Inheritance in the Feminine — Agreement Shift and Syntactic Justice

מִֽמִּשְׁפְּחֹ֛ת בְּנֵֽי־מְנַשֶּׁ֥ה בֶן־יֹוסֵ֖ף הָי֣וּ לְנָשִׁ֑ים וַתְּהִי֙ נַחֲלָתָ֔ן עַל־מַטֵּ֖ה מִשְׁפַּ֥חַת אֲבִיהֶֽן׃

Opening the Lineage

Numbers 36:12 records an anomaly in ancient Israel: daughters, not sons, receive a tribal inheritance. The verse alludes to the daughters of Tselofḥad, whose legal appeal before Moshe reshaped how property was distributed when male heirs were lacking. But it’s not just the content that’s surprising — the grammar itself shifts to reflect it. Most strikingly, the verse employs a feminine singular verb (וַתְּהִי) with a plural feminine subject (נַחֲלָתָן). This creates a moment of grammatical mismatch that is neither error nor oversight, but intentional — reflecting a deeper feature in Biblical Hebrew: semantic alignment over strict agreement. When inheritance bends toward justice, grammar bends with it.

The Hidden Grammar

The crux of this verse lies in the surprising use of וַתְּהִי — a 3rd person feminine singular perfect verb, meaning “she/it was,” followed by a feminine plural possessive noun נַחֲלָתָן — “their inheritance.” At first glance, one might expect וַתִּהֶיינָה (“they were”) to match the plural subject. But Biblical Hebrew often allows (and prefers) default singular verbs with collective or abstract plurals — especially when the subject is conceptual rather than agentive.

Here, נַחֲלָתָן (“their inheritance”) is a single collective possession, despite being grammatically plural. The verb וַתְּהִי agrees not with the morphology of the noun, but with its semantic unity. This is an example of semantic agreement — where syntax yields to meaning.

Echoes Across the Tanakh

Genesis 35:26 — אֵ֣לֶּה בְנֵ֧י רָחֵ֛ל אֲשֶׁר־יָלְדָ֥ה לְיַעֲקֹ֖ב — “These are the sons of Raḥel whom she bore to Yaʿaqov.” Even though בָּנִים is plural, the verb יָלְדָה is singular — because one woman did the bearing.

Exodus 1:21 — וַיֵּ֧טֶב אֱלֹהִ֛ים לַמְיַלְּדֹ֖ת — “And God was good to the midwives.” Despite the plural noun לַמְיַלְּדֹת, the verb remains singular masculine because the focus is on divine action, not on the midwives as active agents.

1 Kings 22:36 — וַתַּעֲבֹ֧ר הָרִנָּ֛ה — “And the shout passed through…” The noun רִנָּה is abstract; the singular verb matches the conceptual force of the action.

Syntax in Motion

מִמִּשְׁפְּחֹ֛ת בְּנֵֽי־מְנַשֶּׁ֥ה  = “From the families of the sons of Menasheh”
הָיוּ לְנָשִׁים                   = “There were to them daughters”
וַתְּהִי נַחֲלָתָן               = “And their inheritance was…”
עַל־מַטֵּה מִשְׁפַּחַת אֲבִיהֶן   = “in the tribe of their father’s clan”

When Words Create Worlds

Numbers 36:12 is about more than legal precedent — it’s about linguistic justice. Hebrew grammar, with its flexibility in subject-verb agreement, allows for theological nuance. The inheritance is many yet one. The daughters are plural, but the act of receiving is treated as singular. The tension between multiplicity and unity — between individuals and their collective belonging — is encoded in a single verb: וַתְּהִי.

In this small shift lies a larger revelation: Hebrew grammar listens to semantic truth over strict morphology. When Scripture records a historic moment of equity, it does so not with fanfare, but with quiet grammatical alignment — a verb that leans toward justice, not just agreement.

Inheritance Woven in Tense

Numbers 36:12 is a legal footnote with a grammatical heartbeat. It teaches that when justice reaches daughters, grammar quietly shifts to affirm them. The verb’s number is singular, but the effect is plural — a generation of women written into Israel’s land through syntax. Even tense becomes testimony.