Finishing the response to the meta call for contradiction, here is the last contradiction/inconsistency I found in Genesis/Exodus/Leviticus.

In Exodus 35:22 we find the following passage.

And the men, over the women, came, all the generous of heart, brought clasp and nosering, and ring and vulva-cover, all gold implements, and every man who lifted a wave-offering of gold for Yahweh.

the important thing to note is that the men are bringing every man who lifted a wave-offering of gold for Yahweh. This doesn't make any sense. How can men bring men with gold? Why don't you just say the men brought gold?

There is a simple interpretation here, which is natural, to omit the "the men, over the", and just say

And the women came, all the generous of heart, brought clasp and nosering, and ring, and vulva-cover, all gold implements, and every man who lifted a wave-offering of gold for Yahweh.

Notice that if it is the women, it makes complete sense, since I doubt many men were walking around with a vulva cover (although I suppose there must have been a few, but they were probably considered kinda weird).

This is the Hebrew:

וַיָּבֹאוּ הָאֲנָשִׁים, עַל-הַנָּשִׁים; כֹּל נְדִיב לֵב, הֵבִיאוּ חָח וָנֶזֶם וְטַבַּעַת וְכוּמָז כָּל-כְּלִי זָהָב, וְכָל-אִישׁ, אֲשֶׁר הֵנִיף תְּנוּפַת זָהָב לַיהוָה.

One should note that the "nediv lev"(generous of heart) in the phrase is masculine, so that it is the men who are being generous of heart in donating all these womenly jewelry thingies. I must emphasize that the last clause, "ve-kol ish asher hinif..." is exactly grammatically correctly given as the translation "and every man who waved a wave-offering of gold for Yahweh", it cannot be an independent sentence--- it is a noun-phrase which is an object of "brought". This means that the only possible grammatical interpretation of the sentence is that the men were generous, and brought the women, and also brought the men!

This is clearly a mistake. Nobody would say that, and it is also a false-ringing sentiment. What is the proper interpretation of Exodus 35:22?

  • No kidding. What's the relevance? The vulva covers and nose-rings do not belong to a mixed gender collection. I feel only 90% confident in saying this is interpolation, so I would appreciate honest reading.
    – Ron Maimon
    Apr 11, 2012 at 19:22
  • Oh--- yes you are right--- the matching is mixed gender, but the binding is to "anashim". But the "anashim" are specifically "'al hanashim", they are the ones doing the giving, and the matching of adjective is to the masculine subject, not to the ostensibly feminine donors. Some interpret "'al hanashim" to mean that the women wear actually wearing these items (this is a possible reading), but I tend to see it as a control issue--- the men decided to do the donation, not the women. Either reading leaves the same question. The nezem and cumaz are always female associated--- no males wear them.
    – Ron Maimon
    Apr 12, 2012 at 0:09
  • chech(clasp) I am not sure of gender, while taba'at (ring) appears with a male owner in Genesis (in the prostitution chapter where somebody's wife conceives. But in context, it seems like a female donation is assigned unnaturally to male donors.
    – Ron Maimon
    Apr 12, 2012 at 0:12
  • @GoneQuiet: But in "Anashim 'al ha-nashim", it can't mean both, since there is a specific nashim in there.
    – Ron Maimon
    Apr 12, 2012 at 6:28
  • @GoneQuiet: that's reasonable, but prepositions are always weird "why do I always put up with you?" (why with?) "I'm screaming at you while talking to you" (etc, etc), you just have to feel it. This is not how you would say "on behalf of the women" in mod. Heb. (you would say "be'ad hanashim"), and AFAIK "be'ad" is the same in Bible Heb., but this interpretation might be accurate. But this also suggests a redaction, since it is much more natural to think that the women brought the stuff themselves. It might also be an illiterate redaction, by someone who no longer spoke Hebrew natively.
    – Ron Maimon
    Apr 13, 2012 at 19:34

3 Answers 3


Simple answer, building on Ron’s longer one: The words “every man” at the end of the verse is not gender-specific, but can also be translated as “everyone”. Try this translation on for size:

They came, both men & women; all the generous of heart brought clasp, nosering, ring, and vulva-cover, all gold implements—everyone that brought an offering of gold unto the LORD.


On this passage, Keil & Delitzsch state that עַל should be understood as "along with" as in Gen. 32:12 (in which Jacob is praying to God for deliverance from his brother Esau). Their commentary on the latter is:

For I am in fear of him, that (פֶּן ne) he come and smite me, mother with children.” אֵם עַל בָּנִים is a proverbial expression for unsparing cruelty, taken from the bird which covers its young to protect them (Deut. 22:6, cf. Hos. 10:14). עַל super, una cum, as in Ex. 35:22.

In other words, while the imagery of a bird over her chicks or eggs gives rise the proverbial phrase אֵם עַל בָּנִים, the phrase has come to mean a mother along with her children (as in the case of Jacob whose wives and children were also in danger of being annihilated by the fierce anger of Jacob's brother).

Given the context of both men and women contributing to the materials of the tabernacle (as @Ron Maimon has pointed out), K&D understand עַל to be used with this same sense of "along with" since this seems to fit the context better than "over".


I have to emphasize that the awkwardness of the grammar, and the nonsensical intepretation, leads most translations to not translate the sentence authentically, making it "and the men and the women brought.." instead of "the men over the women brought". In this translation, it is the women who are doing the giving, but this inconsistent in the Hebrew, both with the gender of the "nediv" and with the construction which has the men as the subject of the verb "to bring", and the women only in a clause "'al ha-nashim". The translation I give preserves the proper subject of the sentence.

The question is actually almost self-answering. The verse has an introduced "ha-anashim, 'al" and a changed adjective to match the masculine gender. This is a clear interpolation, and my guess is that it is Priestly's handiwork (it sounds like other things P does).

This appears the same in the Samaritan pentateuch and the Septuagint. I didn't check the Syriac, but I am sure it is the same in all traditions.

The context of the verse helps too:

And they came. Each man whose heart impelled him, and each whose spirit filled him with generosity, brought a donation to Yahweh, for the crafting of the tent of events, and all its work, and for the holy clothes. And the men, over the women, came, all the generous of heart, brought clasp and nosering, and ring and vulva-cover, all gold implements, and every man who lifted a wave-offering of gold for Yahweh. And every man who possessed cyan and magenta, knits and oddfeel shesh, or goatskin, or reddened ram-skins, or seal-skins, brought it. 24 All that lifted up a donation of silver and copper, brought to Yahweh's donation. And all that possessed acacia wood, for all the craft work, brought it.

And every wise-hearted woman spun with her hands, and they brought spun the cyan and the magenta cloth, the knits and the oddfeel shesh. 26 And all the women whose heard impelled them with wisdom, spun the goat-hair.

And the princes(masculine plural) brought the onyx stones and the setting stones for the Ephod and the breastplate. And the perfume and the oils, for light, and the annointing oil, for the fragrant incense.

Every man and woman whose heart filled with generosity, to bring for all the crafting which Yahweh commanded through Moses to do--- the sons of Israel brought donation for Yahweh.

The verses are describing a set of events in which men and women participate equally. The description alternates men-did-so/women-did-such in a very egalitarian and beautiful way, and considering J's other female biases, I am sure that this passage belongs to J (it definitely doesn't belong to P). The one exception is the verse 35:22 which is both grammatically awkward, makes no sense, and breaks the harmonious men/women thing by making the men be responsible for the womenstuff jewelry donation.

The motive for putting "the men over the women" in place of "the women" is that the contribution of Gold by women to the temple violates a Priestly injunction regarding the temple: that women may not contribute to its work or service. This injunction would have made the construction as described against the priestly rules of a later generation.

I can't remember where I read that women are not allowed to make financial contributions to the temple (except of course, through their husbands), but I found a clue in this document. The relevant passage is:

Women are, however, obligated to aid in the construction of the Temple based on their participation in the construction of the Tabernacle in the wilderness (Exodus 35:22, Rambam, Bet Ha-Behirah 1:12). This does not include an obligation in payment of the half-shekel for public offerings from which women are exempted by the rabbinic understanding of Exodus 30:12, ish kofer nafsho, as being exclusively masculine.

Women are allowed to contribute labor, but not money, or equivalent precious metals. This explains the interpolation, and its ham-handedness and legalistic point of view (entirely disregarding literary eloquence, meaning and sense, and even basic rules of grammar) points to P as the culprit.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.