Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Martin Shields <enkidu AT bigpond.net.au>]

On 29/09/2005, at 4:25 PM, Vadim Cherny wrote:

> > Why is it meaningless?
>
> Because, as I wrote, the text goes, "There was no shrub because  
> there was no man to till the ground." Now, the writers didn't live  
> in Manhattan, and knew that shrubs grow without human assistance.
>
>
> > Gen 2:5 seems to describe the reasons why there were no cultivated
>
> Cultivated? This is your imagination at work. The text says nothing  
> of the sort.

Maybe it does:

1. The context implies that whatever is meant by שיח השדה and  
עשב השדה, they require work from the man and water to grow. As  
you said, the writers knew that shrubs grow without human assistance,  
so the natural inference would be to conclude that these shrubs,  
which require human assistance, were cultivated.

2. Why are שיח and עשב qualified here when they need not be?  
Elsewhere they appear alone, so it seems likely that adding השדה  
modifies the meaning in some way.

3. שדה frequently designates land used for agricultural purposes.

I think there is more than enough information to reasonably infer  
that the reference is not to any old plant but to specific plants  
which require human (and divine) intervention to grow, and thus crops  
or agricultural produce of some sort.

Regards,

Martin Shields,
Sydney, Australia.