10:29 records that he was the son of Reuel, Moshe's hoten, father–in-law. Reuel is mentioned before in the Torah. Shemot 2:16-21 records that when Moshe ran away from Pharaoh, he married Tzippora the daughter of Reuel, the kohen of Midyan. (Kohen can be priest or chief, see Rashi on Shemot 2:16.) This would appear to make Reuel, Moshe's father-in-law, and Hovav, Moshe's brother-in-law. However, Shemot 3:1 records that Yitro was the kohen of Midyan and that he was Moshe's hoten, father-in-law. This description of Yitro is repeated again in Shemot 18:1. How does Yitro relate to Hovav and Reuel?
One popular answer (see Rashi on Bemidbar 10:29, on Shemot 4:18, on Shemot 18:1, and the second explanation of Ibn Ezra on Bemidbar 10:29) is that Hovav really was Yitro, as the same person had two different names, and Hovav/Yitro was Tzippora's father. Reuel would then be Hovav's/ Yitro's father, Tzippora's grandfather, and when Shemot 2:18 records that Reuel was Tzippora's father, this means her grandfather.
Ibn Ezra's (first answer on Bemidbar 10:29) offers a slight variation on the first approach. Again, Yitro and Hovav are two names for the same person, but now he is Tzippora's brother. This approach accords with Shemot 2:18 that Reuel was Tzippora's father, but how then can Shemot 3:1 and 18:1 refer to Yitro as Moshe's father-in-law when he was really Moshe's brother–in-law? Ibn Ezra answers that the term hoten in both verses, which we have been interpreting as father-in-law, can also refer to a brother-in-law.
Benno Jacob (1992, pp. 503-511) points out that while Yitro is referred to as the cohen of Midyan, Hovav is never designated with this term. Benno Jacob argues that Hovav and Yitro could not be the same person since Moshe could never have suggested to Yitro, the cohen of Midyan, to leave Midyan and accompany the Jewish people. Benno Jacob argues that Yitro and Reuel were two names for the same person, the father of Tzippora, and then Hovav was the son of Yitro/Reuel, and Tzippora's brother. Benno Jacob follows Ibn Ezra that Hovav is called hoten Moshe (Judges 4:11 and possibly Bemidbar 10:29) since he was Moshe's brother-in-law, Tzippora's brother.
Luzzatto (on Shemot 18:1) quotes two other opinions that Hovav was not Yitro. One, (R. Yonah ibn Janach, Spain, 990-1055), Hovav was the son of Yitro and brother to Tzippora. Luzzatto did not quote who R. Janach thinks is Reuel. If Reuel is the same person as Yitro, then this is the same opinion as Benno Jacob. Two, (Moses Mendelssohn, Germany, 1729-1786, on 10:29), Yitro and Hovav were brothers, the sons of Reuel, and Tzippora was their sister. Luzzatto rejects both of these opinions since he argues that the word hoten cannot refer to a brother in law, and he follows the first approach above.
The most reasonable approach is that different names signify different people unless we are specifically told that a person had two names as for example by Avraham, Yaakov and Sara. Thus, Yitro was not Hovav or Reuel, but both Yitro and Reuel were kohanim of Midyan. While Midyan could have had two kohanim at the same time, more likely, Reuel was the kohen of Midyan when Moshe first came to Midyan, but as Moshe was in Midyan for quite some time, Reuel died and was replaced by Yitro. Shemot 3:1 and 18:1 refer to Yitro as Midyan's kohen because by then Yitro had replaced Reuel as the kohen of Midyan.
Yet, if Reuel and Yitro were two different people, how can Shemot 2:18 state that Reuel was Tzippora's father and Shemot 3:1 record that Yitro was Moshe's father-in-law, hoten? One possibility is to accept Mendelssohn's approach that Yitro, Hovav and Tzippora were the children of Reuel and Ibn Ezra's approach that the term hoten also refers to brother-in-laws. With this idea, Yitro and Hovav were brothers, and the term hoten in Bemidbar 10:29 could refer to Reuel (father-law) or to Hovav (brother-in-law).
Another possibility is that really the term hoten means a non-blood relative through marriage, and then Yitro could have married one of Tzippora's sisters. Another case where the term hoten seems to refer to relatives and not a father-in-law is by Shoftim 1:16, which refers to the Keni as hoten Moshe, and the term seems to means a group of people who were relatives of Moshe. Also, Kings II 8:27 refers to hatan bet ahav, and again it seems to mean a relative through marriage (through his mother!) to bet ahav. (For a discussion of this second definition see T.C. Mitchell, 1969.)
With this idea, Reuel was Tzippora's biological father, Hovav was Reuel's son and Tzippora's brother but not Yitro's brother, and the term hoten in Bemidbar 10:29 refers to either or both Hovav and Reuel. Yitro was then not Reuel or Hovav, but a different non-blood relative of Moshe.
According to these last two ideas, as Hovav was not Yitro, then the conversation in 10:29-32 is unrelated to Yitro's visit to Moshe in Shemot 18. Hovav might have arrived with Yitro, or he might have come at another time. Even if he came with Yitro, Yitro's departure (Shemot 18:27) would not have required Hovav to leave as well.
Bibliography:
Jacob, Benno (1869-1945), 1992, The second book of the Bible: Exodus, translated with an introduction by Walter Jacob, Hoboken: Ktav Publishing House.
Mitchell, T.C. 1969, The meaning of the noun htn in the Old Testament, Vetus Testamentum, 19, pp. 93-112.
One popular answer (see Rashi on Bemidbar 10:29, on Shemot 4:18, on Shemot 18:1, and the second explanation of Ibn Ezra on Bemidbar 10:29) is that Hovav really was Yitro, as the same person had two different names, and Hovav/Yitro was Tzippora's father. Reuel would then be Hovav's/ Yitro's father, Tzippora's grandfather, and when Shemot 2:18 records that Reuel was Tzippora's father, this means her grandfather.
Ibn Ezra's (first answer on Bemidbar 10:29) offers a slight variation on the first approach. Again, Yitro and Hovav are two names for the same person, but now he is Tzippora's brother. This approach accords with Shemot 2:18 that Reuel was Tzippora's father, but how then can Shemot 3:1 and 18:1 refer to Yitro as Moshe's father-in-law when he was really Moshe's brother–in-law? Ibn Ezra answers that the term hoten in both verses, which we have been interpreting as father-in-law, can also refer to a brother-in-law.
Benno Jacob (1992, pp. 503-511) points out that while Yitro is referred to as the cohen of Midyan, Hovav is never designated with this term. Benno Jacob argues that Hovav and Yitro could not be the same person since Moshe could never have suggested to Yitro, the cohen of Midyan, to leave Midyan and accompany the Jewish people. Benno Jacob argues that Yitro and Reuel were two names for the same person, the father of Tzippora, and then Hovav was the son of Yitro/Reuel, and Tzippora's brother. Benno Jacob follows Ibn Ezra that Hovav is called hoten Moshe (Judges 4:11 and possibly Bemidbar 10:29) since he was Moshe's brother-in-law, Tzippora's brother.
Luzzatto (on Shemot 18:1) quotes two other opinions that Hovav was not Yitro. One, (R. Yonah ibn Janach, Spain, 990-1055), Hovav was the son of Yitro and brother to Tzippora. Luzzatto did not quote who R. Janach thinks is Reuel. If Reuel is the same person as Yitro, then this is the same opinion as Benno Jacob. Two, (Moses Mendelssohn, Germany, 1729-1786, on 10:29), Yitro and Hovav were brothers, the sons of Reuel, and Tzippora was their sister. Luzzatto rejects both of these opinions since he argues that the word hoten cannot refer to a brother in law, and he follows the first approach above.
The most reasonable approach is that different names signify different people unless we are specifically told that a person had two names as for example by Avraham, Yaakov and Sara. Thus, Yitro was not Hovav or Reuel, but both Yitro and Reuel were kohanim of Midyan. While Midyan could have had two kohanim at the same time, more likely, Reuel was the kohen of Midyan when Moshe first came to Midyan, but as Moshe was in Midyan for quite some time, Reuel died and was replaced by Yitro. Shemot 3:1 and 18:1 refer to Yitro as Midyan's kohen because by then Yitro had replaced Reuel as the kohen of Midyan.
Yet, if Reuel and Yitro were two different people, how can Shemot 2:18 state that Reuel was Tzippora's father and Shemot 3:1 record that Yitro was Moshe's father-in-law, hoten? One possibility is to accept Mendelssohn's approach that Yitro, Hovav and Tzippora were the children of Reuel and Ibn Ezra's approach that the term hoten also refers to brother-in-laws. With this idea, Yitro and Hovav were brothers, and the term hoten in Bemidbar 10:29 could refer to Reuel (father-law) or to Hovav (brother-in-law).
Another possibility is that really the term hoten means a non-blood relative through marriage, and then Yitro could have married one of Tzippora's sisters. Another case where the term hoten seems to refer to relatives and not a father-in-law is by Shoftim 1:16, which refers to the Keni as hoten Moshe, and the term seems to means a group of people who were relatives of Moshe. Also, Kings II 8:27 refers to hatan bet ahav, and again it seems to mean a relative through marriage (through his mother!) to bet ahav. (For a discussion of this second definition see T.C. Mitchell, 1969.)
With this idea, Reuel was Tzippora's biological father, Hovav was Reuel's son and Tzippora's brother but not Yitro's brother, and the term hoten in Bemidbar 10:29 refers to either or both Hovav and Reuel. Yitro was then not Reuel or Hovav, but a different non-blood relative of Moshe.
According to these last two ideas, as Hovav was not Yitro, then the conversation in 10:29-32 is unrelated to Yitro's visit to Moshe in Shemot 18. Hovav might have arrived with Yitro, or he might have come at another time. Even if he came with Yitro, Yitro's departure (Shemot 18:27) would not have required Hovav to leave as well.
Jacob, Benno (1869-1945), 1992, The second book of the Bible: Exodus, translated with an introduction by Walter Jacob, Hoboken: Ktav Publishing House.
Mitchell, T.C. 1969, The meaning of the noun htn in the Old Testament, Vetus Testamentum, 19, pp. 93-112.
No comments:
Post a Comment