וַיַּפֵּל֩ יְהֹוָ֨ה אֱלֹהִ֧ים ׀ תַּרְדֵּמָ֛ה עַל־הָאָדָ֖ם וַיִּישָׁ֑ן וַיִּקַּ֗ח אַחַת֙ מִצַּלְעֹתָ֔יו וַיִּסְגֹּ֥ר בָּשָׂ֖ר תַּחְתֶּֽנָּה׃
So the ETERNAL God cast a deep sleep upon the Human; and, while he slept, [God] took one of his sides* and closed up the flesh at that site.
*sides So Septuagint and Ibn Ezra; trad. “ribs.”
(The above rendering comes from the RJPS translation, an adaptation of the NJPS translation. Before accounting for this rendering, I will analyze the plain sense of the Hebrew text.)
This usage of the noun צַלְעֹת colors the original relationship between the two sexes, and therefore it fell under the purview of the RJPS project.
As Reuven Kimelman (“The Seduction of Eve,” 1996, n. 32) observes, there are no good arguments in favor of construing צַלְעֹת as ribs.
Otto Procksch (cited by Fabry; see below) is one of the few scholars who favors the rendering as “rib.” The reason cited is that it “is not an essential body part.” At first glance, this is a reasonable point. After all, whatever that body part was, the man was able to live without it. Yet the thrust of the story seems to be that something essential was indeed lost, prompting a deep longing for reunification! Moreover, the etiology in v. 24 presumes that the surgery was significant enough to motivate a recurring disjunction in a man’s primary relationship loyalties. Such an import is not conveyed by construing צַלְעֹת as ribs, which minimizes the loss to the first creature.
Furthermore, a rib is belied by the immediate co-text: in the relationship formula in v. 23, the phrase “flesh of my flesh” suggests that something more than “bone of my bones” was taken—and indeed, v. 24 mentions only “flesh.” In other words, a construal as “side” yields a more coherent text.
For “side,” cf. Exod. 25:12; 26:20, 26–27, 35; 30:4; 1 Kings 6:5.
Heinz-Josef Fabry, writing in the Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament (TDOT), remarks: “The basic meaning of the word in Hebrew is not clear.… The only certain thing … is that if tzela‘ does mean ‘rib,’ it does so only in this one passage. This semantic singularity, of course, suggests that one seek a different solution.” Fabry’s analysis concludes that “side” is the sense that best accommodates the various biblical usages, and that the ancient audience would have been familiar with the term as an architectural element (which is evoked by the use of the verb banah “built”). Thus he sees that the present passage intentionally evokes the construction of an Israelite sanctuary: “Even if the architectural term itself is not unequivocal, it does refer to side portions of the sanctuary that are essential for its stability and function.”
Carol Meyers (pers. comm., 8/25/05) points to “the imagery involved in 1 Kings 6:34 with respect to the double-hung doors providing the entrance to the temple in Jerusalem. Monumental entryways typically are double doors (a single door not being wide enough), each pivoting on the outside. The two components are called ‘sides.’ The image is that these are 2 nearly identical components, the mirror image of each other and both essential parts of a doorway—without both, there’s really no door (because one alone would not allow the door to function (to separate the inside from the outside). I understand the two sides of the first human to be that way, once that person has been split in two: two nearly identical components, a matched pair that need to be together in order to function (procreate, work).”
In sum, the construal of צַלְעֹת as “sides,” which appears to be that noun’s prototypical sense, yields a coherent and informative text. Hence to arrive at the passage’s plain sense, the ancient audience would have looked no further.
As for rendering into English, the NJPS ‘ribs’ is difficult to justify. Meanwhile, even highly literal translations, such as Korsak and the Stone Tanach (Artscroll) prefer “side.”