In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

THE FOLLOWING ENTRIES on selected topics encapsulate the revising editor’s assumptions and conclusions. (Entries for Hebrew terms are relatively technical.) Space permits neither the development of arguments in light of competing views nor full citation of sources. Nonetheless, we hope that this Dictionary orients the reader by explaining the import of, and the reasons for, the renderings in the present translation.  ’adam The grammatically masculine noun ’adam is normally a collective common-gender noun. It is regularly employed when gender is not germane, signaling to the audience not to infer social gender (e.g., Lev. 1:2). Outside of the thirty instances of ’adam in Genesis 2–3 and two references elsewhere to that first ’adam (1 Chron. 1:1, Job 31:33)—that is, the other 530 occurrences of ’adam— none refers to a particular individual. Rather, ’adam has an indefinite referent (i.e., it is unidentified or generic: “humankind, a human being, a person”), which means that the corresponding language is masculine only for the sake of grammatical concord, implying nothing about the referent’s gender. The lack of an article (’adam versus ha-’adam) is ambiguous —either way, the referent may be definite or indefinite. The presence of an article is likewise ambiguous. The sense depends upon the context. That a certain male character has the name Adam does not contradict the gender-inclusive nature of the common noun. Rather, the name Adam is symbolic, like the names Cain, Abel, and many other biblical names. The meaning of ’adam in Eden (in particular, in Gen. 2:7– 3:30) warrants particular attention because of the unique situation there. The Torah’s composer(s) would reasonably have expected its original audience to construe a story about the first human being in terms of their existing views of lineage: individuals cannot be envisioned apart from a patrilineage that situates them in the social structure (see Genealogy). Thus the original audience Dictionary of Gender in the Torah 393 Dictionary of Gender in the Torah would have reliably read the story of ’adam in Eden as an etiology not of human biology but rather of lineage—that is, of society . And as the progenitor of the species and originator of all patrilineages, this particular ’adam could have been conceived of only as male. Hence the present translation understands ’adam in Gen. 2:7– 3:30 as having a special sense in context: “the first human being (whom it goes without saying was a male).” Such a special sense explains several features of the story that would otherwise be anomalous: how ha-’adam refers to a particular individual in the presence of another individual (2:25, 3:12, 20); why Adam is never formally named; and why he continues to be called ha-’adam (3:20) even after he is referred to by name (3:17).  ’ish The present translation takes as the primary sense of ’ish (and its effective plural, ’anashim) “a representative member of a group: a member who serves as a typical or characteristic example.” Thus this term exemplifies the group-oriented thinking found throughout the ancient Near East. That primary sense can be seen, for example, in Num. 16:22 (“When one member sins, will you be wrathful with the whole community?”). The term ’ish presumes an inseparability from a larger entity. In the many situations where a group’s members are interchangeable and the grammatical construction is impersonal or distributive, the word ’ish means “someone, anyone, each one, every one.” Furthermore, biblical Hebrew often uses ’ish in another , related sense of the English word “representative,” that of “standing in or acting for another person or group.” Where the context indicates that its referent is playing such a role, conspicuous usage of the word ’ish (sometimes also with grammatical clues such as a construct chain, apposition, or plural form) evokes its sense as a group’s exemplary specimen or representative functionary —e.g., leader, dignitary, expert, householder (see entry), agent (see entry), warrior, or subordinate. Various medieval rabbinic grammarians and exegetes perceived the foregoing senses of ’ish in a wide range of biblical contexts. And as the pioneering lexicographer R. Jonah ibn Janah held nearly a thousand years ago, maleness is not intrinsic to the meaning of ’ish in biblical Hebrew. Rather, the word ’ish gains its social-gender sense from context—most fundamentally from the nature of the 394 Dictionary of Gender in the Torah ’ISH  THE CONTEMPORARY TORAH [18.119.131.72] Project MUSE (2024...

Share