an argument against beraishit(gen 1:1) being an implied noun tyoe of construct?

[ralph]

If I recall correctly it was one suggested on the forum that Bereishit (Gen 1:1) is a construct , like it having an implied/implicit noun..

i.e. like how sometimes when the tanach says first , it means first fruits.

Nehemia 12:44 , seems to be translated as first fruits. וַיִּפָּקְדוּ בַיֹּום הַהוּא אֲנָשִׁים עַל־הַנְּשָׁכֹות לָאֹוצָרֹות לַתְּרוּמֹות לָרֵאשִׁית וְלַמַּֽעַשְׂרֹות
"At that time men were appointed to be in charge of the storerooms for the contributions, firstfruits and tithes. From the fields around"

Psalms 105:36 (reishit there is often translated as first fruits) וַיַּךְ כָּל־בְּכֹור בְּאַרְצָם רֵאשִׁית לְכָל־אֹונָֽם Then he struck down all the firstborn in their land, the firstfruits of all their manhood.

But in these cases / cases of the implied noun, the noun is in the absolute form (that in itself doesn't imply anything about reishit because reishit could look the same absolute or construct).. but

Beraishit has a shva..

I notice that Nehemia 12;44 says LaReishit. A kamatz vowel on the lamed prefix. So the "definite" /the, is explicit there. No shva.

The examples of Neh 12:4 and Psalms 105:36 don't involve a shva.

So to say it's a construct like with "first fruits", hence the shava.. I see two issues

a)the examples of an implied noun, seem to be absolute
b)they don't involve a shva.

Also, another possibility which i'm not looking to discuss in this thread, is the possibility that it's a construct of the form construct noun followed by verb. 2 Sam 22:1 בְּיוֹם֩ הִצִּ֙יל יְהוָ֥ה אֹת֛וֹ (in the day that the LORD delivered him). and Psalm 81:6 שְׂפַת לֹא יָדַעְתִּי אֶשְׁמָע (a language {that} I didn't know). But a funny thing about that is the Psalms 81:6 case is construct but translated with the indefinite article (a). So it seems that a construct isn't necessarily definite.