Grammar oddity in Parshat Bereshit

[rhu]

For the first four chapters of Bereshit, the word adam is a common noun meaning "human being" or, in some contexts, "man". It is not until the start of chapter five that Adam is taken as a proper noun. Whenever it's necessary to talk about the human, the Torah uses the definite article. For example, Vayivra E-lokim et ha-adam (God created the human.) (I:27)

But take a closer look at III:21. Vayaas YKVK E-lokim l'-adam ulishto kawtnot `or vayalbishem. (HASHEM G-d fashioned for human [sic] and his wife clothing of skins and dressed them.) Why is it read l'-adam and not la-adam? Where did our definite article go? This can't be read as l'-Adam yet because the name of ha-adam is not yet Adam.

Either vocalization would be supported by the ktiv. Has the mesorah become corrupted? If you'll forgive my use of documentary hypothesis terminology, is this a J text slipping in to an E narrative, from a source that always considered adam to mean the proper name Adam? (I note the use of YKVK E-lokim in the pasuk.)

I looked through my books and fond only one that takes note of this oddity. The Simanim tikkun, in the commentary labeled shita mekubetzet, says on III:21 (note 20) "The lamed is with a sh'va but there are those who read it with a patach." So I'm glad to know I'm not the only one troubled by the inconsistency, but that still doesn't answer: Why?

Comments

[abbasegal.livejournal.com]

It seems striking to me that the previous sentence involves Chava getting her name. Could this be a remez (hint) that at this time Adam also became the name for ha-Adam?

Actually, that thought is countered by 2:17, which begins "u-l'adam", which also (at least according to Rav Scroll) seems to be naming him Adam (for wouldn't it otherwise be "v'la-adam"?), although, that in and of itself seems to counter one of the assumptions of your question.

Is there mesorah as to precisely when Adam named himself?

[530nm330hz.livejournal.com]

Admittedly, I was skipping over the several instances of ul-adam (which is where I first noticed this anomaly) because the other one is easier to explain.

Adam ha-Rishon did not name himself, but was named by Hashem at the start of perek 5, although that is potentially retrospective: Vayvarech otam vayiqra et sh'mam adam b'yom hibar'am (And [God] blessed them and called their name Adam on the day He created them).

Actually, now that I'm citing it, is that really talking about assigning the species name adam to the hermaphroditic first creature? It's an E-lokim pasuk and it treats adam as a single duality, rather than as two individuals with proper names, although the surrounding pesukim use singular verbs and certainly treat Adam as a proper name. Adam bidmut E-lokim asah oto and Vay'hi adam sh'loshim um'at shanah, vayoled bidmuto k'tzalmo.

So now I'm not sure....

[cellio]

Vayvarech otam vayiqra et sh'mam adam b'yom hibar'am

So "adam" or "Adam" is grammatically, unambiguously, plural here (otam). Interesting; I had not noticed that before.

[cellio]

Let me complicate your good question. :-)

Many places in tanach we see la--YKVK. Proper nouns do not take articles, and how much the moreso for God? It happens enough that it'd be hard to claim corrupted tradition/scribal error.

Could it be that the rules for "l'" vs "la" aren't as hard and fast as instructors of Biblical Hebrew would have us understand?

(Mind, I want there to be some meaning to be drawn out from your example. I just don't know how to reconcile it with the problems in the other direction.)

[530nm330hz.livejournal.com]

Not necessarily plural, perhaps collective. "And God called their name 'humanity'" would not make 'humanity' plural.

[cellio]

Ah. So you would use "otam" with, say, "ha-am"? Yeah, I guess you probably would.