וַיֹּאמְר֨וּ הָאֲנָשִׁ֜ים אֶל־ל֗וֹט עֹ֚ד מִֽי־לְךָ֣ פֹ֔ה חָתָן֙ וּבָנֶ֣יךָ וּבְנֹתֶ֔יךָ וְכֹ֥ל אֲשֶׁר־לְךָ֖ בָּעִ֑יר הוֹצֵ֖א מִן־הַמָּקֽוֹם׃
Then the agents said to Lot, “Whom else have you here? In-laws, your sons and daughters [themselves]—anyone else that you have in the city—bring them out of the place.
(The above rendering comes from the RJPS translation—an adaptation of the NJPS translation—as revised in May 2025. For an orientation to this translation, see the Preface.)
Who exactly are the family members that are brought into view by the expression חָתָן וּבָנֶיךָ וּבְנֹתֶיךָ וְכֹל אֲשֶׁר־לְךָ בָּעִיר? At first glance, as Nahum Sarna notes in his JPS commentary, the ordering seems strange: why, in a list of relatives, would a חָתָן (usually understood as “son-in-law”) be listed first—before “sons and daughters”? Indeed, Robert Alter emends the text to omit חָתָן, while opining as follows: “It seems quite likely that the word was erroneously transcribed from verse 14 and was not part of the original text.”
As I will explain, the coherence of the list of three entries improves by construing its first entry as gender-inclusive, and by construing its final entry as a summation of intended scope.
Denotation of the noun חתן is not actually limited in scope here to sons-in-law. Relevant factors include:
- Like most singular nouns in ancient Hebrew, חָתָן can be used collectively, which would fit the context here.
- Its scope can encompass all relatives by marriage (2 Kgs 8:27): כִּ֛י חֲתַ֥ן בֵּית־אַחְאָ֖ב הֽוּא׃ (NJPS: “related by marriage”).
- Because the reference is to a category (i.e., nonspecific), female relatives are not actually excluded from view by the fact that חָתָן happens to have a female counterpart term, כַּלָּה; rather, חָתָן functions as a cover term for all genders (Stein 2008; Stein 2013). There is no known reason to exclude women according to social norms, either.
- This category represented by חָתָן could be listed first because “sons and daughters” would arguably go without saying—as persons whom Lot would want to rescue—except as needed to clarify that of all relatives-by-marriage, the only ones who are in view are those married to Lot’s offspring (e.g., not father-/mother-in-law, nor uncles or aunts by marriage). This consideration would explain why וּבָנֶיךָ וּבְנֹתֶיךָ are mentioned next.
- The aforementioned wider construal of חָתָן accounts for the specification לֹקְחֵי בְנֹתָיו in verse 14, which would be unnecessary if the denotation of the label חֲתָנָיו by itself were limited to his “sons-in-law.” Cf. David Zvi Hoffmann here on v. 12: בכינוי זה יכונה כל קרוב אשר יתקשר אל משפחה באמצעות הנשים שבה, ומשום כך הצורך בפירוט יתר להלן “Through this term (חָתָן) is denoted all relatives who become connected to the family via its women; and accordingly the need for further specification, below (v. 14).”
Alternatively, Rashi (echoed by Radak) wrote that בָּנֶיךָ (and by implication, בְּנֹתֶיךָ) refers to grandchildren—denoting a wider circle of relations than sons-in-law—which would make the list coherent. This is possible, given that the pairing וּבָנֶיךָ וּבְנֹתֶיךָ is a stock phrase that means “progeny” (see, e.g., Gen 31:28; 46:15; 1 Sam. 30:6; Neh. 5:5). However, this reading seems to rely on the assumption that everyone knows that Lot has no sons (as Rashi notes). It also seems to
For his part, Ibn Ezra says that the expression חָתָן וּבָנֶיךָ וּבְנֹתֶיךָ means “in-laws who are like your own sons and daughters to you” (construing the initial vav as indicating a comparison or resemblance—what is known as vav ha-dimmui). This also seems possible.
As for rendering into English, the NJPS “Sons-in-law, your sons and daughters, or anyone else that you have in the city” seems to unduly restrict the gender of the persons in view, while presenting a relatively incoherent list. The revised rendering broadens the gender of those in view while improving the text’s coherence: “In-laws, your sons and daughters [themselves]—anyone else that you have in the city—.”