Cytowanie Komentarza do Wyjścia 6:14

LET REUBEN LIVE. Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra commented that “he began with Reuben because he was the firstborn. He did not mention Simeon because of the sin of [Baal] Peor, because the worshippers were Simeonites, the proof being their numbers,⁸⁰In the first census the tribe of Simeon numbered 59,300 (Numbers 2:13). In the second census [after the Peor affair] they numbered 22,200 (ibid., 26:14), a decrease of 37,100 people. In the opinion of Ibn Ezra the decrease would be accounted for by the 24,000 people that died in the plague because of the Peor affair (ibid., 25:9) thus indicating that the idol-worshippers were exclusive of that tribe. On this point, Ramban will comment that even assuming that all 24,000 who died in the plague were from the tribe of Simeon, there are still 13,100 people unaccounted for, a discrepancy that cannot be explained by Ibn Ezra’s theory. and their prince, too, being killed [in the affair].” In my opinion, the numbers are no proof because over thirteen thousand are still unaccounted for, aside from those who died in the plague.⁸⁰In the first census the tribe of Simeon numbered 59,300 (Numbers 2:13). In the second census [after the Peor affair] they numbered 22,200 (ibid., 26:14), a decrease of 37,100 people. In the opinion of Ibn Ezra the decrease would be accounted for by the 24,000 people that died in the plague because of the Peor affair (ibid., 25:9) thus indicating that the idol-worshippers were exclusive of that tribe. On this point, Ramban will comment that even assuming that all 24,000 who died in the plague were from the tribe of Simeon, there are still 13,100 people unaccounted for, a discrepancy that cannot be explained by Ibn Ezra’s theory. In addition, other tribes as well diminished in population, for the sons of Gad lost five thousand,⁸¹In the first census the Gadites numbered 45,650 (Numbers 2:15), and in the second census they were 40,500 (ibid., 26:18) — a decrease of 5,150. — And so perhaps we should assume that these deaths resulted from the plague because of Peor. and the sons of Ephraim, eight thousand!⁸²In the first census the tribe of Ephraim numbered 40,500 (Numbers 2:19), and in the second census they were 32,500 (ibid., 26:37) — a decrease of 8000. Moreover, from the verse which states, And Israel attached himself unto Baal-peor,⁸³Numbers 25:3. and it is said again, Take all the chiefs of the people⁸⁴Ibid., Verse 4. it would appear that there were some among them from all the tribes, and that all their judges passed sentence on them. And similarly He said, so that I consumed not the children of Israel in My jealousy.⁸⁵Ibid., Verse 11. Now do not rejoin against me from the affair of Achan where He said, Israel hath sinned⁸⁶Joshua 7:11. In this part of the verse the specific sin is not mentioned yet. It is stated at the end of that verse: Yea, they have even taken of the devoted thing. — For the significance thereof see Ramban further. [although it was but a single individual who sinned; similarly we can say that it was the tribe of Simeon alone that sinned in the affair of Peor yet Scripture describes it as if the entire nation sinned. This rejoinder is not valid, for] there, [the details of] the sin had not yet been revealed, so He mentioned Israel generally [but in the case of Peor the facts of the sin were clearly given and still He spoke of all Israel, which shows that people from all the tribes were among the worshippers of Peor]. Similarly, the identity of the victim [i.e., Zimri, a leader of the Simeonites] is no proof [that only his tribe sinned, as Ibn Ezra argues], for he [Zimri, the son of Salu] was only a prince of a fathers’ house⁸⁷Numbers 25:14. of that tribe, not the prince of the [entire] tribe. Those who assembled against G-d in the congregation of Korach were greater and more honorable people than he [Zimri], for they were princes of the congregation,⁸⁸Ibid., 16:2. yet all their tribes did not follow them! Additionally, the psalm [that relates the sins of the wilderness] mentions Dathan and Abiram and their affair by name, saying, The earth opened and swallowed up Dathan, and covered the company of Abiram;⁸⁹Psalms 106:17. The verse indicates that, despite the fact that princes of the congregation were in the company of Korach, the general population did not follow them, for the psalm specifies the participants in the strife. and it [the same psalm] mentions They attached themselves also unto Baal-peor⁹⁰Ibid., Verse 28. together with Moreover, they scorned the desirable Land⁹¹Ibid., Verse 24. which applies to the general population!⁹²Thus it is clear that the worshippers of Baal-peor came from all the tribes, just as those who scorned the desirable Land came from among the entire people. This contradicts Ibn Ezra’s view that only the tribe of Simeon was involved in the affair of Peor. Forbid it also that Moses should refrain from blessing the tribe of Simeon, [when it is said] that a tribe be not blotted out from Israel!⁹³Judges 21:17. For all those who had joined Baal-peor had already died, as it is said, for all the men that followed Baal-peor, the Eternal thy G-d hath destroyed from the midst of thee,⁹⁴Above, 4:3. and it is written of those who survived, But ye that did cleave unto the Eternal your G-d are alive every one of you this day.⁹⁵Ibid., Verse 4. And why should he not bless them? They all made the [golden] calf and sinned in the affair of the spies, yet they were forgiven, and he blessed them!
Now, I have seen in Midrash Rabbah the following text:⁹⁶Bamidbar Rabbah 21:9. “Six families were eliminated because of the immorality caused by Balaam’s advice [that Israel could be corrupted through seduction], and so Scripture listed one family less of Simeon⁹⁷Genesis 46:10 lists six sons of Simeon, while in the second census only five are given (Numbers 26:12-13). and five less of Benjamin.”⁹⁸Genesis 46:21 lists ten sons of Benjamin, while in the second census only five are given (Numbers 26:38-39). Thus, according to the opinion of the Rabbis [the tribe of] Benjamin had a greater part in the sin than did the tribe of Simeon — yet Benjamin is included in the blessing!⁹⁹Further, Verse 12.
In my opinion, the correct interpretation is that Scripture considers the tribes of Israel as only twelve. So it stated in Jacob’s blessing, All these are the twelve tribes of Israel.¹⁰⁰Genesis 49:28. Now Jacob mentioned his twelve sons and considered Joseph to be one tribe¹⁰¹Ibid., Verses 22-26. [instead of enumerating Ephraim and Menasheh separately as is sometimes done]. Moses saw fit to consider Joseph as two tribes, as he said, And they are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and they are the thousands of Menasheh.¹⁰²Further, Verse 17. This was for two reasons: one, since the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded and made them two tribes regarding the dedication of the altar,¹⁰³Numbers 7:48 and 54. the flags¹⁰⁴Ibid., 2:18-21. [designating the tribal encampments in the wilderness], and the inheritance of the Land,¹⁰⁵Ibid., 34:23-24. he [Moses] had to count them as two [separate tribes] for their blessing. Secondly, he referred to Joshua, who would make them possess the Land, and he was from Ephraim, the younger son [of Joseph], therefore Moses had to mention his brother [Menasheh] who was older than him. Now, he also wanted to bless [the tribe of] Levi, for, through his blessing, all Israel would be blessed, in that his offerings shall be acceptable before G-d on their behalf. Hence it was necessary to omit one of the tribes, for nowhere [in Scripture] are they enumerated except as twelve, corresponding to the twelve constellations in the firmament,¹⁰⁶Bamidbar Rabbah 14:29. the twelve months of the year, and the twelve “border diagonals”¹⁰⁷Sefer Habahir, 95. — This is a Cabbalistic term for the twelve mystic powers emanating from various combinations of the letters of the Great Divine Name. See my Hebrew commentary p. 495. concerning which the Rabbis have said in the Midrash¹⁰⁶Bamidbar Rabbah 14:29. that they are the everlasting arms.¹⁰⁸Further, Verse 27. As the Sages mentioned in Tractate Berachoth:¹⁰⁹Berachoth 32b. “The Holy One, blessed be He, said to the prophet,¹¹⁰I.e., Isaiah. In our text of the Gemara: “The Holy One, blessed be He, said ‘to her': My daughter …” Go and tell the congregation of Israel: My daughter, I have created twelve constellations in the firmament to correspond to the twelve tribes.” Similarly, at Mount Gerizim and Mount Ebal where Scripture counts Levi,¹¹¹See above, 27:12. Joseph is not mentioned as two tribes¹¹¹See above, 27:12. [because, there Simeon¹¹¹See above, 27:12. is mentioned]. Likewise you will see in the distributions of Ezekiel that he counts Joseph as two tribes¹¹²See Ezekiel 48:4-5. with reference to the apportioning of the Land and did not mention Levi. On the other hand, in enumerating the city exits [of Jerusalem] he mentioned, the gate of Levi, one¹¹³Ibid., Verse 31. and did not list the tribe of Joseph as two tribes; instead he said, the gate of Joseph, one,¹¹⁴Ibid., Verse 32. since the tribes are always counted as only twelve. I have already mentioned this in the section Vayikach Korach.¹¹⁵Numbers 17:12 (see Vol. IV, pp. 189-190). Accordingly, Simeon was left out [of Moses’ blessings] since his tribe was not large and it was not the intention of the blessing of Jacob, their father, that they become numerous. Instead he divided them in Jacob and scattered them in Israel,¹¹⁶See Genesis 49:7. and to that extent they, too, were blessed through the blessing of the rest of the tribes among whom they were.
Now the order of this blessing [of Moses] was by [dictate of] Ruach Hakodesh (the Holy Spirit) according to their inheritance. He began with Reuben for he occupied his inheritance first;¹¹⁷Joshua 13:15. and, also, for he was the firstborn,¹¹⁸I Chronicles 5:1. and Moses prayed for him that his name not be blotted out because of his sin; therefore, in his blessing, he accorded him the right of the firstborn.¹¹⁹Above, 21:17. Then he mentioned Judah for he was the first to inherit within the Land [proper]¹²⁰Reuben’s possession was beyond the Jordan eastward. and of him came he that is the prince,¹²¹I Chronicles 5:2. Reference is to David. and he was the first to advance to war [against the Canaanites],¹²²Judges 1:2. concerning which Moses blessed him [saying, his hands shall contend for him, and Thou shalt be a help against his adversaries].¹²³Verse 7. Thus Judah’s blessing embraces all Israel. Then Moses blessed Levi — who dwelled with the children of Judah in Jerusalem, and there their offerings should be acceptable. Afterwards he blessed Benjamin because their inheritance was with the children of Judah, and, [because] the city of Jerusalem and the Sanctuary were between the children of Judah and the children of Benjamin, and the Levites abode with both of them. Then he blessed the children of Joseph for such was their inheritance, as it is said, And the lot of the tribe of the children of Benjamin came up according to their families; and the border of their lot went out between the children of Judah and the children of Joseph.¹²⁴Joshua 18:11. Afterwards he continued to bless the children of the mistresses,¹²⁵I.e., Leah and Rachel, who were the heads of their households. Here, though, it refers only to Leah, since Rachel’s children — Benjamin and Joseph — were already blessed. and mentioned Zebulun before Issachar¹²⁶See further, Verse 18. as Jacob had done.¹²⁷See Genesis 49:13-14. So, too, [in the division of the Land] the third lot fell to the children of Zebulun¹²⁸See Joshua 19:10 (Zebulun). Ibid., Verse 17 (Issachar). and the fourth lot to the children of Issachar.¹²⁸See Joshua 19:10 (Zebulun). Ibid., Verse 17 (Issachar). Then he blessed the children of the handmaids¹²⁹Bilhah and Zilpah. — Dan, Naphtali, and Asher — in order of their birth,¹³⁰The order of their birth was: Dan, Naphtali, Gad, Asher (Genesis 30:6-13). Here, the order is: Gad (Verse 20-21), Dan, Naphtali, Asher (Verses 22-24). Ramban will proceed to explain why Gad is first. and they were also [encamped] under the same standard.¹³¹Numbers 2:25-30. He mentioned Gad [born after Naphtali] before all the children of the handmaids, because he occupied his inheritance earlier with Reuben,¹³²See Joshua 13:23-24. the first of all, and he was [encamped under] Reuben’s standard.¹³³Numbers 2:10-14.
Let Reuben live, and not die. “The meaning thereof is that his tribe shall live and never die.¹³⁴In other words, this is to be understood as a prayer rather than a blessing. — It is so clearly stated in our text of Ibn Ezra. Ramban also mentioned above, “and Moses prayed for him etc.” And let his men be a number. This is like the verse, And I have not learned wisdom and the knowledge of the Holy One I have¹³⁵Proverbs 30:3. [where the word not from the first part of the verse, applies to the second part as well – ‘and the knowledge of the Holy One I have not.’ Here, too, the word not from the expression and ‘not’ die applies to the second part, thus meaning] ‘and let his men not be a number,’ that they may not become few, for whatever can be counted, is few. So also, and I am few in number.”¹³⁶Genesis 34:30. This is the language of Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra.
It is more correct to explain: “Let Reuben live in Israel; and not die, that his tribe at no time should be cut off, and that his numbers always be among the count of the children of Israel.” He prayed for him that his name not be cut off from Israel because of the anger with which his father was wroth with him when he defiled his couch.¹³⁷Ibid., 49:4. This is similar to what is stated there, and Reuben went and lay with Bilhah his father’s concubine; and Israel heard of it. Now the sons of Jacob were twelve;¹³⁸Ibid., 35:22. Scripture made it be known that he was not excluded from that number on account of his sin. Rashi also explained it this way. And the meaning of his men [and let ‘his men’ be numbered among the men of Israel] is that all his men should deserve this [to be included in the ranks of Israel], and not even part of their tribe be cut off because of his [Reuben’s] sin. Perhaps the expression his men refers to the heads of the four families [of the tribe of Reuben — Hanoch, Pallu, Hezron, and Carmi],¹³⁹Exodus 6:14. and the meaning of the word mispar (number) is like b’mispar [with the prefix beth meaning “in the number,” the verse stating: “and let his men be ‘in’ the number” of the children of Israel]. Similarly, to play the harlot ‘beith’ [literally: “the house of”] her father¹⁴⁰Above, 22:21. [means b’veith — “in the house of” her father]; they shall wash ‘mayim’¹⁴¹Exodus 30:20. [literally: “water,” means b’mayim — “with water”]. There are many similar cases. Or it may be that the meaning thereof is that in the census of Israel his men be counted first as is the right of the firstborn, for number one is the unit from which all numbers originate.¹⁴²See Ibn Ezra to Exodus 3:1.
Onkelos rendered it: “And his children will receive their inheritance among their numbers.” He meant what we have explained, saying that Reuben will live and not be cut off [from Israel] and his men will be counted among their numbers forever. His tribe will not be blotted out from Israel but they will not be counted on account of their large numbers as forming two tribes. Thus he deprived him of the birthright [that awards the firstborn with a double share], but he assured him of being forever one tribe.
And some commentators¹⁴³I have found this interpretation in Chizkuni: “Let Reuben live, and not die when he will pass over the Jordan armed before the children of Israel. And his men be a number — in the same number that they will pass over there [into the land of Canaan] may they return, without a single one lacking.” explain that this blessing refers to the conquest of the Land, the verse stating that the Reubenites will live when crossing [the Jordan] armed for war before the children of Israel. And the purport thereof is that they will prevail, and not be defeated, similar in meaning to the expression, and by thy sword shalt thou live.¹⁴⁴Genesis 27:40. And let him not die, that none of them should die in battle, and his men be a number that they should return to their homes in their [original] number, there lacking not one man of them.¹⁴⁵Numbers 31:49. Similarly, in the blessing of Gad¹⁴⁶Further, Verse 20. his companion [under the same standard]¹⁴⁷Numbers 2:10-14. Moses mentioned this subject. This interpretation is likely [to be true]. But the first one appears to me to be more correct, for Moses’ blessing corresponds to the manner and thought that Jacob mentioned.
And by way of the Truth, [the mystic teachings of the Cabala], the expression Let [Reuben] live and not die is associated with visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children¹⁴⁸Exodus 20:5 (see Vol. II, p. 300, and Notes 361-362). and there I alluded to its secret.¹⁴⁸Exodus 20:5 (see Vol. II, p. 300, and Notes 361-362). Moses’ blessing helped Reuben gain atonement for the affair of Bilhah, that he not be cut off and be denied [the World to Come] for it, forever. However, He visited upon him, along with the rest of the tribes [the sin of] the sale of Joseph, according to the narrative in Pirkei Heichaloth.¹⁴⁹“Chapters of the Palaces.” — Heichaloth Rabboth, 6. A reference to this work is also found in Ramban’s Introduction to the Commentary on the Torah (see Vol. I, p. 10, Note 22). This is a mystic Midrash describing the process of ascending to heaven and of the palaces therein leading up to the Holy Throne. The principal narrator in this account is Rabbi Yishmael, one of the martyrs who was executed during the religious persecutions of Hadrian. The Midrash mentions the executions on account of the tradition that the ten martyrs suffered their fate in order to atone for the sale of Joseph by ten of his brothers.

“The following are the heads of their respective clans” [6:14]. Since the time had come to redeem Israel, that is why the verse lists each one according to his pedigree. That is, they are not like the Egyptians who have no pedigree. He gives their pedigree because he wants to say how Moses and Aaron are important, from their mother and father. Therefore, he must list them from Reuben until he comes to Levi.⁴Bahya, Exodus, 6:14.

L’ZERACH’ (OF ZERAH). “He is [identical with] ‘Tzochar’ [Zohar — mentioned in Genesis 46: 10 as one of the sons of Simeon who went down to Egypt], and it [the name Zerach (Zerah)] is an expression meaning tzohar [‘shining,’ which is also the meaning of Zerach]. But the family of Ohad [the other son of Simeon mentioned ibid., in Genesis] became extinct. Similarly five families of the tribe of Benjamin [had by now ceased to exist], for he [Benjamin] went down to Egypt with ten sons,⁴¹Genesis 46:21. and here⁴²Further, Verses 38-39. Scripture only counts five.” This is Rashi’s language.
And Rashi has furthermore written:⁴³In Verse 24. “All the families were called by the names of those [of their ancestors] who went down to Egypt, but those who were born after that time were not called families [in their own right and their own names], except for the families of Ephraim and Menasheh, both of whom were born in Egypt, and Ard and Naaman, the sons of Bela the son of Benjamin.⁴⁴Further, Verse 40. The meaning of Rashi is as follows: Since Ard and Naaman are mentioned in Genesis 46:21 among the sons of Benjamin who went down to Egypt, and here in Verse 40 they are referred to as sons of Bela, who was himself a son of Benjamin, we must perforce say that the ones referred to here were not the same as those mentioned there [but had the same names]. Furthermore we must perforce say that the Ard and Naaman mentioned here were not amongst those who went down to Egypt, for otherwise Scripture would have mentioned them there in Genesis, in the same way that it counts the grandchildren of Judah and Asher. This is the meaning of Rashi when he wrote: “except for the families of Ephraim and Menasheh, both of whom were born in Egypt, and Ard and Naaman, the sons of Bela the son of Benjamin.” However, the question then arises: why are Ard and Naaman, the sons of Bela, counted here, since they were not amongst those who went down to Egypt? In other words, why were they an exception to the rule? To answer this question Rashi quotes the statement which he found in the work of Rabbi Moshe the Preacher. And I have found [it written] in the work of Rabbi Moshe the Preacher⁴⁵See above in Seder Naso, Note 146. that their mother [that of Ard and Naaman — i.e., the wife of Bela] went down to Egypt when she was already pregnant with them [and therefore they formed separate families, since they are also included amongst ‘those who went down’ to Egypt]. Now if this is a tradition, well and good. But if not, I say that Bela had many children, but from each of these two, Ard and Naaman, there came forth a large family, [and therefore they formed families in their own right and in their own names], whereas the descendants of the other sons were called by Bela’s name, and [only] the descendants of these two [Ard and Naaman] were called after their [own] names.” All this is the language of the Rabbi [Rashi], of blessed memory.
But I am astonished at [the words of] Rashi. For the difficulty [raised by Rabbi Moshe the Preacher] is not that Scripture counts the family of the Belaites by itself,⁴⁶Further, Verse 38. and [nonetheless counts also] the families of the Ardites and the Naamites his sons, by themselves,⁴⁷Ibid., Verse 40. for that was [indeed] because they became [large] families, as the Rabbi [Rashi] has said. This is the way of Scripture, as in the case of the children of Judah [where it counts Hezron and Hamul, who were grandchildren of Judah, as forming families by themselves],⁴⁸Verse 21. Hezron and Hamul were the sons of Perez, who was the son of Judah. Although Perez himself formed a family (Verse 20), the verse nonetheless counts independently the two families formed by his sons Hezron and Hamul. and [likewise] the children of Menasheh and Ephraim,⁴⁹Verses 29-32; 36. There too, the grandchildren [and even great-grandchildren] are counted as separate families. and likewise the children of Asher.⁵⁰Verses 44-45. Asher’s grandchildren are counted as separate families. However, if we say that Ard and Naaman were born to Bela, the son of Benjamin, after they went down to Egypt, they should not have been counted here as [separate] families!⁵¹Ramban’s meaning is as follows. Rashi seems to have understood that Rabbi Moshe the Preacher found it difficult to understand why Ard and Naaman are mentioned as forming separate families, since their father Bela is also mentioned as forming a separate family. To answer this, Rabbi Moshe gave the explanation that their mother was already pregnant with them when she went down to Egypt ; and Rashi himself [because he questioned the authenticity of that tradition] gave a different reason, i.e., that they formed large families in their own right. Ramban is saying that Rabbi Moshe’s difficulty was not why Scripture mentions them as forming separate families, because the answer to that question is clearly that they had large families, which were worthy of constituting separate families and hence were not included in Bela’s family. That this is so we see clearly from the examples of Judah, Menasheh, Ephraim and Asher, as Ramban points out. Yet Rabbi Moshe did not ask about the children of these people, but only about Ard and Naaman, the children of Bela! Clearly this is because Scripture only counts as separate families the children of those who went down to Egypt, [e.g. Judah and Asher] or who were already there when Jacob went down [e.g. Menasheh and Ephraim]. But in the case of Ard and Naaman, there is a difficulty, whether we say that they went down to Egypt with Jacob or not, [as explained further on in Ramban], and it is this difficulty which Rabbi Moshe the Preacher was trying to answer. The question whether they went down to Egypt with Jacob depends, of course, on when they were born. For if we say that they were born to Bela after he went down to Egypt, the question arises: Why are they counted here as separate families, since only those who were among the seventy souls who went down to Egypt with Jacob are counted here as separate families? And if they were born before Jacob’s family went down to Egypt, then since they are not mentioned in Genesis, the total number of people who went down must have been seventy-two, so why does Scripture omit them and count only seventy? In brief it was this difficulty that Rabbi Moshe the Preacher had in understanding the verses, a difficulty which applies only to Ard and Naaman, and not as Rashi assumed his question to be, which would apply to other cases as well. And should we say that [Ard and Naaman, the sons of Bela] were born to him before [he went down to Egypt], then [the family of Jacob] would consist of more than seventy souls, for then the sons of Benjamin were ten⁴¹Genesis 46:21. apart from these two sons of Bela [thus the overall total of people who went down to Egypt would be seventy-two, whereas Scripture there only mentions a total of seventy]!⁵²Genesis 46:27. It was for this reason [and not for the reason implied by Rashi’s explanation] that Rabbi Moshe the Preacher explained that their mother [the wife of Bela] was already pregnant with them [Ard and Naaman, when the family of Jacob went down to Egypt], and [since they were not yet born] they are not counted there [in the Book of Genesis], but here they are included⁴⁷Ibid., Verse 40. among those born [before the descent into Egypt, because their mother was already pregnant with them when they went into Egypt].
Now if this is a tradition [of the Rabbis, that Bela’s wife was pregnant with Ard and Naaman when she went down into Egypt], we will force ourselves to accept it despite its difficulty.⁵³The difficulty is that in Genesis 46:8-27 the verses do not mention Ard and Naaman amongst the seventy souls that came into Egypt, because although their mother came into Egypt when she was pregnant with them, they were not yet born and thus one cannot say that they ”came into Egypt.” Yet here they are counted as forming separate families, although only the families of those that came into Egypt are counted as separate families, and the reason is because they “came into Egypt” since their mother was pregnant with them! Thus there is an apparent contradition! Furthermore, we will have to differentiate between the case of Jochebed and that of Ard and Naaman, as will be explained further on. We will also have to say that Jochebed⁵⁴See Genesis 46:15 (Vol. I, pp. 554-558.) was born [whilst they passed] through the walls [of the border-city of Egypt], on the very day that they entered into [Egypt], and therefore she is included amongst the seventy souls [that came into Egypt], whereas these [Ard and Naaman, the sons of Bela] were born some months [after Jacob’s family had come to Egypt, and therefore they are not included amongst the seventy souls that came into Egypt with Jacob]! But if it is not a tradition of our Rabbis [but merely a personal opinion of Rabbi Moshe the Preacher] we will reject this theory of his with all our might. But we can say that Ard and Naaman, the sons of Benjamin [as mentioned in Genesis 46:21], died without children, and Bela [their brother] wanted to raise up unto his brother a name in Israel,⁵⁵Deuteronomy 25:7. and therefore he gave his sons the names of his brothers who had died. Perhaps Bela [actually] performed the rite of marriage with their wives, since he was the firstborn,⁵⁶Genesis 46:21: And the sons of Benjamin: Bela etc. — The duty of marrying a childless brother’s wife falls primarily on the eldest of the remaining brothers ; if he refuses the duty devolves upon any other surviving brother (Yebamoth 39a). and Ard and Naaman, the sons of Bela [from these marriages] became heads of families to raise up a name⁵⁵Deuteronomy 25:7. for Ard and Naaman the sons of Benjamin, who were amongst those that went down to Egypt.⁴¹Genesis 46:21.
The correct interpretation appears to me to be that the Naaman and Ard⁵⁷In Genesis 46:21 they are listed in the following order: And the sons of Benjamin: Bela … and Naaman … and Ard. Ramban now suggests that these two people who are mentioned there in Genesis as the “sons” of Benjamin, are in fact identical with the Ard and Naaman mentioned here in Verse 40, who are described as the sons of Bela, who was the son of Benjamin. Naaman and Ard were thus in fact the grandchildren of Benjamin, and it is the style of Scripture to describe grandchildren as children, as Ramban shows. This explains why Ard and Naaman are counted here as separate families in their own right, since they were amongst those who went down to Egypt [as stated explicitly in Genesis 46:21], and there is thus also no problem about how we reach the number of seventy souls who went down there. In other words, the Ard and Naaman mentioned there in Genesis [as the sons of Benjamin] and here in Verse 40 [as Benjamin’s grandsons] are identical persons. who are counted amongst the sons of Benjamin in the section of And these are the names etc.,⁵⁸Genesis 46:8-27. were in fact [not the real sons of Benjamin at all, but they were] the sons of his firstborn son Bela, as is stated explicitly here,⁴⁷Ibid., Verse 40. and similarly Scripture counts them [as the sons of Bela] in the Book of Chronicles.⁵⁹I Chronicles 8:3-4: And Bela had sons, Addar … and Naaman. Addar mentioned is synonymous with Ard. Such is the custom of Scripture to speak of grandchildren as children [and therefore in Genesis 46:21 the verse describes them as the ‘sons’ of Benjamin], just as it says, Laban the son of Nahor,⁶⁰Genesis 29:5. Nahor was actually his grandfather, for Bethuel was his father. See Ramban ibid., Vol. I, p. 360. and in the Book of Chronicles it is written, The sons of Shem: Elam, and Asshur, and Arpachshad, and Lud, and Aram, and Uz, and Hul, and Gether and Meshech,⁶¹I Chronicles 1:17. although the last four were in fact his grandchildren!⁶²Their father was Aram, the son of Shem — see Genesis 10:22-23. And even though Scripture did not treat the sons of Perez [as the “sons” of Judah, their grandfather,⁶³The verse there (46:12) mentions that Perez was the son of Judah; and Hezron and Hamul, the sons of Perez. as it did in the case of Ard and Naaman], likewise [it did not treat] the sons of Beriah [as the “sons” of Asher, their grandfather,⁶⁴The verse there (46:17) mentions that Beriah was the son of Asher, and Heber and Malchiel the sons of Beriah. as it did in the case of Ard and Naaman], — this may be because they [Ard and Naaman, the sons of Bela], were born upon Benjamin’s knees⁶⁵See Genesis 50:23. [i.e., he brought them up], and therefore they are considered his sons. This is then similar to [the verse], And these are the generations of Aaron and Moses,⁶⁶Above, 3:1. The explanation of this verse quoted now by Ramban is found in Rashi ibid. [where the verse proceeds to mention only the sons of Aaron! The explanation given is that they were in actual fact only the sons of Aaron, but since Moses brought them up and taught them Torah, they are also called his children]. Or it may be that because Benjamin had many sons — for he had eight — therefore Scripture included the few [i.e., his two grandsons, Ard and Naaman] amongst the many [real sons, and therefore spoke of all ten as Benjamin’s sons].
And it is possible also that we suggest as a hypothesis that Scripture here does not count only the families of those who went down to Egypt, [as Rashi explained above], because [we see] that even those who were born in Egypt from that time onwards are also counted as families, such as Scripture does here in the case of [the families of] Ephraim and Menasheh [whose families are counted separately, even though they did not go down to Egypt with Jacob].⁶⁷Verses 29 and 35 here. Ephraim and Menasheh of course were not amongst those who went down to Egypt with Jacob, but were born to Joseph beforehand (see Genesis 48:5). It is not a [satisfactory] reason for Scripture to do so [as exceptions in their cases only], on the grounds that they were [already] in Egypt [and therefore are included as separate families together with all those who came down afterwards with Jacob], because it is at the time of the [actual] descent [into Egypt] that one ought to count them all in one number, and to make families out of the seventy souls [who actually went down with Jacob, and it is not correct to include Ephraim and Menasheh who were there but did not go down with the others]!⁶⁸Ramban’s meaning is that since Scripture’s main purpose is to list the seventy people who “went down” to Egypt with Jacob, it ought to include only those who actually went down at that time. But in actual fact only sixty-eight went down, since Ephraim and Menasheh were already there! And one cannot suggest that an exception is made in their case, since Scripture always stresses the factor of actual descent, referring to the seventy souls who went down to Egypt. Hence we must say that in fact Scripture includes in its list not only those who actually went down to Egypt with Jacob, but also those who did not go down then, and even some who were born later, as explained further on. In that case we can understand that Ard and Naaman are included in the list, even though they were born later. Similarly Scripture always counts them [Ephraim and Menasheh] together with those who went down to Egypt, [such as in the verse]: Thy fathers went down into Egypt with threescore and ten persons⁶⁹Deuteronomy 10:22. This includes Joseph and his two sons, Menasheh and Ephraim (see Genesis 46:19-20), although they did not go down to Egypt with Jacob. So also the sons of Bela [Ard and Naaman] were born afterwards [i.e., after the descent into Egypt, and they are nonetheless counted here as separate families! This proves that the determining factor whether to count a family here separately, is not the criterion of whether its founder was amongst those who went down to Egypt with Jacob, as Rashi said, but must have been some other reason, as will now be explained].
But [we must say that] this matter was [as follows]. It was the custom in Israel [for people] to appoint over themselves “heads of fathers’ houses,” and all the descendants of that man would always trace their lineage back to him, and be called by his name in his honor; just as all the Arabs do to this very day, and as do all the Jews who live in their [the Arabs’] countries, calling themselves by family [names, such as] “Ibn Ezra,” or “Ibn Shushan.” This is the meaning of the verse which says, These are the heads of their fathers’ houses,⁷⁰Exodus 6:14. for from the time that they were fruitful and multiplied⁷¹Ibid., 1:7. in Egypt, they established heads of families over themselves, to whom they would trace their lineage. Perhaps they initiated this practice in Egypt in order not to mingle themselves with the nations⁷²Psalms 106:35. and so that they would be recognized and distinguishable among their tribes, [for it is there in Egypt] whither the tribes went up, even the tribes of the Eternal, as a testimony unto Israel,⁷³Ibid., 122:4. and it became a custom in Israel.⁷⁴Judges 11:39. Thus [all] those mentioned here [in this section] were, every one of them, heads of their fathers’ house in Egypt, from whom the family traced its descent. That is why Scripture counts in the house of Machir [the son of Menasheh]: the family of the Machirites and the family of the Gileadites his son,⁷⁵Further, Verse 29. and the family of the Iezerites and that of the Helekites,⁷⁶Ibid., Verse 30. the sons of Gilead and their [other] brothers.⁷⁷I.e., Asriel, Shechem, Shemida, Hepher (Verses 31-32) — brothers of Iezer and Helek, and sons of Gilead. In a similar way [Scripture records] the children of Judah [and also counts Hezron and Hamul, who were the sons of Perez and grandsons of Judah, as separate families]⁷⁸Further, Verse 21. and those of Ephraim,⁷⁹Verse 36. There Eran, who was the son of Shuthelach and the grandson of Ephraim, is counted as forming a separate family, although his father Shuthelach is also mentioned there as founding a separate family. for these children mentioned were great and distinguished people, and became heads [of their families]. But [the reason for them being counted as separate families] is not because they [each] gave birth to a large family, as the Rabbi [Rashi] wrote, because they all begot large families [even those who are not mentioned individually], since they were fruitful, and increased abundantly, and multiplied, and waxed exceedingly mighty.⁷¹Ibid., 1:7. But [Scripture named separate families here] as a mark of honor, meaning that [the members of that particular family] had appointed [that person] as their head. Now most of the families when they were in Egypt traced their descent from those who went down to Egypt [with Jacob], because they considered them distinguished ancestors, and the others appointed for themselves heads of houses from those who were born there shortly after [Jacob’s descent to Egypt]. Therefore most of the [people] mentioned here [in this census as forming families] were [amongst] those who went down to Egypt [with Jacob], and therefore these families trace themselves back to those who came down [originally] to Egypt, because it was there that they established them [these people, as the heads of their family-groups].