Grammar oddity in Parshat Bereshit
Oct. 6th, 2007 10:50 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rhuFor 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?
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?