Ramban (Nachmanides) on the Torah

AND THERE WENT A MAN OF THE HOUSE OF LEVI. Our Rabbis have said that he went after the advice of his daughter., i.e., “went” after the advice of his daughter and remarried his divorced wife. See also further on in the text for a reference to a prophecy Miriam made at that time. Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra said that the Israelites dwelled in many cities, and this woman Jochebed lived in another city. [This would explain the term “went” in the above verse, i.e., he went to another city for his wife.] But what need is there for Scripture to mention this? In my opinion Scripture uses the term “went” because this man paid no heed to Pharaoh’s decree and took to himself a woman to beget children. Such is Scripture’s way of speaking of anyone who prompts himself to do something new. Thus: And Reuben went and lay with Bilhah; So he went and took Gomer the daughter of Diblaim; Come, and let us sell him to the Ishmaelites; Come, and let us smite him with the tongue; Come now, and let us reason together. Similarly this man Amram alerted himself and married a daughter of Levi. The reason Scripture does not mention the name of the man nor the name of the woman he married is to avoid tracing their genealogy and mentioning who their fathers and their fathers’ fathers were up to Levi. At this point, Scripture desires to shorten the subject until the birth of the redeemer takes place, and after that, in the second seder,. (A seder is the weekly portion of the Torah read in the synagogue at the Sabbath morning services.) Specifically, Moses’ genealogy is found in Seder Va’eira, Chapter 6, Verses 16-20. He traced the genealogy even of other tribes, Verses 14-15). on account of Moses. In line with the simple meaning of Scripture, i.e., that this was a first marriage [and not a remarriage as stated above], there is no significance in its being mentioned earlier or later in the chapter. This marriage took place before Pharaoh’s decree [that all male Hebrew children be killed], and she gave birth to Miriam and Aaron. After that, Pharaoh decreed, Every son that is born, ye shall cast into the river, and then she gave birth to this goodly son Moses. Scripture did not mention the birth of Miriam and Aaron inasmuch as there was nothing new about them. However, in the opinion of our Rabbis, this was a remarriage, since Amram separated from his wife in consequence of Pharaoh’s decree and then took her back on account of his daughter’s prophecy. He made her a wedding and placed her in the litter, while Miriam and Aaron danced about them in their joy because through this marriage, Israel would be redeemed [from Egypt]. Even though Aaron was young [at that time], G-d put gladness in his heart for this occasion, or possibly his sister Miriam taught him.

AND WHEN SHE SAW HIM THAT HE WAS GOODLY SHE HID HIM. It is a known fact that all mothers love their children, goodly or ungoodly, and all of them would hide them [from harm] with all their might. There is thus no need for Scripture to explain that he was goodly. But the meaning of this goodliness is that she saw in him some unique quality which, in her opinion, foreshadowed that a miracle would happen to him and he would be saved. Therefore she applied herself and thought of ways to save him. When she saw that she could hide him no longer, she thought of saving him by another device. She made him an ark of bulrushes [and put him among the reeds at the side of the river], and his sister placed herself at a distance — so that the Egyptians would not recognize her — to know what would be done to him. All this is support for the words of our Rabbis who expounded, “That he was goodly, namely, that the whole house became filled with light,” and for what the Rabbis have said, i.e., that Miriam prophesied, “Mother is destined to bear a son who will deliver Israel.”

TO BATHE ‘AL’ (BY) THE RIVER. “Transpose [the order of the words in] the verse. Rashi explains it to mean: “And the daughter of Pharaoh went down by the river to bathe in it.” and then explain it: the daughter of Pharaoh went down by the river to bathe in it.” Thus the language of Rabbeinu Shlomo [Rashi]. If so, al haye’or (by or upon the river) is like el haye’or (to the river). Similarly, And Elkanah went to Ramah ‘al beitho’ (upon his house) [is like el beitho (to his house)]; Thus shall ye say every one ‘al rei’eihu’ (upon his neighbor) and every one to his brother [is like el rei’eihu (to his neighbor)]. It is possible that there were steps upon the bank of the river and that she went down from the royal palace to bathe upon the first step by the river, but did not enter into the river’s stream. [In this case, the expression al haye’or would be completely understandable, as it would mean that she came down to bathe “upon the step near the river”], and then she saw the ark among the reeds far from her and she sent her handmaid to fetch it. It may be that to bathe ‘al haye’or’ is like “to bathe baye’or (in the river).” Similarly, And thou shalt put them ‘al’ one basket [is like b’sal echad (‘into’ one basket)].

AND BEHOLD IT WAS A WEEPING LAD. “His voice sounded like that of a grown lad.”. Hence, in accordance with Rabbi Yehudah’s opinion in Sotah 12 b, Rashi construed that he was a child with the voice of a young lad. Thus the language of Rabbeinu Shlomo. Now the Rabbis have already rejected this opinion, saying,). “If so, you have made Moses our teacher appear as having a blemish [and being unfit for Levitical service in the Tabernacle].” Besides, what reason is there for Scripture to mention his unnatural voice? And Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra said that his limbs were developed as that of a young lad. Perhaps Scripture mentioned this in order to denote the child’s beauty. It was due to his exquisite beautiful appearance that she [the princess] had compassion for him since she recognized that he had been recently born and yet his limbs were well-developed like those of a lad. A more correct interpretation is that his was a strong and unrelenting cry like that of a lad, and therefore she had compassion for him. A homiletic exposition has it: “A weeping lad. He was a child whose behavior was that of a lad [who is not prone to crying]. At that moment, the angel Gabriel came and struck him so that he would cry and she would be compassionate towards him.” In my opinion there is no need for all this. From the day of his birth, a child is called na’ar (lad) [in Scripture], as it is said, What shall we do ‘lana’ar’ (to the lad) that shall be born? Similarly, And David besought G-d for ‘hana’ar’ (the lad). Conversely, Scripture calls a grown lad yeled (child), as it is said in the case of Ishmael. (Genesis 21:15). At that time, Ishmael was seventeen years old. (See Ramban, Vol. I, p. 270, and Note 329, ibid.). Yet he is called yeled. Similarly, ‘v’hana’ar na’ar’ (and the lad was young),. meaning that he [Samuel] was a young child of twenty-four months. As soon as she [his mother, Hannah] had weaned him, she brought him up to Shiloh, as it is written, And she gave her son suck until she weaned him. And when she had weaned him, she took him up with her., Verses 23-24.
AND SHE SAID, THIS IS ONE OF THE HEBREWS’ CHILDREN. [She came to this conclusion because] contemplating what happened, she said [that his mother had done it] in order to save him or that she had placed him there so that she might not look upon the death of her child, and why should an Egyptian do that? Some Rabbis say that [she knew he was a Hebrew because] she saw that he was circumcised. If so, [we must assume that] she removed his clothes and examined him. But there is no need for this.

AND WHEN MOSES WAS GROWN UP HE WENT OUT UNTO HIS BRETHREN. This is to be understood that he grew to manhood. It has already been said, And the child grew, which means that it was no longer necessary to wean him, and then the mother, etc. brought him to Pharaoh’s daughter, and he became her son, for he was to stand in the presence of kings. After that, he grew to manhood in maturity of mind.
AND HE WENT OUT UNTO HIS BRETHREN. This indicates that they told him he was a Jew, and he desired to see them because they were his brethren. Now he looked on their burdens and toils and could not bear [the sight of his people enslaved]. This was why he killed the Egyptian who was smiting the oppressed Hebrew.

WILT THOU SPEAK TO KILL ME? “From here we learn that Moses had killed the Egyptian by merely pronouncing the Tetragrammaton.” or Shem Hamyuchad) is the Proper Name of G-d. It consists of four Hebrew letters, the utterance of which is now forbidden. It is translated here as the Eternal. By pronouncing this Name, Moses needed no weapon to accomplish his purpose of bringing about the deserved death of the Egyptian. Thus the language of Rashi, and it is also a Midrash of our Rabbis. But I wonder. If so, who told the wicked one [Moses] said to the wicked one, ‘Why do you smite thy fellow?’ that Moses killed him? Perhaps Moses placed his hands upon the Egyptian and cursed him in the Name of G-d, [and the Hebrew who was now quarrelling with Moses saw him doing that]. This would explain the term vayach (‘and he smote’ the Egyptian). (II Kings 19:35). Now just as in that case vayach does not signify a physical act of striking by hand but rather the inflicting of defeat by supernatural power, so also here in the case of Moses. (Bachya.) It may be that because the Egyptian had fallen dead before him [after he had pronounced the Tetragrammaton over him], Moses feared that they may report him and so he buried the Egyptian in the sand. The Hebrew who saw him doing that reckoned that Moses had caused [the Egyptian’s death somehow, even though he did not know that he had killed him by pronouncing the Tetragrammaton]. Perhaps he thought Moses had killed him by the sword, as he saw only the burial. In line with the plain meaning of Scripture, scholars say. that the expression, wilt thou ‘omer’ (speak), means “think,” since we find amirah (speaking) referring to the thought of the heart. I said in my heart; I say, that an untimely birth is better than he., 6:3. It is obvious that Ramban’s intent in selecting these two verses from the Book of Ecclesiastes is to show that the term amirah (saying) as such is equivalent to amirah b’leiv (speaking in one’s heart). Hence the Book of Ecclesiastes uses them interchangeably. But here there is no need for this, for [the intent of the Hebrew’s words to Moses] is as follows: “Who made thee a ruler and a judge over us? Is it because thou dost desire to kill me as thou didst kill the Egyptian that thou reprovest me and sayest, ‘Why smitest thou thy fellow?’” alludes to that which Moses had said in Verse 13: Why smitest thou thy fellow? The Hebrew thus said to Moses: “Is it because you desire to kill me as you killed the Egyptian that you reproved me by saying, ‘Why do you smite your fellow?’”

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, and there it is written, And Jethro said to Moses: Go in peace. [This proves that Jether and Jethro are the same person], just as Eliyah and Eliyahu, Yirmiyah and Yirmiyahu., 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, 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. The verse here stating, And they came to Reuel their father, means “their father’s father,” just as [Jacob had said], O G-d of my father Abraham, [and Abraham was his father’s father], and [when speaking of Belshazzar, king of Babylon, Scripture says], Nebuchadnezzar his father, [while he was his father’s father]. Similarly: Know ye Laban the son of Nahor?, 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., 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, refers to the priest mentioned above [in Verse 16 — namely, Jethro] (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.
AND THEY CAME AND DREW WATER. Every day, the practice was that the shepherds drew water, filled the troughs and watered their flocks first, and then these women watered their flocks. It happened that on this day, the women preceded the men and they came and drew water, thinking to water their flocks before the shepherds came. But then came the shepherds and drove them away from the troughs, insisting on watering their own flocks first as they had always done. Moses’ anger was aroused because of this injustice, and he saved them, for since they had filled the troughs, the water belonged to them. Moreover, he drew water for them as the troughs did not suffice for all their flocks. This is the purport of the question, How is it that ye are come so soon today? [which Reuel their grandfather asked them]. And they answered, An Egyptian delivered us out of the hand of the shepherds, meaning that “they had always driven us away when we came to the troughs first.”

AND IT CAME TO PASS IN THE COURSE OF THOSE MANY DAYS. Scripture uses the expression “in those days” or “on that day” only when alluding to a brief current event, but of a past event it says, and it came to pass afterward. In that case then, it should have said here, “and it came to pass afterward that the king of Egypt died.” It is for this reason that our Rabbis have said that because they were days of suffering [for Israel], Scripture calls them “many” although alluding to a brief current event. — instead of saying “in those days.” To a suffering people — as Israel was at that time — even a brief period appeared as a long one. So also have the Rabbis said in connection with the above-mentioned verse, And it came to pass in those days when Moses was grown up, that his growth was unnatural, meaning, sudden and fast. alludes to a brief current event. Hence when it says in the case of Moses’ growth, and it was in those days and Moses was grown up, the Rabbis interpreted it to mean that his growth was brief and sudden. Under all circumstances, the period [covered in the verses], and the king of Egypt died, and the children of Israel cried out and their cry came up unto G-d, was [altogether] a brief period of time. However, we might also explain that in the course of those many days refers to the days of suffering and hard labor which were exceedingly many, as the exile became very prolonged. It was this [long period of suffering and hard labor] which caused them to cry out, and their cry came up unto G-d. Similarly, the verse, And it came to pass after many days, the word of the Eternal came to Elijah, in the third year, means that there were many days [of famine] and afterwards this event, [related there in the Book of Kings], occurred. In my opinion, the purport of this verse, [And it came to pass in the course of those many days], is to allude to those days when Moses was a fugitive from Pharaoh. Indeed he was but a youth when he fled, as the verse said, And when Moses was grown up he went out unto his brethren, suggesting that immediately when he grew up and became self-conscious and they told him that he was a Jew, he longed to see the burdens, toils and oppressions of his brethren. On that [first] day on which he went out, he smote the Egyptian, and on the second day, they denounced him [to the authorities] and he fled. He was thus at that time approximately twelve years of age, as our Sages have mentioned, and at any rate not twenty,, 1:32. and when he stood before Pharaoh he was eighty years old. In that case, he was a fugitive from Pharaoh for about sixty years, [and it is with reference to those sixty years that Scripture speaks of those ‘many’ days]. It is likely that at the end of that period, Moses came to Midian and married Zipporah, since when this word [of G-d that he return to Egypt] came to him, he had begotten of her only his firstborn son Gershom [while Eliezer, his second son, was born during his journey to Egypt]. Scripture however mentions nothing of [the entire period of] his flight excepting, And he dwelt in the land of Midian, and he sat down by a well, since nothing happened to him in those other days which Scripture found necessary to relate. And it is logical. He who flees from the reach of a government does not tarry in a settled place or its environs. Instead, he flees from place to place in remote regions. Thus he stayed away for a long time, hiding himself and feigning to be a stranger, going about from nation to nation, from one kingdom to another people, and at the end of that time he came to Midian and stayed there. This is the meaning of the verse, And he dwelt in the land of Midian. It would have been fitting for Scripture to say, “and he went to the land of Midian,” but instead it implies that he did not dwell in any city until the end [of the period], when he came to the land of Midian and there he dwelt. Now due to the fact that Scripture mentions his flight from Pharaoh and his dwelling in Midian, and it immediately relates that he was made to return to Egypt by command of the Holy One, blessed be He, it alludes to this entire period by saying, And it came to pass in the course of those many days, meaning [those days] when Moses fled from before Pharaoh and during part of which time he stayed in Midian. At the end [of that period], the king of Egypt died, and the Divine Revelation concerning it came to Moses and he was returned to Egypt and redeemed the children of Israel. It is for this reason that Scripture does not say, “and it came to pass after many days,” for the purport of that would have been that [the death of the king of Egypt] occurred long after Moses dwelt in Midian. But that is not so, for the expression those many days refers to all that is related above.
AND THE KING OF EGYPT DIED, AND THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL SIGHED BY REASON OF THE BONDAGE. “He was stricken with leprosy [and hence may be considered as dead], and he was wont to slaughter Israelitic babes and bathe in their blood.” Thus the words of Rashi. This is a Midrash of the Sages. In line with the plain meaning of Scripture, [it is to be explained that] the custom of all subjects of a wicked tyrant is to hope for and look forward to the day of his death. But when the Israelites saw that the king died, they wailed bitterly lest a godless man may come to reign, who will be more wicked than the preceding king. They said, Our bones are dried up, and our hope is lost, and thus they chose death rather than life. This is the sense of the word na’akatham (their groaning), for they groaned with the groanings of a mortally-wounded man.

AND G-D SAW THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL. Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra explained this as meaning that G-d saw the violence which the Egyptians overtly did to them, and G-d knew what was done to them secretly. And Rashi explained: “And G-d knew. He directed His heart to them and did not hide His eye from them.” This is correct in line with the plain meaning of Scripture. At first He hid His face from them and they were devoured, but now G-d heard their groaning and He saw them, meaning that He no longer hid His face from them; He knew their pains and all that was done to them, as well as all that they required. Now Scripture gives a lengthy account of the many reasons for their redemption: And G-d heard their groaning, and G-d remembered His covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob; And G-d saw the children of Israel, and G-d knew; For I know their pains. This is because even though the time [of bondage] decreed upon them was completed, they were not worthy of redemption, as was explained by the prophet Ezekiel; it was only on account of the cry (Deuteronomy 26:7). See also Numbers 20:16. that He in His mercies accepted their prayer. By way of the Truth, [the mystic lore of the Cabala], there is in this verse one of the great mysteries of the Torah, suggesting that their afflictions came up to the light of His countenance, which brought them [their afflictions] near the Knowledge [of G-d], just as is implied in the verse, In midst of the ‘shanim’ (years) make it known; in wrath remember compassion. (years) should be understood as sh’nayim (two), a reference to the two Divine attributes, justice and mercy. When they unite, Israel is remembered for help and redemption. This is explicitly referred to in the second half of the verse: in wrath remember compassion. It is for this reason that Scripture gives this lengthy account — [And G-d saw the children of Israel, and G-d knew] — after already having mentioned, And G-d heard… and G-d remembered. This verse, [And G-d saw…,] has been explained in the Midrash of Rabbi Nechunya ben Hakanah. From there you will understand the verse.