Substitutes
Alongside an Explicit MND
Zakovitch has shown that the biblical
writers may place a derivation and its substitute side by side. In such a case
the MND is reinforced and becomes explicit and salient. . . .
[1] In Gen, the name of Adam is
accompanied several times by an MND that undergoes slight changes in its form
of presentation:
ויאמר אלהים נעשׂה
אדם בצלמנו כדמותנו
And God said, Let us make man (‘dm)
in our image (bṣlmnw),
after our likeness (kdmwtnw) . . . (1:26)
ויחי אדם שׁלשׁים
ומאת שׁנה ויולד בדמותו כצלמו
And Adam (‘dm) lived an
hundred and thirty years, and begot a
son in his own likeness (bdmwtw), after his image (kṣlmw)
. . . (5:3)
Zakovitch observes that on the first occasion
the substitute precedes the direct derivation, while on the second occasion the
direct derivation comes first. This reinforcement appears to be necessary
because of the meager sound similarity between the name and its pun – only two
consonants are the same (d and m). In a third
instance (5:1-2), however, the substitute is omitted:
זה ספר תולדת אדם ביום ברא אלהים אדם בדמות אלהים עשׂה אותו
זכר ונקבה בראם ויברך
אתם ויקרא את־שׁמם אדם ביום הבראם
This is the book of the generations of
Adam. In the day that
God created man, in the likeness of God made he him.
Male and female created He them; and blessed them, and called
their name Adam, in the day when they were created.
Here the consonants of the name ‘dm
(Adam) are heard in the construct phrase bdmwt ‘lhym (in
the likeness of God), which is reinforced by the recurrence of the same
consonants throughout the passage. This may be the reason why there is no need
here for a substitute to draw the reader’s attention to the MND. In the first
and third instances, the sound equation helps to deliver a significant message –
that the first name is indeed created in the image of God. The likeness in
sound supports the notion of the likeness of their “images.” This is a fine
example of how literature forms should serve content. (Moshe Garsiel, Biblical
Names: Literary Study of Midrashic
Derivations and Puns [trans. Phyllis Hackett; Jerusalem: Bar-Ilan University,
1991], 99-100)
Elsewhere,
commenting on Psa 144:3-4, Garsiel notes the following:
יהוה מה־אדם ותדעהו בן־אנושׁ ותחשׁבהו
אדם להבל דמה ימיו
כצל עובר
Lord, what is man (‘dm),
that You take knowledge of him?
The son of man (‘nwš), that You make account of him?
Man is like to vanity (‘dm l-hbl dmh), his days are as
a passing shadow.
The irony of this verse emerges with
especial clarity if we compare it (as intended) with Gen 5:1: “In the day that
God created man, in the likeness of (‘dm b-dmwt – אדם בדמות) God
made He him.” This ancient image in exaltation of man’s status is changed by the
psalm into one that degrades him: “Man is like to vanity (‘dm l-hbl
dmh – אדם להבל דמה).” “To vanity” (l-hbl), moreover, is an allusion to
Abel (hbl – הבל), who died in the prime of life (Gen 4:8), and the
phrase “son of man” (bn ‘nwš – בן אנוש) hints at Enosh, the son of Seth
and grandson of Adam and Eve. Thus the words “man,” “(son of) man” and “vanity”
all turn into elements in other combinations in the Bible, although their
connection with their literary source is sometimes obscure. (Ibid., 139)
