Numbers 11:12 - On the gender of the figurative parent

(The above rendering comes from the RJPS translation, an adaptation of the NJPS translation.)

---

In his rhetorical questions, Moses posits a figurative parent for the Israelite nation. The two-part issue before us is whether the gender of that parent is specified, and whether it is salient in the argument.

Some interpreters have construed a father image (e.g., Mayer Gruber), while others have construed a mother image (e.g., Ramban, Tikva Frymer-Kensky, Judith Antonelli, Hanne Løland Levinson), and still others both genders (e.g., Ibn Ezra).

Let us bear in mind here the linguistic phenomenon known as se­mantic neutral­iza­tion, which is discussed, e.g., in Moisés Silva, Biblical Words and Their Meaning: An Introduction to Lexical Semantics, rev. edn. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), 165–66. Whenever synonymous terms are situated in syntactically paral­lel and/or corefer­ential roles, their semantic differences are bleached out. In such a construction, all that remains is their semantic overlap only. In the present case, this means that one would need to construe both verbs as either definitively male or definitively female, in order to conclude that the imagery is gendered.

After considering the evidence that I shall summarize below, I concluded that the rhetorical questions can be construed as ascribing either biological sex to the figurative parent. I.e., the imagery is not definitively gendered.

This result turns out to be unsurprising, for I concluded that gender is anyway not salient in Moses’ argument. At issue in his questions is who is responsible for the viability of the Israelite people. His main point is that he himself is not the responsible party. That point is made regardless of the gender of the depicted parent in his rhetorical questions.

Regarding Moses’ first question, the verb harah apparently can be used for a male parent. So Targum Onkelos here (הֲאַב אֲנָא “Am I a father…?”), which is supported by Mayer Gruber’s argument on formal grounds: “It is true that in prose the verb h-r-h refers definitely to pregnancy, but in poetry h-r-h is only a word akin to y-l-d (= holid), and rhetorical questions belong to poetry, not to prose” (Gruber, “Feminine Similes Applied to the Lord in Second Isaiah,” Beersheva 2 [1985],” p. 77, n. 9; my transl.).

Regarding Moses’ second question, his verb yalad usually applies to females, yet it does have an attested application to a male (Prov. 23:22). In our verse, Ibn Ezra takes the verb’s referent as manly, and Ramban acknowledges that this is defensible (although he himself takes its referent in womanly terms). While it is true that a different verb stem is normally used for men (hiphil rather than qal), Gruber explains that the Torah is not grammatically consistent throughout: “According to source criticism, Num. 11:12 belongs . . . to the J source. . . . In the J source, the question he-anokhi yaladti is akin to he-anokhi holadti in the priestly writings” (op. cit.; my transl.).

At any rate, because gender is not salient, I do not see a compelling reason to read the figurative parent’s gender one way or the other, such that a rendering into English ought to be gendered accordingly.

---

With regard to translation, the NJPS rendering “conceive … bear” expresses a feminine nuance. Yet above I concluded that a gendered rendering is not warranted. In order to provide a less gendered one, I sought more neutral verbal equivalents (“produce … engender”). This formulation enables a reader to construe either gender, or none at all, without forcing a particular gendered construal.