring to the theory of emanation of that work, he says that "in that work it is made clear that God, be He exalted, has created matter from nothing."
Wolfson: Now nowhere in the Theology of Aristotle, at least in the part of it that has been published, is there any explicit statement that matter was created from nothing. The world, including its matter, is presented in that work as emanating from the essence of God. The fact that Alfarabi ascribes to that work the view that matter was created ex nihilo undoubtedly means that in his opinion creation ex nihilo meant the same as creation from the essence of God.
Hasdai ben Abraham Crescas (Catalan: [həzˈðaj ˈβeɲ ʒuˈða ˈkɾeskəs]; Hebrew: חסדאי קרשקש; c. 1340 in Barcelona – 1410/11
About a century after St. Thomas, the identification of the expression ex nihlo with the expression de essentia Dei (the essense of God) was suggested by Hasdai Crescas. .. he starts with an analysis of the Plotinian theory of emanation. This theory, he argues, means that God, who is pure form, causes to come into existence something that is material and absolutely unlike the pure form from which it is supposed to be emanated. This, he further argues, means nothing but that the world came into existence "after privation," or rather "after nonexistence," without any preëxistent matter as its subject. Then he tries to show that the traditional belief in creation ex nibilo means nothing but that. The expression ex nihilo rather means that the world came into existence "after privation," or rather "after nonexistence," without any preëxistent matter as its subject.

דע כי טרם שנאצלו הנאצלים ונבראו הנבראים היה אור עליון פשוט ממלא כל המציאות ולא היה שום מקום פנוי בבחי' אויר ריקני וחלל אלא הכל היה ממולא מן אור א"ס פשוט ההוא ולא היה לו בחי' ראש ולא בחי' סוף אלא הכל היה אור א' פשוט שוה בהשוואה א' והוא הנק' אור א"ס. וכאשר עלה ברצונו הפשוט לברוא העולמות ולהאציל הנאצלים להוציא לאור שלימות פעולותיו ושמותיו וכנוייו אשר זאת היה סיבה בריאת העולמות כמבואר אצלינו בענף הא' בחקירה הראשונה. והנה אז צמצם את עצמו א"ס בנקודה האמצעית אשר בו באמצע אורו ממש (אמר מאיר בערכינו אמר הרב זה וק"ל) וצמצם האור ההוא ונתרחק אל צדדי סביבות הנקודה האמצעית ואז נשאר מקום פנוי ואויר וחלל רקני מנקודה אמצעית ממש כזה <ציור> והנה הצמצום הזה היה בהשואה א' בסביבות הנקודה האמצעית ריקנית ההוא באופן שמקום החלל ההוא היה עגול מכל סביבותיו ...

2. Know that before the emanations were emanated and the creations were created, there was a simple supernal light that filled all of existence, and there was no empty space in the form of void and empty air. Rather, everything was filled with that simple infinite light, which had no beginning or end. It was simply one equal light, and it is called the "Ein Sof" light. And when it arose in His simple Will to create worlds and to emanate the emanated beings in order to bring forth the perfection of His actions, names, and designations, which was the reason for the creation of the worlds, as explained in Branch One in the First Inquiry. And behold, then He contracted Himself, may He be blessed, in the middle point, precisely at that point where His light was in the most absolute state (Meir says in our version that the Rabbi said this, and it may be inferred). And that light was then contracted and withdrew to the sides surrounding the central point, and then a void, air, and empty space were left, from a central point just like this . And behold, this contraction was equal on all sides of the central point, so that the space was perfectly circular from all sides, without any square corners, because the blessed Ain Sof contracted Himself in a perfectly circular form from all sides...

Etz Chaim (Tree of Life) is a collection of the teachings of Rabbi Isaac Luria (Arizal) as recorded by his disciple, Rabbi Chaim Vital. It is the primary introduction, interpretation, and synthesis of Lurianic Kabbalah.

Composed: (c.1570 – c.1590 CE)

.. הַמְ֒חַדֵּשׁ בְּטוּבוֹ בְּכָל־יוֹם תָּמִיד מַעֲשֵׂה בְרֵאשִׁית: כָּאָמוּר לְעֹשֵׂה אוֹרִים גְּדֹלִים כִּי לְעוֹלָם חַסְדּֽוֹ: אוֹר חָדָשׁ עַל־צִיּוֹן תָּאִיר וְנִזְכֶּה כֻלָּֽנוּ מְהֵרָה לְאוֹרוֹ: בָּרוּךְ אַתָּה יְהֹוָה יוֹצֵר הַמְּ֒אוֹרוֹת:

... He renews in His goodness, each day, continuously, the work of creation, as it is said: “[Give thanks to Him] Who makes the great luminaries,” for His kindness is everlasting.” Shine a new light upon Zion, and may we all soon be privileged to [enjoy] its brightness. Blessed are You, Adonoy, Former of the luminaries.

(ג) הִנֵּה, כְּתִיב: ״לְעוֹלָם, ה׳, דְּבָרְךָ נִצָּב בַּשָּׁמָיִם״, וּפִירֵשׁ הַבַּעַל־שֵׁם־טוֹב זִכְרוֹנוֹ לִבְרָכָה: כִּי ״דְּבָרְךָ״ שֶׁאָמַרְתָּ ״יְהִי רָקִיעַ בְּתוֹךְ הַמָּיִם וְגוֹ׳״ – תֵּיבוֹת וְאוֹתִיּוֹת אֵלּוּ, הֵן נִצָּבוֹת וְעוֹמְדוֹת לְעוֹלָם בְּתוֹךְ רְקִיעַ הַשָּׁמַיִם, וּמְלוּבָּשׁוֹת בְּתוֹךְ כָּל הָרְקִיעִים לְעוֹלָם לְהַחֲיוֹתָם, כְּדִכְתִיב: ״וּדְבַר אֱלֹהֵינוּ יָקוּם לְעוֹלָם״, ״וּדְבָרָיו חָיִים וְקַיָּימִים לָעַד כוּ׳״, כִּי אִילּוּ הָיוּ הָאוֹתִיּוֹת מִסְתַּלְּקוֹת כְּרֶגַע חַס וְשָׁלוֹם וְחוֹזְרוֹת לִמְקוֹרָן, הָיוּ כָּל הַשָּׁמַיִם אַיִן וָאֶפֶס מַמָּשׁ, וְהָיוּ כְּלֹא הָיוּ כְּלָל, וּכְמוֹ קוֹדֶם מַאֲמַר ״יְהִי רָקִיעַ כוּ׳״ מַמָּשׁ.

(ד) וְכֵן בְּכָל הַבְּרוּאִים שֶׁבְּכָל הָעוֹלָמוֹת עֶלְיוֹנִים וְתַחְתּוֹנִים, וַאֲפִילוּ אֶרֶץ הַלֵּזוּ הַגַּשְׁמִית וּבְחִינַת דּוֹמֵם מַמָּשׁ, אִילּוּ הָיוּ מִסְתַּלְּקוֹת מִמֶּנָּה כְּרֶגַע חַס וְשָׁלוֹם הָאוֹתִיּוֹת מֵעֲשָׂרָה מַאֲמָרוֹת שֶׁבָּהֶן נִבְרֵאת הָאָרֶץ בְּשֵׁשֶׁת יְמֵי בְרֵאשִׁית, הָיְתָה חוֹזֶרֶת לְאַיִן וָאֶפֶס מַמָּשׁ, כְּמוֹ לִפְנֵי שֵׁשֶׁת יְמֵי בְרֵאשִׁית מַמָּשׁ.

(3) It is written: “Forever, O L–rd, Your word stands firm in the heavens.” The Baal Shem Tov, of blessed memory, has explained that “Your word” which you uttered, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters…,” these very words and letters stand firmly forever within the firmament of heaven and are forever clothed within all the heavens to give them life, as it is written, “The word of our G–d shall stand firm forever” and “His words live and stand firm forever….” For if the letters were to depart [even] for an instant, G–d forbid, and return to their source, all the heavens would become naught and absolute nothingness, and it would be as though they had never existed at all, exactly as before the utterance, “Let there be a firmament.”

(4) And so it is with all created things, in all the upper and lower worlds, and even this physical earth, which is the realm of the silent (inanimate). If the letters of the Ten Utterances by which the earth was created during the Six Days of Creation were to depart from it [but] for an instant, G–d forbid, it would revert to naught and absolute nothingness, exactly as before the Six Days of Creation.

Shneur Zalman of Liadi - 1745 – 1812

Wolfson: In conclusion, attention may be called to the use made by Spinoza of Crescas' identificatio made by Spinoza (1632 – 1677) of Crescas' identification of emanation from the essence of God with creation from nothing. Dealing with what may be identified as the theory of emanation, Spinoza argues to the effect that the emanation of a material substance from an immaterial substance is impossible on the ground that something cannot come from nothing.
Quote from German Romantic poet Novalis (Friedrich von Hardenberg, 1772–1801), writing more than a century after Spinoza:
„Spinoza ist ein Gott-trunkener Mensch.“
“Spinoza is a God-intoxicated man.”
“Whatever is, is in God, and nothing can be or be conceived without God.”
— Ethics I.15
“God is the immanent, not the transitive, cause of all things.”
— Ethics I.18