Deuteronomy 7:13 - Whose womb is it?

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

In this promise of fertility, the noun בֶּטֶן “belly” functions, as Ibn Ezra notes, as a metonym for a uterus.

The wording in this passage employs second-person masculine singular pronouns. In non-specific reference (as here), that grammatical form is inclusive of women by default. That is simply how the Hebrew language works (Stein 2008; Stein 2013).

During the course of Moses’ speeches, the implied identity of his addressees (as subsets of the populace) shifts fluidly—and so their gender does, as well. Such fluidity is an utterly conventional way of speaking, for an audience can be counted upon to automatically ascribe manliness (or not) to the speaker’s references as needed, based upon their general knowledge about social roles.

In this verse, the syntax features four pairs of nouns, each of which is in a construct relation that includes a possessive pronoun:

• פְּרִי־בִטְנְךָ,
• פְרִי־אַדְמָתֶךָ,
• שְׁגַר־אֲלָפֶיךָ, and
• וְעַשְׁתְּרֹת צֹאנֶךָ.

Regarding such a construction, A Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar (2019) remarks:

A pronominal suffix that semantically belongs to the word that is in status constructus [= the first word of the pair] occurs at the end of the construct phrase, i.e. on the status absolutus form [= the second word]. It must, however, be translated as a part of the status constructus. In order to determine the element to which the pronominal suffix belongs, the textual context needs to be taken into account. (§25.3.1(d), p. 224)

Consequently, the wording of the phrase פְּרִי־בִטְנְךָ is ambiguous; it might mean either “the issue of your womb” or “your issue of the womb.” Which is the more plausible meaning in this case? Can one of them be ruled out? We must look at the context.…

In his commentary on this verse, Richard Elliott Friedman noted a tendency to construe the wording overly literally: “The word ‘your’ in this phrase is masculine, and so some have interpreted it as meaning that the woman’s womb was thought to belong to her husband.” He then questions that inference by (appropriately) looking at the immediate context:

“the entire list of blessings in these verses … is formulated in the masculine singular, so the reference to the womb was just understood as taking a masculine possessive pronoun like the rest of the list.”

More precisely, the reason that the aforementioned inference does not withstand scrutiny is because the bestowal of blessings is naturally measured in the abundance of the products (rather than the raw resources used to produce them). This focus on the products is indeed exemplified by the phrase דְּגָנְךָ וְתִירֹשְׁךָ וְיִצְהָרֶךָ “your new grain and wine and oil” (and not: “your barley plants and grapevines and olive trees”). Just as the possessive pronoun modifies the names of those products, so it must have been modifying the names of the other ones mentioned: offspring, vegetables, calves, and lambs.

In other words, even though the suffix is phonologically attached to בֶּטֶן “womb,” it belongs semantically with פְּרִי “issue.” Consequently, the gender-role question as to “whose womb is it?” is simply not in play in this biblical passage.

As for the translation, the NJPS “the issue from your womb” is not defensible (despite its being conventional in English translations, going back hundreds of years). It is overly literal for a “thought-for-thought” type of translation like this one. The revised rendering reassigns the possessive pronoun so that it modifies “issue” rather than “womb,” not only to correct NJPS on its own terms, but also to avoid the gender misreading discussed above. And for consistency, it likewise reassigns the same pronoun in the three other genitive phrases in this verse.