bereshit and mereshit.

Ian Hutchesson mc2499 at
Sun Mar 17 08:06:54 EST 2002


This is the part of Rashi's comment as cited by 
Liz that I think you must be referring to:

>>Rashi points out that when clauses begin
>>with a noun, and are SVO, then they should be translated as in
>>the pluperfect. They express an action that occurs at that time or
>>before that time.

And I basically agree with this.

>I trust you can see the difference between what Liz reports of Rashi's
>position here and what you have been suggesting as possibilities.  Rashi
>does state, as have you, that the first action of creation reported here is
>in v. 3.  Most, if not all, would agree with that.  This makes vv 1-2
>introduction, setting the stage as it were.  

And this has been my position.

>But treating the SVO clauses in
>v. 2 as pluperfects is a significant degree different from making them
>dependent clauses, all tied together in one lump with BARA 'LHYM in verse 1,
>and subordinant to the action of verse 3.

As I have said, there are at least two approaches to the 
subordination by br'$yt. I see vv 1-2 as an introduction, 
though I have subordinated it to the first recorded act 
mentioned in the text. If I haven't put across the idea 
that we are dealing with an introduction, then it's a 
problem of my communicative skills on the matter.


More information about the b-hebrew mailing list