How might beraishit be absolute, given the shwa on the bet?

Discussion must focus on the Hebrew text (including text criticism) and its ancient translations, not on archaeology, modern language translations, or theological controversies.
Forum rules
Members will observe the rules for respectful discourse at all times!
Please sign all posts with your first and last (family) name.
User avatar
Jason Hare
Posts: 1920
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 5:07 am
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: How might beraishit be absolute, given the shwa on the bet?

Post by Jason Hare »

Isaac Fried wrote: Sun Jul 11, 2021 8:03 am Ducky writes
There is a suggestion of this ראשית has some sort of a "missing word", such as: בראשית הימים for example, but there was no need for the הימים to be written since the word בראשית alone would give the general meaning of the beginning of time/days/creation and so on...
How could it be בראשית הימים even before there were ימים?

Isaac Fried, Boston University
www.hebrewetymology.com
Just throwing this out there, but the fact that it would be the first of the days would indicate that days would be starting with it. Why would there need to be days before the beginning of days?
Jason Hare
Tel Aviv, Israel
The Hebrew Café
יוֹדֵ֣עַ צַ֭דִּיק נֶ֣פֶשׁ בְּהֶמְתּ֑וֹ וְֽרַחֲמֵ֥י רְ֝שָׁעִ֗ים אַכְזָרִֽי׃
ספר משלי י״ב, י׳
ducky
Posts: 768
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:01 pm

Re: How might beraishit be absolute, given the shwa on the bet?

Post by ducky »

When I wrote בראשית הימים. I didn't mean that there was a specific word that was deleted. I wrote that in a way of an idea, that the word בראשית bear with it a linked word that expresses the idea of time - and with that, the reader gets the idea of the "ultimate beginning".

And you should have understood it anyway, just like it is said that God created the שמים and the ארץ even though the שמים were created later. So you understand the שמים and the ארץ as a term.

But if you already mentioned it, it brings me to RaDaK words which can also give a suggestion to Ralph's main question.

"The word Bereshit is not in a genitive possessive mode, i.e. “at the beginning of,” as for instance in Jeremiah 26,1 where we find בראשית ממלכת יהויקים, where it means: “at the beginning of the reign of Yehoyakim,” but is a word in its own right as in Isaiah 46,10 מגיד מראשית אחרית, “foretelling the end from the beginning,” or, as in Deuteronomy 33,21 וירא ראשית לו, “He chose the choicest for himself.” In other words: when God began to create the universe, He first created heaven and earth. The word בראשית is necessary as one cannot speak of either ראשית or אחרית except in terms of “time.” At that point “time” did not exist yet as it is a concept indivisibly linked to motion. Motion commenced only when the planets were placed in the sky (on the fourth day). These motions were described in terms of “days.” At the “time” described in our verse there were only “moments,” “hours,” etc., but a recurring cycle of time such as days had not yet come into existence. "

******
So this s one way but I'll try to translate some of Ibn Ezra's words about this case that say that He who says that the word Bereshit is genitive possessive mode spoke right from the grammar side but spoke falsely from the "meaning" side, because the sense is not capable to understand the word Reshit if it is not linked to something else. And he brings the examples of Proverbs 23:18; Isa. 46:10; Levi 2:12. In these cases, the word comes alone, but it naturally bears with it the meaning of another word.
And anyway, there is no form of בראשית which stands alone - but always connected.

***********************

This verse has endless discussions about it, and each one brings his idea, and each one adds to this suggestion and cut off from that other suggestion and corrects this one and fines that one.

**

I'm sorry for not focusing on all of the subjects you raised - if there is something really important, just repeat it. I tried to focus on your main one (as I understand you).
David Hunter
Post Reply