Comentario sobre Números 10:29

חבב is identical with Jethro, as it is said, (Judges 4:11) of the sons of Hobab, the father-in-law of Moses”. (Thus חתן משה in our verse is to be connected with חבב and not with רעואל המדיני immediately preceding). — But why then does it state (Exodus 2:18) “and they (the daughters of Jethro) came to Reuel, their father”, since he was their grandfather and not their father? It teaches us that children are in the habit of calling their grandfather by the term “father”. — He (Jethro) was called by several names: Jethro, because he added (it was through him there was added) a section to the Torah (viz., Exodus 18:21 ff.); Hobab (חֹבָב) because he loved (חֹבֵב) the Torah, etc.

AND MOSES SAID UNTO CHOBAB. I have already explained¹³¹At the beginning of Seder Yithro (Exodus 18:1). that Chobab [of the root chavav — love] was the new name which they gave to Jethro when he converted to the Torah of Israel, for such is the way of all proselytes, for he calls His servants by another name.¹³²Isaiah 65:15. See my Hebrew commentary, p. 230, for source of this practice of renaming proselytes. Now Moses had begged him to go with them and had told him without explanation, and we will do thee good.¹³³In Verse 29 before us. But Chobab thought that they would give him of the spoil, silver and gold, garments, sheep and herd, but that he would not have an inheritance among them [in the Land]. Therefore he did not want [to go with them] and he answered, “But I will depart to mine own land, and to my kindred,¹³⁴Verse 30. since there I have an inheritance, wealth and honor.” So Moses told him, “'Leave us not, I pray thee,’¹³⁵Verse 31. for because of your familiarity with the wilderness thou shalt be to us instead of eyes¹³⁵Verse 31. [i.e., a guide] in the conquest of the lands, and you will show us the way by which we must go up,¹³⁶Deuteronomy 1:22. and of all that goodness the Eternal shall do unto us, the same we will do unto thee.”¹³⁷Verse 32. Moses thus hinted that he would be given an inheritance in the good Land as a reward for his trouble and help that he would extend to them in the conquest of the Land. In my opinion Chobab consented to this offer and he did so [as Moses requested of him], as I have mentioned there.¹³¹At the beginning of Seder Yithro (Exodus 18:1). And so the Rabbis said in the Yerushalmi:¹³⁸Yerushalmi, Bikurim I, 4. On the term “Yerushalmi,” see Vol. III, p. 192, Note 44. “The children of the Kenite, Moses’ father-in-law, bring first-fruits and read [the section of first-fruits, wherein it is stated, I have brought the first of the fruit of the soil which Thou, O Eternal, hast given me],¹³⁹Deuteronomy 26:10. because it is written, Come thou with us, and we will do thee good.”¹³³In Verse 29 before us.

נסעים אנחנו, "we are about to commence our journey, etc." Why did Moses use this introduction? Yitro knew that the Israelites were about to journey towards the land of Canaan! The Sifri on our verse, apparently aware of this question, says that Moses meant to emphasise that a single journey would suffice to bring the Israelites to their ultimate destination. We may see confirmation of this in Moses using the word אותו, "it," when referring to the place the journey would lead to. This word was quite unnecessary. Moses clearly referred only to to the land of Canaan seeing that G'd had never promised the patriarchs that the Israelites would inherit the lands of Sichon and Og. He meant to stress that there would be only that one journey. Another meaning of what Moses might have referred to was that the words אתן לכם referred to the lands of Sichon and Og which G'd would give to the Israelites of the present generation without having already allocated it to the patriarchs (compare what we wrote on Numbers 7,42). Seeing that at that time the Israelites were on the way to Canaan via the lands of Sichon and Og, Moses did not mention the land of Canaan by name but spoke vaguely about the land that G'd said He would give to the Israelites although he had not promised this to their forefathers. He had prophetic knowledge of this although G'd had not yet mentioned any of this to the people. This in spite of Sifri 2,289 describing those lands as having been appropriated by the Israelites themselves. The fact is that G'd approved of that conquest as a land the Israelites settled in after the event.

לחובב, another name for Yitro, as we know from Judges 4,11 מבני חובב חותן משה, “of the sons of Chovav, the father-in-law of Moses.”

ויאמר משה לחובב, “Moses said to his father-in-law Chovav, etc.” Ibn Ezra writes that Re-uel was the father of Tzipporah, as we know from Exodus 2,18 ותבאנה אל רעואל אביהם, “when they came home to their father Re-uel, etc.” Chovav was the brother of Tzipporah and he is identical with Yitro, for the Torah wrote that Moses said of him: (verse 31) ידעת חנותנו במדבר, “you are familiar with where we are encamped in the desert,” and it is also written in connection with Yitro (Exodus 18,5) אל המדבר אשר הוא חונה שם, “to the desert where he was camping” (Moses). If someone were to argue that Yitro was Moses’ father-in-law, the answer is that it is the custom of the Torah to refer to the father of the girl as well as to her brother as חותן, proof being the line לחובב בן רעואל המדיני חותן משה after it had already been made clear that Chovav was a brother of Tzipporah. Many commentators are of the opinion that Chovav and Yitro are identical, that he was the father of Tzipporah, whereas Re-uel was the grandfather. As far as the words אל רעואל אביהם is concerned, this is no different than when the Torah quotes Yaakov as referring to אלוקי אבי אברהם, the “G’d of my father Avraham,” when we all know that Avraham was Yaakov’s grandfather and not his father. Nachmanides writes that Moses pleaded with Chovav to accompany the Jewish people, saying to him in general terms והטבנו לך, “we will treat you well;” Chovav understood this to mean that the Jewish people would let him share in the spoils of war but that he would not receive a share of the Land of Israel as an ancestral piece of land. This is why Chovav replied that in that case he would prefer to return to a land that was his own, where he was not just tolerated as a newcomer to whom one had accorded a courtesy. When Moses became aware of Chovav having misunderstood the nature of his offer, he changed his approach by begging Chovav not to abandon him and the Jewish people, seeing that he had already become so valuable to them by having served as their eyes. He added that they would share with him all the good G’d were to do for His people on an equal basis. He hinted that Chovav would receive a portion of the land as an ancestral heritage. Nachmanides believes that Chovav accepted this offer and bases himself on the Jerusalem Talmud (Bikkurim 1,5) where the descendants of the Keyni, (Yitro’s offspring) are granted the right to refer to the land of Israel as their heritage and they read the passage about bikkurim just as does any natural born Jew whose ancestors had been slaves in Egypt. Their claim is based on Moses having said to Chovav לכה אתנו, “please join us,” in our verse above.

ויאמר משה לחובב, “Moses said to Chovav, etc.” Nachmanides writes that the Chovav mentioned here is identical with Yitro, Moses’- father-in-law. He was given a new name when he converted to Judaism. It is customary to give converts a new name when they are accepted into the Jewish religion. This is what happened to Tzipporah’s father. Her grandfather’s name was Reu-el. This is based on Isaiah 65,15 that “His servants will be known by another name.” This is the meaning of Exodus 2,18: “the said to Reu-el their father,” i.e. to their grandfather. The reference to a grandfather as a “father” is not unusual; we have seen this already in Genesis 32,1 where Yaakov speaks about “the G’d of my father Avraham.” We also find that Belshazzar was described as the son of Nevuchadnezzar although he was the grandson of Nevuchadnezzar (Daniel 5,2).
On the other hand, our sages in the Mechilta at the beginning of Parshat Yitro claim that Yitro had seven different names.
When Yitro said in verse 30: “I will not go but I will return to my country and my birthplace I will go,” Moses had turned to him without specific proposals just saying the Jewish people would treat him well (verse 29). Yitro understood this remark in terms of the Israelites giving him money, that they were going to let him share in the loot to be gained as a result of the conquest of the land of the Canaanites. He did not think that Moses’ promise would include land in the conquered country. This is why he declined the offer. He pointed out that in his own country he was better of, owning inalienable pieces of land, enjoying prestige, etc. When Moses became aware of this he told him: “please do not abandon us, etc.” He implied that Yitro’s knowledge of the desert etc., made him invaluable to the Jewish people. He assured him that he would share in all the advantages that would accrue to the Jewish people. He hinted that there would be a proper heritage for Yitro and his family in Eretz Yisrael in return for his assistance in conquering the land. I believe that Yitro agreed to this proposal. Thus far the commentary of Nachmanides.

This was Yisro. Rashi is answering the question: It is not clear to whom the phrase “Moshe’s father-in-law” in this verse refers — whether it refers to Reuel or to Chovav his son? He answers that it refers to Chovav who was Yisro, as it states “Of the children…” Re’m There are those who ask: Surely Rashi already gave this explanation in Parshas Yisro? Furthermore, why did he have to mention that Yisro had many names? The answer is that Rashi was answering the question: The Torah writes “Chovav son of Reuel…” This presents a difficulty either way; if Chovav was Yisro, and Reuel was his father — then Yisro was not called Reuel. But if Chovav was the son of Yisro, meaning that Yisro was called Reuel then he could not have been called Chovav. If so, how do we find that he had seven names? Rashi answers that Chovav was Yisro and that he was also called Reuel. And do not be surprised that Yisro was called Reuel when his father was also called Reuel. With regard to his father, his actual name was “Reuel,” this is to be contrasted with Yisro who was called Reuel because of his actions — for he became a ריע לאל (a friend to God).

V. 29. ויאמר משה. Richter 4, 11 wird חובב der Schwiegervater Mosche, חתן משון, genannt, es bezieht sich daher auch hier das חתן משה wohl nicht auf רעואל sondern auf הבב, und wenn Schmot 2, 18 רעואל der Vater, אביהן, Ziporas und ihrer Schwestern genannt wird, so ist darunter wohl nur der Großvater zu verstehen, wie אלהי אבי אברהם (Bereschit 32, 10) und in sonstigen Stellen, auf welche Ramban dort hinweist. Als eigentlicher Name erscheint Schmot 3, 1 u. 4, 18 יתר und יתרו, so ja auch Schmot18. Nach Ramban (daselbst) habe Jitro nach seinem Übertritt zum Judentum den Namen חובב erhalten und erscheint daher seitdem unter diesem Namen. Siehe auch ספרי zur Stelle. Die Wurzel חבב, im Rabbinischen so häufig Ausdruck der Liebe und Wertschätzung, kommt in תנ׳׳ך nur einmal: Dewarim 33, 3 vor: אף חובב עמים כל קדשיו בידך. Verwandt scheint die Wurzel mit dem ebenfalls rabbinisch sehr gebräuchlichen, in תנ ך nur einmal vorkommenden חוב, die Schuldpflicht: חבולתו חוב ישיב die Zurückgebung des Pfandes übt er als eine Schuldpflicht (Ezech. 18, 7), und es dürfte חבב eine verpflichtende Liebe und eine Liebe aus Pflichtgefühl bedeuten. Dürfte vielleicht die Stelle אף חובב עמים sagen: auch wenn du die Völker durch höchste Wohltat verpflichten willst, nimmst du seine, Israels, Heilige alle in deine Hand: d. h. indem du den Völkern die höchste Wohltat erzeigen willst, sind Israels Heilige dazu das Werkzeug in deiner Hand, והם תכו לרגלך וגו׳ sie, die Völker: werden in sich zu deinen Füßen geführt, indem es, Israel, von deinen Worten ihnen entgegenträgt, — dürfte dies vielleicht der Sinn der Stelle sein: so wäre ja חבב der spezifische Ausdruck für die die Völker zur Gotteserkenntnis und zum Gottesgehorsam durch Israel führende Gotteswaltung, die eben hierin die größte, die Völker verpflichtende Liebestat übt, und חובב (vergl. die Formen: עוֹלָל ,שׁוֹלָל ,שׁוֹבָב die alle passivischer Bedeutung sind) wäre der durch solche höchste Liebestat Gott Verpflichtete und sich verpflichtet Fühlende, ein Name, der dem so bewusstvoll vom Heidentum ins Judentum eingetretenen Jitro in hohem Grade gebührte. Welcher Pflichternst sich von Jithro auf seine Nachkommen vererbte und in hervorleuchtendster Weise in ihnen zur Betätigung kam, werden wir noch unten (Verse 31 und 32) zu bemerken Gelegenheit haben.

נוסעים אנחנו, “we are about to embark on our journey to the Holy Land;” according to Rashi, Moses invites Yitro to become a partner to Israel. At this point Moses still believes that both he and the people are on the way to immediately enter the Holy Land and to settle there. When Moses had suggested to G-d that He send someone else to be the leader of the Jewish people, (Exodus 4,13), Rashi commented that the reason why Moses said this was that he knew that he himself would not get to the Holy Land. According to the plain meaning of what Moses is saying here to his fatherinlaw, it is clear that he included himself among the people who would get to the land of Israel. He reasoned that if the people were to know that the man who had taken them out of Egypt and performed all these miracles would not be allowed to enter the Holy Land, what possible chance would an ordinary Israelite have to ever to get to that land? He therefore pretended that he would get there. An alternate interpretation: Moses said this only to Yitro, as he reasoned that if he told or hinted to Yitro that he himself would not get to the Holy Land, surely Yitro would not believe that he would succeed where Moses did not, and therefore he would decline Moses’ offer.

נוסעים אנחנו אל המקום WE ARE JOURNEYING UNTO THE PLACE — Immediately — within three days — we shall enter the Land of Canaan. They said this, because on this first journey after leaving Sinai they really set out with a view to entering the Land of Israel, only that they sinned at the incident of “those who complained” which prevented their further progress (Numbers 11:1). — But why did Moses include himself with them in the statement “ we are journeying” to enter the land? Because the decree that he should not enter it had not yet been made regarding him, and he was yet under the belief that he would enter (cf. Sifrei Bamidbar 78:3).

Within three days. For it is not written “we are הולכים (going)” rather “נוסעים (journeying).” This implies that this was [still] their first journey, except that they sinned in the incident of the complainers. And what Rashi comments “within three days…” his proof is because in this passage it is written “they traveled from the mountain of Hashem a journey of three days” (v. 33).

Still another thought that Moses may have had in mind when he said the words אותו אתן לכם is that they were a hint that Moses personally would capture those lands and allow the two and a half tribes to inherit them. The singular אותו was an allusion to the fact that Moses would not conquer the land of Canaan on the West bank of the Jordan, but that G'd would give it to Joshua.

נסעים אנחנו: Es geschah also dieser Aufbruch in der Voraussetzung, nunmehr sofort in das Land einzuziehen. Die Gesetzgebung war ja vollendet und stand somit zunächst die Besitzergreifung des Bodens bevor, auf welchem das Gesetz seine volle Verwirklichung finden sollte.

והטבנו לך, “we will treat you well.” He meant that Yitro would be allowed to share in the loot the Israelites would secure from the Canaanites. He had not been authorized by G-d to promise him an ancestral piece of land in the Holy Land.

And he thought he would enter. You might ask: In Parshas Shemos, Rashi explains the [meaning of the] words “in the hand of another whomever you wish to send” (4:13) that ultimately Moshe would not bring them into the Land, or be their redeemer in the future. From there we see that Moshe knew that a decree had been issued [so why did he now think that he may enter]? The answer is that he certainly knew that he would not enter the Land to be a leader over them, nonetheless he thought that he would enter like [an ordinary] person amongst them. However this raises a difficulty: At the end of Parshas Shemos (6:1) Rashi explains that “You will see what will be done to Pharaoh, but you will not see what will be done to the seven kings of the nations when I bring them in to the Land.” This implies that he would not enter at all. The explanation is that he certainly thought that he would enter, however the conquest of the Land of Israel lasted fourteen years and Moshe thought that Hashem was telling him that he would not [live to] see those fourteen years, rather that he would enter and die there. Therefore Rashi here states that he thought that he would enter, but not that he would bring them in — for Moshe knew that he would not bring them in. We also see this in Parshas Chukas (20:12). [One might ask:] In Parshas Beshalach (Shemos 15:17) Rashi comments on the phrase “you will bring them” that Moshe prophesied that he would not enter the Land of Israel, apparently not even as an ordinary Jew, while here Rashi comments that he thought that he would enter. The answer is that he prophesied but he did not know what he prophesied. (Nachalas Yaakov) He answers the difficulty stemming from the verse (Shemos 6:1) “Now you will see…” — but you will not see the war with the seven kings. The verse is to be understood as follows: The decree of “because you did not believe in Me” (Bamidbar 20:12) had not yet been issued. Regarding that decree the Torah writes “therefore you will not bring this congregation in to the Land.” Rashi explains that He swore precipitously so that they would not engage in lengthy prayer over this, implying that they would have been able to annul the first decree through prayer. Therefore Moshe here says “we are journeying” because he was not concerned about the decree of “Now you will see…” because he thought that it would be annulled through prayer. Consequently, he did not wish to involve himself in lengthy prayers until the time came, and this is why he said “we are journeying.”

לכה אתנו והטבנו לך. "come with us and we will treat you well." According to Sifri 1,132 Moses indicated that the land of Canaan would only be shared out amongst the ancestral tribes, excluding proselytes. A a result he could not promise his father-in-law a share in that distribution except as a gift rather than as an ancestral possession for all times. This is the reason Moses phrased his promise carefully, saying והטבנו לך, "we will do good for you." The implication was that the Israelites would donate some of their land to Yitro. Moses was afraid that there were five kinds of objections Yitro could raise, all of which would cause him to decline Moses' offer. As a result of Moses' concern for his father-in-law's sensitivities he tried to anticipate them when he made his offer. The five considerations Yitro could have were the following: 1) A recipient of a gift feels embarassed vis-a-vis the donor as we know from the Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1,3 where this principle is applied to people eating food which is not their own. 2) The recipient feels that if he were to accept the gift his image would henceforth be reduced in the eyes of the donor. 3) Seeing that people of stature feel they demean themselves by accepting relatively small gifts, Yitro might prefer to do without the gift rather than to lose "face" by accepting something not commensurate with his image of himself as an important personage. The remaining 2 reservations Yitro might have had to do with the nature of the promise. Moses might reconsider his promise at some future date prior to it having been fulfilled. This could be due either to 4) Moses changing his mind due to envy or due to miserliness or because the fondness he entertained for Yitro at this time might undergo a change. 5) A time would come when Moses would simply not be able to make good on his promise. Considering all these reservations Yitro might entertain Moses addressed all of them in the way he phrased his offer.

When Moses invited Yitro to journey with the Israelites as a prelude to his receiving the gift of part of the land of Canaan, he wanted to make him feel that as a result of his travelling with the Israelites he would have some kind of claim on being compensated. He did not need to look at the gift as something undeserved. There was no call for him to feel in the least embarassed about accepting a piece of land in the land of Canaan. He would also not have to feel that he would lose face in the eyes of the donor as he would receive only what he deserved. Neither would he have to worry about the promise being reneged on seeing that he was not abandoning his country and travelling with the Jewish people except on condition that they would keep their promise to him. When Moses chose the expression והטבנו לך, he stressed that the size of the gift would be commensurate with a personage of his eminence and accepting it would in no way demean him or his children. In fact the piece of land Moses had in mind to grant to Yitro and his family would be qualitatively superior to that of the tribes. Our sages say that the Israelites gave Yitro and family the most fertile land around Jericho (compare Sifri on our verse).

Come along with us. First, Moshe promised a material benefit to Chovav, when he said: We will treat you well. Moshe did not mention Hashem in this offer and Chovav did not want to accept. Then, Moshe promised him a spiritual benefit — that he would be included in the Sanhedrin, which is called the eyes of the congregation, as it says: And you will be our eyes. In the context of this spiritual benefit, Moshe mentioned Hashem: It shall be that the very good which Hashem will bestow. Hashem will give of His Spirit upon him. To this, Yisro agreed.

When Moses added: "for G'd has spoken good concerning Israel," he addressed the two remaining concerns Yitro might have entertained. He implied that since the promise was made with the consent of G'd, Yitro did not have to fear that G'd would be unable to keep His promise. Moreover, he did not have to fear that the value of the gift would be such that the recipient's dignity would suffer for having accepted a gift not worthy of his stature. Seeing that G'd was not in the habit of reneging on a promise, he did not have to worry on that score either. In the few instances where G'd is reported as having changed His mind (Exodus 32,14), He only reconsidered something evil He had considered doing to people. He never went back on a promise to do good for people.