Biblical Hebrew Forum

[JimStinehart AT aol.com]

Randall Buth:
 
You wrote:  “[G]oats are feminine. Check out עזים. Gen 15.9.  In this 
case יעל is a female ya`el.”
 
Based on the lexicons I have consulted:
 
1.  Y(L = “male ibex” [masculine singular]
2.  Y(LH = “female ibex” [feminine singular]
3.  Y(LT = “of a female ibex” [feminine singular construct]
4.  Y(LYM = “male ibexes” [masculine plural] -- though perhaps this could 
also mean “female ibexes” as well
5.  Y(LY = “of male ibexes” [masculine plural construct]
 
I see the potential ambiguity in the plural form.  But I myself see no 
ambiguity whatsoever in the singular forms.  Y(L is a “male ibex”, whereas by 
contrast, in order to signify a “female ibex” [in the singular], one must 
add the female suffix -H.  Are the lexicons wrong about Y(LH being “female 
ibex
”? 
 
The only reference to a female ibex in the Bible is at Proverbs 5: 19, 
where the form is feminine singular construct, that is, Y(LT:  “[Let her be 
as] 
the loving hind and pleasant roe [Y(LT, construct form of “female ibex”]; 
let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with 
her love.”
 
To me, that means that as long as the singular form is in focus, for a “
female ibex” it’s Y(LH in normal form, and Y(LT in construct, and cannot be 
Y(L, which instead would mean a “male ibex” as my original post asserted.
 
To quote Gesenius:  “Y(LH fem. of the preced. [which was Y(L]  1.  a wild 
she-goat, the female ibex.”  HALOT has Y(LH as a female ibex.  BDB is the 
same.  Are all the standard lexicons wrong about this virgin pure west 
Semitic 
common word?
 
At Genesis 15: 9 which you reference, I see (Z, which means “a she-goat”, 
being feminine singular.  Yes, “she-goats” plural, though not present at 
Genesis 15: 9, would be (ZYM.  But what does that have to do with female ibex 
in the singular?  I concede that in plural forms, one may see -YM.  That 
apparently is your point.  But since we see Y(LT at Proverbs 5: 19 as a 
distinctive feminine form in the singular, I myself don’t see a confusion of 
gender 
when we are dealing with singular form [as opposed to plural].
 
Are you saying that Biblical Hebrew had the same word for “male ibex” and “
female ibex”, with both being Y(L, and with there being no feminine form 
Y(LH?  That contradicts every lexicon I have consulted.
 
We see Y(LYM as meaning “male ibexes” or “male mountain goats” as 
masculine plural at I Samuel 24: 2 and Psalms 104: 18.  We see “of male 
ibexes” in 
masculine plural construct Y(LY at Job 39: 1.
 
What support is there for your view that “In this case יעל is a female 
ya`el”?  Every source I consult says that on the contrary Y(LH, with a -H 
feminine ending, would be “female ibex”.  Thus I conclude that the name of 
Heber
’s wife, Y(L, would mean “male ibex”, if it were a west Semitic name 
[which, in my opinion, it isn’t].  My point is that it would not make sense 
for a 
woman, especially a woman whom the Bible views positively, as having a west 
Semitic name that means “male ibex”.  Nothing about Heber’s wife fits a 
meaning of “male ibex”:  she’s a woman, not a male, and she doesn’t act a 
bit like an ibex in any event.  Shouldn’t we instead ask if Y(L here is a 
non-Semitic name with an appropriate meaning, either a-al-la: ‘lady, queen’, 
or 
e-e-li: ‘sister’?
 
Is there any printed source that supports your view [if I am understanding 
your view correctly] that Y(LH does not exist in Hebrew [contra all the 
standard lexicons as to this west Semitic common word], and that “female 
ibex” 
would be rendered Y(L?  I see Y(L as a west Semitic common word or as a west 
Semitic name as meaning “male ibex”, and as such not fitting Heber’s wife 
at all.
 
Jim Stinehart