וַיִּשְׁבּ֧וּ בְנֵי־יִשְׂרָאֵ֛ל אֶת־נְשֵׁ֥י מִדְיָ֖ן וְאֶת־טַפָּ֑ם וְאֵ֨ת כׇּל־בְּהֶמְתָּ֧ם וְאֶת־כׇּל־מִקְנֵהֶ֛ם וְאֶת־כׇּל־חֵילָ֖ם בָּזָֽזוּ׃
The Israelites took the women and other noncombatants of the Midianites captive, and seized as booty all their beasts, all their herds, and all their wealth.
(The above rendering comes from the RJPS translation, an adaptation of the NJPS translation.)
Classically, lexicographers have held that the singular collective term טַף literally means “children,” such that by extension it can include certain types of adults as well (Koehler and Baumgartner). In practice, however, it often refers more broadly to dependents as such (Carol Meyers, Women in Scripture, 2000, p. 223, citing the entry in Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament). So too already BDB (addenda, p. 1124); HALOT, p. 378.
The precise nature of the profiled dependency can vary, although a basic social dichotomy in the ancient Near East remains a given: the responsible parties versus their dependents (roughly equivalent to today’s dichotomy of entrepreneurs versus employees).
Likewise according to Michael O’Connor, טַף designates both dependents in general and sometimes specifically the prototypical dependents, namely children (“Biblical Hebrew Lexicography: taf 'Children, Dependents' in Biblical and Qumranic Hebrew,” Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 25/2 [1999]: 25–40). He examines this passage in detail and concludes (rightly, in my view) that the more general meaning is the salient one here.
We will be misled in our construal of טַף here if we take categorically the earlier statement וַיַּֽהַרְג֖וּ כׇּל־זָכָֽר (NJPS: “they … slew every male”; v. 7), for in v. 17 some Midianite males are clearly still alive. The claim in v. 7 is located on the battlefield and thus logically refers only to the Midianite combatants. Therefore the scope of טַף in the present verse must include adult male Midianites who, for various reasons, were not on the battlefield. (To exclude those men from consideration would be uncharacteristic of the Hebrew narrative, which is otherwise highly detailed and comprehensive in accounting for all that was once Midianite.)
Like O’Connor, I conclude that טַף throughout the pericope must denote dependents. This passage is simply more coherent if טַף is understood to include not only children but also other types of dependents: the infirm (whether due to illness or old age) and the disabled.
In this verse, the grammatical relationship between נָשִׁים and טַף is copular; the intended semantic relationship is probably to highlight the נָשִׁים by stating them first, as the most salient subgroup of the larger group—which is stated last. This linguistic pattern is widespread, as for example:
- אֶת־הַנָּשִׁים וְאֶת־הָעָם (NJPS: “the women and the rest of the people”), Gen 14:16;
- יַּיִן וְשֵׁכָר (NJPS: “wine or . . . any other intoxicant”), Num 6:3;
- תֹּפְשֵׂי הַמִּלְחָמָה ...וּ... כָּל־הָעֵדָה (NJPS: “combatants … and the rest of the community”), Num 31:27.
- מִקְנֵנוּ וְכָל־בְּהֶמְתֵּנוּ (NJPS: “our flocks, and all our other livestock”), Num 32:26.
That women are being singled out here might be explained as due to the sexual theme underlying this narrative (vv. 15–16). Yet women are likewise featured in the initial description of captives in Gen 14:16 and in 1 Sam 30:2. This distinction may allude to a cultural norm such that the fate of women often differed from that of other captives (cf. Deut 21:11).
As for rendering into English, the NJPS “children” is misleading. In the context of combat, English idiom prefers the more specific role term “noncombatant” to the more generic term “dependent.” Indeed, NJPS renders the unrelated term תֹּפְשֵׂי הַמִּלְחָמָה as “combatant” in v. 27, as cited above. I supply the word “other” from the context, as in the NJPS examples cited above.