Why does God never say "it was good" on the second day of Creation?
After most days of Creation, the Torah says God saw that it was good. Of the six days of Creation, day two, the day this psalm belongs to, is the only one without it (Bereishit 1:6-8). Day three has the phrase twice (1:10 and 1:12).
Bereshit Rabbah (an early collection of rabbinic teachings on Bereishit) asks exactly this and gives several answers. Rabbi Yochanan passes on a teaching that Gehinnom (the place of punishment after death) was created that day. He reads a verse in Yeshayahu about a fire pit "arranged from yesterday" as pointing to a day that has a yesterday but no day before yesterday.
Rabbi Chanina says it is because division was created that day, since the verse says the sky would "separate water from water." Rabbi Tavyomei adds: if even a division that builds up the world gets no "good," then a division that creates confusion certainly does not.
Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachman gives a gentler answer. The work on the water was not finished on day two. It was finished on day three, which is why day three says "good" twice, once for the water and once for the day's own work.
The Midrash also tells of a noblewoman who asked Rabbi Yosei the same question. He first said that God gave a final "very good" to everything at the end (Bereishit 1:31). She answered with an example. Five of six people get a full portion and one gets nothing. Then you share one more portion among all six. Five now have a portion and a sixth, and one has only a sixth. He did not defend his first answer. He gave her the water answer instead.
The Midrash does not pick a winner. And the Gemara does not link any of this to today's psalm. It says only that on this day God divided His works and ruled over them.
Bereishit 1:6-8, 1:10, 1:12 and 1:31,Bereshit Rabbah 4:6Who are the kings in this psalm, and when did this battle happen?
The psalm describes kings who gather against Jerusalem, see something, panic and run. An east wind smashes the ships of Tarshish. No king is named and no date is given. The commentators disagree about what it describes.
Rashi and Radak (a Torah commentator in southern France, around 1200) both say it is a future war, the war of Gog and Magog that the prophet Yechezkel describes. Rashi says the kings see God Himself go out and fight, and that is why they are stunned. Radak says Israel will then say: just as we heard it from the prophets, so we saw it.
Ibn Ezra (a Spanish commentator of the 1100s) speaks of the defeat as already done. He says God "did justice" to the kings who gathered. Yet he also says Israel speaks "by way of prophecy." On verse 13 he reports a split: an earlier commentator he calls Rabbi Moshe says it was in David's time, and many say it is for the days of the Messiah.
Malbim (Rabbi Meir Leibush, a rabbi in Eastern Europe who died in 1879) says the psalm was written about a huge storm. Kings joined forces and sailed in ships of Tarshish to conquer the land of Israel. The storm smashed their ships and drove their armies into the sea, while Mount Zion was not harmed.
Midrash Tehillim reads it as the opposite of a victory. For the Midrash, the kings are the ones who passed by Jerusalem when it lay in ruins. It quotes Yirmeyahu, who said many nations would pass by this city and ask why God had done this to it.
So the same verses are read as a future war, a past rescue, a storm at sea, and a ruined city. The psalm gives the scene and leaves out the names.
Rashi on Tehillim 48:2, 5 and 6,Radak on Tehillim 48:5 and 9,Ibn Ezra on Tehillim 48:5, 9, 12 and 13,Malbim on Tehillim 48:1,Midrash Tehillim 48:4; Yirmeyahu 22:8What do the last two words of the psalm mean?
The psalm ends: "This is God, our God forever and ever. He will lead us al mut." In our siddur these are two words. Word for word, al mut would be "over death" or "on death," which does not read smoothly. The commentators noticed, and they offer several readings.
Rashi reads it as one word, almut, and says it means a person gently leading his small child. He adds that an earlier grammarian named Menachem connected it to the word for "forever."
Ibn Ezra lists more. It could mean "forever." Or, he says, the master of the Masorah (the tradition that guards how the Bible is written and divided) says it is two words meaning "until our death." Rabbi Moshe says it comes from the root for youth: God leads us the way He led us when we were young. Others link it to a root meaning "hidden," a good way of guiding that creatures cannot see.
Radak gives two options. Two words, meaning "until our death," so God will lead us with honor all our lives. Or one word, as in "the days of our youth," meaning as God led us in the past.
Meiri (a scholar in southern France who died around 1315) prefers one word: God will keep us strong as in youth, even in old age. He then reports that some split it into two words and read "after death He will lead us beside still waters, to enjoy the shining of God's presence." He admits it is odd to split one word in two, but notes that the Torah has a similar case, "esh dat lamo" (Devarim 33:2).
Midrash Tehillim goes another way. It reads almut as "worlds" and says: in two worlds.
Rashi on Tehillim 48:15,Ibn Ezra on Tehillim 48:15,Radak on Tehillim 48:15,Meiri on Tehillim 48:15,Midrash Tehillim 48:7