Biblical Hebrew Forum

[yochanan bitan <ButhFam AT compuserve.com>]

this is a 'part 2' on gn 2.19 and grammar questions
while of secondary interest to b-hebrew, it brings 'readings' of people
from 1000 years ago, who frequently differ from my own reading.

if one is interested in harmony between a literal reading of genesis
2.4-8,19 and genesis 1, 
then the explicit point of contact is Day 3 when the first plants were
created. 

for example, the creation of Man (the male half, gn 2.7) could have been
begun on day three (before plants), and completed on day 6 with the female
Hava. genesis 2.4-19 would have happened between days 3 and 6. 

how do medieval rabbis view these passages? i concede that they do not read
the passage like i do above (dividing the creation of man) but they are
certainly interesting and worth interacting with. (they divide the
sprouting!)

for David QimHi ([rada"q]  1120-1195ce) the command to bring forth
vegetation had been given, but things take time to actually come into
existence. he wrote on gn 2.5: 
"even though it is written above 'let the earth make grass' the earth
didn't immediately make grass, because the Lord had still 'not rained ...
and there was no man'. ... these were not yet existing at the beginning of
day 3. and how did the earth put forth vegetation? a mist came forth from
the effect of the lights hung in the sky [see 1.16--D.Q. {=day 4 -- r.b.!}]


Shlomo YitsHaqi ([rash"i] 1000-1065ce) said something similar with respect
to time sequence but more interesting with respect to midrash: 
"they [plants--r.b.] were not existing on the earth when the creation was
of the world was completed on the sixth day before man was created. 
'all the vegetation of the field': this had not yet sprouted. on the third
day it is written 'let the earth put forth...' they stood at the edge of
the ground until day 6. ... 
and why 'he didn't rain'? because there was no man to work the ground. ... 
and when adam came and recognized a need for rains in the world he prayed
for them and they came down and the trees and grasses sprouted."

the medieval rabbis were interested in harmony (after discussing the nature
of 'spirit/soul/image') and both avraham ibn-ezra ([ra'ba"`] 1049-1129ce)
and david qimHi explicitly interpreted gn 2.19 as "already he formed ... ".


ibn-ezra did the same for 2.8 "already he planted", while QimHi talks about

   "like 'he planted the cedars of Lebanon' (ps 104.16). he invented a name
for it [the cedar--rb] on day 3 and remembered the existence of the name
according to its importance and greatness, something not done with the rest
of the plants on day 3."  

shlomo yitsHaqi, on gn2.8: 
if you say 'but it's already written "and He created ... man"(gn1.27)!?' i
saw in a baraita of eli`ezar son of yosi ha-galili, [this is] from the 32
principles of interpretation ... a general item that has a deed afterwards,
it details the first, "and he created ... man" is the general, this
described his creation as a generalization, and how do we know this is a
generalization? he returns and itemizes: "and Y"Y-elohim formed ..."(2.7)."

my own drash, r.b.:
both accounts gn 1 and gn 2 are very strongly pro-God, anti-pagan, and lay
a foundation for God making a covenant with man.  both accounts are "pastel
watercolors", neither is a photograph. 
ask the right questions, you'll get the right answers. 

who is God? [the creator]

is He in control? [it appears so]

is He powerful enough? [beyond our wildest dreams]

where is man in the scheme of things? [at the pinacle of creation, God's
image, God's concern]

is God concerned with man? [especially so]

what happened on day 3, exactly? [in comparison with gn 2.5-8 we don't
know, wrong question]

is 'story time' originally intended to be absolute time? [probably NOT,
notice the two accounts overlayed on each other without marking, but with
obvious rhetorical flourish "there was evening and there was morning...",
and with conflicts for any farmer by mentioning "light (1) and plants (3)
before sun (4)". and explicit marking puts creation of man at a time
without plants.]

is God interested in a technical interweaving of genesis one and two? [even
for those for whom this is God's Word, the answer should be 'no'. wrong
question. the grammatical marking that is explicitly used creates problems
rather than solves them.]    (but this adds something special, too: 
genesis 1 and 2 may providentially help us humans focus on the big
picture.)

[please keep comments to the texts, rabbinic comments/methodology and
grammar. my own 'drash' were listed as examples of how one might approach
such texts given my own readings.]

braxot
randall buth