Pretty impressive. But unlike the other days, there's no resounding declaration of "that it was good." Why this omission? The rabbis of old certainly wrestled with this question, and their answers are, well, pretty .
The Bereshit Rabbah, that incredible collection of rabbinic interpretations of Genesis, delves right into this mystery. One interpretation highlights a potential problem: Did God truly make the firmament? Seems like a simple question but Ben Zoma, a sage known for his profound insights (and sometimes, as the text delicately puts it, stirring up "commotion in the world"), pointed out that the heavens were made by God's word, by the "breath of His mouth," as Psalm 33:6 tells us. So why does the Torah use the verb “made” here? It implies a more involved process than just divine speech!
Then there's the missing "that it was good." Why is this refrain absent on the second day? Rabbi Yoḥanan, citing Rabbi Yosei ben Rabbi Ḥalafta, offers a rather bleak reason: Gehenna, or hell, was created on the second day. Isaiah 30:33 even hints at this, saying "For the inferno is arranged from yesterday" – a day with a yesterday, but no day before yesterday. A chilling thought!
But that's not all. Rabbi Ḥanina suggests that the problem wasn't hellfire, but division itself. "And let it divide between water and water," God commands. Rabbi Tavyomei takes this further, arguing that even division intended for the betterment of the world isn't deemed "good," so how much more so division that causes turmoil? Pretty deep. Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥman offers a different angle, focusing on the element of water. He proposes that the creation of water wasn’t finished on the second day. It wasn't until the third day, when the waters gathered into seas and dry land appeared (Genesis 1:9), that the work was complete. That's why the phrase "that it was good" appears twice on the third day – once for finishing the waters, and once for the new creations of land and vegetation.
There's even a story about a noblewoman who challenged Rabbi Yosei on this very issue. She argued that omitting "that it was good" on the second day and then trying to compensate with a general statement later doesn't quite work. It's like giving everyone a maneh (a unit of currency) except one person, and then giving a small amount to everyone. Sure, they all have something, but one person is still shortchanged.
Rabbi Levi, in the name of Rabbi Tanḥum bar Ḥanilai, takes a more prophetic approach. He sees a connection between the creation narrative and the future. "He tells the outcome from the outset" (Isaiah 46:10), meaning that from the very beginning, God knew that Moses, who was described as "good" (Exodus 2:2), would later stumble at the waters of Meriva (Numbers 20:12–13) and be punished because of it. Therefore, the omission of "that it was good" on the day water was separated foreshadows this future event.
Finally, Rabbi Simon, citing Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, presents a powerful analogy: a king with a ruthless legion. Because the legion is so destructive, the king doesn't want his name associated with it. Similarly, because water was the instrument of punishment for the generation of the Flood, the generation of Enosh, and the generation of the Dispersion, God chooses not to associate "that it was good" with its creation on the second day.
So, what does it all mean? Perhaps the omission serves as a reminder that creation is an ongoing process, not a one-time event. Maybe it highlights the inherent tension between order and chaos, separation and unity. Or maybe, just maybe, it’s a subtle hint that even in the most divine of creations, there's always room for improvement, for growth, and for a future where even the seemingly incomplete can ultimately be deemed "very good."