B-Hebrew: The Biblical Hebrew Forum

To further clarify the meaning of "natural products in an unnatural condition" by way of a current grammar, here is Waltke & O'Connor's (An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax) explanation of one particular use of the plural:

The plural of a singular collective noun can indicate composition, that is, that the collectivity has been broken apart (cf. 6.3.2f). Thus for the following vegetable nouns the singular refers to the product in its natural state, while the plural refers
to the gathered, measured, cooked or sewn material. (On the theory that vegetables are for eating, etc., this is sometimes called the plural of result.)
7. wheat
8. spelt
9. flax
10. barley
11. during wheat harvest -- Gen 30:14

Generally human blood in its natural state in the body is called ָדּם; after it has been spilled, the plural form is used.
12. Your brother’s blood cries out to me. -- Gen 4:10

Animal blood is always referred to in the singular.

רש"י Rashi (1040-1105), who has a keen ear for unusual, is silent on the plural. He clearly thinks that the אסון ASON, the calamity, is meant on the wife:
ולא יהיה אסון - באשה
ואם אסון יהיה - באשה

Isaac Fried, Boston University

I don’t see this “natural products in an unnatural condition” as an explanation.

markofcain wrote:To further clarify the meaning of "natural products in an unnatural condition" by way of a current grammar, here is Waltke & O'Connor's (An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax) explanation of one particular use of the plural:

The plural of a singular collective noun can indicate composition, that is, that the collectivity has been broken apart (cf. 6.3.2f). Thus for the following vegetable nouns the singular refers to the product in its natural state, while the plural refers to the gathered, measured, cooked or sewn material. (On the theory that vegetables are for eating, etc., this is sometimes called the plural of result.)
7. wheat
8. spelt
9. flax
10. barley
11. during wheat harvest -- Gen 30:14

I just looked up the case for “wheat” and it appears that the singular refers to the plant, while the plural to the grains of wheat. I wouldn’t be surprised if the same holds true for the other grains.

markofcain wrote:

Generally human blood in its natural state in the body is called ָדּם; after it has been spilled, the plural form is used.
12. Your brother’s blood cries out to me. -- Gen 4:10

Animal blood is always referred to in the singular.

Generally “pouring out innocent blood” לשפך דם נקי “blood” is in singular while “bloods” in plural seems to indicate more than just the physical blood itself (e.g. Jeremiah 46:10), but includes the guilt of pouring out innocent blood (e.g. Deuteronomy 19:10). This is innocent blood that has been already poured out (2 Kings 24:4, Jeremiah 19:4) even splashed onto one’s clothing (Jeremiah 2:34).

Therefore I don’t see this example supporting this “natural products in an unnatural condition” theory. Are there other examples that can fill in the gap so that people like me can see it?

As for the original question of this thread, I still think it refers to more than just the child himself, rather to the whole complex surrounding the birth.

Karl W. Randolph.

I think the reason it is plural is to take care of the case of multiple children in the womb. If it was singular here, then what should happen if a man accidentally causes twins to miscarry? Should the penalty be double? By having it plural, the law applies to both cases, even though the singular case is much more common. Exo 21:4 uses the plural in this sense. It applies whether there be one or more children.

Another possibility, but it would need more evidence, is that not only has her child gone out, but all of that child's descendants as well, who would be the woman's grand children and so forth. Levi, so to speak, paid tithes to Melchizedek because he was in Abram when Abram did it.