# Two meanings for ברא (bara)?



## YADA

I was using a program called 'Interlinear Scripture Analyzer' to look up the occurences of the word 'bara' ( ברא ) in Hebrew in the Bible.

Can anyone please explain why it it is translated into English as 'created' in Genesis 1:1, 1:27, 2:3 and Deuteronomy 4:32; but in Daniel 2:38, 4:12, 4:21, 4:23, 4:25, 4:32 it is translated as 'the field'?


----------



## Flaminius

Hello,

The Book of Daniel is largely written in Aramaic, a related but different language from Hebrew.  _Bara_ in sense of field is an Aramaic word.


----------



## YADA

Thankyou Flaminius. You've given me a starting point for some research.


----------



## origumi

You may also be interested in "New academic reading of ברא": http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=1575203


----------



## YADA

Yes, I've read that article before. Those poor Jews! They've been reading Hebrew for thousands of years and never realized their mistake! She gave a good argument, though, and admits it shouldn't be taken as the last word.


----------



## Flaminius

I may join the discussion in the previous thread after reading the article, but I want to add something to me post above right now.

The use of ברא in sense of creation (be it _ex nihilo_ or otherwise)  is attested not only in Hebrew but also in Aramaic.  One of the most famous of them is from _Qaddish_:
יִתְגַּדַּל וְיִתְקַדַּשׁ שְׁמֵהּ רַבָּא.
בְּעָלְמָא דִּי *בְרָא* כִרְעוּתֵהּ (....) 

A translation goes:
May His great name be exalted and sanctified
in the world which He *created* according to His will! (....)


As I have always thought that creation _ex nihilo_ is too dogmatic to be the original meaning of a word in a natural language, it does not come as a surprise that ברא had a different meaning in older times.  In that case, Jews were not perpetuating the mistake for thousands of years but they just developed a new sense since then.  It may be simply that the original sense have fallen into disuse but someone has found its trace  in records.


----------



## clevermizo

I wanted to add that even if ברא is attested with the meaning of "created" in Aramaic, its still not related to ברא that means "field." 

The final א on a noun like ברא "field" in Aramaic is grammatical. The real root for this word would be בר. So they're two different roots because in the verb ברא the א is actually part of the root.


----------



## scriptum

Flaminius said:


> The use of ברא in sense of creation (be it _ex nihilo_ or otherwise)  is attested not only in Hebrew but also in Aramaic.


 It is attested in Arabic, too. The question is, whether these languages have not borrowed the word from Hebrew.


----------



## YADA

Thank for the extra info and insight.


----------

