Komentaryong Sumisipi para sa Genesis 29:5

ARE WE TO BRING YOU FORTH WATER OUT OF THIS ROCK? Far be it and [G-d] forbid that [we should explain this] as a question indicating impossibility! For Moses our teacher, who was trusted in all G-d’s house,¹⁶⁰See above, 12:7. [knew] that nothing is too hard for Him;¹⁶¹See Genesis 18:14. and he together with all Israel had seen greater and more wondrous miracles than this, and especially since this [miracle of providing water from a rock] had already been done once before through him at the rock in Horeb!¹²⁴Exodus 17:6. Now the commentators¹⁶²R’dak on I Samuel 2:27. have said that there are certain questions which [by apparently doubting that which cannot be denied], have the force of an [impassioned or indignant] affirmation. Thus we find: Did I reveal Myself to the house of thy father?;¹⁶³Ibid. The sense is: “Did I not reveal Myself, although your sons, by their actions appear to belie it!” The king said also unto Zadok the priest: ‘Seest thou?’;¹⁶⁴II Samuel 15:27. The sense here is: “Do you not see [that it is best that you return to the city in peace]!” Wilt thou judge?;¹⁶⁵Ezekiel 22:2. The meaning is: “Wilt thou not judge? Of course you will judge!” Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?¹⁶⁶Genesis 3:11. The meaning is: “Have you not eaten? Of course you have eaten!” But Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra wrote [that the meaning of the verse is]: “Do we indeed have power to bring you forth water out of the rock?” He means thereby to explain that Moses said to them: “Hear now, ye rebels against G-d, who say, ‘and why have ye brought the assembly of the Eternal¹⁶⁷Above, Verse 4. unto this evil place?’¹⁶⁸Ibid., Verse 5. Do we have the power by natural means to bring you forth water out of this flint? You should therefore recognize that this is all from G-d, for it is He Who took you out of Egypt, and brought you to this place, and it is He Who will feed you here.” This is similar to what he [Moses] told the people in the case of the manna, and ye shall know that the Eternal hath brought you out from the land of Egypt.¹⁶⁹Exodus 16:6.
In my opinion this letter hei [in the word hamin — “out of”] indicates a [real] query, [and the meaning thereof is as follows]: “Are we to bring you forth water out of this rock or not?” For sometimes Scripture explains a question in its positive and negative aspects, such as: whether there are trees therein or not?¹⁷⁰Above, 13:20. whether thou wouldest keep His commandments, or not?¹⁷¹Deuteronomy 8:2. — and at other times it mentions only the positive aspect, [such as in the following verses]: Is this your youngest brother?;¹⁷²Genssis 43:29. Know ye Laban the son of Nachor?;¹⁷³Ibid., 29:5. Should I weep in the fifth month, separating myself?¹⁷⁴Zechariah 7:3. The reference is to the month of Ab, during which the First Temple was destroyed. When the Second Temple was built, the people asked the prophet whether they should still continue to observe the fast of the ninth of Ab. But this question here that Moses asked of them was a probing question [to test their true intention]. He said to them: “Hear now, ye rebels. — What do ye devise against the Eternal?¹⁷⁵Nahum 1:9. — Are we to bring you forth water out of this strong rock? Will this event happen or not?” [i.e., “Do you believe that it is within His power to do it, or not?”] He thus stressed that their [behaviour was a serious] rebellion, telling them they were wanting in faith, and that the reason for their quarrelling with him was because they thought that G-d would not act wondrously for them, in a similar manner to that which it says, And they tried G-d in their heart … ‘Can G-d prepare a table in the wilderness … Can He give bread also?’¹⁷⁶Psalms 78:18-20. Similarly the Rabbis have said:¹⁷⁷Aboth 5:4. “Ten times our ancestors in the wilderness tried the Holy One, blessed be He.” [Moses’ question was thus] like a query as to the belief of the person addressed, [of which we find examples] in many places in Scripture: Must I then bring thy son back?¹⁷⁸Genesis 24:5. which means: “Is that your wish?” Shall we go to Ramoth-gilead to battle, or shall I forbear?¹⁷⁹II Chronicles 18:5. which means, “If that is your advice.” Here too, [the meaning of Moses’ question is]: “Do you think that we shall bring you forth water out of this rock?” The same is also my opinion with regard to [the following verses]: Did I reveal Myself?;¹⁶³Ibid. The sense is: “Did I not reveal Myself, although your sons, by their actions appear to belie it!” Seest thou how Ahab humbleth himself before Me?¹⁸⁰I Kings 21:29. Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?;¹⁶⁶Genesis 3:11. The meaning is: “Have you not eaten? Of course you have eaten!” Wilt thou judge?¹⁶⁵Ezekiel 22:2. The meaning is: “Wilt thou not judge? Of course you will judge!” For all these are questions, but their purpose is to ask about [the truth of] something well-known, so that the person who is asked is compelled to admit [the truth of the fact] against his will. Thus [Did I reveal Myself?¹⁶³Ibid. The sense is: “Did I not reveal Myself, although your sons, by their actions appear to belie it!” means]: “Have I revealed Myself to your father’s house and chosen you? Since you know this, then Wherefore kick ye at My sacrifice and at Mine offering?”¹⁸¹I Samuel 2:29. Do ye thus requite the Eternal¹⁸²Deuteronomy 32:6. with such a requital! Similarly, “Hast thou eaten of the tree, about which I commanded you¹⁶⁶Genesis 3:11. The meaning is: “Have you not eaten? Of course you have eaten!” [not to eat], and you are ashamed [and therefore you hid yourself],¹⁸³See Genesis 3:8. or [if you did not eat of the tree], why then did you hide?” And in the same way the other [verses are to be explained]. However, the expression Seest thou?¹⁶⁴II Samuel 15:27. The sense here is: “Do you not see [that it is best that you return to the city in peace]!” is a genuine inquiry about a matter [as to which the questioner is] in doubt, [David saying to Zadok the priest]: “If you ‘advise’ it, then return to the city,” [and the usage of the term ‘seest’ thou? means “do you see fit?”] as in the expression: “I see the words of Admon”¹⁸⁴Kethuboth 109a. [which means: “I find the opinion of Admon correct”]. I have already explained this in Seder Bereshith.¹⁸⁵Genesis 1:4 (Vol. I, p. 30).

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].

NOW THE PRIEST OF MIDIAN HAD SEVEN DAUGHTERS. Scripture does not mention him by name for he is not known [to the reader], but rather epithetically mentions that he was the honored one in his priesthood. This was Jethro, for after he became related to Moses it is written, And Moses went and returned to Jether his father-in-law,⁹³Further, 4:18. and there it is written, And Jethro said to Moses: Go in peace.⁹³Further, 4:18. [This proves that Jether and Jethro are the same person], just as Eliyah and Eliyahu,⁹⁴Eliyah (II Kings 1:3), Eliyahu (I Kings 17:1). Yirmiyah and Yirmiyahu.⁹⁵Yirmiyah (Jeremiah 27:1), Yirmiyahu (ibid., 1:1). After he became a proselyte to Judaism, he was called Hobab, as it is written, from the children of Hobab the father-in-law of Moses,⁹⁶Judges 4:11. for it is the way of all who become converts to Judaism that they be called another name in Israel. And he [Jethro or Hobab] was the son of Reuel, for it is written, And Moses said unto Hobab, the son of Reuel the Midianite.⁹⁷Numbers 10:29. The verse here stating, And they came to Reuel their father,⁹⁸Verse 18. means “their father’s father,” just as [Jacob had said], O G-d of my father Abraham,⁹⁹Genesis 32:10. [and Abraham was his father’s father], and [when speaking of Belshazzar, king of Babylon, Scripture says], Nebuchadnezzar his father,¹⁰⁰Daniel 5:2. [while he was his father’s father].¹⁰¹Evil-merodach, king of Babylon, ruled after Nebuchadnezzar (see II Kings 25:27), and he was followed by Belshazzar (see Megillah 11a). Nebuchadnezzar was thus Belshazzar’s grandfather, and yet Scripture (Daniel 5:2) speaks of him as his father. Similarly: Know ye Laban the son of Nahor?¹⁰²Genesis 29:5. But Laban was really the son of Bethuel, for he was the brother of Rebekah (ibid., 24:29), and of Rebekah it is written that her father was Bethuel (ibid., Verse 15). Bethuel’s father was Nahor (ibid., 22:20-22). Yet Jacob asked, Know ye Laban the son of Nahor? It is because a grandfather is called “father.” And Mephibosheth the son of Saul.¹⁰³II Samuel 19:25. Mephibosheth was the son of Jonathan (ibid., 4:4), who was the son of Saul. There are many other such verses.
[Jethro’s daughters came and told Reuel their grandfather of how Moses came to their aid — as is related in Verses 18-19 — and did not tell Jethro] because the priest was not found in the house since he was preoccupied with the ministry in his temple, and so they came to the grandfather. It is possible that the verse, And Moses was content to dwell with the man,¹⁰⁴Verse 21. refers to the priest mentioned above [in Verse 16 — namely, Jethro]¹⁰⁵The intent of Ramban’s words is as follows: According to the above-mentioned interpretation that Jethro was not to be found in his home and that consequently his daughters told Reuel, his father, what had happened (as stated in Verses 18-20), it should follow that the expression, And Moses was content to dwell with ‘the man’ (Verse 21) refers to Reuel, and it was Reuel who gave Moses Zipporah his granddaughter as a wife. But, continues Ramban, it is possible that “the man” in Verse 21 refers back to “the priest” in Verse 16, and so it was Jethro who gave Moses his daughter in marriage. — for it was he who gave Moses Zipporah his daughter.