# בראשית ברא



## nili95

In discussing Gen 1:1 Rashi suggests that x is always found in the construct state in Hebrew scripture. This seems to be reflected in many modern translations (e.g., Alter, Fox, JPS). Does this seem correct?


----------



## origumi

It's not clear about what you ask if correct, so I'll try to cover some possibilities.

Rashi said that ראשית in the Bible is always in construct state - incorrect. He said אין לך "ראשית" במקרא שאינו דבוק לתיבה שלאחריו, it's a matter of interpretation whether דבוק means construct state.
ראשית in the Bible is always in construct state - incorrect. See for example Leviticus 2:12, Deuteronomy 33:21, Psalms 105:36.
Construct state is reflected in modern translations such as JPS - incorrect. JPS says "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" - no sign of construct state.


----------



## nili95

origumi said:


> It's not clear about what you ask if correct, so I'll try to cover some possibilities.
> 
> Rashi said that ראשית in the Bible is always in construct state - incorrect. He said אין לך "ראשית" במקרא שאינו דבוק לתיבה שלאחריו, it's a matter of interpretation whether דבוק means construct state.


I was referring to the following from *The Complete Jewish Bible with Rashi Commentary*:


> In the beginning of God’s creation of: Heb. בְּרֵאשִית בָּרָא. This verse calls for a midrashic interpretation [because according to its simple interpretation, the vowelization of the word בָּרָא, should be different, as Rashi explains further]. It teaches us that the sequence of the Creation as written is impossible, as is written immediately below] as our Rabbis stated (Letters of R. Akiva , letter “beth” ; Gen. Rabbah 1:6; Lev. Rabbah 36:4): [God created the world] for the sake of the Torah, which is called (Prov. 8:22): “the beginning of His way,” and for the sake of Israel, who are called (Jer. 2:3) “the first of His grain.” But if you wish to explain it according to its simple meaning, explain it thus: “At the beginning of the creation of heaven and earth, the earth was astonishing with emptiness, and darkness…and God said, ‘Let there be light.’” But Scripture did not come to teach the sequence of the Creation, to say that these came first, for if it came to teach this, it should have written:“At first (בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה) He created the heavens and the earth,” for there is no רֵאשִׁית in Scripture that is not connected to the following word, [i.e., in the construct state] like (ibid. 27:1):“In the beginning of (בְּרֵאשִית) the reign of Jehoiakim” ; (below 10:10)“the beginning of (רֵאשִׁית) his reign” ; (Deut. 18:4)“the first (רֵאשִׁית) of your corn.” Here too, you say בְּרֵאשִׁית בָּרָא אלֹהִים, like בְּרֵאשִׁית בְּרֹא, in the beginning of creating. ...





origumi said:


> It's not clear about what you ask if correct, so I'll try to cover some possibilities.
> 
> ראשית in the Bible is always in construct state - incorrect. See for example Leviticus 2:12, Deuteronomy 33:21, Psalms 105:36.


Thanks ...

*Leviticus 2:12* Levine notes: "Rather, 'as an offering of first fruits.'" He then adds: "Hebrew re`shit is ambiguous. It can mean 'first,' in order or sequence, or 'foremost,' in terms of quality." source
*Deuteronomy 33:21* Hear Tigay, echoing Levine, writes: "Literally, 'the first' (re`shit), in the sense of prime, best, referring to Gad's choice of fertile pasturelands in Transjordan as its territory, The clause could also mean that Gad chose the first-conquered portion of land." source
*Psalms 105:36 *"firstborn"
Perhaps I am reading too much into "there is no רֵאשִׁית in Scripture that is not connected to the following word, [i.e., in the construct state] ."



origumi said:


> Construct state is reflected in modern translations such as JPS - incorrect. JPS says "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" - no sign of construct state.


You are referencing a long obsolete translation. See *here*. So, for example, in the widely used, JPS-based *Plaut Commentary* we find:


> When God began to create the heaven and the earth - the earth being unformed and void, with darkness over the surface of the deep and a wind from God sweeping over the water - God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light."


Similar formulations can be found in Etz Hayim, The Jewish Study Bible, and The New Oxford Annotated Bible - all JPS based. Furthermore, equivalent renderings can also be found in the well received Robert Alter and Everett Fox translations.


----------



## hadronic

I never heard heard of such a theory... What is it that should be different in ברא's vocalization?

Had a look at the Wikipedia article about Genesis 1:1, for what is worth, and I was shocked!
"

Transliterated: _Bereshit bara Elohim et hashamayim ve'et ha'aretz._
*Bereishit*, "In the beginning [of]...". The first word is _b'reishit_, or _Bereishit_ (בְּרֵאשִׁית). Its elements are:


_be-_ ("at / in")
_-reish / rosh-_ (ראש, "head")
_-it_ ית, a grammatical marker implying "of".
The definite article (i.e., the Hebrew equivalent of "the") is missing, but implied. The complete word literally means "at [the] head [of]", or more colloquially, "in [the] beginning [of]". The same construction is found elsewhere in the Hebrew bible, usually dealing with the beginning of a reign."

-it as a marker of smikhut?...


----------



## nili95

hadronic said:


> I never heard heard of such a theory... What is it that should be different in ברא's vocalization?
> 
> Had a look at the Wikipedia article about Genesis 1:1, for what is worth, and I was shocked!
> "
> 
> Transliterated: _Bereshit bara Elohim et hashamayim ve'et ha'aretz._
> *Bereishit*, "In the beginning [of]...". The first word is _b'reishit_, or _Bereishit_ (בְּרֵאשִׁית). Its elements are:
> 
> 
> _be-_ ("at / in")
> _-reish / rosh-_ (ראש, "head")
> _-it_ ית, a grammatical marker implying "of".
> The definite article (i.e., the Hebrew equivalent of "the") is missing, but implied. The complete word literally means "at [the] head [of]", or more colloquially, "in [the] beginning [of]". The same construction is found elsewhere in the Hebrew bible, usually dealing with the beginning of a reign."
> 
> -it as a marker of smikhut?...


No need to be shocked. 

Many of us are so use to the KJV that we take its translation as holy writ (sorry, I couldn't help myself), but I've already noted many highly regarded translations that reflects the construct state. Interestingly enough, even *YLT* offers "In the beginning of God's preparing the heavens and the earth --"


----------



## nili95

hadronic said:


> I never heard heard of such a theory... What is it that should be different in ברא's vocalization?
> 
> Had a look at the Wikipedia article about Genesis 1:1, ...


The reference can be found *here*.


----------



## hadronic

But still, what is wrong ברא 's vocalization, and where else in Hebrew does ית- mark any type of smikhut? Seems too ad-hoc to me.


----------



## hadronic

That's the reference I quoted earlier. It doesn't explain what is wrong with ברא.



> the vowelization of the word בָּרָא, should be different, as Rashi explains further


----------



## origumi

It is probable that Rashi meant "construct state" when writing דבוק (as we learn from his explanation to Exodus 28:11), and yet this grammatical term is a subject for discussions and therefore taking it for granted is misleading, or as I called it, incorrect (when lacking a caveat).

The three cases of ראשית which are not in construct state - it's absolutely sure that Rashi knew these cases and had something in mind when ignoring them. Unfortunately he doesn't explain his meaning. This again is open to discussions thus requires careful wording, as for the above.

In regard to modern translations - if you don't quote them we're in darkness upon the face of the deep. The Plaut commentary you quoted doesn't seem to give a notion of construct state, one would expect "In the beginning of..." or alike.

---

Are you asking about the general issue of whether בראשית is in construct state? Too deep for me to even start answering, after so many scholars did.


----------



## nili95

hadronic said:


> But still, what is wrong ברא 's vocalization, and where else in Hebrew does ית- mark any type of smikhut? Seems too ad-hoc to me.


I would not know, hence my question. Note, however, that we have Jouon, in a discussion on "129.p.3) Noun constructed on a clause ... with pure substantives" he adds:

"Possibly also Gn 1.1 ... At the beginning of God's creation of the heaven and the earth" [source; pg. 442]​There seems to be too much scholarly consensus to dismiss this as "too ad-hoc."


----------



## nili95

origumi said:


> In regard to modern translations - if you don't quote them we're in darkness upon the face of the deep. The Plaut commentary you quoted doesn't seem to give a notion of construct state, one would expect "In the beginning of..." or like.


I would think that Plaut's "When God began to create ..." is very much like "At the beginning of God's creation ...," as is Everett Fox's "At the beginning of God's creating ..."

Let me add that Friedman translates Gen 1:1 as "In the beginning of God's creating the skies and the earth ..."


Note: I erred in including the NSRV in the list above: my apologies.


----------



## hadronic

I don't own a copy of Jouon 's grammar and Google books hides me p. 442.

Where else does one find examples of smikhut with a finite verbal second constituent ? Or are we saying that ברא should be vocalized as an action noun (gerund) with the meaning of "creation/creating", the way, say, קריאה is to קרא or לימוד is to למד? What is this noun? 

So are those scholars saying that the sentence "should have been"  something like :  בראשית בריאת אלוהים את השמיים...? 

And again, where else in the language does ית shows any indication of smikhut?


----------



## nili95

hadronic said:


> I don't own a copy of Jouon 's grammar ...


Nor did I a couple of weeks ago. 



hadronic said:


> Where else does one find examples of smikhut with a finite verbal second constituent ? Or are we saying that ברא should be vocalized as an action noun (gerund) with the meaning of "creation/creating", the way, say, קריאה is to קרא or לימוד is to למד? What is this noun?
> 
> So are those scholars saying that the sentence "should have been"  something like :  בראשית בריאת אלוהים את השמיים...?
> 
> And again, where else in the language does ית shows any indication of smikhut?


I don't know how to answer this, which is precisely why I started the thread. Note that even Jouon cautions "possibly."

What I do know is that Gen 1:1 seems grammatically awkward, that a number of modern translations of Gen 1:1 differ in an essential way from the familiar KJV rendering, and that this seemed to be anticipated by Rashi. I was hoping to learn more here.

But let's try a reverse approach: How might one render the phrase "In the beginning of God's creating the skies and the earth ..."?


----------



## hadronic

As I said, בראשית בריאת אלוהים את השמיים ואת הארץ.

Gen 1:1 is _not_ grammatically awkward, it is _theologically_ awkward. Scholars have an agenda, and are forcing it onto the Hebrew text. Genesis as a whole is quite a nonsensical piece of writing (creation of the sun after the creation of day and night, age of the partakers, existence of people outside of Eden when A&E were supposed to be the first humans, or breeding between siblings and parents which is supposed to be taboo...).

Scholars will support _anything_ to save face. Usually it's pretty funny.


----------



## hadronic

> “1 When God began to create heaven and earth—2 the earth being unformed and void, with darkness over the surface of the deep and a wind from God sweeping over the water—3a God said, ‘Let there be light.’”1 With this dependent-clause translation, it is not possible to interpret the idea of an absolute beginning of the universe or a creation out of nothing since the rendering treats the earth in Genesis 1:2 as being in existence before God’s first act of creation, light.



Even that doesn't make sense to me. Even with a dependant-clause rendering (when...) , I don't see where it implies that earth pre-existed, since it says precisely "when God began to create earth". It's at best a stylistic matter, and in my view it doesn't change the fact that the Creation happened ex-nihilo.


----------



## hadronic

Looking up Gesenius, I agree that noun+clause acting like a noun+relative+clause do occur, sometimes in modern Hebrew too  :  קראת חנה דוד "settlement in which David stopped"  for קראה שבה חנה דוד, or ביום נולדתי for ביום שבו נולדתי,  or בשנים עברו..

That said, that reading seems improbable for Gen 1:1. בעת ברא אלוהים,  or בתקופת ברא אלוהים ("in the time / period when God created...") would be OK by me, with "time" /"period" as generic time markers (="when") ,  but בראשית ברא אלוהים meaning בהתחלה *שבה* ברא אלוהים "in the begining in which God created the earth..."  seems meaningless to me, as if there were multiple beginnings in question and we would be referring to one of them, that one when God started to create the earth. "In the beginning in which he..."  doesn't amount to "when he began to".

Bottom line, I don't buy it


----------



## Drink

Rashi claims that "אין לך ראשית במקרא שאינו דבוק לתיבה שלאחריו", may not be completely true, but it is still mostly true. In the vast majority of instances of ראשית and בראשית, it is certainly in a construct state with the following word, which in all such cases is a noun. However, in the remaining cases, it is in fact always indefinite. Rashi also claims that "ולא בא המקרא להורות סדר הבריאה לומר שאלו קדמו, שאם בא להורות כך, היה לו לכתוב בראשונה ברא את השמים וגו" (i.e. that if "in the beginning, G-d created" was meant, it would have said "בראשונה ברא אלקים"). This claim is less believable, because "בראשנונה" is much rarer word in the Bible. Anyway, I see it as pretty inconclusive whether Rashi's claims are correct, but I don't see that Rashi's intent was theological, but grammatical, to solve the problem of the indefiniteness of "בראשית" (which I don't quite see as a problem).


----------



## nili95

Drink said:


> Rashi claims that "אין לך ראשית במקרא שאינו דבוק לתיבה שלאחריו", may not be completely true, but it is still mostly true. In the vast majority of instances of ראשית and בראשית, it is certainly in a construct state with the following word, which in all such cases is a noun. However, in the remaining cases, it is in fact always indefinite. Rashi also claims that "ולא בא המקרא להורות סדר הבריאה לומר שאלו קדמו, שאם בא להורות כך, היה לו לכתוב בראשונה ברא את השמים וגו" (i.e. that if "in the beginning, G-d created" was meant, it would have said "בראשונה ברא אלקים"). This claim is less believable, because "בראשנונה" is much rarer word in the Bible. Anyway, I see it as pretty inconclusive whether Rashi's claims are correct, but I don't see that Rashi's intent was theological, but grammatical, to solve the problem of the indefiniteness of "בראשית" (which I don't quite see as a problem).


Thank you.


----------



## fdb

“1 When God began to create heaven and earth—2 the earth being unformed and void, with darkness over the surface of the deep and a wind from God sweeping over the water—3 God said, ‘Let there be light.’”

If Gen 1:1 is a dependant clause, where is the main clause? ויאמר (with waw consecutivum) can hardly introduce the main clause, can it?


----------



## hadronic

According to this view, the main clause is Gen 1:3. 



> The _Topic-fronted PP, *main wayyiqtol verb* _pattern of Gen 1.1 is very well-attested in biblical narrative. So what role does verse 2 play, with its shift to a Subject-Verb (_qatal_/perfective) syntax? The simple answer is that it is a compound parenthesis, consisting of 3 clauses.
> [...]
> Syntactically, the compound clause in v. 2 sits between a Topic-fronted adjunct clause, בראשׁית…, and *the main verb, ויאמר in v. 3*. So far, so good



Genesis 1.1-3, Hebrew Grammar, and Translation


----------



## nili95

fdb said:


> “1 When God began to create heaven and earth—2 the earth being unformed and void, with darkness over the surface of the deep and a wind from God sweeping over the water—3 God said, ‘Let there be light.’”
> 
> If Gen 1:1 is a dependant clause, where is the main clause? ויאמר (with waw consecutivum) can hardly introduce the main clause, can it?


Obviously I do not know the answer to this - hence the thread - but note post #10. The *JPS Tora Commentary: Genesis* notes:



> *1. When God began to create* This rendering of the Hebrew looks to verse 3 for the completion of the sentence. It takes verse 2 to be parenthetical, describing the state of things at the time when God first spoke. Support for understanding the text in this way comes from 2:4 and 5:1, both of which refer to creation and begin with "When." The Mesopotamian creation epic known as *Enuma Elish* also commences the same way. In fact, *enuma* means "when". Apparently, this was a conventional opening styly for cosmological narratives. As to the peculiar syntax of the Hebrew sentence - a noun in the construct state (be-re`shit) with a finite verb (bara') - analogies may be found in Leviticus 14:46, Isaiah 29:1, and Hosea 1:2. This seems to be the way Rashi understood the text.



If we respect the professional integrity and scholarship of people such as Jouon, Everett Fox, Robert Alter, and the team behind the NJPS translation, the answer to your question seems to be "possibly" at the very least. At the other extreme, we can denigrate and dismiss these sources with crass ad hominem and rants about the Torah. I prefer the former approach while trying to learn more about the grammatical issue.


----------



## hadronic

Gen 5:1
זֶ֣ה סֵ֔פֶר תֹּולְדֹ֖ת אָדָ֑ם. בְּיֹ֗ום בְּרֹ֤א אֱלֹהִים֙ אָדָ֔ם, בִּדְמ֥וּת אֱלֹהִ֖ים עָשָׂ֥ה אֹתֹֽו
(punctuation added as per BibleHub).

So here we have our alternate vocalization of ברא, as an infinitive construct. _Bero'_ being nominal then, I don't see a need to invoke examples of noun+finite verb (like קרית חנה דוד).

In any case, I still don't get what these alternate interpretations ("bereshit bara" as a conjonction-less relative, or "bereshit bero" as an infinitive construct) change to the original understanding of that verse  ("bereshit bara" as adverbe+verb). What suggests that Creation wouldn't be ex-nihilo?


----------



## Drink

hadronic said:


> Gen 5:1
> , זֶ֣ה סֵ֔פֶר תֹּולְדֹ֖ת אָדָ֑ם. בְּיֹ֗ום בְּרֹ֤א אֱלֹהִים֙ אָדָ֔ם בִּדְמ֥וּת אֱלֹהִ֖ים עָשָׂ֥ה אֹתֹֽו
> (punctuation added as per BibleHub).
> 
> So here we have our alternate vocalization of ברא, as an infinitive construct. _Bero'_ being nominal then, I don't see a need to invoke examples of noun+finite verb (like קרית חנה דוד).
> 
> In any case, I still don't get what these alternate interpretations ("bereshit bara" as a conjonction-less relative, or "bereshit bero" as an infinitive construct) change to the original understanding of that verse  ("bereshit bara" as adverbe+verb). What suggests that Creation wouldn't be ex-nihilo?



I read the Rashi a little more closely. He essentially says that the first verse is not supposed be giving any order in which things happened (although it still does, just a different order), because surely the water preceded the earth. He also explains that both interpretations are grammatically sound, giving similar examples in other places (like Hosea 1:2: תְּחִלַּת דִּבֶּר יְהוָה בְּהוֹשֵׁעַ), but that only this one makes logical sense. He also attributes the interpretation to רבותינו ז"ל, which probably means it could be found in the Talmud.


----------



## nili95

Drink said:


> I read the Rashi a little more closely. He essentially says that the first verse is not supposed be giving any order in which things happened (although it still does, just a different order), because surely the water preceded the earth. He also explains that both interpretations are grammatically sound, giving similar examples in other places (like Hosea 1:2: תְּחִלַּת דִּבֶּר יְהוָה בְּהוֹשֵׁעַ), but that only this one makes logical sense. He also attributes the interpretation to רבותינו ז"ל, which probably means it could be found in the Talmud.



Thank you yet again.

Edited to add:

Drink, given *Rashi on Genesis 1:1*, I'm unclear on where he suggests that both interpretations are grammatically sound.


----------



## nili95

I've come across an article titled *First Things First. The Syntax of Gen. 1:1-3 revisited*. Here the author argues:



> The problem in Gen 1:1 is that the word ראשית seems to be in construct state with a verbal form and not, as in normal cases, with a noun. Is that possible in Biblical Hebrew? It certainly is. The word ראשית proves to be in construct state with an _asyndetic nominalised clause._ At first sight that may seem a rather daunting concept, but we shall soon see that the idea behind it is in fact quite simple.



Is this a compelling or, at least, reasonable article and claim?

See, also, *here*.


----------



## Drink

nili95 said:


> Thank you yet again.
> 
> Edited to add:
> 
> Drink, given *Rashi on Genesis 1:1*, I'm unclear on where he suggests that both interpretations are grammatically sound.



That translation is a little confusing to me. But essentially he says that "בראשית" could be short for "בראשית הכל", which he claims is the other places where ראשית and other similar words occur without a following noun.


----------



## hadronic

nili95 said:


> I've come across an article titled *First Things First. The Syntax of Gen. 1:1-3 revisited*. Here the author argues:
> 
> ​
> Is this a compelling or, at least, reasonable article and claim?



Isn't what we already discussed (even if it's to say we don't know) ? Not sure about what you're asking here. 

To summarize, we have 4 possibilities :

- *bereshit bara elohim*: 
Form:  adverbe + finite verb. 
Pro:  the traditional approach, and grammatically easy. 
Con: seems problematic to some on two accounts : theologically because of the order of Creation, grammatically because of _reshit_ being indefinite (_be_, not _ba_) and because of reshit being usually in the construct state.
But: Others reject that _reshit_ doesn't have to be only in construct state, and that indefinite nouns for contextual referential markers (right, left, up, bottom, start, end) don't need be definite since they're readily understood from context. 

- *bereshit bero elohim:* 
Form: noun c.st + infinitive construct. 
Pro: Solves both issue of order of Creation and construct state of _reshit_. 
Con: but makes difficult the incorporation of Gen 1:3 into a larger sentence, since it starts with waw consecutive. 

- *bereshit bara elohim:*
Form: noun c.st + finite verb (conjunction-less relative or "asyndethis") 
Pro: solves both issues. Construction is slightly awkward, but is attested in the Bible (cf.  ביד-תשלח, קרית חנה דוד, בארץ לא-איש....). 
Con: same issue incorporating Gen 1:3 in a larger sentence. 

- *bareshit bara elohim:*
Form:  adverbe + finite verb. 
Pro: _reshit_  is definite. Grammatically easy. 
Con: order of Creation still problematic. 

Now you choose the one you like the best


----------

