Numbers 3:12 - On the “first-born” label

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

---

The noun בְּכוֹר occasionally takes the additional specification זָכָר (“male”), as in Deut 15:19:

כָּֽל־הַבְּכ֡וֹר אֲשֶׁר֩ יִוָּלֵ֨ד בִּבְקָרְךָ֤ וּבְצֹֽאנְךָ֙ הַזָּכָ֔ר תַּקְדִּ֖ישׁ לַייָ֣ אֱלֹהֶ֑יךָ

“You shall consecrate to the ETERNAL your God
all male firstlings that are born in your herd and in your flock…”

(Similarly Num 3:40–43.) The additional term suggests that בְּכוֹר itself does not exclude females from its scope of application. That is no surprise, given that in general, whenever grammatically masculine nouns (with a feminine counterpart term) refer to a category of persons, their referent’s gender is not specified. (Alternatively, the paired term בְּכוֹר זָכָר may have an intensive sense, but that seems unlikely given a lack of gender contrast in the aforementioned contexts of use.)

Although בְּכוֹר is not a gendered term, nonetheless in the present passage, females are not in view. This aspect could go without saying, given the mores of ancient Israel, as shall now be documented.…

In Torah passages like this one that commemorate the exodus from Egypt (see next verse), the evidence is indirect yet robust that only males are intended. Consider the following five points.

1. In this passage, when the Levites are subordinated for divine service in lieu of the first-born, it is explicitly males whom they replace (3:40).
2. In the biblical view of society, it is first-born sons rather than daughters who have truly special status; for example in King Saul’s family genealogy, his first-born daughter is listed only after her presumably younger brothers (1 Sam 14:49).
3. We can expect a consistent metaphoric correlation between the Torah’s rules applying to domestic animals and to Israelites; and in the regulations for animals, it is explicitly the male first-born that is sacred (Exod 13:12; Deut 15:19).
4. The cost of redemption for a first-born (Num 18:16) matches the valuation of a male child but not a female child (Lev 27:6).
5. What is at stake in this passage’s ritual exchange with the Levites is each family’s relationship with God, which had evidently been placed in the hands of its בְּכוֹר. From a familial perspective, this term would refer specifically to the first-born male, given that the society was patrilocal: typically, a first-born woman (like daughters in general) left the homestead upon marriage, whereas the first-born son remained on the patrimony—thus being able to tend to the ancestral burial site, and so forth.

---

As for rendering into English, the NJPS “first-born” is unduly vague. Contemporary readers come to the text with gender assumptions that differ from those of the text’s ancient audience. Because nowadays the English term “first-born” is usually used gender-inclusively, the unqualified NJPS rendering misleadingly implies that all genders are in view. Rather, when only males are intended, English idiom calls for more specific wording. The revised rendering adds it: in passages like this one in which only males are in view, the present translation is explicit: “male first-born.”