Why is the definite artilce missing in bereshit ?

[Yitzchak]

Why is the definite article missing in bereshit ? it is always translated as in the beginning or in the beginnings , but where is the " ha ". Why is it not Bareshit ?

Also , how does the construct versus the absolute state factor in ? I have not read what Rashi said about it , but have seen his argument referred to. It seems that Rashi argued for the construct state , at least in part , because of the missing definite article.

Is anyone able to lay this out for me in a simple explanation. My Hebrew is intermediate and not fluent.


Also , I came across something which talks about a hidden mystery in Genesis 1:1 being the explanation. Am I in over my head ?

 

[BlackBearFamily]

Why is the definite article missing in bereshit ? it is always translated as in the beginning or in the beginnings , but where is the " ha ". Why is it not Bareshit ? ... Also , I came across something which talks about a hidden mystery in Genesis 1:1 being the explanation. Am I in over my head ?

Hi Yitzchak,

The definite article is not missing in 'bereshit'. The root of the word is 'reshit', and the 'bais' on the front is the word 'in' and the definite article all in one. The vowel shifted from 'ba' to 'be' due to grammatical issues.

Regarding the hidden mystery, well, I trained as an Orthodox rabbi but I have honestly never considered this question. It's a good one. I will read the Ramban tonight and see what he has to say about all of this.

 

[Yitzchak]

Hi Yitzchak,

The definite article is not missing in 'bereshit'. The root of the word is 'reshit', and the 'bais' on the front is the word 'in' and the definite article all in one. The vowel shifted from 'ba' to 'be' due to grammatical issues.

Regarding the hidden mystery, well, I trained as an Orthodox rabbi but I have honestly never considered this question. It's a good one. I will read the Ramban tonight and see what he has to say about all of this.

Thank you.


I did do some reading on it. One of my main sources is a book titled " awesome creation ", by Yosef Bitton , he speaks about what Rashi and Rambam had to say.

Bitton speaks about Rashi and the viewpoint that the explanation lies with the construct state.

Bitton uses the example phrase " the children of Yosef. " He says that in this example , " Habanim shel Yosef " becomes "bene Yosef "

He follows this by presenting Rashi's argument for Rosh being in the construct state. he says first , reshit is the construct form of rosh and then secondly it is be instead of ba. Thus Rashi's conclusion is that it means "in the begging of ____ "


Bitton goes on to say that Rashi says that the anomaly in the text begs the question " in the beginning of what ? " That the somekh (the second term in the contruct chain) is absent , but hinted at by the grammar. In rashi's explanation , he takes the word bara and reads it as "creating' rather than created. he says that this allows the construct state. But to do this , rashi has to take bara as bero. I am a little unclear as to how Rashi is able to reinterpret bara that way. But ti solves the problem and thus the text reads " In the beginning of God's creating heavens and earth "

Bitton says that although this is an infrequent combination , both in Hebrew and in English , that it is within the acceptable boundaries of
both Hebrew and English grammar.

Now Rambam proposes an alternate solution. Instead of interpreting the verb bara as the participle bero and reading it as an absolute , as Rashi does , Rambam proposes that the reader should add a virtual noun after bereshit. An unwritten word that would follow the preposition "of " Rambam proposes the concept of time as the hidden absolute. So Rambam reads the text as , " In the beginning {of time } God created the Heavens and the earth. "

Anyway , all of this is coming from Bitton's book. I get the basic logic of it all. But I am also in a little over my head in all of this.

Bitton leads this all into a discussion about whether the grammar discussion regarding bereshit leads one to the conclusion of whether the first verse is an independent sentence or as a temporal clause for the creation of light.

Anyway , all of this is very interesting. I need to go out and run some errands , but there is more and I will post some more when I get back.

 

[Iosias]

The definite article is not missing in 'bereshit'. The root of the word is 'reshit', and the 'bais' on the front is the word 'in' and the definite article all in one. The vowel shifted from 'ba' to 'be' due to grammatical issues.

There is no definite article! If it were definite there would not be a shewa. It reads lit. as 'in a first'. The noun is indefinite! Rashi and Ibn Ezra debated the syntax in the 12th century.

 

[Yitzchak]

In my reading about this issue , I came across the fact that the same word , Bereshit is used in other places in the Bible. In these other four instances , it is obvious that it is the Construct because it is followed by a noun. The difference and the problem in Genesis 1:1 is the verb bara....

Jer 26:1 In the beginning of the reign of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah, king of Judah, came this word from the LORD, saying:

Jer 27:1 In the beginning of the reign of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah, king of Judah, came this word unto Jeremiah from the LORD, saying:

Jer 28:1 And it came to pass the same year, in the beginning of the reign of Zedekiah king of Judah, in the fourth year, in the fifth month, that Hananiah the son of Azzur the prophet, who was of Gibeon, spoke unto me in the house of the LORD, in the presence of the priests and of all the people, saying:

Jer 49:34 The word of the LORD that came to Jeremiah the prophet concerning Elam in the beginning of the reign of Zedekiah king of Judah, saying:

 

[Iosias]

In my reading about this issue , I came across the fact that the same word , Bereshit is used in other places in the Bible. In these other four instances , it is obvious that it is the Construct because it is followed by a noun. The difference and the problem in Genesis 1:1 is the verb bara....

Um, verbs do not appear in the construct form. Only nouns have a construct form.

 

[Yitzchak]

There is no definite article! If it were definite there would not be a shewa. It reads lit. as 'in a first'. The noun is indefinite! Rashi and Ibn Ezra debated the syntax in the 12th century.

I have been doing some reading since I posted the thread.

I think I understand the grammatical problem now. The question is whether there is no definite article because it is in the construct state , as in Jeremiah 27:1 , for example.


There is no definite article in Jeremiah 27:1 which also uses bereshit and is translated into English with the definite artilce on the basis of it being the construct state.

Jer 27:1 In the beginning of the reign of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah, king of Judah, came this word unto Jeremiah from the LORD, saying:

Or as in 1 Samuel 20:16...

1Sa 20:16 So Jonathan made a covenant with the house of David: 'The LORD even require it at the hand of David's enemies.'

In which case , it is proper to translate it as though it had a definite article even though the definite article does not appear in the Hebrew.


The problem with Genesis 1:1 is in order for the construct argument to work , then the second word ( the absolute ) which follows should be a noun or at least forces bara to become bero ( creating ). the construct state interprets it as " in the beginning of ____ " which leaves a blank. In the beginning of what ? Rambam fills in the absolute ( the second word) to complete the construct by saying that the unwritten word is implied and is " time ".


Elsewhere , I have read a few other theories , as well.

 

[Yitzchak]

Um, verbs do not appear in the construct form. Only nouns have a construct form.

Exactly...You can see why I was confused...Apparently rashi interprets bara as actually being the participle bero ( I am not sure how he made the jump ) and thus seems to satisfy the grammatical problem by making it into "in the beginning of creating " which apparently is allowed....

 

[Yitzchak]

Here is a link for a free preview of Bitton's book online....

Awesome creation - Yosef Bitton - Google Books


I also found a discussion about it at this site...

Genesis 1:1 and "BereEDITMEEDITMEEDITMEEDITME"


Here , they also put forward a case that the construct state is not the only option.


Anyway, thank you for the replies. there is a definite learning curve here for me. I am tutoring someone from our church in basic Hebrew and the question about Genesis 1:1 came up. I decided to do a little research and discovered this whole issue that I never noticed or was aware of. Now I feel in over my head , but I am learning.

 

[Iosias]

Exactly...You can see why I was confused...Apparently rashi interprets bara as actually being the participle bero ( I am not sure how he made the jump ) and thus seems to satisfy the grammatical problem by making it into "in the beginning of creating " which apparently is allowed....

Well that does not work since Bara is a finite verb, not an infinitive and nrmally both components of a construct phrase must be nominal forms; further, the tifcha accent on br'syt argues against it being in construct. Try Bandstra.

 

[Yitzchak]

Well that does not work since Bara is a finite verb, not an infinitive and nrmally both components of a construct phrase must be nominal forms; further, the tifcha accent on br'syt argues against it being in construct. Try Bandstra.

Thank you. The link is very helpful.

 

[BlackBearFamily]

Try not to get so wrapped up in grammar. Most grammatical changes of this sort happen in order to correct what would be an awkward pronunciation. So, for instance, 'ba' + reishit = bareishit would not exactly roll off the tongue. So, the 'ba' becomes a bais with a schva and that makes a comfortable pronunciation.

Grammar exists for a practical reason.

Once you get to the point of reading/translating fluently, this will make intuitive sense.

Regarding the mystery referenced in the first post, this is a mystical explanation of ma'aseh bresheit, and it would be found in the Ramban, not the Rambam.

I did begin reading the Ramban on the first posuk, Genesis 1:1, but it runs a number of pages in a tiny Hebrew font and so I am only part of the way through.

 

[yonah_mishael]

Um, verbs do not appear in the construct form. Only nouns have a construct form.

This isn't accurate, though. The Bible has a verbal form called "the infinitive construct," which functions essentially as a noun. How do you think verbs take pronoun terminations and function as the objects of prepositions in the same way that nouns do?

בְּשָׁמְעִי = [bəshom'i] when I hear/heard (lit. "in my hearing")
בְּשָׁכְבְּךָ = [bəshochbəcha] when you lie/lay down (lit. "in your lying down")

If the form בָּרָא is written as an infinitive construct (בְּרֹ&#1488, then we get a construct chain:

בְּרֵאשִׁית בְּרֹא אֱלֹהִים = when God began creating (lit. "in the beginning of God's creating")

The entire first verse becomes then a background detail of verse two. That is, verse 1 lays down the timing of verse 2.

When God began to create the heavens and the earth, the earth was formless and void, etc.

 

[yonah_mishael]

Try not to get so wrapped up in grammar. Most grammatical changes of this sort happen in order to correct what would be an awkward pronunciation. So, for instance, 'ba' + reishit = bareishit would not exactly roll off the tongue. So, the 'ba' becomes a bais with a schva and that makes a comfortable pronunciation.

Grammar exists for a practical reason.

Once you get to the point of reading/translating fluently, this will make intuitive sense.

Regarding the mystery referenced in the first post, this is a mystical explanation of ma'aseh bresheit, and it would be found in the Ramban, not the Rambam.

I did begin reading the Ramban on the first posuk, Genesis 1:1, but it runs a number of pages in a tiny Hebrew font and so I am only part of the way through.

No. This grammatical issue is brought up by Rashi, not by the Rambam (and certainly not by the Ramban). Rashi's comments can be found here:

מקראות גדולות (wikisource)

 

[Yitzchak]

This isn't accurate, though. The Bible has a verbal form called "the infinitive construct," which functions essentially as a noun. How do you think verbs take pronoun terminations and function as the objects of prepositions in the same way that nouns do?

בְּשָׁמְעִי = [bəshom'i] when I hear/heard (lit. "in my hearing")
בְּשָׁכְבְּךָ = [bəshochbəcha] when you lie/lied down (lit. "in your lying down")

If the form בָּרָא is written as an infinitive construct (בְּרֹ&#1488, then we get a construct chain:

בְּרֵאשִׁית בְּרֹא אֱלֹהִים = when God began creating (lit. "in the beginning of God's creating")

The entire first verse becomes then a background detail of verse two. That is, verse 1 lays down the timing of verse 2.

When God began to create the heavens and the earth, the earth was formless and void, etc.

This sounds like what I read concerning Rashi's position on the matter.

 

[yonah_mishael]

This sounds like what I read concerning Rashi's position on the matter.

Well, I posted a link to Rashi's comments above. Do you want me to translate them into English, at least the relevant parts?

 

[yonah_mishael]

This is the relevant section:

ואם באת לפרשו כפשוטו, כך פרשהו: "בראשית בריאת שמים וארץ, וְהָאָרֶץ הָיְתָה תֹהוּ וָבֹהוּ וְחֹשֶׁךְ, וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים יְהִי אוֹר". ולא בא המקרא להורות סדר הבריאה, לומר שֶאֵלו קדמו; שאם בא להורות כך, היה לו לכתוב: "בראשונה ברא את השמים" וגו', שאין לך "ראשית" במקרא שאינו דבוק לתיבה של אחריו, כמו: (ירמיהו כו &#1488 "בְּרֵאשִׁית מַמְלְכוּת יְהוֹיָקִים", (בראשית י &#1497 "רֵאשִׁית מַמְלַכְתּוֹ", (דברים יח &#1491 "רֵאשִׁית דְּגָנְךָ". אף כאן אתה אומר: "בְּרֵאשִׁית בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים" וגו', כמו "בְּרֵאשִׁית ברוא". ודומה לו (הושע א &#1489 "תְּחִלַּת דִּבֶּר ה' בְּהוֹשֵׁעַ", כלומר: תחילת דיבורו של הקב"ה בהושע, "ויאמר ה' אל הושע" וגו'. י​

And if you wish to interpret the line (בראשית ברא אלהים וכו&#1523 according to its literal meaning: "In the beginning of the creation of heaven and earth, the earth was formless and void, and God said Let there be light." The Scripture does not wish to teach the order of the creation, saying that "things things came first." Rather, if it wished to teach this, it would have been written: "At first (בראשונ&#1492 he created the sky" etc., because there is no appearance of ראשית in the Scripture that is not connected to the word that comes after it. For example: "In the beginning of the reign of Jehoiakim" (Jeremiah 26:1), "the beginning of his kingship" (Genesis 10:10), "the first part of your grain" (Deuteronomy 18:4). Even here you say, "in the beginning God created" etc. as "in the beginning of creating" (בראשית ברו&#1488. And what is similar to it, "The beginning of Yahweh's speaking with Hosea" (Hosea 1:2), which is to say, the beginning of the Holy One's speech in Hosea, "and Yahweh said to Hosea," etc.

 

[Yitzchak]

No. This grammatical issue is brought up by Rashi, not by the Rambam (and certainly not by the Ramban). Rashi's comments can be found here:

מקראות גדולות (wikisource)

In Yosef Bitton's book titled "Awesome creation " , he says this on page 71.

Apart from Rashi , other commentators also addressed the problem of the construct state of the word bereshit. But unlike Rashi , they found alternate solutions , which did not contradict Rabbi Nechamia's view, that heavens and earth were created first.
One example is the commentary of Rambam , Moshe Nachmanides (1194-1270). Instead of interpreting the verb bara as the participle bero and reading it as an absolute, he proposed that the reader should add a virtual noun after bereshit: an unwritten word that would follow the preposition "of" , serving as the absolute we were missing for the construct chain. Anticipating a post-Newtonian conception of physics, Nachmanides proposed the concept " time " as the hidden absolute....

 

[Yitzchak]

Bitton also speaks about other views...

Not all biblical commentators agreed that the word bereshit is written in a construct state form. No less than Radaq , Rabbi David Qimchi , one of the most illustrious Spanish grammarians of the twelfth century , affirmed in his book Sefer haShorashim that the word reshit should not be seen as the construct form of rosh, but as a normal independent noun ( "beginning "). As a proof for his thesis he refers the reader to a verse in Isaiah 46:10 , Maggid mereshit acharit , " from the beginning, foretell the end," in which we find the word reshit ( " beginning " ) in the role of a standard noun....

It continues and is quite interesting.