ברא as ברוא in Genesis 1:1

[kwrandolph]

I believe that ראשית is indeed the first part of a construct or compound term, the second part being not a single word but a phrase: ברא אלהים את השמים ואת הארץ. What throws us off is the ו (waw) that follows, which we take to be a conjunctive, but it isn't, it's there in the function of a comma, as Hebrew had no punctuation marks.

The word ראשית has the meaning of beginning or first, as such it almost always refers to another noun. However, it is not always found in construct. Examples include

Leviticus 2:12
Deuteronomy 33:21
Isaiah 46:10
Psalm 105:36
Nehemiah 12:44 here it refers to first fruits

Because ראשית is used as a standalone noun, albeit rarely, there’s no reason that it can’t be a standalone noun in Genesis 1:1.

Karl W. Randolph.

[Mira de Vries]

Leviticus 2:12

Indeed you are right, here the meaning is "first" but the text fails to stipulate first what. We know what, but it doesn't say so.

Deuteronomy 33:21

You're right again, though Moshe's blessings at the end of his life, like Ja'akov's, seem to be in some other type of language.

Isaiah 46:10

You have a point here too. If אחרית can stand alone, why not ראשית?

Psalm 105:36

Agreed, ראשית is paralleled with בכור.

Nehemiah 12:44

The connective waw indicates that this is a stand-alone noun, but why wouldn't it be ראשיות since מעשרות is also plural?

Because ראשית is used as a standalone noun, albeit rarely, there’s no reason that it can’t be a standalone noun in Genesis 1:1.

Okay, you've convinced me. So I hereby revise my understanding of Gen1:1 as follows:
"At first [when] The Almighty created the heaven and the earth, the earth was [but] a thought and an idea..."
or if you prefer:
"At first [when] The Almighty created the heaven and the earth, the earth was vacant and unoccupied..."

[ducky]

Leviticus 2:12 - קרבן ראשית
it is a term for the sacrifice
short for:
ראשית פרי האדמה - construct state (Deut 26:10)

Deuteronomy 33:21
וירא ראשית לו
doesn't refer to time
doesn't mean "first", or "beginning"
It is also a short style of a construct state - because it is a ראשית of something (like of a land)
and not just ראשית (because it doesn't say anything in that way)

Isaiah 46:10
מגיד מראשית אחרית
Also here it is short for a "construct state"
Notice that it doesn't come with a definite article
while the KJV and the NIV translate it with "the"
What does that tell you?

Psalm 105:36
ראשית לכל אונם
doesn't refer to time
it is like ראשית אונו in Deut 21:17
Or Gen. 49:3 - ראשית אוני
ְ
Also, as we can see, all of these doesn't come with a definite article

Nehemiah 12:44
לראשית
This one comes with a definite article but it is a term for the בכורים that were called ראשית
as a term (as I wrote before)
And so, in Nehemiah, this word got its own "life" and was written as one.
but it is exactly as ראשית פרי האדמה


So the fact that this word doesn't come with a definite article (except for Nehemiah and its reason) clears the fact that also in Gen. it doesn't come with a definite article.
And since it doesn't come with a definite article, it can't stand alone.
But it is must be stuck to something else.
If someone wants to read it as there is some missing word (as "time" or "creation" for example) he can do that.
But according to what it is written, it is connected to the next word.
because if it is without a definite article, it would be like:
"In a beginning, God created this and that"
But we can't read it that way.
And so, we must see it as definite (but the word doesn't act that way)
or:
we would complete it with a mysterious word.
And if so, why won't we even do that with the word "creation".
As: בראשית (הבריאה) ברא אלהים את השמים ואת הארץ
But then it would be the exact same thing, in the same way, we would read it in a construct state of noun+verb.

[ralph]

If you don't mind i'd like to give you some tips on how to be clearer.

I'm not saying you are unclear.. like sometimes I understand what you're saying, i'm just saying you could make it easier in some ways..

Perhaps sometimes your writing is a bit like Rashi, maybe that's how you spotted that subtlety with the kamatz in what Rashi said even when Rashi hadn't mentioned the kamatz. You may have a mind similar to his. There are commentaries on Rashi that probably don't mention that.

So the fact that this word doesn't come with a definite article (except for Nehemiah and its reason) clears the fact that also in Gen. it doesn't come with a definite article.
And since it doesn't come with a definite article, it can't stand alone.
But it is must be stuck to something else.
If someone wants to read it as there is some missing word (as "time" or "creation" for example) he can do that.
But according to what it is written, it is connected to the next word.
because if it is without a definite article, it would be like:
"In a beginning, God created this and that"
But we can't read it that way.

Perhaps you would write even more clearly if rather than say "if a word has a definite article", (as then it's not clear - without perhaps reading further - whether you mean it has a definite article written in, or whether you mean it doesn't have a definite article written in but is read with the definite article)

if you used phrases like "written with the definite article" and "read with the definite article", it'd be clearer.

Just saying "with the definite article" is a bit ambiguous 'cos it could mean either of those and those are different things.

If you are comfortable using words like implied/implicit, and explicit, then even better, one could say "a word has an implied/implicit definite article"(that means a word has no definite article written in, but is read with a definite article i.e. there is a definite article but it's just not written in) vs "a word has an explicit definite article"(it has the definite article written in so clearly it has a definite article).

When you say

So the fact that this word doesn't come with a definite article (except for Nehemiah and its reason) clears the fact that also in Gen. it doesn't come with a definite article.

It's a bit clearer to insert the word in.. especially in the nehemia case..

So the fact that this word(Reishit) doesn't come with a definite article (except for Nehemiah - LaReishit - and its reason) clears the fact that also in Gen(BeReishit). it doesn't come with a definite article.

The Nehemia case(LaReishit/For the first-fruits ) reason for Reishit having a definite article doesn't tell us anything about the Gen 1:1 case, because in the Nehemia case the definite article is explicit(LaReishit). So looking at the reason why there is an explicit definite article in the Nehemia case is interesting but doesn't tell us anything about the Gen 1:1 case so it's not even relevant(to how Gen 1:1 is read), as any exception.

(Though it is relevant as an interesting case, of Reishit with explicit definite article).

And notice you say "this word(Reishit) doesn't come with a definite article except for nehemia(LaReishit). The thing is that the idea that Reishit in Gen 1:1 doesn't come with the definite article, means you are now using the phrase "come with a definite article" to mean an explicit one. What you mean is it doesn't have one written in, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have one. So for a word, saying whether you mean written or read, or whether you mean An explicit definite article, or An implicit definite article, or An indefinite article, is much clearer.

and when you say something unclear and add a negation, it is even more unclear.. like "doesn't come with a definite article"..

If you say "comes with an indefinite article", there's no ambiguity.

When you say

if it is without a definite article, it would be like:
"In a beginning, God created this and that"

When you say "If it is without a definite article" This is very ambiguous.. and I have to read on while wondering/unclear what you mean, and then see if can find out what you mean.

i.e. when you say "if it is without a definite article", that's ambiguous, as that could mean it has no definite article written in, but is read with one..

So, when you say "if it is without a definite article" that it'd be "a", then

It's better to say "If it is with an indefinite article". That's totally clear particularly because hebrew doesn't have an explicit indefinite article. So there's no question what you mean here when you refer to the indefinite article.

It really looks a bit like you contradicted yourself in your usage of terms in an ambiguous way.. 'cos you said " if it is without a definite article, it would be like: "In a beginning, God created this and that""

So here when you said "without a definite article", you mean it has an indefinite article.

Whereas you also said "the fact that also in Gen. it doesn't come with a definite article" So there when you say definite article you mean written in. See it DOES have/come with, a definite article, but you are saying it doesn't. I can figure out what you mean sometimes, if i'm already fairly familiar with it, but it's not so easy.


So, to summarise, these phrases are clear and unambiguous

- An explicit definite article
- An implicit definite article
- An indefinite article

-Read with a definite article
-Read with an indefinite article
-Written with a definite article
-Not written with a definite article.

("Written with an indefinite article", is also clear, but would be English specific, since a word in Hebrew can't be written with an indefinite article)

Those are really clear terms, because before even reading another word, one knows exactly what is being referred to, so when reading onwards, it is all much clearer.

Ralph Zak

[ralph]

So the fact that this word doesn't come with a definite article (except for Nehemiah and its reason) clears the fact that also in Gen. it doesn't come with a definite article.
And since it doesn't come with a definite article, it can't stand alone.
But it is must be stuck to something else.
If someone wants to read it as there is some missing word (as "time" or "creation" for example) he can do that.
But according to what it is written, it is connected to the next word.
because if it is without a definite article, it would be like:
"In a beginning, God created this and that"
But we can't read it that way.
And so, we must see it as definite (but the word doesn't act that way)
or:
we would complete it with a mysterious word.
And if so, why won't we even do that with the word "creation".
As: בראשית (הבריאה) ברא אלהים את השמים ואת הארץ
But then it would be the exact same thing, in the same way, we would read it in a construct state of noun+verb.

On a related note to the subject of definite and indefinite and constructs,

I think whether something is read with a definite article or read with an indefinite article, doesn't seem to necessarily affect whether it is "standalone" or not.

I'm not suggesting Reishit means this, but my point is about the effect of reading with an indefinite article, vs reading with a definite article, on whether it is construct or not.

"In a second, Bill ate all the chips"

"In the morning, Bill ate all the chips"

If we look at the noun 'second', and the noun 'morning'

Are either of them construct? (And that question ties into what is the definition of construct)

Ralph Zak

[ducky]

Hello Ralph and thanks for the notes.
I didn't realize that I am not clear that much.
I will try to be clearer.

when you wrote the examples at the end of your post, you kinda answered yourself.

You wrote two sentences to show me that "sometimes, there is no difference in the reading between an indefinite article, vs definite article".

And you wrote these two sentence:
1. "In a second, Bill ate all the chips".
2. "In the morning, Bill ate all the chips".

and your comparison method is not good. And why?
One thing that one should do when he compares a "specific thing", is to try to leave everything else as it is - and to change only the specific thing that he focuses on (In this case: the article).
And only by that, we can see if there is an effect or not.
Because when other things in the sentence are changed as well, it can deceive.

So the comparison should be like:
1. "In a second, Bill ate all the chips".
2. "In the second, Bill ate all the chips".

And another one:
1. "In the morning, Bill ate all the chips".
2. "In a morning, Bill ate all the chips".

You can see that while the specific thing alone is changed (the article), it does affect the reading.
And therefore, when you made this comparison, you used different words as well, because only like that you can create a nice sentence.

"In a second" - is about the amount of time.
"In the morning" - is about "place" of time.
And therefore one would be used with a definite article and the other wouldn't.

When the word is without an article and refers to the "place" of time - it comes with something else.
In a sunny morning, I went to the store. (adjective)
in mother day's morning, I went to the store. (Construct)

Because we don't say just "In a morning, I went to the store".

[Mira de Vries]

I agree that where ראשית occurs stand-alone there is usually a second noun which is understood. The dilemma is that if you assume an understood word you might be assuming wrong, whereas if you disregard an understood word, you're also interpreting it wrong.

[Schubert]

Ralph, I've attempted to read your lengthy post in which you sought to give writing advice to David. More succinct writing would facilitate discussion on the underlying Biblical Hebrew question.

[ralph]

Ralph, I've attempted to read your lengthy post in which you sought to give writing advice to David. More succinct writing would facilitate discussion on the underlying Biblical Hebrew question.

Sometimes a post of mine is short, sometimes longer, sometimes very succinct, sometimes not what you would call succinct. It depends on the case. If you really want to discuss the whens and whys of that then you're welcome to PM me and discuss, though I get the impression that you wouldn't.

Ralph Zak

[ralph]

You wrote two sentences to show me that "sometimes, there is no difference in the reading between an indefinite article, vs definite article".

No way! I would never say there is no difference in the reading between an indefinite article and a definite article!!

You put quotation marks in there but who are you quoting.. I don't think either of us used those words in any post..

There is a difference in reading between "the" and "a"! They sound different(so that's a difference in the reading!!), besides the fact that they have a different meaning!

So, as to Why I wrote those two sentences,

I quote myself, what I said preceding that

"I'm not suggesting Reishit means this, but my point is about the effect of reading with an indefinite article, vs reading with a definite article, on whether it is construct or not."

(But no need to worry about what that means if that sentence above is a bit hard to follow).

I simply asked for each of those sentences that I gave

"Are either of them construct?"

And you wrote these two sentence:
1. "In a second, Bill ate all the chips".
2. "In the morning, Bill ate all the chips".

and your comparison method is not good.

I wasn't comparing them..

I was asking a question regarding each of them

Does the sentence "In a second, Bill ate all the chips" involve a construct i.e. is 'second' a construct?

Does the sentence "In the morning, Bill ate all the chips" involve a construct i.e. is "morning" a construct?

<snip>

"In a second" - is about the amount of time.
"In the morning" - is about "place" of time.
And therefore one would be used with a definite article and the other wouldn't.

I wasn't really asking why one would use the definite article and one wouldn't..

Also that would be an English question, and I wouldn't really ask you an English question. Definite articles and indefinite articles as used in the English language, aren't what I was asking you about.

The concept of a "construct" is not an element of English grammar, so i've been asking you about that.

When the word is without an article and refers to the "place" of time - it comes with something else.
In a sunny morning, I went to the store. (adjective)

That sentence has an article, an indefinite article.

So you mean "When the word is -with an indefinite- article and refers to the "place" of time", And are you saying that in such a case it's a noun adjective combination and not a noun noun combination? If so, then what about "During an evening of sorrow, I drank a beer"? In Hebrew that "noun of noun" form is an obvious easy case of construct.

"evening" is a place of time. "an" is an indefinite article. (when the indefinite article 'a' is followed by a word beginning with a/e/i/o/u, then the 'a' becomes 'an' but has the same meaning as 'a').

A lot of the time adjective noun relationships can be changed for" noun (of) noun" relationships . e.g. "During an evening of sorrow, I drank a beer" has the same meaning as "During a sorrowful evening, I drank a beer". Both are OK English, even perfectly good English.

But anyhow, my question to you was, for the two sentences I gave in the previous post, the question, for each of them, if it used a construct.

in mother day's morning, I went to the store. (Construct)

okay, but I prefer an example without an apostrophe, hence my examples didn't use an apostrophe.. Since Hebrew doesn't have an apostrophe.

Though technically I wasn't really asking you for an example, I was just asking you a question for each of two example sentences that I provided.

Thanks

Ralph Zak