The very first word of the Torah presents us with an intriguing challenge. The word be-reishit is in the construct state, meaning it should be followed by a noun to complete its meaning (i.e., at the beginning of [something]). However, the verse continues with the verb bara (created) instead of a noun, which raises the question: in the beginning of what? Various attempts have been made to parse the verse with radically different implications as to its meaning.
Rashi and Ibn Ezra - be-reshit is construct
Rashi argues that we should not read the first verse as an independent statement as traditionally thought. Instead, it should be understood as part of a subordinate clause which finds its completion only in verse 3 when God speaks. The NJPS which agrees with Rashi’s understanding, translates as follows:
“When God began to create heaven and earth - the earth being unformed and void, with darkness over the surface of the deep and a wind from God sweeping over the water - God said let there be light”
Artscroll which, as a matter of principle follows Rashi, translates as follows to similar effect:
"In the beginning of God's creation of the heavens and the earth, when the earth was in a stage of tohu va-vohu with darkness over the surface of the deep, and the spirit of God was hovering over the waters, God said let there be light"[1]
According to Rashi the words prior to ‘God said let there be light’ describe the prehistoric state of the universe but do not provide any information about its origins. God’s creation of heaven and earth as mentioned in verse 1 refers to the formation of the world as we know it but not the creation of basic matter. The question of how we arrived at the stage of chaos described in verse 2 is not addressed - at least not here.[2]
The Ibn Ezra has a similar approach only he says the subordinate clause finishes at the end of verse 1, with verse 2 being the primary clause. Verse 3 (“God said let there be light”) then opens a new statement. The translation would therefore run as follows:
“In the beginning of the creation of the heavens and the earth, the earth was formless and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. And God said let there be light”
Despite their similarity, the significance Rashi and Ibn Ezra attach to their explanations seems markedly different. For Rashi, the only relevant point is that documenting the sequence of creation and indeed the origins of the universe is not the function of the verse. Verse 1 is a temporal reference which is of relative significance only. The Torah does not commence by informing us that God created the world, only that when he formed the world as we know it this was the state of the universe and this was the process. Time is already underway and matter already exists when the creation story begins in Chapter 1. As Rashi notes: “the Bible is not telling us what came first and what came later”.
In some respects this is even more pronounced in the Rashbam’s commentary. He addresses the grammatical issue in a similar manner to Rashi but understands the verse to mean: ‘at the start of the history (i.e. early history) of the heavens and the earth…’. According to the Rashbam the existence of a ‘heaven and earth’ is presupposed when the creation story commences.[3]
For Ibn Ezra, on the other hand, the Torah does not allude to any creation ex-nihilo prior to the chaos in verse 2 for the reason that there was none![4] Presumably influenced by the Aristotelian doctrine of the eternity of matter, the Ibn Ezra seems to suggest that the Torah is confirming that primal matter is timeless and co-exists with God.[5]
On a grammatical level, however, these readings present new problems. If verse 2 is a dependent clause (like Rashi) or completion of verse 1 (like Ibn Ezra), then it should have said va-tehi ha-aretz with a consecutive vav which would better maintain the narrative flow, rather than the perfect tense.[6]
Furthermore, argues R David Zvi Hoffman, if what is being described is the beginning of a process (i.e. beginning of God’s creation of heaven and earth…) then the word techilat would have been more appropriate than reishit. As an example he compares the following verses:
וַהֲבֵאתֶם אֶת עֹמֶר רֵאשִׁית
קְצִירְכֶם אֶל הַכֹּהֵן (ויקרא כ״ג:י׳)
וְהֵמָּה בָּאוּ בֵּית לֶחֶם בִּתְחִלַּת קְצִיר שְׂעֹרִים (רות א׳:כ״ב)
The first instance refers to the first product of the harvest whereas the second instance refers to the beginning of the harvesting (i.e. first stage of a process). Thus, in our case, if we parse the verse according to Rashi and Ibn Ezra, since the verse intends to reference the commencement of the process of creation, the word techilat would have been more appropriate.
Rashbam raises a further difficulty that if verse 1 refers specifically to the formation of the earth over the six days it would be strange for verse 2 to already refer to the ‘earth’ as if such an entity already existed (in any form).
In any event, in addition to the grammatical and theological issues, commencing with such an elaborate subordinate clause seems unnatural and awkward. Rashi himself senses a deeper meaning in the verse as his opening remark is אין זה אומר אלא דרשני. He first launches into a Midrashic explanation and only then offers his peshat based solution.
The traditional reading - be-reishit is absolute
This takes us to the more traditional readings which seem to gloss over the syntactic difficulty. The translation of the Septuagint (originally in Greek) and followed by most major Christian translations (including Vulgate and King James Version) is along the lines of: ‘In the beginning God made the heaven and the earth’. This reading is also followed by Hertz.[7]
But even within this reading, there are basically three main schools of thought.
The Ramban sees the opening verse as describing an initial act of creation which brought primal matter (hiyuli) into existence, this being the raw material from which the universe is formed. Since this substance encompasses the matter of all of creation the verse refers to it as the creation of ‘heaven and earth’.
According to the Ramban, verse 2 then depicts the primordial state of the world during this prehistoric stage. The creation of light in verse 3 then signals a transition from the initial chaos towards order.
The Ramban’s translation of heaven and earth is indeed very ‘creative’. The problem is that the verse now refers to a discrete primal creation entirely distinguishable from the formation of the earth over the six days of creation. This breaks the parallel with the closing summary verse which refers to the completion of heaven and earth:
וַיְכֻלּוּ הַשָּׁמַיִם וְהָאָרֶץ
וְכָל־צְבָאָם (ב׳:א)
In other words, we should expect symmetry between the heaven and earth references which bookend the creation story so that the heaven and earth mentioned in 1:1 is identical with the heaven and earth then completed in 2:1.
A similar problem arises when we consider verse 2:4:
אֵלֶּה תוֹלְדוֹת הַשָּׁמַיִם
וְהָאָרֶץ בְּהִבָּרְאָם בְּיוֹם עֲשׂוֹת ה׳ אֱלֹקים אֶרֶץ וְשָׁמָיִם (ב׳:ד)
This verse contains the same elements as 1:1 but clearly refers to a more concrete reality in contrast to the basic matter to which the Ramban refers.
As an alternative to the Ramban, the verse can be understood as a headline summary of the entire creation process. But also here there are two potential variations. It can be read as a one-line summary of the six days of creation but not adding any new information, or a more comprehensive statement which encompasses every aspect of creation. In the words of Hertz:
“Verse 1 is a
majestic summary of the story of Creation: God is the beginning, nay the Cause
of all things. The remainder of the chapter gives details of the successive
acts of creation. Ages untold may have elapsed between the calling of matter
into being and the reduction of chaos into ordered arrangement”
Hoffman suggests that this subtle variation is the point of contention in the following Midrash:
ר׳ יהודה אומר, האורה נבראת תחלה — משל למלך שבקש לבנות פלטין... ור׳ נחמיה אומר, העולם נברא תחלה — משל למלך שבנה פלטין ועטרה בנרות״ וכו׳ (בראשית רבה ג׳:א)[8]
According to R Yehudah, light was the first creation as the first verse is a pure summary. On the other hand, according to R Nechemiah, the first verse is a comprehensive statement which covers the creation of the universe ex-nihilo as well as its refinement through the six days of creation (similar to Hertz).
Hoffman seems to marginally favour the second possibility. He further argues that the verse follows the classic biblical rule of providing a general statement followed by the particulars. Yet he also adds the all-important point that the verse serves to unite the apparently disparate acts of creation and the evolution of the universe.
According to both the Ramban as well as Hoffman’s favoured interpretation - which I personally find the most compelling - the verse makes a definitive statement as to the origins of the cosmos, not just the formation of the world as is.
Grammatical irregularity as a literary device[9]
Can the traditional approach address the grammatical difficulty? Surprisingly, the Ramban brings Rashi’s question but never addresses the grammatical issue head-on. Hoffman on the other hand makes a very interesting point which provides a technical answer, but may have a more profound implication. Hoffman suggests that the absent noun governed by the word Bereishit should be yom so that the meaning is ‘in the beginning of days’. However, and here is the critical point, the Torah cannot write the word yom as it only becomes a defined term in verse 5.[10]
ברם, לא היה מקום לכתוב כאן
׳הימים׳, שכן השם יום מופיע רק לאחר מכן. רק לאחר שהבורא ית׳ קרא לאור – יום, רק
לאחר מכן נלקח שם זה לציון היממה (מערב עד ערב) ולציון הזמן בכלל. לפני כן – הרי
זה דבר בלתי מיודע, סתמי, שעל תחילתו מסופר לנו כאן. אנו שומעים שמשהו מתחיל, וזאת
מבלי לדעת מהו דבר סתמי זה, אך במהרה אנו מבינים, מתוך הביטויים ״יום אחד״, ״יום
שני״ וכו׳, כי הימים החלו.
This resonates with the Rashbam’s general assertion repeated on many occasions that the Torah will always provide the needed background of a term or concept in advance of its application.[11]
In our context, the implication is that when discussing the point of creation, the verse cannot speak of the beginning of days as the concept of a day is yet to emerge. But it’s not just the technical definition of day which is lacking. If we are talking about creation ex-nihilo then there is no reference point which can be used as the very concepts of time and space do not exist. The construct state of the word be-reishit frustrates the reader as without being followed by an absolute noun it fails to set the act of creation within an established timeframe.[12] Yet time cannot be used as a reference when describing its very creation. Accordingly, the grammatical difficulty becomes a device to highlight the major philosophical paradox of creation and God’s all encompassing existence. In the words of Sarna: “for the first time in the religious history of the Near East, God is conceived as being entirely free of temporal and spatial dimensions”.[13]
[1] Even this
translation is imprecise as if the translation was ‘creation of’ then the
grammatical form would have been beriat
(construct) instead of bara. The word
bara is a finite verb and functions
according to Rashi as a verbal noun meaning ‘the creating of..’. There are in
fact a few examples of a noun in the construct state followed by a finite verb
e.g. Lev. 14:46
[2] See Rashi 2:4
who derives from that verse that there was some prior creation. As discussed
further on, Ibn Ezra seems to understand the state of the universe in verse 2
as having eternally existed (though he doesn’t say it explicitly).
[3] On the other
hand, according to Rashbam the verse acknowledges (incidentally at least) that
God was responsible for the creation of the early universe described in verse
2. It is not clear according to the Rashbam why the grammatical form is bara instead of beriat.
[4] A quote from
the German biblical scholar Gerhard von Rad, highlights the theological
sensitivity:
“We do not follow the old
conjecture that v. 1 is not to be understood as an independent sentence but as
the introductory clause to v. 2 or even v. 2… Syntactically perhaps both
translations are possible, but not theologically… Ultimately in spite of all
arguments given by all the different sides, it boils down to the reader’s
personal preference and presuppositional pool concerning his or her
understanding of God. In other words, a person’s view of God determines his or
her translation… On theological grounds, option one makes the best sense in
light of its context.” (cited in Holmstedt, Robert D. “The Restrictive Syntax
of Genesis I 1.” Vetus Testamentum 58, no. 1 (2008): 56–67.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/20504316)
[5] Ramban however argues that the hiyuli or hyle was created ex-nihilo in verse 1 contra Aristotle as discussed further below.
[6] If verse 2 is
part of the subordinate clause (like Rashi) then היתה הארץ with the verb preceding the noun would have
been another possibility. Another problem is that the grammatical form should
be bero instead of bara (as Rashi himself acknowledges) per
the masoretic vocalisation.
[7] There are
exceptions. The Revised Standard Version for example translates verse 1 as
follows: “In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth…”. A
similar construction is adopted by Robert Alter: “When God began to create
heaven and earth…”.
[8] It is worth
noting that the Malbim considered the opinion of R Yehudah as consistent with
Rashi’s reading. Hoffman disagrees as he does not believe it is plausible that
such a complex variant reading would have no elaboration in the Midrash. As
mentioned, Rashi never states that there was no creation prior to light, only
that 1:1 provides no new information about the origins of the universe as it is
purely a subordinate clause. In fact his comments to verse 2:4 seem to suggest
there was a comprehensive primordial creation on the first day, presumably
before the creation of light.
[9] The idea that
a grammatical irregularity can be used as a literary device in the Torah is well attested. As a simple example, I have previously suggested that the use of the
masculine form in reference to the daughters of Tzelofchad in Num 35:6 align
with their bold contention that they should inherit like males, and the general
breakaway from the female gender stereotype (from a biblical standpoint at
least).
[10] There are
other instances where the word reisihit
is not followed by a noun e.g. Deut. 33:21 and Lev 2:12. Rashi used the example
of Is. 46:10 - מגיד מראשית אחרית - where he says you need to impute the noun ימים so that the meaning is ‘from the beginning
of days’. Rashi rejects the explanation on the basis that the water already
co-exists with the land in verse 2 and the heavens are created from the water.
However, if we adopt the understand that the concepts of heaven and earth in
verse 1 refer to the creation of the cosmos in totality rather than a discrete
prior event, then the question falls away.
[11] Rashbam
already makes this point in his comments to verse 1 explaining that Moshe
decided(!) to open the Torah with the story of creation in order to provide the
necessary context for the Mitzvah of Shabbat. Whilst this particular assertion
requires separate discussion, the general point is clear and well grounded.
[12] Many
scholars derive support for reading verse 1 and 2 as dependent relative clauses
from the parallel with Enuma Elish creation myth which commences in this
manner:
“When in the height heaven was not
named,
And the earth beneath did not yet
bear a name…”
But here too I would argue that
the function of our verse is precisely to subvert the Enuma Elish opening by replacing the polytheistic overtones with a solemn declaration that God is the
source of all existence.
[13] The JPS Torah Commentary, Genesis, p5
