ברא as ברוא in Genesis 1:1

[Mira de Vries]

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.

[ralph]

the Masoretes left the one pointing from each possible permutation, thus creating ambiguity.

Sounds like a completely wild idea to me and I don't think any academic journal would ever even suggest such a thing. I don't think any lecturer in biblical hebrew would ever suggest such a thing. I don't think any book in Biblical Hebrew would ever suggest such a thing.

Also, I wrote "If you did want to take Beraishit in construct then I think you can still leave the rest of the verse as is, by saying 'In the beginning of When God created the heaven and the earth' "

You then replied

That's bad English

You are from Tel Aviv. I am a very eloquent native English speaker whose parents and grandparents are native English speakers. So what makes you think that is bad English. You just say it and you do not even bother to explain yourself. I can give you examples to show you it's perfectly fine English. Examples you could find yourself if you used Google. The phrase "the beginning of when ....", gets 17 million results on Google. And I even see a Wikipedia page(not related to the bible), with the phrase "the beginning of when".

And to review.. You threw an idea out there, then later you said "It was suggested by Rashi." As if people should know who that is on a biblical hebrew forum. I know because I have a background n Judaism so I know you are referring to a Rabbi. You don't give any link as reference. As if anybody should know what you are talking about.. I provided a reference link for the sake of anybody wanting to see what you were talking about.

Much of what Rashi said was theological and not purely logical reasoning. Arguing about whether you can derive creation ex nihilo out of Genesis. Rashi seems to think that if you read Braishit as absolute then it necessarily implies creation ex nihilo.. I don't think so. I don't think that's really logical to say so. And the beginning of what Rashi says on the subject of the first verse, (referring to the land of canaan), is 99% theological and not or barely related to the grammar of biblical hebrew at all. The second part of what he says has some grammatical arguments.

And besides that, the translation of a relevant part of Rashi , from the link I gave that showed what he said, says "This verse calls for a midrashic interpretation" And something ducky said was clearly correct. He said it in reply to me for some strange reason, but he should have said it in reply to you. "Rashi didn't mean to change the vowels - but only explained how it should be understood." (Or rather, how rashi thought it should be understood non-literally)

And i'm not even a big fan of Rashi's commentary, but correcting your reading of him. And for grammar, academic scholarship is more useful and isn't really Rashi and has moved on from that time that Rashi lived 1000 years ago. I am not in academia myself but i know people who are and they have moved on since Rashi. And I try to use resources that conform to rigorous academic standards if I want to determine what is correct.

When wisely asked about your motivation, you said

I'm mostly asking just to get this subforum off the ground.

The forum is very much off the ground and has some good quality contributors. I have asked questions and had some good intelligent thoughtful responses from some contributors. That's a good quality forum. Far from dead. And it has been good quality for many years.

Sounds like you are just posting provocative things. To provoke discussion.

Good quality , well thought out posts and sensible topics, are what is good for a forum. Good honest questions that somebody has put some thought into are good. Not half-baked things just posted as an excuse.

Ralph Zak

[ducky]

Hello Ralph

Rashi's commentary is most based on the Mishnaic & Talmudic era's commentary which involves also a lot of Midrashic stuff as you said.

In this case, when he talks about the בראשית it is pure grammar.
(I don't know why you say it isn't).

As for the other stuff you said about him talking about Canaan, it is not really about Canaan, even though he defines that to this.
But he said that the reason for this creation story starts the Bible is not to tell us the physical matter, but mostly to show the idea that God is the ruler of the land. And so, and because of that, God chooses to put each nation in its place that he chooses.
(and then he defines it to Canaan given to Israel).
(and this is also based on an earlier Midrashic book).

[ducky]

Ralph,

Do me a favor and stop jumping like a donkey

Look again at what I said
This is my quote:
"In this case, when he talks about the בראשית it is pure grammar"
get it?
"When he talks about בראשית" (the word and its form).
Is it grammar or not grammar?

Maybe next time I'll put pictures for you so it could be clearer

***
Later in my comment, I talked about the commentary and the idea behind that verse, which is not about the grammar.

[Jason Hare]

Ralph Zak:

(1) I'm a university-educated native English speaker. Thanks for that. I was born and raised in rural Missouri; recipient of the Bright Flight scholarship; studied biblical languages at Ozark Christian College for three years; transferred to Missouri Southern State University, where I studied Spanish (my major field), French, German and Arabic. I'm pretty sure that I know what good English sounds like.

(2) This forum was pretty much dead for a long time, and I've been pushing to get people to join up wherever and whenever I can. Just because it's active now doesn't mean that it's been active until now.

(3) The conversation had already continued from where you quoted me, and I concurred with ducky regarding a similar construct relationship using תחילה in another verse. You should read that to see how my position changed through interaction with a competent interlocutor.

[Jason Hare]

Sounds like you are just posting provocative things. To provoke discussion.

Good quality , well thought out posts and sensible topics, are what is good for a forum. Good honest questions that somebody has put some thought into are good. Not half-baked things just posted as an excuse.

Ralph Zak

First off, I don't think it's a bad thing to provoke discussion. Second, if you have a problem with me, you have the option of hitting ignore. Don't let the door hit where the good Lord split ya, if ya know what I mean. I don't need your rudeness to the same degree that you don't need my ignorance. If you're troubled by my posts, you know what to do (and I won't miss hearing from you).

I just came home at 8 o'clock in the morning to be attacked by someone that I don't know online... on a forum that is supposed to be academic and open... in an exchange that I thought was cordial and light. I don't find it a good experience to come home after a long shift, open up my computer to check on forums and email before calling it a "night" (in the morning hours), and find such negativity shoved in my face. Seriously, if that's how you want to behave, you should just ignore me. I'm here to encourage people to share and engage. If that's not your goal, I'd rather not have interactions with you.

[ralph]

"In this case, when he talks about the בראשית it is pure grammar"
get it?
"When he talks about בראשית" (the word and its form).
Is it grammar or not grammar?

To quote you, you said "when he talks about the בראשית it is pure grammar. (I don't know why you say it isn't)."

But even in the latest form of what you said ""When he talks about בראשית" (the word and its form). Is it grammar or not grammar?"

It's partly grammar and partly not.

His argument for it being construct, i.e. his argument for the form of Beraishit, was partly not grammatical.. e.g. Rashi says look the water was there beforehand, and partly from there he argues that the word can't be in absolute form.

So even if you want to limit your look to just what rashi said/argued about the form of the word beraishit, it's not pure grammar

But as I said, looking at Rashi's commentary on Gen 1:1, or beyond, there are some things that are about grammar and some things theological.

Some of the discussion in this thread was the theological, like rashi's argument regarding creation ex nihilo, which looked at the word Beraishit בראשית.

Besides that the thread, looking at the topic, was about the second word Bara, but even on the first word when he looks at its form he makes a theological argument re ex nihilo. That was brought up in the thread. On the second word he also is theological when he talks about how it can be interpreted.

And when saying that about where Rashi mentions the theological, it's even quoting midrash(jewish non-biblical traditions), without saying so. supra-commentaries on him point that out when that is so(though I don't think those are online). It's one thing if somebody makes a theological point regarding some words based on the words in front of them. But it's another when they make it based on other texts(and outside the hebrew bible), of a religion.

Ralph Zak

[ducky]

My Friend

1. I talked about Rashi because. I saw it in this thread and I commented about this.
2. you cannot talk about בראשית without talking about ברא (and vice versa).
3. Because the whole thing is based on the Sheva in the Prefix B of ראשית.
4. When Rashi explains that, He explained that it is a construct state of noun + verb (which common in the Bible).
5. the explaining of the Sheva in בראשית is explained by grammar.
6. But if it makes you happy - you can call it however you want.
7. Rashi keeps talking about this verse in another matter, which is not the subject here.
8. This thread is titled with the word ברא or ברוא.
9. And as I said, the subject of this thread and the ברא form relates to the Sheva of בראשית.
10. I think we're done here unless you may say something new about these forms.
11. If you still want to argue about the term (if it is partly or not) - I'm giving you the Win already.

[ralph]

My Friend

3. Because the whole thing is based on the Sheva in the Prefix B of ראשית.
5. the explaining of the Sheva in בראשית is explained by grammar.
6. But if it makes you happy - you can call it however you want.
7. Rashi keeps talking about this verse in another matter, which is not the subject here.
9. And as I said, the subject of this thread and the ברא form relates to the Sheva of בראשית.

Where does Rashi mention the Shva on the Bet of Beraishit?

I don't know if, given that shva, a person may translate beraishit as "In a beginning" or "In a beginning of". (rather than "in the"). Perhaps you have some idea? But I don't see Rashi discuss that at all. I think i've seen a shva prefix on a bet, and a word has still been in the..

How does that(whether it's "in a" or "in the"), or whether the Bet has a Shva on it , or a kamatz, relate to whether reishit is construct though? And Rashi doesn't suggest that it should have a kamatz, and doesn't mention the shva as far as I can tell, though i'm reading Rashi in mostly English.

Is the rule that if a word is construct, that you think it is definite?

Isn't it possible that a word that is construct might be definite but might be indefinite, i.e. is ambguous? otherwise there'd be no way to say "a blah of". Do you think that in Hebrew if a word is construct then it's always "the blah of" and not "a blah of"?

Do constructs never have definite articles / never have definite articles stated explicitly? Still I don't see Rashi mention any kind of argument like that about the shva and whether reishit is definite or not.

Ralph Zak

[ducky]

Hello Ralph

Rashi, in his explanation, doesn't write the words Sheva or Qamats. Since he talks about the word as it is in the MT. But he explained that in an indirect way.

He explains that the ראשית (or בראשית), in this meaning of beginning, cannot stand alone and it is always stuck to the next word. (as a contrast state).
(remember that the first part of a construct state is always without an article).

And by that, he explains that also here the word is stuck to the next word in the form of a construct state of noun and a verb.

When he wants to show the alternative, (as with "the"=Qamats), he doesn't write the word בראשית with Qamats as an example - because that word in that form is not used in the Bible at all, and he only uses Biblical words for his explanation of alternatives.

So instead of using the word בראשית (with Qamats), he writes בראשונה (with Qamats) which is the Biblical word for that meaning (which has the same meaning of בראשית with Qamats).

Since we saw this alternative, which is compared (in a negative way) to the form of בראשית as it is written (with Sheva) - we understand that he also talks about the vowel Qamats vs. Sheva in that word. (בראשונה=Qamats and בראשית=Sheva).

And then he brings the example from Hosea, which uses also the construct state in that manner.
And when it is a construct state, the first word must be without an article.
And so, also by this example, he completes this idea of Sheva vs. Qamats.

So, when he explains that, he explains it by showing the usage of ראשית and then show that if it was really meant to be read with an article, that specific word would not be used (but the alternative word was).

And so he explains these two birds at once.
( he doesn't need to say Sheva vs. Qamats specifically when it comes to a construct state because it is supposed to be already clear. (when one says "construct state", the other Hears "no article").


I don't know what you're reading, and I guess it is a complete translation of his words. So just read it again and compare what you read to what I wrote here.