A question about the Hebrew in Genesis 1/2

[Darth Executor]

How can I tell when the word "adam" referrs to Adam or to "man" in general?

[FormerFundy]

How can I tell when the word "adam" referrs to Adam or to "man" in general?

Not from the Hebrew but from the context.

[Menachem]

How can I tell when the word "adam" referrs to Adam or to "man" in general?


Generally in genesis you can tell from the Hebrew. In Genesis 1-3 The word used is "ha'Adam" which is a general reference simply saying "the man" When used as a proper name the Heh is dropped and not used. There is a way to tell. when it is simply referring to "man" the word Ha'adam is used and when it is used as a proper name it is simply "a'dam." Of course this is not always applicable to other parts of the Tanakh where the word "A'dam" is used by itself to denote simply a human being. Basically it is context that tells you but here in Bereshit you can tell from the grammer usage.

[Conductor42]

How can I tell when the word "adam" referrs to Adam or to "man" in general?
Context.

It'd be like reading about President Bush and the band Bush. You would be able to figure out which was which through context. Obviously, if you're reading about a #1 hit from "Bush", it isn't Mr. President ;)

[FormerFundy]

Generally in genesis you can tell from the Hebrew. In Genesis 1-3 The word used is "ha'Adam" which is a general reference simply saying "the man"


But it is referring to a specific man, namely Adam.



When used as a proper name the Heh is dropped and not used. There is a way to tell. when it is simply referring to "man" the word Ha'adam is used and when it is used as a proper name it is simply "a'dam."


Correct me if I am wrong but Adam as a proper name has the article all the way through Gen. 1-3.

In addition the word occurs without the article in 2:5 referring to man in general.

So, I don't think your argument based on the article is valid. Unless, of course, I have misunderstood what you are saying.

[Menachem]

But it is referring to a specific man, namely Adam.

Not by name but by pointing to the fact that he is well.....the only man.




Correct me if I am wrong but Adam as a proper name has the article all the way through Gen. 1-3.

If you were to read it as a proper name then you would always be saying "the Adam" Not simply "Adam" late in chapter three in verse 17 the propername is used and it reads ולאדם saying "and to Adam" the article "Heh" is dropped and we know it is referring to a proper name because of its direct speech which follows as: "Because you listened to your wife and ate...etc."


In addition the word occurs without the article in 2:5 referring to man in general.

So, I don't think your argument based on the article is valid. Unless, of course, I have misunderstood what you are saying.

I think you have misunderstood. I said that "generally" when there is a reference to "man" the article "heh" is used to say "the man" in Bereshit 1-3 here in 2:5 using the article "Heh" make little sense gramatically for example if I were to put the article "Heh" in there it would read as "G-d had not made it rain on the Earth and there was no "the man" to work the land." it would make little sense so to speak. that is where context comes into play. Would you have rather had it read as " And there was no Adam to work the land." Its possible but not very practical.

Notice my "argument" was based on a generality of its usage in the early parts of Bereshit and I said it is hard to apply it to other parts of the tanakh. Notice I also said the context plays a key role also in many if not most cases. I was not saying that it works for the rest of the tanakh I was basing it on a pattern the Hebrew was following.

[FormerFundy]

I think you have misunderstood. I said that "generally" when there is a reference to "man" the article "heh" is used .

In general, I would agree. But the bottom line then is what I said earlier and with which you appear to agree. Context is really the only way to tell.

[Menachem]

In general, I would agree. But the bottom line then is what I said earlier and with which you appear to agree. Context is really the only way to tell.


Basically, yes. Here in Genesis 1-3, in a manner of speaking, you could use what I suggested but beyond that you would have to rely on context. I was merely suggesting this only for the chapters you were talking about.