Why isn't the second day of creation called "good"

[century153]

***And God made a firmament, and divided the waters that were under the firmament, from those that were above the firmament, and it was so. ***et fecit Deus firmamentum divisitque aquas quae erant sub firmamento ab his quae erant super firmamentum et factum est ita
***1 8 And God called the firmament, Heaven; and the evening and morning were the second day. vocavitque Deus firmamentum caelum et factum est vespere et mane dies secundus
1 9 God also said; Let the waters that are under the heaven, be gathered together into one place: and let the dry land appear. And it was so done. ***dixit vero Deus congregentur aquae quae sub caelo sunt in locum unum et appareat arida factumque est ita
***1 10 And God called the dry land, Earth; and the gathering together of the waters, he called Seas. And God saw that it was good. ***et vocavit Deus aridam terram congregationesque aquarum appellavit maria et vidit Deus quod esset bonum

This is from the Latin Vulgate. So, I guess God actually did say the second day was good. I hope this answers your question.

 

[rcjones]

6 ¶ And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
9 ¶ And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and** God saw that it was good.**
13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

What am I missing?

The dividing of waters happened on day 2. The gathering of the waters under the firmament happened on day 3 and was good twice.

The third day is the day of life. It is the day of the seed (of the woman) or the Day of the Lord. The third day, the day of the resurrection is called the Day of the Lord (seed). He was alive in the flesh and the spirit. It was a doubly good day.

 

[chosen_people]

Why isn’t the second day of creation called “good”?

Rashi: This term is used only for the final creation, but the waters which were begun on the second day were not completed until the third day.

Midrash: The waters were divided on this day symbolizing strife. Schism and dispute cannot be called good.

Another reason: The creation of the firmament though momentous was not the prime purpose of creation. The prime purpose of creation is the lower world where man does his work to bring God’s plan to fruition.

Why on the sixth day does it say that it was good after the creation of animals but not of man? Because this expression refers to a facet of creation after it is complete. Animals have neither the ability or requirement to develop themselves further. Man’s creation is never complete as he must always strive to better himself in the world.

Why at the end of the sixth day does it say “behold it was very good”? The components of creation are even better in combination than they are individually. Rabbi Hirsch points out that even things that seem to be evil - such as suffering,death, and temptation- appear to be so only when viewed in isolation, but in the total context of existence they can be viewed as good, even very good. If we could but perceive at one glance the entire picture of God’s management of intertwining events, we would agree with this verdict.

source: The Stone edition of the Chumash

 

[Robert_Sock]

Why isn’t the second day of creation called “good”?

Rashi: This term is used only for the final creation, but the waters which were begun on the second day were not completed until the third day.

Midrash: The waters were divided on this day symbolizing strife. Schism and dispute cannot be called good.

Another reason: The creation of the firmament though momentous was not the prime purpose of creation. The prime purpose of creation is the lower world where man does his work to bring God’s plan to fruition.

Why on the sixth day does it say that it was good after the creation of animals but not of man? Because this expression refers to a facet of creation after it is complete. Animals have neither the ability or requirement to develop themselves further. Man’s creation is never complete as he must always strive to better himself in the world.

Why at the end of the sixth day does it say “behold it was very good”? The components of creation are even better in combination than they are individually. Rabbi Hirsch points out that even things that seem to be evil - such as suffering,death, and temptation- appear to be so only when viewed in isolation, but in the total context of existence they can be viewed as good, even very good. If we could but perceive at one glance the entire picture of God’s management of intertwining events, we would agree with this verdict.

source: The Stone edition of the Chumash

Did you read post number 9 where it states that “very good” on the sixth day refers to the yetser ha-ra, the evil inclination?

 

[chosen_people]

Did you read post number 9 where it states that “very good” on the sixth day refers to the yetser ha-ra, the evil inclination?

I would separate the concept of the good inclination and the bad inclination from the passage under discussion. I would also definitely separate the beginning paragraph in your #9 post dealing with Satan and man’s inner conflict. The concept of “Satan” in Christianity is different than the concept in Judaism and is misleading to the non-Jewish reader. Finally, I would not refer to the bad inclination as the evil inclination as God does not create evil. The good inclination if taken to the extreme becomes bad and the bad inclination in moderation is actually good.

The two inclinations are not between doing what is good and doing what is evil, but rather between acting altruistically for others (good) and acting through self interest and self fulfillment (bad). A child acts only only through their self indulgence (the bad inclination). As the child grows he/she begins to understand how their actions relate and affect others and temper their behaviour accordingly (the good inclination). We speak of the self indulgent inclination as bad because when it is taken to the extreme it is that inclination that can lead to evil. However it is also that very inclination which causes a person to marry and have a family, to get a job and to make money. We have to find the proper balance between the two inclinations. In Judaism we are given a guidebook to find that balance and to live a good, moral, ethical and fulfilled life. It is the Torah - God’s commandments- the written and oral law.

 

[chosen_people]

I would separate the concept of the good inclination and the bad inclination from the passage under discussion. I would also definitely separate the beginning paragraph in your #9 post dealing with Satan and man’s inner conflict. The concept of “Satan” in Christianity is different than the concept in Judaism and is misleading to the non-Jewish reader. Finally, I would not refer to the bad inclination as the evil inclination as God does not create evil. The good inclination if taken to the extreme becomes bad and the bad inclination in moderation is actually good.

The two inclinations are not between doing what is good and doing what is evil, but rather between acting altruistically for others (good) and acting through self interest and self fulfillment (bad). A child acts only only through their self indulgence (the bad inclination). As the child grows he/she begins to understand how their actions relate and affect others and temper their behaviour accordingly (the good inclination). We speak of the self indulgent inclination as bad because when it is taken to the extreme it is that inclination that can lead to evil. However it is also that very inclination which causes a person to marry and have a family, to get a job and to make money. We have to find the proper balance between the two inclinations. In Judaism we are given a guidebook to find that balance and to live a good, moral, ethical and fulfilled life. It is the Torah - God’s commandments- the written and oral law.

 

[Robert_Sock]

I would separate the concept of the good inclination and the bad inclination from the passage under discussion. I would also definitely separate the beginning paragraph in your #9 post dealing with Satan and man’s inner conflict. The concept of “Satan” in Christianity is different than the concept in Judaism and is misleading to the non-Jewish reader. Finally, I would not refer to the bad inclination as the evil inclination as God does not create evil. The good inclination if taken to the extreme becomes bad and the bad inclination in moderation is actually good.

The two inclinations are not between doing what is good and doing what is evil, but rather between acting altruistically for others (good) and acting through self interest and self fulfillment (bad). A child acts only only through their self indulgence (the bad inclination). As the child grows he/she begins to understand how their actions relate and affect others and temper their behaviour accordingly (the good inclination). We speak of the self indulgent inclination as bad because when it is taken to the extreme it is that inclination that can lead to evil. However it is also that very inclination which causes a person to marry and have a family, to get a job and to make money. We have to find the proper balance between the two inclinations. In Judaism we are given a guidebook to find that balance and to live a good, moral, ethical and fulfilled life. It is the Torah - God’s commandments- the written and oral law.

Hi,

How do the yetser ra and yetser ha-ra differ? Do you agree that G-d created both the yetser tov and yetser ra? How is Satan viewed in Judaism?

Finally, do you agree that “very good” in Genesis 1:31 is referring to the yetser ha-ra and should not be taken to mean “very good” literally?

Sorry for so many questions but I’m new to Jewish concepts and I would like to understand things correctly.

Thanks!

Robert

 

[chosen_people]

Hi,

How do the yetser ra and yetser ha-ra differ? Do you agree that G-d created both the yetser tov and yetser ra? How is Satan viewed in Judaism?

Finally, do you agree that “very good” in Genesis 1:31 is referring to the yetser ha-ra and should not be taken to mean “very good” literally?

Sorry for so many questions but I’m new to Jewish concepts and I would like to understand things correctly.

Thanks!

Robert

I misled you on one point. There is indeed a midrash relating the term “very good” to man’s inclinations.

There is no difference between Yetzer ra and Yestzer hara except for the definite article, bad or evil inclination as opposed to the bad or the evil inclination.

Judaism holds that we are born totally innocent. We are also born with the good and the bad inclination and most importantly, freedom of choice to choose between them. Torah, the written and oral law, provides God’s guide to finding the balance between these inclinations and living a good, ethical and moral life. The idea of predestination is a total anathema to Judaism as is the idea of “original sin” in its Christian conception. The concept of Satan in Judaism is of an angel with no free will who is totally under God’s control, and through God’s will may test someone as to whether they will overcome the temptation of the bad-evil inclination and use their free choice for the good inclination. The Christian concept of “the Devil”, a fallen angel, with independent free will in conflict with God until the end of days, is contrary to Judaic monotheism.

Sin may be against God or against a fellow man. It may be intentional or non intentional. In Judaism animal blood sacrifices during the Temple periods, have only ever atoned for unintentional sins. Even these sacrifices did not have to include blood, such as the flour sacrifice of the poor or the use of incense. The idea of vicarious atonement for sin is also rejected by Judaism. Intentional sin against another, even at the time of the Temple, could only be atoned by prayer, repentance, charity and where applicable by restitution for the damage caused. This way could also atone for sins against God. The Christian concept of vicarious blood atonement for all sins through the blood sacrifice of an innocent person and through faith in that person, the rejection of Torah as no longer relevant, are all concepts totally contrary to Judaism.

 

[Robert_Sock]

I misled you on one point. There is indeed a midrash relating the term “very good” to man’s inclinations.

There is no difference between Yetzer ra and Yestzer hara except for the definite article, bad or evil inclination as opposed to the bad or the evil inclination.

Judaism holds that we are born totally innocent. We are also born with the good and the bad inclination and most importantly, freedom of choice to choose between them. Torah, the written and oral law, provides God’s guide to finding the balance between these inclinations and living a good, ethical and moral life. The idea of predestination is a total anathema to Judaism as is the idea of “original sin” in its Christian conception. The concept of Satan in Judaism is of an angel with no free will who is totally under God’s control, and through God’s will may test someone as to whether they will overcome the temptation of the bad-evil inclination and use their free choice for the good inclination. The Christian concept of “the Devil”, a fallen angel, with independent free will in conflict with God until the end of days, is contrary to Judaic monotheism.

Sin may be against God or against a fellow man. It may be intentional or non intentional. In Judaism animal blood sacrifices during the Temple periods, have only ever atoned for unintentional sins. Even these sacrifices did not have to include blood, such as the flour sacrifice of the poor or the use of incense. The idea of vicarious atonement for sin is also rejected by Judaism. Intentional sin against another, even at the time of the Temple, could only be atoned by prayer, repentance, charity and where applicable by restitution for the damage caused. This way could also atone for sins against God. The Christian concept of vicarious blood atonement for all sins through the blood sacrifice of an innocent person and through faith in that person, the rejection of Torah as no longer relevant, are all concepts totally contrary to Judaism.

Thanks! That was interesting.

 

[Robert_Sock]

I misled you on one point. There is indeed a midrash relating the term “very good” to man’s inclinations.

There is no difference between Yetzer ra and Yestzer hara except for the definite article, bad or evil inclination as opposed to the bad or the evil inclination.

Judaism holds that we are born totally innocent. We are also born with the good and the bad inclination and most importantly, freedom of choice to choose between them. Torah, the written and oral law, provides God’s guide to finding the balance between these inclinations and living a good, ethical and moral life. The idea of predestination is a total anathema to Judaism as is the idea of “original sin” in its Christian conception. The concept of Satan in Judaism is of an angel with no free will who is totally under God’s control, and through God’s will may test someone as to whether they will overcome the temptation of the bad-evil inclination and use their free choice for the good inclination. The Christian concept of “the Devil”, a fallen angel, with independent free will in conflict with God until the end of days, is contrary to Judaic monotheism.

Sin may be against God or against a fellow man. It may be intentional or non intentional. In Judaism animal blood sacrifices during the Temple periods, have only ever atoned for unintentional sins. Even these sacrifices did not have to include blood, such as the flour sacrifice of the poor or the use of incense. The idea of vicarious atonement for sin is also rejected by Judaism. Intentional sin against another, even at the time of the Temple, could only be atoned by prayer, repentance, charity and where applicable by restitution for the damage caused. This way could also atone for sins against God. The Christian concept of vicarious blood atonement for all sins through the blood sacrifice of an innocent person and through faith in that person, the rejection of Torah as no longer relevant, are all concepts totally contrary to Judaism.

Does the Yestzer hara include the Seven Deadly Sins?

 

[chosen_people]

Does the Yestzer hara include the Seven Deadly Sins?

The concept of the 7 deadly sins is a purely (Catholic) Christian concept with its positing of origin and how everyone is doomed from birth to do wrong- its linkage with demons- its classifications of different sins- it absolutes with no ability to adjust to circumstances. The only answer I can give to your question from a Jewish perspective is that the source of all sin in a person is in the bad-evil inclination.

 

[JFL82]

I’m not sure you can say that God created the evil intentions in humans. God created Free Will in humans. Humans CHOSE to have evil intentions.

i have a question about this free will…my brother in law (he’s free thinker) asking this question to all his friend including me. so i hope i can get an answer here…

there’s a quote from Moses Maimonides about this free will like this “Does God know or does He not know that a certain individual will be good or bad? If thou sayest ‘He knows’, then it necessarily follows that [that] man is compelled to act as God knew beforehand he would act, otherwise God’s knowledge would be imperfect.…”

how do you answer this ??
let’s say that God give us free will…is there any free will in heaven ? if yes, that’s mean evil exist in heaven too ?? if no, free will is a joke. Is therefore implies that there can be no heaven unless it’s inhabitants have no free will and thus lose it tremendous value. If heavenly existence is more valuable than an earthy existence, then the earthy one seem unnecessary ??

thanks and GBU

Joice

 

[NotWorthy]

i have a question about this free will…my brother in law (he’s free thinker) asking this question to all his friend including me. so i hope i can get an answer here…

there’s a quote from Moses Maimonides about this free will like this “Does God know or does He not know that a certain individual will be good or bad? If thou sayest ‘He knows’, then it necessarily follows that [that] man is compelled to act as God knew beforehand he would act, otherwise God’s knowledge would be imperfect.…”

how do you answer this ??
let’s say that God give us free will…is there any free will in heaven ? if yes, that’s mean evil exist in heaven too ?? if no, free will is a joke. Is therefore implies that there can be no heaven unless it’s inhabitants have no free will and thus lose it tremendous value. If heavenly existence is more valuable than an earthy existence, then the earthy one seem unnecessary ??

thanks and GBU

Joice

God knows beforehand how we will answer, but that doesn’t mean He takes away our Free Will.

The clarification of this comes from either Kings or Chronicles. In it, David is being pursued by King Saul and is hiding out in a town. David inquires of God what will Saul do if he stays in the town, and God answers that Saul will pursue him and capture him in the town (I believe because some spies will rat him out, but I can’t be sure). David follows up by asking God what will happen if David and his men flee to the wilderness, and God replies that Saul will give up his pursuit of David and his men for the time being.

Does this look like God has pre-determined what David will do? God just knows all the endless possibilities and all the endless ramifications of our choices and actions.

 

[rcjones]

Does this look like God has pre-determined what David will do? God just knows all the endless possibilities and all the endless ramifications of our choices and actions.

This is the Pachinco model of predestination. The balls fall and bounce between the nails. A particular ball may take any of hundreds or thousands of paths, but all the gates are predetermined as well as the limited choices on the other side.

We have the choice between gates 1, 2 or 3, which limits our next choices by way of a predetermined matrix. They all end up sorted at the bottom as a win or a loss based on the paths they took.

This model does not violate God’s omniscience any more than Jesus choosing to empty himself in the kenosis invalidates His deity. Only the Father knows the Day and hour… this does not make the Son and Holy Ghost, not God , nor not omniscient.

I don’t know that I believe it, but it is a plausible position. We just don’t know enough about how sequencing works in a timeless eternity and it gets into too much speculation for me.

 

[NotWorthy]

This is the Pachinco model of predestination. The balls fall and bounce between the nails. A particular ball may take any of hundreds or thousands of paths, but all the gates are predetermined as well as the limited choices on the other side.

We have the choice between gates 1, 2 or 3, which limits our next choices by way of a predetermined matrix. They all end up sorted at the bottom as a win or a loss based on the paths they took.

This model does not violate God’s omniscience any more than Jesus choosing to empty himself in the kenosis invalidates His deity. Only the Father knows the Day and hour… this does not make the Son and Holy Ghost, not God , nor not omniscient.

I don’t know that I believe it, but it is a plausible position. We just don’t know enough about how sequencing works in a timeless eternity and it gets into too much speculation for me.

… or maybe, just maybe, God knew what was in Saul’s heart.

It’s not about pre-destination. It’s about being omniscient.

 

[Kontrak]

i have a question about this free will…my brother in law (he’s free thinker) asking this question to all his friend including me. so i hope i can get an answer here…

there’s a quote from Moses Maimonides about this free will like this “Does God know or does He not know that a certain individual will be good or bad? If thou sayest ‘He knows’, then it necessarily follows that [that] man is compelled to act as God knew beforehand he would act, otherwise God’s knowledge would be imperfect.…”

how do you answer this ??
let’s say that God give us free will…is there any free will in heaven ? if yes, that’s mean evil exist in heaven too ?? if no, free will is a joke. Is therefore implies that there can be no heaven unless it’s inhabitants have no free will and thus lose it tremendous value. If heavenly existence is more valuable than an earthy existence, then the earthy one seem unnecessary ??

thanks and GBU

Joice

I can only answer that so much as the soul of man is concerned. As the angel’s fall is way to metaphysical for my tiny brain to comprehend when I read about it, although I’ve tried.

Anyway, from what I understand in Heaven we are in the continual presents of God. We are in the presents of truth and love. We cannot sin. It does not mean our free will is gone. We no longer have a desire for evil. Souls in purgatory can not sin either.

A better word would be “tested”, not tempted.

From what I understand He was tempted. Temptation is not sin only giving into it is. In order for him to be whole man he must have free will and with that temptation. Mary as well also suffered temptation but through the grace of God prevailed. Also because she needed to be as she was in order to be the holy dwelling place of God the new ark (immaculate conception).

 

[Pax]

i have a question about this free will…my brother in law (he’s free thinker) asking this question to all his friend including me. so i hope i can get an answer here…

there’s a quote from Moses Maimonides about this free will like this “Does God know or does He not know that a certain individual will be good or bad? If thou sayest ‘He knows’, then it necessarily follows that [that] man is compelled to act as God knew beforehand he would act, otherwise God’s knowledge would be imperfect.…”

how do you answer this ??
let’s say that God give us free will…is there any free will in heaven ? if yes, that’s mean evil exist in heaven too ?? if no, free will is a joke. Is therefore implies that there can be no heaven unless it’s inhabitants have no free will and thus lose it tremendous value. If heavenly existence is more valuable than an earthy existence, then the earthy one seem unnecessary ??

thanks and GBU

Joice

Knowledge is not a synonym for causation. This can be seen easily by comparing our knowledge of past events with God’s knowledge of future events. For example: I know that Sirhan Sirhan assassinated Robert Kennedy. My knowledge of that event did not cause Sirhan to assassinate Robert Kennedy. Likewise, God, who is outside of time, knew in advance that Sirhan would commit the assassination, but God’s knowledge did not cause Sirhan to commit the act.

I hope this helps.

 

[NotWorthy]

Knowledge is not a synonym for causation. This can be seen easily by comparing our knowledge of past events with God’s knowledge of future events. For example: I know that Sirhan Sirhan assassinated Robert Kennedy. My knowledge of that event did not cause Sirhan to assassinate Robert Kennedy. Likewise, God, who is outside of time, knew in advance that Sirhan would commit the assassination, but God’s knowledge did not cause Sirhan to commit the act.

I hope this helps.

Yes, I believe that this line of reasoning (foreknowledge means causation) would lead to God being the cause of all evil in this world.

 

[century153]

What am I missing?

The dividing of waters happened on day 2. The gathering of the waters under the firmament happened on day 3 and was good twice.

The third day is the day of life. It is the day of the seed (of the woman) or the Day of the Lord. The third day, the day of the resurrection is called the Day of the Lord (seed). He was alive in the flesh and the spirit. It was a doubly good day.

I understood the second day as the day the Lord divided the waters etc and that the third day was the day of the seed. That was my understanding anyway – so that would make the second day good and then the third day good as well.